Hi there,
While planning a trip trough Alaska I tumbled over PAAW, or more exactly KEB as it is handcrafted by Asobo. I’m using LittleNavMap and its settings to use Navigraph for navaids and procedures only. The result looks like this:
Despite the fact that the runway of PAAW is shown partly in MSFS2024, it doesn’t match obviously the coastline as visible in the above picture (landscape is Google Maps Terrain). As Asobo’s work on KEB looks nice and I don’t want to disable Navigraph I’m in a dilemma.
Is there any advice?
Hi,
The problem here is (even when it is handcrafted from ASOBO) that they use the FAA airport ident (KEB) instead of the official ICAO code (PAAW).
That is the real issue here. As a typical test, try entering KEB in the MSFS Flightplanner, and you get PAAW as the return code.
Further, when you compare the FAA data with our data (i.e., elevation), you will see that these data are more accurate than those for the handcrafted ASOBO airport. Not sure where the data are, but they are not correct.
Conclusio - we can’t do more here. The unique identifier for us can only be the official 4-letter airport ICAO code.
I would report this to ASOBO so that they can change the airport code in one of the next SUs or WUs.
Cheers
Richard
PS: Also, the runway headings are incorrect per the FAA.
Cheers
Richard
Hi Richard,
In the meantime I filed a MS Zendesk-request for correcting the ICAO and (as a minor issue) the rw-lengh. Nontheless the FAA published runway borders don’t match with any chart. I have asked e.g. Google Earth and OpenStreetMap and both are showing the same situation that at least RW19 and most of the runway itself would be over water.
My best guess is the following picture where I started to measure the runway length at the border of RW01 (N 59° 20.97’, W 151° 55.68’). The difference is likely caused by the uncertainty of the magnetic pole being here quite close to it and too old data. It’s VFR anyway… 
The FAA runway threshold coordinates do seem dodgy, as is visible on the map here:
The coordinates seem incompatible with the terrain over which the runway is supposed to exist.
Some of it might be due to systems expecting a “straight” runway when the real one apparently has a curve:
ARC SHAPED RWY; MAG HDG 10 DEG ONE END & HDG 190 DEGS OTR END.
Regards,
Tim
@Rodeo314: Tim, it’s obvious that the official runway data are somehow out of this world. I don’t think that the expected straight runway can cause this alone as there should be somewhere an at least similar angle, and it’s not.
@NAVData: Richard, your remarks concerning Asobo’s work are correct. Nonetheless the result fits better the real thing as the runway being plugged in by using the official data. Yes, its 303 ft too long, yes, it should be at both ends 27 ft above the see, and yes, if drawing it correctly it should have around the peninsular at least a vehicle path (probably along the Western shore even a sort of taxi path). However, it fits to the impression given by the satellite photos.
