CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
This approach was first published in the CAP over 2 years ago but it has been NOTAM "not authorized" from the beginning. it appears that every 3 months Navcanada just kicks the can down the road for another 3 months with a new NOTAM.
Anybody know what is going on ?
Anybody know what is going on ?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:01 am
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Which way is that one to? Could it be because of the prison off the end of 25?
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
It is a standard T shaped LNAV design on to Runway 07. The only approach to 25 is the restricted RNP approach that WestJet uses.
The part that really sucks is the NDB 07 is not annotated (GNSS) so you can't use the overlay as a non precision approach for IFR fight training or the flight test.
The cynic in me is thinking that because the airlines can use the RNP approach to either end of Abbotsfords main runway even when the ILS 07 is down, Navcanada's "give a shit" is not real high as they are only inconveniencing flight training and non 604 GA.
It still would be nice to know what the plan is for this approach
The part that really sucks is the NDB 07 is not annotated (GNSS) so you can't use the overlay as a non precision approach for IFR fight training or the flight test.
The cynic in me is thinking that because the airlines can use the RNP approach to either end of Abbotsfords main runway even when the ILS 07 is down, Navcanada's "give a shit" is not real high as they are only inconveniencing flight training and non 604 GA.
It still would be nice to know what the plan is for this approach
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
140250 CYXX ABBOTSFORD
CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z RWY 07 APCH: NOT AUTH
1406271750 TIL APRX 1409181800
Makes perfect sense!
But the teal team can use: and
CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z RWY 07 APCH: NOT AUTH
1406271750 TIL APRX 1409181800
Makes perfect sense!
But the teal team can use: and
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1887
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:53 am
- Location: On final so get off the damn runway!
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Rumour has it that the plan is to revoke the procedure altogether.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Is the WAAS installed. If not you can't do a "Z" approach to minimums.Big Pistons Forever wrote:This approach was first published in the CAP over 2 years ago but it has been NOTAM "not authorized" from the beginning. it appears that every 3 months Navcanada just kicks the can down the road for another 3 months with a new NOTAM.
Anybody know what is going on ?
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:56 am
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
WAAS has nothing to do with this approach.. It is not an LPV approach.. Any IFR Approach certified GPS could do this approach..
What is more likely I suspect is that NavCanada has not Flight Checked the Approach, which is strange that they wouldn't but then having a Challenger come out to check one approach, is an expensive proposition. Perhaps they are waiting till the ILS and RNP are due for Flight check and do it then???
If they plan to cancel it as others have suggested then there's no way they will flight check it, and then it also makes sense..
What is more likely I suspect is that NavCanada has not Flight Checked the Approach, which is strange that they wouldn't but then having a Challenger come out to check one approach, is an expensive proposition. Perhaps they are waiting till the ILS and RNP are due for Flight check and do it then???
If they plan to cancel it as others have suggested then there's no way they will flight check it, and then it also makes sense..
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Maybe it is due to the ridiculous turn at SEDAM
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
What is ridiculous about a 90 deg turn at a fly by waypoint ?TA/RA wrote:Maybe it is due to the ridiculous turn at SEDAM
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Because its more than 90 degrees and since its a flyby waypoint chances are an aircraft will lead the turn resulting in a turn that ends up being a continuous right turn from the runway straight to HUH. Pretty typical in aircraft that fly faster than your average Navajo.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
I believe LNAV approach design criteria don't allow for curved segments in the missed approach procedure, hence the two straight legs with a fly by waypoint positioned to allow what will in practice be a continuous 180 deg turn back to HUH, just like the missed for the ILS and NDB.
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
What is the issue with just flying the NDB 07 for training and the flight test?Big Pistons Forever wrote:It is a standard T shaped LNAV design on to Runway 07. The only approach to 25 is the restricted RNP approach that WestJet uses.
The part that really sucks is the NDB 07 is not annotated (GNSS) so you can't use the overlay as a non precision approach for IFR fight training or the flight test.
The cynic in me is thinking that because the airlines can use the RNP approach to either end of Abbotsfords main runway even when the ILS 07 is down, Navcanada's "give a shit" is not real high as they are only inconveniencing flight training and non 604 GA.
It still would be nice to know what the plan is for this approach
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Because flying GPS approaches is what people who fly IFR in the real world do. Flying only NDB approaches without the GPS is what people in the fantasy land of flight training do. Learning how to properly fly a LNAV CDA approach is an essential IFR skill.Oxi wrote:
What is the issue with just flying the NDB 07 for training and the flight test?
Yes you can go elsewhere for it but it seems silly to me that a perfectly good LNAV approach with both straight in and circling minimums has been published for CYXX but nobody is allowed to use it
- complexintentions
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: of my pants is unknown.
