Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

This forum has been developed to discuss ATS related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Message
Author
User avatar
totalflyer
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:31 pm
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#1 Post by totalflyer » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:40 pm

Hey there...

Yesterday noticed it seemed like an oddly high number of go-arounds yesterday (September 1st, 2016)
There were 2 on the south side while I was arriving yesterday and 2 on the north side after I landed.

Was this in regards to the email that our operations received about issues with Nav Canada causing potential delays at Pearson?

Not sure just seemed like a higher than normal.

Cheers,
TotalFlyer
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#2 Post by cossack » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:09 am

There are go-arounds here everyday. Some are ATC initiated (runway separation rules won't be achieved in time, bird strike) others are aircrew initiated (unstable approach/mechanical issues).

Its a function of trying to squeeze the absolute maximum out of the runways and it only takes one arrival to miss a high-speed exit, or a departure be an extra 10 seconds responding to a take off clearance or one aircraft flying slower inside the FAF than expected, to make a very well timed operation go sideways.

Look in CADORS and you'll see all of the go-arounds and the reason for them.

I have no idea about the email you refer to or how NC is "causing potential delays". The controllers in the tower are working extremely hard and a little more smoothing of the arrival and departure rates would make it seem less hectic at peak times. If that is "causing potential delays" then I'm all for it.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
totalflyer
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:31 pm
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#3 Post by totalflyer » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:54 pm

The controllers at Pearson are awesome and are extremely accommodating. The controllers in Toronto do an incredible job. I am aware that go-arounds are a normal occurrence... it can be for any number of reasons.There are so many things out of their control that cause the go-arounds... Be it an aircraft on approach faster or slower than an assigned speed or an aircraft cleared for takeoff and taking their sweet time to start rolling.

It was just an observation that during the time frame I was on arrival into Pearson and up to heading home that there seemed to be more than usual in that timeframe and was just curious if it was any relation to the email received. One controller even stated that a flight would need to change to Rwy 5 because there were 2 go-arounds on 06L.

As for the email I received from my operations department, it was sent from the GTAA Intergrated Operations Control Centre and is below:
The following is a message from Toronto Pearson International Airport - Integrated Operations Control Centre

Toronto Pearson Airport Community

Please be advised that Nav Canada is experiencing technical difficulties. As a result, they are currently running a Land 1 / Depart 1 configuration. GTAA is trying to gather more information as to the extent of the issue.

Further update to follow.
Cheers,

Totalflyer
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#4 Post by cossack » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:54 pm

I was off on the 1st but it doesn't sound like a land 1, depart 1 scenario. Interesting that the GTAA would send out such an email. "Technical difficulties" is a non-specific excuse but I'm fairly sure there were no non-human equipment issues. :rolleyes:
Go-arounds seem to come in bunches and I guess you got lucky and landed. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
totalflyer
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:31 pm
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#5 Post by totalflyer » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:55 pm

Thanks Cossack.
Keep up the awesome work!

Cheers
Totalflyer
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#6 Post by Rookie50 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:09 pm

I've always wondered how Heathrow can handle so many movements (handful more than YYZ) with only 2 runways. I know stacked holds are the norm there, but how does that affect capacity?
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#7 Post by cossack » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:03 pm

Rookie50 wrote:I've always wondered how Heathrow can handle so many movements (handful more than YYZ) with only 2 runways. I know stacked holds are the norm there, but how does that affect capacity?
Stacked holds controlled by the arrival controllers not en route controllers and very precise arrival spacing. Once aircraft start holding here it seems from a tower perspective that arrivals become less optimally spaced.
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#8 Post by Married a Canadian » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:49 pm

I've always wondered how Heathrow can handle so many movements (handful more than YYZ) with only 2 runways. I know stacked holds are the norm there, but how does that affect capacity?
Couple of things with LHR in addition to what Cossack has said.

1 There is no "straight in fix" at Heathrow. Arrivals are fed into the down winds from the holding patterns. They never join straight in like they do in YYZ. You sometimes have to miss a hole in arrival in YYZ because you can't legally join in front of the straight in (particularly on the 06s with the tailwinds).

