London Airspace Change/ Fast one by Nav Canada?

[Jungle Jim]

Guys,

I just recently learned about a proposed change to the London airspace that Nav Canada is pushing through. Gary Wolf of the RAA had the following to contribute:

Nav Canada has on short notice made a proposal to change that airport
>from Class D to Class C with a Mode C requirement, the reason being given
>as the large increase in traffic caused by the flight schools based at
>CYXU. The schools have expanded rapidly by training foreign students and
>many of these students have little comprehension of the English language.
>The controllers at CYXU have confirmed that most of the school aircraft
>already have Mode C, and the large number of CADORS reports for CYXU
>indicates that the controllers know where the planes are - they just cannot
>get the pilots to respond to the instructions. Whether or not the schools
>have transponders is almost irrelevant if the students do not understand
>the instructions. Yet Nav Canada somehow feels that transponders will cure
>the situation.
>
> What a change to Class C/Mode C will accomplish is to limit the
>liability of Nav Canada. In the current Class D the controllers must make
>visual contact, while in Class C/Mode C they can just watch the screen and
>there will be a record of every movement. If two dots are getting too close
>but the controller has made the appropriate calls, Nav Canada is off the
>hook. This does nothing about the language comprehension problems.
>
> I have contacted Transport Canada to find how the language comprehension
>test is administered and have found some curious information. Canada
>adheres to the ICAO standard which requires a language comprehension test
>at the Private license level, not at the student pilot level, so there is
>nothing illegal about non-English speaking student pilots mixing it up with
>the airliners at London. Further, the test is administered by delegates
>paid by the schools, and it is administered over the telephone without any
>visual confirmation of the student being tested. I have been asking that
>Transport require a meaningful language test at the student permit level so
>that everyone flying solo will have at least some comprehension of the
>language, but the Licensing people sidestep by pointing to the ICAO
>standard. Transport is ignoring that we have the right to make different
>rules for domestic airspace, which is how we can have the Ultralight and
>Rec Permits for domestic use, but which are not to an ICAO standard.
>
> Every pilot should do a CADORS search for London occurrences from
>January 2001. Reading the large number of communications errors and
>subsequent mistakes in the circuit would raise more than a few eyebrows,
>but unfortunately not at Transport Canada where their System Safety and
>Pilot Licensing people are taking a sit back and watch approach.


Anyone else know about this?


Jim

[commuter]

Never heard of this BUT I think it is agreat idea! Honestly I think every airplane should have a transponder.
As for the language issue ....... simple if you can't communicate stay on the ground! InterCanadian was turned away from Boston airpace because the Pilots had a hard time conversing with the controller back in 1999 .

[KnownIce]

There was some discussion along the lines of the email you posted at the recent Bushhawk Creek fly in. No one seems to know a time line for this implementation, nor have I been able to find even a mention of this online.

I would think the schools at YXU would have a problem with this as if I remember correctly not all their fleets have Mode C. Several of the private strips within 5-7nm of the airport may also be affected if their isn't a floor to this airspace.

There was a meeting tonight actually at 427 Squadron, to review the situation with Transport Canada. Probably hear more in the coming days.

[kevenv]

Seems odd that they would do this in YXU and not YQM. YQM does over 30,000 more movements per year and had a one year increase of over 60 percent in traffic due to the same sort of flying school activity.

[Jungle Jim]

I've got no problem with the Transponder either. I think the bigger question is the non English or French comunication issue. Unfortunately it looks like there will have to be a mid-air collision to get any action. Nav Canada's CYA approach will get them off the hook and TC will be able to delay and dodge any repercussions indefinitely. In the mean time some average guy's family will be devasted with no recourse. Flight scholols tend to not have much in the way of assets, so I expect the school involved will just fold up and reappear under another name as soon as the dust settles.

Jim

[hydro]

Seems odd that they would do this in YXU and not YQM. YQM does over 30,000 more movements per year and had a one year increase of over 60 percent in traffic due to the same sort of flying school activity.

The foreign students at London really increased in number in early 2008, so last years annual movements won't reflect the increase. I would guess they'd have a similar spike in numbers as Moncton had year over year. It appears the July/August numbers are almost double that of last year (and if I remember right last summers weather was better for VFR flying). That being said I have no idea why Moncton wouldn't have the same proposal.

[C-FABH]

Kudos to Gary for trying to spearhead some meaningful change in this process. Hopefully it won't fall on deaf ears, and won't become a "told you so" if something really hits the fan at YXU (or YQM for that matter, if the same loopholes in language testing apply)

[sigmet77]

Tell us what you really think

But for what it matters, I agree with you, the confusion between NAV CANADA (the provider) and TC (the regulator) is pretty sad. It's been 11 years, I think in that amount of time people would know the different responsibilities of each.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Transponders enhance safety, therefore they should be mandatory for all aircraft ...period.

