XSG-12094
Runway won't validate
Closed
Airport Metadata Issue
Reported by:
Fred Vermeer
on June 22, 2021 8:22 PM
Assigned to:
Julian Lockwood
After importing CYHM version 61052 into WED, I made some additions. I could not re-submit it to the gateway because it says there is a problem with the Runway 30 threshold. I did not change the runway. So, I tried then to change the runway to precisely match the DigitalGlobe Slippy Map, and it still wouldn't validate.
| Airport Identifier | CYHM |
|---|
Jan Vogel June 23, 2021 6:19 PM
Runways end and threshold coordinates need to adhere to official data - WED checks it when validating/exporting against the CIFP data from official sources. Sometimes satellite imagery is old (and the runway was changed in the interim), sometimes (very rarely) the sat imagery is new and the CIFP data has not caught up yet.
If the problem is a displaced threshold, the validation throws a “warning” instead of an “error”, those can be waived if you are sure that the sat imagery shows the correct status quo.
Fred Vermeer June 23, 2021 7:08 PM
ok thanks. It shows as an error. if you look at the sat imagery on Google Maps, it is out of date. Bing maps is out of date. The ESRI slippy map actually shows the construction work under way last summer on the east end of the runway (+43.173,-79.920) which has since been completed. I went on the FAA website to look for the most current CIFP data, and I couldn't find it for Canada. Where can I find Canadian CIFP data?
Jan Vogel June 24, 2021 6:21 AM
Canadians are notoriously secretive about their aviation data 😉 . I think you could get the CIFP data from the FAA, but why not take the magenta circle that WED throws upon (failed) validation? Thats what I do. Just place the runway threshold in the middle of it and you cant get much more accurate than that.