Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maciej Olborski

atc-discussion [NOTAM] EGPH Twy B Closed due WIP

Recommended Posts

Maciej Olborski

Hello folks,

A2207/12 NOTAMN

Q) EGPX/QMXLC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5557N00322W005

A) EGPH B) 1208140445 C) 1209030445

E) BRAVO LINK CLSD TO ALL TRAFFIC DUE WIP

CREATED: 13 Aug 2012 14:00:00

SOURCE: EUECYIYN

So from tomorrow 14th August 0445Z until 3rd September 0445Z taxiway B will be closed due to Work In Progress. Therefore all aircraft arriving at Edinburgh should be asked to vacate via A1 when landing on runway 24 and all departures from runway 06 must depart from A1. Lets try to follow it on VATSIM, could be fun! :)

Mac... :ph34r:

Edited by Maciej Olborski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lewis Hardcastle

thanks for update, very useful, will continue sending tommorow as had to leave :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miroslaw Majerczuk

Very good idea. as real as it gets. I am also proposing to use any other restrictions that are currently in use at the airport in Edinburgh. When you know that the airport is closed due to thunderstorm and planes are waiting in holding, we can try do the same. When it is snowy runway and temporarily closed, also for closing the runway at VATSIM. Maciek if you can,put all the new NOTAMs on the forum. It will be really real control and excellent realism for pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave James

EDIT: Apologies, forgotten to add the relevant quote:

I am also proposing to use any other restrictions that are currently in use at the airport in Edinburgh

Just a thought, so please dont whack me for it yes.

Pilots using FS9 dont have any runway contamination elements written into the sim or aircraft.cfg/air files, so will they be allowed to land as normal in the case of SNOCLO ? - or will these be blanket NOTAMS whereby you will not allow any landings at all (purely for simulation purposes).

Edited by Dave James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunnar Lindahl

Just to clarify that VATSIM does not allow for SNOCLO, at least not in the forced sense. If EDI gets hit by a snowstorm the Scottish guys might want to make it more interesting for themselves and their pilots to SNOCLO and divert everything elsewhere, but if a pilot insists on landing there anyway they are free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave James

Thanks Gunnar.

And, in the case of departures....well, its easy to figure out the effect that closing the runway (for what ever simulation purpose) could have on traffic figures.

Pilot sees station online, checks info - closed - fly from somewhere else.....

Edited by Dave James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Parker
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - 4.2 Inflammatory & Irrelevant Posts – VATSIM-UK does not wish to discourage healthy debate and discussion of topics posted in this forum however posts that are made with the intent of arguing or “debating” in a defamatory, inflammatory and non-productive manner will not be tolerated.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - 4.2 Inflammatory & Irrelevant Posts – VATSIM-UK does not wish to discourage healthy debate and discussion of topics posted in this forum however posts that are made with the intent of arguing or “debating” in a defamatory, inflammatory and non-productive manner will not be tolerated.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Gunnar Lindahl
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - No point in keeping it.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - No point in keeping it.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

I am typing from my phone so am unable to moderate, but you have about half an hour 'til I get home (or another staff member sees this) to remove or edit your post - completely unnecessary, uncalled for and, ironically, stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Dave James
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - Avoiding arguments here Dave, you are not in the wrong.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - Avoiding arguments here Dave, you are not in the wrong.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

I will respectfully beg your pardon Oliver, theres no need for getting personal.

If you actually read the proposal in the thread above, you should see that it is to close the runway "to increase realism", it is not MY proposal my friend.

The points that I made are not stupid, they are valid sir, and are related to runway closure.

Again, if you read above, the reasons are given for the closure in the proposers text.

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Parker

It is a given that traffic levels would decrease should the runway be closed.

Edited by Harry Williams VATUK9
4.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maciej Olborski

Yeah, I'm not intending to force that :) Or anything else as pilots are free to do whatever they want on VATSIM. This B closure is just quite interesting one and it might make things bit different when you have an huge arrival stream cooming!

Mac... :ph34r:

Edited by Maciej Olborski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Shaw

I think Callum Mc will only get this reference;

Adrian the pilot at Blackpool - 'The ILS is unserviceable' ...'Erm, its fine on my simulator' :blush: haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mateusz Zymla

I really like when we've got NOTAMs on VATSIM. I remember when veery long time ago I was PL-VACC controller, they've got normal NOTAM section, based on real -> Sometimes it's really cool when half taxiways are Work in Progress, and acfts are taxiing around all the airport, haha :D I think we should have more NOTAMs (based on real), too! It's more realistic, and pilots like it, too :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • Sebastian Wheeler
      By Sebastian Wheeler
      Just a slight query related to the above:
      I was fortunate enough to partake in a weeks worth of work experience with NATS recently, and while at whitely on the ADC sims, I heard the following phraseology being used "G-ABCD, Cleared to enter controlled airspace via Route A, at or below altitude 2000 feet, QNH 1014."
      Upon asking one of the pseudo-pilots about the change, I was told it is "new phraseology" can anyone else confirm whether this is the case? Apparently, it was put in place after some confusion from pilots after receiving a "not above" clearance.
    • Steve Riley
      By Steve Riley
      Just reading the new sid charts , am I right in saying hand offs are going to LONDON or SCOTTISH  and not radar as no mention of Radar on the charts.
      2. After departure, aircraft shall remain on the Tower frequency until instructed. 3. En-route cruising levels will be issued after take-off by 'London Control'. 4. Report callsign, SID designator, current altitude and cleared level on first contact with 'London Control'.
      I have not got the old charts to confirm this as I take them straight from NATS web site. 
      Also frequencies have changed are we changing them within ES ?
        123.980, 131.005  BIRMINGHAM APPROACH/RADAR
        118.305  BIRMINGHAM TOWER
      121.805  BIRMINGHAM GROUND 
       

       
       
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      As above, how do you guys assess the runway surface condition on VATSIM? Do you make a visual assessment from the visual control room in correlation to the current/prevailing weather conditions or do you assess this purely off the METAR/TAF?
       
      The only reason i ask it that the surface condition of a runway really affects our landing performance (each operators SOP's may be different for the same aircraft type) Specifically if the runway is declared as DRY full length our crosswind limitations may be increased, whereas if the runway is declared WET full length, crosswind limitations are decreased. If i also needed to return after departure due to an emergency and perform an overweight landing, a DRY/WET surface also makes quite a difference for our overall LDA requirements. 
       
      Cheers
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      Hi all,
       
      For the ones who enjoy carrying out IFR circuits in large aircraft, Doncaster Sheffield (EGCN) accepts visual circuits for aircraft above 5,700kg - B737/B757/B767/B747 etc. 
       
      The circuit profile & procedure can be found in the textual data in the AIP for EGCN. Primarily speaking only one aircraft can be in the circuit at a time. Be nice to get TWR on at EGCN from time to time to accept more training traffic within the network.
       
      The circuit profile briefly summarised as below:
       
      Visual circuits by aircraft above 5700 kg must comply with the following noise abatement procedures.
       
      i. Runway 02 After departure turn right crosswind at no greater than 2.5 DME, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH, report final south of Bawtry (3 DME) and not below 1500 FT QNH.
      ii. Runway 20 After departure climb on track 190°, at 1.5 DME turn left crosswind, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH and report final not below 1500 FT QNH
       
      Cheers.
       
       
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      The Letter of Agreement between London and Amsterdam (Dutch vACC) is revised to take into account changes in AD3 at the end of 2018. It's available here.
       
      Chris.
×
×
  • Create New...