CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

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 ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Chuck Finley
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:01 am

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Chuck Finley »

Which way is that one to? Could it be because of the prison off the end of 25?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

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
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AOW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by AOW »

140250 CYXX ABBOTSFORD
CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z RWY 07 APCH: NOT AUTH
1406271750 TIL APRX 1409181800
YXX RNAV Z 07.jpg
YXX RNAV Z 07.jpg (625.99 KiB) Viewed 2622 times
Makes perfect sense!

But the teal team can use:
YXX RNAV Y 07.jpg
YXX RNAV Y 07.jpg (153.94 KiB) Viewed 2622 times
and
YXX RNAV 25.jpg
YXX RNAV 25.jpg (175.17 KiB) Viewed 2622 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
linecrew
Rank (9)
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

Post by linecrew »

Rumour has it that the plan is to revoke the procedure altogether.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingmach_1
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by goingmach_1 »

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 ?
Is the WAAS installed. If not you can't do a "Z" approach to minimums.
---------- ADS -----------
 
capt.pilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:56 am

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by capt.pilot »

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..
---------- ADS -----------
 
TA/RA
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by TA/RA »

Maybe it is due to the ridiculous turn at SEDAM
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

TA/RA wrote:Maybe it is due to the ridiculous turn at SEDAM
What is ridiculous about a 90 deg turn at a fly by waypoint ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
TA/RA
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by TA/RA »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Oxi
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Oxi »

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
What is the issue with just flying the NDB 07 for training and the flight test?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Oxi wrote:
What is the issue with just flying the NDB 07 for training and the flight test?
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.

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
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by complexintentions »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by complexintentions »

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.
I am intrigued by this statement as I have not flown in Canada in many years.

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:
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”).
Not trying to be argumentative, just been awhile and maybe things have changed?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
vova_k
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:19 am

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by vova_k »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
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

Post by Diadem »

complexintentions wrote:
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.
I am intrigued by this statement as I have not flown in Canada in many years.

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:
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”).
Not trying to be argumentative, just been awhile and maybe things have changed?
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AOW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by AOW »

goingmach_1 wrote: Is the WAAS installed. If not you can't do a "Z" approach to minimums.
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
kevenv
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by kevenv »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: CYXX RNAV(GNSS) Z Approach

Post by photofly »

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
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.
Which is exactly what AOW was saying.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”