Navcanada discontinuing approaches at under-serviced airports

[Salt]

Has anyone in NWO noticed that Atikokan is no longer a published IFR airport? I have heard that Navcanada will be eliminating approaches from airports that it sees as under served. Specifically, if the airport does not have a scheduled service and / or a certified weather station attached to it, it will be deemed to lose it's approaches in the future. Cost savings apparently. I'm wondering if the municipalities that will be affected by these changes understand the implications of this loss?

[FighterPilot]

Interesting. I can see why they don’t want the old NDB approach but what’s the actual cost of upkeep for a GPS approach. The biggest thing I can see this effecting is MEDEVAC operations. Atikokan is 2 hours from Thunder Bay and 1.5 from the Fort. I have family that have had to be MEDEVAC’d in the past out of Atikokan.

[linecrew]

I guess it makes sense as it would cost money (meaning costs me money via the user fees I pay) to support approaches at airports where they don't meet their criteria. In a case like this, if they still want an approach it would now be up to the airport itself to arrange to have an approach created by a third party. As I understand it, there's a trend for a lot of airports that don't even currently have an approach is to go have an RNAV made by companies like JetPro in Alberta.

[digits_]

I guess it makes sense as it would cost money (meaning costs me money via the user fees I pay) to support approaches at airports where they don't meet their criteria. In a case like this, if they still want an approach it would now be up to the airport itself to arrange to have an approach created by a third party. As I understand it, there's a trend for a lot of airports that don't even currently have an approach is to go have an RNAV made by companies like JetPro in Alberta.

Interesting. I know of at least one airport that financed an RNAV approach themselves, so I am kind of wondering how that would affect costs for navcanada. Would suck to pay a few thousand dollars to get an RNAV approach, only to have it decomissioned by navcanada because they think you don't use it enough. There must be more to the story.

[Victory]

Navcanada has to regularly shoot the approaches and check how much the trees have grown etc.

[digits_]

Navcanada has to regularly shoot the approaches and check how much the trees have grown etc.

Yes, but the airport pays for that, at least the one I'm talking about.

[linecrew]

Navcanada has to regularly shoot the approaches and check how much the trees have grown etc.

Yes, but the airport pays for that, at least the one I'm talking about.

Are you sure about that? I think they only maintain (and can decommission) procedures that they designed. If the airport is paying for it, then I'm pretty sure it's not a Navcanada approach procedure.

[digits_]

Navcanada has to regularly shoot the approaches and check how much the trees have grown etc.

Yes, but the airport pays for that, at least the one I'm talking about.

Are you sure about that? I think they only maintain (and can decommission) procedures that they designed. If the airport is paying for it, then I'm pretty sure it's not a Navcanada approach procedure.

All I know is the airport paid someone, a navcanada plane showed up to certify/test/whatever and it was published about a year later.

[photofly]

For an LPV approach the airport has to pay for a survey and re-survey every year. LNAV I don’t think so.

[anofly]

There is a move, in general, to make the smaller airports pay for the design , flight testing, and recurrent flight testing required of the approaches. Third party follks are designing approaches on a fee basis for smaller airports. I remember a friend designing an approach himself for his airport because he wanted one!! It worked and got published. He had to follow all the rules and back then Transport Canada helped a bit.

[Lightchop]

Has anyone in NWO noticed that Atikokan is no longer a published IFR airport? I have heard that Navcanada will be eliminating approaches from airports that it sees as under served. Specifically, if the airport does not have a scheduled service and / or a certified weather station attached to it, it will be deemed to lose it's approaches in the future. Cost savings apparently. I'm wondering if the municipalities that will be affected by these changes understand the implications of this loss?

Atikokan is an absolutely dead airport. Lots of other options nearby that should be fine for planning.

[Salt]

Atikokan is a dead airport, but the town still relies on it for medevac operations. This would be the same for Manitouwadge, Hearst, Kirkland Lake, Elliot Lake, Gore Bay etc. These airports are likely on the chopping block as well.

[linecrew]

Atikokan is a dead airport, but the town still relies on it for medevac operations. This would be the same for Manitouwadge, Hearst, Kirkland Lake, Elliot Lake, Gore Bay etc. These airports are likely on the chopping block as well.

But if this truly was an issue, wouldn't the airport take action and have their own approach put in?

[anofly]

they cannot afford it. they can barely keep the snow off them. Elliott Lake, Atikokan both used to have large, busy mines... that is what drove the dough, both mines are shutdown, so money and traffic are a lot slower to come to the airport. There was actually a provincially owned i think air service back then called norontair, twin otters on a sched running folks to these towns. They had approaches then (ndb mostly, in the 70's and early 80's)

[dpm]

According to an airport manager I talked to, Nav Canada now pays for maintaining approaches only at airports with some kind of scheduled airline service (there might be other exceptions). For example, Gatineau CYND has a few weekly scheduled flights to Quebec on Air Liason King Airs, so they still get their approaches maintained. Other airports around the greater Ottawa area (except CYOW itself, of course) have to pay to have their approaches re-tested/-certified/-whatever. One was quoted $15,000 for three years for all approaches from a private company, so it's not a huge amount of money, but still a lot for a small airport that might have only a few IFR pilots.

In either case, the approach ends up in the CAP, so you can't tell from that who's paying to recertify.

