Nav Canada to Hike Service Fees by 30%

[rigpiggy]

Saying Nav Canada is a terrible product is simply not true. I’m not saying we’re perfect but it’s definitely not terrible.

I agree. Every country's ATC has its own idiosyncrasies but calling it "terrible" is over the top....

. I truly believe that if you took one controller from New York centre, Chicago’s LA they could run all the YYZ sectors simultaneously and do a better job of it.

I always said, if they could clone "E-Rog"(michel) you could run canada on about 32 of him

[Braun]

I agree. Every country's ATC has its own idiosyncrasies but calling it "terrible" is over the top....

. I truly believe that if you took one controller from New York centre, Chicago’s LA they could run all the YYZ sectors simultaneously and do a better job of it.

I always said, if they could clone "E-Rog"(michel) you could run canada on about 32 of him

Having worked a couple years with Rog his reputation was a lot bigger than what he actually could do as a controller. I’m glad you enjoyed the services he offered but there are a ton of just as efficient approach controllers. I won’t get into it more than that but the perception of efficiency from a flight crew isn’t always the correct way to measure efficiency.

[GoHomeLeg]

I always felt the problems with the efficiency of YYZ is the lack of parallel taxiways between 24/06L/R. You can only land and takeoff so many aircraft before the high speeds exits are full. Unlike large airports in the US were you have parallel taxiways between two runways, you can fill that taxiway up with arriving aircraft and position them at hold short points along the take runaway while launching a half dozen aircraft followed by clearing arriving aircraft to cross while still accepting landing aircraft. Poor disign of YYZ layout.

[altiplano]

SFO runs close parallel with no middle taxiways. plus intersecting departures.

Yeah, in bad weather movements go down, but when it's running like it does 98% of the time they are moving a lot of aircraft with 1 tower controller and 1 ground controller.

Some navcanada controller on here will tell us there's a special reason why we can't move traffic like that in a place like YYZ and that's fine, but I think it's strange, more runways, more real estate, more controllers and we do less. Noise abatement is probably a big problem... ridiculous STARs, excessive vectoring workload, published altitudes that often can't be made with the decent profile you get left on, what's the point even putting them in there?

[thenoflyzone]

I always said, if they could clone "E-Rog"(michel) you could run canada on about 32 of him

I'll take that as a compliment, considering I had him as an instructor in my old unit. He's the one who did my checkride. I still have some of his bad habits. Well, the big one, really........ So much so, that pilots used to think I was him !

I always felt the problems with the efficiency of YYZ is the lack of parallel taxiways between 24/06L/R. You can only land and takeoff so many aircraft before the high speeds exits are full. Unlike large airports in the US were you have parallel taxiways between two runways, you can fill that taxiway up with arriving aircraft and position them at hold short points along the take runaway while launching a half dozen aircraft followed by clearing arriving aircraft to cross while still accepting landing aircraft. Poor disign of YYZ layout.

Up until 2008, LAX didn't have a parallel taxiway between the 25s. They still don't have any between the 24's either.

Having that 3rd parallel runway at YYZ is still better than not having it, even with no taxiway between the 24s. Could be there is not enough room to build a taxiway.

SFO runs close parallel with no middle taxiways. plus intersecting departures.

SFO is a disaster waiting to happen. Don't use that airport as an example for anything. That being said, they have new FAA safety measures in place (runway status lights, runway entrance lights, etc), things that we don't have here in Canada yet, to make sure that disaster doesn't happen anytime soon.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl/pet/

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Nav Can is not the only ATC corporation running into trouble

https://www.turningleftforless.com/the- ... t-survive/

[altiplano]

SFO runs close parallel with no middle taxiways. plus intersecting departures.

SFO is a disaster waiting to happen. Don't use that airport as an example for anything. That being said, they have new FAA safety measures in place (runway status lights, runway entrance lights, etc), things that we don't have here in Canada yet, to make sure that disaster doesn't happen anytime soon.

Some navcanada controller on here will tell us there's a special reason why we can't move traffic like that

LOL... Exactly.

[thenoflyzone]

SFO runs close parallel with no middle taxiways. plus intersecting departures.

Yeah, in bad weather movements go down, but when it's running like it does 98% of the time they are moving a lot of aircraft with 1 tower controller and 1 ground controller.

