Buttonville Tower set to close in July!

[172_Captain]

I don't disagree with you that Toronto has two fine FBOs that jets can use, but if you read my post, I was talking about less expensive satellite airports. Toronto is extremely expensive to land your Citation or Learjet or even your King Air. Hamilton isn't in the GTA, nor is Waterloo. I guess Oshawa would count as the GTA so I'll retract my statement that there aren't any airports. However, I think we can both see the role that Buttonville plays for business aviation in Toronto.

Or continue to fly your jet into Buttonville once the tower is gone. It’s not like a tower is a requirement to land a jet. Many a jet fly into uncontrolled and MF airports everyday accross Canada just fine. Your Vapp speed in a citation or lear is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130. Get over yourself.

[linecrew]

I don't really understand why, beyond traffic statistics, anyone as a pilot would be against, or indifferent to, keeping an atc facility open? Economics? Is it to help the government with the budget? Or perhaps to help the private company NavCanada to manage their resources in a better/more convenient way for them, expecting that by closing this tower they will open/improve facilities in some other more needed location?

Nav Canada is not a part of the government and I would agree that a costly tower operation at a location that doesn't meet criteria is a mis-use of my Nav Canada fees. Especially when other programs such as space based ADS-B are being developed by them. Where do you think the funding for that comes from?

[skybluetrek]

I don't really understand why, beyond traffic statistics, anyone as a pilot would be against, or indifferent to, keeping an atc facility open? Economics? Is it to help the government with the budget? Or perhaps to help the private company NavCanada to manage their resources in a better/more convenient way for them, expecting that by closing this tower they will open/improve facilities in some other more needed location?

Except they don't. How long has Red Deer been waiting for a Tower? I can guarantee you that closing Buttonville won't open a tower someplace else. It will just be one less line item for NavCanada to pay for. Look at the US, pretty well every major/minor city has at least one towered airport and cities the size of Toronto have two, sometimes three satellite airports for GA traffic with towers. If you close Buttonville Tower, there are literally 0 airports in the GTA with towers that a jet can fly into (unless you consider Oshawa, but it's quite removed from Toronto). Hell, even the "sprawling metropolis" has two towered airports, and they used to have three before City Center closed its doors. It's also not prohibitively expensive to operate into YEG like it is for YYZ.

I understand the US model is a little different than Canada, most smaller airports (essentially all Class D) use private contract towers with the operator picking up part of the bill and the FAA the other. Maybe this is a model Canada should adopt. FYI we do have one contract tower, Southport, with the military's contractor paying Serco for it (same contractor many US towers use).

Yup that was my point. And of course the world will keep turning, but that's not really the point I'd say, the point is to speak up when the system is under the threat of getting dismantled without clear tangible operational benefits for the users(pilots), either at the same location or somewhere else.
And maybe for the airport operator to now launch a court challenge is a bit too much; If the owner, corporation, finds the way to actually do something else with the land they would close the airport tomorrow towered or not. Having said that, if you normally operate out of Buttonville in these days, you'd have to agree that it is a sound decision and policy to have a control tower(or at least an FSS) there now.

[rookiepilot]

The jet owner, who likely has abundant choices, can A) fly into buttonville without a tower, or B) go to at least 4 other airports I can immediately think of in close proximity with a tower.

Not seeing the big issue.

[skybluetrek]

I don't really understand why, beyond traffic statistics, anyone as a pilot would be against, or indifferent to, keeping an atc facility open? Economics? Is it to help the government with the budget? Or perhaps to help the private company NavCanada to manage their resources in a better/more convenient way for them, expecting that by closing this tower they will open/improve facilities in some other more needed location?

Nav Canada is not a part of the government and I would agree that a costly tower operation at a location that doesn't meet criteria is a mis-use of my Nav Canada fees. Especially when other programs such as space based ADS-B are being developed by them. Where do you think the funding for that comes from?

Fair enough, I get it, and this is slightly off topic, but your comment made me think of the question... If pilots were given the option as for how to better spend the NavCanada budget, would they go with the ADB-S system implementation, or would they rather having more control towers at busy enough airports ???

[photofly]

I believe the intent behind ADSB is to avoid having to replace several EOL radar installations at astronomical costs, so you can have ADSB *and* more towers.

If you left it up to pilots, NavCanada would spend its budget dishing out hamburgers and free 100LL at every FSS, so perhaps budget decisions are best made by others.

[linecrew]

I believe the intent behind ADSB is to avoid having to replace several EOL radar installations at astronomical costs, so you can have ADSB *and* more towers.

