Runway ID

[Lakeview Bill]

The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type of
number.

What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?

If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?

The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral, as
opposed to an actual number.

The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

AIM 4-2-10 "Directions:
....
Examples
1. (Magnetic course) 005 .....zero zero five
2. (True course) 050.............zero five zero true
....."

The magnetic heading of Runway 5 is zero five zero.

The discussion of name versus direction reminds me of the discussion by the
Mad Hatter in Through the Looking Glass. It was used in a computer class to
exemplify the difference between something and its name.

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
> of
> number.
>
> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>
> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>
> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral, as
> opposed to an actual number.
>
> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>
>
>
>
>

[Lakeview Bill]

"The magnetic heading of Runway 5 is zero five zero."

No...

The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: RUNWAY - ...Runways are normally
numbered in relation to their magnetic direction rounded off to the nearest
10 degrees...

Go to http://www.airnav.com/ and examine some of their airport information
sheets.

For example at KIGQ, with a magnetic variation of 02W (1995), RWY 18 has a
heading of: 182 magnetic, 180 true.

So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number, but as
a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".



"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> AIM 4-2-10 "Directions:
> ...
> Examples
> 1. (Magnetic course) 005 .....zero zero five
> 2. (True course) 050.............zero five zero true
> ...."
>
> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 is zero five zero.
>
> The discussion of name versus direction reminds me of the discussion by
the
> Mad Hatter in Through the Looking Glass. It was used in a computer class
to
> exemplify the difference between something and its name.
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
> > because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
> > of
> > number.
> >
> > What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
> >
> > If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
> >
> > The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
as
> > opposed to an actual number.
> >
> > The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: RUNWAY - ...Runways are normally
> numbered in relation to their magnetic direction rounded off to the
> nearest
> 10 degrees...
>
> Go to http://www.airnav.com/ and examine some of their airport information
> sheets.
>
> For example at KIGQ, with a magnetic variation of 02W (1995), RWY 18 has a
> heading of: 182 magnetic, 180 true.
>
> So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number, but
> as
> a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".

If you don't think of the runway number as a number (corresponding to an
approximate heading), then how do you form an expectation about which
direction to fly to enter, say, a downwind leg for a particular runway?

--Gary

[Lakeview Bill]

Good point...

I was dealing with "runway numbers" while communicating, where it probably
is best to think of them as a "name".

But, as you point out, one would want to think of it as a number while
aviating...




"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.
> >
> > From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: RUNWAY - ...Runways are normally
> > numbered in relation to their magnetic direction rounded off to the
> > nearest
> > 10 degrees...
> >
> > Go to http://www.airnav.com/ and examine some of their airport
information
> > sheets.
> >
> > For example at KIGQ, with a magnetic variation of 02W (1995), RWY 18 has
a
> > heading of: 182 magnetic, 180 true.
> >
> > So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number, but
> > as
> > a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".
>
> If you don't think of the runway number as a number (corresponding to an
> approximate heading), then how do you form an expectation about which
> direction to fly to enter, say, a downwind leg for a particular runway?
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

This thread prompted me to fire up my Summit Aviation CD and search for all
usages of "runway number." (The CD includes just about every piece of paper
issued by the FAA.) In all of their examples of radio transmissions, they
use two-digit runway numbers. Other references just use a parenthetical
(runway number) to indicate where the runway number belongs. There is not
one instance where a leading zero is called for.

Bob Gardner

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> AIM 4-2-10 "Directions:
> ...
> Examples
> 1. (Magnetic course) 005 .....zero zero five
> 2. (True course) 050.............zero five zero true
> ...."
>
> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 is zero five zero.
>
> The discussion of name versus direction reminds me of the discussion by
> the Mad Hatter in Through the Looking Glass. It was used in a computer
> class to exemplify the difference between something and its name.
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
>> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
>> of
>> number.
>>
>> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>>
>> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>>
>> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
>> as
>> opposed to an actual number.
>>
>> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number,
>> > but
>> > as a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".
>>
>> If you don't think of the runway number as a number (corresponding to an
>> approximate heading), then how do you form an expectation about which
>> direction to fly to enter, say, a downwind leg for a particular runway?
>>
> Good point...
>
> I was dealing with "runway numbers" while communicating, where it probably
> is best to think of them as a "name".
>
> But, as you point out, one would want to think of it as a number while
> aviating...

But if you're going to think of runway numbers as names while communicating
but as numbers while aviating, then why not make the same distinction for
the numbers that designate headings, altitudes, airspeeds, etc.?

