Hi Gang,

The other day I went flying in a Sportstar over YVR. I haven't made that trip for well over a year now and last time was in a '172, not an ultralight, so according the CFI, I 'over asked' for the clearance through the zone. I actually asked specifically for the "Oak Bridge" transit, but instead, I should just have asked for clearance through the zone and let the controller tell me which route to take. The controller made 2 unsolicited calls to me to warn of passing traffic and to clear me from the zone. I was very surprised at the way he announced my call sign - ennunciating each mnemonic slowly, pausing after each word, and loudly as though I was a 10-year-old or something (and taking a lot longer in the communication as a result). For my part, I was clear, brief and accurate in all communications so here's my question:

There are 3 possible reasons I can think of why he was IMO acting strangely with my callsign:

1) He thought "Hmmm, ultralight, must be green, so I'd better make sure he hears me
2) He was angry that I asked for Oak Bridge instead of the more general request for clearance through the zone
3) I may have over-enunciated the "India" part of my callsign (not sure) and perhaps he was mocking me

Anyone able to comment?

Regards,

Rory

Most of the ultralights I dealt with had really shitty com gear. The controller probably suspected or assumed the same was true for you. Unless I recieved your comms clearly I would too. Never having been a controller, and not having dealt with Vancouver traffic, I can't comment on his other actions.

The first thing I learned here was the temper of many controllers.
You have to be quite careful here and learn to recognise voices and their characters.

It's always best to sound professional even if you're a PPL, RPP, or UPP pilot, and do the job correctly.

I suggested this for the flight above.
Do not assume that ATC is going to give you the Oak Bridge transit when they might have other things going on.
It's an affront to ATC's position to tell them what transit you should do.
Most controllers are patient and will take this slight with ease, but some are not like that!

Simply request:

"Good morning Vancouver tower this is Sportstar India Sierra Lima Alfa squaking 1234"

ATC responds...

Then: "Sierra Lima Alfa airborne out of Boundary Bay request two thousand five hundred over your field for the harbour".

Another contention was passing under the 1200 foot stub between Alex Fraser and Patullo Bridges monitoring 124.0.
I listen for traffic and very occasionally respond if a call concerns me.
But on one occasion a controller complained when we didn't call him, on another a controller complained when we did! Controllers didn't agree with each other so I continue only to monitor.

ATC has its characters and they have their off days, we all need patience.

Thanks to you both for the reply. Usually I have no problems with controllers at all but I was puzzled by this controller's odd behaviour. I felt kinda like the guy whose girlfriend suddenly isn't talking to him and he's got no clue what he did wrong BTW - the controller didn't actually sound angry, but surely "in-yer-face".

MichaelP wrote:The first thing I learned here was the temper of many controllers.
You have to be quite careful here and learn to recognise voices and their characters.

It's always best to sound professional even if you're a PPL, RPP, or UPP pilot, and do the job correctly.

I suggested this for the flight above.
Do not assume that ATC is going to give you the Oak Bridge transit when they might have other things going on.
It's an affront to ATC's position to tell them what transit you should do.
Most controllers are patient and will take this slight with ease, but some are not like that!

Simply request:

"Good morning Vancouver tower this is Sportstar India Sierra Lima Alfa squaking 1234"

ATC responds...

Then: "Sierra Lima Alfa airborne out of Boundary Bay request two thousand five hundred over your field for the harbour".

Another contention was passing under the 1200 foot stub between Alex Fraser and Patullo Bridges monitoring 124.0.
I listen for traffic and very occasionally respond if a call concerns me.
But on one occasion a controller complained when we didn't call him, on another a controller complained when we did! Controllers didn't agree with each other so I continue only to monitor.

ATC has its characters and they have their off days, we all need patience.

If a controller sees any type of conflict what so ever, I doubt whether you announced or requested a transition, they would approve it. It's their ass on the line, and if they don't like something in their CZ, they most certainly wouldn't approve it... I don't see a problem requesting for a specific transition either (see above).

Is that correct? Something I'm missing?

You can request a specific routing if you need to do that one for a reason.

With Terminal I have called them as above.
I try to remember to give terminal my squawk code otherwise they give me another....
Anyway I request 4,500 enroute to Qualicum via Active Pass.
Sometimes they clear me direct so I respond "...request via Active Pass; this is a training flight." So I justify my request for a specific route.

Crossing Vancouver though it is usually best to request crossing at 2,500, get your clearance and go, or request routing via where-ever and justify it... Would like overhead so and so for photography, or "... would like to fly over such and such a house...".
Then it all depends on how busy they are, consideration for the situation should be made before you request something that might cause the controller some difficulty.

I use to teach students to tell ATC:

Who - C172 GABC
Where - Point Roberts at 1500ft
What - request Oak Bridge Transit, destination CYSE

It doesn't matter if you state the transit name or not. If you know it and you know the active runway in Vancouver then go ahead and be specific.

If an ATC doesn't like that is their problem. I can't imagine any problem with that though.

I've always preferred talking to someone, even if just outside the zone. Take advantage of the service and radar coverage! Especially now with some recent airspace changes.

