FSS vs VFR Roles, Responsibilities, Paychecks

[cyyz]

and where our salaries are topping out at 65k some tower controllers are making 5-10k more for less work, especially with their contract giving them double time overtime and most towers having scheduled sick leave/overtime programs, they are making much more than us.

From an FSSer

There is onlt norhtern living allowance at a few stations. The most southern is Sioux Lookout. I am up norht in XXXX and i made 88K last year and i wasn't even up here for a full year. I should make over 100K next year especially since we are due for a new contract in april. It differs at different stations but you can expect something over 55Kish with everything included.

[bij]

there are fss who make that kinda money, by working in seriosly remote sites and working 56hr/wk. neither are comparable to a VFR tower job

[jonathan_tcu]

Thank you very much! On second thought, the idea of converting FSS with VFR operations really IS something to think about. I'll leave it at that.

I'll check out Amazon's website to get those books, that's exactly what I need and want.

I really do hope to make it to Timmins, since there seems to be a lot of new voices every 6 months or so.

Thanks again!

[SquearlFSS]

hey towering cumulus,

it is true me and my roomate just checked out in Timmins but we are temporary positions right now, because there are people with seniority who have transfer requests into timmins.

Up north Rankin Inlet, Churchill, Iqualiuit. You make a tonne of money, but you work arctic workweek, get a day off every seventeen and you never eat fresh food!!! well this is what I have heard from a co-worker

the good thing is, it isnt hard to get to CYTS once you have a few years in, because there are alot more sites, that are more desirable

alright all off to dinner, take care

[ahramin]

the fact that busier FSS sites are handling the numbers of a tower

The fact is that a tower handles traffic, a flight service station does not. There is a big difference between handing out advisories and controlling aircraft.

we couldnt think of any reason why an FSS would be any more ineffiecient for the operators compared to towers

VFR: Less time spent waiting to get on frequency before taxiing or moving onto the runway. As soon as you add a FSS you are at minimum doubling the amount of r/t on a frequency.

IFR: Same as for VFR but on top of that you wait longer for clearances. This is largely due to a lack of discrete frequencies but the end result is still way too much r/t on an important frequency. But that is just a small delay. Haven't you ever had an IFR outbound aircraft sitting on the ground waiting several minutes for an IFR inbound to land before departing? In a towered environment IFR departures and arrivals can be sequenced much, much closer. Ultimately not having a tower can cause delays of a half hour or more.

[bij]

[quote="ahramin"][ As soon as you add a FSS you are at minimum doubling the amount of r/t on a frequency.[quote]

Again, that is half of the point. If in busier sites, there was more "control" vs advisory, there would be much less congestion and frustration. If in the scenario of an FSS type controller, I am sure the training would be comparable. And in saying this we aren't comparing moderate sites like YTS to YWG tower, but maybe YMM to YAV or YQX towers

[SquearlFSS]

FSS do handle traffic!!

Numerous occasions I have had 10-12 aircraft in the zone and you have to resolve traffic conflicts, we usually call this controlling using JEDI MIND tricks. "Are you able to come overhead for the downwind?" most pilots are very compliant and helpful but also they have the right to say "No" this I think leaves more responsibility on the pilots which is good. Because in the end it is always the PIC's resposibility anyways.

As for clearances most cases it is alright because the first waiting plane blasts off and then the 4 waiting behind just take VFR departures which keeps things nice and quick.

Timmins has no radar below 5000ft on most days so it is harder to get people in and out because it is procedural for CZYZ. Anyways, I just wanted to pip up and say we Do handle traffic. CYMO has upwards of 500 movements a day during freeze up/break up, which is more than most towers ever do

[bij]

Is there anything wrong with thinking there may be room for another level of service between advisory (which you seem to have a lot of rrespect for) and a VFR control tower. I think it would be pretty lousy if FSS starting stealing workloads from towers and doing a comparable job for NAV CAN but only for less money. That thought sickens me. But I do believe there is room at some advisory sites for another level of service.

And btw, CPL_ATC, what's that reason?

[ahramin]

cpl_atc, you've stated it far better than i could have. You have it 100% right.

[grimey]

As for clearances most cases it is alright because the first waiting plane blasts off and then the 4 waiting behind just take VFR departures which keeps things nice and quick.

If it's VMC, and if the VFR departures are approved. If it's IFR, and there's radar service available, a tower can handle departures and arrivals much quicker. What's the most aircraft you've had in a hold, awaiting approach clearance? I've seen 4-5 in YTH, I've heard YXJ can get far more than that. If you get a tower and radar, that can pretty much go away, or be minimized, anyway. Having two staff in a tower, on doing air and the other doing ground also substantially increases the number of aircraft that can be handled by the airport safel. Phrasology differences, and the fact that towers have positive control also reduce frequency congestion.

