Service from terminal areas for VFR

[Rookie50]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

[Braun]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

You do know YOW TCU is in YUL ACC which is by far not a ''small'' center. If you think traffic is based on just numbers you truly have no understanding of how ATC works. Anywhere in the world. You can have 2 a/c's and be very busy and another day have 10 and having it go really smooth. FYI, YOW TCU is usually a 1 controller position who does ARR/DEP/VFR all combined so complexity can sometimes be increased by the mix of traffic. I would really love to hear your horror stories about the TCU's within YUL ACC (YOW, YQB, YUL). Because I have worked them all and would be glad to enlighten you on your misunderstandings.

[Rookie50]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

You do know YOW TCU is in YUL ACC which is by far not a ''small'' center. If you think traffic is based on just numbers you truly have no understanding of how ATC works. Anywhere in the world. You can have 2 a/c's and be very busy and another day have 10 and having it go really smooth. FYI, YOW TCU is usually a 1 controller position who does ARR/DEP/VFR all combined so complexity can sometimes be increased by the mix of traffic. I would really love to hear your horror stories about the TCU's within YUL ACC (YOW, YQB, YUL). Because I have worked them all and would be glad to enlighten you on your misunderstandings.

No horror stories. All I can go on is perceptions, and I've visited YYZ terminal in person, which I would submit is fairly busy, and from flying in and listening to (different) airspace. Not aiming to offend, but as others have relayed here for other FIR's when the frequency is extremely (apparently) quiet -- I am as interested as others to learn color on why service is impaired to GA at times in certain TCU's.

So -- feel free to enlighten our mis-understandings. Because having flown right into the NY metro area -- fairly or unfairly that creates a perception. If its staffing, it's staffing, fine I get that.

I'll ask one specific question, but am also looking for other color. Why -- for me at least twice -- are Ifr clearances requested from uncontrolled airports not able to be given on the ground within Ottawa TCU? (by telephone).
Perhaps this has changed, I don't know.

[thenoflyzone]

Request a pop-up after the initial denial upon entering cancel the chronic staffing issues (max overtime) that Winnipeg deals with should be dealt with by closing the centre and consolidating it to a location where staffing isn't an issue. Remember your paying their salary and their not providing you an appropriate level of service

Let's be clear on one thing ... A VFR paying 70 bucks or so a year of NavCan fees isn't paying anyone's salary.

The people who pay our salary are the IFR operations, especially the commercial ones. An A320 flying IFR from YVR to YUL will incur NavCan fees of 1860$. A B77W on the same run will cost the airline 4895$ in NavCan fees.

This is PER plane, Per direction, Per day. Now you do the math and tell me who pays my salary.

And let's be clear on something else. These IFR fees are amongst the lowest in the industry. NavCan hasn't raised IFR fees in over 9-10 years, if not more.

Something to think about when we vector VFRs around busy commercial airports and traffic.

Now this being said, this doesn't mean i will only focus my attention on IFR flights and avoid/restrict the VFR's. Not at all. In fact, here at YOW/YQB terminals, we go out of our way in order to accomodate VFR flights, gliders, balloons, etc. Very rarely will we deny access in class D/C airspace because of short staffing issues (which we have the majority of summer I might add !), as they do in YVR or YWG centers/terminals.

I'll ask one specific question, but am also looking for other color. Why -- for me at least twice -- are Ifr clearances requested from uncontrolled airports not able to be given on the ground within Ottawa TCU? (by telephone).
Perhaps this has changed, I don't know.

Because taking off VFR is the quickest option that will get you airborne and going were you want to. However, no one is forcing you to do so. If you are unable, simply say so, and we will give you an IFR clnc on the ground.

I understand the inconvenience of copying your IFR clearance in the air, but the other option is a CV time 15-20 minutes away, and a CC time 2 minutes after that. Especially at CYRO and CYRP. We need to protect for your departure, (hence the short departure window) and that involves a coordination with the enroute sectors as well. Quickest option for you is to takeoff VFR. Pure and simple.

Thenoflyzone

[photofly]

This is PER plane, Per direction, Per day. Now you do the math and tell me who pays my salary.