You said it. When it's running like that. When it isn't - and it happens more often than you think - SFO is a gong show.

Some navcanada controller on here will tell us there's a special reason why we can't move traffic like that in a place like YYZ and that's fine, but I think it's strange, more runways, more real estate, more controllers and we do less. Noise abatement is probably a big problem... ridiculous STARs, excessive vectoring workload, published altitudes that often can't be made with the decent profile you get left on, what's the point even putting them in there?

You need to get your facts straight.

You do realize that YYZ has a higher AAR (airport arrival rate) in VMC than SFO does right? Up to 66 arrivals/hour at YYZ vs 54 for SFO. And SFO needs to use all 4 runways to achieve that rate. YYZ only needs to use the 3 parallels. And you're dreaming if you think 1 air controller is working those 4 runways at SFO when they are pushing 54 arrivals/hour.

Not to mention as soon as a single cloud pops over SFO, GDP's start running all the way to the east coast. Look at those abysmal AAR as soon as they can't do sideby visuals on the 28s. YYZ has a much more balanced AAR rate no matter the weather.

https://extranetapps.navcanada.ca/ois/A ... ?icao=CYYZ

https://www.fly.faa.gov/Information/wes ... fo_aar.htm

SFO approach controller routine is probably to step into work, and before reading any briefings, pray to God they can do visuals on the 28s that day !

Anyways, aren't you an AC pilot? You and you're company, if anyone, shouldn't be commenting on SFO, what with your recent mishaps that have happened there.....

[altiplano]

So defensive!

This isn't a shot at you, but you're going to take a shot at me for something that I had nothing to do with?

This was a comment about moving traffic on close parallels, it's not a shot at you. The Canadian setup is goofy, maybe you don't see it that way but from the STARs to the excessive vectoring to the noise restrictions it's not as efficient.

Yeah I said 98% of the time. Maybe it's 95%, Either way that's how it usually runs. I acknowledged when weather is down it doesn't go like that.

And yeah it's 1 tower controller. No dreaming. And SFO will only be arriving on 2 runways and departing on the intersecting except the occasional heavy.

What's the YYZ arrival rate when they don't open both 6's/24's? How many tower & ground controllers for 66 arrivals/hour?

[thenoflyzone]

So defensive!

This isn't a shot at you, but you're going to take a shot at me for something that I had nothing to do with?

This was a comment about moving traffic on close parallels, it's not a shot at you. The Canadian setup is goofy, maybe you don't see it that way but from the STARs to the excessive vectoring to the noise restrictions it's not as efficient.

Yeah I said 98% of the time. Maybe it's 95%, Either way that's how it usually runs. I acknowledged when weather is down it doesn't go like that.

And yeah it's 1 tower controller. No dreaming. And SFO will only be arriving on 2 runways and departing on the intersecting except the occasional heavy.

What's the YYZ arrival rate when they don't open both 6's/24's? How many tower & ground controllers for 66 arrivals/hour?

Hang on a second. YYZ can handle more movements/hour, and needs 1 less runway to do it, and yet it's the one with a goofy setup? Ok boss.

As for the AAR's in YYZ without the 24's, it's still higher than SFO's without the visuals on the 28s.

it doesn't matter if they only have 1 air controller. if anything, the fact they only have 1 should scare you. it's not something other airports should emulate. It's safe, orderly and then expeditious. Not the other way around. I can tell you from personal experience that a single controller working 3 runways (with 1 being a crossing runway), is dangerous when movements are as high as 54 arrivals/hour. Let's not even begin to talk about 4 runways with 1 controller. It all comes back to my original point. Don't use SFO as an example. It's a dangerous place.

And btw, it is a shot a me - and all Nav Canadians in fact- even though I dont work at YYZ. You are under the impression that Canadian controllers can't move as much metal as American ones. I find that offensive, especially when it's false, and that you base it off your anecdotal experience at SFO of all places. I gave your hard numbers and facts that prove YYZ can move more metal. So what if they use 2 air/ground controllers to do it. Who knows, if SFO had that second air and ground controllers, maybe they could to, in a much safer manner.

