IFR Alternate Question

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Message
Author
Big Pistons Forever
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#26 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:42 pm

I am continually amazed that the implied subtext of so many of these arguments is that the GPS is just looking for an excuse to fail but the might ADF is the infallible tool that will always save you.

Personally I have never had an issue with the GPS not guiding me with incredible precision to the missed approach way point on the very infrequent times I have had to do a missed approach. In fact the only time I can recall ever having a real problem with getting to the missed approach place I needed to be, was flying in the pre GPS days ( SAD !)

A missed approach in the rocks required me to get to the NDB or there was a real chance of hitting the mountains, unfortunately the ADF spent about 50 % of the time pointing to the big CB about 25 miles away and not at the place I really, really, really needed to go to.

With respect to the OP's question the rules are clear, the 100 mile rule only applies to GPS approaches so there is no reg violation. However common sense indicates that you should never put yourselves in a position where a single failure, of any aircraft system, leaves you with no options.

The good, or bad news depending on your POV, is that if you find yourself up shyte creek without a paddle it almost certainly won't be because the GPS failed, it will be because you massively ignored or miss read the weather situation.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#27 Post by photofly » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:50 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:Plenty of airports with VORs. If you can make it to you alternate with your second means of navigation, you are good. Read here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 2-3388.htm

Talks about interpretation of 605.18.
It does - thanks for the point out. It says you need to plan pretty carefully if you're flying around with minimum equipment. And I don't think it has to be your planned alternate - it simply has to be in range.

As mentioned, the OP would be good to fly IFR if he can use a VOR-only approach, if his GPS packs up. Thinking about it as far as I can tell the only one likely to be in range is Wiarton, 80 odd NM from London. Lindsay and Owen Sound are both VOR/DME. And, both the Wiarton and Simcoe VORs are slated for withdrawal not many years hence. Pearson greedily has two VORs on the field but not one VOR approach. How selfish.

So perhaps the OP can make it work for a flight from Toronto to London. In general, and in the not too distant future - it won't wash.
Big Pistons Forever wrote: I am continually amazed that the implied subtext of so many of these arguments is that the GPS is just looking for an excuse to fail but the might ADF is the infallible tool that will always save you.
Relax. Nobody here believes or implies that. It's just a discussion about what equipment satisfies the fairly arbitrary rules. Heck - if you don't like those rules, get them changed.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#28 Post by AuxBatOn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:04 pm

photofly wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:Plenty of airports with VORs. If you can make it to you alternate with your second means of navigation, you are good. Read here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 2-3388.htm

Talks about interpretation of 605.18.
It does - thanks for the point out. It says you need to plan pretty carefully if you're flying around with minimum equipment.

As mentioned, the OP would be good to fly IFR if he can use a VOR-only approach, if his GPS packs up. Thinking about it as far as I can tell the only one likely to be in range is Wiarton, 80 odd NM from London. Lindsay and Owen Sound are both VOR/DME. And, both the Wiarton and Simcoe VORs are slated for withdrawal not many years hence. Pearson greedily has two VORs on the field but not one VOR approach. How selfish.

So perhaps the OP can make it work for a flight from Toronto to London. In general, and in the not too distant future - it won't wash.
Big Pistons Forever wrote: I am continually amazed that the implied subtext of so many of these arguments is that the GPS is just looking for an excuse to fail but the might ADF is the infallible tool that will always save you.
Relax. Nobody here believes or implies that. It's just a discussion about what equipment satisfies the fairly arbitrary rules. Heck - if you don't like those rules, get them changed.
Up until very recently, we only had a VOR, a TACAN and an ILS installed in the Hornet. We finally integrated a RNAV-certified GPS (we had the GPS before, it just wasn't certified for IFR) in the F-18. In the other aircraft I fly, it is only TACAN, VOR and ILS. I somehow managed to survive all those years flying across the world (literally) without issues, even with very little redundancy (what TC considers minimum equipment), and planning is not out-of-ordinary involved.

There is also an airport (CYTB) close to YXU with a VOR approach. They still exist. I would argue that if you lose your GPS, you can navigate to the alternate and get vectors for the ILS approach. This, in my mind, would satisfy the requirements of 605.18, since it is aimed at mitigating single failures. GPS and radio failure is a dual failure. In that case, I would squawk 7600, fly to a VOR, give myself vectors and shoot the ILS.
---------- ADS -----------
Going for the deck at corner

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#29 Post by photofly » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:09 pm

CYTB is VOR/DME, so it doesn't count, as he has no DME. Wiarton is the only VOR-only approach I can find.

You could probably argue that in airspace with radar coverage vectors to an ILS would count. The briefing from TC doesn't mention it though.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by photofly on Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Control the horizon, control the airplane

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#30 Post by AuxBatOn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:11 pm

The rest of my comments stands.
---------- ADS -----------
Going for the deck at corner

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#31 Post by photofly » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:16 pm

OK :)

I'm happy you survived, not least because this place would be less interesting without your point of view.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#32 Post by AuxBatOn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:19 pm

photofly wrote:OK :)

I'm happy you survived, not least because this place would be less interesting without your point of view.
I am not so full of myself to make sure people acknowledge my tails :)

I was referring to my interpretation of the legality with reference to 605.18, in this scenario, to, in the event of a GPS failure, plan to fly to YYZ VOR and get vectors for the ILS approach.
---------- ADS -----------
Going for the deck at corner

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#33 Post by photofly » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:41 pm

They can also provide a Surveillance Radar Approach, which I think is kind of a PAR without the specialized equipment or controller training, if you don't have an ILS. But that might be a bit extreme.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: IFR Alternate Question

#34 Post by AuxBatOn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:47 pm

photofly wrote:They can also provide a Surveillance Radar Approach, which I think is kind of a PAR without the specialized equipment or controller training, if you don't have an ILS. But that might be a bit extreme.
It is certainly the case in the US and they are published, but I don't think they exist anymore in Canada. They are non-precision approach. The controller gives you headings and step down altitudes.
---------- ADS -----------
Going for the deck at corner

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”