2 Arrival demand into LHR is constant all day long. In YYZ it fluctuates during the day....you have the 630am arrival rush, then nothing till around 11am. The afternoon is more consistent.
Because of Heathrow's geographical location and hub importance they have traffic all day and given their runway limitation it means the ILS is full all day. YYZ is constrained by demand and where it is geographically.

3 LHR doesn't have quite the extremes of weather that YYZ does. The tailwinds here were a first for me in ATC.

As Cossack said..you have to be VERY precise at Heathrow with your spacing, no missed holes..no extra mile here and there...fully coordinated offloads on the departure runway. They do an excellent job of getting the most out of limited pavement.
However, as I said to a former colleague recently....Good luck trying to run minimums constantly with a 30 knot tailwind on final..with the flowrate they do into LHR.
---------- ADS -----------

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2643
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#9 Post by altiplano » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:05 pm

Toronto does a very poor job considering what they have.

What's the problem? Tower? Terminal? GTAA? TC rules? I don't know.

Whatever it is they are subpar wrt the amount of movements they handle vs. available infrastructure. ie 5 big strips.

I can only imagine how much iron would be moved it were SFO or LHR or numerous other units that seem to pump far more traffic with much less available.

And I wish they would stop giving heavy aircraft stop climb at 3000'.
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#10 Post by cossack » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:40 pm

Caveat: I've had a few Guinesses and no I'm not at work. :wink:
altiplano wrote:Toronto does a very poor job considering what they have.
Really?
altiplano wrote:What's the problem? Tower? Terminal? GTAA? TC rules? I don't know.
Sometimes, sometimes, yes, yes and no you don't.
Add in poor pilot performance: slow to line up, slow to roll, roll out too long, exit slowly and restrictive noise rules and you get what you get. We've been doing visual departures for a few months and some of the results are worse than if we weren't.
altiplano wrote:Whatever it is they are subpar wrt the amount of movements they handle vs. available infrastructure. ie 5 big strips.
It doesn't matter how many big strips you have when they all cross each other and the terminals are on the outside. Too many runway crossings as it is. Oh, and you're too slow crossing active runways.
altiplano wrote:I can only imagine how much iron would be moved it were SFO or LHR or numerous other units that seem to pump far more traffic with much less available.
"Seem to pump more?" Very precise. Could we move more? Yes. Do we wish we could? Yes? Why don't we? See above.
altiplano wrote:And I wish they would stop giving heavy aircraft stop climb at 3000'.
Its not given out randomly but when someone is departing from a runway they shouldn't be departing from. i.e. You're eastbound but need 23. Both sides are stopped at 3,000. Its a procedural thing. If both sides were given 5,000, you'd complain that you were kept straight out for too long.
Time for another drink and back to the baseball. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#11 Post by Married a Canadian » Tue Sep 06, 2016 6:26 pm

Toronto does a very poor job considering what they have
Will second Cossack on this one....we do what we can....it is not all down to ATC or the GTAA. We make mistakes for sure....but then again so do the pilots.

Couple of things from my perspective.

Comparing LHR to YYZ to SFO etc is pointless.....different rules, different pavement, different weather, different flows of traffic, different airspace, different users, different noise procedures etc etc.

YYZ does what it can with the demand that it has. It will never be a LHR or ATL or ORD...as it will never reach that "demand" capacity...no matter what any politician or user says. At the moment we do approx. 443000 movements a year...which puts us in the top 15 airports traffic-wise worldwide. That is still quite impressive. We run at the demand that the airport has from the airlines.

Unlike LHR and their 470000 movements...ours a little bit more of a peak and trough during the day. We can run an arrival rate of 65 plus in a triple operation. When everyone turns up all at once (like the 0630 arrival rush)...then you will be slowed, vectored or spun like you would at any airport worldwide. The airlines have been told that if everyone is scheduled to land or depart at 0630am...or the like..then their will be delays...that message never seems to be taken on board.

BTW saying we have 5 runways? We have 3 East/West parallels, and 2 North South Parallels. Not 5 runways for use all at the same time. Weather conditions in YYZ dictate the use of these more than say at SFO or LHR. You would not be landing in London if the winds were 330/25 gusting 35. At least you can here.
And I wish they would stop giving heavy aircraft stop climb at 3000'
Have to second Cossack on this one. Procedure.

