Does anyone know what the odds of getting this new ILS for practice are?
Any idea of the approach parameters?
CYTZ ILS 26 practice approaches
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
-
RufusXavierSasparrilla
- Rank 1
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:48 pm
GPFG
Gee, you seem to spend so much time at Waterloo practising approaches anyway, does it really matter.
Anyway, you're always welcome at YKF
Cheers
http://www.ykf.ca
Gee, you seem to spend so much time at Waterloo practising approaches anyway, does it really matter.
Anyway, you're always welcome at YKF
Cheers
http://www.ykf.ca
Good to know! YKF tower has been very accomodating when we've requested the ILS, especially on the busy VFR days. Getting a flow number, especially on a weekend, is always a gamble. Toronto Terminal isn't as accomodating. Having the option of the YTZ ILS would be nice way to get the student at least 4 more ILS's in the same amount of time that we would have spent heading to and from YKF.lexx wrote:GPFG
Gee, you seem to spend so much time at Waterloo practising approaches anyway, does it really matter.
Anyway, you're always welcome at YKF
Cheers
http://www.ykf.ca
Just to clear up some misconceptions amongst the IFR/VFR training crowd:
The ILS for 26 is not available to the GA for approaches. When it becomes online, it will be an approach available to Porter and possibly Jazz. This is similiar to the RNP/RNAV arrivals that Westjet uses into CYHM and CYXU.
The ILS/DME 08 is available only to aircraft that are RNAV equipped. This is due to the proximity to the ILS approaches at CYYZ. It is an extremely restrictive and limited approach that JAZZ only used maybe 10% of the time. FYI, NO aircraft (GA or airline) to my knowledge, have ever been granted a prctice approach on the ILS/DME 08.
Stick with CYKF and CYHM. At least it's not as far as CYXU!
Hope this helps.
The ILS for 26 is not available to the GA for approaches. When it becomes online, it will be an approach available to Porter and possibly Jazz. This is similiar to the RNP/RNAV arrivals that Westjet uses into CYHM and CYXU.
The ILS/DME 08 is available only to aircraft that are RNAV equipped. This is due to the proximity to the ILS approaches at CYYZ. It is an extremely restrictive and limited approach that JAZZ only used maybe 10% of the time. FYI, NO aircraft (GA or airline) to my knowledge, have ever been granted a prctice approach on the ILS/DME 08.
Stick with CYKF and CYHM. At least it's not as far as CYXU!
Hope this helps.
PFG's lament of flow times
As far as those draconian flow times go....... 
I think that a proper perspective needs to be maintained when considering how training flights impact IFR itinerant operations. The airlines which operate in the satellite airports around CYYZ (Westjet, Jazz, NorthWest/Mesaba, Georgian, Flight Exec, etc.) have a business to run. However, when a C172, or a PA44 (similiar to CGPFG) wish to close down an entire airport's IFR operation for 8 - 15 minutes (believe me, I've seen it done!) to conduct one approach, it can leave up to 4 departures on the ground. Worse it can leave at least 4 - 5 arrivals spinning around in a very limited amount of airspace. This is the reason for the aforementioned flow times.
Flow times allow ATC in the ACC and the Tower the ability to stagger flights so that there aren't too many practicing at one time and/or they have minimal impact on scheduled service. Traffic has increased to the point that the flow times have to be maintained and regimented. That means, if you are late because you wanted to do a few circuits, traffic was bad getting to the field, etc. too bad.
And to all you crafty students and instructors that hope to get around the 'times' - DO NOT even think of filing an IFR itinerant from let's say CYKZ - CYKF (I'm not picking on you, PFG, I'm just saying.....) and requesting some approaches when you get there. A very well known collegiate flight school at an airport that rhymes with 'Vuttonbille' is notorious for that.
Second, departing VFR and requesting simulated approaches with ATC after receiving a distasteful flow time will result in a very terse 'remain clear of class 'c' airspace, squawk 1200, cleared enroute frequencies.'
Third, if filing approaches at CYKF, please do not request, 'oh by the way, when we're done here, how about a couple of approaches at CYHM?'. Believe it or not, there might be some other little eager aviation beaver (animal, not the plane) waiting to get to CYHM to conduct/fail his flight test - again.