There are some numbers in aviation that are really just names (airway
designations, aircraft model designations, tail numbers, etc.). But runway
numbers are really numbers.

--Gary

[Jose]

> In all of their examples of radio transmissions, they
> use two-digit runway numbers. There is not
> one instance where a leading zero is called for.

Do you mean that all the examples happen to use runway numbers in the
range 10-36, and that they never happened to use runway numbers which
point northeast?

Convenient, no? :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug]

Strickly speaking the runway names are names and not headings. For
example at Denver, runway 16L is 170 degrees magnetic due to their
being a runway 17L and R already with the same magnetic heading.

As for the runway 8 or zero 8, it seems to be always written 8 and not
08, but I don't think it is a big error, though apparently some pilots
are being taught this way, because you do hear it.

[A. Smith]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
> of
> number.
>
> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>
> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>
> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral, as
> opposed to an actual number.
>
> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?

Not just to you Bill but..............when you are on short final to a
runway heading about 010 degrees does it have "1" or "01" painted on it?

Allen

[Chris]

"A. Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
>> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
>> of
>> number.
>>
>> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>>
>> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>>
>> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
>> as
>> opposed to an actual number.
>>
>> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>
> Not just to you Bill but..............when you are on short final to a
> runway heading about 010 degrees does it have "1" or "01" painted on it?
>

Depends where you are. Here in the UK you see 01. So runway five in the
original example has 05 painted on the threshold. By the way, what is
painted on the runway sign boards, etc?

But the runway ID is a number and it is a number giving the approximate
magnetic direction, otherwise they would not change it occasionally when too
far out and not a name. Otherwise lets call them by real names.

Runway Harold, or runway Freda. Not as much use as 05, really.

[A. Smith]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "A. Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
>>> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
>>> of
>>> number.
>>>
>>> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>>>
>>> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>>>
>>> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
>>> as
>>> opposed to an actual number.
>>>
>>> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>>
>> Not just to you Bill but..............when you are on short final to a
>> runway heading about 010 degrees does it have "1" or "01" painted on it?
>>
>
> Depends where you are. Here in the UK you see 01. So runway five in the
> original example has 05 painted on the threshold. By the way, what is
> painted on the runway sign boards, etc?
>
> But the runway ID is a number and it is a number giving the approximate
> magnetic direction, otherwise they would not change it occasionally when
> too far out and not a name. Otherwise lets call them by real names.
>
> Runway Harold, or runway Freda. Not as much use as 05, really.


I would say it is the runway name painted on the threshold and should be
pronounced as it is written.

Allen

[A. Smith]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "A. Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
>>> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type
>>> of
>>> number.
>>>
>>> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>>>
>>> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>>>
>>> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
>>> as
>>> opposed to an actual number.
>>>
>>> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>>
>> Not just to you Bill but..............when you are on short final to a
>> runway heading about 010 degrees does it have "1" or "01" painted on it?
>>
>
> Depends where you are. Here in the UK you see 01. So runway five in the
> original example has 05 painted on the threshold. By the way, what is
> painted on the runway sign boards, etc?
>
> But the runway ID is a number and it is a number giving the approximate
> magnetic direction, otherwise they would not change it occasionally when
> too far out and not a name. Otherwise lets call them by real names.
>
> Runway Harold, or runway Freda. Not as much use as 05, really.

Runway Harold is ok, as is runway Freda. Runway Fred is not, it could be
Runway Freda or Frederick. If I am in a crowded room and someone calls out
"Hey Allen" I would be compeled to look around and see who was calling.
Now, if they were to call "Hey Al" I probably wouldn't even look up. They
could be calling for Allen, Albert, Alfred or a number of other "Als".

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> AIM 4-2-10 "Directions:
> ...
> Examples
> 1. (Magnetic course) 005 .....zero zero five
> 2. (True course) 050.............zero five zero true
> ...."
>
> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 is zero five zero.
>

The magnetic azimuth of Runway 5 could be significantly different than 050.
A runway with magnetic azimuth of 045 through 054 would normally be
designated Runway 5. But magnetic azimuth changes over time, and as I
recall the directives allow for a difference of six degrees before
redesignation and repainting are required. But that's not adhered to very
closely. The ATW airport diagram shows the azimuth of RWY 29 to be 297.9
degrees. Runway 7L at MKE had an azimuth of 053 degrees before it was
rebuilt some ten years ago or so, no doubt to prevent confusion with Runway
7R.

