Q: CYKF (Kitchener/Waterloo Regional) ILS RWY 25

[David Megginson]

I was glancing at the IAP for the CYKF (Kitchener/Waterloo) ILS 25
tonight (like most Canadian plates, it's not available online), and I
noticed that the DH is very high:

ILS 1554 (500) 1 1/2
LOC 1560 (506) 1 1/2
CIRCLING [A,B] 1560 (506) 1 1/2 [C] 1560 (506) 2 [D] 1700 (646) 2

Ouch! Does anyone know why DH for the ILS approach is nearly the same
as circling minima? I landed there once VFR and do no remember any
major obstructions, and there's nothing noted on the plate near the
final segment. The CFS has a couple of notes on this approach in the
PRO section:

1. The approach overflies Guelph airport about 1000 ft above circuit
altitude.

2. Expect delays when CYYZ (Toronto) 05 and 06R are in use.

but neither of these would affect DH.

Nearby, the CYXU (London) ILS 15 and CYHM (Hamilton) ILS 12 approaches
both have the regular 200 ft DH.


All the best,


David

[Ross Magnaldo]

There's a built up area just to the West of the airport and I was told by my
instructor that they raise the DH so that on the missed approach there would
be sufficient clearance with the town. That also explains why the LOC (BC)
goes down to 1460 (436) - check the Notams though, it's been amended to
1540.
If you were there some time ago, the latest change is the rwy 07 - 25, it
has been extended to 7000 and they now charge a landing fee (see
http://www.waterlooairport.ca/).

Ross

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> I was glancing at the IAP for the CYKF (Kitchener/Waterloo) ILS 25
> tonight (like most Canadian plates, it's not available online), and I
> noticed that the DH is very high:
>
> ILS 1554 (500) 1 1/2
> LOC 1560 (506) 1 1/2
> CIRCLING [A,B] 1560 (506) 1 1/2 [C] 1560 (506) 2 [D] 1700 (646) 2
>
> Ouch! Does anyone know why DH for the ILS approach is nearly the same
> as circling minima? I landed there once VFR and do no remember any
> major obstructions, and there's nothing noted on the plate near the
> final segment. The CFS has a couple of notes on this approach in the
> PRO section:
>
> 1. The approach overflies Guelph airport about 1000 ft above circuit
> altitude.
>
> 2. Expect delays when CYYZ (Toronto) 05 and 06R are in use.
>
> but neither of these would affect DH.
>
> Nearby, the CYXU (London) ILS 15 and CYHM (Hamilton) ILS 12 approaches
> both have the regular 200 ft DH.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:45:54 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>I was glancing at the IAP for the CYKF (Kitchener/Waterloo) ILS 25
>tonight (like most Canadian plates, it's not available online), and I
>noticed that the DH is very high:
>
> ILS 1554 (500) 1 1/2
> LOC 1560 (506) 1 1/2
> CIRCLING [A,B] 1560 (506) 1 1/2 [C] 1560 (506) 2 [D] 1700 (646) 2
>
>Ouch! Does anyone know why DH for the ILS approach is nearly the same
>as circling minima? I landed there once VFR and do no remember any
>major obstructions, and there's nothing noted on the plate near the
>final segment. The CFS has a couple of notes on this approach in the
>PRO section:
>
>1. The approach overflies Guelph airport about 1000 ft above circuit
> altitude.
>
>2. Expect delays when CYYZ (Toronto) 05 and 06R are in use.
>
>but neither of these would affect DH.
>
>Nearby, the CYXU (London) ILS 15 and CYHM (Hamilton) ILS 12 approaches
>both have the regular 200 ft DH.
>
>

It's not always possible to know why without being a TERPS expert (or
whatever the equivalent is in Canada) and having detailed topo maps. For
example, at my local airport, the MDA on one approach is constrained by a
tree that is some 30,000' from the airport. Since that tree has to be
cleared by a certain altitude, and since there is a maximum allowable
descent gradient, that obstacle determines the minimums. (At some time in
the future, with GPS, they may add a step-down fix to get us lower).
There'd be no way to determine that from aviation charts.

Some guesses:

1. If there is a requirement to be 1000' above circuit altitude going over
Guelph, then descent gradient restrictions may preclude a lower DH.

2. Other charts show two towers about 1100' from the centerline inside
Kilo. One is 1400/350 and the other 1324/274 MSL/AGL. Could these be
having an effect?

3. There is a tower (1117'/96') in what should be the missed approach
protected area about 1/2 mile WNW of the runway.

4. Or it could be some other reason altogether.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[David Megginson]

"Ross Magnaldo" > writes:

> There's a built up area just to the West of the airport and I was told by my
> instructor that they raise the DH so that on the missed approach there would
> be sufficient clearance with the town. That also explains why the LOC (BC)
> goes down to 1460 (436) - check the Notams though, it's been amended to
> 1540.

Thanks for the explanation. Does the development post-date the
airport? If so, then it's some pretty sloppy zoning.

The news about the landing fee is sad but not unexpected. What bugs
me is not paying CAD 10.00 or 15.00 to visit another airport, but
knowing that it probably costs them more than that to put together an
invoice, mail it to me, and collect the fee -- it's a sort of
screw-you gesture (i.e. "we'll bill you even if we lose money doing
it").

All the best,


David

[R. Barrick]

There is a farm silo to the south of the threshold of RWY 25.

Ray Barrick
Guelph, ON Canada

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> I was glancing at the IAP for the CYKF (Kitchener/Waterloo) ILS 25
> tonight (like most Canadian plates, it's not available online), and I
> noticed that the DH is very high:
>
> ILS 1554 (500) 1 1/2
> LOC 1560 (506) 1 1/2
> CIRCLING [A,B] 1560 (506) 1 1/2 [C] 1560 (506) 2 [D] 1700 (646) 2
>
> Ouch! Does anyone know why DH for the ILS approach is nearly the same
> as circling minima? I landed there once VFR and do no remember any
> major obstructions, and there's nothing noted on the plate near the
> final segment. The CFS has a couple of notes on this approach in the
> PRO section:
>
> 1. The approach overflies Guelph airport about 1000 ft above circuit
> altitude.
>
> 2. Expect delays when CYYZ (Toronto) 05 and 06R are in use.
>
> but neither of these would affect DH.
>
> Nearby, the CYXU (London) ILS 15 and CYHM (Hamilton) ILS 12 approaches
> both have the regular 200 ft DH.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

[David Megginson]

"R. Barrick" > writes:

> There is a farm silo to the south of the threshold of RWY 25.

Thanks for that info -- I wonder why it's not on the plate.

Now, why did they let a farmer build a silo that penetrated the
(normally) protected airspace for an ILS approach? Or did the ILS
approach go in after the silo?

I took a quick glance, and I didn't find any other ILS approach in
Ontario or Quebec with a 500 ft DH -- it must hardly be worth the cost
of maintaining the transmitters.


All the best,


David

[R. Barrick]

The silo was there first.

It is a good airport for practice approaches.

Ray


"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "R. Barrick" > writes:
>
> > There is a farm silo to the south of the threshold of RWY 25.
>
> Thanks for that info -- I wonder why it's not on the plate.
>
> Now, why did they let a farmer build a silo that penetrated the
> (normally) protected airspace for an ILS approach? Or did the ILS
> approach go in after the silo?
>
> I took a quick glance, and I didn't find any other ILS approach in
> Ontario or Quebec with a 500 ft DH -- it must hardly be worth the cost
> of maintaining the transmitters.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David