ADF/DME useful in Canada or use GPS?
ro...@my-deja.com
How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
(N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
at this point not to make it worthwhile?
- Roland
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Cam Stableford
any GPS approaches available in Canada, but then again, I'm not Instrument
rated, so may be ignorant on this point.
<ro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7rt3qc$v8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Colin Rasmussen
ro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
> and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
> plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
> (N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
> number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
> at this point not to make it worthwhile?
I'd still keep the DME/ADF. Not every airport is going to have GPS
approaches so they should still be useful.
Colin
PROF D. Rogers {EAS FAC}
It somewhat depends on where in Canada you want to
fly. If you are going to fly in the High Arctic
then I would want an ADF and a GPS. This way you
will have system redundancy. Many of the High Arctic
airports only have an ADF/NDB approach.
Dave Rogers
www.nar-associates.com/flying-adventures/flyadvm.html
In article <37E26DB9...@pombe.usask.ca>,
Pat Barry
distance away from the stations. NDB is the only 'beacon' (GPS
obviously, but I'm talking navaids here) so without an adf you'd be
flying on reckoning until you got close enough to pick up the vor at
Kelowna which is in a deep valley and the vor is attenuated by terrain.
Consequently an adf is very helpful in Canada (whereas in the United
States you never get to use one).
I Australia the major cities have vortacs for commercial traffic - get
away from the high altitude jet paths, and the adf is the only
navigation source. Same in most parts of Africa. Europe has vortacs
everywhere.
Conclusion is that ndb/adf is still very much in use and an aircraft is
not properly equipped unless an adf is fitted.
Pat
Daniel Delaney
in Canada.
You mak be able to use GPS, VOR, DME or other RNAV but often the regulations
require an ADF in the aircraft for IFR flight. They do not however say you
have to use it!!!
Regards,
Danny.
<ro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7rt3qc$v8t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi
>
> How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
> and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
> plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
> (N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
> number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
> at this point not to make it worthwhile?
>
Andrew Boyd
> How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
> and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
> plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
> (N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
> number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
> at this point not to make it worthwhile?
Even in canada, ADF and DME are a waste of money in a new
avionics installation. Go with the IFR approach-approved
GPS (and IFR installation by an experienced shop).
If you grab a CAP, look at the approaches listed in the
index that are in bold italics - those are the ones that
are approved today for IFR GPS overlay approach. As time
goes by, I'm sure navcan will get all the non-precision
approaches legally overlaid.
For legal IFR flight in canada, what you need for radio
nav is two independent IFR nav radios. VOR/GS and ADF is
the norm (and DME is nice), but VOR/GS and IFR GPS is
what I'd go for today. In a year or two, it's going to
be painfully obvious what the right choice was.
All that old loran/adf/dme stuff belongs in the trash can.
--
ab...@igs.net ATP
ro...@my-deja.com
than en-route. Is IFR-cert. GPS authorized in Canada for en-route
operation? If so, I'd use it on the long legs in preference to
ADF. The same would go for Europe, where GPS is approved for
en-route, and I believe Australia is the same.
Approaches however are another matter. If you need ADF, or DME
or both for them, then you need them and there's no getting
away from it.
- Roland
In article <37E29937...@ktb.net>,
> > >> How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
> > >> and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
> > >> plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
> > >> (N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
> > >> number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
> > >> at this point not to make it worthwhile?
> > >
> > >I'd still keep the DME/ADF. Not every airport is going to have GPS
> > >approaches so they should still be useful.
> > >
> > >Colin
> > >
> > >
>
>
Pete Ivakitsch
I can't answer your question but you may want to contact one of the
Canadian Flight Service Stations or Area Control Centers (ACC) who I'm
sure will be able to give you the answer your looking for.
YYZ/YKZ FSS - 416-973-5910
YYZ/YKZ FSS - 905-477-9250
YYZ ACC - 888-217-1241
I believe there are also 800 numbers for our FSS's, if memory serves me
correct they are either 1-800 or 1-888 INFO-FSS? I don't know if they
are good from the USA.
