OTTAWA TERMINAL

PUBLIC RNAV (RNP) IMPLEMENTATION

CUSTOMER BRIEFING DOCUMENT

EFFECTIVE: 0901Z SEPT 15TH, 2016
 CYOW Public RNAV (RNP) & (GNSS) Implementation
The purpose of this document is to provide information, expectations and standard operating practices
specific to the implementation of these new RNP procedures.

Effective Sept 15th, 2016, NAV CANADA AIM will be publishing new and updated Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) procedures at CYOW:

• New RNAV (RNP) approaches

• Updated RNAV (GNSS) approaches
• Updated RNAV STAR procedures

Traditional approaches remain and have been reviewed.

***All depictions of this document shall not be used for navigation.

2
 RNAV (RNP) AR
New TP308 public design criteria RNAV (RNP) AR procedures will be available to all customers that have
the applicable RNP AR Operations Specification:

• RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 07

• RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 14
• RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 25
• RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 32

The CYOW Westjet RCAP RNP procedures will be revoked coincidentally.

3
 OPERATING PROCEDURES

 When in use, the RNAV approach will be advertised on the ATIS with the following message:

“IFR APPROACH RNAV Y or RNAV Z RWY 32, ADVISE OTTAWA ARRIVAL OF REQUESTED
APPROACH ON INTIAL CONTACT”

 All pilots are required to inform Ottawa Arrival on initial contact of the planned approach. Do
not advise the Enroute sectors.

“WJA123 FL210 for 8 000’, information Alpha request RNAV Y 32”

NOTE 1: The “Short Gate” expression shall not be used.

NOTE 2: As per AIC 13/16 RNAV AS PRIMARY APCH ON ATIS, the ILS will not be listed on ATIS
unless weather requires it. However, the ILS may remain available upon request for pilots not
able to fly RNAV Y, RNAV Z or visual.

 Controller will confirm the approach.

“WJA123 plan RNAV Y 32”

NOTE: Direct routing to any waypoint past the IF is not possible.

Approach clearance format:

“WJA123 cleared RNAV Yankee three two approach, DEMKO transition”

4
 Radar vectors to the final approach course will be provided if the requested transition is not
available. In these occurrences, pilots are not expected to configure another transition or
another approach.

“ACA234 unable DEMKO transition, expect vectors, base turn in 12 miles”

Approach clearance format:

“ACA234 turn left heading 350, intercept final approach course, cleared RNAV yankee three two
approach”

 Controllers will endeavour to cancel STAR altitude and speed restrictions when not required.

“ACA234 DEMKO restrictions cancelled, expect base turn in 12 miles”

5
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 07

6
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 14

7
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 25

8
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 32

9
LIDO example

10
Jeppesen example

11
 RNAV (GNSS)
The following procedures have been updated.

• RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 07

• RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 14
• RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 25
• RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 32

They all have LPV, LNAV/VNAV and LNAV minimums.

12
 OPERATING PROCEDURES

 When in use, the RNAV approach will be advertised on the ATIS with the following message:

“IFR APPROACH RNAV Y or RNAV Z RWY 32, ADVISE OTTAWA ARRIVAL OF REQUESTED
APPROACH ON INTIAL CONTACT”

 All pilots are required to inform Ottawa Arrival on initial contact of the planned approach. Do
not advise the Enroute sectors.

“JZA123 FL210 for 8 000’, information Alpha request RNAV Z 32”

NOTE: As per AIC 13/16 RNAV AS PRIMARY APCH ON ATIS, the ILS will not be listed on ATIS
unless weather requires it. However, the ILS may remain available upon request for pilots not
able to fly RNAV Y, RNAV Z or visual.

 Controller will confirm the approach.

“JZA123 plan RNAV Z 32

Approach clearance format:

“JZA123 cleared RNAV Zulu three two approach, VOLAG transition”

13
 Radar vectors to the final approach course will be provided if the requested transition is not
available. In these occurrences, pilots are not expected to configure another transition or
another approach.

