CYNJ CADORS

[patter]

Good morning everyone.
I like to follow the CADORS in my region.
Of note are the Langley CADORS.
The number is extraordinary.
For awhile there were a lot of planes not following the Trinity and Thunderbird departures. Restricted to 1000 feet on departure also means you can neither see Trinity or Thunderbird on departure. And the pilot is not even 1000 AGL on departure.
This week read the CADORS for the latest failures of pilots. Again an extraordinary number of reports for ordinary events.
As a pilot who has at least 5 logbooks full, haha, I am reluctant to go to CYNJ as it must be a very dangerous place with all these CADORS. And I do not want to have a discussion with enforcement either.
When I have to depart or arrive CYNJ, I always state unfamiliar, even though I have been going there for many years.
If CYNJ is as hazardous as the CADORs state, perhaps Transport Canada and Nav Canada and the Langley Municipality need to take a closer look at the liabilities it presents. Or close the tower. The CADORS almost always happen when the tower is open.
If there was ever a place that needed the archives of Live ATC, CYNJ is it.

[“Bob”]

CADORS are not meant to be punitive, nor are they in themselves an indication of the professionalism of the pilot. “You’re going to get a CADOR!” So what?

I’ve often found that if someone is quick to tell people they aren’t doing something right, telling lots of people they aren’t doing things right, and getting frustrated or angry about it, that the problem more often lies with them and their inadequate instructions or system than you.

[godsrcrazy]

Depending whom is on the tower depends on Cadors. This airport is not as dangerous as one individual tower operator makes it seem. All the airports in the world this individual is the worst i have ever dealt with. I am sure this individual would write up their closest family and friends. I caught hell one day for starting without asking permission. That chewing went on and on about how i should have called first.

[linecrew]

That chewing went on and on about how i should have called first.

You could have reported that to NAV CANADA since ATC is not responsible for enforcement and this is poor form to go on and on unloading on you on the comm.Yeah you made a mistake, but all you needed was to be informed, not berated.

[challenger_nami]

I have had my share of heated arguments with the tower the first few times I went there years ago.

CYNJ certainly can be a handful for someone who is unfamiliar with it.

Its runways are super short and it’s such a busy airspace at the crossroads of CZBB, CYPK and CYXX.... not to mention glen valley’s training area. There are a lot of student pilots going there who are prone to make mistakes, and also there are lots of cowboy pilots who intentionally disregard the rules.

Plus, the residents around the airport are kinda anal about the noise abatement. If I am not mistaken, there have been attempts to shut down the airport all together.

The ATC needs to be professional. But at the same time, if they don’t write up the violators, things get out of hands.

Plus: the departure procedures are not just about noise abatement. They serve another good purpose:
if an airplane departing RWY25 without following the procedure ends up with an engine failure, it will crash right in the middle of downtown Langley. If the pilot is following the procedure, it will have an open field to land on. It’s the same story for RWY18.



.

[boeingboy]

Sounds more like you have some axe to grind.
I've been based out of YNJ for at least 25 years and it's not a dangerous place.

Or close the tower. The CADORS almost always happen when the tower is open.

How would closing the tower solve anything? If pilots can't follow instructions - they should be corrected and written up.

For awhile there were a lot of planes not following the Trinity and Thunderbird departures. Restricted to 1000 feet on departure also means you can neither see Trinity or Thunderbird on departure. And the pilot is not even 1000 AGL on departure.

When the procedures first came out - there was some confusion...and the heli procedures are different again, but how is not being able to see it a problem? I have the waypoints programmed into my GPS , and if one has no GPS - a little pre-flight planning is in order.

Plus: the departure procedures are not just about noise abatement. They serve another good purpose:
if an airplane departing RWY25 without following the procedure ends up with an engine failure, it will crash right in the middle of downtown Langley. If the pilot is following the procedure, it will have an open field to land on. It’s the same story for RWY18.

Ugh...Don't get me started on the 25 procedures...one day someone is going to kill themselves there. I never take 25. I will always request 19 and take the crosswind.

it’s such a busy airspace at the crossroads of CZBB, CYPK and CYXX.... not to mention glen valley’s training area. There are a lot of student pilots going there who are prone to make mistakes,

This is certainly true - and this is what makes it a different experience to fly in. The flight schools need to reinforce procedures with their students. My most dangerous times is transiting the valley as hardly anyone makes calls or position reports on the MF. I've had too many instances with unknowns going every which way at whatever altitude they want. Inside the control zones is the safest place to be.


If you really want to eliminate the majority of the problems - stop letting those who can't speak or understand english from flying around here....

OOP's - guess I can't say that - can I.

[patter]

Just follow the CADORS for Langley.
You will soon see what I see.

[ahramin]

I've had a CADOR in Langley, it was my fault. TC Enforcement called me about it, I admitted the mistake and said I wouldn't do it again. Never heard from them again.

A friend of mine got a CADOR in Langley, he couldn't figure out what he'd done wrong. We got the AIM out and reviewed VFR circuit procedures, now he knows what he did wrong. When TC Enforcement called him about it, he explained that he had reviewed the proper procedures and wouldn't do it again. Never heard from them again.

I have no issues flying to CYNJ and find it enjoyable to fly there. It can be busy though so if someone is unable to follow noise abatement procedures or atc instructions I highly recommend CYCW.

[Scuderia]

Generally speaking, most people need to care less about CADORS. It's a reporting tool for an occurrence.

For educational reasons, I think it's great that they are public. But the number of times I hear from people that they "don't want to be CADOR-ed" and taking on unnecessary stress during decision making makes me lean towards not making them public.

Fear of being the subject for a CADOR is non-sensical. It's spurious. A CARs violation does not need to be in a CADOR to be a violation. One does not want to violate the CARs to begin with. It just happens to be that the best/easiest/most common way for TC Enforcement to hear about a violation is through CADORS.

Personally I think there is zero issue with the high number for CADORS generated by CYNJ tower. In fact it's great. They are creating a "papertrail" of documentation which can be used to develop better procedures. I exaggerate, but if TC Enforcement sees 9/10 pilots not following a departure procedure, they won't take action against 9/10 pilots. It means there is a deeper issue.

[AirFrame]

I raised the issue of CYNJ CADORs to Transport Canada about a year ago during a conference call with the General Aviation Safety Committee. TC and the TSB were both *very* interested in my findings, in which I downloaded all CADORs from the previous 12 months at CZBB, CYPK, CYNJ, and CYXX, and plotted a graph comparing them. The data was, quite frankly, astonishing. I didn't expect the results either. CYNJ, compared to CZBB, CYPK, and CYXX, was generating between 5x and 10x the number of CADORs of the other three airports... All of which are also busy training airports, and one is an International hub as well.

Ironically, two weeks after I reported this all CADORs from CYNJ stopped cold for a significant time... A month or two if I recall. Then they slowly started to ramp up again. Maybe coincidence? I don't know.

Throughout that previous year, there were comments made that the airport wasn't happy about the number of CADORs being generated. A lot of negative comments were made about private pilots on the west side of the airport being the problem, and how those pilots had to shape up or they and the airport would suffer. When I looked at the data though, the vast majority of them involved training aircraft from one of the schools on the field.

I've been meaning to go back and do a followup and see how things have changed, but haven't had the time.

[Canoehead]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Nav Canada is in the process of reducing service where they can (and really they've always been about saving money) so it stands to reason that Controllers and FSS Specialists would be wanting to "justify" their jobs in any and every possible way, including CADOR submissions, especially if those submissions point in any way to a need for a controlling (or advisory) service in the process.

Not criticizing in any way, but if your career ultimately depends on data drivers like airplane movements and reporting, you're going to want to generate data.

[Heliian]

Good morning everyone.
I like to follow the CADORS in my region.
Of note are the Langley CADORS.
The number is extraordinary.
For awhile there were a lot of planes not following the Trinity and Thunderbird departures... . The CADORS almost always happen when the tower is open.

Yes, that's how CADORS usually works. You commit a minor violation and the tower will ding you.

Most CADORS are just for information and don't result in even a phone call.

It's a tracking system and hopefully encourages better airmanship. It's a great learning tool but it's not gospel.