Forgive me, I thought NavCanada paid your salary. Or do radar tags now have $$$ attached to them?

[Married a Canadian]

Forgive me, I thought NavCanada paid your salary. Or do radar tags now have $$$ attached to them?

The radar tags don't have $$$ signs attached to them...but when the overseas heavy complains about being kept level at 6000ft because a VFR is in their way at 7000ft I think most air traffic controllers know their priorities.
Unfortunately for you NavCanada also knows their priorities and the toss up between Air Canada complaining about wasting fuel and the GA community complaining about restricted access is a no brainer to them. They do pay our salary..but they are not making the money to pay us from VFR zone transits.

[photofly]

Unfortunately for you NavCanada also knows their priorities and the toss up between Air Canada complaining about wasting fuel and the GA community complaining about restricted access is a no brainer to them. They do pay our salary..but they are not making the money to pay us from VFR zone transits.

Which is exactly what I've been telling you in this thread. You're not there to serve GA, and sometimes you don't. I don't know why you expect a round of applause for it, though.

[thenoflyzone]

So the question is: when is Nav Canada actually going to hire enough staff to properly manage the airspace, rather than relying on the bare minimum?

NavCan has been hiring constantly, at least since i've been working here, the past 11 years now. If anything, it's when the system was government owned that a hiring freeze was implemented.

Reality is the success rate, especially in busy terminal environments, isn't very high.

From personal experience, in my unit, since it's creation 10 years ago, success rate has been lower than 15 %. The company is hiring, but most of them are simply not good enough for the job. And rightfully so. We aint flipping burgers here or serving a Large Double Double !

Point is, there are plenty of units or centers out there that are staff or overstaff. Moncton Centre comes to mind. North (High level) here in YUL is another.

Terminals, on the other hand, not so much.

Thenoflyzone

[AirFrame]

I have been monitoring both terminal and tower frequencies at YVR...

I was just responding to your own post.

I did say I monitored both, I thought it would be clear that I would only call the appropriate frequency when I needed access to their airspace. I only listen to YVR Tower to know what's coming out that might eventually want access to Terminal. I call YVR Terminal, to get access to Terminal controlled airspace to cross the water.

I suppose you really didn't read my post above.

I read it, I just assumed you mixed up Terminal and Tower. My bad. But the conversation was about access to Terminal airspace, not Tower airspace, so perhaps the oversight wasn't that far out of line.

Still, nobody has answered the original problem in YVR Terminal airspace... When there's *no* traffic, and/or commercial float traffic is declining offers of higher altitudes that would put them in Terminal airspace, why are GA aircraft still denied?

[16SidedOffice]

why are GA aircraft still denied?

That I can't answer. Sometimes they'll take VFR GA's with the Class C restriction in place and other times not. It's all in the timing. When it's not busy (or proposed to be) and the Class C is restricted I see them accept VFR's all the time.

[Married a Canadian]

You're not there to serve GA, and sometimes you don't. I don't know why you expect a round of applause for it, though

.

Sorry Photofly but I have a problem with you implying that YYZ terminal does not offer a service to VFR aircraft as per the question posed at the start of this thread. You are right...our sole purpose is not to serve GA...and you are right...sometimes we don't. However it is not down to the implication that we are providing a poor service. It is about trying to provide the right balance between GA and YYZ/YTZ/YHM traffic.

Scraps from the table don't count as good service

YYZ: null points

But in terms of the question asked at the top of the thread, unless you are inbound to YYZ there's no service offered in the terminal area.

But I can't applaud you for great service when the service I seek isn't offered

I am looking for an understanding from the pilot community that when you get within 20 miles of a busy airport you will get (staffing permitting) a service that provides both you and me with some flexiblity. There HAS to be some understanding from the GA pilot side. It isn't about rounds of applause or thinking you are getting a shit/great service...it is about where you fit in a busy traffic environment. I have worked in the UK...it is the same there....I work alongside ex US controllers..they say the same. I asked an ex New York controller today about altitudes through New York airspace...he said that so long as you aren't in the way there is a lot of flexibility...the minute you impinge on EWR/JFK/LGA....**** off.