Finally (unless I think of something else later), those who enjoy requesting VFR flight following, only to amend them to an IFR airfile, only to be solidified as an IFR training flight can be staked to an ant hill and drizzled with honey.
Thanks for reading. You may now start flaming!
I think that a proper perspective needs to be maintained when considering how training flights impact IFR itinerant operations. The airlines which operate in the satellite airports around CYYZ (Westjet, Jazz, NorthWest/Mesaba, Georgian, Flight Exec, etc.) have a business to run. However, when a C172, or a PA44 (similiar to CGPFG) wish to close down an entire airport's IFR operation for 8 - 15 minutes (believe me, I've seen it done!) to conduct one approach, it can leave up to 4 departures on the ground. Worse it can leave at least 4 - 5 arrivals spinning around in a very limited amount of airspace. This is the reason for the aforementioned flow times.
Flow times allow ATC in the ACC and the Tower the ability to stagger flights so that there aren't too many practicing at one time and/or they have minimal impact on scheduled service. Traffic has increased to the point that the flow times have to be maintained and regimented. That means, if you are late because you wanted to do a few circuits, traffic was bad getting to the field, etc. too bad.
And to all you crafty students and instructors that hope to get around the 'times' - DO NOT even think of filing an IFR itinerant from let's say CYKZ - CYKF (I'm not picking on you, PFG, I'm just saying.....) and requesting some approaches when you get there. A very well known collegiate flight school at an airport that rhymes with 'Vuttonbille' is notorious for that.
Second, departing VFR and requesting simulated approaches with ATC after receiving a distasteful flow time will result in a very terse 'remain clear of class 'c' airspace, squawk 1200, cleared enroute frequencies.'
Third, if filing approaches at CYKF, please do not request, 'oh by the way, when we're done here, how about a couple of approaches at CYHM?'. Believe it or not, there might be some other little eager aviation beaver (animal, not the plane) waiting to get to CYHM to conduct/fail his flight test - again.
Finally (unless I think of something else later), those who enjoy requesting VFR flight following, only to amend them to an IFR airfile, only to be solidified as an IFR training flight can be staked to an ant hill and drizzled with honey.
Thanks for reading. You may now start flaming!
Re: PFG's lament of flow times
Hey I'm not complaining about the travel time to KF or HM in the twin. 
Was just looking out for the student.
As for the above...we've done many approach holds because "real" IFR traffic was due shortly. The worst is getting booted out of the 21 NDB hold because a Q400 is inbound to Downsview off our beacon. We also cancel the IFR in VFR conditions the second someone is told to wait for radar release. We do our best not to hold up the real IFRs, unless it's Teacher in his PC12 at YKF....just kidding bud!
Thanks for the info on the YTZ ILS. I'll give the Island a shout when it's published to confirm.
Was just looking out for the student.HotelLima wrote:... However, when a C172, or a PA44 (similiar to CGPFG) wish to close down an entire airport's IFR operation for 8 - 15 minutes (believe me, I've seen it done!) to conduct one approach, it can leave up to 4 departures on the ground. Worse it can leave at least 4 - 5 arrivals spinning around in a very limited amount of airspace. This is the reason for the aforementioned flow times....
As for the above...we've done many approach holds because "real" IFR traffic was due shortly. The worst is getting booted out of the 21 NDB hold because a Q400 is inbound to Downsview off our beacon. We also cancel the IFR in VFR conditions the second someone is told to wait for radar release. We do our best not to hold up the real IFRs, unless it's Teacher in his PC12 at YKF....just kidding bud!
Thanks for the info on the YTZ ILS. I'll give the Island a shout when it's published to confirm.
Re: PFG's lament of flow times
The new approach at YTZ was funded entirely by Porter. It is a private approach. Now some private approaches are published and some are not.C-GPFG wrote:Thanks for the info on the YTZ ILS. I'll give the Island a shout when it's published to confirm.
Nav Canada did the installation, and the Tower and Centre will obviously get the plates, but it may or may not show up in your CAP.
We'll see.
An ILS at Oshawa?????
I don't think that the powers that be (TC, NavCanada, etc.) are going to spend that kind of $$$ on an airport that generates about 10 000 movements a year (and that's with the controller with Parkinson's working the veeder counter.....)