As for flight schools boosting numbers: I don't have any experience working/flying at YAV, or anywhere else with a school, but most of the guys at flight schools (instructors included) are going to be far less experienced than even the lowest time pilot at an actual airline. Which would mean more r/t, poorer position reports, requesting things they don't want or need, and more incidents for busted clearances, runway incursions, etc. Locals might be easy to deal with, even in fairly large numbers. But when you add in alot of itinerant traffic, inexperienced pilots, and other garbage, it becomes much different. There may be a tower or two that could safely run as a very busy FSS, or busy FSS sites which would be far better as towers, but I wouldn't be too quick to say that you can do someone else's job when you have no experience managing the level and complexity of the traffic involved, and don't know any local factors that may influence it. Maybe YAV, or other airports could be switched to FSS. Maybe YAV might not require at tower if it wasn't close to YWG. Maybe it needs an upgrade to the staffing level to operate more safely. I don't know. But I'd bet that the controllers at YWG ACC, and pilots who fly in the area do, or at least they know far better than you or I (and some of each have posted in this thread). As others have said in here, FSS has its place (I know, I am one), but we're not controllers, and we're not able to handle the traffic that a VFR tower can.

[SquearlFSS]

Advisories and controlling are nothing alike of course, but I think FSS do lots of work for less pay so who knows

It is true, controllers are licensed so they have infinitly more responsibility. I guess I just reall like debating thats all.

I have nothing against controllers I hope to be one someday actually. Hopefully my time as an FSS doesnt impare my ability to control

[ahramin]

Squearl, i know a couple guys working at McDonalds who serve way more customers than you do, and do way more work than you do, without a cushy chair or air conditioning. Maybe they should get your paycheque

[SquearlFSS]

LOL Touche.

Very true good one, All I am saying is that I wish I could work half of the day, have lazy boys and ping pong tables for my breaks, and make a little bit more than the ATOS boys and girls>

I guess I am a little jealous of the controllers and their contract, so much for Joining CAW since we lost more than we gained last go round.

In any case who knows what will happen, with Nav Canada seeing the high numbers FSS are moving at places like Campbel river, grand prarie, and fort mac, I think you will see more towers being re-classed into FSS. Who knows what this will do to efficiency. I wont wonder what it will do to safety because in my opinion safety is a "Huge Concern" as long as it doesnt effect the bbottom line.

alright back to soccer

[cyyz]

Okay, they asked(today) SHL(SLH??? Whatever) Pick your prefrence, you knew, or should have known what you were getting into when you put FSS as #3, you can refuse to put FSS....

You can refuse to accept FSS.

On the Nav Can site, you can pick ATC, FSS or both...

And finally, according to the website http://www.squawkident.com you can apply for VFR or IFR after 5 years of service....

So you want the extra cash, upgrade to VFR or IFR after you do your X years of service....

and obviously cash isn't an issue since you mentioned and agreed that navcan has arctic site where the pay is high but lifestyle sucks....

Think you want a bit of both worlds..

[SquearlFSS]

who doesnt want a bit of both.

I would be happy if they put a few lazy boys in the lunch room here

[SierraPoppa]

In the future though I hope to seen a lessening of the gap between VFR and FSS salaries and responsibilities though. I think that an actual combining of these two jobs wouldnt be that crazy of an idea. As long as an FSS has the tools (Nards, 360/180 Cab, Schedueled relief for breaks) it is proven we can do upwards of 70-80k movements no sweat.

OK where are getting this "proven we can do upwards of 70-80k movements no sweat." bullshit from.

The busiest airport with an FSS in 2005 was Fort MacMurray with 51,751 total movements. Timmins ranks 21st among airports with an FSS with 23,919 total movements, that's a long fucking way from 70-80k sparky.

Now there are some towers that have low movements one Whitehorse is even lower than your paltry figure at 23,385 but we all know that Whitehorse tower is only open for political reasons nothing more.

You've got some fucking nerve as a six months wet behind the ears FSS telling the world you figure you could take over a good portion of VFR towers. Yep Nards and a 360/180 Cab might help you do your job but it aint gonna make you into Joe controller, and where the @#$! did you get the idea that tower controllers get scheduled meal and reief breaks.

Sit back shut the @#$! up and take a good look at the system before you open your stupid little trap again, ASSHOLE.

[bigfssguy]

In the future though I hope to seen a lessening of the gap between VFR and FSS salaries and responsibilities though. I think that an actual combining of these two jobs wouldnt be that crazy of an idea. As long as an FSS has the tools (Nards, 360/180 Cab, Schedueled relief for breaks) it is proven we can do upwards of 70-80k movements no sweat.

OK where are getting this "proven we can do upwards of 70-80k movements no sweat." bullshit from.

The busiest airport with an FSS in 2005 was Fort MacMurray with 51,751 total movements. Timmins ranks 21st among airports with an FSS with 23,919 total movements, that's a long fucking way from 70-80k sparky.

Now there are some towers that have low movements one Whitehorse is even lower than your paltry figure at 23,385 but we all know that Whitehorse tower is only open for political reasons nothing more.

You've got some fucking nerve as a six months wet behind the ears FSS telling the world you figure you could take over a good portion of VFR towers. Yep Nards and a 360/180 Cab might help you do your job but it aint gonna make you into Joe controller, and where the @#$! did you get the idea that tower controllers get scheduled meal and reief breaks.

Sit back shut the @#$! up and take a good look at the system before you open your stupid little trap again, ASSHOLE.

I have been doing this job for 5 years now so i'm not wet behind the ears nor am i an asshole i'm a damn good FSS who has handled a variety of traffic situations and numbers through RCO's and AAS sites in three different sites now. SquerlFSS has some points, yes there are some towers that could be serviced by FSS. Example Prince George tower, i have a good buddy of mine that works there and i was talking to hime a few years back and he asked me whats the busiest hour i ever had. I replied 52 movements all itinerant. The most aircraft i have handled at one time was 16. His response was OMG how do you do that without a radar. He had never seen that many planes at once.

I find the biggest difference between an FSS and towers is that yes they have more movements but during peek periods FSS can be as busy if not kmore so than controllers. We just don't have sustained movements year round like many towers do. I was in YTH for 21/2 years and we were quite busy in the summer especially the summer of 2004 with all the fires. But in the winter were dead!

Now thats not going to change anytime soon. I would be really surprised to see any FSS become towers with the exception of YMM. It will likely be going the other way. Plain and simple we as FSS can get handcuffed by the rules we are obligated to follow. Yes our rules add a lot of chatter to the radio but it is the way we HAVE to do it. We would love to cut back on radio transmissions but we can't and still get the job done properly.

Another thing before i go is that it would be silly to think FSS could take a CBT training course over a week and come in and do the job a controller does. They like us go to school and train for months to do what they do. Though we are charged with the same job of making sure the tin don't run into one another it would be dillusional to think we could take a quick course and step in and do what they do. We have a lot of parellels (eg: ground control of vehicles) but in the end they are still different jobs.

[SierraPoppa]

I have been doing this job for 5 years now so i'm not wet behind the ears nor am i an asshole i'm a damn good FSS who has handled a variety of traffic situations and numbers through RCO's and AAS sites in three different sites now. SquerlFSS has some points, yes there are some towers that could be serviced by FSS. Example Prince George tower, i have a good buddy of mine that works there and i was talking to hime a few years back and he asked me whats the busiest hour i ever had. I replied 52 movements all itinerant. The most aircraft i have handled at one time was 16. His response was OMG how do you do that without a radar. He had never seen that many planes at once.

I find the biggest difference between an FSS and towers is that yes they have more movements but during peek periods FSS can be as busy if not kmore so than controllers. We just don't have sustained movements year round like many towers do. I was in YTH for 21/2 years and we were quite busy in the summer especially the summer of 2004 with all the fires. But in the winter were dead!

Now thats not going to change anytime soon. I would be really surprised to see any FSS become towers with the exception of YMM. It will likely be going the other way. Plain and simple we as FSS can get handcuffed by the rules we are obligated to follow. Yes our rules add a lot of chatter to the radio but it is the way we HAVE to do it. We would love to cut back on radio transmissions but we can't and still get the job done properly.

Another thing before i go is that it would be silly to think FSS could take a CBT training course over a week and come in and do the job a controller does. They like us go to school and train for months to do what they do. Though we are charged with the same job of making sure the tin don't run into one another it would be dillusional to think we could take a quick course and step in and do what they do. We have a lot of parellels (eg: ground control of vehicles) but in the end they are still different jobs.

bigfssguy,

You make some excellent points and I will not in any way argue with you that there are some towers that could be closed and the traffic quite easily handled by you guys. For the most part I think you guys do a great job given the constraints of management and some of the dickheads you have to work with both inside Nav Canada and "clients".

What pisses me off, is the six month wonder with no other experience than Timmins coming on here and stating that with a better view, Nards and scheduled relief breaks he could take over most Grade 1 and 2 towers.

I haven't seen you or any other of the FSS people that post on here come up with shit like that and I respect you for fact that you do realise they are very different jobs.

Anyone can look at the annual statistics available here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/TP577/tp577.htm for annual movements or here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/TP141e/tp141.htm for monthly movements to see "Sparky" is blowing hot air.

[Pygmie]

70-80k movements? I'd hate to be the IFR controller who's in charge of that, if any significant amount of those are IFR movements. . .