[Doug Carter]

Seems most appropiate to simply use the name painted on the end of the
runway.

[Morgans]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote > No...
>
> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.

Actually, it could be 045 to 055. There is a choice of rounding up or down,
with a heading ending in "5".
--
Jim in NC

[BTIZ]

I always love it when they have to rename/repaint the runway because the
magnetic heading for the runway changed.. and to the non-informed... no..
the earth did not move to change the runway..

I'm betting some ol'timers out there remember when the leading zero was
painted on... 05
so it was Runway zero five

BT

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.
>>
>> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: RUNWAY - ...Runways are normally
>> numbered in relation to their magnetic direction rounded off to the
>> nearest
>> 10 degrees...
>>
>> Go to http://www.airnav.com/ and examine some of their airport
>> information
>> sheets.
>>
>> For example at KIGQ, with a magnetic variation of 02W (1995), RWY 18 has
>> a
>> heading of: 182 magnetic, 180 true.
>>
>> So, it really is best to think of a "runway number" not as a number, but
>> as
>> a name composed of numeric characters 0-9 plus "L", "R", "C".
>
> If you don't think of the runway number as a number (corresponding to an
> approximate heading), then how do you form an expectation about which
> direction to fly to enter, say, a downwind leg for a particular runway?
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Chris]

"A. Smith" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "A. Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway
>>>> ID",
>>>> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some
>>>> type of
>>>> number.
>>>>
>>>> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>>>>
>>>> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>>>>
>>>> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral,
>>>> as
>>>> opposed to an actual number.
>>>>
>>>> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?
>>>
>>> Not just to you Bill but..............when you are on short final to a
>>> runway heading about 010 degrees does it have "1" or "01" painted on it?
>>>
>>
>> Depends where you are. Here in the UK you see 01. So runway five in the
>> original example has 05 painted on the threshold. By the way, what is
>> painted on the runway sign boards, etc?
>>
>> But the runway ID is a number and it is a number giving the approximate
>> magnetic direction, otherwise they would not change it occasionally when
>> too far out and not a name. Otherwise lets call them by real names.
>>
>> Runway Harold, or runway Freda. Not as much use as 05, really.
>
>
> I would say it is the runway name painted on the threshold and should be
> pronounced as it is written.

ICAO standards offer a two digit number but then the US don't follow ICAO

[Matt Barrow]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:PBg4f.10452$MN6.7877@fed1read04...
>I always love it when they have to rename/repaint the runway because the
>magnetic heading for the runway changed.. and to the non-informed... no..
>the earth did not move to change the runway..

Only in the case of Mayor Daley.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:PBg4f.10452$MN6.7877@fed1read04...
>
> I'm betting some ol'timers out there remember when the leading zero was
> painted on... 05
> so it was Runway zero five
>

The real ol' timers remember when runways were numbered sequentially
clockwise from north.

[Mike W.]

Yes, renumbered runway ten (roman numerals)
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:PBg4f.10452$MN6.7877@fed1read04...
> >I always love it when they have to rename/repaint the runway because the
> >magnetic heading for the runway changed.. and to the non-informed...
no..
> >the earth did not move to change the runway..
>
> Only in the case of Mayor Daley.
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike W.]

No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
055 becomes 'runway 6'.
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote > No...
> >
> > The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054.
>
> Actually, it could be 045 to 055. There is a choice of rounding up or
down,
> with a heading ending in "5".
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
> No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
> 055 becomes 'runway 6'.
>

So why is it correct to round 045 down to 'runway 4' and 055 up to 'runway
6'?

[Morgans]

"Mike W." > wrote

> No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
> 055 becomes 'runway 6'.

I'm sure I read a reg quoted earlier in this thread, that you got to choose
going up or down, when it was --5.

Who posted that?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Morgans" > wrote

> I'm sure I read a reg quoted earlier in this thread, that you got to
choose
> going up or down, when it was --5.

I found it. Quoted in earlier post by Bob Moore:
____________________________________

4-3-6. Use of Runways/Declared Distances

a. Runways are identified by numbers which indicate the nearest 10-degree
increment of the azimuth of the runway centerline. For example, where the
magnetic azimuth is 183 degrees, the runway designation would be 18; for a
magnetic azimuth of
87 degrees, the runway designation would be 9. For a magnetic azimuth
ending in the number 5, such as 185, the runway designation could be either
18 or 19. Wind direction issued by the tower is also magnetic and wind
velocity is in knots.
____________________________________

So if this was a valid quote that Bob pulled up, it would seem to put *that*
to rest.

