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

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:46 am

The difference today vs when YQU and YMM were closed is the FSS working there are now doing AAS. Back when YMM changed to a FSS they were doing wx obs, briefings, AAS, enroute and so on. Now it is wx obs and AAS, plus they have NARDS, EXCDS, most busy FSS now have 2 people working the busy periods, plus a TS. The old number of 60,000 gives you a tower is out of date. This does not mean that I would start saying YBW or YYZ should be FSS, but realistically there is a lot more to look at then some number that was decided on many, many years ago.

tsgas · Post by **tsgas** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:48 am

Too many airplanes + too little money = less service
The U.S.of A. has even a bigger mess on their hands.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:25 pm

Business is business. Sad but true. Every business out there is constantly trying to reduce costs as much as legal, and ATC/ANS is no different.

NC has a 'level of service' agreement with Transport Canada. If it was up to NC alone, they would close every tower in the country that didn't have a positive income, but they cannot due to this agreement. They can however, apply for changes to the agreement, such as this situation. Transport Canada then will do a study, see if they think it's safe, and then approve the decision.

The problem in my mind here is TC, not NC. TC in all their wisdom, decided that this was safe.

Also, regarding FortMac, and Nanaimo, they obviously should be towers, but there is no mandate to my knowledge that states NC has to open a tower at any particular level of traffic.

I know it's all warm and fuzzy to say "well I would open a tower, because it's safer", but business doesn't really work that way. They will do it as cheap as legally possible in almost all cases, and openning a tower when not legally required, is not cheap.

I'm not justifying the actions of either body, just trying to provide some insight.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:46 pm

Wasn't the Thompson MB shut down along the same lines? Tower closed into an FSS. I don't have the movement numbers for YTH but it's not all that bad without a tower. When you get solid IFR it's a pain but if everyone gets into closing their IFR early (when practical) it really helps out.

When it does shut down, there'll be a great new FSS ready to take up shop and continuously asking squawk ident.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:00 pm

ei ei owe wrote:Wasn't the Thompson MB shut down along the same lines? Tower closed into an FSS. I don't have the movement numbers for YTH but it's not all that bad without a tower. When you get solid IFR it's a pain but if everyone gets into closing their IFR early (when practical) it really helps out.

When it does shut down, there'll be a great new FSS ready to take up shop and continuously asking squawk ident.

I disagree. last time I was there it took me over an hour to get out of there.
That was after spending 20mins in the hold to get in.
That would not have happened with a tower.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:09 pm

cpl_atc wrote:
grimey wrote: Sudbury: 35,306. 29,544 itinerant, 67.9% IFR.
Sioux Lookout: 32,437. 31,413 itinerant, 64.8% IFR.
Case closed.

YXL operates just fine on all but the most solid IFR days, and at that point there's not much a tower can do for you from an IFR perspective.

I think it could be better. I would love to see the fuel bill for those IFR days.
Planes in the hold over head.
Planes on the ground with their engines running.
I also wonder sometimes about the environmental impact.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:39 pm

El Comat wrote: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

If I am not mistaken, there was a clause in ATC's previous contract that prevented the company from closing any towers (for the life of the contract I think?). (I assume that that contract/clause has expired or they would not be changing two to FSS?)

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:56 pm

pokaroo wrote: 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.

There's a lot of FSS working in former ATC towers. Some of them are pretty cramped due to all the extra equipment put in for the FSS, but they manage to squeeze it all in. I have no idea how old the YSB facility is, or what condition it is in, but I would have to assume that the tower would have been replaced in the not too distant future, or they wouldn't be replacing it now. Anyone know how old the facility is?

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:59 pm

ei ei owe wrote:When it does shut down, there'll be a great new FSS ready to take up shop and continuously asking squawk ident.

There's proposed amendments to MANOPS in the works to give your ident finger a rest

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm

cpl_atc....

I didn't really mean to state an opinion on whether it was save or not, rather, I meant that if someone has a beef with the closure, that it's really TC's decision in the end, not NC's.

I don't really know whether it's any less safe, and I don't think you do either. I don't think any studies have been done. I do know that's it's cheaper, and NC knows that as well.

Safety aside, I do think this is an alarming trend. There are more closures on the horizon, and zero openings. That would suggest that overall movements are down, which is not the case.