[patter]

The CADOR system was put in place to identify errors in aviation for the TSB to help remedy and improve aviation. I have also heard a Transport Minister was caught up short at a press scrum not knowing details about the what/where/when and why of an accident and did not want to appear a fool again, and along came the CADORS system.
The intention is good, execution these days not so great.
The twin was told to overshoot short final at Pk a couple of weeks ago as he had forgotten to put his gear down, no CaDOR was generated. So I looked up section 3 in the AIM. Some of the CADORs generated at NJ would not appear to fit into the classification for mandatory reporting. The terms incident, accident and occurrence appear to be used differently than from years ago. Let’s hope Nav Canada Transport and TSB are all using the words with the same definitions.
Downstream of a CADOR, and some are frivolous, are the man hours required with a flight school to manage these CADORS, this means your tax payer dollars and Inspector time and increased training costs for flight training. And if you dispute the CADOR with Transport....I believe it’s chapter 6 in the manual, verbal counselling is off the table, and you are in trouble should you appear on their radar again within 2 years. And Langley is generating a lot of CADORS. CADORS, For an overshoot, for S turns on final, NEVER a CADOR for controller error. The Thunderbird and Trinity Landmarks are impossible to see when held below 1000 AGL and flying towards higher terrain. 5 taxiways to taxi to destination when the expeditious route is 1 taxiway. Wrong way taxi instructions for taxiways given on short final and during a landing roll. I can understand why NJ can be considered an unwelcome place to go to.
For the most part Transport Canada enforcement Pacific Region has always been super with their enforcement action. I’m sure they are shaking their head.

[rookiepilot]

Not criticizing in any way, but if your career ultimately depends on data drivers like airplane movements and reporting, you're going to want to generate data.

Simplest explanations are usually the best.
Or sounds like some useless bureaucrat with a power trip issue who thinks he's at JFK.

[boeingboy]

The Thunderbird and Trinity Landmarks are impossible to see when held below 1000 AGL and flying towards higher terrain.

So what?
Try using some basic airmanship sometime. Or are you one of these weekend warriors that pulls out your map and CFS madly trying to read it at the last minute?

5 taxiways to taxi to destination when the expeditious route is 1 taxiway.

I don't think this is even possible at YNJ

[godsrcrazy]

I raised the issue of CYNJ CADORs to Transport Canada about a year ago during a conference call with the General Aviation Safety Committee. TC and the TSB were both *very* interested in my findings, in which I downloaded all CADORs from the previous 12 months at CZBB, CYPK, CYNJ, and CYXX, and plotted a graph comparing them. The data was, quite frankly, astonishing. I didn't expect the results either. CYNJ, compared to CZBB, CYPK, and CYXX, was generating between 5x and 10x the number of CADORs of the other three airports... All of which are also busy training airports, and one is an International hub as well.

Ironically, two weeks after I reported this all CADORs from CYNJ stopped cold for a significant time... A month or two if I recall. Then they slowly started to ramp up again. Maybe coincidence? I don't know.

Throughout that previous year, there were comments made that the airport wasn't happy about the number of CADORs being generated. A lot of negative comments were made about private pilots on the west side of the airport being the problem, and how those pilots had to shape up or they and the airport would suffer. When I looked at the data though, the vast majority of them involved training aircraft from one of the schools on the field.

I've been meaning to go back and do a followup and see how things have changed, but haven't had the time.

It would be interesting to know how many of these Cadors were filed by one individual.

[patter]

Landing 01
Told to exit E
Then to f
Down 25
H
Then G That’s 5...well 4 taxiways and a runway.
It would have been so much easier if we had told to exit G, straight line to destination. Or exit 25. On call up we gave destination on the field. One wonders if there was a deliberateness to that call by tower.

Continuing with Langley...
Taxiway Charlie is in 2 different places... between the CFS and the CAP. This causes CADORs also and yet no one does anything about it.

[AirFrame]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Nav Canada is in the process of reducing service where they can (and really they've always been about saving money) so it stands to reason that Controllers and FSS Specialists would be wanting to "justify" their jobs in any and every possible way, including CADOR submissions, especially if those submissions point in any way to a need for a controlling (or advisory) service in the process.

Not criticizing in any way, but if your career ultimately depends on data drivers like airplane movements and reporting, you're going to want to generate data.

