Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?

[photofly]

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.

Not with those words. Typically, inbound, one is simply instructed to descend to an altitude below the class C airspace. On departure if you ask for permission to climb you aren’t given it until the altitude you requested is no longer class C airspace.

A radar service has without exception in my experience always been available, so the class of airspace is somewhat irrelevant.

[rookiepilot]

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.

How does that work when Terminal simply and only says "Stay clear"?

What then happens is what's happening. Planes transiting will call up Langley tower to cut the risk of an incident, overloading them.

You haven't addressed the issue of terminals refusal of service, offloading the problem onto other facilities.

I don't routinely call up Hamilton or Waterloo tower here, even when very close. If terminal refused to talk to me, I certainly would.

[7ECA]

I always found that little slice of airspace from the Port Mann to the Alex Fraser (roughly) to be rather funny - especially with the guarantee that you'll never be allowed into Terminal. Still, nice to be able to cut across and out of Boundary Bay if you were heading Northbound anyway...

I do agree that there should be more communication between pilots and ATC; especially in the context of meeting face to face and getting a sense of things. Tower visits were a really interesting insight into things; although I'd imagine nowadays they're more frowned on with COVID.

[stabilizedapproach]

How does that work when Terminal simply and only says "Stay clear"?

What then happens is what's happening. Planes transiting will call up Langley tower to cut the risk of an incident, overloading them.

You haven't addressed the issue of terminals refusal of service, offloading the problem onto other facilities.  

I don't routinely call up Hamilton or Waterloo tower here, even when very close. If terminal refused to talk to me, I certainly would.

I’m talking about checking in with the various other units underneath Vancouver Terminal airspace so they know you are there so they can verify Mode C and provide some kind of flight following, kind of like what you do with Hamilton and Waterloo if Toronto doesn’t want to talk to you. Like I said before, if the 26s are active at YVR, they are most definitely not interested in accommodating you because any request for higher will conflict with their traffic on final. I’m not a commercial pilot but as I understand it, airliners like to be established on a straight line to the ground. If approach is running their airplanes overhead and they won’t let you climb because it’s unsafe, what do you want them to tell you?

The reason it’s mostly not a problem is because pilots from the Mainland cross overhead YNJ (19 to 25 is Class E) to the practice area without needing to go any higher than 2300-2500’ anyway. Maintaining listening watch to the Langley frequency is definitely nice, a call would be appreciated and traffic information provided if it doesn’t sound too busy, and no contact is just playing by the letter of the VTA. No one would write you up if you’re not even listening to the frequency. I’ve had many skimming the edges and upper limits of my zone without a single check-in and that doesn’t bother me, personally.

And to address your point about off-loading... frankly, I don’t think any controllers even see it as such. We all recognize when Terminal is busy and how that is complicated by our geography to the north. Our radar feeds are surprisingly good so I see the big picture just like any controller in position would. I have never once said “man I wish these planes could go higher with Terminal because I’m overloaded”... If I’m busy, they probably are as well and I can see it. And just because we’re talking a lot on the radio doesn’t necessarily mean we’re feeling busy either. You’ll find that most units are pretty light-hearted and chill. We’re probably laughing at a stupid joke a colleague just told in between transmissions or something so it’s not as stressful as people imagine ATC to be. Part of why training takes so long is because we teach how to recognize when it will get busy so controllers will know how to mitigate and never be too task-saturated to the point of back-breaking stress.

As a point of discussion though (and you may have an idea no one has ever thought of so I am honestly asking and not doing so with hostility), how do you propose solving the issue you see so Langley doesn’t get overloaded? We can’t change the fact that YVR is where it is, so we also can’t change the fact that heavies are routinely descending between 3000-5000 in that very busy area to join final at the appropriate altitude, right above the 152’s chugging along at 2500’.

I always found that little slice of airspace from the Port Mann to the Alex Fraser (roughly) to be rather funny - especially with the guarantee that you'll never be allowed into Terminal.  Still, nice to be able to cut across and out of Boundary Bay if you were heading Northbound anyway...

I do agree that there should be more communication between pilots and ATC; especially in the context of meeting face to face and getting a sense of things.  Tower visits were a really interesting insight into things; although I'd imagine nowadays they're more frowned on with COVID.

That airspace you’re talking about actually belongs to Vancouver Tower from 1200’ to 2500’. If the 26’s are active, you’re probably safer just transiting underneath because it provides for wake turbulence separation.

All facility visits are unfortunately stopped now because of COVID, and I don’t envision it being possible until a vaccine is available. The dialogue was nice though and pilots seem to understand much better why things are a certain way if they get to see what we work with.

[patter]

Taxiway C is labeled on different taxiways in the CFS and CAP. According to my Foreflight.

I read with interest the Cadors in Pacific Region every week.

[7ECA]

That airspace you’re talking about actually belongs to Vancouver Tower from 1200’ to 2500’. If the 26’s are active, you’re probably safer just transiting underneath because it provides for wake turbulence separation.

All facility visits are unfortunately stopped now because of COVID, and I don’t envision it being possible until a vaccine is available. The dialogue was nice though and pilots seem to understand much better why things are a certain way if they get to see what we work with.

I recall a night flight, in which Vancouver was "quiet" where I was denied higher Northbound going to the Harbour; which is fine, because you can skirt around the various zones and pop up as required. But, it would be nice to get higher in that area, someday.

Makes sense, is what it is. I know I used to drop in to the tower at Pitt back before the new one went up, from time to time. Guys were a riot, as long as it wasn't too busy.

[stabilizedapproach]

I recall a night flight, in which Vancouver was "quiet" where I was denied higher Northbound going to the Harbour; which is fine, because you can skirt around the various zones and pop up as required. But, it would be nice to get higher in that area, someday.

Yeah that area is particularly tricky and generally a no-VFR zone because the extension is meant to contain IFR aircraft in controlled airspace. If it's not wake protection on the 26's, it's to protect for the missed approach on the 08's. But I suspect if you try a night flight now, you'd probably get to fulfill your wish of getting higher in that area

I hope the restrictions on visits are lifted soon. We hear pilots' voices all the time, and it's nice to get to put a face and a name to the voice. It's also nice for pilots to know that we aren't emotionless robots on the other end of the mic as well, even if we sound like it most of the time

[rotorspeed]

Flying in the late 80's 90's in Vancouver. Pitt , BB and Langley were class D as everyone knows. I thought they became class C because they got radar service

[rookiepilot]

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.

Not with those words. Typically, inbound, one is simply instructed to descend to an altitude below the class C airspace. On departure if you ask for permission to climb you aren’t given it until the altitude you requested is no longer class C airspace.

A radar service has without exception in my experience always been available, so the class of airspace is somewhat irrelevant.

To answer your last question Stabilized:
As PF says, it's simply nice when Terminal talks to us in busy airspace, we don't need to be any higher and inside the class C.

YYZ operates multiple satellites on different frequencies, so they can do this....I do recognize it's a much bigger airspace.

Flying under VFR or IFR procedures isn't terribly different, either in this area, unless an actual approach needs to be made, at least from our side.

[AirFrame]

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.

You may want to give props to the student for being brave enough to try communicating, but at the same time you should be sh*tting heavily, and from a great height, upon the school that sets a student free who has neither the enunciation skills to clearly communicate their request, nor the comprehension skills to understand more than expected, canned responses. I've heard very broken requests, the tower somehow makes it out and starts to respond with "cleared" but then says for them to do something else... The student carries on with what they originally requested because all they heard was "cleared" and they didn't follow the rest. I thought the whole point of the English proficiency testing was to remove these situations.

I know it's not an easy problem to fix, either. To be proficient, you really must speak English at a conversational level, and many foreign students coming here don't have that. It takes months to get to that level, and many of them are only here long enough to get their license and leave.

[AirFrame]

That airspace you’re talking about actually belongs to Vancouver Tower from 1200’ to 2500’. If the 26’s are active, you’re probably safer just transiting underneath because it provides for wake turbulence separation.

<pedantic>YVR's space is only from the Patullo bridge to the Alex Fraser, east of the Patullo out to the Port Mann you're Class E to 2500'.</pedantic>

And even with that said, there's almost nowhere in that space you can legally "transit" without climbing into YVR airspace. There are terrain, bridge masts, cable crossings, etc. all over 200' ASL, and legally you need 1000' clear above them in a 4000' circle to pass over top. If you're talking safety, just avoid that airspace altogether.

[lhalliday]

A big issue in Vancouver is the terrain. I've flown in Toronto myself. They have their issues, but terrain isn't one of them...

SAM_1775.jpg (75.3 KiB) Viewed 2349 times

...laura

[stabilizedapproach]

To answer your last question Stabilized:
As PF says, it's simply nice when Terminal talks to us in busy airspace, we don't need to be any higher and inside the class C.

YYZ operates multiple satellites on different frequencies, so they can do this....I do recognize it's a much bigger airspace.

Flying under VFR or IFR procedures isn't terribly different, either in this area, unless an actual approach needs to be made, at least from our side.

If you don't need to be in terminal Class C and just want to talk to someone for flight following, what's wrong with talking to an underlying tower who can provide the exact same service you're looking for? Why not let VFR units work VFR traffic and IFR units work IFR traffic? It sounds pedantic, but there is good reason for such a fine division. Towers are permitted to work with a radar range much less than that of an IFR unit and have significantly better local knowledge. Pilots can call up approaching the warehouse and terminal likely won't have a clue what you're talking about... but a VFR unit definitely will. In a congested airspace in the Mainland, letting the VFR people work VFR traffic is much more efficient and arguably safer. If you need to go higher into Class C, then by all means call up the IFR unit for service and see what happens.

Here's a scenario for you: Three airplanes in close proximity are transiting overhead a control zone (quite often the case in the Mainland). One calls terminal, one calls the tower, and one calls no one at all. Does having three airplanes on three different frequencies in a one mile radius sound safe to you? If terminal starts taking whoever calls them, we will run into that situation. As a controller, if I am talking to a majority of those airplanes, I can help you achieve separation, but I'm handcuffed if I'm not talking to most of them. Locally, it's almost an unspoken rule now that airplanes transiting the Langley zone overhead will be at least listening to that frequency even without a check-in.

Maybe this is just a Vancouver thing, because I am not familiar with Toronto. I don't know how many underlying towers there are or even how busy it can be with GA, but between 3 busy training airports and one pretty busy water aerodrome, Vancouver airspace can get pretty packed. The underlying towers help take that burden off Terminal.

You may want to give props to the student for being brave enough to try communicating, but at the same time you should be sh*tting heavily, and from a great height, upon the school that sets a student free who has neither the enunciation skills to clearly communicate their request, nor the comprehension skills to understand more than expected, canned responses. I've heard very broken requests, the tower somehow makes it out and starts to respond with "cleared" but then says for them to do something else... The student carries on with what they originally requested because all they heard was "cleared" and they didn't follow the rest. I thought the whole point of the English proficiency testing was to remove these situations.

Yes it can be frustrating but part of our job is to monitor for compliance. We literally get paid to sit and make sure pilots do what we say - IFR or VFR, and this isn't limited to just ESL pilots. I've seen many typically very reliable pilots make mistakes too - from familiar flight instructors to even professional pilots, but ESL exacerbates the problem a little. I thought the whole English proficiency thing is a pre-solo requirement... but I'm not so sure anymore. It's been a while since I did mine!

When I fly, I pay extra attention to the radio much more than when I work because in a busy airspace, the controller could be rapidly firing off several transmissions to others before they can rapidly acknowledge me, then going back to rapidly firing off more words at others. Low time pilots might barely realize they're being addressed, miss most of the transmission because they're so task saturated and just reply anyway because they think they understood what's being asked of them. But controllers know that just because we issue a clearance doesn't mean it's one and done - we still monitor until the very end regardless of whether the pilot is good at English or not.

[jakeandelwood]

To answer your last question Stabilized:
As PF says, it's simply nice when Terminal talks to us in busy airspace, we don't need to be any higher and inside the class C.

YYZ operates multiple satellites on different frequencies, so they can do this....I do recognize it's a much bigger airspace.

Flying under VFR or IFR procedures isn't terribly different, either in this area, unless an actual approach needs to be made, at least from our side.

If you don't need to be in terminal Class C and just want to talk to someone for flight following, what's wrong with talking to an underlying tower who can provide the exact same service you're looking for? Why not let VFR units work VFR traffic and IFR units work IFR traffic? It sounds pedantic, but there is good reason for such a fine division. Towers are permitted to work with a radar range much less than that of an IFR unit and have significantly better local knowledge. Pilots can call up approaching the warehouse and terminal likely won't have a clue what you're talking about... but a VFR unit definitely will. In a congested airspace in the Mainland, letting the VFR people work VFR traffic is much more efficient and arguably safer. If you need to go higher into Class C, then by all means call up the IFR unit for service and see what happens.

Here's a scenario for you: Three airplanes in close proximity are transiting overhead a control zone (quite often the case in the Mainland). One calls terminal, one calls the tower, and one calls no one at all. Does having three airplanes on three different frequencies in a one mile radius sound safe to you? If terminal starts taking whoever calls them, we will run into that situation. As a controller, if I am talking to a majority of those airplanes, I can help you achieve separation, but I'm handcuffed if I'm not talking to most of them. Locally, it's almost an unspoken rule now that airplanes transiting the Langley zone overhead will be at least listening to that frequency even without a check-in.

Maybe this is just a Vancouver thing, because I am not familiar with Toronto. I don't know how many underlying towers there are or even how busy it can be with GA, but between 3 busy training airports and one pretty busy water aerodrome, Vancouver airspace can get pretty packed. The underlying towers help take that burden off Terminal.

You may want to give props to the student for being brave enough to try communicating, but at the same time you should be sh*tting heavily, and from a great height, upon the school that sets a student free who has neither the enunciation skills to clearly communicate their request, nor the comprehension skills to understand more than expected, canned responses. I've heard very broken requests, the tower somehow makes it out and starts to respond with "cleared" but then says for them to do something else... The student carries on with what they originally requested because all they heard was "cleared" and they didn't follow the rest. I thought the whole point of the English proficiency testing was to remove these situations.

Yes it can be frustrating but part of our job is to monitor for compliance. We literally get paid to sit and make sure pilots do what we say - IFR or VFR, and this isn't limited to just ESL pilots. I've seen many typically very reliable pilots make mistakes too - from familiar flight instructors to even professional pilots, but ESL exacerbates the problem a little. I thought the whole English proficiency thing is a pre-solo requirement... but I'm not so sure anymore. It's been a while since I did mine!

When I fly, I pay extra attention to the radio much more than when I work because in a busy airspace, the controller could be rapidly firing off several transmissions to others before they can rapidly acknowledge me, then going back to rapidly firing off more words at others. Low time pilots might barely realize they're being addressed, miss most of the transmission because they're so task saturated and just reply anyway because they think they understood what's being asked of them. But controllers know that just because we issue a clearance doesn't mean it's one and done - we still monitor until the very end regardless of whether the pilot is good at English or not.

How is getting a tower controller in Langley to give you flight following practical? The zone is 3 miles, by the time you get a word in edgewise you're long gone. VFR traffic is allowed in class C terminal airspace, it says so right in the AIM. I get tired of this VFR frowned upon in Vancouver terminal airpspace, Why when I fly from YYJ to YKA I never have trouble getting service from terminal, but the other way it's usually a problem? I guess because I'm already in class C out of YYJ? Wouldn't more controllers help? If you look at some of the other forums on AV Canada there is a whole long list of people trying to get in at Nav Canada including myself, ive been trying for 5 years. How do busier airspaces handle more traffic? In the end it comes down to simply more "traffic" whether it's VFR or IFR. I just don't get the difference if I'm flying VFR from A to B or IFR A to B on a clear day why I get shoo'd away VFR but the controllers make it work if I'm IFR, I'm still the same aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same speed.

[photofly]

Maybe this is just a Vancouver thing, because I am not familiar with Toronto. I don't know how many underlying towers there are or even how busy it can be with GA, but between 3 busy training airports and one pretty busy water aerodrome, Vancouver airspace can get pretty packed. The underlying towers help take that burden off Terminal.

Not including Pearson there are eight aerodromes in and around Toronto: Billy Bishop (Class C), Oshawa (Class D), Hamilton (Class D), Buttonville (uncontrolled), Burlington (uncontrolled), Markham (uncontrolled) and Brampton (uncontrolled) - all moderately to very busy training aerodromes. Plus Downsview, immediately adjacent to YYZ, which is fairly quiet. There is also occasional floatplane traffic into Toronto Harbour, and the medevac helicopters into and out of the downtown hospitals.

There is a steady flow of GA traffic trying to transit YYZ all flying a very narrow corridor along the lake shore.

Toronto terminal has two seats dedicated to traffic in an out of and transiting those aerodromes: Satellites East and Satellites West. Neither Oshawa nor Hamilton Tower will provide a radar service other than inside their control zones: Oshawa hands you off to Satellites East and Hamilton to Satellites West.

Like I said, I have never heard of a pilot being denied a radar service due to volume of traffic in the Class E airspace around Toronto.

[rookiepilot]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

[Braun]

COPA’s new president works for Nav Canada. Maybe a nice email or letter would be a good idea if you feel there is a problem!

[photofly]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

you could have got a clearance before you departed...?

[rookiepilot]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

you could have got a clearance before you departed...?

Wouldn't give it to me, if I'm remembering correctly. I believe they wanted me to take off VFR and orbit, maybe so they wouldn't have to hold the airspace during the time it took me to take off?

Weather was Cavok, NP, but I was responsible for my own traffic separation.

[photofly]

I don’t see that ATC can entirely refuse you a clearance for a flight plan you filed. You might have to wait a bit, but you ended up doing that in the air instead of on the ground, anyway.

[stabilizedapproach]

How is getting a tower controller in Langley to give you flight following practical? The zone is 3 miles, by the time you get a word in edgewise you're long gone. VFR traffic is allowed in class C terminal airspace, it says so right in the AIM. I get tired of this VFR frowned upon in Vancouver terminal airpspace, Why when I fly from YYJ to YKA I never have trouble getting service from terminal, but the other way it's usually a problem? I guess because I'm already in class C out of YYJ? Wouldn't more controllers help? If you look at some of the other forums on AV Canada there is a whole long list of people trying to get in at Nav Canada including myself, ive been trying for 5 years. How do busier airspaces handle more traffic? In the end it comes down to simply more "traffic" whether it's VFR or IFR. I just don't get the difference if I'm flying VFR from A to B or IFR A to B on a clear day why I get shoo'd away VFR but the controllers make it work if I'm IFR, I'm still the same aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same speed.

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit. Langley's zone is actually 6 miles from edge to edge (3 mi is radius) and in my little 152, it'll take a few minutes to cross overhead and plenty of time for me to get a word in. I don't understand why VFR units handling VFR traffic is such an issue here. Everyone has a job to do in the system; that's why controllers are split between IFR and VFR. Just because you're VFR and feel the need to talk to an IFR unit doesn't mean they have to entertain you... if I know I'm going to be too busy to provide you any meaningful kind of service, I'd rather not talk to you either unless you're about to enter my airspace.

VFR traffic is allowed in Class C airspace and I'm not going to argue that it's in the AIM, but what the AIM might not say is that controllers are allowed to restrict to a level that they can safely manage. This does not only apply to the terminal Class C, but also any control zone. If I can't handle you, you will be instructed to wait outside until I can and that's the way it's going to be because I'm not about to be a hero and take on more than I can handle just to make pilots happy with me. My job is to always be self-aware of my own workload and keep planes separated from each other. That trumps any kind of other service I can provide.

I don't know what routing you take from YJ to KA, but people need to stop comparing terminals. Comparing Victoria and Vancouver Terminal is literally comparing apples to oranges - they're not the same, the work they do is not the same, the complexity is different, the traffic mix is different. The same goes for comparing the service Vancouver vs. Toronto can provide - just because it works in Toronto doesn't mean it will work in Vancouver because of a myriad of factors.

Whether you are IFR or VFR, nothing ever happens quick with smaller planes. You will invariably descend a lot slower, climb a lot slower, actually be a lot slower... and all without consistency in aircraft performances either. If you file IFR to fly in your 172 (or whatever you fly), IFR controllers can make it work all the time because you are exactly the client they serve. They will ensure you are given proper IFR separation because that is their job - even if you are causing all sorts of headaches for spacing and sequencing. If you are VFR, the only goal of an IFR controller is to keep VFR away from IFR aircraft. You might not understand how you could possibly conflict with a 777 60 miles away from the edge of terminal airspace, but our tools are pretty good and we can predict with some degree of accuracy that you and the 777 will co-locate if you got what you wanted. I hope you will understand one day why terminal Class C restrictions are necessary when you are plugged into position and working the traffic.

On that, I digress momentarily here: It's clear to me that you want to be a controller, so I understand it's frustrating spending 5 years trying to make it through the process. It's been well reported that new candidates are constantly being added to the list and the company calls back only the top candidates for further. It's so easy to say "STAFF THE UNITS" as if training doesn't cost the company much, but it is approximately $1M to train a single IFR controller, and not everyone makes it through so each IFR qualification actually costs millions. Unfortunately, CT is a harsh reality if standards aren't met but as controllers, we wouldn't want standards lowered to increase staff count; we need to have unwavering trust that the controller next to us is able to do their job properly and has my back when I need it. As a pilot, you probably don't want to hear someone who doesn't have what it takes controlling you either. This has nothing to do with "OT protection" garbage that I've seen floating around this forum. The more people who qualify in my unit means that a) in the short term, I get more leave picks approved, I get to go enjoy my life and the workload is spread thinner amongst us, and b) in the long term, I get to transfer out of my unit and go somewhere else.

