YYZ Ground Stops

This forum has been developed to discuss ATS related topics.

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

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Canoehead
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: YEE 220 @ 4

YYZ Ground Stops

#1 Post by Canoehead » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:02 am

I'm wondering if any of the YYZ controllers/planners can comment on the ground stop process, and subsequent GDP that seems to occur every time a line of weather rolls through YYZ (that was 600NM/2Hrs away from where we sat for about 6 hours yesterday). I understand there is a 'big picture' that I, the user, am not privy to, but I'm just trying to come up with a way to explain to my pax why we have boarded and offloaded them 3 times because of constantly changing wheels-up times. Is it a staffing issue? Does the GTAA not want airplanes sitting in the CDF waiting for gate availability if required? I understand there is a "backlog" and some cascading delays etc, but when I arrive in YYZ and things seem fairly benign (ie: not busy), all the way to my gate, I wonder if we are truly operating at a peak efficiency. Perhaps it is that way because of the GDP. I don't know.

Not pointing fingers at Nav Canada controllers, but is the GTAA spending too much money on Nissan Titan's and terminal artwork that could be better spent on moving passengers? Are they too busy cow-towing to the noise police? Are the inordinate amount of published SIDs and STARs not efficient enough to make things work better? How does YYZ compare to major US airports in these conditions? I honestly just want to be able to make the passengers comfortable, and a little more informed of the process, and perhaps see if there are better ways to handle it from our dispatching end.

Constructive discussion only please.
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#2 Post by cossack » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:48 am

From a tower perspective. Terminal and en route may have differing opinions.

The flow rate is kept high for as long as possible, usually even if there is forecast weather which could impact operations. The weather may dissipate, miss us or be late, so a GDP to reduce the flow rate may be instituted too late to protect the operation and we end up with a Ground Stop to clean up the backlog and set up the GDP with an appropriate arrival rate for the configuration in use.

Sometimes there will be a proposed GDP ahead of time if there is a high probabiltty of say a 33 or 15 operation, where the arrival rate is about two thirds what it would be on 06 or 24s. This gives us and the airlines an idea of what the delays will be like (90 minutes or 2 hours not uncommon) and gives the airlines an opportunity to reassess the situation and those that can, time to arrange schedule consolidation or cancellations.

Aircraft subject to a GDP are limited in scope, usually only the closer airports (within 2 hours or so of YYZ) and those outwith that not affected. At times where arrival demand is high from outside that scope, those closer will receive longer delays.

The weather that rolled through yesterday was more pop up than frontal, so it could not accurately be predicted. It didn't rain much at all at YYZ but the cells in the area made it impossible to operate safely at full capacity. Once departing aircraft are requesting immediate turns to avoid weather, we scale back the operation and use one departure runway, increase spacing between departures and where possible, use only one arrival runway. This reduces the arrival rate to about 32/hour and the departure rate is about the same. If we have out of balance rates with too many arrivals then we end up with a parking lot.

There was no staffing issue...yesterday. There are times when we have less than the required number of controllers to run a normal configuration, so we use a lesser capacity configuration, consolidate control positions (one tower controller working rather than two) but there is seldom any flow control to protect us. We just work through it and the line ups for departure build, because its all about getting the arrivals in.

As soon as its safe to do so we will return to normal configuration and scale back or remove the flow control. There is often an apparent "hole" in the arrivals after a Ground Stop as some aircraft may have diverted.

I worked yesterday and was in South Ground at about 4pm when the call was made to depart two runways again. There was a line of about 15 on the way to 24R and half of them were turned around and sent to 23. For some, this was like being a salmon swimming upstream through the prevailing traffic and involved a lot of work, but we got to two departure runways as soon as we could. The fact that we ended up operating with a tailwind for the next 2 hours completely against what was forecast, made for an interesting, but tiring shift.

Once the schedules get disrupted and we then increase the arrival rate, the previous late arrivals are still on the gate when the next wave arrives and gate holds become abundant. 50 minutes was the longest I saw for one Rouge yesterday. Last week Cathay had almost 2 hours. Not what you want after a 14+ hour flight.

What should be done?

I think the airport needs more gates, especially for wide bodies, so that long haul flights don't suffer like they tend to. Building Pier G and reopening the infield terminal should be a priority IMHO.