[wordstwice]

The vast majority of us appreciate and respect the work of ATC everywhere. Most of us realize we don’t have a clue about airspace optimization or ATFM and therefore leave it to the experts.

I’ve been based in YYZ and never had an issue coming or going. I definitely scratch my head at a few things but, again, I’m not an ATS expert so I just shrug my shoulders and worry about my own job. I’ve also flown into all the airports mentioned and, again, no issues. Every place has its quirks for various reasons and that’s just the way it is.


This thread was a positive discussion until a few made It personal by comparing US controllers to Canadians and demeaning their skill level. All that did was show their ignorance so don’t give it anymore attention than it deserves.

[altiplano]

So defensive!

This isn't a shot at you, but you're going to take a shot at me for something that I had nothing to do with?

This was a comment about moving traffic on close parallels, it's not a shot at you. The Canadian setup is goofy, maybe you don't see it that way but from the STARs to the excessive vectoring to the noise restrictions it's not as efficient.

Yeah I said 98% of the time. Maybe it's 95%, Either way that's how it usually runs. I acknowledged when weather is down it doesn't go like that.

And yeah it's 1 tower controller. No dreaming. And SFO will only be arriving on 2 runways and departing on the intersecting except the occasional heavy.

What's the YYZ arrival rate when they don't open both 6's/24's? How many tower & ground controllers for 66 arrivals/hour?

Hang on a second. YYZ can handle more movements/hour, and needs 1 less runway to do it, and yet it's the one with a goofy setup? Ok boss.

As for the AAR's in YYZ without the 24's, it's still higher than SFO's without the visuals on the 28s.

it doesn't matter if they only have 1 air controller. if anything, the fact they only have 1 should scare you. it's not something other airports should emulate. It's safe, orderly and then expeditious. Not the other way around. I can tell you from personal experience that a single controller working 3 runways (with 1 being a crossing runway), is dangerous when movements are as high as 54 arrivals/hour. Let's not even begin to talk about 4 runways with 1 controller. It all comes back to my original point. Don't use SFO as an example. It's a dangerous place.

And btw, it is a shot a me - and all Nav Canadians in fact- even though I dont work at YYZ. You are under the impression that Canadian controllers can't move as much metal as American ones. I find that offensive, especially when it's false, and that you base it off your anecdotal experience at SFO of all places. I gave your hard numbers and facts that prove YYZ can move more metal. So what if they use 2 air/ground controllers to do it. Who knows, if SFO had that second air and ground controllers, maybe they could to, in a much safer manner.

You're missing the point, I was responding to a comment about close parallel ops, not bashing you.

If you can't see how there are some positives in other systems without taking it personally that's your problem. Have a good one.

[thenoflyzone]

If you can't see how there are some positives in other systems without taking it personally that's your problem. Have a good one.

You weren't illustrating the positives in other systems. You illustrated SFO, another airport with no taxiway between its parallels, and you basically said to YYZ "Here you go, why don't you run it like they do !".

Fully aware of the dangers of closely spaced parallel runways with no taxiway in between, particularly the south complex at YYZ. The Canadian TSB has had it's eye on the south complex for 10 years now. Way too many incidents. They have even conducted a safety issue investigation specifically for that complex. The report came out a year ago.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inve ... O0038.html

As far as busy commercial airports go, the crappiest airport layout in Canada is probably that south complex at YYZ. Just like the crappiest layout in the States is most likely SFO.

[FenderManDan]

I have an idea! Start the Av Canada ATC services company. Now there is competition for you

[altiplano]

If you can't see how there are some positives in other systems without taking it personally that's your problem. Have a good one.

You weren't illustrating the positives in other systems. You illustrated SFO, another airport with no taxiway between its parallels, and you basically said to YYZ "Here you go, why don't you run it like they do !".

Fully aware of the dangers of closely spaced parallel runways with no taxiway in between, particularly the south complex at YYZ. The Canadian TSB has had it's eye on the south complex for 10 years now. Way too many incidents. They have even conducted a safety issue investigation specifically for that complex. The report came out a year ago.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inve ... O0038.html

As far as busy commercial airports go, the crappiest airport layout in Canada is probably that south complex at YYZ. Just like the crappiest layout in the States is most likely SFO.