The language issue is really quite simple.

Someone is going to die because TC has their heads up their asses on this issue...so the best we can hope for is if there is a mid air due to the pilot/s not understanding English I hope they hit a TCCA airplane.

[SeptRepair]

Wow Some pretty deep rooted hatred against authority. I used to hate authority too when i was a teenager.

[linecrew]

Wow Some pretty deep rooted hatred against authority. I used to hate authority too when i was a teenager.

A lot of folks on here have been seriously FUBAR'd by said authority so they have every reason/right to vent...apparently you are not one of those people.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Authority has many facets, authority when used for the good of the citizens as in policing the law is beneficial to the citizens.

When authority is abused by those in authority it then becomes just another criminal preying on the citizens, except in the case of TCCA these abusers of power think they are above the law and therefore unacountable.

A perfect example can be found sitting in Tower C in Ottawa behind the desk in the office of the DGCA.

So what do you have to say to defend that SeptRepair?

[patter]

806.03

[it'sme]

[That being said I have no idea why Moncton wouldn't have the same proposal. /i]
[Seems odd that they would do this in YXU and not YQM. /i]
I would guess they'd have a similar spike in numbers as Moncton had year over year

These spikes are being seen at more than just these locations. YFC has been a foreign student training centre for the last 18 months and has seen annual movements go from 21,000+/- to an annual movement rate of 60,000+/-. Also keep in mind that YFC is an MF.

I have to offer kudos however to the FSS folks there. Given the rules that they are forced to work within they are doing an exemplary job.

[scrambled_legs]

> What a change to Class C/Mode C will accomplish is to limit the
>liability of Nav Canada. In the current Class D the controllers must make
>visual contact, while in Class C/Mode C they can just watch the screen and
>there will be a record of every movement. If two dots are getting too close
>but the controller has made the appropriate calls, Nav Canada is off the
>hook. This does nothing about the language comprehension problems.

Gary Wolf obviously has no clue what the ATC regulations involve, nor does he understand the differences between Class D vs. C airspace and the above paragraph is an embarrassment to the Airport Authority. The liability to Nav Canada increases the higher the class of airspace as a greater service expectation must be met.

Radar service has nothing to do with airspace class other than all aircraft must be transponder equipped. If you have 2 planes that have transponders in Class D and are receiving a radar service, it is no different then if they were operating in Class C airspace. Unlike non-radar identified aircraft, there are numerous VFR separation standards that must be applied when an aircraft is radar identified. We have to assure, 500 or 1000' vertical, 4-6 miles in trail, pps don't touch, visual etc. etc. In a non radar environment, we just pass traffic and hope that you see each other. More safety and a higher liability is assured with radar but again this has nothing to do with Airspace.

Here are the differences as every private pilot and up should already know:

Class "C" must receive clearance prior to entering
Class "D" must establish communications

Class "C" ATC separation is provided between all aircraft operating under IFR and, as necessary to resolve possible conflicts, between VFR and IFR aircraft. Aircraft will be provided with traffic information. Conflict resolution will be provided, upon request, after VFR aircraft is provided with traffic information.
Class "D" ATC separation is provided only to IFR aircraft. Aircraft will be provided with traffic information. Equipment and workload permitting, conflict resolution will be provided between VFR and IFR aircraft, and upon request between VFR aircraft.

Class "C" radio required and Mode C transponder required unless prior permission obtained by ATC.
Class "D" radio required and Mode C required where designated, unless prior permission obtained by ATC.

If Nav Canada wanted to "PULL A FAST ONE" and make an airspace change to get them "OFF THE HOOK" liability wise, they'd change all control zones to Class G, not that that is even possible. Making an airspace designation higher, only improves safety and puts more liability on the controllers and NC to ensure that planes are separated.

[sstaurus]

Never mind if they do learn english, I still can't understand the accents...

[DanJ]

Seems odd that they would do this in YXU and not YQM. YQM does over 30,000 more movements per year and had a one year increase of over 60 percent in traffic due to the same sort of flying school activity.

The Free Press had an article Thursday that said movements this year to the end of August are 129,000 compared to 62,000 last year in the same period.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Business/20 ... 1-sun.html

[niss]

When will you morons inform yourselves of Nav Canada's role and responsibilities within aviation, as opposed to frequently incorporating them in your conspiracy theories?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Tom Martin said he has heard controllers on the tower frequency giving urgent commands to Chinese students who seem to have little understanding of English.

