I don't fly in Northern Ontario every day but I've been up there quite frequently in the last 2-3 years. NW Ontario in general, but YXL in particular seems like a place that really needs a radar in the area and should be upgraded from an FSS to a tower. You can get some real traffic jams when it's IFR. bang head I think that place has more movements than YQT in the summer. A little east, the Timmins area has no radar coverage and just like YXL, you are frequently getting hold clearances or speed changes or vectors for other IFR traffic. Whether you need a tower instead of an FSS, I don't know.
Then you have places in Ontario which appear to have very underworked towers, like Oshawa, Windsor and the Sault. BS Seems to a little juggling of assets would be an efficient thing to do.
YXL, indeed.
of all the places I've bein, YXL when the weather is Hard IFR(low)you get quite backed up, since they got the new taxi way it doesn't seem to be as bad but it still sucks.
Be nice if they ripped that ILS outta YHD and put it into YXL as well.
I think Whitehorse needs radar. Far too often you get these stupid "N" registered aircraft bombing along on GPS headings or following the Alaska Highway in convoy's not having a clue where they are. If you ever fly the Alaska highway stay clear of the road, they literally follow it. Ive even seen some dumbass's (thats right Plural) That take off and follow the road the wrong way down to Haines Alaska when their on route to Fairbanks (completly oposite directions) gee why's that little round thing on my dash say south? Oh and they do everything on 126.7 if they use their radio at all. its great when a convoy all over the same place does a position report one after another and all give pireps then start chatting thats when I just hold the mike down untill they get it, but then again some complain to the 26.7 guy that their is something wrong with the radio . Oh and not wanting to spill into a rant whats up with those tundra tires they put on their machines when they are not heading anywhere near any strips that would require them. thats its Im starting a new topic
loopy, you missed your chance...NC did level of service review last year, studies underway now, services to be increased/decreased/created already decided. (You can find it on the NC website, and I can't remember any details since my station wasn't affected). Think there were 2 or 3 towers to be closed, 3 or 4 new FSS to open, and a few changes in hours of operation. Also proposals to change some RAAS to ATF, and move some RAAS's from the FIC's to AAS sites.
Busy summer periods won't make much difference, as it's decided on a yearly total of aircraft movements, for the most part.
P.S.: "upgraded" to a tower is NOT our favourite expression on our side of the fence. We prefer something along the lines of "change in service" from advisory to control, or vice versa.
Also, re radar, if there's no radar coverage, whether it's FSS or tower may not make much difference, since the ACC is separating all the IFR traffic, and procedural versus radar sep standards is the problem there, not who is sitting on the other end of the mic in IFR conditions. Pretty expensive proposition to install and maintain new radars. Can't remember if there were any new proposed radar sites in the Level of Service Review.
Having been an FSS and a tower controller I must disagree with the sentiment from my colleague from FSS. There is a big difference from the service a tower controller an provide versus what an FSS can provide.
Also Nav Canada has a customer service hotline. If you would like to see a Tower replace an FSS call the number and make your suggestion. The company tends to prefer to close towers and open FSS's for one reason................and it isn't service to the flying public
tower controller wrote:Having been an FSS and a tower controller I must disagree with the sentiment from my colleague from FSS. There is a big difference from the service a tower controller can provide versus what an FSS can provide.
I'm curious what that difference is in an IFR scenerio.
They must be on work to rule. But i have to admit, that they probably have one of the best controllers ever on Arrival. He is the slow talking guy with a bit of a lisp. The guy is awesome. He is the cool mannered kind of person that they need. Friendly, easy to understand and organized enough to never have to rush people. He is the best controller I have seen in canada.
I think our tower controller friend may have missed the point that the problem was in IFR conditions in a non-radar environment? I didn't say there was NEVER any difference in tower/FSS service, but probably not much in that scenario.
In VFR wx TWR is able to take control of an IFR arrival, thereby eliminating my requirement to separate this arrival from other IFR traffic. However, in IFR wx the rule for non-radar separation of succesive arrivals states that the preceeding arrival must be on and clear of the runway before the next aircraft may be issued an approach clearance. In this instance, TWR versus FSS would have no effect on when I may discontinue providing separation between the first and second arrivals.
