New approach format

[West Coast]

All,

Researching a new (at least to me) charting format used in YQR. Specifically for the RNAV GPS 13 and 31 approaches. The approaches are new in design and have charting material I've not seen elsewhere. They mostly follow the T pattern, with the addition of a charted .2 prior descent point along with shaded altitude on the final approach course. The approach looks like it was designed with a constant descent profile in mind rather than the chop and drop NPA procedure.
What I'm looking for is any documentation that fully explains this new format. I looked briefly at the Canadian AIM, but it didn't touch on it. At least in the area I looked.

Any help is appreciated if there are other documents publically available I can look at.

Thanks

[Pratt X 3]

E-CAP GEN NEW FORMAT

[clunckdriver]

For most of the places we fly into, we need to get down to MDA/MAP as soon as we safely can to check that the AIRCAL lights are really working, and for the runway condition along with snowmobiles or critters on the runway, at some places we fly to if we fly a steady rate of descent on the final step down there is very little time to do this, but I doubt that the folks in TC who created this and made it a pass/fail item on a ride ever fly into such locations.

[surveytheworld]

West Coast - exactly true; they're really trying to push for the constant descent approaches.

You do not have to fly it, you can still "chop and drop" but now the plates have the actual descent rate in fpm required for your ground speed to maintain that 3 degree approach profile, along with some other goodies, which I really like. (Although I do still think the Jepp plate format is still superior.)

It's important to note that you can still chop and drop if required, but still makes a more stabilized, constant descent approach really simple to plan and brief.

All the important stuff regarding airspace, plate, etc. changes from NavCanada is published as Aeronautical Information Circulars. The Circular pertaining to these changes is AIC 33/13 (though it is woefully brief and the CAP GEN is likely the best source of the information you're looking for.)

If you want a few relevant screen shots of the new CAP GEN, let me know.

[West Coast]

Survey

Thanks. Does the shaded altitude on the profile section represent the minimum altitude an operator not following a constant angle profile can descent to prior to the FAF?

[surveytheworld]

Yes, that is correct.

The non-underlined altitudes are "recommended altitudes."

The shaded blocks and corresponding underlined altitudes are the actual minimum segment altitudes.

So for the RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 13 at YQR, the recommended altitude from URMET to just before TIGOR is 3600 (or a 3 degree descent which would take you from 5130 to 3540) but the absolute minimum altitude until TIGOR (i.e. the "traditional" way) is 3000.

At TIGOR, you either continue on your constant descent to MDA or you do the chop and drop thing to get to your MDA and then level off until the MAWP.

Hope that helps.

**West Coast, I'll send you a PM with a link. I've uploaded a couple of screen shots to my FlickR site.

[West Coast]

It does help, thanks.

I like the format, just need to make sure I'm knowledgable of what it all represents. Do you know if TC's intent is for greater use of this format for NPA's?

Thanks again

[surveytheworld]

This new format is being rolled out across Canada (the Prairies was only the second group of CAPs to be "updated") so by this summer it'll be in place country-wide.

It seems to me that someone "high up" has a real love for these CDAs. In many recently released Canadian accident reports (going back even a 2 or 3 years) it seems that "not using a CDA" has been cited as a contributing factor numerous times.

Whether it truly was the case or not (it occasionally seemed like it was just thrown in there to help an "agenda") I can see how "they" might like to regulate it - but in some places, particularly with high surrounding terrain in the north where circling approaches are the norm, it may be impractical.

I work for a smaller operator (702, sort of like Part 91 in the US) but we are starting to train these CDAs more and more now, as part of the whole stabilized approach criteria, as well as reducing workload particularly in single pilot operations.

[clunckdriver]

To remove the MSA /MEA 100 mile figure is just plain stupid, no other word for it!

[J.O.]

Originally Posted by clunckdriver

For most of the places we fly into, we need to get down to MDA/MAP as soon as we safely can to check that the AIRCAL lights are really working, and for the runway condition along with snowmobiles or critters on the runway, at some places we fly to if we fly a steady rate of descent on the final step down there is very little time to do this, but I doubt that the folks in TC who created this and made it a pass/fail item on a ride ever fly into such locations.

It's been a while but I've done lots of that kind of flying. When the weather was near the published minimums, I can't say there has ever been a time where I have seen the runway any sooner using the dive and drive method vs what I'd have seen using a (much safer) CDA approach. When you get down early, your angle to the runway and the touchdown zone is quite flat and your ability to determine if the runway environment is safe is limited.

The "decision" at minimums is whether or not we have the required visual elements to continue the approach. The decision to go around for other reasons such as lighting problems or obstacles on the runway can (and should) be made any time up until the final commitment to land.

[clunckdriver]

JO, at my home base the IFR apch is 90 degrees to the runway, followed by a left or right circling but staying away from the high ground on the other side {North side} of the runway, if one does not get down a bit early then the decision has to be made about one quarter of a mile back from the runway,{ however still at 90 degrees to the runway} this really doesn't give much room to turn at our 140 kts min speed or have a look for the resident deer population, many visiting aircraft have missed due to this, for myself I also like to see if the lights are really working, if not it gives us a bit of time to try them again. For those not flying into places like this, you might be surprised at the poor condition of the aids at many of our remote strips, lack of federal funds for places which do not have scheduled air service seems to be the culprit.A while back the calibration aircraft had to go around when they didn't get down fast enough, in this case flying a fixed descent rate to the FAF is not improving safety, as it may do on a straight in apch.

[surveytheworld]

I have to correct myself:

They DID include the 100 mile safe. IIRC it was something that they were talking about removing during the approach development process and it made me cranky. I suppose it made others cranky too, and they retained them (near the upper left.)

I've only briefly studied the new plates and CAP GEN (haven't been flying in Canada for the past few months) so I missed it. Sorry to mislead you and others.

[West Coast]

STW

Do you know if the new chart format will also be used on approaches with circling minimums only?

Cheers

[surveytheworld]

The new format is being issued for all approaches - I just pulled up the NDB A True at CYBK as an example. The beacon is on the field, so there's no timing, however they still give you suggested descent rates (and altitudes for certain GPS distances) for the CDA. There is only one PT altitude, not the "minimum" one plus a higher "CDA" one like other approaches, though this is due to the absence of a FAF as opposed to it being a circling only approach.

Do you have access to that plate? (*Edited to add: it's now posted at the same link I pm'd you earlier.)

I'll try to find another that's circling minimums only, but with a FAF.

[West Coast]

I'll look and see if its in the companies subscription, thanks.


Edit: I see the chart you referenced, thanks