YYZ 24R

[backon3]

A short time ago the GP on 24R was U/S, the approach clearance was for the "ILS 24R GP unserviceable". Why not localizer? Curious

[kevenv]

A short time ago the GP on 24R was U/S, the approach clearance was for the "ILS 24R GP unserviceable". Why not localizer? Curious

We are required to give the "published" approach name followed by, in this case, "GP unserviceable". Don't know about YYZ, but this often causes confusion elsewhere.

[cossack]

Keven is correct. The approach clearance must be the same as specified in the CAP but with the GP inoperative. Same thing as a localizer approach but more wordy.

[Acey91]

Why is YYZ lagging with precision RNAV approaches compared to other major airports? YHZ and YEG both have 4 LPV approaches (3 of YEG's already have an ILS) and YWG/YVR/YYC each have one... but YYZ has zero.

[ZBBYLW]

This confused me as I was arriving a month or so ago, through centre we were told GP was US. Okay that's simple enough as we are now going to have to set up for the Loc approach. Then we get cleared the ILS for 24R and the controller did not mention the GP U/S. I understand that the rules are there but seriously, how many pilots have to question this rule before the added confusion is greater than the ease of calling it by the CAP name?

As for not having the RNAV capabilities, this may shock you but most airlines operating into YYZ would be unable to fly these approaches. Most of the Airbuses I fly into YYZ don't even have GPS let alone one good for more accurate approaches. ATC would not want to start allowing different approaches to different planes all the time, leave it as an ILS for now. I would say all airplanes that operate out of YYZ would have an ILS (with the odd exception of a VFR plane wanting to blow his money on landing fees).

[Acey91]

No that is not a shock, but it doesn't explain the approaches at the airports where AC and WS are the biggest customers as well. Yes it'd be simpler to have everyone on the same approach and that can remain the case with RNAV approaches available... just seems useful for a field as big as YYZ to have the capability for 200 ft decision heights if either the loc or GS conk out, so at least those who can do it can get in (which is pretty much the extent of RNAV usage for runway 35L at YYC, for example)

It's fair to assume that eventually every airplane will be able to do it so an LPV approach for any major runway is inevitable, and at the moment YYZ is seemingly behind the game, so I thought it a fair question.

[wordstwice]

Acey91, it is a good question you pose and hopefully I can add something as to why RNAV approaches are not a high priority at YYZ.

To accommodate the demand of arrivals at YYZ they have to set the arrival acceptance rate very high. One way to do this is run side by side approaches and only an ILS is allowed to run this type of separation. If one aircraft is on an RNAV then the aircraft on the adjacent approach must be spaced either ahead or behind by a determined mileage- which, in turn, would reduce the acceptance rate considerably.

The compounding effect of arrival delays would be enormous and until side by side RNAV approaches are allowed, theyll take a back seat to good ole ILS'.

[Acey91]

Thanks, that makes sense... though I was still thinking of the off chance they lose the ILS they'd have something to fall back on if minimums were in that small area between LPV and LOC only minimums. A highly unlikely hypothetical, I now realize.

Surely the approval for parallel RNAV approaches will come sooner rather than later. The authorization of LPV down to the same DH as a CAT I ILS must speak to the precision. Maybe they'd look at requirements that the aircraft maintains RNP 0.10 at all times, or something such. A useless metric no doubt, but overhead my neighbourhood I see various types establishing on the runway 20 RNAV for YEG without overshooting it at all. Then AC's Dreamliner came for some practice, she's probably got the cream of the crop for avionics... perfect turn onto the RNAV final all three times they shot the approach.

[thenoflyzone]

A short time ago the GP on 24R was U/S, the approach clearance was for the "ILS 24R GP unserviceable". Why not localizer? Curious

We use a manual of operations (MANOPS) that's dated back to the 50s and 60s with antiquated procedures, that's why.

There is absolutely nothing unsafe in saying "cleared LOC app runway 24R", even if the approach plate reads "ILS 24R". Not a single pilot will question that ATC clearance, whereas if I say what MANOPS wants me to say, some pilots might question the clearance, delay their readback, or even worse, fly the ILS approach altogether.

Not to mention that it takes longer to say the MANOPS phraseology, which was fine in the 60s, but in the 2010s, not so much. The skies are crowded enough as it is, frequency congestion is at its peak, so every bit of excess phraseo that we can get rid of, we should.

This one is that the top of the list, if you ask me.

Thank god the manual of operations will soon be completely updated and revamped, in order to be more congruent with the procedures/tools that we use in the 21st century.

Amen to that..... a long time coming.....

Surely the approval for parallel RNAV approaches will come sooner rather than later. The authorization of LPV down to the same DH as a CAT I ILS must speak to the precision. Maybe they'd look at requirements that the aircraft maintains RNP 0.10 at all times, or something such. A useless metric no doubt, but overhead my neighbourhood I see various types establishing on the runway 20 RNAV for YEG without overshooting it at all. Then AC's Dreamliner came for some practice, she's probably got the cream of the crop for avionics... perfect turn onto the RNAV final all three times they shot the approach.

The problem is not that they overshoot. The problem is that sometimes, they fly a slightly offset final approach course without realizing it. Don't know why it happens, maybe an integrity issue, but i've seen it numerous times here at YOW/YQB, enough that i can see how that might cause huge problems to the guys running the simultaneous independent ILS approaches at YYZ.

Imagine a guy on an RNAV 23, slightly left of track, and/or another guy on an RNAV 24R slightly right of course, while running simultaneous approaches. If that keeps happening for whatever reason, the guy working LOC monitor position at YYZ terminal will have a busy day !

Thenoflyzone

[ahramin]

We are required to give the "published" approach name

Has already caused crashes (though not in Canada that I know of), and will continue to do so until the procedure gets updated. But the wheels of aviation procedures turn very slowly.

[Acey91]

The problem is not that they overshoot. The problem is that sometimes, they fly a slightly offset final approach course without realizing it. Don't know why it happens, maybe an integrity issue, but i've seen it numerous times here at YOW/YQB, enough that i can see how that might cause huge problems to the guys running the simultaneous independent ILS approaches at YYZ.

Interesting, I've heard of this but didn't know it happened with any kind of regularity. How many miles final do they usually have it corrected by? I wonder if they were flying WAAS enabled LPV approaches which are higher integrity than regular LNAV/VNAV approaches, because it's 1.6 meter horizontal accuracy 95% of the time with WAAS as per this report.

[thenoflyzone]

Interesting, I've heard of this but didn't know it happened with any kind of regularity. How many miles final do they usually have it corrected by? I wonder if they were flying WAAS enabled LPV approaches which are higher integrity than regular LNAV/VNAV approaches, because it's 1.6 meter horizontal accuracy 95% of the time with WAAS as per this report.

From those airlines that operate into YOW & especially YQB, very few are actually equipped with SBAS in order to fly the LPV minimums.

So my bet is they were flying the LNAV or LNAV/VNAV minimums. They usually have the offset corrected within a few miles of intercept.

Like i said, this isn't the norm, but I've seen it happen several times.

Thenoflyzone

[Married a Canadian]

Thanks, that makes sense... though I was still thinking of the off chance they lose the ILS they'd have something to fall back on

Our fall backs are visual approaches and other runways. We have used the RNAV approach in the past..but it is limited for the reasons mentioned regarding side by side traffic on their respective approaches.....and also who can and can't do them. We give up the ILS quite often for maintenance work but usually only do it when it is clear visibility or there is another ILS available for arrivals.