As far as the zero in the runway, I know it is not "correct" in the US, but
I think it is a shame that we do not follow more of the IACO conventions.
Just my opinion, of course.
--
Jim in NC

[Lakeview Bill]

True or false: An airplane can be a Piper or a Cessna.

While it is also true that an airplane could also be a Mooney or a
Beechcraft or any of the thousands of other builders that have come and
gone, the statement: "An airplane can be a Piper or a Cessna", is quite
true, although quite possibly less than necessarily inclusive.

Hence my choice of the absolutely true statement:

"The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054."

I recognize that Runway 5 MIGHT also have a magnetic heading of 045 or 055.
But if it has a heading between 046 and 054, it WILL ABSOLUTELY be Runway 5.

My choice to use "between 046 and 054" instead of including 045 or 055 was
in the, obviously vain, hope that we could avoid the endless argument over
minutiae that all too often clogs this group...



"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
> 055 becomes 'runway 6'.
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Lakeview Bill" > wrote > No...
> > >
> > > The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and
054.
> >
> > Actually, it could be 045 to 055. There is a choice of rounding up or
> down,
> > with a heading ending in "5".
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and 054."
>
> I recognize that Runway 5 MIGHT also have a magnetic heading of 045 or
> 055.
> But if it has a heading between 046 and 054, it WILL ABSOLUTELY be Runway
> 5.
>

KMKE had a runway some years ago with a magnetic azimuth of 053. It was
designated Runway 7L.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> The original poster got it right with his use of the phrase "Runway ID",
> because it is, in fact, an ID based on a number, as opposed to some type of
> number.
>
> What is the magnetic heading of Runway 5?
>
> If someone is named "Fred", do you refer to them as "Zero Fred"?
>
> The point is, we are dealing with a "name" which consists of a numeral, as
> opposed to an actual number.
>
> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?

Because we don't all live in the USA?

Google Earth to...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
<Placemark>
<name>Woodburn</name>
<LookAt id="khLookAt539">
<longitude>173.8623092675428</longitude>
<latitude>-41.51827447324778</latitude>
<range>445.7915859883797</range>
<tilt>59.74335566169054</tilt>
<heading>85.78942805235496</heading>
</LookAt>
<styleUrl>root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x307+hicon=0x317</styleUrl>
<Point id="khPoint540">
<coordinates>173.8623092675428,-41.51827447324778,0</coordinates>
</Point>
</Placemark>
</kml>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
<Placemark>
<name>Kingsford Smith</name>
<LookAt>
<longitude>151.1656777476775</longitude>
<latitude>-33.9431305276927</latitude>
<range>592.0090769603928</range>
<tilt>56.07426755663099</tilt>
<heading>73.71486602161265</heading>
</LookAt>
<styleUrl>root://styles#default+icon=0x307</styleUrl>
<Point>
<coordinates>151.1656777476775,-33.9431305276927,0</coordinates>
</Point>
</Placemark>
</kml>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
<Placemark>
<name>Heathrow</name>
<LookAt>
<longitude>-0.4800131261500971</longitude>
<latitude>51.46439240514528</latitude>
<range>572.7365322921153</range>
<tilt>65.28356894139483</tilt>
<heading>90.7134713139385</heading>
</LookAt>
<styleUrl>root://styles#default+icon=0x307</styleUrl>
<Point>
<coordinates>-0.4800131261500972,51.46439240514529,0</coordinates>
</Point>
</Placemark>
</kml>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
<Placemark>
<name>Paris</name>
<LookAt>
<longitude>2.554618810077227</longitude>
<latitude>48.9957715649475</latitude>
<range>567.1602808722715</range>
<tilt>55.61194273957288</tilt>
<heading>86.94549055915485</heading>
</LookAt>
<styleUrl>root://styles#default+icon=0x307</styleUrl>
<Point>
<coordinates>2.554618810077227,48.9957715649475,0</coordinates>
</Point>
</Placemark>
</kml>

--
Duncan

[Hilton]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "The magnetic heading of Runway 5 can be any heading between 046 and
>> 054."
>>
>> I recognize that Runway 5 MIGHT also have a magnetic heading of 045 or
>> 055.
>> But if it has a heading between 046 and 054, it WILL ABSOLUTELY be Runway
>> 5.
>>
>
> KMKE had a runway some years ago with a magnetic azimuth of 053. It was
> designated Runway 7L.

SJC's runway 29 is 303.3 degrees.