Happy flying!

I've always preferred talking to someone

There's a thread about this with respect to overflying the Langley control zone... Sometimes they are either too busy or understaffed to cope with a lot of traffic requesting traffic advisories.

Hello RFlyer.
My experience with (most) ultralights is that the pilot is deafened by the Rotax right next to him, and possibly using a handheld VHF.
I, too, would respond to the average ultralight by speaking a little more clearly, slowly and loudly. Although this would probably come across as patronizing and a bit insulting, that is not the intention. Sounds like he was just trying to communicate clearly the first time....
Andrew Klinzmann

Hello Mr. K

Thanks for the reply. much obliged. I went and re-flew the route yesterday - and a beautiful day for flying it was indeed. This time the communications were completely normal and the transit went without a hitch. I was careful only to ask for clearance 2500' through the zone this time without specifying a particular route, but seems unlikely that made any difference. One difference this time, though, was that I got to the assigned checkpoint twice and didn't receive an instruction to change course, so I reported overtop each time.

BTW - This particular aircraft has a very modern panel. The radio is a Garmin SL40, the transponder is also Garmin - GTX 327, and my headset is a Lightspeed. The rotax is on the nose in this machine and runs pretty quiet, so communications would be very clear. It's an ultralight in registration only and I'd be careful about letting anyone fly off their 10 hours to get the UL ticket and then jump into one of these.

Regards,

Rory,

RFlyer,

Glad to hear you got to do the route again. If you have the required radio, a transponder and a map (meaning you know how to fly the Oak Bridge Transit) there should be no reason you can't fly over YVR on the route. You are a customer, maybe a little smaller than the big blue planes with the CDN flag on the tail, but you are still entitled to service too!

My earlier comment about "rather be talking to someone" was meaning that if you aren't sure, it's better to call ATC, and if it's the wrong unit, they will tell you.

Be polite, be professional, be prepared... and you should expect the same in return!

Happy Flying

Anyone have any reference to saying your transponder code on initial callup? Should we be doing this?

And does any one have any suggestions on routes to go from Abbotsford to Qualicum Beach while staying within gliding distance from land? It has been a long time since I flew VFR in this airspace but will be doing a bit of it soon hopefully.

Re: saying your transponder code,

as of ~3 years ago an ATC rep came to PFC's classroom to give a presentation on the new ZBB arrival and departure procedures (I say it so you will have a rough idea of how long ago this was). Afterward there was a Q&A opportunity and the question of transponder codes came up. His answer was specific: when you call anyone at YVR, they don't know your code automatically so when they get back to your initial call, reply with squawk code, plus the usual details. I don't remember if he said it was OK to provide the code as part of your first transmission. I can't recall exactly why they don't know the squawk code automatically except it had something to do with the type of radar in use at YVR compared to the smaller airports.

Rory

If ATC can see you on radar, they will have your code and your callsign GABC will be all done up properly too. This is assuming you have been given a code from a tower or called YVRcode to get one.

I wouldn't bother saying the code, not that it matters but it just isn't necessary.

As far as XX to CAT4 you have a few options. If you want to go high enough (above 2500) you talk to terminal 125.2. If 2500 feet or less call YVR tower 125.65 and go Point Roberts to nanaimo (or SW to nearest island first) or go along North Shore and from Sechelt cut across within gliding distance.

Happy Flying

RFlyer wrote:Thanks to you both for the reply. Usually I have no problems with controllers at all but I was puzzled by this controller's odd behaviour. I felt kinda like the guy whose girlfriend suddenly isn't talking to him and he's got no clue what he did wrong BTW - the controller didn't actually sound angry, but surely "in-yer-face".

I used to fly YYJ-YVR-YYJ a lot. It seemed to me that ATC triaged the traffic based on the quality of the initail call. Deliver the main info in an organized and brisk style and you got good service. Hum and haw and miss important information and their interest in dealing with you got a lot less. YVR airspace is full of heavy metal so if you want to play "in the show" you've got to bring your A game. I always ask for what I want and I have found that ATC will usually give it to me even if it means a little extra work for them. If ATC is out and out rude at you just because you asked for something, which has happened to me on a few (very few really) occasions, I always call the supervisor as soon as I land. At the end of the day ATC works for the pilot not the other way around.

Please, don't say your transponder code on initial contact. At this point it is useless information and takes up valuable air time. If you are not already correlated (showing an ident in your data tag) we will find out own way to identify you (squawk ident, or assign a code). First call should be the following: Ident, Position, Altitude, Intentions. If we need to know more we will ask.

Edited to add: this isn't necessarly aimed at a procedure for calling YVR tower, but most ATC units in general.

Well I can't resist adding that on the latest and greatest (34th) edition of the Vancouver VTA chart, the back of the chart has a section on Vancouver Tower Low Level and High Level Transit Routes. Step three in the published procedure describes what to say once radio contact with the tower is made:

State:
A/C type and Ident
Location and altitude
Requested Routing
Destination
ATIS Received

So it seems the published procedure actually encourages you to request a specific route.