I believe that even when the weather is good, there should be more flow control input (a GDP at normal arrival rates) just to smooth out the peaks. Its no good if you want 60 arrivals and hour but 20 of them arrive in 15 minutes.

The complexity of the SIDs and STARs is ridiculous and I believe is being addressed higher up. We are able to use visual departure separations now (weather permitting obviously) and this does speed things up but some crews are so damn slow getting onto the runway and rolling, its frustrating. We need 3 miles in trail when not visualing and seldom see less than 2 when we are. Better pilot performance would help increase throughput and reduce departure delays.

How do we compare?

LGA, EWR and JFK are usually in a GDP 5 out of 7 days due either to volume, weather or construction. At YYZ we had the 23 closure fiasco and have had a GDP most days for the last week or two due to thunderstorms. But as a rule, we are less restrictive than New York, but that is how it should be, they are way busier, in such close proximity and hit by bad weather, that they need the flow controlled.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Canoehead
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: YEE 220 @ 4

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#3 Post by Canoehead » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:46 pm

Thanks for the reply cossack; as I mentioned to you on .65 tonight... much appreciated.

I agree with you on the need for more gate capacity. I look at that infield terminal and often think it's a big waste (inconvenient yes, but easily tied in via ground transport to T1/T3). Not a permanent solution at all, but in the meantime... we've seen it work before.

Always good to hear your voice.
---------- ADS -----------

Antique Pilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#4 Post by Antique Pilot » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:54 pm

Canoehead wrote:I'm wondering if any of the YYZ controllers/planners can comment on the ground stop process, and subsequent GDP that seems to occur every time a line of weather rolls through YYZ (that was 600NM/2Hrs away from where we sat for about 6 hours yesterday). I understand there is a 'big picture' that I, the user, am not privy to, but I'm just trying to come up with a way to explain to my pax why we have boarded and offloaded them 3 times because of constantly changing wheels-up times. Is it a staffing issue? Does the GTAA not want airplanes sitting in the CDF waiting for gate availability if required? I understand there is a "backlog" and some cascading delays etc, but when I arrive in YYZ and things seem fairly benign (ie: not busy), all the way to my gate, I wonder if we are truly operating at a peak efficiency. Perhaps it is that way because of the GDP. I don't know.

Not pointing fingers at Nav Canada controllers, but is the GTAA spending too much money on Nissan Titan's and terminal artwork that could be better spent on moving passengers? Are they too busy cow-towing to the noise police? Are the inordinate amount of published SIDs and STARs not efficient enough to make things work better? How does YYZ compare to major US airports in these conditions? I honestly just want to be able to make the passengers comfortable, and a little more informed of the process, and perhaps see if there are better ways to handle it from our dispatching end.

Constructive discussion only please.
Were you trying to leave YQM for YYZ about noon on Monday? First a mechanical delay then back and forth to the runway and terminal several times before the flight was finally cancelled. Wife had to spend another night in YQM which was ok.

AP

AP
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Canoehead
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: YEE 220 @ 4

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#5 Post by Canoehead » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:52 am

No that wasn't me, but I did hear that the YQM departure was a debacle too.
I believe they had a crew duty issue in the end.
I'm sorry your wife had to endure that; it was a very frustrating scenario for all.
---------- ADS -----------

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#6 Post by ZBBYLW » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:21 am

From my observation as a pilot operating into and out of YYZ there are numerous problems. Many probably stem from the GTAA but I think everyone probably shares some blame.

From a strictly aircraft movement point of view, for what ever reason spacing seems to be much more conservative in YYZ (most of Canada) than the US. I suppose it comes down to manops but some controllers seem to cut you in tighter right on 3 miles spacing and sometimes it seems to me more around 4 or 5 without anyone departing in between. Also there are gaps between landers that we would get cleared to depart in the US but for what ever reason (probably man ops again) we just sit on our hands.

The one difference I will say that does benefit Canada is when the weather is below VFR I find the spacing and delays to be the same as a VFR day.

Offering to do a visual approach (which I normally do) still gets you vectored on to it and other than maybe helping with altitudes and parallel traffic doesn't really help.

I would like to see NAV Canada adopt many of the US man ops (and not require the noise abatement turns of departure /3000 to final bs). Many of the controllers in YYZ seem handcuffed by poor inefficient procedures more than anything.

