Have questions for YYZ Tower? Ask them here!

[cossack]

The 33s cause issues for capacity. The arrival rate is reduced to around 42 and some of those will land on 33R further reducing the departure rate. As a rule we cross 33R with arrivals destined for gate C33 and north. All other arrivals get the end around. If taxiways M and F are ever connected this operation will be a good deal easier.

If we crossed 33R with all arrivals (like we do when we have to cross de-icers from east to west at S) the departure delays become unwieldy (as do the line-ups waiting to cross 33R) and the south end of the airport becomes very congested with departures waiting to go. Doing the end around usually gives you continuous movement (subject to 33R arrivals of course) and reduces departure delays. We use C2-06L rather than C to mitigate jet blast issues from departures.

There is always the chance of the short cut across at T but that is purely timing dependent and should not be expected. Sometimes when traffic is lighter traffic destined for the north end of T1 (C34-139) may be crossed to expedite to the gate but only if it doesn't delay departures.

HTH

[frog]

Hello,

it is more a question for the arrival controllers but anyhow...

I wanted to know what you guys think of the new arrivals, for instance Linng3 arrival for 06/24/23
I notice that it is impossible to comply with the restrictions (with a 737 anyway).
I got to say that the controllers always help with this issue, but I was wondering if other aircrafts were having the same issue and if it is the case whether you guys would initiate a change.
Thanks

[crj_705]

I know there is no such thing as a stupid question, but here it goes...

When things are busy at the airport normally aircraft arrivals are on 06R and departures are on 06L. This sometimes causes the aircraft that just landed on 06R to have to hold short of 06L for aircraft departing 06L. The departing aircraft on 06L sometimes even has to delay their take-off for crossing aircraft. This to me seems assbackwards...

Why can't we have departures on 06R and have arrivals on 06L??? There is considerable more free time between landers on 6L to cross departing aircraft at the threshold of 06L to get to 06R.

Thanks!

[cossack]

Not at all a stupid question. There are, however, numerous reasons its not done this way and here are the first few that come to mind.

1 - Can only be used in good weather. The glide path transmitters for both 06L and 06R are between the runways so unless all arriving aircraft could be cleared a visual approach or localiser approach then the signal would be compromised as aircraft taxied in front of the transmitter.

2 - If arrivals were not using the GP then you could only really cross one aircraft between arrivals at minimum space. This would dramatically slow down the departure rate. The arrival rate would remain the same resulting in a net loss of capacity.

3 - In the present operation, departures are occasionally delayed to allow multiple crossings, but we try to fit crossings in dead space behind "Heavy" departures as much as possible. Arrivals are held, usually not more that 4-5 minutes, to allow a flushing of departures. No flushing of departures is possible using the runways the other way around as there would be a continuous arrival flow stemming the crossing of departures. You have landed at 2.5 mile spacing rather than 5 miles saving you some airborne time, which may be traded away by ground holding.

4 - Poor runway crossing performance. Arrivals crossing the departure runway slowly only delays departures. Departures (which are heavier and therefore slower) crossing the arrival runway slowly in small (50 second) gaps, would cause overshoots which means more delays.

5 - Reduced flexibility for sequencing departures with regards to flow times etc. No taxiway space in between the runways for marshalling departures which would inevitably reduce the departure rate. How many times have you heard the next departure say they're not ready when given a "line up" clearance? Do that in your operation and its a show-stopper.

That'll do for now.

[jag202]

Have a question about 15L being used as a taxiway. Under which circumstances is it used? From what I have seen, there is usually a mix between south on B and South on 15L. Also, under what circumstances are some props sent off 33R from B1? Is this for props heading north to TONNY or CALON under a east/west config?

[cossack]

Have a question about 15L being used as a taxiway. Under which circumstances is it used? From what I have seen, there is usually a mix between south on B and South on 15L.

Controller preference: fast lane - slow lane. I prefer to use 15L over B as B can get congested around AK and AL.

Also, under what circumstances are some props sent off 33R from B1? Is this for props heading north to TONNY or CALON under a east/west config?

