Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?

[More-rudder!]

It's good to do a self-check at how we are doing, and I just wanted to throw it out there for discussions.

CYNJ is a 3-mile zone where IFR traffic is rare. Controllers and pilots appear super-stressed and operations often seem on the verge of chaos owing to the high demand of Class C separation requirements. Transient clearances through the zone commonly grind the runway operations to a halt. Is CYNJ unsafe as a Class C control zone? Should it be dialed back to a Class D where responsibility for VFR separation is partially shifted from controllers to pilots? What is NavCanada's rationale for keeping CYNJ operations on par with YVR operations? It would be great to hear from controllers, pilots, and NavCanada policy makers.

[boeingboy]

Maybe it's due to the number of "import" student pilots who can't speak English - let alone understand how to carry on a proper conversation. Langley - unfortunately is on the edge of the Glen valley practice area and has not only their own students, but Boundary bay, and Abbotsford as well. Just the other day I was taxing from the east side to the west side and the controller literally had to yell at all the others as she had 6 people call in without her being able to issue a single instruction.

Sigh....I long for the decent days of 20 years ago......

[AirFrame]

Langley has had problems over the last few years, with overly officious controllers and foreign students being sent free before their language skills could support it. They also submitted an order of magnitude more CADORs each month than any of the other lower mainland GA airports. I prepared some graphs showing the number of CADORs reported over the last 10 years, comparing Langley to Pitt, Boundary, and Abbotsford, and shared them with TC. The CADORS from Langley stopped cold for about 3 months. They've started up again, but at a slower rate.

[linecrew]

Langley has had problems over the last few years, with overly officious controllers...

What does that mean? They are bound by very strict procedures and phrase-ology guidelines. If they stray from these they get penalized for it, even if it's minor.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Langley has had problems over the last few years, with overly officious controllers...

What does that mean? They are bound by very strict procedures and phrase-ology guidelines. If they stray from these they get penalized for it, even if it's minor.

As a former ATC trainee, there are definitely tower controllers out there who like to be very hands on. I’ve worked with guys with one aircraft in the circuit call each crosswind, downwind, base and final turn.

Then there are others who with a circuit full of 8 planes will only issue landing clearances if everyone is playing follow-the-leader nicely and only issue an instruction if someone needs it.

And both controllers think their way is the best.

[lhalliday]

Tiny airport. Lots of flight training. All the ingredients for it being a zoo. Boundary Bay and Pitt Meadows aren't much better.

...laura

[Panama Jack]

An interesting post. I haven't been to Langley in decades. Given what you say, I am actually a bit surprised that Langley (and some other predominantly VFR airports) are Class C, based on what the different ICAO Airspace classifications imply according to Annex 11:

2.6.1 ATS airspaces shall be classified and designated in accordance with the following:

Class A. IFR flights only are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.

Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.

Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.

Class D. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with air traffic control service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.

Class E. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. Class E shall not be used for control zones.

From reading the AIP Canada GEN 1.7 Differences from ICAO Standards, Recommended Practices and Procedures, there seem to be no differences published about the separation services in these Canadian Airspace Classes.

If you say that ATC is providing separation services (in the air) between VFR traffic, then it sounds like Langley's airspace is being managed like Class B airspace. Note that even in Class C airspace, ATC is not responsible for providing separation services between VFR aircraft- only between VFR and IFR and between IFR aircraft. In fact, most US airports with control towers (and some of them are quite busy, and no I am not talking about places like Los Angeles- LAX which is in Class B airspace, or Burbank, Ontario International (KONT) or John Wayne Orange County- which is Class C airspace), are class D airspace (ie Long Beach, Torrance, Chino, Riverside, Fullerton, Van Nuys, Santa Monica and others). The role of the tower to sequence traffic for the runway. In other words, they provide separation services for the runway, but not the airspace above (except between IFR aircraft). They will call out traffic but the onus remains for VFR pilots to see and avoid each other.

That's my understanding of it, but I would love to hear a controller's view of this topic.

[7ECA]

It's a variety of factors that seem to turn Langley into a zoo. The airport is "small", and hemmed in by encroaching development; with "complex" (well, too complex for most students, it would seem) noise abatement procedures - too much of the good neighbour philosophy, perhaps.

The zone is only up to 1900', so overflights are extremely common - specially to/from Boundary Bay. The question always was, it is worthwhile calling tower and letting them know what you're doing - some controllers seemed to appreciate it, and others would snap back about being outside of "their" airspace and to kindly PFO. I also recall a controller who used to tell transiting aircraft who called up at 2500' that they needed to be talking to Terminal...

The foreign student "issue" is a common theme at many training airports across the country; and yet places like Langley seem to have run headlong into the issue without any sort of solution to mitigate the problem. Ultimately, it comes to to the individual FTUs who need to ensure that their students are only going solo (or on dual flights, as the case may very well be - I'm looking at certain FTUs with in-house trained instructors) if they have actually met the standard for English competency.

