National Discussion Paper Launched (Potential site closures)

[thatdaveguy]

Link:

http://navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFi ... 01a_en.pdf

Follow the links within the PDF for the lists of sites Nav Can wants to 'see the people's opinion' about closing or reducing service nationwide. There are 46 airports affected.

14 FSS, 11 RAAS and 1 Tower are up for closure.

[lilfssister]

Thanks for posting that dave. I was waiting for it to be made public!

[Guido]

Note that all comments need to be sent in prior to Jan. 16, 2009 - that's a month and a half, folks.

[bigfssguy]

I work in Churchill, if anyone needs or wants any specific info on the operation i'd be happy to provide it.

[...]

The Company is initiating consultation with customers, stakeholders and employees
over the next six weeks on what air traffic services are required to support safe and
efficient aircraft operations. The focus of discussions will be service requirements at
low traffic airports and during low traffic periods of the day at busier airports.

What does this mean? "Initiating consultation" What does this mean? By quietly posting the PDF file on their website is that the extent of initiating consultation all the while the corporate suits are quietly sharpening their axes?

Am I suspect of this tactic? You bet I am. When past manuevers (from the top suits) have included the same tactics and towers get shut before anyone knows any different. AND here lies the irony. Does Sudbury FSS fall under this new 'initiative'??? Will this new FSS be on the chopping block as well????

Sudbury was the "Joe Plumber" of Navcanada/Canadian Aviation bureaucratic discussions on this site a while back. No offense to the FSS folks working there now as the issue was NOT about you folks individually. That airport tower has been the biggest discussion of its kind on this site. Because it signified a new trend in Navcanada policy by their corporate suits. Now that that tower has closed, who is next? Windsor? Hamilton? The level of service these airports provide to specific niches in aviation is special...even if they don't produce some of the high traffic numbers the major airports have.

Everyone that is in the slightest of 'knows' understands Navcanada major revenues come from the centres. Period. However, we need manned airports to land on. If Navcanada suits have their say, inbound IFR traffic would be on the same frequency of 122.80 when on short final for landing at any airport...in other words, other than YVR YYC YEG YWG(maybe) YYZ YUL...it seems by posting that announcement in my humber opinion the Navanada suits seem have no use for any other positive controlled manned airports other than the ones I just mentioned. When will it end...??

In case I am mistaken...didn't Navcanada operate at a surplus last year....and the year before and the year before that?? So...what the problem? Greed? Bigger year end bonuses for the suits? Internal corporate positioning among suits trying to out do themselves to play in the CEO's favor??? If someone suggests it's just simply "Back patting" I'm going to have aneurysm.

I have said it before and I will say it again...if we don't speak up as a group, and it seems this is the biggest gathering place in Canadian aviation with over 20,000 members, then we are nothing as individuals.

If we not voice this issue and make it clear we want answers on why this initiative is even being raised by the Navcanada Pharaohs, then the only difference between us and the ancient Egyptians is the size of the bricks their slaves had to haul uphill to build their pyramids. In other words, we take everything lying down and never question the answers...or the task masters wip.

Enough. I am hoping everyone here gets their wits about them and together we take the initiative to find out exactly what that letter means. Not only as a customer, but also for those that work @ Navcanada that have mortgages.

[thatdaveguy]

In case I am mistaken...didn't Navcanada operate at a surplus last year....and the year before and the year before that?? So...what the problem? Greed? Bigger year end bonuses for the suits? Internal corporate positioning among suits trying to out do themselves to play in the CEO's favor??? If someone suggests it's just simply "Back patting" I'm going to have aneurysm.

This is why we're really upset as FSS. The company is looking to over staff us by 200 (we only have 800 members) and likely laying off a ton of us. Why? Who knows... It doesn't make sense to axe everyone when times are good (for Nav Canada).

[BlueQuill]

The company is under pressure from the Majors to cut back what they (the Majors) would likely term "peripheral" services. Towers where most of the movements are VFR, FSS and RAAS don't really mean much to Air Canada and their ilk. Air Canada's argument has always been, more or less, that they provide a big chunk of Nav Canada's revenue, and therefore should have a significant say in how those revenues are utilized. How susceptible Nav Canada should be to that pressure is an exercise I'll leave to the reader, but that's what's driving this.

[thatdaveguy]

The company is under pressure from the Majors to cut back what they (the Majors) would likely term "peripheral" services. Towers where most of the movements are VFR, FSS and RAAS don't really mean much to Air Canada and their ilk. Air Canada's argument has always been, more or less, that they provide a big chunk of Nav Canada's revenue, and therefore should have a significant say in how those revenues are utilized. How susceptible Nav Canada should be to that pressure is an exercise I'll leave to the reader, but that's what's driving this.

