Stricter Airport Restrictions

Lately, especially since the A320 family update, my ‘inside realism fan’ has been abrogated with seeing aircraft at airports that they shouldn’t be at. Example: A320’s at EGLC. The largest planes that land there are A318’s.

I am proposing that there are stricter rules on what aircraft can use an airfield, so you can’t fly anything larger than an A318 into EGLC or other airports appropriate of their classification and what aircraft are able to use it. It may be complexed however, as there is a 747 parked at Dunsfold (Top Gear test track) IRL so technically we should be able to fly a -200 there.

Worse than this is that every day, A380’s are highly unrealsically landing at airports like KPSP and KSAN just because theoretically they can. Also seeing 737’s at KNUC when there shouldn’t really be any traffic at all!

Thank you for your appreciation. Criticism is allowed of the post respectively.

19 Likes

Some people like to think that KNUC is San Clemente International Airport, that’s why they like flying their heavies there.

8 Likes

Should this get the 'Aircraft too big for airport?"

1 Like

No one cares about that on Playground, on Advanced sometimes. I’ve seen A321s approachin LCY on Advanced

1 Like

I am an advanced controller, thats why I am asking

As a controller on advanced, it’s ok. I don’t mind, some people like to break realism. But in the real world, an A321 at LCY is a big no!

5 Likes

Yeah! As long as it is ok to allow it if someone does load :)

I had to ghost a couple on advanced for flying an A388 and a B772 into LCY. I told them it was to big for this airport, and contact London Heathrow tower, but they just don’t understand. These peanuts are waiting to be squished and made into peanut butter.

8 Likes

As a huge realism fan, I’m totally supporting your opinion.

2 Likes

Max Sez; Totally agree with @Freddiefrogs! The restriction program is written now all is needed is a little attention to detail! My real gripe is unrestricted landings at Military Fields! KNUC (San Clemente ) is a prime example. I say; “Knock it off”! I’m for realism!

(Info: @Laurens)

4 Likes

The reason why people fly A380s to KSAN and KPSP is because in the California region doesn’t have any other big airports other than KLAX. But I still think that’s a great idea.

1 Like

That should be the first answer and if they don’t divert then you should advise them otherwise or ghost them.

1 Like

That is a fair point, I guess if you were flying one you would only be able to fly in pattern work. Unless your in the Singapore region, where you can fly to WMKK. This is a good reason to extend regions.

1 Like

What would also be good is “aircraft is too large, please divert

3 Likes

Doig good work DJ 👍

1 Like

Have you been on the advanced server yet? Aha.

Not yet. 300 XP

Keep going, T&G can get you 300XP in 5 minutes.

The reality to me is that there are only a dozen or less airports in the entire real world that have sufficient infrastructure to handle an A380…as an example…not KTSP or KSAN or KNUC at last check…so the runway lengthand width is a secondary issue…furthermore. …if you are going to start revaluating the maximum aircraft size for takeoff or landing at the most popular IF airports…then my suggestion is to do that at the default spawning area…as either a warning message or an automatic disabling capability by an additional program algorithm…maybe there should be a discussion thread continued in the dev section on this topic…

1 Like

This is a good idea. For example the ATC can say, “Callisign(filler), this airport doesn’t support your aircraft, please contact LosAngeles Tower.”