On westerlies those routing V320/V104/V443 and the northbound routes are suitable for 33R. On easterlies V320 and those going east are also suitable.

V104/V443 are not suitable on easterlies as they cannot be turned left through the "arrival box" unless its pretty quiet. The same is true for eastbounds when on westerlies.

It is used if we can gain an operational advantage and get the prop out of the way quicker without disadvantaging others. If its too busy and other aircraft would be delayed by using 33R then you'll taxy to 23 or 05.

[Trim Spinner]

What are your thoughts on this:

Say there's an aircraft short 24R waiting for departure in the left lane and we are coming up behind them. Without you telling us which lane to be in, is it bad practice to take the other (right) lane and hold short? Especially if we are ready the immediate.

Thanks!

[YYZSaabGuy]

Wouldn't mind your thoughts on another point while you're at it: last week's thread on Radio Procedures included a discussion around initial call-up to Toronto Terminal. Do you prefer a "Wake Up Call" first ("Toronto Terminal, C-ABCD") and leave it to you to acknowledge when you have time, or do you prefer all relevant information on the first transmission ("Toronto Terminal, Cessna C-ABCD, VFR, southbound at 2200 over Burlington, request flight following and city tour")? I've always understood you preferred a "Wake Up Call" first, but am happy to change procedures if I'm hogging the frequency.

[cossack]

What are your thoughts on this:

Say there's an aircraft short 24R waiting for departure in the left lane and we are coming up behind them. Without you telling us which lane to be in, is it bad practice to take the other (right) lane and hold short? Especially if we are ready the immediate.

Thanks!

Not at all. If Ground wants you on a particular side, they'll ask...usually. Just don't leave the Ground frequency down in that corner until told to as there is often a lot of last second sequencing with flow times to be done.

Wake up call, please. Its no good going through everything you want to say just to have to say it again because the controller was busy "off-air" with something.

[xchox]

Silly question... which depending on the answer to the first question, may have a second question.

Many years ago I was talking to an Air Canada pilot and he said all three West/East runways were perfectly parallel. Today I was talking to a few TransAt pilots and it came up again and they too said all three were perfectly parallel.

Is this true?

If this is true part B of my question is:

Why were they not numbered L C R?

An example would be DFW with 35L 35C & 35R

[cossack]

They are parallel. They were numbered like this in preparation (many years in advance) of the building of the fourth parallel south of taxiway H which would be 5R/23L.

[A346Dude]

They are parallel. They were numbered like this in preparation (many years in advance) of the building of the fourth parallel south of taxiway H which would be 5R/23L.

The CFS does indeed prove all 3 runways are 237 degrees. Which begs the question, why do we go through the bother of renumbering runways when 23/05 is allowed to be a full 7 degrees off its designation?

YYC's former 16/34 is only 5 degrees off it's former designation (i.e. just as close to 16/34 as it is to 17R/35L). Why not keep it as 16/34, save a whole bunch of new signs and publications, and eliminate any chance of confusing 17L and 17R?

[FenderManDan]

I was going to ask about the wake up call, but someone beat me to it
Anyways the second question is can i possibly do low and over in c172 sometimes. Do you have slower times and can i call the tower to arrange. It is just a magnificent view what can I tell you.

Thanks

Dan

[cossack]

Anyways the second question is can i possibly do low and over in c172 sometimes. Do you have slower times and can i call the tower to arrange. It is just a magnificent view what can I tell you.

Thanks

Dan

When you're flying around the zone talking to satellite, ask them and they will ask the tower. As for a good time its quiet late morning until 2-ish then busy until after 9:30pm.

It probably won't be a low and over but via 33L (if 05/06L in use) or 33R (if 23/24R in use) centreline at 2000 or 2500 feet. If we're using the 15s or 33s then the request will probably be declined.