I know you must be joking........ right?
I don't think that the powers that be (TC, NavCanada, etc.) are going to spend that kind of $$$ on an airport that generates about 10 000 movements a year (and that's with the controller with Parkinson's working the veeder counter.....)
I know you must be joking........ right?
PFG,
You are right about not seeing that in your lifetime. NC is in the middle of a huge cost savings initiative. For example, instead of each unit having its own scheduling crew, all scheduling for the region's units will be done at the ACC. Regardless that they are severely short staffed and unable to cope with the demands of the ACC and tower, now they are expected to take on ALL units in Ontario with no increase in the workforce!!
That is just one example. Take solace in the fact that the company's upper management bonuses are still increasing. To the best of my knowledge, the CEO, John Crichton, took in an extra 350K in bonuses last year (that estimate is on the low side).
To accomodate a bunch of GA's who pay ~$75.00/yr. in NC fees, I don't see that ILS coming anytime soon.
Again, the only reason that CYTZ is even getting a second ILS is because Porter Air is paying NC for it.
You are right about not seeing that in your lifetime. NC is in the middle of a huge cost savings initiative. For example, instead of each unit having its own scheduling crew, all scheduling for the region's units will be done at the ACC. Regardless that they are severely short staffed and unable to cope with the demands of the ACC and tower, now they are expected to take on ALL units in Ontario with no increase in the workforce!!
That is just one example. Take solace in the fact that the company's upper management bonuses are still increasing. To the best of my knowledge, the CEO, John Crichton, took in an extra 350K in bonuses last year (that estimate is on the low side).
To accomodate a bunch of GA's who pay ~$75.00/yr. in NC fees, I don't see that ILS coming anytime soon.
Again, the only reason that CYTZ is even getting a second ILS is because Porter Air is paying NC for it.
True, true, PFG.
Sureshot, I might be wrong, but I think that a lot of student pilots and their instructors prefer to do their IFR approaches at a controlled airport with radar coverage from the ACC. Below 3000, the radar signatures are not as reliable, so it would result in procedural separation (read more restrictive!)
Not to besmirch our FSS bretheren, but I would think that the pilots and their instructors prefer doing their approach work in a controlled environment. I would think that it would allow them to concentrate more on the approach with the Tower/ACC providing positive separation with other aircraft in the zone.
Again, I am making an assumption with regards to aviation training. My experience is solely in the ATC field (both tower and ACC).
Sureshot, I might be wrong, but I think that a lot of student pilots and their instructors prefer to do their IFR approaches at a controlled airport with radar coverage from the ACC. Below 3000, the radar signatures are not as reliable, so it would result in procedural separation (read more restrictive!)
Not to besmirch our FSS bretheren, but I would think that the pilots and their instructors prefer doing their approach work in a controlled environment. I would think that it would allow them to concentrate more on the approach with the Tower/ACC providing positive separation with other aircraft in the zone.
Again, I am making an assumption with regards to aviation training. My experience is solely in the ATC field (both tower and ACC).
-
lilfssister
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
- Location: Mysteryville Castle
I will be a good lil FSS and stop arguing with the big, bad ATC's
Last edited by lilfssister on Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
EyeEffenAre
- Rank 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:19 am
Here comes the pain!
Oh no, now you've made the monster angry. Hotel can eat 2 Mucho Burritos at once, and I hear he has an appetite for wannabe windsocks.
I stayed away until now, but had to pop in for a comment. First off, on all accounts, I have to agree with Hotel. As far as training approaches go, most new IFR/VFR pilots would prefer to learn how to fly approaches in a controlled environment. Adding the uncontrolled aspect can come later once you learn to capture a localizer, which unfortunately seems to take a while.
As far as visiting many places in Canada to see how ATS operates in different areas, I believe Hotel was directing his comments with respect to those who fly/train in or near the YYZ airspace. Perhaps you, fsssister, should come see what we do on a regular basis, and maybe you would understand our concerns. Assumptions are not assumptions when you know what you are talking about, and Hotel does when it comes to YYZ and the surrounding area.
IF'nR
I stayed away until now, but had to pop in for a comment. First off, on all accounts, I have to agree with Hotel. As far as training approaches go, most new IFR/VFR pilots would prefer to learn how to fly approaches in a controlled environment. Adding the uncontrolled aspect can come later once you learn to capture a localizer, which unfortunately seems to take a while.