The only real advantage for the ACC, is not having to read an entire clearance to the TWR controller. Since he/she is a controller, he/she has the authority to issue the departure clearance.
As for the YXL problem, to alleviate the congestion, Navcanada would need to:
1) install an ILS approach,
2) install a radar on site,
3) open a control tower,
4) change the airspace to terminal control,
5) have departure/arrival control for the airport.
Number 4 & 5 are important, since most enroute sectors even with radar on site, do not vector to final. Also a departure/arrival controller is able to run 3 nM separation and multiple approaches, whereas, an enroute controller must run 5 nM and only one aircraft on approach at a time during IFR wx.
Another area that needs upgrading is fort nelson. the waiting on a ifr
day is like mating elephants -done at a high level -lots of roaring and takes 2 yrs to get results)
you would think that all the oil and gas money would put a little heat
under nav canada to do something up in that part of the woods.
and how about a couple of awws on the hudson bay coast so companies
could save some dough on the wasted gas when the local airport
is fogged in yet moosnee and churchill are saying vfr. we should be able
in 2004 move beyond the "les nessman" forecast..
8)
As for the YXL problem, to alleviate the congestion, Navcanada would need to:
1) install an ILS approach,
2) install a radar on site,
3) open a control tower,
4) change the airspace to terminal control,
5) have departure/arrival control for the airport.
Its easier to think of why not than why but hey:
1) ILS- not really. A GPS would be perfect at most northern airports.
2) Radar- agreed
3) Tower- agreed (this is the whole point)
4) Change airspace- fine but that's a bunch of paperwork. DO IT!
5) Have departure/arrival control- can be done remotely! Just hire another controller to staff the new position!
LETS GET IT ON!!
Sioux Lookout! Timmins! High Level! Fort Nelson! Get to work NavCan spend some of that NON PROFIT that you take from us!!
So maybe YXL and YTS don't need towers, (refer to the FSS radar thread going now) just radar so the IFR controllers can sequence incoming IFR better and the FSS guys can use it to aid in their traffic advisories.
I have seen how busy those spots can get, and have seen other airports with towers where those controllers routinely seem bored to death. The resources have to be where the need is. I still think YXL needs a tower, maybe terminal, and a precision approach as much as YQT.
The ILS may help, but the new GPS approaches coming with vertical guidance would do the trick...oh yeah, WAAS isn't available yet in Canada, so we haven't got them yet. If you have a GPS/FMS with baro-aiding, a non-precision GPS flies like an ILS, but you still haven't got those lower minimums.
WAAS is officially dead (as of 6 mo. ago) unfortunately. But lower mins isn't really the point of the thread. Yes 200 and 1/2 would be great everywhere but I think the real goal should be to reduce/eliminate hold times with radar service.
Maybe NavCanada should look into (heck, get the stuff) things like ADS/B which is being introduced in Australia (and Pacific nations I think).
It seems to work OK in Alaska's Capstone project.
Links: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/
While we're at it, wouldn't it be nice to have some more awos/asos in the north, it would sure make the go, no-go decisions easier, if we had something to corroborate the GFA. Especially up in places like YER and YPO.
I also think there should be an ILS in YXL, maybe even in YPL. Nice to have something a little lower for an alternate in the area.
---------- ADS -----------
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
The summer is busy as hell, with acft departing and landing from all over the places (water and rwy).
At least a trailer with a radio and a portable radar will do it ... ahahahah !!!!
gee why's that little round thing on my dash say south? Oh and they do everything on 126.7 if they use their radio at all. its great when a convoy all over the same place does a position report one after another and all give pireps then start chatting 
thats when I just hold the mike down untill they get it, but then again some complain to the 26.7 guy that their is something wrong with the radio 
. Oh and not wanting to spill into a rant whats up with those tundra tires they put on their machines when they are not heading anywhere near any strips that would require them. thats its Im starting a new topic