[1000islander]

Why does it take upwards of 10-14 mins to issue an Atis that is based on wx. that is taken on the hour??? Tks

[cossack]

The observation is made on the hour but takes a couple of minutes to reach our screens. Then the person in flight planning that is responsible for the ATIS has to make any changes that have occurred since the last message, check for PIREPs that need to be added or deleted, then do whatever they need to do to make the auto-voice thingy work all the time still trying to do their flight planning work.

If they are busy on the phone dealing with a flight planning issue, it might take an extra couple of minutes to get the ATIS out. If its out by 10 after I think they're doing OK. If I'm working clearance I always try not to phone them after the top of the hour if the ATIS hasn't been done yet.

[1000islander]

Thanks...see you on the radio

[126.75]

I am curious how you guys come up with runway assignments. It has not happened much in the last 6 months (I've noticed a huge improvement) but prior to that there would be two runways designated on the D-ATIS and about 50% of the time (or so it seemed) the third runway is what we would get. In the Airbus we only have 2 runways we can plan for and it resulted in us being heads down madly typing in the third option as we were coming in on the arrival. Again, I've noticed an improvement as of late.

As far as moving planes in and out faster, I know the manops are much more restrictive than in the US so perhaps it is what is holding you back but am curious about what can be done to speed things up. I have found in Toronto it is rare to have a visual departure where we could get cleared to depart right when the proceeding aircraft is rotating, is this because we have to follow noise to 3600' and can not be given a different heading? Say airplane a) fly 300 and b) fly 245 I notice sometimes when you have a light twin (DH8, RJ) they can sometimes get out of our way but it seems very inefficient to have to wait for the following airplane when there is someone say 4 miles back that we could be well out of the way for if given the nod very quickly after the proceeding departure.

In the states it is rare to have such restrictive noise abatement procedures as well, perhaps they should be tweaked to allow better flow in a perfect world!

I know occasionally you will see a 777 use 33R/15L for departure when everyone else is on the 23/24s would it be possible to let the occasional lander do a visual onto 33R? If timed correctly between a couple take offs it could get the odd guy coming in on the LINNG arrival out of the way to allow planes coming from out East and NW it may be hard to work into the terminal environment but could be useful on SKC days where a visual may reduce your separation requirements and having a few less planes per hour coming in for the 24s.

Finally a last question, months ago I was landing on 06R with a LOT 787 taking off before me, they were given a few hints to hurry up and they finally got away as we were very short final. We (an A321 I believe it was) ended up getting rocked very hard by their jet blast. Is there any requirement behind a heavy for a jet blast separation? I am aware of wake separation but perhaps with the new high bypass engines the jet blast covers that much more of an area, we got it down okay but it went from a dead calm night into almost going around as we arrived!

[cossack]

This might turn into a bit of a rant, but here goes:

I am curious how you guys come up with runway assignments. It has not happened much in the last 6 months (I've noticed a huge improvement) but prior to that there would be two runways designated on the D-ATIS and about 50% of the time (or so it seemed) the third runway is what we would get. In the Airbus we only have 2 runways we can plan for and it resulted in us being heads down madly typing in the third option as we were coming in on the arrival. Again, I've noticed an improvement as of late.

The only time I could imagine you encountering 2 runways advertised and being given a third (without a whole scale runway configuration change being involved) is at about 9:30pm. Say we've been landing 23 and 24L and departing 23 and 24R. The operation downgrades when demand subsides usually to land 24R depart 23. If you happen to be about 100 miles away at this time, this may affect you.

As far as moving planes in and out faster, I know the manops are much more restrictive than in the US so perhaps it is what is holding you back but am curious about what can be done to speed things up. I have found in Toronto it is rare to have a visual departure where we could get cleared to depart right when the proceeding aircraft is rotating, is this because we have to follow noise to 3600' and can not be given a different heading? Say airplane a) fly 300 and b) fly 245 I notice sometimes when you have a light twin (DH8, RJ) they can sometimes get out of our way but it seems very inefficient to have to wait for the following airplane when there is someone say 4 miles back that we could be well out of the way for if given the nod very quickly after the proceeding departure.

