EHAM rwy 36L


#1

This is not a complaint, just a little concern. I was doing a flight from Mexico City to EHAM, a little over 10hrs. When able to contact approach, I requested ILS rwy 36C. He vectored me all the way to the airport and cleared me to rwy 36L GPS, then he handled me to Tower. Tower cleared my landing for 36L. After landing, the controller commanded me to exit rwy when able to the right and contact ground, also to expedite cause traffic was on final. Me not being 100% familiar with the airport, I found out rwy 36L have no exits if landing north, only south. Not even an area to make a 180* turn. I never end a flight on the rwy ever, I always taxi all the way to the gate, but this time had to due to the other aircraft inbound. It’s not a complaint, just a little heads up to the controllers to really get familiarize to the rwys they are sending the aircrafts to.🛫


#2

IRL 36L is never used for landings, it is only used for takeoffs! IRL 36C and/or 36R are used for landings when the winds mean the 36s are used.

When the 18s are used, 18R is often used for landings given its only exit is at the south end of the runway. Im not sure what EHAM do IRL for takeoffs when the 18s are in use

However, due to the highly unrealistic amount of traffic in Infinite Flight at the FNF airports, controllers can’t really use realistic procedures


#3

That’s perfectly fine, I never expect for a IRL procedures to be use, but at least a rwy with an exit😅.
Thanks for the info though👌🏽.


#4

Hi Jay - I may have been the controller…or Anton who took over after me. Trick is with the amount of traffic and the current winds it gets really complicated to find a great runway usage there. We are very aware of the fact that 36L is not used IRL, but sometimes we have to deviate from real life in order to support the unrealistic amount of traffic. The approach controller is also aware of the potential back taxi and spaces the inbound accordingly to allow you to back taxi and come back. You do your thing, if the aircraft behind you needs to execute a go around, that’s part of the simulation. I hope this clarifies the situation.


#5

What? Sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense.

How about not use 36L at all for landings? There’s no exit at the end of the runway and there’s not even enough room to turn around and back taxi at the end. I think it’s appropriate to use this runway as intended – takeoffs from 36L, landings on 18R. Having planes land and back taxi down this runway simply because “traffic is heavy and we want to use as many runways as possible” is not a very efficient or effective use of it.

This just slows operations down. Try landing an A380 on that runway and attempt turning around at the end and back taxiing before another plane lands. Not very smart.

I thought we, IFATC, were all about quality vs quantity. This seems to be the opposite. 🤔


#6

That runway doesn’t have an area for aircrafts to do a 180* turn hence it’s not used for landings. I was in a 747 so turning on a dime and back taxi was not an option.


#7

I’ve done quite a lot of real life traveling myself. I’ve landed many times in places where there is one or two taxiways at the center of the runway and no additional space for the aircraft to turn around - yet they landed and turned around just fine.

I’d also note that as a team, @Nathan - we do not talk in public to another controller the way you just did. If you have any issues, you know where to find me. This is certainly not the proper media to have this discussion.


#8

I think, people can benefit and learn from this publicly. If there is high amounts of traffic, minimum spacing on all runways, and 1 is used for back taxiing, wouldn’t be it better to use the other ones with taxiways and exits that way more go arounds are prevented? Not saying that 36L cant be used.


#9

I agree with you. Here is the deal… with the winds at EHAM at that moment the usable runways were: 36L/C/R, 06, 04 and 27 (last 3 with crosswinds)

Now let’s dissect this:

36R requires back taxi for takeoffs, because there are Xs on the taxiways (thanks @Adam_Macaulay for pointing that out :) ) Good one to focus inbound, quick exit path.

36C is the best runway, easy to taxi to, easy to get off.

36L is a very long taxi. Most pilots are not up to taxing all the way there when there are other runways close by. Arrivals can be done, MOST aircraft in IF slow down before the last taxiway.

27/06 is not a good option for arrivals due to intersection, but can be used for outbound. 06 most pilots want to back taxi so not efficient. 27 is great, but intersects with 3 runways - it gets tricky.