As for the star "descend via" clearance the way it's done in the US is much more user friendly to both ATC and pilots. I think it would be a good move to encourage NAV Canada management to go take a look at what they are doing.
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#7 Post by cossack » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:56 am

Canoehead wrote:Thanks for the reply cossack; as I mentioned to you on .65 tonight... much appreciated.

I agree with you on the need for more gate capacity. I look at that infield terminal and often think it's a big waste (inconvenient yes, but easily tied in via ground transport to T1/T3). Not a permanent solution at all, but in the meantime... we've seen it work before.

Always good to hear your voice.
Took me by surprise! Many pilots sound similar so I will probably not recognize you for a while. Keep saying "Hi".

ZBBYLW

From a tower perspective, I can assure you there are times when spacing is anything but conservative. In mixed mode arrivals should be 5 miles apart to allow a departure in between. Add a bit of tailwind, take away an aircraft that slows late, multiply by the Dash 8 now grounding 110 at 3 miles and divide by the preceding still rolling out slowly to H4 and you have might have some perspective of what we deal with 30 times an hour on both sides of the airport!

2.5 mile spacing is authorized and used for those runways proven to exhibit a Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) of 50 seconds or less. That 50 seconds is for both arrivals and departures. We need you to be on and off the runway with minimum delay. Much better to plan C4 at 40kt than just miss C2 and beg for E or crawl to C4. So many times I have given a take off clearance and the departure is still straddling the hold line.

There are times when getting close arrival spacing isn't possible (or wanted) and you will be a leisurely 4 behind the one in front. Why sweat on 2.5 when there's no need?

I have departed hundreds of aircraft in gaps that, as I grow older and wiser, I would not attempt now. I pick my tighties wisely. There are whole airlines I will not even contemplate offering an immediate to because I know from nearly 30 years experience that they are not likely to perform in a manner needed to make that tighty work. If I do go for it and you're game, you might[/] give me a "good job" but if the arrival dogs it or you dog it, then the next guy is going around and we're logging an AOR and I'm asked why I went for it.

Look in CADORS on a night you can't sleep and you will see some glaring patterns on what causes overshoots in YYZ:
Departure slow to roll, arrival slow to exit, traffic following a Q400 (sorry Canoehead) who slowed to 110kts and then rolled to H4.

On an IFR day in YYZ there is no flow control applied unless it gets down close to Cat2. In the US low ceilings precluding visuals and they're into a GDP. In YYZ if its 15 miles or 1 mile the arrival flow rate is pretty much the same at 56/hour. If they're evenly spread then great, if they're not then not so great.

A visual approach in YYZ when dual arriving is mainly to allow the vertical separation between side by side arrivals to be dispensed with. If you do a visual 2 miles behind the guy in front it doesn't help much as we still need runway separation for you to land. I've had a few down as low as 1.5 and as long as the leader is on their game and hits the first high speed, it can work, but that is the exception rather than the rule, so we don't hope for the best and are a little more conservative.

Noise abatement has nothing to do with Nav Canada its airport driven. They make the rules and we apply them. We are handcuffed but we work right to the limits of our rules.

I mentioned the visual departures in my first post. A few years ago pilots would come on here and rant about how inefficient we were. The rules are changed and we can do visual departures and controllers here watch what was a 3 mile departure gap increase to 4+ on a visual. WTF!!! We need 3 miles in trail normally and I would say the average on a visual is 2-2.5, so not much of an improvement and that's all down to pilot performance I'm afraid.

I try and get as much of the radio garbage that is necessary out of the way early:
"c/s confirm 737 in sight, when they depart line up 24R, maintain visual separation."
In our rules all we need from you is:
"In sight, line up 24R, c/s"
I know its dumb that we have to confirm that the guy 200 feet in front of you is in sight, but that's how it is and that's the same in the US. You can start moving forward over the line straight away, just don't get blasted. I will start giving your take off clearance just before he lifts off and expect you to roll straight away. I love hearing the engines spool up on a read back of the take off clearance, but its rare.
---------- ADS -----------

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#8 Post by ZBBYLW » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:19 am

Thanks cossack for taking the time to always engage us.

With AC trying to expand (would be interesting to see how the GTAA keeps up with that) and the plan of having a 23L/05R built someday is Nav Canada trying to get ahead of hiring? A couple weeks ago after a shower rolled through once arrivals and departures started again we eye only using 23 for take off and 24R for landing. Some other guy ask what the reason was 24L wasn't being used and he was told staffing, which I get as when guys are crossing 24R its good to have a second set of eyes but is frustrating when you're number 25 for take off and you have to wait behind a heavy and no one can depart.

