IFR into CYXT

[oldtimer]

It has been a few years since I was last into Terrace B.C and I do not have current charts because I now longer fly but I am wondering.
Is the IFR departure procedure into CYXT still dependant on the XT beacon being servicable for departure and also for the missed approach? I remember a few years ago it there was a bit of conversation as to whether a pilot was able to do the approach if the XT beacon was Notamed off the air. Now, I realise many, if not all airplanes flying in there IFR have an IFR approved GPS of FMS which makes the beacon more or less redundent but what about those still doing it the old fashioned way with steam driven avionics.
Any help would be appreciated. Otherwise, I will have to drive 3 hrs and spend 45 bucks for current charts I will never use. I hate to ask the local school for expired charts because of the liability question.

[RenegadeAV8R]

...
Is the IFR departure procedure into CYXT still dependant on the XT beacon being servicable for departure and also for the missed approach? ...

I just check the plates (Effective 0901Z 25 AUG 2011 to 0901Z 20 OCT 2011); runways 15/33 departures use "XT" NDB, and all published missed approaches use "XT" NDB.

[oldtimer]

Thank you for the reply. The way I read the charts, one requires either the XT NDB to be on the air and a serviceable ADF or an IFR approved GPS with the departure procedures in the data base in order to either depart or to do the approach unless the whole procedure can be accomplished under VFR.

[RenegadeAV8R]

... IFR approved GPS with the departure procedures in the data base in order to either depart or to do the approach unless the whole procedure can be accomplished under VFR.

An IFR GPS database do not contain all departure procedures, "simple" procedure are not in the database. The departure procedures from Terrace are probably not in any GPS.

In order to do a GPS overlay approach, I believe that "(GNSS)" has to be shown after the runway designation, at the top of the chart. None of Terrace approaches show "(GNSS)", so I think the GPS overlay approaches are not approved.

[photofly]

In order to do a GPS overlay approach, I believe that "(GNSS)" has to be shown after the runway designation

It does. TC AIM COM 3.16.9.



(edit to disambiguate reference)

[oldtimer]

I know CYXT does not have a GPS overlay approach but the GPS will have all the waypoints for the ILS in the database and the XT beacon, being part of the missed approach procedure, should also be in the database.
I also know that (an IFR approved) GPS can be used in lieu of an ADF but not sure if it the GPS can be used in the miss if the XT beacon is off the air or if the XT beacon can be used as a waypoint for the departure.
The question is, can one commence the ILS 33 approach or can one depart under IFR if the XT beacon is U/S.
Without an IFR approved GPS, I do not think one can. You neeed an ILS reciever and an ADF to fly the approach and to depart under IFR. Any takers?
Note: this is just a training exercise. The point I am trying to make is that a flatland pilot flying into the rocks with a high performance airplane has more to consider and needs to put more effort reading the charts closley than one does flying into Rubber Boot Saskatchewan or Gopher Hole Manitoba.

[photofly]

If there's no approved overlay GPS approach, or in the case of a Localizer approach (which inevitably is not an approved GPS approach) the GPS cannot substitute for an ADF if the missed approach is based on an NDB.

So you couldn't do it even with an IFR GPS.

Same reference.

[bcflyer]

Sad how far behind the times Canada is. We all know that a GPS is far more accurate than any NDB yet we can't use it to do a missed approach. Ridiculous.

[Youngback]

I've been to Terrace but never flown in there. Might the reason for no GPS overlay or approach have something to do with the mountains and signal loss? I've had RAIM available for airports that I knew I would lose the GPS on approach because of signal loss.

[photofly]

Sad how far behind the times Canada is. We all know that a GPS is far more accurate than any NDB yet we can't use it to do a missed approach. Ridiculous.

That's a very naive analysis. TERPS approach design guidelines have very specific criteria for instrument approaches to make sure that by following the rules pilots don't fly into a mountain, or a tower. The obstacle clearance surfaces for NDB approaches and GPS approaches are different because the systems have different inaccuracies and different sources of error. If an NDB approach hasn't been approved for a GPS overlay it's because it doesn't meet the correct criteria (which means you risk flying into a tower or rock) or else nobody's checked yet and signed it off. At this stage most likely the former.

