Sudbury FSS....I mean Tower ....controversy

[SquearlFSS]

So in the on going saga of Sudbury Tower/FSS?? we at YTS FSS just read two articles from sudbury news papers, here are some quotes from it.


"Asking Pilots to Land in an airport without air traffic controllers is not much better than asking them to land in a grass field "
- Carl Valitutti, Vice President CAW local 5454

"Such a move would degrade the reputation and status of our municipal airport. It would dicourage new customers and do little to retain existing clients. It would send a message that Sudbury is not important enough to merit the licensed services that air traffic controllers provide. I am vehemently opposed to this proposal and I certainly hope wise thinking prevails"
- Rick Bartolucci, Subury MPP


Wondering what everyone though about those and the whole thing in general, Myself I wouldnt mind the chance to jump a little futher south if it did convert to an FSS.


Any Pilots who flew into sudbury wishing to comment on traffic levels, and controllers wanting to stay in the big smoke, or any concerned citizens of sudbury...would love to hear your thoughs

[politically_incorrect]

"Asking Pilots to Land in an airport without air traffic controllers is not much better than asking them to land in a grass field "
- Carl Valitutti, Vice President CAW local 5454

That statement, and I say this as a member of 5454, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Carl, pull your head out of your ass, and keep the union scare-mongering bullshit to yourself.

Fuc*ing ridiculous statement!!!

[bij]

hey squearl

Where can I find those articles? I'd like to post them at work, or at least make sure shop steward sees this

[grimey]

"Asking Pilots to Land in an airport without air traffic controllers is not much better than asking them to land in a grass field "
- Carl Valitutti, Vice President CAW local 5454

Wow. Feel the love. I can understand him wanting to protect the jobs of the controllers working there, and traffic levels/complexity may mandate it (I don't know), but wow. There are better ways to make your point, ways that don't involve insulting 700 other people who work for the same company (and are, incidentally, also members of the CAW).

And thanks, P_I.

[justplanecrazy]

Wow, a real assinine comment from a guy in power. The MPP had it bang on but the CATCA guy shoulda chose his words a little better. On the other hand, it's kind of funny that this is coming up moments after this announcement.:

From the IATA's web site:

"Indeed, airports and ANSPs often benefit from a monopoly position, which does not encourage them to keep their fees low. Privatisation of both airports and ANSPs is another significant factor in increased charges because of the profitability requirements exerted by new owners."

Fortunately, John Crichton can take some credit for running an operation that is in line with the position of the IATA, who claim to represent 94% of international air traffic.

Nav Canada charges lower fees today than Transport did ten years ago, despite investing over $1B in new technology and increasing staffing. NC is in fact prohibited from turning a profit by legislation.

Our income taxes are lower today than they have been in the last 20 years, proof that reducing the size of government (as in a case where the the ANS was privatized) benefits everyone. A privatized ANS is cheaper, period.

This is proof that the NC model works, and is something the world should strive to emulate.

I still can't believe that they published that lie. Check out the rant on the other topic, to understand what I'm talking about: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=22730
How many towers has NC shut down now since coming to power, despite increasing staffing????

[lilfssister]

If you researsh archives fi ANY newspsper in any location over the past 20 years where ATC has been replaced by FSS, you'lll see the same dire predictions, I'm sure.

Since the non-flying public believes ATC "lands planes" they have no idea that the pilots actually do so and can actually land and take off wthout anyone holding their l'il hand.

[justplanecrazy]

Sadly I guess it'll take a few planes running together before anyone realises that the predictions hold some merit. Try and think of the last time 2 planes came together in a controlled environment. Then think about the last time there was a mid air in an uncontrolled environment with 10% of that traffic. If I recall right, there was one this past month. From the sounds of what goes on from the last time this topic came up, this almost happens everyday.

Anyways, I guess we're back to your argument that YYZ would be just as safe if it was operated by a radio station.

[the_professor]

From the IATA's web site:

"Indeed, airports and ANSPs often benefit from a monopoly position, which does not encourage them to keep their fees low. Privatisation of both airports and ANSPs is another significant factor in increased charges because of the profitability requirements exerted by new owners."

Fortunately, John Crichton can take some credit for running an operation that is in line with the position of the IATA, who claim to represent 94% of international air traffic.

Nav Canada charges lower fees today than Transport did ten years ago, despite investing over $1B in new technology and increasing staffing. NC is in fact prohibited from turning a profit by legislation.

I still can't believe that they published that lie.

Actually, that was my comment, not the company's. That was not part of the news release.

I guess I was refering to centres in general, not towers, FSS. Not sure what the tower situation is specifically, obviously you'd know better. There are 42 (?) towers operating today? Not sure how many were around in 1996. I'll try and find out.

