Instrument approaches at Ottawa/Rockcliffe (CYRO)

[dpm]

For the first time since the RCAF days over a half century ago, my home base of Ottawa/Rockcliffe is going to be an IFR airport. The Rockcliffe Flying Club just released these previews of the IAPs, which will go live at the end of March. No more SVFR .. running across the river from the CYND approaches.

cyro-rnav-09.png (247.34 KiB) Viewed 2010 times

cyro-rnav-a.png (247.24 KiB) Viewed 2010 times

[Cessna 180]

Awesome! Finally.

[anofly]

it is good news! i have always filed gatineau and if i see rockcliffe as i go by, i cancel and vfr transition.

[VSF]

I'm curious why the approach to 27 isn't a straight in... Possibly because of the trees?

[dpm]

I'm curious why the approach to 27 isn't a straight in... Possibly because of the trees?

Possibly—I'm puzzled as well. Before I saw the plates, I thought it might be because the FAWP was too close for a stabilised descent, but 4nm seems like plenty of room to get down.

Then again, the recommended glide path on the plate is 3.04° rather than the 3° for the RNAV 09. Is that extra 0.04° enough to make it "too steep"?

[Scout44]

I also saw a Facebook post today saying they're (finally) going to build hangars? Between that and the approaches, looking like a more and more attractive place. Just gotta win the lotto to buy a high(er) performance single now.

[dpm]

I also saw a Facebook post today saying they're (finally) going to build hangars? Between that and the approaches, looking like a more and more attractive place. Just gotta win the lotto to buy a high(er) performance single now.

They also have self-serve Avgas pumps now, and Jet-A truck. They're also going to light the whole runway, finally, instead of just 1,700 ft. It really is going big time.

[DanWEC]

I haven't been around the RFC for a while, since I did my instructor rating rating with Simon way back, but I'm happy to hear of the improvements. It's such a great airport- good scenery and terrific staff (and Bbq!)

How the sudden uptick however? Approaches, and all this other stuff cost a bunch!

[upnatem]

I'm curious why the approach to 27 isn't a straight in... Possibly because of the trees?

Sorry for being dense but I'm struggling to see what's not straight in about it.

[dpm]

I'm curious why the approach to 27 isn't a straight in... Possibly because of the trees?

Sorry for being dense but I'm struggling to see what's not straight in about it.

I'm sure everyone will fly it straight-in, but it's listed as RNAV A rather than RNAV 27, and includes only circling minima, not straight-in (LNAV).

[C-GKNT]

I'm curious why the approach to 27 isn't a straight in... Possibly because of the trees?

Sorry for being dense but I'm struggling to see what's not straight in about it.

I'm sure everyone will fly it straight-in, but it's listed as RNAV A rather than RNAV 27, and includes only circling minima, not straight-in (LNAV).

Aside from a glidepath, not much practical difference anyway. The LNAV minimums on 09 are only 20' lower.

Glenn

[upnatem]

I'd certainly think the majority of landings would be rwy 27 - the name is odd (an extra 10 fpm?) but the procedure seems straight forward. Just for information, here is the AIM section talking about the 2 versions of "straight-in" when talking approaches. I added the italics.

9.22 Straight-In Landing Minima
Minima for a straight-in landing are published when a normal
rate of descent can be made from the final approach fix (FAF)
to the runway threshold and when the final approach track
intersects the extended runway centre-line within 30˚ and
within a prescribed distance from the threshold. When either
the normal rate of descent or the runway alignment exceeds
the criteria, straight-in landing minima are not published
and only circling minima apply. The fact that only circling
minima are published does not preclude a pilot from landing
straight-in if the required visual reference is available in
sufficient time to make a normal approach and landing.
NOTE:
The term straight-in used in connection with landing should
not be confused with its use in straight-in approach minima.
An ATC clearance for a straight-in approach merely clears the
aircraft for an approach without first completing a procedure
turn. The minima that will subsequently be used will be
based on considerations such as the runway in use, published
minima, aircraft category, etc.
The use of straight-in landing minima is predicated upon
the pilot having the wind direction and speed and runway
condition reports required to conduct a safe landing. At
an uncontrolled aerodrome where the pilot may lack the
necessary information, the pilot is expected to verify that the
runway is unobstructed prior to landing. In some cases, this
can only be accomplished by conducting a circling approach
using the appropriate circling minima.

[dpm]

I'd certainly think the majority of landings would be rwy 27

Yes, but the majority of IFR+IMC landings would probably be on 09, because in these latitudes, an east wind and bad weather often go together (as Mary Poppins attests in the movie).

[upnatem]

Certainly DPM, and although I personally wouldn't recommend flying lessons from Mary Poppins the landings on 09 would be from the RNAV 09. I meant that most people using RNAV A would know the winds and expect landing on 27. Circling in IMC isn't my preference.

[AuxBatOn]

Certainly DPM, and although I personally wouldn't recommend flying lessons from Mary Poppins the landings on 09 would be from the RNAV 09. I meant that most people using RNAV A would know the winds and expect landing on 27. Circling in IMC isn't my preference.

You can still land straight ahead from circling minima.

[dpm]

Certainly DPM, and although I personally wouldn't recommend flying lessons from Mary Poppins the landings on 09 would be from the RNAV 09. I meant that most people using RNAV A would know the winds and expect landing on 27. Circling in IMC isn't my preference.

You can still land straight ahead from circling minima.

I think the challenge will be when the airport is borderline VFR (e.g. 1,500 ft ceiling, 3 SM vz), and there are pilots up flying VFR circuits. In that case, best practice would probably be to cancel IFR after the FAWP and join the circuit using the airport's normal VFR overhead procedure from the south (the IAP forbids circling to the south if you're still IFR), rather than just blasting on down final through everyone else. It's always a challenge mixing IFR and VFR traffic at a busy airport without an FSS or tower.