YYZ ILS glide slope unserviceable

[teacher]

Question for ATC types. Why are we "cleared for the ILS glide slope unserviceable" or "unavailable" instead of a localizer approach? Better yet why not an RNAV approach? Weather was pretty much VFR.

YYZ does seem allergic to RNAV approaches even though it seems to me from a pilot perspective that on a VFR day it would make life and traffic flow more efficient to just use RNAV from top of decent through the arrival into the landing. Especially compared to a localizer only approach.

Thanks for the clarification!

[wordstwice]

This topic has been discussed recently but ill try to respond quickly....

There is no such thing as a localizer approach (to be technical) for YYZ. The name of the approcah at the top of the plate has to be what you are cleared for hence this is why you are given the ILS. If there was a published LOC approach then controllers could clear you for that approach but thats not the case.

Secondly, RNAV approached are great from a pilot point of view especially when coupled with VNAV decent. However, parallel approaches are not allowed side by side when one aircraft is on an RNAV so it is not something YYZ can plan on when setting arrival flow rates for the day. Both aircraft need to be on a localizer beam otherwise the would have to be separated by another form on final (staggered).

I could write a whole lot more on the subject but I hope that makes sense.

Cheers

[thenoflyzone]

RNAV approached are great from a pilot point of view especially when coupled with VNAV decent. However, parallel approaches are not allowed side by side when one aircraft is on an RNAV so it is not something YYZ can plan on when setting arrival flow rates for the day. Both aircraft need to be on a localizer beam otherwise the would have to be separated by another form on final (staggered).

Not yet, but it's in the works. Don't have a timeline, but i'll ask the appropriate ppl when i go back to work. (Un)fortunately, that won't be for another month !

thenoflyzone

[Braun]

Who says we want you back!!!

Also I wouldn't hold my breath, these things usually take time lol.

[ZBBYLW]

Another issue is that not all types can do RNAV. In the fleet of airplanes I fly, more than half of them are not GPS equipped. When we do an RNAV approach it is a bit of a process and more work than a NPA or a visual (like we did yesterday to 24L).

Most guys I fly with would prefer and NDB or LOC to an RNAV simply due to familiarity and extra work load. If centre had to clear one guy for an RNAV, us to a LOC (or a ILS GP U/S as it may be) it may complicate things. Do the RNAV approaches line up with that STARs in YYZ? I don't know as I have not taken a look at them.

[Married a Canadian]

Secondly, RNAV approached are great from a pilot point of view especially when coupled with VNAV decent. However, parallel approaches are not allowed side by side when one aircraft is on an RNAV so it is not something YYZ can plan on when setting arrival flow rates for the day. Both aircraft need to be on a localizer beam otherwise the would have to be separated by another form on final (staggered).

This.

Visual approaches are usually the norm for us in this case. Nothing to stop the pilot though flying a visual approach using the RNAV as their point of reference. So long as they read back visual approach it means we can put traffic alongside on the parallel....it is then up to the pilot how they want to fly the plane.

[teacher]

Thanks guys!

[gustind]

Random topic change.

Why were you guys arriving 15L yesterday at noon with 6 knot winds out of the south?

[Married a Canadian]

Why were you guys arriving 15L yesterday at noon with 6 knot winds out of the south?

I was working yesterday morning. Runway 23 closed at around 1030am. The Glideslope is unavailable on 06R and 24L at the moment, and the techs wanted to do some work on on the ILS for 06L in the morning, which made our choice of approaches limited (especially if we lose visuals).
There was also a photo survey flight that wanted to do some work over the city and Downsview area at 5000ft...which is not a good altitude for arrivals on the 24s or departures on the 06s.

Therefore...arriving 15L offloading 15R was the preferable arrival runway which allowed all of the above work to take place. Departures continued of 24R.

As much as the 15s are an uncommon arrival runway (except on midnight shifts)...we will still use them for circumstances like the above.

[teacher]

Secondly, RNAV approached are great from a pilot point of view especially when coupled with VNAV decent. However, parallel approaches are not allowed side by side when one aircraft is on an RNAV so it is not something YYZ can plan on when setting arrival flow rates for the day. Both aircraft need to be on a localizer beam otherwise the would have to be separated by another form on final (staggered).

This.

Visual approaches are usually the norm for us in this case. Nothing to stop the pilot though flying a visual approach using the RNAV as their point of reference. So long as they read back visual approach it means we can put traffic alongside on the parallel....it is then up to the pilot how they want to fly the plane.

I may start doing this. On the Dash-8 remaining in RNAV mode is the easiest way to transition from enroute to approach and keeping everything coupled. From an ATC perspective I assume that from your screen, it would look the same from a flight tracking point of view?

[ZBBYLW]

Another question I've had is a few of the airports in Canada (YUL and YYC come to mind) we can given a take off clearance with visual reference to the traffic ahead. This allows us to start rolling as soon as the aircraft ahead leaves the ground which is especially useful if landing and departing and it can squeeze you out in front of someone else.

It seems in YYZ we only get cleared for take off when the first airplane commences the turn or is through 400 or so feet agl. Is this to do with simultaneous operations or just a departure issue? Its extremely common in some US airports (where there is no noise abatement climb to 3000) and also in YYC and YUL (plus a few other places I may not be thinking of right now.

[wordstwice]

Visual departure separation is not a locally approved procedure at YYZ.....yet

[cossack]

Visual departure separation is not a locally approved procedure at YYZ.....yet

<Sound of heels dragging> Busiest airport in the country being handcuffed by delays in approving what the rest of the world already does. Maybe we should rescind visual approaches too.

There are numerous times when the departure line is unduly delayed because this procedure isn't permitted, not to say that every aircraft has turned before the next one is cleared for take off, cough, cough.

Some pilot performance enhancements would help too, like being on the runway when you're cleared for take off rather than just crossing the hold line with the preceding already airborne, and then actually rolling straight away rather than taking 15 seconds to think about it. Sorry /rant.

[Married a Canadian]

From an ATC perspective I assume that from your screen, it would look the same from a flight tracking point of view?

Pretty much yes. On the 24s we will always put a descent restriction in place to protect for YKZ (if you are that far out) but as we have the RNAV tracks displayed on radar we can see you following them in.
This only really works for you if you are coming in from IMEBA or RAGID on the 24s or NUBER on the 06s. Any other STAR will have you vectored for the visual approach (ie base turn, turn to final).