Overshoots at Toronto Pearson

[cossack]

Is there a desire by Nav Canada to increase staffing in the tower to permit more 10 controller shifts? Is it a matter of surprise retirements and they are just getting caught up in training or is it something they are not interesting in doing due to budget cuts or what not?

10 is the minimum to run the triple. 11 and we do it for the whole shift. There have been a few retirements in the last few years and new qualifications haven't kept pace, let alone exceeded them in order to let people leave and advance their careers or wind down into retirement somewhere quieter. People have left and will leave to work non-operational jobs as they can't be deferred, unlike operational job moves.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise as the unit has been 10-20% understaffed for the 13 years I've been here and gets by on overtime. When we don't feel like doing overtime because the weather's nice (or not nice) or we need a few days off, we run short. The line of volunteers looking to work here is very short so we're left trying to train ab initios at the country's busiest and most complex unit. How do you think that's going? Want to train a 40 hour PPL for the right seat in a triple 7?

[crj2pilot]

Good evening Cossack, I have a few questions I would like to ask you about ATC. How can I PM you?

Thank you!

[altiplano]

And I wish they would stop giving heavy aircraft stop climb at 3000'.

Its not given out randomly but when someone is departing from a runway they shouldn't be departing from. i.e. You're eastbound but need 23. Both sides are stopped at 3,000. Its a procedural thing. If both sides were given 5,000, you'd complain that you were kept straight out for too long.
Time for another drink and back to the baseball.

No. I wouldn't complain.

It's not like it's just an inconvenience or inefficiency.

It's a potential hazard, can put the aircraft into an inadvertent low energy state and creates a additional workload during a critical phase flight. The procedure should be revised.

It seems it's the tail wagging the dog as far as GTAA/TC/navcan procedures are concerned.

[fish4life]

In a heavy can / do you follow the 200kts in 10 miles / under 3000' speed limit on departure?

[cossack]

Good evening Cossack, I have a few questions I would like to ask you about ATC. How can I PM you?

Thank you!

Click the PM button at the bottom of any of my posts.

[cossack]

No. I wouldn't complain.

It's not like it's just an inconvenience or inefficiency.

It's a potential hazard, can put the aircraft into an inadvertent low energy state and creates a additional workload during a critical phase flight. The procedure should be revised.

It seems it's the tail wagging the dog as far as GTAA/TC/navcan procedures are concerned.

Maybe if its that big an issue, you should go through official channels. I've never had anyone make an issue of it before. The AC tail likes to wag the dog. Remember the standard taxi routes? That came from AC. Impossible to effectively use here but we tried and quickly binned it as unworkable.

[cossack]

In a heavy can / do you follow the 200kts in 10 miles / under 3000' speed limit on departure?

250kt speed limit on departure. If you are unable, just inform ATC what speed you need. No big deal.

[Married a Canadian]

250kt speed limit on departure. If you are unable, just inform ATC what speed you need. No big deal.

Seconded...

It's a potential hazard, can put the aircraft into an inadvertent low energy state and creates a additional workload during a critical phase flight. The procedure should be revised

With apologies Altiplano...you will have to elaborate a bit more on that...I'm with Cossack....never heard of it being a problem..and both of us work either side of the procedure. I don't understand what you mean by "potential hazard". I may be ignorant...but I don't understand why a climb to 3000ft is a potential hazard?

Both aircraft are given 3000ft, terminal chooses which one to climb higher and then does an airborne crossover. It is a pretty simple procedure, and one that on the whole works well between Terminal and Tower. It is not unknown for terminal to call the tower and tell them to clear the non conformer to a higher altitude anyway...just requires a bit of preplanning. You don't often level at 3000ft ....if you call us promptly enough we will keep you climbing, because we don't want you level at that altitude either.

The procedure is not inefficient. How can it be when you are being allowed to depart from a runway that is not the standard for you direction of flight? You are cutting back across an active departure runway...with flights that might be crossing tracks from you OR going the same way. Either way we need something to work with , and the current procedure is deemed to be the best we have at present.

You are critiquing a procedure without taking into account that ATC is working around you (non standard departure runway) and that in a parallel/dual departure environment we have to keep a pretty tight rein on aircraft within close proximity to the field.
You say you wouldn't complain if kept out straight to 5000ft...believe me Terminal would. Unless you can suggest a way to not impact the departures off the other runway...I don't see the procedure changing anytime soon.

I suggest to call departure ASAP and we will get you climbing ASAP.

[AuxBatOn]

Maybe if its that big an issue, you should go through official channels. I've never had anyone make an issue of it before. The AC tail likes to wag the dog. Remember the standard taxi routes? That came from AC. Impossible to effectively use here but we tried and quickly binned it as unworkable.

I do not maintain less than 250 on departure because it puts me at a disadvantage if I have an engine failure, and because I need to reduce my power setting so I don't climb at 10,000 ft/min (and increase my workload). Safety of flight is certainly always a caveat to these rules. I try, however, to advise ATC I will not comply.

[Married a Canadian]

I do not maintain less than 250 on departure because it puts me at a disadvantage if I have an engine failure, and because I need to reduce my power setting so I don't climb at 10,000 ft/min (and increase my workload). Safety of flight is certainly always a caveat to these rules. I try, however, to advise ATC I will not comply

No problems with that at all. I believe there was a thread earlier about speeds on departure (250kts below 10000) and I think most controllers were in agreement that operational requirement and safety were more than OK. When the Long haul heavy tells me he needs 260 or whatever is required...that is fine...most of YYZ terminal would agree.

[altiplano]

...