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

[...]

The input and contribution to this topic/thread has been outstanding and I'm so happy to see the debate it has opened up.

Obviously this is a hot topic. Theres more than meets the eye. There seems to be a line in the sand for FSS and ATC...

Im new to this and it seems to be way over my head with logistics beyond my know how and a past history so riddled with issues between the two units of Navcanada/exTransport Canada that has seemed to have strained the working relationship between the two sides.

Frankly...I don't give a phuque about the past issues between these two units. seems like the Nav Canada has inherited old issues of Transport Canada with regards of these two units.

All I care about...what can we do NOW to ensure a higher level of service with regards to no more closures of positive control towers and try to retain a high level of FSS that in my humble opinion NavCan FSS folks are perhaps the best trained in the world...certainly better than the US counterpart and A LOT more friendly. The YXU people are OUTSTANDING!

Now to answer a question thrown @ me.

More money out...less services in.

NC fees are 10% less than Transport's were 12 years ago, and that's adjusted for inflation. Please clarify your statement.

Your query about my statement does NOT make sense at all.

I presently own 2 Range Rovers. Yeah it costs more to operate and insurance...but if I trade them in for 2 smart cars OF COURSE I'd have money left over from the sale of my Range Rovers and the operating costs with two Smart Cars would be way down obviously....the question is...which would you feel safer in a medium or even sometimes high traffic area?

A Range Rover By Land Rover



Or a Smart Car....?



NOTE: the above pictur example is not a jab @ FSS...you people are essential to preflight and post departure...but your speacialty is NOT in the movement of traffic flow because your hands ARE tied with what you can do leaglly. Your professional experience is sometimes the difference between a go/no go flight.

HOW ABOUT NAV CANADA KEEP THEIR 10% "SAVINGS" AND KEEP THE TOWERS OPEN WHERE THEY NEED TO BE. Maybe...even re-open a few because they miscalculated. No one likes admitting they were wrong. I'm over it...why can't Nav Canada suits just admit it as well and do the right thing? By keeping YSB and others opened and perhaps re-opening Fort Mac to a positive control tower.

Oh yes my friend...a petition will be going out to stop the closure of Sudbury airport.....AND others as well should it seem it would not merit a closure. Even if it's just my name on it.

[Brint]

Beyond the financial questions, there is a political element too. Here in Whitehorse, the tower has been at the bottom of the pile for 5+ years. Why are they not just chopping from the bottom up??

Apparently the YXY tower has been threatened before, and the right people made enough noise to keep it open. One of the arguements being it is a capital (didn't work for Charlottetown or Freddy however). I've also heard that Condor won't land anywhere that is uncontrolled.

Regardless, the decision in YSB is more than just numbers. NC must feel that they are in a position to close the tower without too much of a stink.

[Brint]

Someone mentioned it is hard to start a tower back up. Maybe someone in the NC camp can explain how it would be done. So much of the training involves local on the job mentoring. If Fort Mac or Sour Outlook got a tower how would they even make that happen safely??

[invertedattitude]

When was the last time a tower came back from being an FSS? Has it been done?

It will be interesting to see the movement numbers for CYFC in a years time now that they have MFC flying there full time.

Rumour has it from the guys flying there that in 2007 CYQM will be over 100,000 movements, up almost 40% over 2006.

Thanks to the Chinese contracts, will remain to be seen if those numbers hold true.

[lilfssister]

Someone mentioned it is hard to start a tower back up. Maybe someone in the NC camp can explain how it would be done. So much of the training involves local on the job mentoring. If Fort Mac or Sour Outlook got a tower how would they even make that happen safely??

Simulation?

[Driving Rain]

I presently own 2 Range Rovers. Yeah it costs more to operate and insurance...but if I trade them in for 2 smart cars OF COURSE I'd have money left over from the sale of my Range Rovers and the operating costs with two Smart Cars would be way down obviously....the question is...which would you feel safer in a medium or even sometimes high traffic area?

Then watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

[invertedattitude]

Alright, I want a job where I drive RC full size cars into brick walls now

[FamilyGuy]

Since 1996 NOTHING new has been opened or created - only closures. Airspace shuffles don't count either.

[JigglyBus]

Alarming trend....?

[lilfssister]

True, lots of FSS have closed, had some of their duties removed/relocated to FICs (=reduction in staff) or reduced hours (=reduction in staff) since 1996. The surplus staff have been relocated to other sites, retired or resigned if they didn't like the other options.

[invertedattitude]

Alarming trend....?

This has nothing to do with NavCanada, this has to do with the decades old story of the aviation industry.

Money comes before safety, unfortunately that's the line we all tow weather we know it (or like it), without it we'd all be out of a job. Airplanes don't fly if they don't make money, and this industry has/is and always will be about finding that perfect balance between safety and economy.

This may seem like a big deal to some, and it is sad to see them close a VFR tower which obviously provides a safer envrionment in general, but lets look at it this way...

Airplanes every day fly into controlled airspace around the world (and in Canada) jam-packed together, four or five airplanes all 1000 feet apart from each other, all screaming every which way across the world getting to where they need to go to make money.

Obviously having two airplanes occupying the same horizontal section of airspace at the same time creates an inherent danger, but unless you want to restrict airspace to "One plane at a time" you find a way to make it work. To the extreme side, we should double the amount of controllers to handle the traffic? Doubling fees and costs to the users? Sure it's safer, but then everyone starts to lose money. The fact is the way this industry works is that you get the job done with the minimum amount of cost to do it safely.

Now obviously there are varying opinions as to what is "safe".

What I'm getting at here is that unless the airlines are making money, all of us are out of a job, pilots,controllers, FSS, ramp agents... everyone.

An airport with movement rates of 35,000/yr going to an FSS is hardly surprising, do I agree that it should be done? Well not really, IMO the safest bet is to have every airport on the planet serviced by a control tower, however because of economy that isn't going to happen.

Speaking as an employee I would be more than outraged, but I'd be willing to bet at least some of the employees there saw it coming, hopefully most of them will transfer their skills to other towers around the country.

[grimey]

Since 1996 NOTHING new has been opened or created - only closures. Airspace shuffles don't count either.

Well, Churchill re-opened, after they closed it.

[2milefinal]

god... that guy is fat!

[pokaroo]

Lots of good discussion and points coming out of this topic.

Here's my thoughts....

Seeing a tower shut down sucks. Just as seeing a FSS site would. Nobody gains from a reduction in service and going from a TWR to FSS will be a reduction in service. I don't feel like doing the math on reduction of user fees because of the $ saved on Navcanada's end VS increased fuel burn due to delays but I suspect nobody but Navcanada comes out ahead. It increases our workload at the ACC and will cause delays in and out. We've seen more and more company policies, in my airspace at least, which do not allow flights to cancel IFR anymore. So the delays will not be restricted to IFR or marginal weather days. The company has obviously crunched the numbers and deemed it worthwhile to shut down Sudbury, as much as I support any efforts to save the tower I don't think it's possible. What it may do though is save the next TWR on the chopping block.

[grimey]

NOTE: the above pictur example is not a jab @ FSS...you people are essential to preflight and post departure...but your speacialty is NOT in the movement of traffic flow because your hands ARE tied with what you can do leaglly. Your professional experience is sometimes the difference between a go/no go flight.

I took it as a jab against PC-12 guys vs. HS-748 guys. Just a bit of a correction, though. For FSS at airports, our specialty IS the movement of traffic, just as it is for a tower controller. How efficiently we can get the traffic going, and at what level that traffic becomes dangerous are lower than for control towers, due to the tools and training available to us. But for the FSS at sites like Sioux Lookout and others, the primary part of the job is making sure you're aware of where others are and what they're doing so that you don't run into one another, and helping you plan your approach or departure accordingly.

I don't do weather briefings (and have never been trained to provide them), haven't filed a flight plan in 2 years, and don't provide an en-route service. I do weather observations which get encoded into METARs and SPECI, which takes up very, very little of my time most days, and provide an advisory service, which takes up most of it.

[lilfssister]

Don't forget vehicle control, grimes!

[GilletteNorth]

Tower Controller, read my post a bit closer before you say I need a dose of reality... I said

Airports with high traffic flow are more efficient... and they have ATC

and then I said

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

so I believe I already acknowledged ATC are more efficient?

I'll try to make it clearer what I take exception to. Pokaroo tries to infer that the time taken by FSS coordinating clearances with ATC has any effect on aircraft movements. Normally it doesn't. Why? Because the coordination is not transparent to the user. Aircraft departing get their clearances during taxi just like at ATC tower sites. Aircraft landing have their down times passed as soon as their wheels are on the ground and that allows the controllers to clear the next one in. Again, we have less IFR traffic normally at any given time. I don't have small tower mentality. I have a realistic viewpoint. The delays occur because of procedural changes to handling of IFR aircraft into and out of non-tower sites. Yes, IFR movements are slower out of non-ATC serviced sites, but it's not because FSS handle things slower.

[pokaroo]

Pokaroo tries to infer that the time taken by FSS coordinating clearances with ATC has any effect on aircraft movements. Normally it doesn't. Why? Because the coordination is not transparent to the user. Aircraft departing get their clearances during taxi just like at ATC tower sites. Aircraft landing have their down times passed as soon as their wheels are on the ground and that allows the controllers to clear the next one in. Again, we have less IFR traffic normally at any given time. I don't have small tower mentality. I have a realistic viewpoint. The delays occur because of procedural changes to handling of IFR aircraft into and out of non-tower sites. Yes, IFR movements are slower out of non-ATC serviced sites, but it's not because FSS handle things slower.

First off it's 0425(local) when i'm writing this so keep that in mind........