Hilton

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I found it. Quoted in earlier post by Bob Moore:
> ____________________________________
>
> 4-3-6. Use of Runways/Declared Distances
>
> a. Runways are identified by numbers which indicate the nearest 10-degree
> increment of the azimuth of the runway centerline. For example, where the
> magnetic azimuth is 183 degrees, the runway designation would be 18; for a
> magnetic azimuth of
> 87 degrees, the runway designation would be 9. For a magnetic azimuth
> ending in the number 5, such as 185, the runway designation could be
> either
> 18 or 19. Wind direction issued by the tower is also magnetic and wind
> velocity is in knots.
> ____________________________________
>
> So if this was a valid quote that Bob pulled up, it would seem to put
> *that*
> to rest.
>
> As far as the zero in the runway, I know it is not "correct" in the US,
> but
> I think it is a shame that we do not follow more of the IACO conventions.
> Just my opinion, of course.
>

Advisory Circular 150/5340-1J STANDARDS FOR AIRPORT MARKINGS

MARKINGS FOR PAVED RUNWAYS AND TAXIWAYS.

Section 2. Runway Markings.

7. RUNWAY DESIGNATION MARKING.

a. Purpose. A runway designation marking identifies a runway by its
magnetic
azimuth.

b. Location. Runway designation markings, as shown in Figures 1 and 2,
are
located on each end of a runway.

c. Color. Runway designation markings are white. It is particularly
helpful
to pilots if these markings are outlined in black on light colored pavements
(see paragraph 4(a)(1)).

d. Characteristics. A runway designation marking consists of a number
and,
on parallel runways, is supplemented with a letter. A single-digit runway
designation number is not preceded by a zero. On a single runway, dual
parallel runways and triple parallel runways, the designation number is the
whole number nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth when viewed from the
direction of approach. For example, where the magnetic azimuth is 183
degrees, the runway designation marking would be 18; and for a magnetic
azimuth of 87 degrees, the runway designation marking would be 9. For a
magnetic
azimuth ending in the number "5," such as 185 degrees, the runway
designation marking can be either 18 or 19. On four or more parallel
runways, one set of adjacent runways is numbered to the nearest one-tenth of
the magnetic azimuth and the other set of adjacent runways is numbered to
the next nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth.

(1) Parallel Runways. In the case of parallel runways, each runway
designation number is supplemented by a letter, in the order shown from left
to right when viewed from the direction of approach, as shown in the
following examples:

(i) For two parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 182
degrees, the
runways would be designated "18L," "18R."

(ii) For three parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 87
degrees, the
runways would be designated "9L," "9C," "9R."

(iii) For four parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 324
degrees,
the runways would be designated "32L," "32R," "33L," "33R."

(iv) For five parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 138
degrees, the
runways would be designated "13L," "13R," "14L," "14C," "14R."

(v) For six parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 83
degrees, the
runways would be designated "8L," "8C," "8R," "9L," "9C," "9R."

(vi) For seven parallel runways having a magnetic azimuth of 85
degrees, the
runways would be designated "8L," "8C," "8R," "9L," "9C," "9R," "10."

(2) There are some cases where parallel runway designation may not be
appropriate because of possible pilot confusion with the runway surface or
the distance between landing thresholds. For example a turf runway or a
visual runway, which is parallel to a higher precedence runway and has a
distance between the landing thresholds may have a different runway
designation, especially if the paved runway has a paved parallel taxiway.
Another example where a parallel runway designation may not be appropriate
is a situation where the parallel runways are separated by a large distance
with a terminal between them.

(3) The size and spacing of the numbers and letters are reduced only
when
necessary due to space limitations on narrow runways, and should be no
closer than 2 feet from the runway edge or side strips if present. The
numbers and letters are in the form and proportion shown in Figure 4.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> SJC's runway 29 is 303.3 degrees.
>

ATW's runway 29 is 297.9 degrees.

[GeorgeB]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 04:27:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
>> 055 becomes 'runway 6'.
>>
>So why is it correct to round 045 down to 'runway 4' and 055 up to 'runway
>6'?

Ah, because the REAL rounding rule, designed so that averages will not
become distorted high from rounding 1/2 up, is to round 1/2 to the
EVEN number.

I know of almost no teacher nor textbook that remembers this, much
less why it is so.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Mike W." > wrote
>
>
>>No, Bill has this right. If rounded correctly, 045 becomes 'runway 4' and
>>055 becomes 'runway 6'.
>
>
> I'm sure I read a reg quoted earlier in this thread, that you got to choose
> going up or down, when it was --5.

