Nov 13 southern ontario airspace changes

[Cat Driver]

The ADf is to flying what the horse and buggy is to ground transport.

[Rockie]

Need many more lpv approaches.

There are currently over 3X as many LPV's in the US as there are ILS's with more being designed by the truck load. ILS's won't be going away anytime soon, but given how cheap and easy it is to create LPV's virtually anywhere in North America, including the arctic, they are very much the future.

At some point in the not too distant future GLS's will be certified for full CAT III Autolands at which time you will see ILS's begin to wither on the vine as well.

[Rookie50]

Need many more lpv approaches.

There are currently over 3X as many LPV's in the US as there are ILS's with more being designed by the truck load. ILS's won't be going away anytime soon, but given how cheap and easy it is to create LPV's virtually anywhere in North America, including the arctic, they are very much the future.

At some point in the not too distant future GLS's will be certified for full CAT III Autolands at which time you will see ILS's begin to wither on the vine as well.

Unless something has changed, slow as molasses up here. Way, way behind the US.

[Rockie]

Yeah that's true up until now, but I've heard NavCanada has seen Jesus in that regard and we will see as much enthusiasm up here as down in the US.

[Rookie50]

Yeah that's true up until now, but I've heard NavCanada has seen Jesus in that regard and we will see as much enthusiasm up here as down in the US.

Would be great -- for northern Ontario but even places like Hamilton -- fairly big airport with one , count'em one precision approach, for eg.

[davecessna]

Rookie50, see "cheaper implementation". That's probably why NavCanada has suddenly decided to see the light.

[Rockie]

Rookie50, see "cheaper implementation". That's probably why NavCanada has suddenly decided to see the light.

Not probably - without question. They are extremely cheap to develop, cost essentially nothing to maintain, and they can be produced for practically everywhere terrain permitting.

Canada has been foolishly, hopelessly and embarrassingly behind the times on the whole PBN revolution (there's just no other way to describe it) and has a l-o-n-g way to go to catch up. But we will.

[CpnCrunch]

By the way: if you (any of you) have an opinion on the proposed reviews then you had bloody well better email NavCanada and tell then what you think. Don't sit on here like sheep bleating about how nobody asked you and you were all kept in the dark. Educate yourselves about the proposals and speak up.

While generally I'd agree that you should be emailing Nav Canada about stuff like this, I think in this case it isn't going to do much good. The FAA is decommissioning the VORs on the airway, so Nav Canada doesn't really have much choice. It's dead technology and there's no use fighting it.

Of course, this is going to make IFR flying for private owners a lot less feasible unless prices come down. It means that if you're flying IFR at a very minimum you're going to have to spend $25k to install two 650s. You can't use VORs as a backup, so you need two IFR GPSs. On top of that you have to pay for the database updates, 24-month IR renewal, etc. For something like a 172 it just won't make financial sense. I think the FAA part 23 rewrite is our only hope for affordable IFR flying.

[turkeycannon]

On top of that you have to pay for the database updates, 24-month IR renewal, etc.

New PPL here who is somewhat relieved he got in on the ground floor of radio nav going away (it ties my brain in knots). Curious what a ballpark figure would be for those ongoing costs to keep an IFR GPS up and running? I know the kit itself is eye-wateringly expensive, but no idea how much those database updates etc cost.

[CpnCrunch]

New PPL here who is somewhat relieved he got in on the ground floor of radio nav going away (it ties my brain in knots). Curious what a ballpark figure would be for those ongoing costs to keep an IFR GPS up and running? I know the kit itself is eye-wateringly expensive, but no idea how much those database updates etc cost.

You can see here:

https://fly.garmin.com/fly-garmin/support/pricing/

Looks like it's $1087/yr for all the charts and data for the GTN650.

For some reason it doesn't show prices for the 430W - I think you might have to purchase the data from Jeppeson. It costs $430/yr according to another forum. However that doesn't include any IFR charts (which are included in the 650, I believe).

Then if you have two of them you have to pay for both. I think there is now a discount if you purchase for more than one device in the same plane, although it isn't terribly clear:

https://fly.garmin.com/fly-garmin/pilotpak/

[FenderManDan]

We pay $520 for a data package only fow w430.

Kigston is getting new GNSS approaches soon.

[glass1/2full]

The other day was coming out of Hamilton and filed the route that I have been getting for the past 4 years up towards the tbay area, and was surprised by a totally different clearance than filled with a replacement of three rnav waypoints before the ssm vor.
every single time I have filed the pref route out of Hamilton have gotten it for the past 4 years.

after I accepted the clearance, I asked ground if these were going to be the new ATC back room routes that will be issued as replacement of the previous routes. he mentioned that it seems that its all new for them and this is the second time they issued these waypoints. and that there are lots of changes in the works.
which goes inline with what is happening with the YWT vor.

[davecessna]

We pay $520 for a data package only fow w430.

Kigston is getting new GNSS approaches soon.

Neat!