As far as visiting many places in Canada to see how ATS operates in different areas, I believe Hotel was directing his comments with respect to those who fly/train in or near the YYZ airspace. Perhaps you, fsssister, should come see what we do on a regular basis, and maybe you would understand our concerns. Assumptions are not assumptions when you know what you are talking about, and Hotel does when it comes to YYZ and the surrounding area.
IF'nR
Jeez! I think we all need a group hug here......... 
Lil (can I call you Lil?), you seem a little out of sorts when someone makes a suggestion and/or comment about the benefits of a controlled environment versus Class G, aerodrome, etc.
By your comments, does that mean that the president of your union (or mine) needs to have worked at every unit to represent his/ her members appropriately? I'm pretty sure most of the exec of this corporation never worked, much less visited, all the facilities of this marvelous country of ours. But, much to your chagrin, no doubt, they run the company.
Like it or not, a controlled airport provides a safer environment for IFR training flights. When you are under the hood for the first time, I would like to think that the student/instructor feels a little bit of reassurance in a tower/ACC controller keeping an eye on the big picture and making the final decision if a couple of A/C's have a disagreement of 'who got there first'.
You are absolutely right. IFR flights do operate in uncontrolled environments. You are also correct that FSS provide an advisory service for traffic at certain aerodromes. But you have to agree that an FSS station at a site does not constitute a controlled environment. Advisories, suggestions, etc. are not control decisions.
Eye, hold me I think I'm a gonna get an FSSmackdown! 
On a final note......
Lil, just because you post a comment/slag/smackdown/flame on every thread does not make you an expert on all/any of them. It does, however, put you in the front running for the Chairman's Award for Excellence in the category of - Most Angry Employee. Your rage, negativity, angst, is a shining beacon to everyone considering a career as a Flight Service Specialist. Hopefully, the company can sponser you on a tour of all facilities to bring this attitude nationwide.
Sheesh............
Lil (can I call you Lil?), you seem a little out of sorts when someone makes a suggestion and/or comment about the benefits of a controlled environment versus Class G, aerodrome, etc.
By your comments, does that mean that the president of your union (or mine) needs to have worked at every unit to represent his/ her members appropriately? I'm pretty sure most of the exec of this corporation never worked, much less visited, all the facilities of this marvelous country of ours. But, much to your chagrin, no doubt, they run the company.
Like it or not, a controlled airport provides a safer environment for IFR training flights. When you are under the hood for the first time, I would like to think that the student/instructor feels a little bit of reassurance in a tower/ACC controller keeping an eye on the big picture and making the final decision if a couple of A/C's have a disagreement of 'who got there first'.
You are absolutely right. IFR flights do operate in uncontrolled environments. You are also correct that FSS provide an advisory service for traffic at certain aerodromes. But you have to agree that an FSS station at a site does not constitute a controlled environment. Advisories, suggestions, etc. are not control decisions.
Eye, hold me
I think I'm a gonna get an FSSmackdown! On a final note......
Lil, just because you post a comment/slag/smackdown/flame on every thread does not make you an expert on all/any of them. It does, however, put you in the front running for the Chairman's Award for Excellence in the category of - Most Angry Employee. Your rage, negativity, angst, is a shining beacon to everyone considering a career as a Flight Service Specialist. Hopefully, the company can sponser you on a tour of all facilities to bring this attitude nationwide.
Sheesh............
Site Visits 'Cause Lil told me to.l
Lil,
Could you please let me know which facility you tirelessly work at? I would like to save it for my final visit. That way I can save the best for last and see how real aviation is handled.
I went camping and got wasted near the YSO VOR back in '92. Does that count on my task list?
Anyway, here is my list. It is by no means complete. SOME facilities seem to be employed by individuals that do not have an unusually large arthropod firmly wedged in their posterior. As such, socialising was involved which was usually followed by loss of inhibitions, lack of judgement, mindless rants - you know, kind of like your posts........ The difference is that the people I met needed a few pops to acheive that state as opposed your seemingly normal disposition.