FSS..... coming soon to replace a tower near you.

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:51 pm

Pokaroo:

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

here we go again, another ATC guy knocking FSS to build up how great ATC is...

I have no sympathy for you Pok, I've been through 3 station closures with FSS already

Airports with high traffic flow are more efficient because they are set up that way. These airports usually have better navigation facilities, better runways, better lighting systems, larger maintenance crews, oh, and they have ATC. The airspace is designated so only the big boys can play there. Aircraft are funnelled in and out along pre-designated airways and approaches/departure paths. ATC have their control ability and can instruct pilots what to do so they won't @#$! up the flow into or out of the airport. Of COURSE those airports are 'more' efficient.

However, airports serviced by FSS are also efficient since the traffic levels are approriate for the advisories they recieve.

There is little perceptable difference in IFR operations at an ATC serviced airport and a FSS serviced airport. Why? Two reasons. The first reason is that the the coordination required between ATC and FSS when handling IFR aircraft at advisory sites isn't readily apparent to the user most times. An aircraft departing usually gets his clearance from the FSS prior to or while taxiing. So the time difference between having a controller on-site giving the clearance or getting it relayed by a FSS is minimal most times. When an IFR aircraft is landing, the FSS will relay the landing time to the controller while the aircraft is in the landing roll so that the controller can clear the next one for the approach,. Again there is minimal difference in time taken doing this thus having virtually no effect whatsoever on the second aircraft. The only time that changes is during IMC conditions a down time is not normally passed to avoid confusion as to whether the aircraft is actually off the runway. The second reason is even simpler... there are less IFR aircraft needing clearances.

If you think about it, since FSS are not restricted by many rules requiring specific separation between aircraft, quite often we can process more aircraft in a shorter time period. It becomes the pilots responsibility to determine the safety margins based on the advisories, and in my experience they will often conduct operations with smaller margins for error than would be allowed at an ATC serviced airport. How many times have you cleared an aircraft on short final to land after the first one has just exited onto a taxiway and had landed opposite direction? Well I've never cleared one either but I've seen pilots land this way a few times based on advisories.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:30 am

freakonature wrote: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!

Freakonature, you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are saying. There is no such thing as an FSS Tower!!! There's either an FSS providing an advisory service or a Tower providing a control service. There is no combination, at all!!! In a MF you as a pilot provide seperation, in a control zone, the control tower is responsible for seperation. Towers also significantly affect the seperation that the IFR controllers can run between arrivals and departures.

Despite appearances, NC is a non profit organization. Every time there are cutbacks made to services it is because they feel it is more important to pass the savings from cutting that service on to the users vs. the benefit the users receive from that service. I think all the controllers view this as a bad decision but unless the pilots stand up and complain, head office will view it as a success and look to see what else can be cut.

I just hope we don't have another repeat of the last time a number of towers were closed down...

Planes collide over Penticton
Last Updated: Friday, November 10, 2000 | 11:52 PM ET
CBC News

Five people are dead following a mid-air collision Friday in the town of Penticton, 300 kilometres east of Vancouver in south-central British Columbia.
Reports say four poeple in one aircraft and the pilot in another were killed in the crash just before noon local time.

Witnesses say a tow plane pulling a glider veered into another aircraft as it took off from Penticton Airport. The other plane was trying to land. The crash spread wreckage over the Penticton campus of Okanagan University College, and local businesses.

No one on the ground was injured.

It's not clear why the two planes collided. But the crash is already raising questions about the lack of air traffic controllers at the airport. They were eliminated four years ago in a cost-cutting move by Transport Canada.

Gillette, I think you got a case of small tower syndrome. Pok wasn't knocking FSS but explaining how towers are more efficient. We have agreements whereby we take control of aircraft automatically. We don't have to call downtimes so another aircraft can be cleared for the approach. The center can run the second aircraft 5 miles in trail as long as the first guy breaks the control transfer before he runs out of the 5 miles. We can have 5 planes cleared for an approach at once while ones departing, a luxury not available when dealing with FSS. Bottom line, tower's are far more efficient and closing YSB will cause delays. As for your seperation comment, you should really spend some time in a tower. Things run as tight as the pilots will accept and can sometimes be convinced to run in a controlled environment. It's visual seperation 90% of the time and running at the sep limits is usually far closer than pilots are comfortable with on their own. The scenario you described is legal and happens in the controlled environment as well, just not as often because you usually have someone departing while they're arriving with the higher traffic numbers.