Good Luck,
Peter Ivakitsch
CDN Aeronautical Communications Website -
http://www.interlog.com/~rollers/
Daniel Delaney
Regards,
Danny.
Andrew Boyd <ab...@igs.net> wrote in message news:37E2DE...@igs.net...
Daniel Delaney
IFR flight where RNAV is required provided that all the required IFR
equipment is carried i.e. VOR, ADF, 75Mhz Marker, and DME.
If you are using GPS for the RNAV requirement, then you are required to
check the signal availability and coverage charts listed at the ECAC site.
If you depart without checking RAIM outages as posted, you are illegal.
Regards,
Danny.
<ro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7rvb3n$hr8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Mike & Lee Anne
threw mine away, but I seem to remember that there was an article on GPS
navigation with some specific comments about "differences from the US"
in licensing, etc. I recognize that Roland is talking N registration,
but if someone can scan in the pertinent couple of paragraphs - right
from the regulators mouth - it might help.
Mike
ro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> How far down the road is Canada with GPS approaches now,
> and how fast are they coming on. If you were equipping a
> plane to be based around Toronto, and flown around Canada
> (N-reg though) would you put DME/ADF in it now or is the
> number of VOR/ILS/GPS approach airports in Canada enough
> at this point not to make it worthwhile?
>
> - Roland
Kevin Martyn
primarily safety issues related to the use of GPS - although from a quick
scan of the issues discussed, it seems to me that most of the issues exist
in the US and Canada. The last couple of paragraphs of the TC Aviation
Safety Letter (Issue 3/99) seem to be the most relevant for this discussion
and I have copied them below. If anyone wants me to reproduce the entire
article, just post a response to this group. Since I don't have a scanner,
you will likely have to wait until the weekend before I can post the entire
article.
Finally, ensure you are familiar with Canadian regulations. Much of the
information on GPS comes from the United States, where pilots can use GPS in
lieu of distance measuring equipment (DME) and automatic direction finders
(ADF), and can fly overlay approaches without monitoring underlying aids.
This is not currently the case in Canada for several reasons: we depend
much more on non-directional beacons (NDB) and we do not have the density of
VORs, airports or radar coverage. If your aircraft is not equipped for
Canadian operations, you will encounter flight restrictions that may cause
safety problems.
Transport Canada and NAV CANADA have set up a joint team to review GPS
operational, technical and safety issues. If you have any comments on any
aspect of GPS operations, please e-mail them to sat...@navcanada.ca, or send
a fax to NAV CANADA's SatNav Program Office at (613) 563-5602.
Mike & Lee Anne wrote in message <37E5570A...@sympatico.ca>...
ro...@mail.com
I'd appreciate it if you could put in the whole article, it's
a very useful data point in the GPS debate. There's a lot of
confusion about the scope of GPS and a lot of people think
that Canada works the same way as the US.
If you don't have time, mail me and I'll give you a fax number
and you could fax it me and I'll type it out.
- Roland
In article <_bBF3.647$_7.8...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,
Kevin Martyn
the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Letter article entitled "Flying Safely
with GPS" as it appeared in the 3/99 issue. Please excuse any typos that
might have slipped through.
Flying Safely with GPS
-----------------------------------
By Ross Bowie, SatNav Program Manager, NAV CANADA
Most pilots who have used global positioning systems (GPS) agree that it
makes flying more
efficient and in some ways safer. Previous Aviation Safety Letter articles
highlighted some potential
hazards of misusing GPS. Many more pilots have started using GPS since the
last article, so we
thought it timely to review some of the safety issues.
Our experience with various types of GPS avionics suggests good training is
essential. A couple of
decades ago when the flight management system (FMS) appeared in new
airliners, many pilots
found that mastering the FMS was more difficult than flying the aircraft.
Thanks to modern
computers, today’s small GPS receivers have more features than FMSs, and the
GPS manual can be
thicker than the aircraft’s.
Safety depends on suing avionics properly. The easy way to learn is to
focus on necessary functions:
entering and activating a flight plan; making changes to the flight plan in
the air, including adding
arrival and approach procedures; and navigating en route, in the terminal
area and on approach.