YYZ isn't that bad....I know it can be frustrating for the pilots at times...but having worked in two countries, and done a couple of fams to other airports....you aren't getting anything worse here than you are elsewhere.
---------- ADS -----------

Driving Comet
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#12 Post by Driving Comet » Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:57 pm

Cossack or MAC:

Can you expand on the visual departure seperation now used (from an ATC perspective). What advantages does this provide? Obviously it cannot supersede wake turbulence seperation right? When is terminal responsible to establish 3/1000? Will you do it for same SID departures? Thanks.
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#13 Post by Married a Canadian » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:47 pm

Driving Comet

From a Terminal perspective...Departures can be "closer" together now. Wake turbulence can not be superseded.

We will aim to establish 3 miles and 1000ft once a departure has turned to either a vector or to the on course. We can't turn the following departure until we have IFR separation. Most of us in the terminal at present use altitude for this...although a turn will usually create 3 miles pretty quickly. It works best for similar performance type aircraft. We can be fully legal with aircraft only a mile apart, second one following visually and the first one in the turn ahead. Obviously we can't turn the first aircraft back towards the first. So long the second aircraft keeps the first aircraft in sight, it does not matter how "close" they get on our radar screen...once they turn, we establish separation.
Visuals will be suspended if there is weather in the vicinity, cloud below 5000ft (I think), any deviations in the terminal...or if volume and complexity gets too much.

We don't yet do visual departures for aircraft on the same SID. This might change in due course, given that a few of the SIDs have the same first "point" even though they are going different directions.

Advantages? Last Saturday morning 0630...Operation of Land 05 Depart 06L with arrival offloads on 06L. The arrival controller put the first offload at a 15 mile final for approximate landing time of 0633. Tower was able to launch 5 departures in that 15 mile hole (all jets) using visual departures. We could not have done that before.

Disadvantages? Aircraft performance plays a large factor in the efficiency. The A321 is BRUTAL in the climb, if it is the first aircraft in the sequence, the aircraft on the visual behind usually will have to wait before making a turn, so what is gained on the ground is lost in the air. We do stop them at lower altitudes sometimes in order to get the following aircraft above them so they can turn sooner...but it all depends on when we talk to them and how they perform.

Personally I like the visual departures. It does seem to make a difference in how quickly a departure line up can reduce. Hopefully Cossack can expand from the tower perspective.

I link this to what Altiplano said earlier about YYZ doing a "poor job". Visual departures and a triple operation allows for a LARGE flow of aircraft through Pearson. While there are legitimate complaints about some things that occur I don't believe that we shift any fewer aircraft than other comparable airports...and especially not with the procedure outlined above.

PS While everyone raves about LHR.....they have airborne holding all day long, and huge long line ups for departure all day long.....so while they move a lot of aircraft..they also have a lot of delay built into the system to accommodate.
---------- ADS -----------

atphat
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#14 Post by atphat » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:58 pm

I'm more or less a contrarian. Love to complain. I've done my fair share of complaining about YYZ ATC on the flight deck.
that being said......
YYZ is my home base. I fly into the airport by far more often than other airports and I find YYZ ATC to be pretty good. The ground and apron controllers could use some softening but whatever.

I find they do a pretty good job. The only problems I've had recently are other aircraft slowing to much before the FAF. Which they were promptly chastised on freq.....good for a laugh.

The speed up, slow down can get a little old especially when trying to stay on profile but that is pretty small potatoes. Vectoring into wx can happen, but i'm sure that's a lack of equipment, not skill on their part. (would never happen in Florida).

more often than not i hear myself saying "nice vector" as i'm intercepting LOC and GS at the same time.

They aren't perfect. But who is.

ATP
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#15 Post by Rookie50 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:14 am

Married a Canadian wrote:
I've always wondered how Heathrow can handle so many movements (handful more than YYZ) with only 2 runways. I know stacked holds are the norm there, but how does that affect capacity?
Couple of things with LHR in addition to what Cossack has said.

1 There is no "straight in fix" at Heathrow. Arrivals are fed into the down winds from the holding patterns. They never join straight in like they do in YYZ. You sometimes have to miss a hole in arrival in YYZ because you can't legally join in front of the straight in (particularly on the 06s with the tailwinds).