Does the tower have a minimum staffing levels and below that they just start increasing the OT rates until it's filled? Is the required training and hiring in place to get caught up with retirements?
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#9 Post by cossack » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:52 am

ZBBYLW wrote:Thanks cossack for taking the time to always engage us.
You're welcome.
ZBBYLW wrote:With AC trying to expand (would be interesting to see how the GTAA keeps up with that) and the plan of having a 23L/05R built someday is Nav Canada trying to get ahead of hiring? A couple weeks ago after a shower rolled through once arrivals and departures started again we eye only using 23 for take off and 24R for landing. Some other guy ask what the reason was 24L wasn't being used and he was told staffing, which I get as when guys are crossing 24R its good to have a second set of eyes but is frustrating when you're number 25 for take off and you have to wait behind a heavy and no one can depart.
After the closure of 05/23 this year and the headaches it caused, I heard a rumour that 05R/23L was being planned for within the next 5 years so that it would be ready before the present 05/23 would need resurfacing again. I'm not holding my breath though.

To run the full configuration we need at least 10 controllers on shift. If we have 11 we can go for the whole shift and as we reduce the number of controllers, the configuration reduces through the dual, to land one with offloads and depart one, to land one depart one with no offloads (rare). Until we get to the no offload scenario, there will usually be no arrival flow control. There may be some smoothing but no GDP. The land one with offloads, depart one is ostensibly what happens day in and day out at YUL and YVR

If there was still weather in the area, Terminal may still want one departure stream to make deviations safer to handle. Yesterday we had a similar scenario but we had enough staff that arrivals were on both 23 and 24L and departures from 24R.

You are probably aware that the departure runway you use (if there's more than one) is route dependent and to some extent the arrival route you're on dictates the landing runway. There are exceptions but thats the general plan. Problems (delays) can occur if we get into an unbalanced situation. Even when using 3 runways, if the majority of the arrivals are from the north and the majority of departures are going north, then the north runway gets overloaded and the south two runways look quiet. Without doing lots of last minute runway changes (which we know you hate almost as much as we do) that imbalance will run its course, and we look inefficient.

The arrival runway has to be notified to a crew not later than 60 miles out and changes inside that are discouraged. The departure runway is selected 30-45 minutes ahead when you call clearance and will not normally change unless we have to due to weather or a ridiculous, long term imbalance that we decide to correct.
ZBBYLW wrote:Does the tower have a minimum staffing levels and below that they just start increasing the OT rates until it's filled? Is the required training and hiring in place to get caught up with retirements?
As long as there's at least one person to talk on the radio there is no minimum! OT is used on almost every shift and everyone that is not working will be called unless they have stated otherwise. Every effort is made to fill every shift, but some days (like tomorrow) will be short.

I've been here 14+ years and the number of fully qualified controllers has remained around the same +/- 2 or 3 all that time. Training is ongoing but it is not a popular place to come to as you can earn 90% of what we do working less than half the traffic and not living around the GTA. So we end up training mostly ab initios and their success rate, unsurprisingly, is not high. It not just retirements either, people want career progression too, but cannot leave.
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#10 Post by Married a Canadian » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:57 pm

Some good points.

Just wanted to answer a couple of ZBBYLW's points from the terminal perspective.

Visuals.....we will still quite often vector you for the visual in a dual/triple because we still want to provide the correct departure spacing to the tower and we want to control the intercept so you don't blow through towards the aircraft on the parallel (unfortunately it happens, which is why we will vector you for the visual).

Some of the conservative spacing recently has been due to the Q400s slowing up inside the marker, and a certain unnamed carrier liked slowing their speed on base leg and final without telling ATC, which is personally my biggest bugbear as a terminal controller. When it is busy, we have to run either 2.5 or 3 miles (minimums) so the aircraft have to be tightly controlled (and even then still slow).

Regarding the weather delays and GDPs. I am afraid it is a "big picture". The terminal operates on a 25 square mile range, and if the weather is in the arrival box and no one wants to go near it (pop ups and all) there is no where else to put the planes...which means they hold in the enroute, which leads to holding in the high, which leads to the ground stops further out. Even when the weather has cleared...we still have the backlog of aircraft that were already in the sky.
Be aware also that we won't run a parallel approach when there are deviations within the arrival area, as there a minimal altitudes to use and minimal space to get you onto a "safe" final.
---------- ADS -----------

schnitzel2k3
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#11 Post by schnitzel2k3 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:41 pm

Another question,

With reasonable safety considered - is faster on final better or worse for your flow?