If that were true, someone should ask NavCanada how they knew COVID was coming 5 years ago. Because that's around when the number of reports started to ramp up.

[AirFrame]

Langley is generating a lot of CADORS. CADORS, For an overshoot, for S turns on final, NEVER a CADOR for controller error.

And yet the controller errors *do* make it into the database. Just this week an incident from October made it into CADORs... Note that it was reported from the TSB, not from NavCanada...

2020P2033

TSB Report #A20P0098: C-GCKA, a Skyquest Aviation Ltd. Cessna 172M conducting flight training with an instructor and student on board, was on approach for Runway 19 at Langley, BC (CYNJ). At the same time, a privately registered Cessna R172K with a pilot and 2 passengers on board, was holding short on Taxiway Echo at CYNJ . At 2242Z, C-GCKA was given clearance to land. At 2243Z, the Cessna R172K was given takeoff clearance for Runway 19. As the Cessna R172K rolled onto the hold short line, the pilot observed C-GCKA on short final and came to an immediate stop. At the same time, the Langley tower controller realized the conflict and ordered the Cessna R172K to hold position. C-GCKA landed without further incident. The Cessna R172K departed shortly after, without further incident. There were no injuries.

[stabilizedapproach]

Note that it was reported from the TSB, not from NavCanada...

The information still came from Nav through a controller’s self-report. Depending on the severity of the mistake, some get bounced to the TSB who ultimately report it retroactively after their investigation. I’ve seen some controller mistakes show up within two days reported by Nav.

[7ECA]

If you want a pretty glaring example of the sheer quantity of CADORS Langley is able to produce, take a look at the Pacific Region daily report for today (February 23, 2021). Of the thirteen (13) reports, twelve (12) are about CYNJ - that's 92%. Not bad for a wee little airport in the Lower Mainland...

[Canoehead]

It appears there are lots of pilots who don't know the rules? Almost all seem like valid write-ups to me.

It's not hard.

[AirFrame]

It appears there are lots of pilots who don't know the rules? Almost all seem like valid write-ups to me.

So what's more likely? That Langley has a massively above-average fleet of idiots and somehow every other airport in the lower mainland has managed to avoid them? Or that there's something else going on?

Keep in mind that most of the reports are about school aircraft. Why are students at Langley that much worse than everywhere else? Or maybe the other airports turn a blind eye to infractions this inconsequential?

[lhalliday]

Most activity at Langley is flying school aircraft, which is why schools show up so frequently. But Boundary Bay and Pitt Meadows are also training-heavy and I've seen some crazy stuff at both airports. Just no CADORS. Let's not talk about Chilliwack, OK?

Langley can be tricky, but, still, this is nuts. I know Langley well: I learned to fly there and kept my own plane there until I moved to Kamloops.

...laura

[Canoehead]

It appears there are lots of pilots who don't know the rules? Almost all seem like valid write-ups to me.

So what's more likely? That Langley has a massively above-average fleet of idiots and somehow every other airport in the lower mainland has managed to avoid them? Or that there's something else going on?

Keep in mind that most of the reports are about school aircraft. Why are students at Langley that much worse than everywhere else? Or maybe the other airports turn a blind eye to infractions this inconsequential?

Well I'm unfamiliar with any of those airports- only YYJ and YVR in that area. It's certainly possible that it happens more often elsewhere but doesn't get logged, whereas Langley is more "committed" to reporting. Let's take the two most common occurrences on the date you mentioned: taxiing without a clearance and not going where they were instructed to go in the air. Those are pretty black and white. Do they need to be written up every time? Probably not. However if there is a systemic problem in that flights are constantly taxiing without a clearance or not following instructions, then it needs to be documented. If there's one operator in particular that is prone to these errors, then I'm sure that the local Tower Supervisor would have had a courtesy call with the CFI/CP to discuss. If things don't improve, then start writing CADORS, and draw the attention of TC.

The reality is that taxiing as instructed, joining the circuit as instructed or flying the departure route as instructed is not hard (especially at a small airport like Langley). A couple or 3 events per day? Yeah likely that's normal. But there seems to be errors happening a lot there.

I'm actually curious as to why these events are happening so often? Is language a contributing factor?