Does NavCanada threaten us with higher user fees?

[pelmet]

Are they really that bad? According to what AOPA was saying in the past they are. Why has AOPA been publishing negative stuff about the privatized system in Canada?? Because they are fighting ATC privatization in the U.S. and were eager to paint a bad situation in Canada.

But...I am reading a COPA magazine and the COPA president(Gervais) said that AOPA was making statements without actually contacting COPA. To quote...

"AOPA was monitoring the issue with Canada and incorrectly reported that COPA and Canadian pilots in general were upset with the privatized system" and "Gervais spoke with senior AOPA officials and the published report was corrected and staff were told to stop pursuing the Canadian angle of the story"

This article made it sound like COPA and in their opinion, Canadian pilots in general are not dissatisfied with our privatized system. Possibly true.

But... in the very same magazine near the back, a story by someone else giving an update for the BC/Yukon region stated this....

"The other concern is the incessant issue of notams on the Vancouver class-C airspace. It seems to happen every weekend and sometimes during the week. From what I understand, this is not unique to Vancouver. I have heard from other COPA directors about similar complaints about restricting general aviation and particularly VFR operations.
NavCanada's mandate is to provide air navigation services to all aviation and not just the big airlines. This is not new and COPA has been involved with this issue for years but to no avail. It seems the dollar is the master and every time we say anything remotely critical of NavCanada, the standard, canned reply is: "Well , maybe you guys would like to pay a higher user fee?".

The class C issue sounds like something to complain about. Is AOPA being told about this issue with our privatized system. Is NavCanada
threatening higher user fees to prevent criticism of it in the U.S.?

I say to AOPA, publish this latter information to your people and politicians as it appears to be the reality.

[LifeAt90Kts]

Same thing happens in Winnipeg. Terminal on weekends is often NOTAM’d closed to VFR traffic. Due to staffing issues they say. We have to file something called a “Class C Intent” anytime we want to fly VFR in Winnipeg Terminal with at least 15 mins prior notice.

I really don’t mind privatization of former government services if only because I’ve worked for the federal government before and got absolutely sick of the layers of bureaucracy I had to dig through to order more pens.

That being said I don’t know any different, NavCanada has been providing ATC services for the entire length of my flying career.

Back to your original post though, yes I believe AOPA is grasping at straws that aren’t there mostly out of a fear of change. Really what they should be looking at is what went well with our privatized system and how to implement that, and what didn’t go well and how to avoid similar problems.

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

I was reading elsewhere that one main difference between the Canadian system and the proposed US system is that airlines do not have control of the system in Canada and that may be why it works to an extent. Can anyone comment on the US proposal? I can see that the airlines controlling ATC could really be an issue for GA. Kind of like putting road transportation , DOT etc in the hands of heavy haul truckers. Fox guarding the henhouse?

[ScottS]

I certainly don't want to advocate for higher user fees, but for our annual subscription cost I feel I get pretty high value for dollar given the complicated system, amount of technology and maintenance, and the number of people that need to get paid at NavCanada. Especially service in the FIC. Others that live in more remote areas may disagree. Commercial traffic is certainly paying a lions share of the cost of operating NavCanada.

The standard NOTAM for YVR Terminal is now worded more to the effect of delays and alternative routing. I haven't been denied entry, but I also can't roll in expecting direct routing as requested every time. I have had some re-routing that has seemed awkwardly out of the way, but when it comes down to it, it only added 0.1 to the flight time. I am quite certain the commercial IFR traffic experiences delays, re-routes, and holds that add much more than than that for traffic separation.

The product is good, but its just one controller that I have had from time to time who has a snarky attitude. But I chalk that up to an individual problem rather than a NavCanada problem.

[fish4life]

Maybe they don't want to have to deal with a "Nav Canada" fee on every passenger ticket

[ansonchappell]

NAV CANADA is actually reducing fee: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Pages/NR-20-2017.aspx

[rookiepilot]

Same thing happens in Winnipeg. Terminal on weekends is often NOTAM’d closed to VFR traffic. Due to staffing issues they say. We have to file something called a “Class C Intent” anytime we want to fly VFR in Winnipeg Terminal with at least 15 mins prior notice.
.

Winnipeg? What do they think they are, DFW? That sounds truly....strange.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _in_Canada

Winnipeg. 100K annual AC movements, just ahead....of Waterloo.

Toronto. Pushing 500K. Although busy at times, I've Never have heard of YYZ terminal denying VFR service.

[photofly]

Toronto. Pushing 500K. Although busy at times, I've Never have heard of YYZ terminal denying VFR service.

You must be living in a different universe to me. Toronto routinely denies VFR service through the Toronto class C airspace. As we have discussed here many times before, they also routinely apply extra restrictions to VFR traffic receiving a RADAR service while using the class E airspace underneath.

[Married a Canadian]

You must be living in a different universe to me. Toronto routinely denies VFR service through the Toronto class C airspace. As we have discussed here many times before, they also routinely apply extra restrictions to VFR traffic receiving a RADAR service while using the class E airspace underneath.

I seem to recall the universe you live in also included some requested VFR altitudes in close proximity to YYZ that made no sense whatsoever to us controllers, and the restrictions that you might receive in Class E airspace have a purpose, whether you agree with them or not.

Oops sorry this is about higher user fees.

[rookiepilot]

Toronto. Pushing 500K. Although busy at times, I've Never have heard of YYZ terminal denying VFR service.

You must be living in a different universe to me. Toronto routinely denies VFR service through the Toronto class C airspace. As we have discussed here many times before, they also routinely apply extra restrictions to VFR traffic receiving a RADAR service while using the class E airspace underneath.

