Interesting STAR

[bnicolette]

I was flying into CYUL last night (in the Lear not the Mooney).  We were given the Habbs2 arrival coming off of ART.  Once we started flying the arrival we kept looking at the STAR and trying to determine what we might get after Habbs.  The controller came on shortly before Habbs and said to fly the arrival for ILS24L.  Well that's great, but I just couldn't see on the STAR anywhere where it said which route was for which approach after Habbs.  The FMS when we loaded up ILS24L automatically put the correct points for the STAR in after Habbs, but I guess I'm a bit too old school, as I like to see it referenced on the STAR chart also (and then double check the FMS that all the correct points are in the "box")  I just had to jump on the radio for a moment and verify the correct points with the controller so I could have that "warm and fuzzy" feeling that we'd be turning in the proper directions after Habbs.

Am I missing something on this chart?

 

Here are the plates:

 

http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/Canada/merge1301/Single/CYUL_HABBS_TWO_ARR_HABBS_HABBS2.pdf

 

http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/Canada/merge1301/Single/CYUL_ILS_DME_RWY_24L.pdf

[201er]

My guess would be Habbs -> Xulta... fly the back course to a procedure turn and then the ILS?

[Cris]

Brett I'll take a stab at this and referance the legend whereby it states that "if clearance includes a DTW the following procedures apply: if approach procedure is not received prior to DTW fly depicted heading ....arrow" which means to fly Habbs, Comau, Ebgur 101 degrees on the heading and then expect radar vectors to the initial approach fix Sloka depicted on the rnav ILS 24L chart which you are expected to have as part of the Star. Other directions are shown also but in the end this is a lesson in double checking like you did. It is not intuitive. In my case I'd have refused the Star and requested radar vectors if I had any doubt at all or better yet shown "No Stars" on my flight plan if I had briefed it prior to filing. Might not be as professional but safer than a best guess like I'm doing now. Good job!

[Dave Marten]

Oh Canada! What you have here is an example both an 'open' and 'closed' STAR. The 'closed' routes terminate directly at the FACF (final approach clearance fix), but the 'open' legs dump you off on the radar downwind for the landing runways (DTW). Approaching HABBS expect the route to the landing runway (your case 24L) so you would have flown HABBS-COMAU-PERNI-AVILL. ATIS (in english) should have called out the approach(es) in use which would have clued you in as to what routing to expect. Some FMS's will not link the 'open' (DTW) fix to the FACF which may require hand jamming, but looks like your system did. Your system correctly sequenced you to SOLKA once you activated the ILS24L. Check out the Canook IFR regs: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-rac-9-0-2604.htm#rac-9-2 Happy flying up in da nordth, hea!

[bnicolette]

Dave, you are right on and that's the arrival we flew after Habbs.  My questions is other than the FMS knowing what route to fly after habbs when doing the ILS24L, what on the chart clues you in to the correct route?  There are two open ended points (DTW) on that arrival and honestly the other one (EBGUR) makes as much sense as AVILL does especially landing on the left side.

 

We knew (not absolutely) the route pretty early on in the arrival as like you said the ATIS obviously had the landing runways which were 24R & L.  Private side is on the East side of the airport, so we figured we'd be getting ILS24L but in looking at the FMS the arrival course after habbs doesn't change either for the right or left side.  I just didn't like the FMS knowing the route and not me!  More and more I am seeing this kind of stuff as the RNAV1 SID's and STAR's.

 

This was a fairly busy arrival with the altitude restrictions and speed restrictions.  We were in moderate icing below about 6000' which is not a big deal but in order to keep the amount of bleed air we need to keep everything warm, we need power.  The power required at that altitude translates into about 230 knots, so the only other thing to do is either run the flaps down or fly around with the speed brakes out.

[Dave Marten]

If you know you're landing 24 then you only have two DTW choices. So 50/50. Knowing that the DTW should set you up on a downwind then AVILL makes the best sense, but doesn't hurt to clarify "confirm 24L via AVILL?" I'm no expert in Canadian rules so thanks for the post, good learning exercise. You can always do what we AF guys do when in doubt..request vectors to final!

[bnicolette]

request vectors to final!

 

Right on!  

 

Thanks for the link BTW for the IFR procedures.  I knew that Canada had changed their "Descend via/Climb via" STAR's and SID's in the beginning of 2012 but never really dug any further beyond reading that change.

[xftrplt]

Dave, you are right on and that's the arrival we flew after Habbs.  My questions is other than the FMS knowing what route to fly after habbs when doing the ILS24L, what on the chart clues you in to the correct route?  There are two open ended points (DTW) on that arrival and honestly the other one (EBGUR) makes as much sense as AVILL does especially landing on the left side.

 

We knew (not absolutely) the route pretty early on in the arrival as like you said the ATIS obviously had the landing runways which were 24R & L.  Private side is on the East side of the airport, so we figured we'd be getting ILS24L but in looking at the FMS the arrival course after habbs doesn't change either for the right or left side.  I just didn't like the FMS knowing the route and not me!  More and more I am seeing this kind of stuff as the RNAV1 SID's and STAR's.

 

This was a fairly busy arrival with the altitude restrictions and speed restrictions.  We were in moderate icing below about 6000' which is not a big deal but in order to keep the amount of bleed air we need to keep everything warm, we need power.  The power required at that altitude translates into about 230 knots, so the only other thing to do is either run the flaps down or fly around with the speed brakes out.