Visual departures are not yet approved for use at YYZ. We can turn all props and there is a list of the jets that are turnable by tower too. We could fill the sky with departures if there was the right mix of traffic but there seldom is and how many times have you heard someone be cleared for take off to see them still barely moving toward the runway? Its about performance on your side too, not just ours.

In the states it is rare to have such restrictive noise abatement procedures as well, perhaps they should be tweaked to allow better flow in a perfect world!

Take that up with the GTA that's their domain. We just apply the noise rules that they write.

I am curious how you guys come up with runway assignments. It has not happened much in the last 6 months (I've noticed a huge improvement) but prior to that there would be two runways designated on the D-ATIS and about 50% of the time (or so it seemed) the third runway is what we would get. In the Airbus we only have 2 runways we can plan for and it resulted in us being heads down madly typing in the third option as we were coming in on the arrival. Again, I've noticed an improvement as of late.

As far as moving planes in and out faster, I know the manops are much more restrictive than in the US so perhaps it is what is holding you back but am curious about what can be done to speed things up. I have found in Toronto it is rare to have a visual departure where we could get cleared to depart right when the proceeding aircraft is rotating, is this because we have to follow noise to 3600' and can not be given a different heading? Say airplane a) fly 300 and b) fly 245 I notice sometimes when you have a light twin (DH8, RJ) they can sometimes get out of our way but it seems very inefficient to have to wait for the following airplane when there is someone say 4 miles back that we could be well out of the way for if given the nod very quickly after the proceeding departure.

In the states it is rare to have such restrictive noise abatement procedures as well, perhaps they should be tweaked to allow better flow in a perfect world!

I know occasionally you will see a 777 use 33R/15L for departure when everyone else is on the 23/24s would it be possible to let the occasional lander do a visual onto 33R? If timed correctly between a couple take offs it could get the odd guy coming in on the LINNG arrival out of the way to allow planes coming from out East and NW it may be hard to work into the terminal environment but could be useful on SKC days where a visual may reduce your separation requirements and having a few less planes per hour coming in for the 24s.

The terminal environment would be the easy part! The timing involved on the ground and the penalty for those taxying around is too much to permit ad-hoc arrivals. Ad-hoc departures from 33R (prop types) is relatively easy. 33R jet departures and especially 15L departures, takes a lot of coordination between all of the controllers in the cab and Terminal to put the gaps in 3 runway's of traffic in the right sequence to permit the 15L departure. These aircraft need it for performance and so we accommodate them but they may still incur a delay. The wheels of coordination are put in motion as soon as it starts to push back, coordinating where the holes will be. Should they miss the coordinated hole, it may be some time before another can be made.

Finally a last question, months ago I was landing on 06R with a LOT 787 taking off before me, they were given a few hints to hurry up and they finally got away as we were very short final. We (an A321 I believe it was) ended up getting rocked very hard by their jet blast. Is there any requirement behind a heavy for a jet blast separation? I am aware of wake separation but perhaps with the new high bypass engines the jet blast covers that much more of an area, we got it down okay but it went from a dead calm night into almost going around as we arrived!

There is no wake turbulence separation between a departure and an arrival on the same runway. There are runway separation requirements in this scenario but wake turbulence does not form any part of it. He needs to be airborne before you cross the threshold. If you think its too close, you can elect to go around. If we think the prescribed runway separation will exist, we will clear you to land. Its down to performance again.

A few points:
If you're landing on a mixed-mode runway expect a late landing clearance every time, then you won't be surprised.

Sometimes (more often than you'd imagine) there is less space to get the departure out in than is comfortable, but we make it work, but it takes the effort and willingness of all involved.

Crossing the marker at 170 makes your workload high we know, but check-in on time or even a mile early to get the picture from tower. "Slow to final, departing traffic".

NADP1 slows down the departure rate. We need to give Departure 3 miles in trail. If you're flying the NADP1 your speed over the ground is less than optimum and the subsequent departure will wait an extra 10-15 seconds. These add up through the course of a day.

