Using STAR to a runway not valid in that STAR crashes game

[eliuuk]

In the development of two new airports, WSSS and WMPK, I have noticed that if you have STARs declared, and that STAR is only valid for one runway, and not the other (ie. PAPDA1B only for runway 22), it will crash the game.

This is the exact same as #519, but this time it's for arrivals, instead of departures.
Error:
http://prntscr.com/bfk03q

[Alpi-no]

I have done the same in Vienna, but I'm not having any sorts of problems like that

[erikquinn]

@indianbhaji To clarify, in real life, the PAPDA1B is a transition, not a STAR, correct?

[eliuuk]

@erikquinn I'm assuming it's a STAR from here: http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip/AIP2016/graphics/17515.pdf and here are the STARs for the other runway here: http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip/AIP2016/graphics/17509.pdf

I'm unsure if I'm actually programming the STARs in correctly, as I tend to do them per runway as the documentation is unclear on this since it seems to talk about SIDs, which is extremely confusing.

[erikquinn]

Okay, based on the charts, I guess it is a STAR, and that each STAR is only ever used when a particular runway is in use. The problem is becoming that every airport on the planet seems to want to do this a different way...

• USA has STARs that end at a single point, which either connects directly to an instrument approach, or else aircraft are to be vectored for the approach (almost always the latter).
  • Selection of STARs is not affected by arrival runway(s) in use.
• Many european airports have "STARs" that end at a single point, and then "Transitions" that connect the end of the STAR directly to an instrument approach.
  • Selection of STARs is not affected by arrival runway(s) in use.
  • Selection of Transitions is entirely dependent on arrival runway(s) in use.
• Malaysian airports have STARs that end at a single point, and seemingly always connects directly to an instrument approach. Transitions do not exist, as the STAR acts as both.
  • Selection of STARs is entirely dependent on arrival runway(s) in use.

It's becoming more and more apparent to me that the way a "STAR" is used is so fundamentally different country to country, that the way it was implemented in code will need to be improved, as it works great for STARs in the USA (the basis for their design), and works terribly/not-at-all/incompletely for just about everybody else. I'm not sure how to resolve it, but for now, it's kind of a mess outside of FAA-style airports.

---

As for what you could do from here, just set the wind at the airport to be aligned with a particular runway, and create a single entry in arrivals with a route that uses one of the STARs listed for the runway you've chosen. (For example, if you choose runway 04, create an entry in arrivals with a route of ISMAS.ISMAS1A.WMKP. Just don't make more that use the other fixes like LUNTU / BIDMO / NURLA / MADUM, because the aircraft will not be separated as they merge together due to the way the aircraft are spawned.

[Alpi-no]

just create a star for the runway for each route eg. ISMAS 1A

  "ISMAS1A": {
    "icao": "ISMAS1A",
    "name": "Ismas one alpha",
    "transitions": {
      "ISMAS": ["ISMAS"]
    },
    "body": ["TAMIT","OPOVI","KENDI","VPG"],
    "draw": ["TAMIT","OPOVI","KENDI","VPG"]
  },

[eliuuk]

@erikquinn Although the aircraft may be merged at a point, wouldn't that be the job of approach to prevent that? Using holds temporary radar vectors, rerouting and speed control are all methods of traffic separation. Plus, WMKP is a very small airport so it would be easier to control these factors unlike if you were at Dubai, Heathrow or Singapore.

[erikquinn]

@indianbhaji well actually I guess if the fixes are mostly/all in the TRACON's airspace, then that's true. But conventionally, I am used to separating aircraft joining a STAR being always the center's job, and when they get to approach control, they are already separated entrail along the star. It depends how they split up those responsibilities in Malaysian airspace, so you may well be right.

[eliuuk]

@erikquinn Well, LiveATC seems to have feeds for Kuala Lumpur, so I'll listen to those and see :3

[erikquinn]

^RWY 04 STARS @ WMKP

Upon further investigation, it looks like the entirety of the STAR does fall within the approach control's airspace. One thing I would suggest though is to add some points along the airways further out than the points listed in the STAR, just so the aircraft always spawn outside of the airspace boundary. (I drew this in blue to show what I mean)

[eliuuk]

@erikquinn I've just noticed that - the reason why it isn't like that in #574 is because I've only just realised it uses kilometers instead of nautical miles resulting in incorrect measurements. I've already got some SIDS with waypoints outside of that airspace, so I'll refix that.

[erikquinn]

The ATC repository is being migrated to it's new home at https://github.com/openscope/openscope,
and thus, all issues are being closed. If this is still an issue with the latest version of the sim
(accessible at http://www.openscope.co), or is a feature you still think we are lacking,
please reopen the issue at the new repo.

Please note that the vast majority of these issues have been copied to the new repository, or else are covered by other issues created there. See the below screenshot for what it looks like when your issue is known in the new repo:

Thank you!

Closing this issue.