Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Actually USE the suffixes of procedures #33

Closed
erikquinn opened this issue Jan 3, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #422
Closed

Actually USE the suffixes of procedures #33

erikquinn opened this issue Jan 3, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #422
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Notable improvement or expansion upon an EXISTING feature
Milestone

Comments

@erikquinn
Copy link
Member

erikquinn commented Jan 3, 2017

Given a procedure ANKER, users should be able to enter SID ANKER1Q and/or STAR ANKER1Q, depending on the type of procedure. Such was the intent of the suffix property, but it was never really fully hooked up, and airport creators have worked around it by creating individual procedures PIK27X, PIK27D, PIK23X, PIK23D, PIK21X, PIK21D, etc. Completing the functionality of the suffixes would eliminate the need for them to do this.

Originally reported in zlsa/atc#655.

@erikquinn erikquinn added the enhancement Notable improvement or expansion upon an EXISTING feature label Jan 3, 2017
@erikquinn erikquinn added this to the v4.1.0 milestone Jan 24, 2017
@erikquinn erikquinn mentioned this issue Feb 4, 2017
@erikquinn erikquinn added the BLOCKED Depends upon the resolution of a different issue label Feb 5, 2017
@erikquinn
Copy link
Member Author

Depends on #193.

@n8rzz n8rzz modified the milestones: v4.2.0, v4.1.0 Feb 17, 2017
@Alpi-no Alpi-no mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2017
@erikquinn erikquinn mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2017
7 tasks
@erikquinn erikquinn removed this from the v5.0.0 milestone Apr 18, 2017
@erikquinn erikquinn mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2017
8 tasks
@n8rzz
Copy link
Member

n8rzz commented May 4, 2017

@erikquinn @indianbhaji given the following procedure (from egll):

"BUZAD": {
    "icao": "BUZAD",
    "name": "Buzad",
    "suffix": {"09L":"3K", "09R":"4J"},
    "rwy": {
        "09L": [],
        "09R": []
    },
    "body": [["_LONR072D10", "A30+"], "BUZAD", "WOBUN", "DTY", "HON"],
    "draw": [["_LONR072D10", "BUZAD"]]
},

if a command was issued STAR BUZAD3K, that would work out to the BUZAD star with runway 9L.

Am I understanding this correctly?

@eliuuk
Copy link
Member

eliuuk commented May 4, 2017

@n8rzz Yes

@n8rzz n8rzz removed the BLOCKED Depends upon the resolution of a different issue label May 4, 2017
@n8rzz n8rzz added this to the v5.2.0 milestone May 4, 2017
@n8rzz n8rzz self-assigned this May 4, 2017
@n8rzz n8rzz added the has pull request Add this label when an issue has a PR which will resolve it label May 5, 2017
@panther2
Copy link
Member

panther2 commented May 17, 2017

With reference to #422 I am just adding the problem that ocurred on EDDL, as discussed on slack:
There is only one suffix for multiple (two) runways there. This occurs on every STAR.

At EDDL (but not limited to it) the correct assignment to a runway is managed using approach transitions from the STAR's Initial Approach Fixes (=start of the approach transition) to the Final Approach Fix (=end of the approach transition). But as we don't code those approach transitions but only the STARs we need a solution for the "one suffix for multiple runways"-issue.

@n8rzz n8rzz removed the has pull request Add this label when an issue has a PR which will resolve it label May 23, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Notable improvement or expansion upon an EXISTING feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants