Sudbury to shut down tower and become FSS...WTF

... · Post by **...** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:46 am

June the 7th 2008...the CYSB tower will close giving way to an FSS unit instead. At the risk of sounding abrasive...is upper management in Navcanada retarded

S.lookout is an FSS and is busy and they deal with a good amount of traffic. However I will not be surprised Jazz Sunwing Fed Ex and the OMNR have something to say about it. I know FedEx is looking to up the volume into YSB and it may pull out YSB all together because of no tower there. in the summer with the fire program...and the Moskokas money ensuring that priority goes to fire dispatch of the OMNR CL415 and who will be he one having to explain to the money bags living in the Moskokas that the reason their 3 million dollar shack in now a pile of ash because some 5 C150s was busy doing circuits.

More money out...less services in.

Thats how I see. Please...I dare you to change my mind that this is not a good cost cutting measure on the Upper MANAGEMENT ie Suits of Navcanada OR whom ever is making the call.

The best thing about suits is this...they have all the answers....but no solutions.

Let it be known I am Birddog is the first to bring this to the table on Avcanada. Too many people have been riding my coat tails for too long.

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:30 am

This whole thing has mistake written all over it.

Sudbury is considered a non radar airport for ATC purposes, the closest radar source is YYB 60 nm away. Without the tower things are going to slow down immensely. We get a couple of good pushes a day into there BLS GGN SKK JZA VAL etc etc normally we get everybody in and out with minimal delays you might sit for a minute or 2 on the ground or have to pull the speed back and a few vectors on the way in but very rarely is there holding. Well sharpen up those pencils folks, and get ready to sit on the ground burning fuel. We also work the Timmins airport as well so we know what it's like having to deal with a FSS and I think we do a pretty good job of getting people in and out on a timely basis BUT things can move a LOT faster with a tower.

In terms of $$ saving...... it's not going to be all that much. Rumour has it there are going to a 24h a day operation with FSS up from the current 16 hours the tower works. They can get rid of the Wx guy's contract i suppose as FSS could do it now. FSS is getting a whole new Tower Cab. Yeah... big slap in the face to the current YSB guys.....yeah we're gonna shut you down and for the last 3 months you're there you'll be in a portable tower so we can build a fancy new one for your replacements. Plus we in the ACC are going to need a permanent board guy for that sector now which means a couple of bodies a day. Plus they have to relocate all the current guys and retrain them elsewhere.

As a CATCA member I oppose this and as a controller working with ysb tower everyday i oppose this. This is a step backwards in service and it will show.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:33 am

Sometimes I think it might be a little much to have grnd control at airports like YSB. But pulling the tower is pretty stupid.
Navcan at its best.

Uncle Leo · Post by **Uncle Leo** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:03 pm

2milefinal wrote:UFB

Sometimes I think it might be a little much to have grnd control at airports like YSB. But pulling the tower is pretty stupid.
Nav can at its best.

Half the time you get your taxi istructions on the runway and are told to monitor ground on the way in anyway.

Sudbury is going to be an absolute shiteshow when Jazz, Commercial, Thunder, Skylink, Bravo and "Bareskin" are all ready to use the airport either inbound or out, but there is a navajo inbound on a fackin' ILS. Don't even start the engines at that point boys.

Leo's not amused.

... · Post by **...** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:25 pm

I am entertaining the idea of a petition. Even a cyber one should send a clear message to the powers that be that this is unacceptable.

The difference between us and Europe is the following. Here people are affraid of government...in Europe....the government is affraid of its people.

Im posting email addresses of NAVcanada management with a pre written petition and all you have to do is insert your name and send it to the brass at navcan people. I will be posting in a few days.

Those that wish to send it off I will be trying to keep track of the numbers by posting a poll on this thread in order to get an idea of the participation.

Even if you dont use the Sudbury airport...I kindly ask you submit the petition soon to follow. Or else...your airport could be next on the chopping block and fees WONT be going down anyway!!!

I will be urging that managers....owners...pilots....wrenchers...Navcanaders...even ticket counter agents sigh the petition to come. Yes even ticket counter agents because you will be the ones dealing with irate passengers because the flights are late or cancelled or whatever!!!

Thanks Mr. Pokaroo for your contribution to this thread...wow...prolific indeed.

Hold on YSB boys...support is on the way.

The only thing I ask in return is...Make sure my company gets priority landing in front of those nasty Bearskin people. They talk funny! Just kidding.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:42 pm

Keep in mind that Transport Canada approved this closure.

. . · Post by **. .** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:52 pm

Sioux Lookout seemed far far far busier than YSB from my use of both of those airports. Maybe it was just the times I was using the airports though.