04 is great, but smaller, tricky runway crossings, interferes with aircraft exiting runway 36R

So take all of that in… and you do an omelet with the eggs you have. We focused outbound on C, with occasional use of 06, 04 and 27, and let the arrivals roll on L and R. Approach controller well aware of the taxiways on L, giving 10nm of space. Most aircraft slow down in time. To be honest in 106 minutes of controlling I had 2 go around on L. I think that is pretty reasonable. One of the go around the pilot was doing 200knots on final.

As traffic in the ground slowed down I told the radar controller he could use C a lot more. I don’t see how this all is an issue, or “quantity over quality”. Hope this clarifies it @Jay757 and @HawaiiPilot10. Feel free to ask any questions. Happy landings!


#10

It’s all good !! Keep up the good work.🙂


#11

You were obviously on a much smaller aircraft which have a smaller turning radius. There’s no way you could’ve been in a big A340, 747, or A380 and turn around 180° on a 150/200ft wide runway without the use of a turning bay. If you did, please show me.

As a team, we should be open to any and all criticisms from each other. I don’t see the issue with what I said. People can publicly praise what IFATC controllers do, but not publicly criticize them (not shame, criticize)? Doesn’t make much sense to me. 🤔

And this is the Infinite Flight community forum – the perfect outlet to talk to members of our community.


#12

I am very open to criticism. I actually think you have a point. My issue with your comment is not with the part that you disagree with my approach (no pun intended) - it’s with how you put it. Have a good one.


#13

If you are about to control an airport you are unfamiliar with, I highly recommend you do your homework on that airport so you can provide the best and most efficient experience for pilots. That goes for both expert and training.

@mgjr83 wish you the best of controlling in the future!


#14

That’s a great post from @Jan! Thanks for sharing, @Pilot_urp - however, I am very familiar with EHAM operations in Infinite Flight, I’ve been controlling there way before global update. It is probably my favorite field to control tower and ground, and I am fairly confident to say I am top 3 in all time tower and ground operations there.

Jan does a great job showing real life procedures, which serve as a guideline but in IF we don’t necessarily follow those because of the other unrealistic conditions that have been discussed many times in many posts. I’ve experimented many times with different configurations, under different wind conditons. It’s a constant evolution and there’s not a single correct answer.


#15

I just tried it in a A380. Doesn’t look the most realistic thing in the world but it’s completely doable. In this situation when a back taxi was the only thing possible, it would have been achievable


#16

Yes - it is doable for sure, I have no doubt. However I think Jay’s and Nathan’s point are more about - it is not a great option to turn a heavy 180 degrees on the runway and may not be realistic due to how the runway / taxiway combo was planned, it certainly creates a not very desirable situation if you miss that last taxiway - which is a fair point to make!

If you think about the opposite situation - should I use 36L for takeoffs? Some will say yes - it’s realistic!! But then if I do I’ll get angry posts in the forum because “atc made me taxi for 8 minutes” (if I were the pilot I’d complain too!!). So it’s all about finding the right balance, and because EHAM is so unique - it takes a lot of experimenting - that’s what’s so great about it.

Thanks for you comment!


#17

It’s definitely doable but don’t expect to do it expeditiously. It isn’t necessarily the most ideal or efficient thing for a pilot to be doing, especially in this scenario where there’s heavy traffic.


#18

You did just say there was ‘no way’ it could be done in one of the larger aircraft hence I tried it and replied, but anyhow…

The only mention of anything to do with the speed in which the back taxi be carried out by @mgjr83 was something along the lines of he’d be more than happy to issue a go around to any imminently incoming aircraft so I don’t think that’s a relevant argument here. Yes it’s not the most realistic thing but 1) if it had to be done it could be done 2) the conditions on IF aren’t always the most realistic either e.g. level of traffic. Let’s not pick and choose to suit our arguments here!

Happy flying


#19

Technically it only just isn’t possible to do, EHAM’s runway in IF is ~57m wide, the absolute minimum width according to specification is 60m. Although traffic is higher in IF it is probably better to land smaller aircraft that can easily make this turn rather than large ones like the A380, however at the end of the day it is at the controllers discretion.


#20

Like I said not the most realistic thing to do but can definitely be done i.e. not impossible