Strange goings-on at Honolulu International?

[connieguy]

I have just had a somewhat disastrous landing at PHNL where I ended up on a local beach. This was not caused by the situation I am about to describe, although I could wish it had been. The screenshots above are of the runways at PHNL as listed by Karol Chlebowski's AILA gauge. In the first you will notice that the real runways are 1, 2 and 7. 3-6 are listed as 100 feet long and 10 feet wide. And they are many miles away. The second shot shows the DME of one of the 'proper' runways as 1.946, correctly for an aircraft parked at PHNL at the time. However, in the third shot one of the phantom runways is 82.477 miles away. This might be something to do with the AILA gauge, but I am inclined to think not, because as I approached ATIS gave me a long list of runways in use and although the wind direction was 179 degrees I was assigned one of the 04s as the landing runway rather than a 22 as should have been the case. I have Hawaii 1959 and Asia Pacific 1962 installed for that area and don't see anything in the PHNL Afcad which might explain this. Thoughts anyone?

[Tom/CalClassic]

Hi,

This is a result of the limitations of FS. When we use ADE to remove ILSs that were not in service in our era, FS does not allow them to be deleted. So ADE instead assigns them to tiny runways a distance from the airport. The side effect of this process is that these tiny runways will be listed on the map, by ATIS, and by the AILA gauge.

Hope this helps,

[johnhinson]

You are obviously not using the default scenery for PHNL.

Somebody has created a dodgy A&FD file. The art of installing all those 100 foot runways is done by some people to manipulate FS into using conflicting runways but this isn't technically ideal or realistic - it makes ATIS sound pretty stupid and clearly it affects the utility you refer to aswell.

I think if you delete those curious short runways, FS might cope better with the situation.

There are a number of reasons you landed on the 4s and not the 22s. The wind may have changed, or FS may be giving preference to runways with ILS. Its a dark science.

It doesn't explain why you landed on the beach, though.

John

[connieguy]

OK Tom, thanks very much. I have not come across this before but now that I know it is easy enough to adapt to it.

[Tom/CalClassic]

Hi,

Yes, I did forget the other reason this is done, to open more runways at the same time. This is done to spread out the landing AI aircraft so you might have a chance to land without going around.

[Defender]

Hi Ken,

Interesting flight and glad you made it to PHNL despite the difficult arrival.

Just to expand on John's explanation about ATC's runway selection as it helps to know about this in advance. The default airport details in the APxxxxxx files contain approach codes which determine runway priority and although the AFCAD cancels out the visible airport elements, it leaves the approach codes. PHNL has highest priority codes for the 04's and 08L and no codes for the 22's or 26 (terrain?) and so I don't think ATC will ever give you these latter runways except in strong winds which then seem to over-ride the codes. It didn't give you 08 either because the codes only know an 08L. Here's a thread from a few years back on KBOS, Mike Deval's message 20 August and my reply 28 August.

calclassic.proboards.com/thread/5964/projects?page=8

This is the benefit of ADE9 which shows you the default codes and allows you delete these and to add new codes. A bit complicated 'though. If you want more information then try a search of approach codes and /or runway selection, particularly in FSDeveloper.

Bill

[connieguy]

Bill. Many thanks. I re-flew the flight yesterday and am about to describe it in the 'Qantas' thread; as my experiences at Honolulu exactly fit what you say this does throw a flood of light on them, and just as importantly on FS9 ATC more generally. And as ATC was trying to land me on 04 with a following wind of 7 knots I cancelled landing intentions and used 08, confirming my belief that there are times when it is better to simply ignore FS9 ATC.* There is also the question of what really happened at Honolulu. There are terrain issues with using the 22s, as you say, and with 26, but the NDB NGF at Kaneohe Bay has a magnetic bearing to the 22s of 220 and that strongly suggests that this approach was used by aircraft coming from the north - for example, San Francisco. However, as I shall explain, the Qantas schedule tends to imply that they did not envisage an approach from that direction.