That said, I always thought that yxl needed a tower, not sudbury needed to become a fss.

freakonature · Post by **freakonature** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:29 pm

In yka navcanada has operated an fss tower for some time now. Previous to that it was a transport Canada operated tower. When it was anounced that fss was taking control there was a lot of discontent over the change. F.S.S. operate's the yka tower as would any tc tower. The only difference is they do not clear you to land, or clear you to take off. They maintain seperation visually and with a radar link via Vancouver center. All call's are made on the M.F. with no ground frequency for aircraft. It seem's to be a vary comparable operation. Change is good donkey!

thatdaveguy · Post by **thatdaveguy** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:43 pm

keep whining boys, it's not going to change.

it will be MASSIVELY cheaper than the tower--here's a quick comparison:

- towers usually have 2-4 people on all day (controllers + UOS). FSS would probably have an 8-4 double stand swing, and a TS, but it'd still likely be 2-3 less staff total than a comparable tower.
- tower controllers get treated MUCH better when it comes to cab amenities. this is an isolated (and VERY strange case) where they make a nicer facility for FSS. but really, separate your anger for a moment: it'd make no sense NOT to replace the facility right now. it's the ideal time. very smart move by NC to do it now.
- controller salary at sudbury would be ~$85k, UOS around ~95k, and NCM gets paid more for a tower under his belt. FSS salary ~62k and TS salary ~66k. yeah, 25k less for the same airport, typical.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:07 pm

freakonature wrote: Change is good donkey!

Well then that settles it, I guess.

Grey_Wolf · Post by **Grey_Wolf** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:12 pm

Overhead at YSB, should it change to a FSS, on a solid IFR day

Sorry there'll be a slight delay for your IFR Clearance Company W, there's a Company X on approach, with a Company Y holding at the fix, next in line is a Company Z 20 to the South inbound for the approach, and i've got two trying to depart ....

freakonature · Post by **freakonature** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:30 pm

grey-wolf

How would that same senario play out if it was a tower controler with the same traffic and weather?

chief · Post by **chief** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:37 pm

Sudbury should not be a tower when compared to Ft mcmurray. I have flown in sudbury and it has no where near the traffic YMM does. I see this in a few airports in ontario. obvious politics going on there.

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:46 pm

Almost every airport in the Rockies are managed by an FSS. Not all are a RADAR environment either. Airliners, flying clubs, fire fighters, military, MEDEVACs, etc etc all share this airspace rather efficiently and expediently.

If we can do it out here with ESA and MSA's that are 10k' +, you guys can do it out there in the flatlands.

Most FSS' run their MF like a tower - the only difference being that there is no requirement for being cleared to land or takeoff - just advisory.

El Comat · Post by **El Comat** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:52 pm

After Heli-North closed its doors in 98 or 99, YSB's traffic numbers took a huge hit. I've been told by a NavCanada supervisor that YSB is a "legacy tower". Basically, they have a tower because, well, they have a tower. YAM would be in the same boat, but it has the college to provide enough movements that it should be able to hold onto its tower. I think you need something like 60,000 movements per year to qualify for a tower. Judging by the steady decline shown in the following report, I'd say YSB is down to around 40,000.

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... ury_en.pdf

I may not be 100% accurate on some of my numbers, or the "legacy tower" thing. I'm going on info that was given to me a couple years ago during brief random conversations. Someone from NavCan can feel free to step in and set the record straight.

EC

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:30 pm

AHH Yes at NAVCANADA we take the "Service" out of "Flight Service"

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:49 pm

I've looked at the numbers and there are other FSS that do more movements than YSB. there are some FSS that do considerably more movements than YSB and they work quite well. Is an FSS less efficient than a tower? Well of course they are designed this way, Towers are of course way more efficient but that is too be expected there designed to deal wil a lot more movements.

Now i have heard my whole career that FSS are dangerous and horrible and most of the guys in FSS have littel horns growing out of there head and carry pitchforks to work too. We may not be as efficient as a tower but you will get the same courteous professional people and we will do everything within our rules to get the job done.

Now i know there will be times that things will slow down but there is ways of speeding it up. But that is up to the sector controller the FSS and there workload. Will it be perfect....No but how often is it. Planes will not fall out of the sky, you will not have to navigate the fireballs from planes running into one another. Life will go on and things will be fine, gove it some time and see.

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:16 am

I've seen a few comments along the lines of FSS run things just like a tower anyhow.....

For those of you who don't know here are some of the differences when it comes to twr vs FSS operations.

The big one being a twr has the ability to take control of an aircraft. Even though you may still be IFR you are under tower's control and we at the centre no longer have to protect for you and can have the next guy in on approach or launch the next one

Here's the sequence of events from the IFR world when somebody wants to depart from a FSS serviced airport. The phone rings FSS informs you GABC is taxiing for runway 04 you proceed with. ATC Clears GABC to the XXX airport via AAA V123 BBB J234 CCC DDD XXX5 Arrival to maintain 40 expect higher 20 south, depart 04 turn right on course. Squawk 1234 Do Not Depart Until FXYZ has landed. Followed by the verbatim readback.

Here's the sequence of events from a Tower. The hotline goes off, Toronto Sudbury, go ahead. ABC taxiing for 04. ABC valid 04. Thanks

I'm not knocking FSS I deal with them on a daily basis for a variety of airports, but at the end of the day I would rather have a tower at an airport than a FSS just like i'd rather have a FSS then nobody.