If you just plug in the NDB to even an approach-rated GPS without it being an approved approach, and try flying to it on the missed, your CDI or trackbar will be on a 5nm full-scale deflection setting. That's not sufficiently precise for the initial stages of a missed approach where you may be 1 mile from from a tower or rock at your altitude, or only half a mile from one 250ft below you. In an approved and loaded approach your trackbar is at 0.3nm full scale, reverting to 1nm full-scale after the MAP. Not to mention the RAIM requirements are tighter etc. etc.

This might be of interest: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jan97.pdf

[bcflyer]

So you're going to tell me that making a 180 turn at the MAP then tracking back to an NDB following one or two needles that are bouncing plus or minus 5-10 degrees on either side of the desired track is more accurate than tracking directly to said NDB using a track bar/CDI that is rock solid and pegged in the middle? I can tell you from experience that you can track to an NDB far more precisely using a GPS (even at a 5 mile sensitivity) than with any NDB I've ever used.

Have a look at most other countries. How many of them still use NDB's? Ask an american pilot to fly and NDB. They'll look at you like you've grown a second head.

[ILSfan07]

So you're going to tell me that making a 180 turn at the MAP then tracking back to an NDB following one or two needles that are bouncing plus or minus 5-10 degrees on either side of the desired track is more accurate than tracking directly to said NDB using a track bar/CDI that is rock solid and pegged in the middle? I can tell you from experience that you can track to an NDB far more precisely using a GPS (even at a 5 mile sensitivity) than with any NDB I've ever used.

That's a very naive analysis. TERPS approach design guidelines have very specific criteria for instrument approaches to make sure that by following the rules pilots don't fly into a mountain, or a tower. The obstacle clearance surfaces for NDB approaches and GPS approaches are different because the systems have different inaccuracies and different sources of error. If an NDB approach hasn't been approved for a GPS overlay it's because it doesn't meet the correct criteria (which means you risk flying into a tower or rock) or else nobody's checked yet and signed it off. At this stage most likely the former.

If you just plug in the NDB to even an approach-rated GPS without it being an approved approach, and try flying to it on the missed, your CDI or trackbar will be on a 5nm full-scale deflection setting. That's not sufficiently precise for the initial stages of a missed approach where you may be 1 mile from from a tower or rock at your altitude, or only half a mile from one 250ft below you. In an approved and loaded approach your trackbar is at 0.3nm full scale, reverting to 1nm full-scale after the MAP. Not to mention the RAIM requirements are tighter etc. etc.

+1 photofly

-------

Implicit in the use of your GPS for guidance (on an actual approved GNSS approach) to MAP, is that normally anything inside full deflection of your trackbar is protected airspace, is it not? Which it would not be in this case. Just because you can hit --D--> and design your own approach (or missed approach) doesn't mean it's entirely prudent to do so... Which is part of the reason why it's not allowed. What's safe isn't always legal, and what's legal isn't always safe. If they don't allow it and haven't implemented proper procedures, why be a test pilot yourself to find out?

[Youngback]

In mountainous terrain, where on multiple times I have lost a GPS signal due to terrain, I am far more willing to trust the signal thats coming from the valley than the multiple signals coming from outside it. Back each other up for sure but generations of pilots were flying safely off NDB's and not having a GPS. Yes GPS is accurate but its not infallible.

[photofly]

So you're going to tell me that making a 180 turn at the MAP then tracking back to an NDB following one or two needles that are bouncing plus or minus 5-10 degrees on either side of the desired track is more accurate than tracking directly to said NDB using a track bar/CDI that is rock solid and pegged in the middle?

With great respect, I think you're confusing precision, and accuracy.

Enroute RAIM is only +/- 2nm. That means you can be 2 miles away from where the GPS says you are, and have not the slightest clue. You may find you keep the track bar rock solid and fly straight into the radio tower that's a mile to the side of the runway. Of course since it's GPS, and very precise, the guy right behind you can keep his track bar centred too, and fly his aircraft into the same tower, assuming you left it standing when you wrapped your aircraft around it.

The third guy, who's flying the NDB approach on an ADF, won't do that, because the approach has been verified to be safe with the errors inherent in an NDB system.

I can tell you from experience that you can track to an NDB far more precisely using a GPS (even at a 5 mile sensitivity) than with any NDB I've ever used.

