Maybe if TC Made / Allowed This Here...

[Bushav8er]

there'd be fewer accidents?

http://www.airnav.com/airport/M57

Scroll down to the "IAPs - Instrument Approach Procedures", it has both - GPS and NDB.

I've heard of DHC6 guys in Goose that shoot the approach to 26 then circle for Otter Creek but that's not an actual approach to the lake (water).

[A Regulator]

Done the same thing many times at Lynn Lake airport and circle for landing on Eldon Lake (floats) you are within circling limits and minima.

[Bushav8er]

I think there may be some in BC too but I'm not sure. Point is it would be nice, now that GPS, and with more WAAS coming, to actually have published approaches to lakes.

[Liquid Charlie]

Wardair operated into YK IFR on floats way back when - I can see no reason why GPS approaches not be developed for licensed water aerodromes. Of course the operator would need to be licensed IFR which is the case in YK. Nothing worse than guys pulling chinese letdowns just because the rules are antiquated.

[iflyforpie]

The planes would also have to be approved for IFR, which means only twin engined aircraft or the Cessna Caravan could do it commercially...

[Rowdy]

There are procedures for the water aerodrome utilizing the Vancouver ILS in the borek Ops manual and I believe theres also one for YYJ and pat bay!

I dunno.. seems a little smarter to me to fly an airway in the clag IFR, shoot the approach down to 200ft, break off and land than staggering around at 2 or 300ft until you throw some icing into the mix..

[Lost Lake]

This would only work at certain aerodromes. I was going to set up a GPS approach to our airport which is located 1 mile away. We can fly around the area at 2,000 ft and if it's 2 mi vis we're safe.

The problem is the minima for the airport is 3,5000 ft, which means we could fly around legal vfr at 2,000 but would be in deep doodoo trying to shoot an approach with an mdh in the clag.

[Bushav8er]

The planes would also have to be approved for IFR, which means only twin engined aircraft or the Cessna Caravan could do it commercially...

As it stands now sure. I have to wonder why others with the .01/1000 failure rate can't be included though, like the Turbine Otter, Beaver, Porter etc. Not to mention other twins; Twin Otter, B18, Nomad, etc.

True Lost but the point is to have TC develop GPS for the lakes themselves; maybe operators can develop them with TC's review/approval. Despite the design criteria, let's face it, for GPS a good topo and a computer can spit out GPS approaches (basically). Regardless, being able to fly legal IFR to a lake with an approved approach has got to be safer than being forced lower and lower in marginal conditions.

[capt.pilot]

Well I think if you check the RCAP you will find some GPS approached to water aerodromes.. I am thinking specifically of the one we used to use going into Langara.. It was there up until the company decided to stop paying for it, and as with most approaches if it aint being used (paid for), they (TC) aint gonna publish it.... Don't get me wrong I think it makes great sense to have these types of approaches for float operations, and as it stands today, any company can pay and get one approved if it makes sense for them.. And I think compared to the legal costs associated with death or injury, why not....

My $.02 (.0201 with the USD Exchange Rate)

[angry inch]

Aren't there far more accidents in your average underpowered, poorly instrumented, piston pounding floatplanes than in Twin Otters, Caravans, etc?

IFR is certainly safer, hands down. The fleet of antiques we're .. running around in for the most part could use a little modernization.

But hell ya, I'll take an IFR capable turbine powered floatplane with approved RNAV approaches, along with IFR alternates & reserve fuel, over an overloaded Beaver & enough reserve fuel to get half way back to nowhere any day!

[Cannonballer]

The only problem i see is getting a recent/reliable altimeter setting for the lake.

The regs are not just for the turbine engine ... there are lots of other components that an airplane must have for singlepilot ifr. (I dont see a bush operator making their -2 or b-18 for that matter 2 crew just to get a trip done that could prob be done later that day or the next.)

There are more things to consider other than placeing gps points on a map or in a database.

Doesnt Nav Canada do all the approaches? Does T/C even have any say in the matter any more? I figured if Nav Canada put in the CAPs than it was fine. That is thier job after all ... to design and publish approaches.