Here's the difference tower can take control of an IFR inbound which means we can launch the next guy without having to worry about seperation, no need for a "do not depart until" or clearance of a similar nature. I routinely have a guy inside 10 final when ysb tower calls for a departure and i can get him off (yeah yeah i know that sounds bad) without any problems. With a FSS unless the inbound cancels, the dep is waiting till the arrival in down.

Believe me that's only one example of when a tower is faster than a FSS. It's way too late (early) to get into more but it's a fact that aircraft get off the ground quicker and land quicker at an airport serviced by a twr as opposed to a FSS. I work both everyday.

[2milefinal]

pokaroo
I don't think you can make it any more clear. Its better to have a tower.
BUT i have some time so here i will try.
There are times at YSB when there is/are 3 metros a DASH 8 and a Medavac or 3 trying to get in the air.
And Couple of more trying to get down and clr.
On any given day 22 is the rwy of choice.
Rwy 22 has the ILS, it has no taxi way. It requires a backtrack of something like 2+ thousand feet.
Aircraft are sitting and doing holds with a tower let alone a FSS.
Now bring in the days that require deicing and getting airborne quick.Have fun with that.

[pokaroo]

We can do this all day, bring up all sorts of scenarios and how they would be handled differently at airports serviced by FSS vs a TWR. No that's not a cop out if you really want i'll answer the question.

I take it you fly in and out of there and we've probably talked a few times..... next time you're down this way come in and have a look.

[2milefinal]

Hey pokaroo
Ya Ive been to ysb a couple times
Hope you didn't think I trying to preach to you.
Just the people out there that think its ok that navcan keeps taking things away.
cheers

[...]

...despite the great arguements what an FSS does vs. what ATC does which I'm finding I am learning so much lately about Navcanada and it's folks.

There is something missing to this equation of discussion...what does the customer want?

Last night (after landing on RWY 23 making bravo taxiway...which is less that 1000' in a Be02 ) I went and had beers with one of my good buddies which also happens to be a heavy hitter at FedEx. Oh he's large and almost incharge. He had no idea about what was going on @ Sudbury with the closing of the tower. Let's just say he ain't happy.

This petition is going out...if not to save YSB it's to save other towers that are needed to retain the high level of service the CUSTOMER wants.
Putting some link in some remote corner of Navcanada's website announcing the closure of YSB and that any arguments against it closing are now off, is sneaky, snakey and stinks of 'suits'...that's what has got me pissed off the most...and now...we'll see how funny it is.

This petition is going out...if it cannot save YSB...it will be for other towers...however, I'm putting up a fight for YSB because I'm pissed.

Those FSS folks on Navcanada's payrole that seem to think this is securing more jobs and options for you to live...think of this. Correct me if I am wrong. A brand new FSS tower in Roberval Quebec was built. It's now a crow stand. It sits empty from what I have been told. Heck...I used to pop up there when I worked in northern Quebec.

***This is where I want your attention if anything else you read has not soaked in...

I will stand and start a petition if Navcanada wants to close your FSS tower and your place of work.

Now...stop twisting the intent behind the terms and meanings about the details of job description between the two agencies. You're starting to buy what the suits are sellin'...

For once...support the people you work with and stand up and sign the petition...because the next one WILL be for you. I guarantee it.

IABD

[...]

I presently own 2 Range Rovers. Yeah it costs more to operate and insurance...but if I trade them in for 2 smart cars OF COURSE I'd have money left over from the sale of my Range Rovers and the operating costs with two Smart Cars would be way down obviously....the question is...which would you feel safer in a medium or even sometimes high traffic area?

Then watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

Thanks Driving RAin. I can always count on you to look at things at a different angle. Question is...what weighs more...perception or a Smart Car?

If you watched the end of the vid...they state no one would have survived the accident anyway.

So I leave you with this...

STOP CHEATING YOURSELF AND START TREATING YOURSELF

LAND ROVER...there is no other choice

I hope all is well with you and the wife! Missed ya this year again in Burlington...that's 2 years in a row.

[Cat Driver]

Good post IABD.

[grimey]

There is something missing to this equation of discussion...what does the customer want?

And what is the customer willing to pay for? As was pointed out earlier, Nav Canada runs on a cost-recovery basis, they arn't allowed to run a profit. Any savings as a result of this decision would be passed on to the customers, or be used to increase the level of service elsewhere. Any additional costs from running a tower would also be passed on.

(I'm not saying it is or isn't worth it, only that there are costs associated with keeping the tower open, just as there are costs associated with keeping slower FSS sites open)

Those FSS folks on Navcanada's payrole that seem to think this is securing more jobs and options for you to live...

Well it is, though most of us are under no illusions about the motivations behind it. 9-10 more FSS postings is a side effect of the decision, not the intent. Dawson Creek BC was closed down a year or two ago, a few other stations in BC that are co-located with towers closed as well.