After landing 06R/24L you may get held for a few minutes. Don't bug the tower as they're doing their best to move as many aircraft as possible. When you are given the crossing, get across quickly and do what tower tells you on the other side so that there is space behind you for others crossing.

Don't change frequency on your own...ever! Those signs that went up on the way to 05, 23 and 06L were missed by so many that the tower lost departure space trying to find the first in line who was still on Ground. Stay with tower between 06R/24L and 06L/24R and always wait for the switch on the north side. You may get transferred straight to apron, or be given some specific taxy route to avoid traffic. If tower is crossing 4 or 5 at once it will be busy, don't make it worse by switching on your own and then wonder why you get shouted at.

Don't switch Ground to Ground on your own. One guy might sound busy but the other Ground has no idea who you are as the electronic flight data strip for you is still with the other guy. That increases how busy both of them now are.

We expect you to use the high speed exits. If you think you can make A on 24R to save a few seconds taxying then great but don't forget there might be somebody 2.5 miles or less behind you just wanting to land. Ask before landing if the exit you're planning will work out for all concerned. Sometimes we specify an exit beyond where you might normally exit. We're doing it for a reason.

We know you have to check in with STOC but try and have someone pay attention on the radio at all times it makes things easier for all concerned.

Help us help you make YYZ a better place to fly through.

[nbinont]

Thanks for all the insightful replies cossack!

This might be more of a terminal question than tower question, but here goes, in case you know the answer.

Imagine I'm on a VFR sightseeing flight over Niagara Falls (the water, not the airport) in a single engine light airplane. Now I'd like to go over to city centre direct (or approximately direct) for sightseeing, but need to get to 8000ft for glide distance over the centre of the lake, descending to the shore. Is there a nice way to do this? When should I request this? Should I mark something special on the flight plan? In the air? Sometimes everything goes great. Sometimes I get told to descend to 4000ft before entering class C - so much for my glide distance - at which point I typically hang a left and just keep it within glide from the shore. This typically results in a much longer route, often twice as long, as the altitude (and distance from shore) decreases rapidly as you fly past Pearson on the shoreline.

I realize there's LINNG nearby. Would it be better to plan to enter the TCA east of LINNG? Or Request direct LINNG, direct city centre? Or is the whole thing just really unpleasant from an ATC perspective? If so, what makes it awkward? Is there anything I could do, as a pilot, to make this more feasible for the controllers?

[Married a Canadian]

If I may add a couple of terminal perspective points to Cossacks answers aswell.

Regarding runways selection...ANY time we go from a dual to a triple..or downgrade from from the triple op will be when you sometimes will be given a runway that was not advertised on the ATIS, usually 06L to 06R/24L to 24R and vice versa. Tower and terminal do try to coordinate times of the day to triple well in advance. It will however just depend on the where you are in the sky sometimes. There will always be one plane that gets the awkward change, when traffic is continuous it is impossible to keep it constant for everyone.

I have found in Toronto it is rare to have a visual departure where we could get cleared to depart right when the proceeding aircraft is rotating, is this because we have to follow noise to 3600' and can not be given a different heading? Say airplane a) fly 300 and b) fly 245 I notice sometimes when you have a light twin (DH8, RJ) they can sometimes get out of our way but it seems very inefficient to have to wait for the following airplane when there is someone say 4 miles back that we could be well out of the way for if given the nod very quickly after the proceeding departure.

Tower also has to give the terminal something to work with for enroute spacing. Cossack is right in that it is possible to just fill the sky with planes but that is not going to help you when you get wheels up and are inside the guy who is ahead of you but going the same route and the next sector needs 7 miles in trail. Tower can only jet turn when a/c are not going the same route....they utilise it well when able (a/c type dependent) but they can't do it when everyone is going the same way.