From most of the guys I've seen, 130 knots seems to be typical from 5 miles in, except for those Caravans, some of those guys are quick. That's after the 170 knot restriction to 5 miles.

I fly something that isn't quite as quick as a 777 on final, but I can certainly help out speed wise especially when I request 23 or 05 to keep from a 0.2 taxi.

It sounds like runway time is the only thing that messes up your day.

S.
---------- ADS -----------

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#12 Post by altiplano » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:20 pm

Yeah, Thanks for taking the time....

But...

whatever the issues, GTAA, YYZ specific procedures, TC, NavCan...

Far too little tin is being pushed at YYZ...

When I see the way movements are being done in SFO with close parallels that cross... and they manage it with one tower controller and one ground controller I wonder why we can't get SIGNIFICANTLY better performance out of YYZ.

Additionally, we need to fix our STARS. Dragging around at 3000' and 200 knots for a 15 miles downwind makes no sense...
---------- ADS -----------

Braun
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#13 Post by Braun » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:32 am

.....
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Braun on Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Braun
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#14 Post by Braun » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:37 am

altiplano wrote:Yeah, Thanks for taking the time....

But...

whatever the issues, GTAA, YYZ specific procedures, TC, NavCan...

Far too little tin is being pushed at YYZ...

When I see the way movements are being done in SFO with close parallels that cross... and they manage it with one tower controller and one ground controller I wonder why we can't get SIGNIFICANTLY better performance out of YYZ.

Additionally, we need to fix our STARS. Dragging around at 3000' and 200 knots for a 15 miles downwind makes no sense...
I don't work YYZ but one thing is that SFO doesn't have silly noise rules which allows an extremely efficient set up to be run. I.e. Using all runways at once and turning jets off departure. People also tend to forget that in general Canada has shitty wx. How is the efficiency at SFO when they can't do visuals?

Also, as a controller, I wonder why we can't get the same performance out of Canadian crews as the American ones. Ones who don't; disobey speed restrictions, reduce to ridiculous speeds inside final, actually descend if requested a good rate down to squeeze you tight, turn 12nm when cleared for a visual(which is why we vector to visual almost all the time) and reduce to their assigned speeds within reasonable delay. I'm not saying all Canadian pilots are horrible but there is a difference in the way we operate in Canada and in the US. I can't comment on the tower perspective but I've heard many of the same types of issues from them.
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#15 Post by Married a Canadian » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:38 am

Not quite sure what is meant by "too little tin" when YYZ is in the top 15 airports worldwide (movement wise) and at a full triple can shift 70 arrivals an hour...plus whatever departures (Cossack can give a better number than me). We are busier than SFO and for number sake....busier than all 3 New York airports (I am more than aware how busy New York airspace is, just using individual numbers to make a point)

There is always room for improvement, and I agree that do agree that there are some efficiencies to be gained from copying elsewhere. However trying to compare becomes pointless when you have to include every factor from weather, winds, local rules, airspace, pilots, performance, aircraft types etc etc. What they do in SFO is no comparison if an aircraft won't take a "land and hold short". You have to include some of the variables that YYZ operates under that are non changeable ie the winds, weather, traffic flows, aircraft types (C206s in IFR......those guys are awesome but in the evening it is tough), noise abatement, curfew time etc.
The pilot and ATC perspective will often be different because you can cherry pick what works well at the airports you fly into. I don't get to do that. As culpable as the parties mentioned are, to help improve efficiency....the pilots also have to help, and both Cossack and myself have pointed out over he years where the flying community really isn't helping the system.

The STARS? I think the failed phraseology project shows that work is needed on them, I won't disagree. However regarding the 3000ft point, remember you are operating in a parallel environment, you might need to be at 3000ft so the other side can join at a Glideslope appropriate point with 1000ft separation (which is what we have to do in IFR). I am aware that you are low and slow awY from the airport..but we have few altitudes available to us in the arrival box and you have to be established with vertical separation against the parallel. Unless they change the rules or pilots accept being high on the Glideslope, this isn't going away. If you visualize on the 24s being at the 4000ft has point on 24R at that altitude, traffic alongside you will be joining at 5000ft, not ideal.