[RatherBeFlying]

NavCanada is basically a consortium of scheduled airlines who, mirabile dictu, have their own interests top of mind.

Are the provincial medevac authorities being squeezed for money by NavCanada?

[linecrew]

Are the provincial medevac authorities being squeezed for money by NavCanada?

How can Nav Canada "squeeze" anyone for money. The whole organization runs on user fees. By act of parliament they can't make a profit. All they are capable of doing is determining where the money goes (and doesn't go anymore I guess).

[Axial Flow]

It costs ~$10,000 for LNAV and an another $6000 for LPV to get your own approach designed, followed by $5000 a year in upkeep costs to designer. Why doesn't NavCanada/ICAO do a risk assessment on flight check validity times similar to aviation pilot medicals and reduce requirements. If there are regulations in place for putting up antennas/structures that may interfere with surveyed airspace and have an SMS style e-mail address for pilots to report any issues...would be interesting to note how often faults are found during flight checks that are to do with anything other than errors introduced by database/chart problems.

In Inuvik, for the last 10,000 years the hill to the north was there. Only about 5 years ago did they put a departure note not to turn before 800 feet if north bound...I don't know how those things go missed in the design phase...

[atc_is_god]

Are the provincial medevac authorities being squeezed for money by NavCanada?

How can Nav Canada "squeeze" anyone for money. The whole organization runs on user fees. By act of parliament they can't make a profit. All they are capable of doing is determining where the money goes (and doesn't go anymore I guess).

The airlines only have two seats on Nav Canada's board. And as noted, they run on a cost-recovery basis. And a huge chunk of their revenue comes from foreign carriers transiting our airspace. Our fees would be way higher if the system was only funded by domestic airplanes. Best to know what you're talking about when you're going to propose theories about something.

[valleyboy]

Would they not move the approaches over to the RCAP so approved carriers , such as Orange, could continue to operate IFR.

[iflyforpie]

Would they not move the approaches over to the RCAP so approved carriers , such as Orange, could continue to operate IFR.

I don’t think that’s how it works.

RCAP approaches allow for lower minimums for two crew ops spec due to the extra training and redundancy of two crew aircraft (like pilot monitored approaches).

If the regular LPV takes you down to 400 and the RCAP LPV takes you to 200... all the more it has to be checked for accuracy and compliance each year.

[linecrew]

Are the provincial medevac authorities being squeezed for money by NavCanada?

How can Nav Canada "squeeze" anyone for money. The whole organization runs on user fees. By act of parliament they can't make a profit. All they are capable of doing is determining where the money goes (and doesn't go anymore I guess).

The airlines only have two seats on Nav Canada's board. And as noted, they run on a cost-recovery basis. And a huge chunk of their revenue comes from foreign carriers transiting our airspace. Our fees would be way higher if the system was only funded by domestic airplanes. Best to know what you're talking about when you're going to propose theories about something.

I don't believe any part of my post proposed any theories other than they are funded by the users of the service. Best not to misinterpret what others say.

[valleyboy]

I'm not going to argue with that but originally RCAP are not public but company oriented approaches and private approaches such as some of the mines and private strips and airports.

LPV approaches are classified and fall under RNP navigation requirements, thus requiring to be approved by TC for a company to conduct them. That authorization is part of the company OC.

[Axial Flow]

To maintain an approach is about $2500/year depending on who you had design it in order to meet all regulatory requirements (checking AIRAC for new obstructions that may effect approach, redesigning it in regards to any changes and the sort).

To get a new approach designed about 10 years ago was about $20,000 and for LPV I believe it is another $6000 as they have to be coded for GPS database and only Jeppesen does it so of course it isn't cheap.

RCAP approaches usually have different limitations for minimums and missed approach segments that require greater performance than your stock design standards. A good one to look at would be Radium Hot Springs (one of the hot springs in central BC)...pretty steep missed approach requirements due to peaks in the area.

Sad to see approaches disappear but if the traffic isn't there it's quite costly.

[L39Guy]

Lot of misinformation here so allow me to clear some of it up. Me and my business have been doing approach and departure design for 18 years in Canada and elsewhere.

At one time there was a "company Inventory" of approaches which were often back-of-the-envelope designed to no criteria or were not maintained to reflect the changing design criteria or obstacle environment. These "company" approaches were pulled into a Restricted Canada Air Pilot (RCAP) around 2004. Over the years, procedures that did not meet the design standard were removed from the RCAP. One example was that crazy localizer approach to Castlegar. Today, the only procedures that are in the RCAP are ones with a non-standard missed approach climb gradient or the runway does not meet any obstacle clearance standard.

RCAP procedures usually come with some caveats (page 2 of the procedure). These are usually an Ops Spec is required (not a big deal for most commercial operators as they have the GPS approach Op Spec already but a problem for non-commercial operators) and that the pilot(s) must be familiar with the airport (i.e. been there before).

LPV approaches my require air carrier authorization however non-air carriers, i.e. private pilots, can fly them without any authorization.

As far as NAV CANADA is concerned, the majority of instrument approaches and departures in the CAP and RCAP (and hence Jepps too) are designed by private instrument procedure design organizations operating under CARS 803.02. NAV CANADA likes to put their logo on these procedures even though they never designed them nor maintain them.

Another common misconception is that Transport Canada designs procedures (they stopped doing that in 1996) and that they approve procedures (they approve the design criteria and the training of procedure designers but not the procedures themselves).