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Big Pistons Forever wrote:I believe LNAV approach design criteria don't allow for curved segments in the missed approach procedure, hence the two straight legs with a fly by waypoint positioned to allow what will in practice be a continuous 180 deg turn back to HUH, just like the missed for the ILS and NDB.
What's the distance from RW07 to SEDAM? Seems like it would be quite a bit more than the radius of a continuous turn to HUH but I can't tell from the scale of the chart.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
- complexintentions
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: of my pants is unknown.
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
I am intrigued by this statement as I have not flown in Canada in many years.Big Pistons Forever wrote:
The part that really sucks is the NDB 07 is not annotated (GNSS) so you can't use the overlay as a non precision approach for IFR fight training or the flight test.
Can you not fly an NDB (or VOR) approach using an IFR GPS (even if not published as an overlay) as long as you monitor the underlying NAVAID?
Excerpt from some old bulletin:
Not trying to be argumentative, just been awhile and maybe things have changed?6.0 Use of GNSS in Lieu of Ground-Based Aids
GNSS may be used to identify all fixes defined by distance measuring equipment (DME), VOR, VOR/DME and NDB, including fixes that are part of any instrument approach procedure, to navigate to and from these fixes along specific tracks, including arcs, and to report distances along airways or tracks for separation purposes, subject to the following conditions:
a) An integrity alert is not displayed;
b) For approaches that are not part of the GNSS overlay program described in section 3.2, the pilot-in-command shall monitor the underlying navigation aid (NAVAID) for approach and missed approach track guidance.
c) Fixes that are part of a terminal instrument procedure are named, charted and retrieved from a current navigation database.
d) Where ATS requests a position based on a distance from a DME facility for separation purposes, reported GNSS distance from the same DME facility may be used stating the distance in miles and the DME facility name (e.g. “30 miles from Sumspot VOR,” instead of “30 DME from Sumspot VOR”).
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
The current RNAV approach listed in the CAP and NOTAM'd off does not meet the ICAO standards and cannot be fixed. It will be withdrawn from the CAP and a new approach will be created. It is planned for March of 2015 at this time.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
- Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Yes, but to be totally pedantic, technically you would be flying the approach using the traditional navaid with the GPS as a backup for situational awareness.complexintentions wrote:I am intrigued by this statement as I have not flown in Canada in many years.Big Pistons Forever wrote:
The part that really sucks is the NDB 07 is not annotated (GNSS) so you can't use the overlay as a non precision approach for IFR fight training or the flight test.
Can you not fly an NDB (or VOR) approach using an IFR GPS (even if not published as an overlay) as long as you monitor the underlying NAVAID?
Excerpt from some old bulletin:
Not trying to be argumentative, just been awhile and maybe things have changed?6.0 Use of GNSS in Lieu of Ground-Based Aids
GNSS may be used to identify all fixes defined by distance measuring equipment (DME), VOR, VOR/DME and NDB, including fixes that are part of any instrument approach procedure, to navigate to and from these fixes along specific tracks, including arcs, and to report distances along airways or tracks for separation purposes, subject to the following conditions:
a) An integrity alert is not displayed;
b) For approaches that are not part of the GNSS overlay program described in section 3.2, the pilot-in-command shall monitor the underlying navigation aid (NAVAID) for approach and missed approach track guidance.
c) Fixes that are part of a terminal instrument procedure are named, charted and retrieved from a current navigation database.
d) Where ATS requests a position based on a distance from a DME facility for separation purposes, reported GNSS distance from the same DME facility may be used stating the distance in miles and the DME facility name (e.g. “30 miles from Sumspot VOR,” instead of “30 DME from Sumspot VOR”).
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
This is untrue. The "Z" simply means that this is the first of more than one straight-in RNAV approach to this runway; the second one is RNAV Y 07, if there was a third one it would be RNAV X 07. In this case you have RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 07, and RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 07. Think of it like when you have multiple circling approaches, and they get named A, B, C, etc., or if you have multiple straight-in traditional navaid approaches and you have VOR 1, VOR 2 or ILS/DME 1, ILS/DME 2, etc.goingmach_1 wrote: Is the WAAS installed. If not you can't do a "Z" approach to minimums.
Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach
Here's what the FAA has to say about it. Presumably TC - which also uses TERPS criteria - says the same:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... c0408.html
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... c0408.html
Which is exactly what AOW was saying.The use of alphabetical identifiers in the approach name with a letter from the end of the alphabet; for example, X, Y, Z, such as “HI TACAN Z Rwy 6L or HI TACAN Y Rwy 6L,” or “RNAV (GPS) Z Rwy 04 or RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 04,” denotes multiple straightin approaches to the same runway that use the same approach aid. Alphabetical suffixes with a letter from the beginning of the alphabet; for example, A, B, C, denote a procedure that does not meet the criteria for straightin landing minimums authorization.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.