Nice explanation, Dave.

 

Brett, EBGUR does NOT make sense for an approach to RW's 24.  DTW stands for Downwind Termination Waypoint.  AVILL is on the downwind for RW's 24, EBGUR is NOT.  The FMS was, as you said, correct, and the clearance unambiguous in my opinion.  However, as Dave said, "Confirm via AVILL" could be appropriate.  I disagree with "Request VTF."  Pros flying turbojets are expected to fly the STAR. 

 

Cheers,

Dick

 

PS:  Here's another quick link.  http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir/moncton/WeeklyTopics/Archives/20030629/CurrentTopic.html

[bnicolette]

Nice explanation, Dave.

 

Brett, EBGUR does NOT make sense for an approach to RW's 24.  DTW stands for Downwind Termination Waypoint.  AVILL is on the downwind for RW's 24, EBGUR is NOT.  The FMS was, as you said, correct, and the clearance unambiguous in my opinion.  However, as Dave said, "Confirm via AVILL" could be appropriate.  I disagree with "Request VTF."  Maybe ok for the weekend warrior, but pros flying turbojets are expected to fly the STARS.

 

Cheers,

Dick

 

PS:  Here's another quick link.  http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir/moncton/WeeklyTopics/Archives/20030629/CurrentTopic.html

 

No worries Dick.........I wouldn't ask for VTF.      I think I gave that right up about 15 years ago.  Anytime there is a "doubt" with anything ATC, my SOP is simple........ASK.  

 

Thanks for that link!!

[Cris]

Nice explanation, Dave.

 

Brett, EBGUR does NOT make sense for an approach to RW's 24.  DTW stands for Downwind Termination Waypoint.  AVILL is on the downwind for RW's 24, EBGUR is NOT.  The FMS was, as you said, correct, and the clearance unambiguous in my opinion.  However, as Dave said, "Confirm via AVILL" could be appropriate.  I disagree with "Request VTF."  Pros flying turbojets are expected to fly the STAR. 

 

Cheers,

Dick

 

PS:  Here's another quick link.  http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir/moncton/WeeklyTopics/Archives/20030629/CurrentTopic.html

Ok Maybe I am not reading the plate correctly. It appears to me that Ebgur could be the start of the left downwind leg for 24L whereas Avill would be the end of the downwind leg for 24 R.. I would think that Ebgur would be the preferred route especially with simutaneous landings on 24 R and 24 L as Ebgur prevents crossing over the final approach path of 24 R. In any event I am unsure so I would have "asked" and flown what they gave me. Years ago I landed at Le Bourget france after a particulalry harrowing flight in a Mooney crossing the Atlantic. I was read a star but did not realize it as I could not understand the accent  and threatend to declare an ememrgency unless someone could make it clear to me what was wanted. After a lot of back and forth I finally understood LeBoruget one arrival and proceeded to a smooth landing but I really learned my lesson in flying outside of the USA There are differances and it pays to be extra careful.    

[Cris]

So in following Dick's link I find the following.<br /><br />There is one more issue for RNAV STARs that doesn't apply to a STAR like the MAIRE 1 example above. Aircraft not equipped to fly RNAV STARs should not be cleared for RNAV STARs. How does ATC know they can't do it? The pilot should be smart enough to know whether he can or can't fly one. If he can, and he wants to, he should file it as part of his flight plan. This is ATC's cue to issue a clearance to fly a STAR for a specific runway in time to allow the pilot to select the right route. If he can't fly one of these STARs, he shouldn't file an RNAV STAR in his flight plan, nor should he accept a clearance from ATC to fly one. Another cue to an aircraft's ability is the equipment suffix in the flight plan. If it reads "/S", he isn't able to accomplish one, unless he made a mistake while filing his flight plan. So, ATC, if you don't see it on a pilot's flight plan, don't issue a clearance for an RNAV STAR. And for pilots, don't file them in the flight plan if you don't want to, or can't, fly them. Simple, right?<br />So it would appear that without FMS one is not approved to fly this type of approach as you must rely on the FMS database and the atis for the runway in use making any other waypoints null and void period.

[xftrplt]

Ok Maybe I am not reading the plate correctly. It appears to me that Ebgur could be the start of the left downwind leg for 24L whereas Avill would be the end of the downwind leg for 24 R.. I would think that Ebgur would be the preferred route especially with simutaneous landings on 24 R and 24 L as Ebgur prevents crossing over the final approach path of 24 R....    

Chris, you gotta look at the headings after the DTWs.  From EBGUR it's 101 degrees--within 2 degrees of the recip of the heading for RW 28 (for which it is the DTW).  EBGUR is not and cannot be mistaken for the DTW for RW 24; it's heading to fly is 44 degrees off the downwind course.  Likewise, the heading from AVILL is 057 degrees--1 degree of the recip of the heading of RWs 24L/R.  As per the plate, if you haven't received clearance by the DTW, you are expected to fly those headings for downwind.  It seems gin clear to me, though, admittedly, I routinely flew this and similar STARs at CYYZ (Toronto) while based at LGA and DCA.

[Cris]

Well that makes a bit more sense but in the end without FMS (which would give you the route as well as altitudes and speeds) one can not fly the approach from what I read. There is only one way to fly this "Open Star" and there can be no confusion such as discussed. Learned something new--again Thanks.

[xftrplt]

I certainly may be wrong, but I see no reason not to fly these STARs with only a 4/530.