I think ADS-B is more about vastly huge increases in surveillance coverage than what radar currently provides (doing it from space where line of site isn't an issue) rather than simply avoiding the cost of replacing old radar units.

[skybluetrek]

I believe the intent behind ADSB is to avoid having to replace several EOL radar installations at astronomical costs, so you can have ADSB *and* more towers.

If you left it up to pilots, NavCanada would spend its budget dishing out hamburgers and free 100LL at every FSS, so perhaps budget decisions are best made by others.

LOL

[Lotro]

Tower closing has been delayed. Rumour is the tower will remain open until Late October. Lawsuits take time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/b ... -1.4659508

[linecrew]

Update on the tower closure:

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/safety-and-numbers/

[photofly]

Hard, also, for Torontair to bill landing fees when they won’t have a control tower to log movements for them.

[skybluetrek]

It's already a mess after 5pm, no one is respecting traffic circuit procedures for aerodromes within an MF with No airport advisory information. And there's also the overflies at less than 400ft above PA to stay within the E. Next summer should be interesting.

ATC privatization will only get worse and worse for GA.

[photofly]

I overflew there a month ago at 6pm on a Sunday when the tower was shut and it was a disaster waiting to happen.

[RyanF]

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... ure-EN.pdf

[PlanePaully]

Buttonville pending Tower closure back in the news. Set to close Jan 3, 2019.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pilots-fligh ... -1.4174247

[linecrew]

Buttonville pending Tower closure back in the news. Set to close Jan 3, 2019.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pilots-fligh ... -1.4174247

I really don't understand the point of stating that Buttonville is in a built up area compared to Mirabel and Red Deer. What difference does it make? The real issue will be whether pilots operating there will remember the basics of operating in an MF.

[photofly]

The point is to frighten people who live in Markham. Journalists like to rile people. It sells papers and makes people share websites online. Of which this is a case in point.

[PlanePaully]

Buttonville pending Tower closure back in the news. Set to close Jan 3, 2019.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pilots-fligh ... -1.4174247

I really don't understand the point of stating that Buttonville is in a built up area compared to Mirabel and Red Deer. What difference does it make? The real issue will be whether pilots operating there will remember the basics of operating in an MF.

I would like the Tower to remain, but I am not optimistic about that possibility. Instead, I can at least hope that everybody knows about the change and adapts quickly and safely. Currently the tower is open 08:00 - 17:00. If you listen after hours, you will occasionally hear incoming traffic make a call to the Tower before realizing that it is closed. The ATIS says that the Tower is closed, so here you have a pilot flying into the zone who has not checked the NOTAMs, nor listened to the ATIS, and that to me, indicates that safety could be compromised. During the day, you can often also hear the Tower staff informing unaware pilots that the CZ is now capped at 2000 feet, instead of the former 2500. The first evening that I came back into CYKZ under the MF rules, I was mid-downwind for 33 (left traffic) after crossing mid-field, when another pilot coming in from the east announced that he was joining the "Right-Base 33." I am still a relatively new pilot, but I am pretty sure that joining a right-base in an MF zone is incorrect procedure, although it would have been the normally expected procedure for him had the tower still been open.

[linecrew]

Buttonville pending Tower closure back in the news. Set to close Jan 3, 2019.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pilots-fligh ... -1.4174247

I really don't understand the point of stating that Buttonville is in a built up area compared to Mirabel and Red Deer. What difference does it make? The real issue will be whether pilots operating there will remember the basics of operating in an MF.

The first evening that I came back into CYKZ under the MF rules, I was mid-downwind for 33 (left traffic) after crossing mid-field, when another pilot coming in from the east announced that he was joining the "Right-Base 33." I am still a relatively new pilot, but I am pretty sure that joining a right-base in an MF zone is incorrect procedure, although it would have been the normally expected procedure for him had the tower still been open.

But this is a pilot proficiency issue rather than a lack of tower issue. They should know what is happening at an airport they are flying into as per the way they were trained. It's like saying someone driving the wrong way down the 401is the fault of the anyone else but the driver.

[FL_CH]

Buttonville is used for flight training, I think it's reasonable to expect a pre-PPL student to mess up here and there, potentially leading to conflicts.

Another added complexity is that because the airspace is capped at 2,000, which is only 350 ft above the circuit altitude, you can no longer fly 500 ft above the circuit to descend on the dead side as per standard circuit entry procedures. What do you do? Either specialized entry routes, or fly at 2000, but then you're between a rock and a hard place: descend a bit and you risk a mid-air, climb a bit and you get a Class C violation...