Revision of charts #26
Comments
|
Many thanks for the input. |
|
Some feedback on charts:
As mentioned in #19 , TWR and APP is enough for 132nd operations, I would recommend remove the frequency completely, or if keeping it in, adding an asterix to it, and informing that the frequency is normally not in use, and the event information page will indicate if the ground frequency is manned.
|
|
Regarding readability of smaller chart items: ATIS will be displayed in UHF once we get it to work and committed to a specific UHF frequency. Additional Frequencies displayed on ground chart: The BO 40X and BD 24X DMEs are the DME components of the ILSs 07 & 25, the question already came up last time: Regarding the request to delete the ENBO Ground ATC frequency from the charts, I continue to making my case in Issue No. 19: |
Makes sense and very understandable. I just wanted to report it in case it was not known (tested in VR). No rush to get a version working 100% in VR, as long as the feedback is noted and we can work on getting better readability in our charts.
Great!
That makes sense, and no issue with keeping additonal freqs on the chart as long they are explained and annotated for the use. As they stand now, it was hard to know what their purpose were.
Ah, copy. No need to delete it then if it is something we think will come? |
|
I don't think they will come, co-located ILS-DMEs are no thing in DCS because as far as I'm aware there's no airframe in DCS yet that can use and display them through the ILS receiver. |
|
I'd like to work on a better ground chart for Bodo. By better I mean more readable What are the requirement for such a chart set? |
|
Just in case it can be of any help for chart designers: |
That is great!
|
|
i quickly adapted the HPMA TCN07 approach chart. In the meantime, your comments are welcome
I probably need to erase also references to other tacans as I cannot find these in DCS |
|
Looking good @RedDog132nd ! The only thing I see right now is that the holding pattern will be inside of R11 I believe. And should the first "badge" (IAF) on the vertical chart read 10 instead perhaps? |
|
TCN 07 Chart above update with revision number The IAF is at 15 Nm as far as I can see, not 10Nm The holding is not really necessary for us. I can delete it and instruct the MAP to turn left DCT BOO after 5Nm and make the holding at the IAF instead. I usppose that it would be the same for the holdings at STOETT and ARDUX, although if inside one of ourr ange, we could also adapt the altitude restriction to ensure we are above the range airspace? Let me know what the consensus would be and I can adapt the chart easy |
|
Here's the same for the RWY25 see below for updated chart |
|
Is the ILS at Bodo operational? |
|
Here's a draft update for the ENBO aerodrome chart
List of change
|
Yea, I see the same thing on the second chart. This would be R13/R14. The altitude blocks for those ranges could be up in the FL250-FL300s if fixed wings are operating in there. I don't know what the optimal solution would be to be honest. In real life there would be controllers online to tell you if you could do your TACAN approach or not. But I think that if R14 is in use, then the last chart is a no-go, and if R11 is in use then the first chart is a no-go. Could set something like holding at FL250 and then have a certain block that the ranges can't operate in (like FL240-FL260) but then you are descending to land, so might still be wonky |
I do not see this as a major problem. Range 11 would likely not be in use when we use these charts. As long as R11 is active then that holding can not be used, but range 11 is not that often in use. So I say we use our best judgement and SA on the event page when we prepare for the event. |
Yes, I agree that we should erase everything not relevant to us in DCS. If it does not exist in DCS, it should not be there in the charts is my input. I can probably put a TACAN wherever we want, using the portable TACAN in DCS, so I can place TACANs as required if needed |
Great work! |
I suggest that both charts can be used, and then we just make sure to check on the event info prior to the event if anyone is plannnig to use these ranges. My main point is that I think we very rarely will come in situations where there is an actual conflict. And while in the real world the risk acceptance for that is 0, here in DCS, this beeing only a hobby and no one working full time to make sure everything works, I think it is better to accept that something might happen on a very rare occasion |
Done already. They have been erased from both TCN charts above
Can do. I left them according to Shadow comment above, but I can easily hide them from the chart, no problem
Good to know but these Tacan listed on the real chart are not quite necessary to fly the approach. They are just references. So I don't think that will be necessary for now. |
|
Here are the approach fixes and holding for the TCN 07 approach in Combat flight