[scrambled_legs]

Bigfssguy, there is no way that Prince George's busiest hour is 16 movements. I work at a 60k movement airport and have had over 300 movements in a day.

What I'd like to know is what sort of traffic Fort Mac is working. Are they combining cessna's and Boeings, circuit traffic and itinerants, accomodating training flights with circling approaches, crossing runways, tourist flights overhead, balloons, vehicles everywhere, providing seperation between flights, military procedures, etc.

There is a lot more to it then just numbers. To have 70,000+ similar type itinerant aircraft movements simply arrive and depart with nothing else going on is a joke, any controller could handle it blindfolded and FSS are not doing anything spectacular. Grimey where do you get 40 movements per hour out of 1 guy in the circuit? It takes 5 minutes on average to do a circuit so 40 movements would be more than 3 in the circuit. Before all you FSS start ranting and raving about how much more you do, talk to some of the guys that have stepped up. We've had 0 out of the last 3 FSS cross overs receive a licence here. They tend to just keep passing traffic and can't get it through their heads that they're in charge and have to fly the planes the way they want things to work. Instead, they just sit back and watch the shit storm develop while madly passing traffic.

I've probably had 8 aircraft withing 3 miles of the field. Try doing that with advisories and every pilot having a different idea of what should go on. A controller is neccessary to develop one picture and keep everyone else maintaining that picture. Sure it can be done through adviseries but its not pretty.

Let me give you a scenario of how fast adviseries go wrong. Aircraft on long final cessna elects to extend to follow. Faster 737 behind aircraft on final ends up chewing up cessna elects to do a 360. 2nd aircraft in circuit sees 737 doing 360 does a hard left turn to avoid and conflicts with guy inbound for the downwind. guy on final behind 737 is now in conflict with 737 spinning. So now you have 4 conflicts when a controller would have seen it coming and told the circuit traffic to keep the base in tight number 1. If it doesn't work he has to jerk around 1 circuit guy only. Not sure if you can see the scenario in your mind but believe me the FSS'ers here can't get over how quickly it hits the fan when you sit back and give adviseries.

[Louis]

About service levels, one point some have brought is the fact many FSS sites have major differences from one season to the other... Say, busier than many towers in the summer, dead in the winter.

Would it be a reasonnable idea to look into "seasonal" tower services in some of those sites?

Goodbye,

Louis

(Bear in mind I'm a pilot with no ATS background.)

[lilfssister]

I work at a 60k movement airport and have had over 300 movements in an hour.

???

[bigfssguy]

Bigfssguy, there is no way that Prince George's busiest hour is 16 movements.

Never said that, i said the most traffic i had on my board at once was 16 aircraft not in an hour, you must have misread it by mistake. My buddy in PG thought it was crazy cause he had never worked that many people at once. Nothing to do with how many movements in an hour.

I've probably had 8 aircraft withing 3 miles of the field. Try doing that with advisories and every pilot having a different idea of what should go on.

I have had that before many many times. You just have to request the aircraft to do various things. Most pilots obliged and did it cause they knew we weren't going to ask for superfilous things. These things happen fairly often during peak areas.

An example of this is i had 5 fire fighting ( 3 air tractors and 2 CL415's)aircraft come off a fire 10 miles north all lined up on final for rwy 23. One aircraft inbound southeast and one from the north west. Got the inbounds fit on final into holes that i could see. Then to make matters worse a Saab inbound rom the south decides it would be best to land opposite rwy 05. All of a sudden 7 aircraft start spinning. Got everyone worked out so they didn;t go bang then got them all on the ground. Yes it can be difficult but well short of controlling and with the co-operation of the pilots you can do it efficiently and safely. Maybe controlling them would have been more efficient but it still works.

Moral is that we have different views but FSS can work in high density/complexity situations when it is neccesary or warranted. I have done it and a lot of my co-workers have too.

[SierraPoppa]

I work at a 60k movement airport and have had over 300 movements in an hour.

???

Have to agree with lilfssister. I seriously doubt a 300 movement hour at almost any airport let alone one that only runs 60,000 in a year.

300 movements in one hour equates to 5 movements per minute or one every 12 seconds. In today's world of ATC that is just not possible.

In the late 70's I worked an airport that did 241,000 movements a year (YBW) and we never ever came close to 300 movements per hour, even without the restrictions that have been put in place over the years.

I left ATC in 1999 and it was impossible to do those types of numbers then so I doubt that you could do them today.

The rest of your post was reasonably good, too bad you had to resort to a little hyperbole at the start and ruin your credibility.

[grimey]

Would it be a reasonnable idea to look into "seasonal" tower services in some of those sites?

Not really. Alot of the job has to do with familiarity with the area, doing a complete staffing change every 6 months won't allow for that. It's also make everyone's life hell, having to move twice a year.