Speeds on final? Just do the speed that ATC asks. If you want to slow, tell us. If you need another speed...tell us...we can accommodate if we know early enough. If there is no one around, speed your discretion is exactly that. We don't mind. From the terminal perspective if there are departures then we need you to cross the FAF at a slower speed to give the tower a chance to depart.

We had more weather delays and deviations yesterday. Not a lot can be done I'm afraid until we find a way to predict where aircraft want to fly in thunderstorms.

Off to the UK today...one less Brit on YYZ tu for 2 weeks...everyone can breath again!
---------- ADS -----------

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#16 Post by cossack » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:15 am

schnitzel2k3 wrote:It sounds like runway time is the only thing that messes up your day. S.
Nah, that's just one of the many things. :wink:
altiplano wrote:Far too little tin is being pushed at YYZ...

When I see the way movements are being done in SFO with close parallels that cross... and they manage it with one tower controller and one ground controller I wonder why we can't get SIGNIFICANTLY better performance out of YYZ.
Ridiculous generalization! You can't compare any US airport with YYZ unless it has exactly the same layout. You land on the 28s at SFO and go straight into the ramp and its a short taxy to the 1s with the occasional taxi to a 28 for a heavy that needs the length. There is almost no complexity there. Yes, there's a high energy intersecting operation, but that's it.

I have never seen a flow program in place for YYZ citing low ceilings and yet SFO, SEA, LAX, EWR, JFK, LGA and BOS regularly have restrictions in place for this. On a clear day they may appear to be more efficient but when the weather craps out you've instantly got serious, schedule destroying delays.

How many of these busy US airports use mixed mode as their primary operation? That's landing and departing the same runway in case you weren't aware of the term. The tower has to play the hand its given. Arrival spacing has to be spot on to maximize throughput. A mile less than we need, no departure. A mile more than we need, wasted mile.

Ideally we want to issue take off clearance when the arrival is 2.5-2.0 miles from touchdown. That's the sweetspot and there's not much room for error. If the preceding arrival dogs it, you go around. If the departure dogs it, you go around. Over my nearly 30 years in this job I have noticed a reduction in the performance of aircrews. Its getting to the point where we don't trust you to do what's needed and will let a tight one go by rather than push it. We get no thanks when we push it and if it goes sideways we get asked why we pushed it. So why do it?
Married a Canadian wrote:Not quite sure what is meant by "too little tin" when YYZ is in the top 15 airports worldwide (movement wise) and at a full triple can shift 70 arrivals an hour...plus whatever departures (Cossack can give a better number than me).
And a dual can do close to 60 arrivals, more if flow penalizes the departures. :roll: Hourly totals are regularly over 100 these days and on some days you're hardly breathing hard. On others you have to fight for everything and feel like you've been through the wringer.

The runway/taxiway layout is the main cause of grief. Long routes to/from the gate with lots of conflictions, then a long line when you get there. Also it seems that if there isn't a line up, a lot of crews aren't ready when they get there, even after a 2 mile taxy. Get your own house in order! You're delaying everyone behind you while you taxy slow hoping to be ready by the end of the runway.

I tried to explain earlier why long lines happen at 05/23 and there's no sure way of solving it. Taking 5 controllers each from the above mentioned US airports and putting them in the tower here would not move the traffic any better using the rules we have to abide to. Its just a fallacy.

Scheduling needs to be looked at and that's GTAA not NavCan. Arrivals all wanting in at the same time and big departure bulges. Yesterday evening for example:

At 8:45pm there's an unforecast wind shift. 020/10G18 with a 2000' wind of 290/20. We've been on the 24s all day but what should we do now? We went to the 33s to avoid operating with any tailwind.

Between 9:00-9:15 there are 32 scheduled departures and no surprise, very soon there's a long line waiting to go, and they're going fast because we're using visual departures, but there are still guys dragging themselves onto the runway like they're the only ones there.

The 33s is a shitty configuration as the terminals are on the other side of the departure runway from the arrival runway. You may have noticed the increased use of the F-C4-06L route. Runway crossings are being avoided wherever possible to keep the departure rate up. Yes its a long taxi but there's more chance of continuous movement to the gate. There is, however, a price to pay: 121.9 (me last night from 9:00-10:30) gets very busy. Every departure and almost every arrival goes through south ground.