By the way when comparing FSS numbers to VFR you have to consider that VFR numbers are strictly runway movements, not counting vehicles, overflights etc. There was a magic number in transport days but it was far lower than 60,000 or even 40,000.

thatdaveguy · Post by **thatdaveguy** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:25 am

the number for a tower now adays is 60,000. that's part of why YMM is getting so much attention--2006 they had 62,000.

FSS numbers are strictly runway movements as well buddy...they are a 1:1 comparison.

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:42 am

For clarity, TC rarely does its own studies, normally it reviews NC's study and either approves or not. TC is the final say when is comes to a case like Sudbury and they obviously say it is okay. Ever wonder how many proposed closures (FSS or ATC) go to TC and they say no? And yes, FSS work in 'tower cabs' or just 'cabs' and ATC work in 'towers'. Technically a tower is a tower is a tower, but for those viewing this site that might not know the difference let's make it clear to avoid confusion for them.

tower controller · Post by **tower controller** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:45 am

Gillette I think you should take Pok's advice and visit a tower near you!! You need a dose of reality. FSS is less efficient whether it's IFR, VFR or the third Tuesday of the month. Before you get too up in arms here, I am qualified to do your job, spent a few years at it......

the number for a tower now adays is 60,000. that's part of why YMM is getting so much attention--2006 they had 62,000..

Actually tower numbers are based on FPR's not movments, and FPR's also take into account the complexity of the airport and the mix of traffic. The FPR is a multiplier that they apply to the number of movements. It's also how they figure out Tower grade levels for pay. That's why some tower's moving less numbers are a higher grade than tower's with more traffic. I'm not saying that it's fair I'm saying that's the way it is. I don't know what MM's FPR is but I would say that it's not too high as there isn't a crossing runway.

If MM had crossing runways and a VFR/IFR mix the tower probably never would have closed.

Cheers

[/quote]

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:28 am

FPR's are taken into account for a tower's grade, but not for opening/closing, that is straight from NCAMS.

tower controller · Post by **tower controller** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:03 am

Funny they used FPR's in the tower I was in that closed.........

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:46 am

So you mean not funny?

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:48 am

thatdaveguy wrote:the number for a tower now adays is 60,000. that's part of why YMM is getting so much attention--2006 they had 62,000.

FSS numbers are strictly runway movements as well buddy...they are a 1:1 comparison.

The 60,000 aircraft movement mark with no 88's or ground traffic in Ft. Mac, wasn't broken until 2006. A lot of people are throwing numbers like 80,000 movements out there which is bogus unless you are counting everything. Nanaimo was under 34,000.

Man some of you guys are sure positive you're right no matter how wrong you are. If towers magically shut down at under 60,000 movements, the following towers would be shut down...

Villeneuve,
Gander Int'l,
Mirabel Int'l,
Prince George,
Regina Int'l,
Sault Ste Marie,
St. John's Int'l,
St. Jean,
Whitehorse Int'l and,
Windsor

Jiggly, the beef shouldn't be with TC it should be with NC. NC is not a for profit business. They are there to serve your needs and take nothing in return "theoretically". All these cost saving measures should be a bigger benefit to the users then the reduction in service that results. If that isn't true, then it's up to the users to let NC management know. That being said I know of one closure that the user's were up in arms over and it didn't appear to make an ounce of difference. I would think that the company would be trying to make things more efficient for a minor increase in fee's, given the increase in traffic and no end in sight rather than run us at max capacity with no room for growth, but I guess I'm mistaken.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 pm

Somewhat true JustPC, but keep in mind who sits on the NC board. The board is very concerned what is best for them, as any board would be.

It's not so much about efficiency, but rather what is best financially for the board members airlines and organizations. If closing YSB doesn't effect any of their bottom lines, or their efficiency, then they will obviously deem it a good idea. The more towers they close the more money the board members organizations get back.

NC's board would therefore most likely like to close more towers, as long as it doesn't effect the efficiency of the board members organizations.

