As Manston airport is now returning with no more legal challenges, we ask that Manston be added to default navdata. You already support it for flight planning on simbrief, but cannot operate it in the aircraft as it isn’t in the AIRAC. No point being able to plan a flight from it if we can’t operate the flight. Our virtual airline, Manston Air, is based out of it.
All we ask is for Manston, its code EGMH to be recognised my navdata and the 2 runways, 10 and 28, so we can take off and land from it.
We have created the data in ARINC424 Format which I believe is required to be added to your tailored records.
AP EGMH MSE Manston Airport N5120430 E0012000 178
RW EGMH 10/28 9022 200 N5120430 E0012000 100
RW EGMH 10/28 9022 200 N5120430 E0012000 280
We would like to see this return, as Doncaster Sheffield, which is closed, is still supported by Navigraph, yet Manston Airport isn’t. All we are asking for is the runway and airport to be recognised in the airac and the aircraft so we can operate in and out of the airport.
Hi,
the difference between EGMH and EGCN is, that EGMH is closed, EGCN not and therefore EGMH is not included.
Normally, we don’t add outdated/closed airports to our source to avoid issues with our source, excluding airports where we have the permission.
Also, this records are not in the ARINC424 format because this format has at least a record length of 136 characters and uses a standard. Thats not the case here.
Sorry, we may not add this outdated/closed airport.
Actually EGCN closed on the 30th of November 2022 as per public records. They’ve received funding to begin the reopening process but as of right now it is still a “closed” airport.
Whilst Manston “closed” in 2014, it has since received full government approval to reopen with plans to fully open again in 2026. Additionally, the airport is still used to this day by VFR helicopter traffic and is subject to frequent “fly in” events (of which you can just google “Manston Airport” and see these listed) which suggests that it never truly closed down.
If you wish to not add the data for EGMH based upon what you’ve said, then by that logic, can we surmise that EGCN will not be included in next months navdata release based on all of the freely available information on its closure?
So from what I understand, this is something you can do?
As I posted above, you already have simbrief support, and there are people using Manston. The scenery has been up a month and already has just under 1000 downloads.
All we are asking for is the airport and runway to be recognised. Not the full procedures, ILS, STARs and SIDS… Just simply airport identification and runway identification.
We are willing to provide you the full ARINC424 data if you wish, but don’t want to do the work if you’re unable to add it.
If we provide you with the complete data and format, would you be willing to add it? Even as a ‘tailored record’ which is possible. It has been done before with Kai Tak! What ‘permission’ do you need?
@danirich26 this is not a real official public record which is trustful. The AIP UK still lists EGNC and as long as the country offers data/charts the data provider offers it too.
So, its not a decision of the data provider, its a decision of the country, to remove the records or not.
Also, closed airports will not be removed immediately from the data source - normally there are years between “closed” and “removed” - a typical example was the old Berlin airport.
Hi again Greg,
you are right - we lost the focus a little bit.
We don’t add outdated airports. Kai Tak was an exception due the difficult approach. You can’t really compare VHHX with EGMH …
I will check, why this airport is included in SimBrief because the data source is the same as for all other apps/datasets. So I can’t answer why it’s available in SimBrief at the moment, but you can be sure, I will check it.
In a previous situation, you guys were kind and empathetic and accepted to keep/add Manston to simbrief, to help us out.
Not an issue with certain navdata packages we have been able to edit, it is only an issue with the FSLabs 320 and PMDG 777 where the data is stored in SQL.
Also, people still fly into and out of Manston, VFR etc.
Quite simply - we don’t want to lose simbrief compatibility as you will destroy our Virtual Airline in the process.
All we are asking for is a literal recognition of an airport and a single Runway so when you go to RTE / INIT on the 777, we can fly with our flight plans.
We have the data we can send you for this. It won’t impact your service in any way, but as there is an opportunity/a wanting for this, I would hope this is something you can consider.
We are willing to do the hard work with the data, we just need you to upload it to your airac/be recognised so we can continue our virtual airline which we have done for 4years now.
We don’t want to lose this ability because of a technicality.
Hi srcooke, thanks for pointing me in the direction of the AIP, you’re absolutely right that EGCN is still published in the AIP. My argument, however, was that its closure was fairly well publicised and is at this time considered “closed” (despite it still being in the AIP), much like Manston.
Apologies to both you and Richard for not having checked this source beforehand.
Is there any response for captaingreg regarding his offer of the required data? I read another thread regarding Manston and it was suggested that it can be included as “tailored records”, is this still possible?
I think, I still have answered it. In the meantime, we also know why you can enter the outdated ICAO code in SimBrief:
This is possible because Derek adds it manually in the SimBrief database long time before he comes to us/Navigraph and he has simple forgotten to remove this.
We will not remove it in SimBrief for the moment, but we will discuss this after the summer break, how we can handle this.
But as I wrote before, we haven’t and we don’t add outdated/removed/decomissioned airports, navaids or other navigational facilitys (there were only two exceptions, one of it will be also removed end of this year).