"If they don't understand the language and they turn left rather than right, that's a problem . . . I'm not happy about sharing my air space with someone who doesn't speak English," he said.

The concerns of the recreational pilots are shared by Ravi Virdi, vice-president of Aero Academy, another flight school that focuses on students from India.

"Even with a simple clearance for takeoff, it takes the Chinese students forever to understand," said Virdi.

The Aero Academy has about 75 students, including 52 from India. Virdi said the Indian students are fluent in English because of the nation's history in the British Commonwealth

Phil Moffat, vice-president of Maylan Flight Academy denies there is a safety issue with the school's Chinese students.

Moffat is backed by Pinon, who says safety concerns at the London Airport are caused by rapidly increasing volume and not by language problems with student pilots.

So who do we believe here?

Is there racism in play here or is Pinion correct that language is not an issue safety wise?

[niss]

Your police witchhunts are enough for me.

[niss]

Really?

Notice how everytime anyone get tazered there you are, out to nail the cops to the cross with out any regard for anything.

It doesnt matter to you who or why, just that they did and now all cops are guilty.

How about this as an example of your hypocrisy?

Here's some Harper criticism for you.

Widow, only you could somehow try and tie the election campaign to your paranoid and incessant quest of chasing the giant imaginary anti-aviation-safety conspiracy that you believe is present at Transport and the TSB...

What's next from you? Are you going to go even further up the chain of command and start insinuating that the Queen is somehow in on the big scheme?

Interesting that every post you make is rife with the same sort of one sided, personal attack.

You constantly turn all these incidents into your own personal crusade and then attack others when they disagree.

Is this your form of democracy? Where everyone is an idiot or a disgrace for being on the other side of your argument?

[Four1oh]

As a guy who had a cessna trainer turn crosswind on him on short final in a 737 not too long ago, I think the fact he had a transponder saved all our asses. I would like to see Mode C mandatory in YXU. Luckily tower saw the situation deteriorate before we did and probably saved the day. The guy in the Cessna was instructed to turn crosswind behind us and land #2... apparently he couldn't spot us(even though he told tower he saw us) after I had every available light on the Boeing on...

[Carrier]

Quote: “.....the confusion between NAV CANADA (the provider) and TC (the regulator) is pretty sad. It's been 11 years, I think in that amount of time people would know the different responsibilities of each.”

We should have a system in which the responsibilities are obvious to all. We used to have this when for aviation there was ONE organisation - TC - and that was in theory accountable to the taxpayers. The answer is to return to this with some organisational and personnel changes to remove the problems that are all too obvious in both TC and NavCanada.

By the way, this is election time. Have any of you bothered to ask any of the candidates what they are going to do about the numerous problems that afflict Canadian aviation, including the aviation language issue, the outsized new licence format and the $55 fictional fee/double charge for a service that has already been paid for through general taxation? This would seem to be the best time to ask them for action if you are seriously dissatisfied with things!

[scrambled_legs]

As a guy who had a cessna trainer turn crosswind on him on short final in a 737 not too long ago, I think the fact he had a transponder saved all our asses. I would like to see Mode C mandatory in YXU. Luckily tower saw the situation deteriorate before we did and probably saved the day. The guy in the Cessna was instructed to turn crosswind behind us and land #2... apparently he couldn't spot us(even though he told tower he saw us) after I had every available light on the Boeing on...

Did you mean base??? Cutting off your traffic is a regular occurrence with student pilots. Surprisingly missing a 80,000ib hunk of metal hurdling through the sky, is not necessarily a language issue. I've had several people do this to me, even with the instructor on board. Unfortunately pilots regularly respond with routines ie "roger with the traffic". It doesn't matter if they understand what they're saying or not, their helmet is on fire and they're concentrating on flying the plane. I don't know how many instructions that I've given, were completely ignored after receiving their ident in response. I find the language issue usually a non issue until you have to use plain language, then things get really ugly, really fast. Just ask the guys in boundary bay who had a classroom of Chinese students whose ground school and instructing was all done in Chinese. It wasn't obvious until they went solo, then all hell broke loose. Needless to say, they're now taught in English.

[Old Dog Flying]

Scrambled...not only are they not taught in English but they are NOT REQUIRED to be tested for English proficiency UNTIL they apply for a licence. I can recall an Asian student, when asked his intentions, replied "Roger"...are you doing a full stop or touch and go.."Roger"...and finally I had to say "Pull up and go back to Pitt Meadows" "Roger". The next day, same guy, same C172, same problem. I cleared him for a full stop then went over to the apron parking with a pamphlet that we had put together for such occasions...and the guy in the right seat was also of the same origin with the same degree of communication skills...

It isn't called Blunder Bay for nothing