* A program like Radar Contact is one solution, but I cannot get it to run on my system and as there plenty of other things to think about when landing a propliner I'm not really too bothered anyway.

[Defender]

A follow up to this puzzle.

I spent some time testing various approaches from the south in light wind and on the first visual attempt with the wind at around 220 degrees, ATIS gave visual approaches to the 22's and 26, which surprised me a bit as not Ken's experience. So next attempt was with the wind around 175 (178 for Ken's landing) and this time ATIS only gave the 04's and 08. So seems that FS works on a wind component, whether or not a tailwind? Same result visual or IFR plan.

Next out was an IFR in 2nm visibility wind 230, and the ATC change approach option surprisingly offered 26 which I took but eventually ATC tells you that it will give vectors to an ILS on 04R then a circling approach to 26.

So only visual available to the 22's and 26, meaning a close in base leg and short final. A straight in approach from the NGF NDB, visual or otherwise would not allow sufficient terrain clearance so illegal. The AI traffic does that but again it's illegal.

Good fun.

Bill

[connieguy]

Bill,
Your researches into the behaviour of FS9 ATC have certainly produced a lot of interest. However, I am still quite interested in the real Honolulu. The fact that the Kaneohe NDB is aligned on PHNL 04-22 does not seem likely to be accidental. True it may simply have been used to allow aircraft coming from the south to line up on 04, but in that case one might have expected it to be nearer the airport. There is also the movement of the Range Station from Pacific Heights to a place west of 08-26. You say that an approach to PHNL from Kaneohe would have been illegal because of the terrain but do you know exactly what these rules were and perhaps most interestingly if they were only introduced at a certain date, because that might explain what happened to the Range Station, an approach via the original site also becoming illegal because of the terrain?
Ken

[Defender]

Hi Ken,

Quick search of my extensive collection of CAB/FAA regulations produced the 1948 CAB Part 41 which says that during takeoff and landing in daytime you need to be 500' above or distant from any mountain, hill or obstruction and at night or in instrument conditions that becomes 1,000'.

Clearance has to take account of a possible engine failure or mountain downdraught at a critical point. Try slewing the aircraft to a point above the mountains that complies with these regulations and you will see that there's an impossibly steep final approach from there. Much easier just to fly along the southern coastline and make a short turn on final, same as the old Hong Kong and the Canarsie approach to Idlewild's 13L/R.

In the old days it seems that straight in approaches were rare and Radio Ranges were mainly to help you find the airport at which point you either joined a visual circuit or followed the instrument procedures. I'm not sure that NDB is exactly aligned either.

It's fun to watch the AI arrivals doing the 4R approach then breaking off and circling to 22 but "through" the mountains!

Enjoy the SFO leg. If it's of interest the BCPA accident report has details and a chart of instrument procedures there.

www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/import/uploads/2017/04/VH-BPE.pdf

Bill

[connieguy]

OK Bill, many thanks, that seems pretty conclusive. I have looked at the accident report although I will have another look. As I remember they descended into cloud, ignoring an instruction not to do so, and were not where they thought they were,

Ken

[Defender]

Glad you're happy with that. In the report see page 4 and the NDB approach methods. Apologies if this is obvious anyway but the only thing to remember is that once you get to the outer marker NDB at 3,500' you then turn outbound with a descending turn back to the NDB and join the localiser.

All the best

Bill

[jwh]

An old friend, Kev McFadden, who was a long time ANA and Ansett-ANA captain checked Captain Dickson on the DC-4 when BCPA took over the service from ANA and flew their first services with DC-4s. I recall his stating that Captain Dickson was an extremely competent pilot.

One of the passengers who lost his life was concert pianist William Kapell who had flown to Australia several weeks earlier to do a concert tour.

[connieguy]

Many thanks, John. It is wonderful to have a degree of personal contact with these things so many years later.