IFR question

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:57 pm

Once IFR candidates are assigned their positing after NCTI, do they have the option of hi or low/approach sectors? And do you IFR folks out there have a personal preference?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:31 pm

jonathan_tcu wrote:Once IFR candidates are assigned their positing after NCTI, do they have the option of hi or low/approach sectors? And do you IFR folks out there have a personal preference?

You don't go to NCTI/cornwall anymore.... You get assigned to your unit before you even start...

And I thought you don't get an option in anything once you're at the unit either???

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:34 pm

Yeah, that's right. I read that posting on the NavCan website. Thanks for the reminder. I was just curious about those who have a preference if they wanted to transfer from hi or low alt IFR. That's all.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:42 pm

jonathan_tcu wrote:Yeah, that's right. I read that posting on the NavCan website. Thanks for the reminder. I was just curious about those who have a preference if they wanted to transfer from hi or low alt IFR. That's all.

I think grimey, or maybe jericho, said it best when they visit their "neighbours workstation"(paraphrased) they're amazed at "how much work they do" and when the other guy goes to them they think the same, think if you're trained on whatever and pass(aren't c/t'd) I think you'd prefer your job specific station, because you're familiar with it, you know the "ins and outs" it wouldn't be foreign to you.

my 2 cents. But yeah, think you should pm jericho, or search for his posts... it was one of the ywg guys that mentioned it....

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:00 pm

cyyz wrote:I think grimey, or maybe jericho, said it best when they visit their "neighbours workstation"(paraphrased) they're amazed at "how much work they do" and when the other guy goes to them they think the same, think if you're trained on whatever and pass(aren't c/t'd) I think you'd prefer your job specific station, because you're familiar with it, you know the "ins and outs" it wouldn't be foreign to you.

my 2 cents. But yeah, think you should pm jericho, or search for his posts... it was one of the ywg guys that mentioned it....

Wasn't me who said it (I'm in YTH FSS, not YWG ACC), probably Jerricho. But the same goes for between IFR, VFR, and FSS as well. While certain jobs will always be harder or more intensive than others (YYZ Tower & terminal), a VFR controller visiting a reasonably busy FSS would probably be a bit suprised at how much work we have to do given the lower traffic levels at an FSS. I'm not suggesting it's harder, but like you say, familiarity with the job has a lot to do with it. If you know the area, the regular pilots, normal traffic patterns, and procedures specific to the job, it will affect how much you like the job.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:17 pm

There are opportunities to move between specialties within an ACC. However, staffing levels will most likely affect this. There have to be enough people working in your old specialty to allow you to be released for training in the new one. Same as transfering/seniority bidding between towers, FSS's, ACCs, and being released from an FSS position if you jump through all the hoops for ATC training.

In initial training in an ACC you will be put in whatever specialty the course is for, which will most likely be the shortest staffed specialty. Same coming out of NCTI for Tower or FSS, you'll go wherever they are most in need of staff.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:25 am

Somebody call?

I think the comment you guys are referring to is the one I made about a famil with London Enroute and sat there thinking "ain't no way I could do this".........then had the enroute controller who I sat with come and watched EGLL terminal with me and was quite emphatic when he said "ain't no way I could do this".

The way things are at the moment, the speciality an ab-initio will train for can be quite dependent upon what course is being run and just how short of staff that particuar speciality is.

I'm a firm believer that ATCers can be suited to a particular "discipline". Me, I'm an approach/terminal controller, and you can take that enroute/procedural stuff and give it to somebody else thank you very much. We have a very nice lady at YWG ACC who has what could only be described as a classic "procedural brain", and she's damn good at that procedural magic. Me, not so much. I've seen trainees who were CTd from one discipline and given a shot at the other and kicked some serious ass.

The trick for those involved in the training process is recognising this and acting upon it.

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:31 am

Wow. Thanks Jericho. Rules can be scary. From time to time, I'll review what I recorded during the day from Toronto Center (those who know me for this lol) just to figure out how non radar controlling is like. I really like how both the pilots and controllers remind each other about general non radar procedures. You always have ONE extremely busy day where everyone comes and goes at once, 3 or 4 in a line up. It sounds like fun, but sometimes it can be scary. I used my imagination to follow ATC's directions and think, can I really survive if I ever tried IFR with NavCan? I doubt it lol. I myself might just stick with FSS once I get into NavCan's services.

Thanks for the feedback!

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:27 pm

jonathan_tcu wrote:I really like how both the pilots and controllers remind each other about general non radar procedures.

Remind? Hmmmm.

I would generally agree with what's been said so far. I think you get comfortable with what you know, and tend to stay there and like it. However, when Wpg did the high/low split a few years back, some guys went high because they weren't big fans of non-radar, and other guys went low because they liked the increased variety of the work in the low.

High/low/terminal are all quite different from each other, even though we all have the same licence. Nobody could simply hop from one to the other, regardless of which one you're talking about, without significant training that is specific to the area.

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:55 pm

Charlie_G, thanks for that input. When I used to listen to North Bay's high level sector, now 121.22, formerly 132.37 a couple of years ago, it was actually quite fun listening to co-ordinated traffic going to Pearson and Ottawa or general enroute traffic going everywhere else. It just sounded like a matter of turn left/right to avoid this guy, start your decent now and call the next sector, or deviations approved for weather or turbulence or just proceed as cleared.

With THIS being said, since most high level is radar identified, I'm going to assume it's easier to handle? I suppose if it is easier, it's due to the airspace being more altitude comfy being on average is FL 290 and above.

Thanks again for your input, keep them flying

Oh, since Charlie G mentioned a bit of history regarding Winnipeg ctr, I'll be happy to hear other IFR center history facts too

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:14 pm

Can't hop from one to another... hmmmm... Funny' I've done all 3 in one day...many years ago of course. Wasn't any easier with older equipment either - no felines with 11 lives to help out

Just so you know, there are no substantially easier or harder ATC units or postions. They all have their unique traits and ultimately sectorization, airspace size and staffing equal it all out by default so they all work more or less the same.

And one should never equate volume to difficulty. You can have literaly thousands of cars on the 401 all speeding along merrily...until someone has to cross all that traffic

... or the 5 lanes merge into one, or there is a 25/50/25 mix of different speeds that has to be controlled individually or........

IFR question

IFR question

Re: IFR question