You would choose the number to which the magnetic variation is taking
the runway. For example around the western US you would choose the
higher number as if you don't you'll have to renumber the runway that
much sooner.

[Jose]

> Ah, because the REAL rounding rule, designed so that averages will not
> become distorted high from rounding 1/2 up, is to round 1/2 to the
> EVEN number.
>
> I know of almost no teacher nor textbook that remembers this, much
> less why it is so.

That's because it's not so.

The standard rounding rule is 5 goes up.

The catch is that you ONLY round from the digit after the one you're
rounding to. For example, .2447 rounds to .245 or to .24 or to .2
although a common error is to round (to the hundredths) as .25, because
the "rounded to the thousanths" version would end in a five. When
rounding, always round from the source, not an already adulterated version.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, because the REAL rounding rule, designed so that averages will not
> become distorted high from rounding 1/2 up, is to round 1/2 to the
> EVEN number.
>

If these runways were at the same field, your method would have runway
designators that differ by twenty degrees for runways that have a difference
in azimuth of only ten degrees. I think I'd round both in the direction
that local magnetic variation was moving.

[Bill Zaleski]

I have seen many runways get renumbered after enough years of slow
change in the mag heading. Daytona Beach is an example that I can
quickly remember. Runway 7 used to be runway 6 about 20 years ago.



On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:11:12 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Newps" > wrote
>
>> You would choose the number to which the magnetic variation is taking
>> the runway. For example around the western US you would choose the
>> higher number as if you don't you'll have to renumber the runway that
>> much sooner.
>
>What??? You don't rename a runway after it has been named.
>
>The reg has been quoted. Show me where it says you have to take the
>movement of magnetic variation into account.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> You would choose the number to which the magnetic variation is taking
> the runway. For example around the western US you would choose the
> higher number as if you don't you'll have to renumber the runway that
> much sooner.

What??? You don't rename a runway after it has been named.

The reg has been quoted. Show me where it says you have to take the
movement of magnetic variation into account.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> What??? You don't rename a runway after it has been named.
>
> The reg has been quoted. Show me where it says you have to take the
> movement of magnetic variation into account.
>

"On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways, the
designation number is the whole number nearest one-tenth of the magnetic
azimuth when viewed from the direction of approach."

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote
>
>
>>You would choose the number to which the magnetic variation is taking
>>the runway. For example around the western US you would choose the
>>higher number as if you don't you'll have to renumber the runway that
>>much sooner.
>
>
> What??? You don't rename a runway after it has been named.

You most certainly do. Our parallel runways here at BIL were renumbered
from 27 R+L to 28 R+L several years ago. They did this at the same time
they rotated the VOR for the same reason. Another example is MSP. The
parallel runways there were 11/29 until a few years ago when they were
renumbered to 12/30

[nrp]

Crystal airport (MIC) in Minneapolis area went from runways 4/22 to
6/24 a few years ago. I don't know why so much change though.......

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:56:35 -0600, Newps wrote:

>Another example is MSP

and another one is PHX, IIRC.

#m

--
Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion
four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it
becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Crystal airport (MIC) in Minneapolis area went from runways 4/22 to
> 6/24 a few years ago. I don't know why so much change though.......
>

I have a MIC airport diagram dated 97310. The present runway 6L/24R was
then 5L/23R. The present runway 6R/24L was then 5R/23L. There has been no
change in the magnetic azimuth of these runways. The magnetic azimuth of
runway 6L/24R is 050.6/230.6, as it was eight years ago. The magnetic
azimuth of runway 6R/24L is 050.7/230.7, as it was eight years ago. The
local variation on these charts is 2.6E, a January 1995 value. Why were
these runways redesignated?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
>> "On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways,
> the
>> designation number is the whole number nearest one-tenth of the magnetic
>> azimuth when viewed from the direction of approach."
>
> Roger that.
>
> What was being discussed, was -renaming- a runway, due to the -changing-
> magnetic variation.
>

Yes, that's what I addressed. It says, "the designation number is the whole
number nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth". It offers no exceptions.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are there other runways in the area with a 5/23 designation?
>

Not at MIC.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> "On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways,
the
> designation number is the whole number nearest one-tenth of the magnetic
> azimuth when viewed from the direction of approach."

Roger that.