The point I truly want to impart is this: whether you believe it or not, controllers are not out to screw pilots. We don't wake up in the morning thinking how we can make life hard for pilots because that just makes life harder for us, and so if you are hit with a restriction or be told to remain clear, we aren't doing it to flex our authority or to be "lazy" as some have suggested. You may not realize it, but maybe being told to remain clear was the safest thing I could've done for you today.

COPA’s new president works for Nav Canada. Maybe a nice email or letter would be a good idea if you feel there is a problem!

That's an idea! If this issue is such a point of contention for many, there are avenues in which you can have your voice heard. I encourage anyone passionate enough about making Vancouver airspace work better for pilots to join the BCGA and find out how you can get involved with having the future needs of GA met. I heard they're stakeholders in the airspace modernization project, so their voices are heard by those who can make changes. This forum is great to air your grievances but it's akin to screaming into a black hole and achieves no changes whatsoever.

[photofly]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

[rookiepilot]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

Yeah, I'm really confused, too.

[AirFrame]

Here's a scenario for you: Three airplanes in close proximity are transiting overhead a control zone (quite often the case in the Mainland). One calls terminal, one calls the tower, and one calls no one at all. Does having three airplanes on three different frequencies in a one mile radius sound safe to you? If terminal starts taking whoever calls them, we will run into that situation. As a controller, if I am talking to a majority of those airplanes, I can help you achieve separation, but I'm handcuffed if I'm not talking to most of them. Locally, it's almost an unspoken rule now that airplanes transiting the Langley zone overhead will be at least listening to that frequency even without a check-in.

You won't talk to terminal for more than a few seconds before you're either accepted up into their airspace (in which case, keep talking to them, climb up, and you're out of the uncontrolled region anyway), or you're told to PFO and you're only left with "call langley" or "monitor/go nordo" as options anyway. Terminal won't do anything for you if you're not in their airspace, and they don't usually allow you in anyway.

Second, if it's a serious concern regarding the amount of traffic in that circle and the fact that it's a designated route to/from the south suicide area (ah, I mean, south *practise* area), then the real solution is for it to be positively controlled by someone, with no class E region at all. Sadly, that's the direction all airspace in the lower mainland is headed.

I agree there's an "unwritten rule" there -- but because it's unwritten, nobody knows what the "rule" is. I've heard it said that (1) YNJ doesn't want to hear from you, (2) that they don't expect you to be on their frequency, (3) that they do want to hear from you, (4) that they want you to be monitoring but not for you to call in, etc. I suspect all of these are true at times, depending on how busy YNJ is.

[ahramin]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

Yeah, I'm really confused, too.

The confusion is justifiable. I think what we have here is a VFR controller talking way outside of their specialty.

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

ATC units aren't kitchens. "Due to reduced system capacity" sure sounds like a staffing problem to me. Specifically YVR TML missing ~17 trained controllers. What else is reducing the capacity from normal?

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.

No one is stating that NavCanada needs to move mountains. For a start NavCanada needs to get their staffing levels up to where NavCanada itself has said they need to be. That's a long way from moving mountains. No one is asking for a miracle way to have a slow small plane transit where a big fast plane needs to be so there's no point making excuses and claiming it cannot be done. I've attended briefings on the "efforts" underway and they are a shambolic gong show. Controllers claiming that aircraft on an RNP approach are "locked in" to that approach and cannot maneuver for traffic. Also claiming that they need 1000' separation between VFR and IFR traffic. It's a mess and the excuse that there are mountains around simply isn't good enough.

For example this is exactly the type of garbage I hear during those briefings:

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.

YNJ is 21 nm away from the YVR thresholds. A normal approach puts you at 5000 to 7000 feet in an airliner, but this is used as a reason for keeping traffic at 2500' and below? An A380 is big, but it isn't magic and can't flip over a C150 4000 feet below it.

I’m not a commercial pilot but as I understand it, airliners like to be established on a straight line to the ground. If approach is running their airplanes overhead and they won’t let you climb because it’s unsafe, what do you want them to tell you?

I am a commercial pilot and your understanding is wrong. In heavy jets ideally the last 6-9 miles are straight, 3-9 for medium jets. Beyond that we couldn't care less. At 21 miles any controller who thinks that climbing above 2500' is unsafe needs better training.

Why not let VFR units work VFR traffic and IFR units work IFR traffic?

Have a look at the airspace classifications in Canada. The only airspace that excludes VFR flight is class A. YVR TML is not an "IFR" unit. YVR CTR below 18 000' is not an "IFR" unit. All of the control zones in BC and all of the class C airspace in BC is IFR and VFR airspace.