Then the noise card is played and we have to land on 06R and the last arrivals on 33L are now mixing it with the first arrivals on 06R and we still have 10+ in the line for departure.

Please avoid the sweeping generalizations. They're not valid for the reasons MaC, Braun and I have tried to outline. Enjoy your break MaC, but if some of the above are to be believed, you'll be lucky to leave at all. :P
---------- ADS -----------

skypirate88
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#17 Post by skypirate88 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:20 pm

What was the reason for the configuration this morning around 830? Departures off 33R and 23, and I assume arrivals on one of the 24s. I hadn't seen it like that for quite some time. Was it just the number of depsrtures? There seemed to be quite the line for both runways. It seemed to work out pretty well.
---------- ADS -----------
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere

cossack
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am
Location: YYZ

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#18 Post by cossack » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:38 pm

skypirate88 wrote:What was the reason for the configuration this morning around 830? Departures off 33R and 23, and I assume arrivals on one of the 24s. I hadn't seen it like that for quite some time. Was it just the number of depsrtures? There seemed to be quite the line for both runways. It seemed to work out pretty well.
I don't work at that time of day but there is normally a big push of departures and not many arrivals, so that configuration does work well. Most of the rest of the day they want two arrival runways so that configuration doesn't work.
---------- ADS -----------

schnitzel2k3
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#19 Post by schnitzel2k3 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:25 pm

cossack wrote:
Between 9:00-9:15 there are 32 scheduled departures and no surprise, very soon there's a long line waiting to go, and they're going fast because we're using visual departures, but there are still guys dragging themselves onto the runway like they're the only ones there.
You should scream at them like they do in TEB, FXE or LAX :axe: Works well - I'll be the one at T/O power and not a percent less on lineup to avoid the whip :lol:
---------- ADS -----------

Married a Canadian
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: YYZ terminal

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#20 Post by Married a Canadian » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:17 am

Just returned from the UK

Wanted to say that we overshot at Heathrow because the aircraft in front slowed right up inside 4 miles and then rolled right to the end of the runway (missing the high speeds in the process). I am going to take a wild guess and say that this won`t impress ATC that much. It happens everywhere, not just YYZ.....both sides need to be part of the equation of efficiency.

When I re-read Altiplano`s comment, I can`t figure out if you are trolling or being serious. Either way, after experiencing a Heathrow overshoot because of the flight crew in front, pretty sure there is some work to be done on your side of the cockpit also.
---------- ADS -----------

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: YYZ Ground Stops

#21 Post by TheStig » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:32 am

Just finished reading this thread. It's interesting to hear from those on the other side of the frequency. Too bad we don't get better opportunities to share our issues with each other more often.

Couple of things came to mind; Slow taxi speeds, some times you just have to.
1) While I see there is some resurfacing going on of the taxiways in YYZ, they have gotten pretty punishing over the past year, for example crossing 15L on H at more than 12 knots could cause concussions.
2) Normally we don't start our before take-off checklist until clear of the apron as there are too many trucks ripping around to take a set of eyes out of the picture. When you exit at DT for a departure off 24R things can be pretty rushed if there is no line up, obviously rushing through important checklists isn't a good idea.
3) My airline has an affection for adding rows of seats to it's aircraft, encouraging pilots to land and not use reverse thrust (when safe) and has shortened the planned turn around times of its aircraft. What I've noticed is this leads to aircraft pushing with brakes that are warmer than they used to be. So in order to avoid building heat up in the brakes while taxing for departure, you guessed it..you taxi slower.

As you've noticed there has been a ton of growth and this has led to lots of advancement at the airlines. It takes a little time for pilots to become familiar with the proper techniques to finesse things into running smoothly. Knowing what weights/approach speeds and configurations are most suitable takes either a bit of experience to figure out of some guidance. I othen find myself suggesting that it's a better idea to plan to make C4 or H4 when landing on 24R or 23 than to try and make C2 or H2...missing it and then scrambling to get off the runway. There really doesn't seem to be any replacement for experience and at some point most of us have been that idiot new guy.

I think Canadian controllers do a fantastic job and would argue they do a better job as a whole than American ATC because they offer a more consistent service, while most US controllers are helpful and informative, some (few) are truly miserable, as a whole though, I know what to expect over Canadian airspace.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “ATS Question Forum”