2 Arrival demand into LHR is constant all day long. In YYZ it fluctuates during the day....you have the 630am arrival rush, then nothing till around 11am. The afternoon is more consistent.
Because of Heathrow's geographical location and hub importance they have traffic all day and given their runway limitation it means the ILS is full all day. YYZ is constrained by demand and where it is geographically.

3 LHR doesn't have quite the extremes of weather that YYZ does. The tailwinds here were a first for me in ATC.

As Cossack said..you have to be VERY precise at Heathrow with your spacing, no missed holes..no extra mile here and there...fully coordinated offloads on the departure runway. They do an excellent job of getting the most out of limited pavement.
However, as I said to a former colleague recently....Good luck trying to run minimums constantly with a 30 knot tailwind on final..with the flowrate they do into LHR.
Thanks those comments make sense.
---------- ADS -----------

Braun
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#16 Post by Braun » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:18 am

Nice posts, I don't work YYZ (although I would love too) but I can see how our rules and weather can make it very difficult to move the traffic they move.
---------- ADS -----------

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#17 Post by ZBBYLW » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:26 am

Thanks for the discussion.

From my perspective the visual departures seem to have helped. I'll admit I can be part of the problem some days flying the 321. It's a nice ride but indeed very slow to climb.

Can you shed some light on the land 1 dep 1 configs vs having mixed arrivals and departures or the 3 runways? Not seeing the big picture it is annoying holding short of 06L/24R number 5 or so with landers on the same runway. Is extra staffing required to use all 3 runways? Just curious why 24L/06R isn't used more frequently.

Or have west bound departures use 33R from V. While still using 24/06s which I have seen used and it seemed to work out okay
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#18 Post by Married a Canadian » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:08 am

ZBBYLW

Apologies for critiquing the A321...we often wonder what the advantages are from the pilot perspective...but yes from our side...it climbs REALLY slowly. Now of course...with our "oh so helpful" noise constraints at YYZ the issue is we can't turn you till 3600ft. We have been saying ever since I have been in Canada that if we could turn aircraft off the ground (or change the 3600) you would see a difference in departure sequencing. However...that one is out of ATC hands.
Still, even with the slow climbers, from a terminal perspective, Visual departures have helped.
Your other queries I will leave to Cossack as they are more tower related, and hopefully he can shed some light on the visuals from his side.

Atphat...appreciate your comments.

Personally, I have never really subscribed to the "this place is better than that place"..."these guys do a better job than those guys" etc in aviation because it is not an even playing field in so many different factors.
In talking about Heathrow and YYZ alone...we already have weather, demand, amount of pavement, ground ops, tailwinds, holding stacks, no straight in fix, east west parallels, North/South Parralels, no props, no slow VFRs, different airspace, different traffic volume in said airspace, different users..etc etc....as factors that play a part in why they run different ops. This is only a small number of the differences...so it is the same for comparing any other set of airports worldwide.
Saying a certain airport "does a poor job".....only has merit if there are no other factors that determine HOW they do that job.
I find they do a pretty good job. The only problems I've had recently are other aircraft slowing to much before the FAF. Which they were promptly chastised on freq.....good for a laugh.

The speed up, slow down can get a little old especially when trying to stay on profile but that is pretty small potatoes. Vectoring into wx can happen, but i'm sure that's a lack of equipment, not skill on their part. (would never happen in Florida).
From the above, it drives us insane when pilots either slow without telling us, or slow up on final without telling us. The chastising has been happening a little bit too much recently. If an aircraft needs to slow...please let us know! We are aware of how close you are on final....but our spacing HAS to be within the rules otherwise we will be pulled. We will NEVER mess with wake separation...so if you are following a heavy...or if you are light following something...ATC WILL give you the required separation. We have to LOG wake reports .so everything is above board. When a pilot slows up on final below the assigned speed....I do wonder what they think they plane behind them is going to do? especially when we run 2.5 miles on certain configs at YYZ. THe title of this thread is about overshoots??...well that is a good way of creating one...and that one ain't down to us.

If we speed you up after slowing you down in the terminal...I will be honest...it normally means we slowed you too early...which is our bad. I usually prefix it with "ACAXXX I am sorry...I slowed you too early".
In the enroute.....it is probably so you don't have to hold, or to meet your flow time. Don't know for sure.