“JZA123 unable VOLAG transition, expect vectors, base turn in 12 miles”

Approach clearance format:

“JZA123 turn left heading 350, intercept final approach course, cleared RNAV zulu three two
approach”

14
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 07

15
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14

16
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 25

17
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32

18
 Other approach procedures
The following procedures have been updated.

• ILS07 (IF relocated closer to the runway)

• NDB25
• ILS32 (IF relocated closer to the runway – NDB minimum revoked)
• NDB32 (New – Formerly part of the ILS32 procedure)

19
 RNAV STAR
The following procedures have been updated.

• CAPITAL ARR
• DEANS ARR
• RIVER ARR
• LEAMY ARR
• MEECH ARR

Summary of changes:

 Removal of the DTW on the downwind transitions. The updated STAR cannot be closed with
DTW to FACF. This allows for designing a shorter final approach course.

 Straight-in transitions are “closed STAR”. The FACF labelling of the IF is no longer part of the
depiction standards.

 Termination of the runway transition with at “track” as opposed to a “heading”;

 Lowering of the altitude constraint at the STAR/RNAV(GNSS) Z IAF common waypoint (ie VOLAG
on CAPITAL ARR RWY 32/RNAV(GNSS)Z 32);

 Addition of a STAR/RNAV (RNP) Y IF common waypoint associated with an altitude and speed
constraint for enhancing the approach connectivity (ie DEMKO on CAPITAL ARR
RWY32/RNAV(GNSS)Y 32);

 Addition of a note about the applicability of the STAR/RNAV (RNP) Y IF common waypoint
constraints (see the operating procedure section)

20
 OPERATING PROCEDURES

 RNAV (RNP) Y approaches are shorter resulting in STAR vertical profiles significantly lower than
those of the RNAV (GNSS) Z approaches.

Altitude constraints specific for the RNAV(RNP)Y operation are built into the STAR procedures
for enhancing the RNAV(RNP)Y approach connectivity.

While these constraints are a benefit for aircraft planning the RNAV(RNP)Y approaches, it is a
drawback for those planning the RNAV(GNSS)Z approaches as they force them below an
optimum vertical profile.

For maintaining the flight efficiencies of aircraft not planning a RNAV(RNP)Y approach and for
mitigating noise effects, pilots are requested to delete as early as possible the altitude
constraint associated with a pertaining note. To assist with FMC vertical guidance pilots may
replace the “AT 5000” or “MANDATORY 5000” with a higher altitude to accommodate a longer
and more efficient distance to final.

ATC doesn’t need to be informed of this specific action.

NAV CANADA CAP example

The N/A acronym is defined in the Canada Air Pilot GEN section as such:

21
 JEPPESEN EXAMPLE

LIDO EXAMPLE

 Winter operations often require the use of runway 14 for departing to reduce taxi time after the
de-icing operation. Also long-haul flights frequently require using runway 14 for a longer take-
off run.

These departures interfere with the RNAV (RNP) Y 25 thus limiting ATC’s ability to make these
operations occur simultaneously.

ATC will tactically prioritize the post de-icing departing flight over an arriving flight.

ATC will tactically prioritize the arriving RNAV (RNP) Y 25 flight over “non-de-icing” flight using
runway 14 for departing.

22
CAPITAL ARR

23
DEANS ARR

24
RIVER ARR

25
LEAMY ARR

26
MEECH ARR

27
JEPPESEN EXAMPLE

28
LIDO EXAMPLE

29
 TEMPORARY ISSUES
The following issues were identified and will be fixed in subsequent publication cycles:

1. The SEBEG transition of the RNAV (RNP) Y 14 will be NOTAM’d not authorized due to the use of
the ELEMU waypoint, duplicate of a waypoint name already existing in a different instrument
procedure.

2. On the LEAMY ARR, the transition for runway 07 has an altitude constraint associated to runway
25/32. AIM confirms there is no impact. No NOTAM will be issued.

30