The problem on the LINNG STAR is with the published altitude constraints at MAROD (4300-3100 feet, runway 24L/R) and DARPU (4300 feet and below, runway 06L/R). Because of these altitude constraints and the point you are usually handed off to approach from Center you will usually be high on a standard VNAV profile by the time approach control gives you clearance to descend from 12000 feet. Then as you point out aircraft are often held at 8000 feet, which makes it impossible to meet these altitude constraints a lot of the time. This sets the pilot up for violating the published altitude restriction, requiring the pilot to confirm with the controller that the altitude restriction is not required. It's always waived by the controller when asked, but it adds unnecessary chatter/workload on a busy frequency. Pilots have been violated at other Nav canada airports for not making these same type of altitude restrictions, while YYZ sets you up for it.1 Descent clearance at LINNG? You get descent depending on where you fit into the arrival sequence. You will not be given lower (8000ft) if you are number 5 plus..with aircraft ahead of you in the sequence. Pilots probably notice that they get vectors, speed control, constraints deleted and descent as part of the arrival. Terminal is using these tools to get you into the downwind in an order and altitude sequence that works for us. We won't remove the restraints permanently because we need you to slow at certain points (especially the 200kts in the downwind) and we also need to know what speed you are doing at certain points.
The solution as I see it, and the OP, would be to just remove these altitude restrictions at MAROD and DARPU. I don't understand why they are there when most of the time they are in direct conflict with what the controller wants anyway ? Any explanation appreciated.
Our company SOP's mandate the determination of the "planned" runway to be used be based on the published ATIS. This is the result of a STAR violation incident that happened at another Nav Canada airport.3 Using the ATIS to determine your arrival runway...I would suggest that you don't.
Does the FAA know about this ? Almost all their major airports use them now. One point, while I agree with the concept, the way the information is presented on approach plates for "descent via stars" needs to be improved. It is an accident waiting to happen IMO.6 Descent via the STAR. Not always possible when you are in a sequence. Plus we don't trust certain airlines to actually comply with this
Most airline standard company operating procedures require you to be in a stabilized approach landing configuration at 1000 feet AGL. (Some might still use 500 feet in some conditions, which might explain the difference you are seeing ?) With the 1000 foot restriction the problem is at certain weights on some aircraft types this would be impossible to make without slowing down below 170 KIAS a mile or so before the FAF. The solution here would be to move the FAF back to a realistic distance from the threshold so as to be able to meet the 1000 foot requirement at all weights for all the aircraft types that use the approach. Some airlines take a very punitive approach towards pilots that violate this 1000 foot limit, up to including getting fired. Here again Nav Canada is setting the pilot up for failure.I know that it sounds redundant to remind you to hold it to the FAF...but unfortunately for pilots...a few of your brethren have made it difficult for us by slowing to final before the FAF...or not doing 170 as asked.