As for downgrading ATC services, I hardly see how that would help - certainly a redesign of the airspace in the Lower Mainland is in order and being looked at by NavCanada; but in all likelihood it's going to end up making things more convoluted, not less. Another example to look at would be Red Deer, where they will eventually end up with a Class C zone, as it's an absolute zoo there.

[lhalliday]

Class C in Canada is more like ICAO Class B: clearance for entry, separation and conflict resolution for VFR and IFR traffic. I've never flown in Canadian Class B, and have only ever been told to remain clear of U.S. Class B.

Class D is radio contact before entry, full control for IFR traffic, VFR separation/conflict resolution on request/workload permitting. I only know of two Class D airports in B.C., Prince George and Kelowna.

Nav Canada provide service based on aircraft movements, and by Nav Canada criteria Langley easily qualifies for a tower. In the past it was Class D, but with increasing traffic I can see why they'd up it to Class C.

..laura

[pelmet]

Just an idea for discussion but what about more controllers with a second tower frequency if it is so bad. Maybe one controller for the circuit and pilots closer in and one to handle the initial calls and other stuff.

I personally have not had a problem for the times I have been there but it has been at least a couple of years and it is busy at times.

[lhalliday]

Boundary Bay has inner and outer tower controllers. It's still nuts when it's busy. They often have both runways active: takeoff and circuits on 25, landings (LAHSO) on 31. This requires a single controller to watch both.

...laura

[7ECA]

Boundary is different, being that it has "two" zones; and it sort of makes sense being able to break them into an Inner/Outer zone. Abbotsford has an Inner/Outer, but rarely is it ever busy enough to have them both operating...

Langley is a small zone, good luck working an inner/outer there.

[AirFrame]

The zone is only up to 1900', so overflights are extremely common - specially to/from Boundary Bay. The question always was, it is worthwhile calling tower and letting them know what you're doing - some controllers seemed to appreciate it, and others would snap back about being outside of "their" airspace and to kindly PFO.

I hear a lot of people who don't "read the room" as they approach, and will call up at 2300' when the circuit has four planes in it and there are three more waiting on the ground to depart. It's too busy to bother them with "outside" traffic at that point, just shut up and listen as you drift over top. Sure, if nothing is happening on frequency, give them a hoot and say hi. They're nice people. Most of them.

I also recall a controller who used to tell transiting aircraft who called up at 2500' that they needed to be talking to Terminal...

That could be because they were showing on radar at 2550 or 2600...

[fleetcanuck]

Somehow it doesn't sound like the same place it was when Jim M and Werner G were in the cab.

[7ECA]

I hear a lot of people who don't "read the room" as they approach...

That's all well and good, but busy day or not if "you're" being mentioned as overflying/transiting traffic to others then you may as well call up tower and let them know what you're doing. If they don't have the time to "offer" services, that's fine; because most of the time being pegged at 2,500' means you're going to be above most of the students who've been told to never go near terminal... But, if you get snapped at, that's a different story altogether.

[AirFrame]

That's all well and good, but busy day or not if "you're" being mentioned as overflying/transiting traffic to others then you may as well call up tower and let them know what you're doing. If they don't have the time to "offer" services, that's fine...

Absolutely, if i'm crossing over top on a busy day and am passed as traffic, i'll pipe up and state intentions because that helps the tower and helps the other aircraft. Since i'm not in airspace where the tower is obliged to provide separation, anything I can do to help the other plane see me is welcome.
That's a different thing than crossing over top and not being a conflict with anyone on a quiet day. If that's the case I'd stay quiet unless someone I know is working the tower... Then I might say "hi." As I said, it's all about "reading the room."

Now if you're passed as traffic, and reply to let them know your intentions, and the tower snaps at you? That's what I meant when I said they can be "overly officious." But I haven't heard that particular situation happen in many moons... Usually they appreciate the head's up, and knowing that you're on frequency, even if they're not talking to you.

Of course there's also the problem of people who assume that because they're now talking to the tower, they will be passed other traffic, and get annoyed when the tower doesn't do that. Can't please anyone these days...

[lhalliday]

If ATC are talking about me I'll give them a call and let them know my intentions.

"Traffic five miles back is a Beechcraft, they haven't checked in yet..."

...laura

[rookiepilot]

From my experience seems terminal is dumping their traffic problems onto towers.

Last time I was there, terminal only said, "no contact, remain clear". No VFR service.

I've heard it's long been that way.

Perhaps it's teminal that needs to be fixed.

[7ECA]

Vancouver Terminal can be like that.

Victoria Terminal is a whole other story, they're game for all kinds of stuff that Vancouver wouldn't even bother to tell you to PFO about.