Who wins? A slight reduction in fees (maybe)... with a huge loss to GA and Flight Service.

[bigfssguy]

remember this is a "consultation" If anyone has an opinion please don't forget to express it in the form of a written letter or email to NavCanada. The link to information is on the NavCanada website, if you use these services and wish them to continue please let the company know so that all opinions can be expressed and taken into consideration.

[square]

IMO if you've usually got another airplane in or outbound to the field, even one other airplane, you should keep the services. A lot of pilots out there .. let us say, freak me out. And then the wx deteriorates.

[imarai]

The lyrics to a Joni Mitchell song are quite apropos, i.e.;(quote)
"Don't it always seem go, that you don't now what you got till it's gone."

[patter]

Make sure you document any service difficulties. For example when the controller is alone in the tower and saturates the frequency by having, ground tower and outer on one frequency.
When you are denied circuits, because there are 2 people in the circuit and controller training is going on. And so you had to go to another airport, and many thousands of movements for that airport were lost. When terminal Notams you out. When a controller denies access to airspace for 8 minutes because there may be another plane in the airspace, when the tower doesn't open on time.
Write Nav Canada, file a Cador, cc the email to Transport. But you have to speak up. Practice DF steers. And when you aren't getting the service you need speak loudly.

[IFRATC]

Seems ironic that it is one "Air Canada" that is quite in arrears with there payments to NC isn't it?!?

IFRATC

[Old Dog Flying]

During October NavCan had their usual consultation meetings here on the west coast. Consultation my ass! The suit arrived with his yes person in tow with a pretty slide presentation, implying that NC wanted to hear from the users.

And wouldn't you know...the email that I got last week was exactly what the suit had to start with...absolutely nothing about what GA wanted. Bigger control zones, lower over-water (main land to Vancouver Island), more frequencies, less free airspace. They want class"C" airspace everywhere, mickey mouse radar in every facility which only reduces the acceptance rate...and of course eventually more fees from GA.

The Fraser Valley has become the training area for the South Asian Air Forces and Airlines and those of us who fly for pleasure are getting the shaft. And everything NC does is covered by "Flight Safety"...except when you need to fly accross the Straits at a safe altitude on the weekend when so many of their experts have the UAW flu. That's right UAW. The Canadian Air Traffic Control Association has come under the UAM robots.

As for Air Clunk dictating what services NC must provide...well the airlines have 4 seats on the BofDirs and GA has ONE so guess who gets it up the rear end.

I've had nearly 60 years of commercial/private flying in parallel with my very long ATC career and what I see happening to general aviation is enough to make me sick!

Rant Off!

[...]

During October NavCan had their usual consultation meetings here on the west coast. Consultation my ass! The suit arrived with his yes person in tow with a pretty slide presentation, implying that NC wanted to hear from the users.

Old Dog Flying, I was going to attend one of those meetings...but it would probably end up with a Navcanada suit and his/her minions curled up in a fetal position in the corner trying to eat his/her fancy Power Point presentation memory stick...

All kidding aside...(sorta). I think everyone should make an effort to prepare themselves. And this means writing to the Navcanada address and asking what that letter means and to expand further. I think all companies should organize representation of their company and attend one of these future meetings and ask the right questions. I think someone should post these future Navcanada suit meetings on here when they are made available.

I think any company and GA people willing to organize and be represented with a comulitive voice regarding this issue should speak up...here.

I think anyone reading this should make others aware of this issue.

That's what I think.

[G.N. Thompson]

My first question is exactly who and what are the credentials of the NC decision makers?

Cut-back decisions should only be made by seasoned persons who have actually earned their living flying commercially, issuing clearances, and issuing aviation weather forcasts. Period.

[mattedfred]

the problem is that NavCan is in the business to make money. why would you piss off your largest customer (AC)? why would you suck up to your smallest (GA)? is GA paying it's fair share or is AC subsidizing a system to the benefit of GA?

i don't work for AC
i'm not trying to offend anyone
i would like to hear how others feel about the questions i have posed

honestly

[Old Dog Flying]

the problem is that NavCan is in the business to make money. why would you piss off your largest customer (AC)? why would you suck up to your smallest (GA)? is GA paying it's fair share or is AC subsidizing a system to the benefit of GA?

i

Actually Nav Canada is a "Not For Profit" organization whose mandate is to provide Air Traffic Services to the Canadian public...and NOT just to the airlines. General Aviation has every right to expect a good level of service but when the "Weekend flu bug" strikes, GA gets the short end of the stick. Just try flying the Straits of Georgia from Point Roberts to Active Pas, 12 nm, at a SAFE altitude on the weekend. And soon controlled airspace over the water will start at 1200 feet.