Vectoring into WX? In all honestly....it sometimes is going to happen. Our radar doesn't always show what is out there. We will do our best to keep you clear of CBs and lightning. However if there are too many aircraft in the terminal area, and you need a turn that is going to take you into the teeth of someone else.....not hitting other plane takes priority of not going into CB.
With the pop ups that occur around YYZ what most often happens is that we end up with too many planes before we "turn off the flow taps". We want you to be able to weather avoid, but not when it will jeopardise separation around other aircraft. It is always the toughest part of terminal when the weather hits. It is a frustrating time for both ATC and pilots..best to hope for is to work together.
We will understand when you REALLY have to make that turn, but the flip to that..if we get a PIREP that says "light turbulence, light precipitation"...we REALLY don't want you to be turning all directions except towards the ILS.


I appreciate the discourse. Thankyou for the comments.
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#19 Post by cossack » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:15 am

Visual Departures Tower perspective:
Cannot be used when wake turbulence is a factor, nor for same SID, nor when leading aircraft is flying NADP1 unless second one is too. You may have noticed us declining NADP1 requests from non-heavies?

Tower will line you up, confirm traffic in sight, maintain visual separation. All we need to hear is line up, traffic in sight. Nothing else.

ATC "c/s confirm A320 departing in sight, line up 24R, maintain visual separation".
A/C "traffic in sight line up 24R, c/s".
You can start to cross the hold line at any time now, you do not have to wait for the departure to be moving, just don't get yourself blasted.
Just before the nose comes up I'm talking to you and as the wheels come off you have a take off clearance. No need for another confirmation of maintaining visual separation, just GO!!!
Depending on types and weights, distances between departures have been as low as a mile instead of the previously required 3. 1.5-2.0 is around what we see generally. Some slow poke performers still end up with more than 3 FFS. More education required.

Weather limits: 5 miles and 5000 feet, with no rogue clouds which might prevent the second aircraft from keeping the first in sight.

Ground controllers, tower controllers, clearance, we do them all once fully qualified, so saying ground controllers are better than tower is unfair. Ground is a mess: too many aircraft taxying way to far both to and from the runways, crossing other runways, going to and from de-icing. Until we stop mixed mode and have you depart from the closest runway (never really going to happen) it will remain like this. Scheduling a more even flow of traffic would help alleviate the peaks. If only we could get our flow to smooth out the arrival peaks, life would be better for all of us.

Apron is becoming too congested causing more and more gate holds. Not enough wide body gates on T1 and too many aircraft squeezing into T3. This makes ground's job even harder. You say you have a gate, company doesn't tell apron and I can't put you in the ramp until apron knows what your gate is. Is the gate hold going to be short or long? It affects where I park you. Is it just congestion or a wing-tip issue with an adjacent gate? I often don't know/can't see, but if I'm not pulling my hair out trying to get a Georgian RJ to move I'll look for an answer. If I sound busy, don't keep badgering me. I'll get to you when I know I can move you or I have news.

Back to go-arounds: If you look through CADORS you will see that a high percentage of them involve a DH8 as the lead aircraft or a China Eastern arrival or departure. Previous arrival still on runway or departure slow to roll are the top two reasons for go-arounds. The DH8s (especially the Q400) are a problem on approach. We can get the As and Cs to keep good speed and get off the runway quickly which works out most of the problems. The Q400s (I'm singling out Jazz here), however, use full flap on approach and slow to 110-120 in anything but no wind and then still roll 6000 feet down the runway. Encore I believe have agreed to use less flap to keep the speed up. they still roll past the first high-speed more than we think is necessary. If you don't think you can make the first, go fast to the next and don't plan a 90 or you might get barked at. Hopefully arrival will stop putting a heavy B738 2.5 miles behind a Q400 and expect it to work without a lot of effort from others.

Speed control: Standard agreed spacing is 5 miles 5 miles here is a transient being. At LHR and LGW the spacing is established and the speeds (160) are matched at 4 miles and whatever the agreed spacing behind is. Here the first is doing 170 and the second one is given cross XXX at 170 while still doing a faster speed. This causes compression which is compounded when tower cannot speak to the following aircraft in time to slow it effectively. This results in hurried slow downs, late landing clearances with departures close in front or go-arounds. Slowing the arrival speeds in VFR weather to 160 wouldn't cost anything and might even save money from reduced go-arounds.