[jakeandelwood]

From my experience seems terminal is dumping their traffic problems onto towers.

Last time I was there, terminal only said, "no contact, remain clear". No VFR service.

I've heard it's long been that way.

Perhaps it's teminal that needs to be fixed.

I've had that as well, no VFR service from terminal. I heard one terminal controller deny 2 VFR planes higher because he said he couldn't understand them.I fly often VFR from Victoria to Kamloops and between White Rock and Hope is a mess below terminal airspace, broken English position reports, and just a lot of traffic that's hard to see cause it blends in with all the ground clutter. It's such a relief when terminal "let's you come up". Next time I go from YYJ to YKA I think I'll go via Squamish, Whistler, Pemeberton, Lilloet, even though it's longer

[stabilizedapproach]

That's my understanding of it, but I would love to hear a controller's view of this topic.

The role of the tower is to separate aircraft in their control zone, not just on the runway, but this is kind of where it gets tricky by definition.

We are only required to provide conflict resolution to VFR aircraft in Class C upon request but they will always be provided traffic information to assist in achieving visual separation. The whole "upon request" thing is silly though. We're not crazy enough to let a situation deteriorate to no return and not say anything about it. We don't have to provide conflict resolution but how can we, in good conscience, let two planes come so close and not do anything about it?

Above the zone is Class E, so no conflict resolution and traffic is workload permitting but everyone wants to call and expect service. We technically don't have to provide any kind of service in Class E, but again... in good conscience, how can we let two planes come that close and not say anything? Our focus and priority is always aircraft in our control zone, so airplanes in the Class E sometimes get ignored

They are bound by very strict procedures and phrase-ology guidelines. If they stray from these they get penalized for it, even if it's minor.

That's a very harsh way to describe it Phraseology is a set standard, but we are allowed to communicate using plain English... and definitely no punishment handed out, otherwise I'd be out of a job already.

Of course there's also the problem of people who assume that because they're now talking to the tower, they will be passed other traffic, and get annoyed when the tower doesn't do that. Can't please anyone these days...

Those annoyed pilots need to review their airspace classifications!

I heard one terminal controller deny 2 VFR planes higher because he said he couldn't understand them.

It's all about workload and how more airplanes on your frequency will inevitably take up a controller's time and attention away from their primary role - very similar to airplanes calling up requesting service in Class E airspace. Terminal controllers are all about providing IFR service first and foremost. Vancouver won't entertain most requests because they are busy working airplanes within a very confined Terminal airspace. Pilots aren't expected to know our procedures so while being told to remain clear sounds harsh, it's probably because your request may bring you nose to nose or into the wake of a 747 joining the downwind for Vancouver.

[rookiepilot]

It's all about workload and how more airplanes on your frequency will inevitably take up a controller's time and attention away from their primary role - very similar to airplanes calling up requesting service in Class E airspace. Terminal controllers are all about providing IFR service first and foremost. Vancouver won't entertain most requests because they are busy working airplanes within a very confined Terminal airspace. Pilots aren't expected to know our procedures so while being told to remain clear sounds harsh, it's probably because your request may bring you nose to nose or into the wake of a 747 joining the downwind for Vancouver.

Whenever I hear "workload" and "YVR" terminal in the same sentence, I raise my eyebrows as a GA pilot.

Why is it that I've heard Winnipeg also denies VFR's, and I've been denied by....Ottawa terminal, of all places.
I don't mean denied as into the class C, but traffic service near the class C shelf.

I thought the point of an ATC facility was to enhance safety, not argue about required service in a class of airspace.

As most of my experience is in the Toronto area, and having flown enough in NYC and DC's airspace, I wonder if the problem is really an overwhelming level of traffic.

YYZ always provides service, and 99% of the time it's in class E airspace.
They work hard and are appreciated, and I'm sure by the multiple towers as much as anyone.

So YVR is congested. So are lots of places. Fix it. Staff it. And don't let people fly, FTU's, who cant communicate.

Terminal doesn't want the work , and so Langley tower gets traffic calls they shouldn't. Or that's how it seems.

Maybe it's Terminal that's dysfunctional.

[stabilizedapproach]

Whenever I hear "workload" and "YVR" terminal in the same sentence, I raise my eyebrows as a GA pilot.

...

So YVR is congested. So are lots of places. Fix it. Staff it. And don't let people fly, FTU's, who cant communicate.

Terminal doesn't want the work , and so Langley tower gets traffic calls they shouldn't. Or that's how it seems.

Maybe it's Terminal that's dysfunctional.

You can't always "staff" a problem away. Having more cooks in the kitchen doesn't necessarily make the food taste any better.

Pilots never see what controllers see, and sometimes they don't hear what controllers hear either, so it's very easy to get mad at terminal (or any unit for that matter) and say they're providing crap service. It is not fair to say a controller is lazy or the terminal is dysfunctional because you don't know the big picture. Vancouver Terminal airspace happens to be incredibly complex and confined in part due to some very big unmovable rocks to the north. While it's so easy to say "fix it", short of moving mountains, there is only so much fixing NAV Canada can do to allow GA and heavier commercial traffic to co-exist in a very confined area. There are efforts underway to try and make the airspace better for everyone though, but to see any results would be years down the road. I'm sure Toronto is great, but I'm more sure you'll also be told to remain clear if the request interferes with their traffic as well.

YNJ happens to be on a long final to YVR - perfectly in line if you look on the VTA and when the 26's are active, planes could be given vectors and descents to join final right over YNJ. The approach controller is most interested in giving airplanes a stabilized approach, and me in my flight school's 152 is most interested in not getting flipped over by the wake of an A380 overhead. The VTA also says no contact above 19 to 25 in Class E so there is a corridor for people to get to and from the practice area without having to talk to anyone, but people do it anyway hence YNJ's frequency congestion.

Whether people can fly is up to Transport, not NAV, and of note, we don't "deny" service - that's up to the Minister of Transport. We are trained, permitted and even encouraged to restrict it to a level that we can work safely and whatever level that may be varies from controller to controller. And yeah, I'll be the first to tell you that some people aren't good on the radio, but how can they improve if we don't let them talk to controllers? You can only simulate so much radio-work on the ground with your instructor. Some of us are graced with perfect English so it's easy for us to speak on and listen to the radio, but you have to give props to the ESL pilot who has maybe 10 hours under their belt to be brave enough to make their own transmission. And frankly, even if you have perfect English, think back to your first few hours in a plane making a radio call and how shaky that must've been. I remember my first radio call as a student pilot and what that was like.

I thought the point of an ATC facility was to enhance safety, not argue about required service in a class of airspace.

Yes, it is definitely to enhance safety but within my area of control. If I have lots of planes in my Class C airspace, my priority is to ensure they all receive control service and information first. If I'm busy, providing any kind of service to airplanes in the Class E is very low on my priority list. The whole point about airspace classification is for pilots to know what they can expect out of ATC in whatever airspace they are flying in, otherwise there is no point in delineating classifications at all.

[rookiepilot]

Thanks for the response. I've visited terminal to have a better view of their picture, years ago. It is up to pilots to know the airspace, and someone should rap knuckles of those doing dumb stuff.

More Frequencies? I don't know how many YVR terminal uses, but it strikes me it's not enough, from my take while flying there. We have quite a few here....don't think it would work without as many as there is.

I'm well aware of the airspace, I've lived out there. NYC.....ATC is fast and expects everyone else to be too, or get barked at (I've heard that)...they get nasty with those not clear on the radio. So...seems like a training issue....

My home airport in Ontario is right under the approach path for Pearson...I get that too, and I have always have been given service just under the class C shelf.

From my read they prefer that. Like Langley, it's a very narrow slice between an airport's space and the class c in places, I think it lowers their stress knowing folks intentions. I could be mistaken!

When I learned, I was told to practice with apps, and listen to ATC live, I think it is.

Strikes me it's more an proficiency with English issue, and if so that's a non starter in busy airspace. Just cannot have folks struggling with basic language skills up there.

My $0.02. Why does this happen in even quieter airspace, like Winnipeg?

[stabilizedapproach]

All units can cross-couple (combine) frequencies when it is quieter and does not merit splitting off into positions. When it is busy and all positions are open, the Terminal is split up pretty logically and there are enough frequencies to go around to make it work as well.

English proficiency is important, but I don’t agree with ATC being “nasty” to pilots though because the last thing we need is some ESL being scared to talk to controllers due to some bad prior experience. If the language is hard enough for them already, why make the situation worse by berating them on the radio. The whole safety system starts breaking down when pilots are too afraid to “annoy” ATC to keep them in the picture in case of any issues. LiveATC is a good way to learn the aviation language and apps are probably useful as well, but neither provides any meaningful feedback comparable to talking to live controllers with others on the radio listening in. These tools are great in that they can practice listening to instructions, but the second and equally important part of effective two-way communication is speaking over the radio. We all know practice makes perfect, but practice also builds confidence that students need to develop.

You are very correct in saying it lowers stress knowing pilot intentions, especially if you are cutting through that narrow slice of Class E and skimming the floor of the Class C. And it’s not just intentions - if you’re talking to the appropriate ATC unit, we can verify your Mode C to ensure it’s showing the proper altitude readout. Altitude readouts are especially important in congested airspaces.

Finally, I don’t know anything about Winnipeg or Toronto so I definitely can’t speak to how they manage their airspaces out there, but I definitely encourage this kind of dialogue between pilots and controllers because we work together to ensure safety.