The IAF holding is just a bit inside RNG 13 and RNG11 I don't think it's a huge issue I would expect the ARDUX and STOETT holdings to be used by ATC when traffic is too intense and make incoming traffic hold at the edge of the TMA while others are flying the approach. I think this may only happen when we have ATC in attendance and a lot of aircraft. It won't happen often and when it does the ATC guys will know range occupancy and can assign one or the other hold and stack aircraft there as need be. Moreover when weather is sour, I hardly see anyone doing regular bombing range mission on R11 and we can coordinate that at mission planning or execution in the rare case it might happen. So I concur, I don't see any major problem with keeping these. I also think it might be interesting to add some fixes in CF: Testimony to your previous work is that ardux and stoett are exactly on the edge ot the TMA, perfectly where they are supposed to be !! |
About a month ago I tried ILS on RWY07 during a night flight. I was getting a localizer but maybe from the other runway heading. For the ILS I did not know the IAF and FAF. I tried Angels 9, which was too high. This is what I checked:
It would be great if there was an ILS approach chart. I searched but could not find any reference documents. Everything lead to dead links. |
|
Here's the chart For HPMA ILS 07 v01 RWY 07 indeed is 110.3 BO and works in DCS (tested with changing weather of the TRMA miz.) From the real one, I deleted all unnecessary information (such as DME from 040X ILS DME, frequencies other tacan, etc
Tested at 250 kts, 300 kts and 350 kts. 30° bank angle I'll try at 20° bank next |
|
TCN 07 and ILS 07 above updated V0.2: added CTR boundaries |
|
Here's a SID chart
|
|
Reworking as well the HPMA VFR chart Bigger, increased resolution, better readability, removed confusing stuff, will post it later |
|
Here's the update HPMA VFR chart changes
As always comments welcome |
|
Last two: untested at this time: ILS 25 ENBO : TCN 25 ENBO |
|
I'll need to modify the ILS 25 charts. the ILS worked on last training but the ILS in DCS is more offset and doesn't match the real chart (274°). No big deal but it's confusing using the one above. So I'll have a new one created soon. |
|
here's the final chart for ILS 25 with the correct offset |
If the DEP instructions are to climb+maintain 2500', then maybe the NOTE box should have a line above AND below the 2500. I have always found that confusing that both 2500 and 2000 read "not above...", that may create conflict between DEP and ARR traffic. |
|
It is my understanding that if you put a line under the 2500, you can't fly below 2500. The line on top of 2500 prevents to exit the CTR vertically (and enter the TMA which is normally above it) the line above the 2000 for arrival gives a 500 feet cushion separation between the departing and arriving aircraft. eventhough the departing air do not HAVE to be AT 2500, they have to remain below 2500 and could be at 2000 if they are sloppy. It's not ideal but at the end it's VFR where each pilot is responsible for its own deconfliction. That's the main rule My gripes with this VFR chart is more the lower altitude for entry and exit considering the hi terrain around the airbase. Sometimes at 2500 or 2000 feet at the exit/entry points you're way too low for immediate terrain. The real CTR is bigger and higher in different quarters from what I recall. It works but sometimes it's very close to terrain and triggers steep descent from the MSA around the CTR. luckily again VFR means in view of the ground and thus terrain and you're responsible with your own (terrain) deconfliction as well |
|
VFR CTR entry/exit procedures are never restricted to an exact altitude or have a line below an altitude to "cross at or above", because naturally the weather might dictate otherwise (to fly lower, as long as able to maintain VMC). |
|
about the VAC for HPMA, what is the idea with teh VFR point Initials 07 ? or is it even a VFR point? Is there any sort of landmark that can be used to identify that point? |
the TACAN positions of the waypoints is missing in this version, I found those extremely useful to have |
|
I can add them but is it really necessary? It's a visual chart. flown visually not with the tacan. Beside, INS coordinates are given top left so you can set you nav system to get a waypoint also. |
You have the runway in sight. You estimate or read the distance to it. You are initials. AFAIK, there's no visual cue for this one, it's all water. Your visual cue is the runway 5 Nm in front of you |
The charts look awesome. Would it be possible to add the revision no unto the charts themselves. I know the name says which version it is, but if the names are overridden there is no way to identify which version of the charts I am looking at.
I may have overlooked it but could see it directly on any of the charts;
ENBO_VAC_132nd_v04
ENBO_VAC_HPMA_132nd_v05
ENBO_GND_Chart_v06
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: