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

[...]

This was not a thread about the differences about the logistics of FSS and ATC..this was about the expeditious transfer of traffic from Centre to Tower...and visa versa. From the professional opinion of a northern sector centre attendant...what would usually take 30 minutes to accommodate peak traffic in and out of YSB...will now the guesstimate will take 1 hour and 30 minutes.

As for the_professor...yeah we got your point...and I found it to be a very sad view point.

The funny thing here is your chosen handle. the_professor...for such a name your veiw point is anything but mind challenging. However making fun of it would be like me clubbing a baby seal.

[justplanecrazy]

BIGFSSGUY:

It is well with within our rules and is taught to trainees during training.

Manops 414.9 You may assist pilots in coordinating aircraft movement to facilitate the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic provided it is clear that you do not control aircraft movement.
414.9 Phraseology (Traffic update) CAN YOU (Proposed course of action)?

I stand corrected. Up until now, no-one showed me in the book where it clearly said you could suggest something. I'm shocked that the company would want you to suggest courses of action but not train you in any way as to what a good and bad course of action is.

Anyways enough of a thread drift I'll let you guys get back to watching the baby seal frolic around on the ice.

[thatdaveguy]

BIGFSSGUY:

It is well with within our rules and is taught to trainees during training.

Manops 414.9 You may assist pilots in coordinating aircraft movement to facilitate the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic provided it is clear that you do not control aircraft movement.
414.9 Phraseology (Traffic update) CAN YOU (Proposed course of action)?

I stand corrected. Up until now, no-one showed me in the book where it clearly said you could suggest something. I'm shocked that the company would want you to suggest courses of action but not train you in any way as to what a good and bad course of action is.

Anyways enough of a thread drift I'll let you guys get back to watching the baby seal frolic around on the ice.

This is getting blown out of proportion anyway. This is a minor function of an AAS Specialist's job.

I have only been doing this for about a year and a half, and I've issued suggestions MAYBE 5 times. All of those five times involved unique circumstances or pilots unfamiliar with MF procedures. It's a rarely used procedure by me or my coworkers.

This is an important "last resort" procedure to have in the books. The fact is there are Sunday flyers I encounter often who absolutely do not understand 'the picture' at an airport. If you didn't have this last resort method of defense, bad things would happen. Fortunately, like I said previously, it's rare we actually have to use it.

I have used the "This is an advisory service" phraseology many many times, particularly with Americans. I have no shame or reservation in doing so.

[Changes in Latitudes]

Is everything still a go for YSB? Any updates?


Merci.

[lilfssister]

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 27f_en.pdf

[scrambled_legs]

I don't get it... they went from a 16hour control tower to a 24 FSS? Won't that cost the same for less efficiency? Did it suddenly get busy outside of tower hours even though the traffic during tower hours dropped off?

[grimey]

I'm guessing they may have had 24 hour CWO or an AWOS that can be decommissioned, which'll save some money. How many ATC are required for a slow 16 hour tower? There'll be 8-10 FSS in working instead. 24 hour FSS gives them 24 hour wx obs, which gives them a supposedly accurate TAF all day. After working 2 different stations (one with traffic close to Sudbury's), most midnights are nothing more than 8 wx obs and 2 medevac flights.

[Legacy]

No what is stupid about all this is Sudbury has a tower and Ft Mcmurray has an FSS. McMurray has had an FSS for a long time. I am sure Sudbury can do it too. Its about time logic comes into play here and give YMM the tower.

[scrambled_legs]

YMM is getting a tower, and you don't need to shut one down in order to open one up.

I'm just curious how much money they're saving by shutting Sudbury down? Grimey, a 16hour low movement tower like that, could run 3 shifts per day. I'm not sure how many bodies that equals but I'm sure it wouldn't 8-10. Some of the 80,000 movement towers are only running 9 bodies with 4 shifts per day, so I imagine 3 shifts would be 7 bodies. CWO's get paid around $10/hr and don't require an AWOS. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the TAF's provided by some guy in an FIC or Ottawa, when a CWO is on site? Bottom line, it hardly seems worth the minor savings when we're a not for profit company and shutting down the tower will cost the users thousands in delays.

[lilfssister]

The completed study says:

"The current approved staffing level for the Sudbury control tower is one unit operations specialist (UOS) and seven air traffic controllers. The current staffing level is eight plus one UOS; one controller is not available for work."

I think the seniority bid for YSB FSS was for 6 or 7 FSS, and there was a separate competition for supervisor position, so I am guessing total FSS would be 7 or 8. So same number of employees (or one less) for 24 hour coverage, and the elimination of the CWO.

TAF are prepared by Environment Canada not Nav Canada for all sites, doesn't matter who/what is doing the observing.

The contract weather observers may be paid $10 per hour, but I would suspect the contractor gets a bit more.

[bigfssguy]

I'm sure it will be cheaper. From what i understand FSS are cheaper. Less salary and less people to cover the same amount of time. And yes we are cheap on soooooo many levels!!

[lilfssister]

Speak for yourself there, bigguy!

[NJ]

Anyone know if they still plan to build a brand new FSS unit?

[square]

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.

Hear hear, something that's forgotten all too often while we bash operators and authorities. You can't feed your families on how much you love your job, it's gotta be profitable too. And bringing any company to the brink of bankruptcy creates a major safety hazard in the company culture.

[thatdaveguy]

The completed study says:

"The current approved staffing level for the Sudbury control tower is one unit operations specialist (UOS) and seven air traffic controllers. The current staffing level is eight plus one UOS; one controller is not available for work."

I think the seniority bid for YSB FSS was for 6 or 7 FSS, and there was a separate competition for supervisor position, so I am guessing total FSS would be 7 or 8. So same number of employees (or one less) for 24 hour coverage, and the elimination of the CWO.

TAF are prepared by Environment Canada not Nav Canada for all sites, doesn't matter who/what is doing the observing.

The contract weather observers may be paid $10 per hour, but I would suspect the contractor gets a bit more.

It was 6. So the station will be manned 6 specialists and one TS.

Isn't it funny how it's going from 8+1 as a tower working only 16 hours, to 6+1 for 24 hours?

Plus they'll get paid 25k less than the existing controllers; and work a 37.5 hour work week as opposed to 36.

[grimey]

It'll almost certainly be staffed at 7+1, not 6. Look at other stations with comparable traffic.

[thatdaveguy]

It'll almost certainly be staffed at 7+1, not 6. Look at other stations with comparable traffic.

nonetheless, my point still stands.

[grimey]

Not really. It's a lower level of service, so we get paid less.

[FamilyGuy]

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.

Hear hear, something that's forgotten all too often while we bash operators and authorities. You can't feed your families on how much you love your job, it's gotta be profitable too. And bringing any company to the brink of bankruptcy creates a major safety hazard in the company culture.

Uh while those comments are more or less sound for a normal business, it really doesn't hold water for a NOT FOR PROFIT MONOPOLY.

It's actually specifically NOT supposed to be profitable. It's supposed to provide the service the country needs - including the little airports as well - even if said airport in and of itself is not generating enough revenue to cover it's costs - which most towers don't do.

If Sudbury tower is putting NAV CANT on the brink of bankruptcy, I guess they will need to stop refunding millions almost every quarter....

I got some land you can invest in though.

[sigmet77]

But NC does have to be efficient, that is why there is a board of directors. Things change, towers change to FSS and vice versa, FSS close, airspace changes. Aviation is dynamic and you need the company that plays a major role in it to be the same. Back in the day Grande Prairie, Fort St. John and Fort McMurray were converted to FSS and I remember hearing the screams of how the planes would fall out of the skies. Sometimes decisions aren't popular but they can be the right decision none the less. I'll reserve judgement until the FSS have been operating there for a couple years myself.

[NJ]

It's a for-profit business in the sense that It's trying to reduce as many costs as it can so it can charge lower fees.

[GilletteNorth]

IABD, guess this flies in the face of your saying that NavCanada doesn't do the right thing...

Air Traffic Control Service Scheduled for Fort McMurray

This is to inform all employees that the Company is taking the necessary steps to make the transition from a Flight Service Station (FSS) to an Air Traffic Control service at the airport in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

As part of this transition, the existing facility will be retained, but the type of service will change from mainly advisory and the provision of information, to the positive control of air traffic movements, due to continued air traffic growth.

Flight Service Specialists provide services such as weather observations and reports, runway condition reports, local traffic advisories and emergency assistance, and they also provide vehicle control service.

Air Traffic Control Towers are required at airports where there is a higher level of air traffic. Controllers give pilots taxi and take-off instructions, and landing clearances.

The transition will take place in several phases with a great degree of effort from many of our employees in various capacities, and with the terms and conditions of collective agreements being respected. In six months, our goal is to have Air Traffic Controllers begin providing service for limited hours a day. Flight Service Specialists will continue operating in the remaining hours. The changeover from an FSS to a Control Tower is anticipated to be complete in one year.

Currently there are 11 Flight Service Specialists working in Fort McMurray who have done an excellent job managing the growth within this region in recent years.

Our goal is to provide an opportunity for the current FSS staff to take training to become Air Traffic Controllers, as well as the opportunity to transfer to other FSS locations in Canada. It is also anticipated that the transition will see the transfer of Air Traffic Controllers from other facilities within our operation to Fort McMurray.

So much for not meeting the demand with required level of service.

[GilletteNorth]

I want to clarify what is it means when you talk about efficiency between service levels. It has to do with economic and productive efficiency. Economic efficiency has to do with attaining goals at a lower cost and productive efficiency deals with producing the given output at a reduced cost. The goal of both in ATS is to provide safe, effective movement of air traffic.

At airports where movements are above 60,000 per year, ATC is the efficient service provided to maintain traffic flow due to their ability to control aircraft movements to avoid conflicts.
Efficient: yes, because you must have ATC due to traffic complexity, there is no other choice.
Safe: positive control allows controllers to instruct pilots in order to avoid conflicts.
Effective: yes, traffic movements are orderly. Delays are handled safely.

At airports where movements are below 60,000 per year, FSS is the efficient service provided to maintain traffic flow due to the fact positive control is not needed to avoid conflicts.
Efficient: yes, FSS are less costly than ATC and can handle the traffic complexity.
Safe: advisories allow FSS to keep pilots informed and avoid conflicts.
Effective: yes, traffic movements are orderly. Delays are handled safely.

It should be clear that both services are efficient, effective and safe for the scale of traffic they handle.

[thatdaveguy]

Not really. It's a lower level of service, so we get paid less.

well i was not focusing entirely on the pay. we work more hours, and for the same amount of movements AND 24 hour coverage, they'll have LESS staff...

so, in essence, they'll be working harder (much harder), longer hours, midnights, weather observations and 25k less. the salary was only part of my point