The things I'm likely to be interested in are basically the same as Rookie:

- essentially unrestricted climbs out of CYTZ to up to in any direction. I don't expect to be cleared all at once, but restricted westbound to 2000 until nearly into the Hamilton zone doesn't float my boat, sorry!
- maintaining 4500 southbound from say CYQA over the top of CYKZ
- inbound over the lake from Buffalo at something like 10k until 5 south of CYTZ.
- occasionally transit eg Kingston to Brantford without a great detour north, or descend to 2000 along the lakeshore

I repost your list here as these are the things you would consider a service (you did mention 4500 over YKZ southbound without mentioning a runway config at YYZ). None of these things as a low performing VFR aircraft give me ANY flexibility as a controller in YYZ TCU and I did mention the problems. We all like to think we do the job to the best of our ability. I like to think that I have never said "no" to any aircraft without a legitimate airspace/safety concern attached. I am sure when sitting in the cockpit that "no" seems like the lack of service you allude to. I maintain it isn't like that in YYZ terminal. Not getting what you want dosen't equate to poor service.

[photofly]

I don't doubt you do your job to the best of your considerable ability. The system isn't set up for me to tell you that you're providing me great service. Much as we'd both like it to be.

Not getting what you want dosen't equate to poor service.

You're taking a administrator-bureaucrat's viewpoint, where you consider the quality of service you offer is equal to how well you fulfill your manager's expectations for your job. An inside-looking-out view. It's not the right view.

I view things from a customer service point of view, where the quality of service you give me is equal to how well and how often you can provide me with what I need for a safe and expeditious flight. It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

[16SidedOffice]

It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

But for the many hundreds of other aircraft that are provided with great customer service day in and day out operating within each Canadian TCU I think they would argue that.

[photofly]

It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

But for the many hundreds of other aircraft that are provided with great customer service day in and day out operating within each Canadian TCU I think they would argue that.

No doubt they would. But we're into the third page of this thread, and I don't yet see them saying so here. Perhaps none of them are VFR traffic; in which case that reinforces the original poster's comments.



I'm getting the idea that you guys in ATC are actually quite surprised to hear that not everyone thinks you're providing great service. Perhaps you need to hear it more often. Perhaps this thread is a step in the right direction.

[TA/RA]

You can complain about the service on here all day long but it doesn't change the fact that the terminal controllers across the country bust their asses to move traffic as safely and expeditiously as possible. Nobody is denying service because they get enjoy it. Let Nav Canada's safety track record speak for itself.

Controllers are far from perfect but they have the bigger picture to consider, it is easy to look out the cockpit window and think that you have a better idea of what is going on around you but you really don't. I thought that way for years until I learned how many other factors a controller has to consider in their day to day interactions and decisions.

Pilots and controllers are all on the same team if they considered one another as teammates instead of adversaries it would be amazing how much more smoothly the system would run. Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment to a more realistic level of what constitutes good service.

[Cat Driver]

TA/RA, there was a time when there was mutual respect and co-operation between controllers and pilots.

Reading these sad discouraging ongoing attacks on the people in ATC is convincing me that ignorance and the self only attitudes shown by some pilots is beyond fixing.

It is far far easier to be a pilot than an air traffic controller, my advice to you guys is don't even try and explain your position to them because it seems to be hopeless.

Most of us who are professional pilots understand the problems and will work with you.

[TA/RA]

Thank you Cat. Not all but many controllers are also pilots and work hard to provide a good service because they too are users of the airspace. The end goal is the same for both pilots and controllers get airplanes to where they need to go safely be it GA or fancy callsigns.

[photofly]

Meanwhile, after the love-in...

Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment

I'm well aware how you want me to change my expectations. How do you think you you should change your expectations?

[Married a Canadian]

An inside-looking-out view. It's not the right view.

That is the main breakdown between pilots and ATC...and as TA/RA has just said...we have the big picture...unfortunately you don't. Staffing issues aside...air traffic control should make decisions based on the big picture. You in the cockpit have the view directly in front of you in the direction you are flying. You do not have the picture of what is coming in/out from every direction or what is pending from other airfields in the area.
An outside looking in (ie an individual pilot) is not the right view to take either...because you don't know how what you want will affect traffic further along. It is our job in ATC to try and balance these demands..and although we make mistakes...our decisions are based on the whole picture, not just an individuals traffic requirements.

where the quality of service you give me is equal to how well and how often you can provide me with what I need for a safe and expeditious flight. It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

C'mon Photo!!....take for example one of the things you would like off YTZ..unrestricted climb in any direction??? In a low performer VFR??? You tell me from the outside looking in...HOW that can be achieved when YYZ is on ANY configuration. Denying this is not poor service...it is just common sense. If you need this to be safe and expeditious then you are asking for it in the wrong place. Putting yourself in conflict with other traffic for you to be safe in flight just creates another hazard.

Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment to a more realistic level of what constitutes good service

.

I'm getting the idea that you guys in ATC are actually quite surprised to hear that not everyone thinks you're providing great service. Perhaps you need to hear it more often

I am quite happy to get criticism..and I frequent this forum and PPRUNE to try and learn more. I am also not immune to mistakes...and I can accept when I have ****ed up or done a bad job. With my accent and all I stick out in the terminal...so it is easy to know when it is me making a mistake....accepting transiters....or denying transiters.
I am not surprised to hear gripes about service because it is the nature of the industry.
I am more surprised that when certain gripes are addressed with legitimate reasons as to why what is required is not always available with reasons that have nothing to do with poor service...that these reasons are not accepted and all that we get back is "you don't provide a good service". I have provided air traffic control reasons as to why what you want is not always available. I am providing these reasons from a fully staffed unit which works a varied mix of traffic both IFR and VFR.

You have not provided me with any compelling reasons yet as to 1, why you SHOULD get what you want in the traffic environment I work in the aircraft types we are talking about here and 2, if you did....HOW can it be incorporated SAFELY into the IFR mix of aircraft into YYZ, YHM and the Porters in YTZ.


As a final point, you say you have done afew photo surveys in the terminal with no problems.There is a photo survey flight that has been trying to do a job at 4000ft over Downsview this summer and has been told "no" every single time..as this is right on the departure path on the 06s and the GS point on the 24s. On the 06s the jets climb to 5000ft, noise abatement is 3600ft so we can't level them at 3000 below as we are breaking the noise constraints...there is no way for traffic to depart YYZ without confliction. On the 24s the survey area is right at the 4000ft glideslope point so for it to work arriving aircraft would have to be slam dunked to 3000ft...which we can't do further out as YKZ owns that airspace.
The company/aircrew have begun to get p***ed at us for denying this flight as it is a survey that HAS to be done (allegedly). We have asked the company if they can operate at 5500ft which gives us some wiggle room and does not affect operations at YYZ to the extent 4000ft does. We have been told "NO" as they don't have the lens required to photo at that altitude. We also know that they accepted this survey without coordinating with our backroom as to what would and wouldn't work this close to Pearson.
Now according to your logic....because we are denying this flight survey we are providing a poor service....yet they want an altitude that affects YYZ traffic and puts them in direct conflict with YYZ traffic....and have given us no other options as to how we can accomodate them.

I say that in as much as air traffic control can be frustrating for pilots to work with sometimes and especially on the GA side of things as this thread shows, it is just as frustrating for us on the other side to have to explain to pilots why what they want isn't always possible.
To continue to say we don't provide the service you require is as frustrating for me in that I don't think you understand the airspace around YYZ and I don't think you understand the traffic mix in YYZ terminal. If you did you wouldn't say we provide a poor service to VFR.

[Married a Canadian]

How do you think you you should change your expectations

My expectations are based on aircraft performance, climb rate, time spent in my airspace, whether or not I think you can maintain VFR and how much you are going to affect my traffic picture.
Safety in air traffic control is based on aircraft doing what is expected of them.

If you want me to change my expectations..then make a PA28 perform the same as a Q400.