This all of course has to hinge on safety, which although NC will do a study to determine, TC has the final say.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:33 pm

CYFC has gotta get Tower controllers from somewhere!

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:56 pm

cpl_atc .....

I don't have all the answers.... and I don't claim to.

I'm sorry that my opinions seem to upset you, and rereading I can see how my statements could be misinterpreted.

I didn't mean to say that they didn't do a study. What I was trying to say was I don't think a study exists that proves conclusively that a FSS is x% less safe than a tower. Perhaps such a study does exist, however, the results I don't think would be widely published, as it wouldn't be prudent for any organization to say the were going to decrease safety, even by 0.001%.

With regards to the 'alarming trend', I stick by that one. It's my opinion that a tower is slightly more safe, slightly more orderly, and slightly more expeditious than an FSS. These slight numbers might be 0.001%, they might be 10%, they might be 50%. Again, I don't know the exact number, as I don't believe a study has been done, or at least, I have not seen the results. If you have a link, I'd really appreciate it.

Regarding expenses, it looks like you might have me there. I haven't read the act that created NC. I'm relatively impressed that you have.

I do believe however that 'the airlines' have an interest in lowering the NC surcharge. Which, of course, is directly related to reducing NC expenses. Cheaper tickets, more passengers. Which was my point, indirectly. Having a tower in YSB might not make them any money, not having one will.

Before you get bent out of shape, remember that everything posted is an opinion, not necessarily a fact. I'm not saying planes are going to start falling out of the sky, nor that TC is the devil.

I'm only saying that I, being one man, would prefer they raise fees, and ticket prices, and provide service in excess, rather than perhaps just enough. It's just an opinion.

Take it easy.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:52 am

I will admit, I flew into an FSS airport the other day in my little bug smasher, at this point there was one Twin doing approaches, one Cessna 150 in the circut, and me entering the circut for landing.

Now given the limited tools FSS has to do their job they gave me updates on the position of traffic but took me sometime to locate and identify both pieces of traffic (White airplanes, white background)

I ensured I maintained well outside the normal circut pattern and above it until I did, but my point is, I routinely fly into a VFR airport where there are sometimes as many as 8-9 airplanes in the circut or on approach, and everything runs like clockwork, only because of the tools a VFR controller has in their hands compared to an FSS.

I have a friend in FSS who once told me "Trying to keep airplanes from hitting each other at an FSS station, you have to use Jedi mind tricks since you're not allowed to actually tell the airplane where to go"

Long story short 9 airplanes in a VFR airport normally runs quite smooth, 3 in an FSS starts to become a little more hairy, many more airplanes and things could become troublesome.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:57 am

JigglyBus wrote: I'm only saying that I, being one man, would prefer they raise fees, and ticket prices, and provide service in excess, rather than perhaps just enough. It's just an opinion.

Take it easy.

While I think most pilots would agree with you, unfortunately the airline exec's wouldn't, and guess who has more pushing power?

That being said, I have no problem with the system being leaned out provided safety is not compromised.

FSS stations routinely handle relatively busy traffic safely and efficently, and the whole idea of operating around an FSS is that most pilots are not complete morons, thankfully this is for the most part true.

I don't know the movement numbers for Sudbury, but one should compare them to other FSS stations around the country. There are some FSS stations that are rumoured to be becoming towers, although rumours only.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:21 am

From TC Website:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/TP577 ... 577_06.pdf

Total itinerant and local movements:

Sudbury 2006 35,702
2005 42,214
2004 38,214
2003 58,702
2002 70,421

Nanaimo 2006 33,159
2005 36,954
2004 40,466
2003 41,739
2002 40,287

North Bay 2006 49,540
2005 49,513
2004 44,783
2003 47,096
2002 45,670

Red Deer Regional 2006 42,910
2005 44,442
2004 39,765
2003 39,744
2002 41,454

Sioux Lookout 2006 32,437
2005 32,733
2004 33,274
2003 34,536
2002 31,852

Kamloops 2006 41,638
2005 40,323
2004 37,487
2003 42,771
2002 37,230

I'm having a lazy Saturday morning, but not lazy enough to copy/paste/edit all the IFR/VFR, local/intinerant, weight categories, etc. For that you can look at the linked report above.