What was being discussed, was -renaming- a runway, due to the -changing-
magnetic variation.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> The magnetic
> azimuth of runway 6R/24L is 050.7/230.7, as it was eight years ago. The
> local variation on these charts is 2.6E, a January 1995 value. Why were
> these runways redesignated?

Are there other runways in the area with a 5/23 designation?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> You most certainly do. Our parallel runways here at BIL were renumbered
> from 27 R+L to 28 R+L several years ago. They did this at the same time
> they rotated the VOR for the same reason. Another example is MSP. The
> parallel runways there were 11/29 until a few years ago when they were
> renumbered to 12/30

I have never heard of that, before now. I'm sure they must do that to make
people keep buying new, up to date charts. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mike W.]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Ah, because the REAL rounding rule, designed so that averages will not
> > become distorted high from rounding 1/2 up, is to round 1/2 to the
> > EVEN number.
> >
> > I know of almost no teacher nor textbook that remembers this, much
> > less why it is so.
>
> That's because it's not so.
>
> The standard rounding rule is 5 goes up.

If you have 0.245, it is 0.24 rounded to hundreths. How is that '5 goes up?'

The rounding rules I am talking about are for preventing rounding bias in
data. If you took a big pile of numbers, rounded them all up, added them,
you would have a value that was way off of the true value of the sum.

0.247 >0.25 0.255>0.26 is that what you mean? That's exactly what I
stated.
>
> The catch is that you ONLY round from the digit after the one you're
> rounding to. For example, .2447 rounds to .245 or to .24 or to .2
> although a common error is to round (to the hundredths) as .25, because
> the "rounded to the thousanths" version would end in a five. When
> rounding, always round from the source, not an already adulterated
version.
>
> Jose

Yes, you don't round a number, then round it again.


"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
>
If these runways were at the same field, your method would have runway
designators that differ by twenty degrees for runways that have a difference
in azimuth of only ten degrees. I think I'd round both in the direction
that local magnetic variation was moving.

Yes, that would be logical.

[Mike W.]

The thing that causes runways to get renumbered is the fact that the
magnetic variation itself, shifts. It may shift six minutes ( a tenth of a
degree ) per year. So after ten years, the local mag. variation may change
from 6° W to 7° W . So every few years, runways get assigned new numbers.
This gradual shift varies by locality on the globe. Areas that are
volcanically active can have huge shifts of 30 minutes or more per year.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> > You would choose the number to which the magnetic variation is taking
> the runway. For example around the western US you would choose the
> higher number as if you don't you'll have to renumber the runway that
> much sooner.
>

[Jose]

> If you have 0.245, it is 0.24 rounded to hundreths. How is that '5 goes up?'

If you actually have 0.245, it is 0.25 rounded to hundredths. However,
if you actually have 0.2445, you do NOT have .0245 but a hair less than
that. In that case, you don't =have= a five to "go up".

> If you took a big pile of numbers, rounded them all up, added them,
> you would have a value that was way off of the true value of the sum.

True. But you don't round them all =up=. You round them all (to the
nearest). Only the ones that are ...5 and up get rounded up. The
others get truncated. Including ...0 which gets its zero truncated
(leaving the number unchanged).

> 0.247 -> 0.25 0.255 -> 0.26 is that what you mean? That's exactly what I
> stated.

This is correct rounding, but it is it what George stated. He stated
"round 1/2 to the EVEN number.", which would imply .245 -> .26 which is
not true. What =is= true is
..245 -> .25
..255 -> .26
..265 -> .27

This is not "rounding 1/2 to the even number".

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stefan]

Lakeview Bill wrote:

> The runway is NAMED Runway 5. Why would you prepend a zero to a NAME?

Because the ICAO standard says that a runway name has always two digits.
Why? To minimize the possibility of misunderstandings, especially with
pilots and/or controllers who don't speak English as their first
language and/or when the radio quality is marginal. As far as I know,
all countries adhere to this standard... well, all except one, of course.

Stefan

[GeorgeB]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:18:03 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>This is correct rounding, but it is it what George stated. He stated
>"round 1/2 to the EVEN number.", which would imply .245 -> .26 which is
>not true. What =is= true is
>.245 -> .25
>.255 -> .26
>.265 -> .27
>
>This is not "rounding 1/2 to the even number".

Jose, you are with the majority, and you are with what it being taught
in today's schools until higher level mathematics.

The round (exactly) half to the even is correct.