I know occasionally you will see a 777 use 33R/15L for departure when everyone else is on the 23/24s would it be possible to let the occasional lander do a visual onto 33R? If timed correctly between a couple take offs it could get the odd guy coming in on the LINNG arrival out of the way to allow planes coming from out East and NW it may be hard to work into the terminal environment but could be useful on SKC days where a visual may reduce your separation requirements and having a few less planes per hour coming in for the 24s

It is as difficult for the terminal as it is for the tower. The part that makes it difficult is as you said "if timed correctly". You can't do it without a LOT of prior coordinating (as Cossack said)....and you still have to build in space on final for it which defeats the purpose of taking a guy out of the 24 sequence. When we are in a triple on either end, the visual approach is an awesome tool for us...I believe we can run a 65 arrival rate (correct me if I am wrong Cossack?)...which is pretty impressive without having to worry about visuals on a cross runway operation. The new airspace allows for a larger sequencing area into the terminal airspace now...so there is no problem with a high arrival rate...if the weather conditions allow it...we can do it.

Last point about noise abatement....you will not find many air traffic controllers that disagree with you there...but the GTAA are the noise bods....not a lot we can do about it...sorry.

[cossack]

When we are in a triple on either end, the visual approach is an awesome tool for us...I believe we can run a 65 arrival rate (correct me if I am wrong Cossack?)...which is pretty impressive without having to worry about visuals on a cross runway operation.

I believe the combined rate for the triple is 130/hour, so your 65 arrival rate (split 40 on the south and 25 on the north) looks about right. We seldom have demand beyond 110/hour though.

On the subject of visual departures: we would obviously fan the departures out based on filed route and, as now, not cut off preceding departures on the same route, but the problem remains noise abatement. Without a relaxing of current rules any benefits from visual separations will be much reduced.

[Married a Canadian]

nbinont

I realize there's LINNG nearby. Would it be better to plan to enter the TCA east of LINNG? Or Request direct LINNG, direct city centre? Or is the whole thing just really unpleasant from an ATC perspective? If so, what makes it awkward?

I can answer part of your query. The problem you have is the altitude you need for glide distance (8000ft you mentioned)...and where you are in relation to YYZ. Linng represents part of the problem as the arrivals to YYZ from the south come in at that point. Arrival control can descend to 8000ft over this point. Once you come in east of Linng you are now in departure airspace and are conflicting with YYZ departures that are filed V252, Eastbound (VERDO, DEDKI) and you are also conflicting with Porter departures off the island.
The reason you would be given 4000ft before entering class C is to keep you clear of this traffic. From a purely priority standpoint you can't be in a position that will impact YYZ and YTZ operations (unless you are the cops or some hi tec photo flight).
Unfortunately a single engine light airplane that wants a higher altitude within 20 miles of YYZ for sightseeing purposes is not going to be given much priority if there are departures or arrivals in the vicinity (and there usually are). VFR or not....there are still the wake issue to contend with....and a long haul heavy might not take too kindly to being kept low due to YYZ arrivals AND sightseeing traffic.

Low level round the shoreline will usually be the route you are given. The only other thing I can suggest is to try Saturday or Sunday mornings when it is quieter.
The satellite controllers might be able to give you some better options.


Cossack

On the subject of visual departures: we would obviously fan the departures out based on filed route and, as now, not cut off preceding departures on the same route, but the problem remains noise abatement. Without a relaxing of current rules any benefits from visual separations will be much reduced.

I know you would...and you guys do.....and in doing so (noise abatement or not)...it sort of defeats the purpose of visual departures if 3+ aircraft are all going the same way. You aren't going to give turns and headings for your expedition knowing that it ain't helping us much. I think some pilots forget that what they think they gain on the ground they can lose in the air (and vice versa of course).

[nbinont]

Thanks for the insightful answer Married a Canadian. I didn't realize the dual conflict for arrivals (at LINNG) and YYZ+YTZ departures (east of LINNG).

How about west of LINNG, say inbound on YYZ radial 170, for 7000ft over the lake midpoint descending to 2000ft over the shore? (then onwards to city centre along the shoreline). What are the main conflicts with this route?

[photofly]

Is there a problem with flying the lakeshore? It's 10 minutes extra flying. Or else take a life raft and jackets.