ATC Rant..

groundtoflightdeck · Post by **groundtoflightdeck** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:50 pm

Agreed, the last week has been bad. I even was asked to reduce 20 kts 100 miles back for a priority medevac only to land 1/2 mile behind him... I think if I kept my 220 kts I was originally doing then we would have over-taken and landed well ahead. All the time in VMC.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:53 pm

Hi Doc,

Somebody directed me to this thread, as I am a Terminal Controller at both Winnipeg and Thunder Bay (now all part of the same speciallity)

Reading this concerns me, and I can tell you I certainly don't treat my job as a game, and neither do my colleagues. I really would like to get to the bottom of this for you.

My first question is (if you don't mind sharing), who do you fly for? I can unequivocally tell you NO preference is shown to any operator (and as I'm the Australian here and QANTAS doesn't operate into here, I'm certainly not going to start

).

I'm guessing with the last line of your post you must be one of the Medivac operators (Perimeter perhaps or one of the King Airs?). Once again, I have to scratch my head as to why you guys wouldn't be pointed straight at the field, away you go.............

And to address your post Groundtoflightdeck, as you probably know, 100 miles out is not terminal airspace, and maybe the enroute guy/girl thought they were helping us out (I'm also guessing the reference to the 1/2 mile behind infers a LASHO was used, although that's only a guess). Not knowing where you were coming in from, I can't extrapolate more.

Please feel free to rant some more, as this is stuff I certainly would like to hear about and do my best to alleviate.

Chris.
YWG TCU

Rudy · Post by **Rudy** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:01 pm

Sweet, I love how many ATC people there are on here now. I vote for a ATC question/comment forum.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:02 pm

So do I Rudy, especially a Canadian based one.

PPRuNe is very much UK orientated (am I allowed to mention that name here?)

YYZ Tower · Post by **YYZ Tower** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:06 pm

Evening Chris and Rudy.
I've seen others mention it and they've survived!
I'm in on an ATC forum too.

spoiler · Post by **spoiler** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:09 pm

Recently, comming into YQT from the west, requested 07 as winds were calm. Nope. How about 12? nope. Have to use 25. Comming in from the east was westjet and a metro. Ended being vectored 15+ (!!!) miles EAST of the field to go behind both planes.(so that is 30+ extra miles) And this was done at min approach speed. (mu2) The entire thing made NO sense, and added at least 15-20 min to the flight. We could have landed on 07 or 12 long before either of those planes were in the area. could have made it to 25 long before then too. But, all for the 172 doing night circuits.

... · Post by **...** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:15 pm

Jerricho wrote: PPRuNe is very much UK orientated (am I allowed to mention that name here?)

Yes Pprune members that have made a name for themselves on that site for being the token 'funny guy' are welcomed here. My question is...what took you so long to come here? What...we're not good enough for ya?

Enjoy this site.

Scuba_Steve · Post by **Scuba_Steve** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:20 pm

I sometimes get the feeling of being 'overcontrolled' when in ywg airspace, I take it whith a grain of salt really, since i am not a controller and don't have the big picture, but coming from working in yyz airspace 99% of the time where we were usually brough to within 5 miles of the airfield then vectored in between 2 heavies and usually all within 10-15 miles of the airport, to ywg where it seems you get vectored from 100 miles out in order to be 20 miles behind a 737. It been a bit of an adjustment. Especially since ywg is waay less busy than yyz.

I have not been in a terminal control room since I was a cadet so I have no appreciation for the controllers point of view. As long as there isn't any bent metal I'm happy

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:26 pm

Ok I'm in on this.
Personally I like the toronto controllers, the faster plane gets priority there, not to long ago one of our mu2's was going in to yhm and were told that they were #2 behind a westjet 37, couple minutes laster they were asked the indicated speed to which 250 was replied, they asked westjet to which 240 was replied, well westjet ended up having to follow our mu2 in. (Maybe the guy flying could jump in and fill in the blanks on that one).

Now as for Thunder Bay, not to bad other than what the hell is up with telling us to slow down to min approach speed to follow in a 172 in the down wind, thats a crock, hes out time building,we're not. Tell him to extend and us to keep the speed up, you'd be surprised what a turbo prop can do and how fast it is to get there.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:32 pm

Birddog, how are ya mate

I'll be honest and tell you I didn't know much about this place.

As to operations in Thunder Bay, I have just started my training there, so I can't really offer too much about what goes on there. I do know that depending on what runway the circuit bashers are on (ie for 25) some of them don't like extending too far out over the water (well, that's what I have been told).

I'm a radar controller..........who know what them tower bods are thinking

Scuba - Winnipeg has been a bit of an adjustment for me as well (it's a little different from where I used to work). The terminal airspace uses a "gates" system, which I describe as a bastardised SID/STAR system (not like the bed-post system used at YYZ). It could take half an hour to explain it................and several beers.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:47 pm

Chris...you're the Aussie? You're one of the good ones.
About 16:30, yesterday.....in a Beech...vectored all over the sky for an airbus...the second worst case of "controlling" I've seen in 20000 hours of flight!!
The first worst was also in YWG, and almost caused a mid-air! Again a King Air being vectored on departure. The departure guy kept telling us about a 172 and giving us vectors TOWARDS it. We missed by less than fifty metres!.....When I asked if he'd like to give us vectors for another run at the Cessna, the voice changed! Sure hope the moron being trained "washed out" along with his instructor! When we are on vectors, we really count on you guys at least having a clue as to where you are sending us!

Jet Dog · Post by **Jet Dog** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:54 pm

but coming from working in yyz airspace 99% of the time where we were usually brough to within 5 miles of the airfield then vectored in between 2 heavies and usually all within 10-15 miles of the airport

this and then some, I vote YYZ ATC/TCU as one of the best in a short list of north america, keep up the good work guys

speaking of which should have a catergory in the 'best of' for canadian ATC, my top picks would be YYZ and YQM

Nimbus · Post by **Nimbus** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:45 pm

Guys, I just had to start an account for this subject. CYYZ is not the best ATC unit around. They have some real problems getting efficient flow into that area. Just ask any CargoJet guys told to cross WASIE at 10 K on the way to YHM. Or try coming in from the west for YOO they'll have you down at 070 80 nm back from the field in a BE20.

Why is it that if I'm not landing at CYYZ I have to be vectored 20 nm around the airport. In the US, you'll pass within 2-3 nm of Dulles or Detroit at 5000', doesn't seem to interfere with their traffic separation.

They may be better at keeping the iron closer than YWG but they should all be sent on an exchange with Atlanta centre.

Fly into KCLT were they have 2 parallels and 1 oblique rwy and you'll see some serious controlling. I know that we have different manning levels and such, but really, Cleveland centre handles more traffic a day than NavCanada.

I won't compare Toronto to NYC which has JFK, La Guardia, Newark and Teterboro all in close proximity.

With fuel at such a high price, ATC has to rethink their old approach. They have to understand what a cost it is to us to leave altitude early, or to take a long and senseless vector.

That said, I have been working with YYZ centre and they are willing to work with us. They just don't really know how bad it is for a turbine to descend 60 nm early.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:15 pm

Jet Dog wrote:
but coming from working in yyz airspace 99% of the time where we were usually brough to within 5 miles of the airfield then vectored in between 2 heavies and usually all within 10-15 miles of the airport
this and then some, I vote YYZ ATC/TCU as one of the best in a short list of north america, keep up the good work guys

speaking of which should have a catergory in the 'best of' for canadian ATC, my top picks would be YYZ and YQM

YYZ? YYZ?!?!?!?!? PLEASE tell me you are kidding. If you have operated anywhere else in the world, where they actually have crazy volumes of traffic (JFK, ORD, SFO, LAX in the US, LHR, FRA, CDG in Europe), you might be surprised to know that YYZ is considered a bit of a laughingstock internationally. Certainly the controllers are pleasant enough, but it can be excrutiatingly inefficient operating in/out of there. Don't even get me started on the %^$%#$ CDF. I think the eighteen million frequency changes on the ground has been covered in another thread, enough said.

The whole operation is like someone's amateur experiment gone wrong. Not really trying to pick on the place, but I can't quite stomach hearing the one destination I groan inwardly when I know I'm operating to, referred to as anything like the "best" of ANYTHING!! What criteria are you using, amount of Tim Hortons per square foot?!?!?

Jet Dog · Post by **Jet Dog** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:23 pm

I'm referring to the guys working there, they are doing the best within their op guidelines, and I have never had a problem with them, I've flown over YYZ at 3k plenty of times, sometimes I get vectored around the TCA, yeah u can be at 3 or 5 over detriot, but your always kept at that alitute till 3 mile final, requiring large decent rate. Yeah theres things at YYZ I don't like, like use of 1 runway for take off or use of rwy with strong cross wind, but again, YYZ controllers aren't out to screw you, (or most ATC guys across the country)and haven't heard anythign close to what doc has had with YWG or YQT

Nimbus · Post by **Nimbus** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:32 pm

Jet Dog,

Do you fly turbine powered aircraft? I have never experienced nor heard of any pilot receiving an overly steep descent anywhere in Canada. It may be different in Navajos. I remember with little fondness pulling off 1 inch per minute and being left high. The difference is that pistons make up a very small percentage of YYZ's traffic.

I second complexintentions, plesant enough fellows but the most inefficient operation around. Lets not talk about ground ops or use of rwys as that would only drive up the blood pressure of all involved.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:45 pm

It has been my experience that controllers are as efficient as traffic requires. In my opinion, US controllers take risks that are not practiced in Canada because of traffic volumes.
As far as "favoritism, whoever mentioned that is way out in left field.
What I do believe sometimes happens is ATC tries to accomodate the first call, many times to the so called detriment of others. I find that often going into Regina in the morning where the Red Team want to depart RWY 31 and we want to land 13. They to depart the direction they are going and we to land the direction we are coming from.
My biggest complaint is when some clown asks for a clearance that is quite obvious not possible and ATC will give a long winded explaination why.
A prime example is someone asking for a direct routing that will take them into Military airspace. A simple "Unable" should be sufficient. Either that or just say "NO".
This unnecessary words problem has been written about in aviation magazines on numerous occasions.

What we need is a bunch of Air Traffic Controllers to get on a rant about the dumb things pilots do and say and see who has the biggest list.
I remember one clown was asked if he could land and hold short with 8800 ft remaining and the dumb ass pilot said "Yea!! I THINK we can do it" ATC REQUIRED a positive, simple "Yes" or "NO" and this dumb shit could not get that through his head and tied up the channel for an inordinately long time till finally, they changed runways on him to eliminate the conflict.
It is shit like this that creates tension.
If pilots would sit up, pay attention and either do as they are told or be the first to ask, things might go smoother. It is also a two way street.

A prime example of paying attention was when I was out doing flight training in a King Air at CYXX. A Twin Comanche was out at the same time and the speed difference was creating congestion till I reminded or suggested that since we were turbine and pressurized, we could go up and down quickly and easily, so we were given a higher altitude and everything worked out.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:38 am

Oldtimer your problems at YQR are about to be fixed...remember YQR is closing. I'm sure you will hear "unable" or maybe even silence lots in the coming months!!!

Last ime I checked YWG handles a MIX of traffic with no sequencing sectors, YYZ is mostly the opposite. While I've never worked either, my money is on YWG as being the "more creative" for the controllers to figure out.

I had the distinct pleasure to work with a controller from EGLL once, he was shocked at what us Canajuns are willing/forced to do.

1-800-NAV-CANT!!!

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:35 am

Nimbus wrote:Jet Dog,
I have never experienced nor heard of any pilot receiving an overly steep descent anywhere in Canada.

Ottawa - in a King Air. 8 000' ASL (7 700' AGL) until on a 2 mile wide downwind for 32. All to follow one RJ that touched down when we were (finally) descending through about 5 000'. Gear down, full flaps, power idle to get it down.

F.B. · Post by **F.B.** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:27 am

WG CENTER has a reputation of being very annal. For a not so busy place they seem to make a mountain over a mole hill. They seem to try an resolve problems far out instead of letting the flow evolve and resolve closer in. It's not that busy an airspace to micro manage that far out.

DOC your a hundred percent correct, maybe you should establish an award for the most idiotic controll call of the month on this forum. Then maybe they will get wise and train to a less annal standard.

Scuba_Steve · Post by **Scuba_Steve** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:01 am

I've flown quite a lot in the states around New york dulles etc. and I 'd have to say while it is impressive to be vectored withing 20 ft of other a/c (slight exageration

) and be 4th in line for the runrway and cleared the land I do prefer our canadian system of MORE SPACE between our highspeed aluminum tubes more so than the US, Pack em in like sardines approach.

that being said I enjoy flying in the states their controllers are pros (typically)

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:08 am

Doc, thanks for the kind words mate.

Regarding the situation you describe being vectored all over the sky (I was on a rare day off yesterday

), as much as I hate to say it, we have had quite a bit of training going on at YWG (and YQT and YXE as well) over recent weeks, but that is absolutely no excuse for a poor service.

As to the structure of the terminal airspace around YWG, it is a bit of a free for all. As I said, the Gates system in use is a very much bastardised attempt at establishing an inbound/outbound flow of traffic, with a non-existant SID, and a lack of STARS from the north (YIV, YST, YNE etc...), which is certainly the busy part of the airspace. Perhaps this leads into F.B.s observation of the centre being "anal".

One thing I don't want to get into is a pissing contest between ATC and drivers..........it's counter-productive, and those who subscribe to the "internet warrior" method of debating, just leads to un-necessary flaming and nappy soiling. I've seen some bloody dumb things done by both ATC and pilots in the three countries I have worked in.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:15 am

....."nappy soiling"......hehe....he said "nappy soiling"....ROTFLMFAO

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:18 am

You wait till the crowd turns up that soils them, torches them and then runs them up a flag pole. They're always a barrel of laughs.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:19 am

oldtimer wrote: What we need is a bunch of Air Traffic Controllers to get on a rant about the dumb things pilots do and say and see who has the biggest list.
I remember one clown was asked if he could land and hold short with 8800 ft remaining and the dumb ass pilot said "Yea!! I THINK we can do it" ATC REQUIRED a positive, simple "Yes" or "NO" and this dumb shit could not get that through his head and tied up the channel for an inordinately long time till finally, they changed runways on him to eliminate the conflict.
It is shit like this that creates tension.
If pilots would sit up, pay attention and either do as they are told or be the first to ask, things might go smoother. It is also a two way street.

Also if you say you can hold short of the intersection then you'd better bloody well hold short. Don't come to a stop in the middle of the damned intersection like the one idiot did to me and then meekly said "oops sorry about that tower" as the the Cessna 150 went over top him missing by no more than six feet. If you can't hold short roll through, you've already created the incident don't make it worse by stopping.

Needless to say we both got our parts seriously rapped for that little incident.

ATC Rant..

CYYZ ATC is not the greatest