Runway configurations: Yes they are staff dependent. Land 1 depart 1 is used when traffic volume or staffing is lower and the two towers are combined into one position. Offloading arrivals on the departure runway kills the departure rate but visual departures helps us catch up. Its all about arrivals. Get them down and the departures can go whenever seems to be the company line. Still two frequencies, but one controller. Can get busy and complex when trying to use 33R for heavies requiring it for operational requirement. To staff the operation to run 3 parallels (triple) we need 10 in the tower. Not had that many for a while. If we have 9 we can do it for a short while only. 8 or less then you get less. Flow rate doesn't reduce though, we just work harder for longer. 11pm can be nuts. Night shift staffing and 30+ departures scheduled from 10:50-11:30. If we have arrivals at the same time and AC have their S America and Delhi/Dubai flights needing a longer runway, it can get very busy.

Using 33R makes ground's life very challenging. A sterile runway when they're busy with moving traffic to/from 05/23 or parking traffic waiting for gates. Sometimes its just safer to put everything in one line rather than do a whole load of crossing operations. Get it right, we get no thanks. Get it wrong and we get no thanks, if you get my drift.
---------- ADS -----------

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#20 Post by ZBBYLW » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:10 pm

Thanks for all the feedback.

No worries about knocking the 321. We know it doesnt climb well. From a pilots perspective it's nice as it's quieter and much smoother and stable. The downsides being the performance (especially in the summer). It can eat up runway pretty quickly too at Flap 3.

Is there a desire by Nav Canada to increase staffing in the tower to permit more 10 controller shifts? Is it a matter of surprise retirements and they are just getting caught up in training or is it something they are not interesting in doing due to budget cuts or what not?
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#21 Post by cossack » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:25 pm

ZBBYLW wrote:Is there a desire by Nav Canada to increase staffing in the tower to permit more 10 controller shifts? Is it a matter of surprise retirements and they are just getting caught up in training or is it something they are not interesting in doing due to budget cuts or what not?
10 is the minimum to run the triple. 11 and we do it for the whole shift. There have been a few retirements in the last few years and new qualifications haven't kept pace, let alone exceeded them in order to let people leave and advance their careers or wind down into retirement somewhere quieter. People have left and will leave to work non-operational jobs as they can't be deferred, unlike operational job moves.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise as the unit has been 10-20% understaffed for the 13 years I've been here and gets by on overtime. When we don't feel like doing overtime because the weather's nice (or not nice) or we need a few days off, we run short. The line of volunteers looking to work here is very short so we're left trying to train ab initios at the country's busiest and most complex unit. How do you think that's going? Want to train a 40 hour PPL for the right seat in a triple 7?
---------- ADS -----------

crj2pilot
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#22 Post by crj2pilot » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:50 pm

Good evening Cossack, I have a few questions I would like to ask you about ATC. How can I PM you?

Thank you!
---------- ADS -----------

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2643
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#23 Post by altiplano » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:46 pm

cossack wrote:
altiplano wrote:And I wish they would stop giving heavy aircraft stop climb at 3000'.
Its not given out randomly but when someone is departing from a runway they shouldn't be departing from. i.e. You're eastbound but need 23. Both sides are stopped at 3,000. Its a procedural thing. If both sides were given 5,000, you'd complain that you were kept straight out for too long.
Time for another drink and back to the baseball. :roll:
No. I wouldn't complain.

It's not like it's just an inconvenience or inefficiency.

It's a potential hazard, can put the aircraft into an inadvertent low energy state and creates a additional workload during a critical phase flight. The procedure should be revised.

It seems it's the tail wagging the dog as far as GTAA/TC/navcan procedures are concerned.
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#24 Post by fish4life » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:13 am

In a heavy can / do you follow the 200kts in 10 miles / under 3000' speed limit on departure?
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

#25 Post by cossack » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:04 pm

crj2pilot wrote:Good evening Cossack, I have a few questions I would like to ask you about ATC. How can I PM you?

Thank you!
Click the PM button at the bottom of any of my posts.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “ATS Question Forum”