The other commenter brought up YYZ and said US airports have a taxiway in the middle, I pointed out that SFO did not have that middle taxiway and still moves a reasonable amount of traffic when possible.

I pointed out other likely issues like our star designs, restrictive noise abatement, and other reasons.

I never pointed out any controller issues, rather I stated a that controller will surely point out why we can't move traffic like that on the south complex and "that's fine."..

That's it... you inferred whatever you wanted. They was no slight at you or your colleagues. Over sensitive.

Have a good one.

[fishface]

YYZ does not - I repeat - does NOT run 66 arrivals per hour. Even if they have the staffing, runway config and the right weather conditions.
That might be their theoretical max arrival rate, but they add a 10 aircraft per hour buffer - 56 AAR - and that is the actual best they can do... and even then they still impose APREQs and delay people.

[thenoflyzone]

YYZ does not - I repeat - does NOT run 66 arrivals per hour. Even if they have the staffing, runway config and the right weather conditions.
That might be their theoretical max arrival rate, but they add a 10 aircraft per hour buffer - 56 AAR - and that is the actual best they can do... and even then they still impose APREQs and delay people.

I guess you didn't notice the + sign next to 56-66 when tripling on 05/06s and 23/24s. Or the note that says "higher rate possible depending on aircraft mix, winds and weather".

https://extranetapps.navcanada.ca/ois/A ... ?icao=CYYZ

YYZ can go to 70 arrivals an hour if all conditions are right. Don't need to take my word for it. The document linked above proves it, and at least 1 YYZ TCU controller that lurks on this website has said so himself on the ATS question forum of this very website. So I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you are wrong - I repeat - you are wrong.

How is ATC an essential service if airlines are not?

That's not what I said. I named one particular destination (Cayo Coco) to illustrate that not all routes at an airline are essential. Not even close, actually.

Is Rouge flying non stop YUL-Bucharest or YYZ-Budapest essential service? Are all those non stop flights by AC and WS to Vegas essential? Is Sunwing flying Thunder Bay to Varadero essential service? I don't think so. It's in that context that I said what I said.

Yes, airlines are essential service, but not all routes they operate are, and the parked planes and layoffs prove it. Or else the government would have stepped in to intervene, to keep all these so called essential routes open.

ATC, on the other hand, is entirely essential service, in good times, and in bad. Whether I see 1000 movements a day across my airspace, or half that. Yes, staffing levels being as short as they are play in our favor, but just because a certain amount of pilots got laid off doesn't automatically mean the same proportion of ATC should get laid off. That's not the way it works, and the current context at AC/WS/TS/WG vs NavCan proves it.

Now I'm not saying there wont be any layoffs if traffic numbers stay as low as they are, but if it happens, it won't be nearly as many as you think. A decent amount of controllers retired in the last month, at least in my FIR. Like I said, we number only ~2,100 from coast to coast (probably less than 2,000 now, with all the retirements). That is not a lot compared to the ten thousand+ pilots across our country.

[fishface]

I am already very aware of the document you provided. Just because the document says it, doesn’t “prove” anything - and that was exactly my point: They NEVER go above 56, no matter how good the conditions are. Even on those good 56 rate days, they still implement delays.

[thenoflyzone]

I am already very aware of the document you provided. Just because the document says it, doesn’t “prove” anything - and that was exactly my point: They NEVER go above 56, no matter how good the conditions are. Even on those good 56 rate days, they still implement delays.

Just because the posted rate on the OIS page is often limited at 56 for YYZ doesn't mean they can't handle more. THAT's my point. If the rate is 56 and 64 show up for that particular hour, if the conditions are right, they can land all 64.

The posted rate on the OIS page for YUL rarely goes up above 36. And yet, it's not uncommon to see 40+ show up between 5 or 6 pm during the busy summer season. If the right conditions are there, all 40+ will land in that hour.

That's the "buffer" you're talking about. Set the rate slightly low, so that if more show up (which happens often, as flow control isn't an exact science), they can still land. Not the other way around.

[fishface]

That Mickey Mouse stuff is not how it’s supposed to be done though. I suggest NavCan go on a field trip to Virginia for a traffic management refresher course.
TMU East houses some of the most unprofessional and incompetent people as far as day-to-day operations go and I’d wager that I’m not the only one with that opinion.