Not quite. What you can do is track precisely to where the GPS tells you the NDB is. Which might not be close enough to the real NDB to be safe.

The difficulty is that 19 times out of 20, or 99 times out of 100, you're right and you won't come to harm. But SIAPs are designed to be safe significantly more than that, and with equipment that just scrapes through the certification process, and with a limited amount of sloppy flying, too. TC can't approve an approach on the basis of the pilot's gut feeling about how the satellites are lining up that day.

Designing approach procedures that are guaranteed to be safe is tricky enough on the ground, with charts and surveys. Deciding in the cockpit to substitute one piece of equipment for another where it's expressly forbidden is verging on suicidal madness.

Ask yourself - why does this NDB approach NOT have an overlay, when almost all the others do? What could it be that makes this one unsafe? Because I'll bet you a pound to a penny that there's something...

[pilotidentity]

Photofly,

You don't even need a track bar to fly GPS accurately on a missed - set up Track and Bearing on the same page and you can fly the GPS just like the needle on the ADF - and you don't have to worry about wind drift with TRK. When you get close to the beacon don't chase it, just like the ADF needle. Much more accurate than using actual NDB and ADF - as long as you follow the procedure you aren't going to hit a mountain coming out of YXT - its a wide valley

Funny how many people flying IFR have no idea what I'm talking about.

I agree that you need to stay legal by reading your plates and following the rules to keep you safe but learning different ways to do things on your particular GPS can save your ass when the chips are down....

[photofly]

Track and Bearing on the same page and you can fly the GPS just like the needle on the ADF

Gosh. Thanks. I'll just throw out my HSI, and ignore the requirements for annunciators, and all that good and expensive GPS installation stuff that TC requires, because someone on Avcanada told me I didn't need any of it to fly a legal approach.

IFR Certified GPS's don't have to have a "page" to show track and bearing, or any other kind of stuff, but they do have to have an input to the HSI or CDI, and it's on that basis that they're certified. Anything extra is gravy.

Secondly, whatever the display you're using to navigate, it's no good if it accurately navigates you into something hard. While you were giving a lesson on how to fly a GPS I think you missed that bit. That's what following the instructions on approach plates, and having and using the equipment specified, are all about.

This discussion is nothing to do with how to make the best of things "when the chips are down". The job of the pilot is to make damn sure the chips are never down, which begins by not trying to fly an approach without the equipment that's needed to guarantee staying within protected airspace.

I don't ever want to be flown by a "heroic" pilot who thinks he needs to use his superior skill and equipment to get around those outdated and tiresome regulations that Transport Canada put in his way, and which they would remove in an instant if only they were as clever and knowledgeable as he.

[Youngback]

Pilotidentity, you completely missed the part of photofly's argument when he said there is no guarantee that the GPS is taking you to the actual position of the NDB. I have seen a GPS take me to a mile and a half from where it should have on a visual approach. Just because the GPS says you are at a certain point doesn't mean you actually are. Flying an NDB approach and watching the needle flip over immediately when you pass the beacon leaves no ambiguity over where you are. Trusting the GPS to do the same thing with all the errors that are possible in it is foolish. It might seem like it is completely reliable but I assure you, it isn't and I know a few people who were lucky to walk away from their accidents completely baffled by what happened and I know a couple others who can't share their side of the story.

[bronson]

You won't get the approach if the xt or zki ( Kitimat) beacons are down. An overlay would be the best idea, but who's going to pay for it? Not Navcan!

[whoop_whoop]

oldtimer,

If I'm not mistaken, the reason you can't fly the ILS 33 when the XT beacon is down is because of the missed approach instructions. It says that you must track 130 to the beacon...and then track 167 to ZKI. Since both beacons require you to track to them you're unable to use a GPS to identify them instead.

May I point you to AIM COM 3.16.9...I've copied a snippet from there:

"...and for approaches based on a localizer (LOC) for lateral guidance, pilots shall not use GNSS as the primary source for missed approach guidance when the missed approach procedure requires flying a published track to or from an NDB or VOR."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... htm#3-16-9

I hope that helps!

WW

[photofly]

I'm sure someone said that in the 5th/7th post of the thread. Could be dreaming though.

[whoop_whoop]

I missed it, thanks for the pointer though.