YKZ Tower/FSS
YYZ ACC/Tower/ATOS/GT/FSS(when they were here)
YYZ Radar Site (great way to cook your popcorn, warm up on a cold winter day.......)
Skyservice HQ
YXU Tower/FSS
YGK Airport (didn't make it to the FSS - sorry)
CNL3
CNC4
CNQ4
CYFD
Seneca Flight School (and Toronto Airways)
CNC3
CYKF
CYOW Tower/TCU (when it was there)
TCTI/NCTI
YVR ACC/Tower
and my bar none, all time favorite:
THE LANDING STRIP (folks at YYZ will appreciate that......)
I would have seen more but before you brought down your directive from on high, the Knights That Say'Neee'! asked me to bring them a shrubbery.
I'm sorry that my limited experience does not warrant your consideration when I make a post.
If you can't find a puppy to kick, look for me sobbing uncontrollably in the fetal position somewhere at YYZ ACC (probably eating a couple of burritos).
'I eat 'cause I'm fat, and I'm fat 'cause I eat.'
-Fat Bastard, Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me
In closing, no practice approaches for the ILS 26 at CYTZ.
Eye, get me a Stella.......
Could you please let me know which facility you tirelessly work at? I would like to save it for my final visit. That way I can save the best for last and see how real aviation is handled.
I went camping and got wasted near the YSO VOR back in '92. Does that count on my task list?
Anyway, here is my list. It is by no means complete. SOME facilities seem to be employed by individuals that do not have an unusually large arthropod firmly wedged in their posterior. As such, socialising was involved which was usually followed by loss of inhibitions, lack of judgement, mindless rants - you know, kind of like your posts........ The difference is that the people I met needed a few pops to acheive that state as opposed your seemingly normal disposition.
YKZ Tower/FSS
YYZ ACC/Tower/ATOS/GT/FSS(when they were here)
YYZ Radar Site (great way to cook your popcorn, warm up on a cold winter day.......)
Skyservice HQ
YXU Tower/FSS
YGK Airport (didn't make it to the FSS - sorry)
CNL3
CNC4
CNQ4
CYFD
Seneca Flight School (and Toronto Airways)
CNC3
CYKF
CYOW Tower/TCU (when it was there)
TCTI/NCTI
YVR ACC/Tower
and my bar none, all time favorite:
THE LANDING STRIP (folks at YYZ will appreciate that......)
I would have seen more but before you brought down your directive from on high, the Knights That Say'Neee'! asked me to bring them a shrubbery.
I'm sorry that my limited experience does not warrant your consideration when I make a post.
If you can't find a puppy to kick, look for me sobbing uncontrollably in the fetal position somewhere at YYZ ACC (probably eating a couple of burritos).
'I eat 'cause I'm fat, and I'm fat 'cause I eat.'
-Fat Bastard, Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me
In closing, no practice approaches for the ILS 26 at CYTZ.
Eye, get me a Stella.......
-
lilfssister
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
- Location: Mysteryville Castle
Interesting...
Disregard anything posted by "lilfssister" lately. Major case of identity theft! I would NEVER say anything like last post in this thread!
New firewall, and changed passwords in effect and Zone alarm tracking FIFTEEN attempts by 4 different IPs to take over my less than three week old computer in less than 2 hours. Seems a bit excessive? Especially considering in that three weeks I have been on maybe 3-4 well known websites. (Overtime is a terrible thing.)
Note to self: Crazy, but check your own posts every once in a while. You might learn yr being hacked.
Thanks to my e/avcan friends for wondering WTF was up with normally me personality and asking about same.
New firewall, and changed passwords in effect and Zone alarm tracking FIFTEEN attempts by 4 different IPs to take over my less than three week old computer in less than 2 hours. Seems a bit excessive? Especially considering in that three weeks I have been on maybe 3-4 well known websites. (Overtime is a terrible thing.)
Note to self: Crazy, but check your own posts every once in a while. You might learn yr being hacked.
Thanks to my e/avcan friends for wondering WTF was up with normally me personality and asking about same.
-
justplanecrazy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm
hahahahahah.... most excellent cover up. I've had someone post under my handle when I forgot to log out, so I could've believed that, but the hacking bit... that's excellent. Does that hacking date back to your threads from 3 months ago as well? Maybe just maybe did someone come to a lack of experience realization???? 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