I do have more to say but I'm exhausted, I get up to change a diaper and happen to see the computer sitting there......sure i'll just check avcanada

to be continued.......

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:43 am

SAR_YQQ wrote:Almost every airport in the Rockies are managed by an FSS. Not all are a RADAR environment either. Airliners, flying clubs, fire fighters, military, MEDEVACs, etc etc all share this airspace rather efficiently and expediently.

If we can do it out here with ESA and MSA's that are 10k' +, you guys can do it out there in the flatlands.

Most FSS' run their MF like a tower - the only difference being that there is no requirement for being cleared to land or takeoff - just advisory.

Just because we do it out there does not make it a good thing.

Note: I have nothing bad to say about FSS people. They all do a good job at airports like YXL.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:02 am

El Comat wrote: I think you need something like 60,000 movements per year to qualify for a tower. Judging by the steady decline shown in the following report, I'd say YSB is down to around 40,000.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/TP577 ... 577_06.pdf

Total movements 2006:

Sudbury: 35,306. 29,544 itinerant, 67.9% IFR.
Sioux Lookout: 32,437. 31,413 itinerant, 64.8% IFR.

Fort Mac is over 60k, Grande Prairie is nearly 50k.

Mirabel is losing their tower as well.

Freeski · Post by **Freeski** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:54 am

Wow, I knew it was coming but didn't think it was going to be that quick!

sh*t magnet · Post by **sh*t magnet** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:58 am

One of the reasons Fort Mac doesn't have a Tower now is 'cause Transport Canada closed it back in the early 90's. Now they're up the creek because Nav Canada is discovering that it's much more difficult to open a tower than shut one down.

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:27 am

Here's what it boils down to.

It's a shame they are closing another Tower in Canada. Planes will face delays because of it.....it's a fact.

other interesting tidbits

There is a specialty in Toronto Centre with 120% staffing, and others where they can't fill seats. Remember the VFR's remain clear of class C airspace notams in the summer? Short staffed = overtime and OT = big bucks. The Toronto FIR has an OT budget of 10 Million dollars. Nobody has been forced to move between specialties.

Hamilton Tower has just forced some of their junior members into moving themselves across the country because they are currently over staffed and the senior member declined the 30,000 buy out BUT guess what these senior members are all eligible to retire right now and probably will in the next year or two. Leaving the tower short. So lets move some junior guys on the company dime across the country and pay to train them at a new tower, even still paying them the $$ they would have been making at YHM even if they go to a lower grade tower. Just so they can avoid a staffing overage for the next year or so.

I'm not sure where i'm going with this but I know I'm frustrated with some of the decision or lack of decisions this company makes at times.

... · Post by **...** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:41 am

"First the Germans came after the Polish...I did nothing...then they came after the Jews...I did nothing then they went for the French...I still did nothing...now they are comeing after us...and there was no one left to help us in our struggle." -W. Churchill

Nothing against the Germans however my example is crude it still serves a strong point. Whats next...Hamilton tower...maybe in the future they'll go for Toronto...or Montreal...heck why not Vancouver at Victoria while we are at it. +60k movements in Fort Mac...is unacceptable for a flight service to handle.

No secret Nav Canada makes is large coin on the Centres...however, essential service is needed in such airports as Sudbury.

I've been told that it's too late that this has already been passed by Transport and it's going to happen anyway. I call bullshit. Just because the motion is put in some link in an obscure, hidden away corner on Nav Canada's website does not mean it can't be over turned.

I will be posting a petition letter shortly. It won't cost you a single dime to copy and paste it with your name attatched to the letter and you can send it via email.

I also ask anyone willing to help me with organizing this please step forward. Your name will not be associated in this should you choose NOT to be.

So there are no excuses. To keep up the services in this country from degrating further. Not taking away from what FSS people do as their job is as important as any...but not required in my humble opinion to replace the existing functional tower in CYSB.

Power to the peeps!

I am Birddog!

PS: The next time you Nav Canada grunts in the trenches see something that is this brutal coming down the pipe....stand up and voice it in a public forum such as Avcanada. We pilots are too busy looking in the mirror wondering how good we look with our epaulettes and rolly bags to be surfing the obsure corners of Nav Canada's website for such information on tower closings.

Much Love!

MrWings · Post by **MrWings** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:00 am

grimey wrote:
El Comat wrote: I think you need something like 60,000 movements per year to qualify for a tower. Judging by the steady decline shown in the following report, I'd say YSB is down to around 40,000.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/TP577 ... 577_06.pdf

Total movements 2006:

Sudbury: 35,306. 29,544 itinerant, 67.9% IFR.
Sioux Lookout: 32,437. 31,413 itinerant, 64.8% IFR.

Fort Mac is over 60k, Grande Prairie is nearly 50k.

Mirabel is losing their tower as well.

Is there a minimum number to have a tower?

When the GP tower was closed, movements were no where near the number they are now.

I am more concerned that they aren't considering reopening busier places like YQU or YMM.