0.2449 -> 0.245 -> 0.24 -> 0.2 but the 0.24 is not for this rule,
rather because the full precision number was under 0.5

0.3499 -> 0.350 -> 0.35 -> 0.3 but again, rule isn't applicable
0.3501 -> 0.350 -> 0.35 -> 0.4 but rule isn't applicable

you have to round from the full precision to the final value in 1
step; the sequential above is interesting, but not as it is done for
the reasons obvious above.

0.5 (exactly) -> 0.
1.5 (exactly) -> 2.
2.5 (exactly) -> 2.
3.5 (again, exactly) -> 4

or, fwiw, 1234.5 -> 1234. and 1235.5 -> 1236.

It used to be taught that way in elementary school, but was changed
between when I went to school (1950s) and when my children went to
school (1990s).

My son has a math degree, and remarked about how higher level high
school and college profs complained about having to correct the
elementaty and middle teachers teaching, but that they taught what
they were given, so it wasn't their fault.

[Jose]

> 0.5 (exactly) -> 0.
> 1.5 (exactly) -> 2.
> 2.5 (exactly) -> 2.
> 3.5 (again, exactly) -> 4

No.

0.5 (exactly) -> 1.
1.5 (exactly) -> 2.
2.5 (exactly) -> 3.
3.5 (again, exactly) -> 4.

Do you have a printed reference for what you espouse above?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
> Jose, you are with the majority, and you are with what it being taught
> in today's schools until higher level mathematics.
>
> The round (exactly) half to the even is correct.

George, you're right that rounding is often performed as you say (i.e.,
exactly half rounds to the nearest even integer), for the reason you say (to
avoid statistical biasing). But I'd quibble about calling that "the" correct
way. The function round(x) can be defined in various standard ways, and
different ways can be more useful for different purposes, but there's no
sense in which one conventional definition is the unique correct one.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NearestIntegerFunction.html

--Gary

[Mike W.]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > If you have 0.245, it is 0.24 rounded to hundreths. How is that '5 goes
up?'
>
> If you actually have 0.245, it is 0.25 rounded to hundredths. However,
> if you actually have 0.2445, you do NOT have .0245 but a hair less than
> that. In that case, you don't =have= a five to "go up".
>
> > If you took a big pile of numbers, rounded them all up, added them,
> > you would have a value that was way off of the true value of the sum.
>
> True. But you don't round them all =up=. You round them all (to the
> nearest). Only the ones that are ...5 and up get rounded up. The
> others get truncated. Including ...0 which gets its zero truncated
> (leaving the number unchanged).
>
> > 0.247 -> 0.25 0.255 -> 0.26 is that what you mean? That's exactly
what I
> > stated.
>
> This is correct rounding, but it is it what George stated. He stated
> "round 1/2 to the EVEN number.", which would imply .245 -> .26 which is
> not true. What =is= true is
> .245 -> .25
> .255 -> .26
> .265 -> .27

You don't round them all up? That is exactly what you are doing in your
example above.

If the digit before the last is even, and the last is five, you round DOWN
(0.245 -> 0.24) If the digit before the last is odd and the last is five,
you round up. (0.255 -> 0.26).

Bear with me and look at these two examples. The one on the left is a
summation of the example you have above. The one on the right is 'my' way. I
am just summing the original values and the rounded values at the bottom.

.245 -> .25 .245 -> .24
.255 -> .26 .255 -> .26
+ .265 -> .27 + .265 -> .26
------------ ------------
.765 -> .78 .765 -> .76

You can see where this will get you very quickly if you use the way you
propose.

Of course our original discussion started off regarding rounding a single
number and doing nothing with it, this is just a point of interest.


>
> This is not "rounding 1/2 to the even number".
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[GeorgeB]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:03:57 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
>> Jose, you are with the majority, and you are with what it being taught
>> in today's schools until higher level mathematics.
>>
>> The round (exactly) half to the even is correct.
>
>George, you're right that rounding is often performed as you say (i.e.,
>exactly half rounds to the nearest even integer), for the reason you say (to
>avoid statistical biasing). But I'd quibble about calling that "the" correct
>way. The function round(x) can be defined in various standard ways, and
>different ways can be more useful for different purposes, but there's no
>sense in which one conventional definition is the unique correct one.
>
>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NearestIntegerFunction.html

That, and Mathematica, were what I was going to reference; however,
you are correct that I had my head up that smelly place to consider it
to be "the" correct way. I've it even further up that smelly place to
get off on this when the question was on naming runways based on their
magnetic heading ... which is not a constant thing in the short or
long term, so what to do with a 5 is absolutely not going to be based
on EXACTLY anything.

Thanks for saying it so well.

George