There is a CIFP Problem. If i would build it like CIFP-data wants me to do it, the Runway length would not either mach the FAA data nor imagery. Please give me some advise what to do, to correct the data. Best Regards uhu
gateway CIFP data agrees with FAA publication to millimetre accuracy, see https://enasr.faa.gov/eNASR/nasr/Current/Airport/7726
so the threshold coordinates are accurate. It seems you need a little bit of overrun or blaspad area on both ends to get the length to line up with satellite imagery.
This is not surprising, since this is a turf runway and its actual length depends on how far it is plowed. It's hardly expected that a bit of gravel or turf is maintained to exactly the published length, therefore the published coordinates are conservative. You can easily make the turf surface longer and extend it over the threshold by using overrun or blastpad areas.
Philipp Ringler March 9, 2021 8:18 PM
gateway CIFP data agrees with FAA publication to millimetre accuracy, see https://enasr.faa.gov/eNASR/nasr/Current/Airport/7726
so the threshold coordinates are accurate. It seems you need a little bit of overrun or blaspad area on both ends to get the length to line up with satellite imagery.
This is not surprising, since this is a turf runway and its actual length depends on how far it is plowed. It's hardly expected that a bit of gravel or turf is maintained to exactly the published length, therefore the published coordinates are conservative. You can easily make the turf surface longer and extend it over the threshold by using overrun or blastpad areas.