[SquearlFSS]

The Articles came from the Sudbury Star and the Northern light? I think in sudbury, you can get the articles out of the archives but I believe it costs money.

We already have fed it up the food chain and I guess the union is looking into it....

[grimey]

Sadly I guess it'll take a few planes running together before anyone realises that the predictions hold some merit. Try and think of the last time 2 planes came together in a controlled environment. Then think about the last time there was a mid air in an uncontrolled environment with 10% of that traffic. If I recall right, there was one this past month. From the sounds of what goes on from the last time this topic came up, this almost happens everyday.

Anyways, I guess we're back to your argument that YYZ would be just as safe if it was operated by a radio station.

If the traffic levels have gone down significantly, and there arn't other issues related to the airspace or traffic complexity that would increase the need for it, it's completely reasonable to replace a ATC tower with an FSS, if the overall complexity is low enough. The reverse is also true, of course, and a few airports would probably benefit significantly from having their FSSs be replaced with ATC towers, and/or by having a terminal service provided at that airport as well. Whether Nav Canada is actually doing the changeover at a low enough traffic level is another issue.

As for the midair, if it's the same one I'm thinking of (the one underneath YYZ's airspace, over Caledon), was in an area with virtually no ANS provided at all, not at an airport with an FSS. If this isn't the case, please clairify.

[wingspan]

When I was there last september there wasn't much traffic...
But I always preffer a tower over an FSS.

[Flying Low]

Since the non-flying public believes ATC "lands planes" they have no idea that the pilots actually do so and can actually land and take off wthout anyone holding their l'il hand.

That's true...we pilots do manage to land the plane all on our own. It's just that last 50 feet that we require the assistance of ground crew with a couple of magic wands or we will be stranded in the middle of the ramp!

[justplanecrazy]

Since the non-flying public believes ATC "lands planes" they have no idea that the pilots actually do so and can actually land and take off wthout anyone holding their l'il hand.

This coming from someone who is obviously neither a pilot nor a controller.

[bigfssguy]

Since the non-flying public believes ATC "lands planes" they have no idea that the pilots actually do so and can actually land and take off wthout anyone holding their l'il hand.

This coming from someone who is obviously neither a pilot nor a controller.

Absolutely correct, well aside from the fact that she's FSS!

[justplanecrazy]

Just seems funny that she's pissed that a CAW official would say FSS are useless when he has no idea what you do, but then would turn around and say that Controllers are useless, when she has no idea what we do.

Most pilots would rather work with a tower if given the choice, myself included. An FSS with no control, or flight experience, has no idea what the difference is. The CAW guy was way off with his anology, I've already said that, landing in grass fields is safe... sorry couldn't resist, I'm only joking.

I think FSS are perfectly safe but there are a few of you out there that think that there is no difference between the 2 operations and that FSS can "control traffic" too, regardless of numbers. In reality FSS is only as safe as the pilots in the air around you. In a controlled environment the controller knows what will and what won't work and keeps the pilots doing what will work and yes holding some pilots hands when they need it. I was that pilot once and was glad they were there to do that and are still glad they are there to do that to the new guy that I'm flying beside.

Sudbury had 60,000 movements a few years ago and although its dropped recently the overall trend across the country is an increase in traffic. To keep pushing the numbers that FSS are handling is stupid. We had a limit before for a reason and we shouldn't be changing that in the name of profit over safety. To have an FSS say otherwise when she has never worked a controlled environment or flown a plane makes about as much sense as her telling us how to fly.

[Doc]

No tower in YYB. I think YSB could live without a tower. YXL needs a tower way more than YSB. Some FSS airports would be better served without FSS! Beleive me, I'd far rather land at a grass field than deal with remote FSS stations...like YRL or YHD...dont get all huffy on me now...I only used them as an example! And it seems kind of stupid to talk to YXU FSS for an advisory when landing in YGQ......most of the people walking the street in London wouldn't even know how to find YGQ on a map! In Ontario, towers are needed in YOW, YYZ, YHM, YQT only part time, and YKZ...and that's about it....did I hurt anybody's feelings? Good.
And most FSS stations could really use an "OFF" switch.
Okay...have at 'er!

[pokaroo]

Ask Bearskin, Jazz, Georgian, Skylink, Voyageur, etc if they would like the tower pulled at YSB and replaced with a flight service. Things slow down immensley with a a flight service instead of a tower. In an IFR environment I would say you can move planes at a minimum 3 times faster with a tower as opposed to flightservice. I'm not knocking FSS the ones I deal with do a great job but are very limited in what they can and can not do and providing a control service is not something they have a mandate for.

