After Burner

VORs and NDBs are not "automatically tuned" by any FMS I'm aware of. An exception to that is the VOR approach but those aren't that common and will soon become extinct. NDB identifiers ("beacons") are still used in Canada as FAFs in ILS approaches but as far as the FMS is concerned it's just another GPS waypoint. Both VORs and NDBs are being decommissioned. A recent example is YWT (Waterloo) which used to be part of some YYZ arrivals.

You're right about the history of GPS usage in civil aviation. But today almost 100% of enroute navigation in North America is waypoint to waypoint using GPS.

Livyer

And for the past few days, there's been a persistent north-northeast wind. We're freezing our butts off on the island.

After Burner

Sort of correct: there's no difference between an LPV and an RNAV approach because an LPV approach IS an RNAV approach. LPV is just one flavour of RNAV. Nitpicking with terminology, but an LPV doesn't have a "glide slope", it has a "glide path".

On the surface they seem very similar but there are actually significant differences between LPV and ILS approaches. A pilot who is proficient in ILS approaches but has no experience with LPV approaches could easily get into trouble.



I believe AC's E90s are WAAS equipped. I was followed by one recently on the YWG RNAV 18 (an LPV approach) and he accepted a clearance for that approach.

pitz

They are by the navigational system for the purpose of showing the stuff on the displays and computing a positional fix.

Sure, but non-GPS equipped airplanes, such as the early build A320s, can still use the VORs/NDB's that exist, along with the navigational database, to compute their position in real-time to traverse the programmed waypoints.

Incorrect. And positional data isn't intrinsically tied to GPS. It is computable by other means, whether by inertial methods, and/or VOR/NDBs. Even starsighting could be used to compute a position fix to traverse a waypoint-based route -- an exercise which is still practiced by military crews in certain aircraft for wartime scenarios in which GPS performance is degraded or unavailable.

winnipegrev

My mistake, I meant LNAV not RNAV.

What significant differences do you find, and where do you see the potential for trouble? Transport Canada even allows LPV in place of an ILS precision approach on IFR flight tests. They are flown very similarly, in fact the first time I ever flew an LPV was on an IFR flight test and I breezed through it Terminology aside, the vertical and lateral indications are displayed identically on the HSI for both types.

I can see how LPV is a mix with the more popular LNAV and an ILS, but I don't see how any reasonably competent pilot could misunderstand how to fly it.

YYTFog

As a result of the foggy weather here over the past few days, we were treated to an extra section 767 operated by Rouge last night.
YYZ-YYT-LHR
I think i read somewhere on the forum that AC wouldn't be subbing Rouge for mainline runs??

winnipegrev

I recall them saying that too. This could be the first Rouge sub for mainline in the last 24 months since its creation!

The extra section was heavily delayed ex-YYZ and ex-YYT, which makes me think the mainline aircraft they planned didn't end up going and Rouge was last minute.

After Burner

One gotcha with the LPV is if you intercept the final approach course inside the final segment, the glide path indicator will simply not appear, so you'll have no vertical guidance. A pilot just with ILS proficiency probably wouldn't know this. Being tuned to a localizer/GS gives you deviation information regardless of where you are or how you got there (assuming you have reception). The LPV logic won't put the GP on the HSI until you're on final and only if you do everything in the correct sequence.
I'm a fan of LPV approaches but I do like the fact that ILS will show you whether you're above or below the GS long before you're on final.

moorw003

edit.

moorw003

To be fair though, a 767 Rouge isn't really a downgrade from a 319 mainline. In fact, it's probably the one flight that if you've had 2 cancelled is a perfect sub aircraft. Lot's of seats. Similar "J" product, everybody should be happy.

After Burner

Ok, but these systems use GPS data as the primary positional reference and are able to use navaids (VORs etc.) when GPS is unavailable and inertial (IRS) when both GPS and navaids are unavailable. Given that GPS is the primary reference (and, by far, the most accurate) and also given that it's extremely rare for GPS to be unavailable, don't you think it's fair to say that GPS is, in fact, the method of navigation?

WR Cage

There is a valid argument that YYT-LHR J should be sold as premium economy and not as a true J product. The seats on mainline 319 are more like rouge premium and AC premium economy than international J on the widebodies.

lcohen999

Yes, as my first time here..I've noticed that

AtlanticXpat

Hell yes. The LMU or Co-Pay on upgrading to J on AC822/823 is very poor value. Before the co-pay I would use e-ups on that route but since the co-pay no longer. Although getting a row of three Y seats to yourself and being able to put the arm rests down and stretch out is actually better on the overnight flight than sitting upright(ish) in J in my opinion. I've had a 50% hit rate with being able to do that on my 4 trips this year, all in the preferred seats. Downside of course is that speaks to load factors that are not as good a we'd like them to be to sustain the year round, daily flights!

marke190

What are the minimums for the secondary runway at YYT- the past couple of weeks have been brutal for flight ops.