Even under the existing procedure you can go across at 2500 feet or..you can get higher by flying over a longer over water route and subsequently longer fuel wasting corridor from White Rock to East Point of Saturna Island then north upisland. Safe and Expedisious flow of air traffic...not likely.

The consultation meetings held by Nav Can are a joke. They go through the motion then invoke flight safety to get their way.

And as for the "Experts" that are changing the face of aviation...I trained a few of them in the VFR world and....you can fill in the blanks. I don't know how many times that my co-workers said how they hated GA and felt that the airspace should be there for the airlines and the military.

[E-Flyer]

so are we, pilot's, considered customers?

[lilfssister]

YES! Anyone who uses the services provided is a customer.

[adhc2]

This is not the first time nav canada has tried to reduce services, the centalizing of flight services which eliminated input for local knowledge weather, and unique nuances of a location CYYf is one case.
The decommisioning of remote RCO,S for another.

Never the less I want to speak to this concern as I did in the past and I can say I was able to make a difference.
A number of years ago I spoke up at a transport safety meeting and brought up some issues that they did address. At that time they had planned to decommission RCO,S at Golden and Revelstoke which is an important VFR corridor. My argument was that given the potential perils in that area the search and rescue costs would increase along with the greater risk or potential mortality issues, which I spoke to as a search and rescue pilot . They agreed and the RCO,S stayed. I also suggested that they offer WX info in long hand as well as short hand so as to facilitate low time and infrequent flyers, they agreed.

My point is it is possible to prevent change or closures if viable circumstances are submitted. Therefore if there are real issues here speak out I did and something did happen.

[aileron]

I cannot comment on other pilots positions who may fly on a regular basis to these airports, but I can say from my own perspective is that my personal life insurance will go up again!

If these sites become uncontrolled aerodromes then each site closure will be assessed an additional premium to insurance (as much to the pilot as well as the operator). We need some lobyists in Ottawa fighting for our rights too.

[swordfish]

G.N. Thompson said:

Cut-back decisions should only be made by seasoned persons who have actually earned their living flying commercially, issuing clearances, and issuing aviation weather forcasts.

Actually, GN, I disagree with most of that. While NavCanada is a not-for-profit organization, I assume they're simultaneously a "not-for-loss" organization also. Regrettably (and I mean it), it has to be bean-counters who make these decisions. With the input of those classes of professionals you allude to, of course, but where the actual cutbacks occur can only be made by people with the management and accounting responsibilities for the organization.

Now HOW they do that...this is the $64,000 question. We all pretty well agree here, that service cutbacks are not the answer...well, not the only answer. There are literally dozens of ways to reduce costs, not the least of which is analyse where your duplications or overlaps of energy and resources are, higher productivity from non-operational individuals (i.e. a higher bang for your buck), analysis and reduction of wastage (e.g. sending snail mail by regular post rather than expressPost or courier)...

...blah, blah, blah. Ad nauseam. I refer to a global effort within the organization, of course. My allusion to the postage is only 1 thing to show how costs can be reduced by planning ahead better and looking at "how can we do things differently?"

My bone with NavCanada is that they are STILL acting like the government from which they were spawned. The need to divorce themselves from that wretched ball & chain.

[sigmet77]

GN,
Just a point, but no one in NC has ever issued a weather forecast, MSC does that.

[adhc2]

Remember the corporate down sizing of the 80,s and 90,s slash and burn mentality kinda wonder if this may be the case, Tripping over twenties to pick up pennies, create excessive workloads for the essential people (if you want to get something done give it to some one busy). Or is it precpiated by the Gobal chicken Little spiral divin media driven economic climate, maybe.

Don't get me wrong I am all for eliminating unneccesary costs associated with government or those enities thinly vailed as private sector.
I would suspect that NavCanada is probably top heavy with expensive corp management which I think might be a good place to start.

I am all for streamling and eliminating waste, but when I followed the link posted I came to a dead end, I just hope it is,nt about a quiet adjenda to
slash and burn and compremise safety and expedience.

I want to look further when I have time does any one know where further info might be available namely where specific agenda is shown. Lets all make sure they do this right and submit our input,
I'm gonna.