At the end of the day if all we are talking is dollars and cents as to why shut down YSB tower and replace it with FSS you have to look at the big picture. Without a tower planes will be holding coming in and experiencing delays coming out costing the airlines $$. Staffing will have to increase by at least 2 people a day in YYZ ACC because the airspace that handles YSB is only staffed as a one person sector and instead of just saying ABC is valid RWY04 on the hotline and replacing that with ATC Clears ABC to the Pearson Airport via.......... and waiting for the readback on the interphone will require a board person during the rushes.

As a CATCA member I will never be in favour of the company shutting down towers as a principal. In this case however I truly believe that customer service would fall and it would be a mistake to shut down YSB tower.

[grimey]

Okay...have at 'er!

Oh, it's on!

[the_professor]

And it seems kind of stupid to talk to YXU FSS for an advisory when landing in YGQ......most of the people walking the street in London wouldn't even know how to find YGQ on a map!

As soon as you're no longer physically at the field, what difference does it make how far away you might be from the airport? None, as far as I can tell. You have a board, some strips, and you pass traffic advisories to those aircraft. At that point it doesn't matter if you're three miles away or three hundred miles away.

That being said, there is no substitute for on-site FSS. Far superior as compared to the concept of RAAS.

And as soon as the "users" feel like financing the cost of all the infrastructure associated with on-site FSS operations, every RAAS can become an on-site operation. A new FSS bldg is under construction in Kenora right now. The budget is $2.5M. How many RAAS sites do we have in Canada?

[squibbler]

In Ontario, towers are needed in YOW, YYZ, YHM, YQT only part time, and YKZ...and that's about it....did I hurt anybody's feelings? Good.

I say Doc old chap, stirring the pot like that. Poor show!!

YQT is part time! ATC between 06:00 - 23:00 local. Outside those hours it's FSS. You get the best of both worlds dear boy.

I'd like to discuss the merits of closing down / opening up towers but the kettle's just boiled and it's time for tea.

Toodle-pip!

[Doc]

Hey Squibbler...what took you so long? Enjoy your tea....we must do tea. Just thought the thread (pot) need a little stirring!

[bij]

As a rule, I don't like the idea of VFR tower becoming FSS. To me, it seems a little like union busting. Although I in no way agree with CATCA's comments, I can understand that they are threatened. Some of their members are going to become displaced, and we as FSS are usually salivating at the opportunity to live and work in better conditions, all the while saving the company $$$.

In the case of YSB, numbers there are pretty low and the workload isn't much different than YTS. If the users (jazz, bearskin, and whoever else) anticipate big changes(i.e. delays) then I sure as hope they are fighting NAV on this. It will take more than CATCA and a politician to make it stop. I don't think the point of this thread was to dispute the work that controllers do. Most people know the difference, and most peolple don't feel threatened or defensive. There is no need to crap on one unit or the other.

Any YSB users want to weigh in on this?

[lilfssister]

Just seems funny that she's pissed that a CAW official would say FSS are useless when he has no idea what you do, but then would turn around and say that Controllers are useless, when she has no idea what we do.

Where did I say controllers were useless? I said the general public has no concept of what controllers do. I am very well aware of what each aspect of the ANS does in Canada. I also have a pretty good idea of what pilots do. We all have our place in the system, and I appreciate those who do it well, and understand what function the others serve.

As for being pissed off about what a CAW/CATCA official would say:

That statement, and I say this as a member of 5454, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Carl, pull your head out of your ass, and keep the union scare-mongering bullshit to yourself.

[FamilyGuy]

It's all about reader perspective. Don't ya think you are putting your own spin on this sensational bit of "news"......

Where exactly did Mr Valitutii (sp?) says FSS is unsafe???

Read it again folks (and remember the media is notorious for taking "sound bites" out of context - you all should know that by now after every single little thing that happens on an airplane is "headline news"!!)

[bij]

It's all about reader perspective. Don't ya think you are putting your own spin on this sensational bit of "news"......

Where exactly did Mr Valitutii (sp?) says FSS is unsafe???

Read it again folks (and remember the media is notorious for taking "sound bites" out of context - you all should know that by now after every single little thing that happens on an airplane is "headline news"!!)

I am not sure how much room there is there for interpretation. In my understanding, if no ATC, then there may as well be no support at all. If that is the case, then WTF are 700ish FSS doing across the country doing? And I don't see how it can mean anything else. If it is taken out of context, Mr Valitutti should choose his words a little more wisely

"Asking Pilots to Land in an airport without air traffic controllers is not much better than asking them to land in a grass field "
- Carl Valitutti, Vice President CAW local 5454

I think Mr. Valitutti is taking advantage of the lack of awareness about FSS, if you ask anyone outside of this industry what FSS is and the closest they can come up with is a marshaller, or flight attendent. But just about everyone knows ATC