Find out the best ways to do these things then practice. Many GPS avionics
can be used at home or
in the classroom. Take advantage of this to learn the basics without
wasting fuel, and without
having to watch for traffic and fly the aircraft.
Many pilots use GPS as an aid to visual flight rules (VFR) navigation. The
key word is “aid”
because VFR means seeing the terrain well enough to confirm your position on
a map. Avionics
used for VFR do not check for errors in satellite signals, so your GPS
position could be bad. Finger
trouble (entering the wrong waypoint co-ordinates) could have you flying
very accurately to the
wrong place. A :”simple” panel mount or hand held unit depends on hundreds
of thousands of lines
of software code. When was the last time you made it through a week without
your personal
computer doing something that made no sense? None of these problems occurs
very often, but
neither does fuel contamination, and we check for that every day.
GPS accuracy and reliability have led some pilots to depart VFR on days when
the visibility is too
low for VFR navigation. This could lead to loss of control caused by
disorientation or collision with
unseen obstacles. When the weather is marginal, a VFR-rated pilot should
assume GPS is not
available then decide whether to depart. On days when the weather
deteriorates en route, it is
critical to use your map and fly at a safe altitude.
In instrument flight rules (IFR) flight a key to safety is situational
awareness - knowing where you
are, where you are headed next and how you are going to get there without
tangling with obstacles,
weather or any other hazard. Keep up with the aircraft and the environment.
Know your route,
particularly in the terminal area, by preparing before departure and
arrival. Time spent studying
charts can make all the difference if air traffic control (ATC) changes your
clearance; familiarity
with terrain and obstacles can ensure awareness of hazards. Verify waypoint
co-ordinates, or check
that bearings and distances make sense; data bases are far from perfect.
Know what the avionics
should be doing next and ensure it does what you intended. If it does not,
take control immediately,
ensure the aircraft follows a safe path, then sort out the problem. Do not
become engrossed with the
avionics at the expense of flying the aircraft.
The complexity of GPS avionics can increase workload at critical times.
With very high frequency
omnidirectional range (VOR) stations, all we do is change a frequency and
set a course. Time spent
programming GPS avionics takes away from managing the flight, but there are
ways to reduce the
hazard. Complete familiarity with the avionics helps. The key, however, is
to minimize
programming during departure and arrival, when workload is already high and
when the terrain is
nearby. At the pre-flight stage, load the flight plan to destination and
perhaps from destination to
alternate to minimize head-down time and workload during flight. Most
airlines discourage any
programming of the FMS below 10,000 ft. on arrival. This would obviously
not be practical in a
Cessna 172, but the message is: get the programming done early and do not
try to make major
changes near the ground. Your number one job is to fly the aircraft.
One challenge we face with GPS is that the first generation of avionics does
not have a common
pilot interface. Transport Canada and NAV CANADA strongly support the use
of moving map
displays to enhance situational awareness. The good news is that the next
generation of receivers all
seem to have moving maps. Some units are simpler to use than others. It
makes sense to evaluate a
unit’s user-friendliness before buying.
Next, a controversial issue: if two aircraft on opposite courses are using
GPS, does the risk of
collision increase? The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
Transport Canada and
NAV CANADA, among others, have been studying this for several years and have
not come to a
conclusion. We rely on various procedures and services to avoid collisions:
flying at an altitude
appropriate to direction of flight; ATC, using radar and position reports;
communications (on the
proper frequency or frequencies) with other pilots in uncontrolled airspace
and near airports without
control or advisory service; and watching for other traffic. Some have
suggested flying offset tracks.
For IFR operations, ATC separation provides the necessary margin of safety.
For VFR, the question
is: offset from what? All we can suggest at this point is that pilots using
GPS on regular VFR routes
could stay to the right of centre. This is already recommended when flying
along rivers or valleys.
This does not replace communicating, watching for other traffic and
minimizing head-down time.
Jim Gorman
Having just returned from Canada yesterday, the number is (800) INFO-FSS.
It will connect you to the nearest FSS, just as (800) WX-BRIEF does in the
states.