Must be your alternate universe. Unless something has changed extremely recently, I've never in my experience cleared along the lakeshore to, or by, YTZ at less than 2000, (above 1700 is in the class C, and often higher.

In all quadrants, whether actually admitted into the class C or just bordering it, I've never been refused service including flight following, traffic, and weather on occasion (although that would be when IFR and convection around).

Even if not admitted to the airspace, that is a far cry from what the Winnipeg scenario seems to be saying, and for sure a far different story than YVR, where the terminal response has been blunt: "Stay clear of terminal airspace, (and get off the freq -- meaning no service) So even just outside terminal, there is no RADAR service. In an extremely congested GA area. Fun stuff.

In a busy traffic environment, YYZ terminals approach not only supports training efforts, its safer for all participants, in my view. I gladly accept the restrictions, even with an occasional firm tone, (sometimes deserved) to maintain VFR service. Maybe it's staffing, (I think YVR terminal needs more freq's from my brief exposure there), but YYZ does a good job with a demanding traffic mix.

My beef if I was flying in say YVR, having restrictions because some staff decided it's too nice a Vancouver day not to hang out at Kits beach. Or so the scuttlebutt is there.

[skymarc]

NavCanada fees are too high to start with thats why they are refunding money.

Fly anything over 3mt or a jet and the fees are ridiculously high in Canada thats why the US aviation groups are worried.

Dont forget that the fuel taxes was never removed after the privatization and its actually up in Ontario.

NAV CANADA is actually reducing fee: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Pages/NR-20-2017.aspx

[photofly]

Must be your alternate universe. Unless something has changed extremely recently, I've never in my experience cleared along the lakeshore to, or by, YTZ at less than 2000, (above 1700 is in the class C, and often higher.

2000 is normal. The downside is a restriction from climbing to 2500 or 3500 until many miles west of the points where the floor of the Class C rises. I have never been cleared to fly higher than 2000 in this sector. It must be your silky radio voice that does it for you.

In all quadrants, whether actually admitted into the class C or just bordering it, I've never been refused service including flight following, traffic, and weather on occasion (although that would be when IFR and convection around).

Nor has anyone suggested that you have been refused service. But being offered a RADAR service in class E (I'm not going to let you weasel about how it's "just bordering class C") isn't the point.

Coming over Buttonville from the north west - terminal routinely instructs a descent to 2000 long before the class C floor is 2500 - sometimes where the class C floor is still 3500. Coming or going from the east, towards Oshawa - the same early restrictions are applied. One does not get to enter the Class C at all coming or going in those directions.

Coming eastbound along the lakeshore towards YTZ - 2000 is the instructed ceiling long before the Class descends that low. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times in seven years that I've transited VFR in the Toronto TCA, other than the 2000' segment along the lakeshore.

Even if not admitted to the airspace, that is a far cry from what the Winnipeg scenario seems to be saying, and for sure a far different story than YVR, where the terminal response has been blunt: "Stay clear of terminal airspace, (and get off the freq -- meaning no service) So even just outside terminal, there is no RADAR service. In an extremely congested GA area. Fun stuff.

Toronto has two desks - Satellites East and Satellites West that provide a RADAR service in the Class E airspace. They do it well, and I'm grateful for it. There are good reasons why VFR traffic doesn't enter the TCA, and we all accept them. But it's inaccurate to give the impression that Toronto Class C airspace is wide open for VFR transit.

I seem to recall the universe you live in also included some requested VFR altitudes in close proximity to YYZ that made no sense whatsoever to us controllers

I don't actually *ask* for anything that isn't Class E airspace. If the Class E airspace structure doesn't make sense from an operational point of view, your organization is the one that can change it. Don't you find it odd that I can not opt for a RADAR service and fly happily and legally through great swathes of airspace you won't let me enter?

and the restrictions that you might receive in Class E airspace have a purpose, whether you agree with them or not.

That's not in question. Nobody thinks you're restricting traffic for anything other than valid operational reasons. (You’d agree the same applies for your colleagues in Vancouver and Winnipeg, too, wouldn’t you?)

Nor do I have to agree, or disagree, I simply have to follow your instructions, which I do. But I'm also not going to pretend here the restrictions don't exist.

Oops sorry this is about higher user fees.

I'm looking forward to my $4 rebate and the $0.28 reduction in annual fees.

[rookiepilot]

No, PF. I would expect no Class C, And no Class B in the US, is ever "wide open" for VFR traffic. It's not feasible. But my point is, we are given RADAR service by Terminal that is valuable, which is far more than can be said by Vancouver, or apparently Winnipeg.

Even busy US airspace, I don't know an approach controller that has refused to provide service, even if admittance to the class B isn't happening.

I do take your point about the early descents and late climbs, as valid. Depending on how Pearson is landing, it can be more or less strict from my experience.

[photofly]

I’m still not understanding how GA around Vancouver is being done so badly by, compared to YYZ:

The standard NOTAM for YVR Terminal is now worded more to the effect of delays and alternative routing. I haven't been denied entry, but I also can't roll in expecting direct routing as requested every time.

No VFR traffic would *ever* expect anything other than alternative routing around Toronto, there’s no bloody point NOTAMing it.

Terminal on weekends is often NOTAM’d closed to VFR traffic. Due to staffing issues they say. We have to file something called a “Class C Intent” anytime we want to fly VFR in Winnipeg Terminal with at least 15 mins prior notice.

Closed at weekends? 15 minutes notice? Boo hoo! Come to Toronto and stay out of Class C more or less all the time.

What am I missing?

(And please note, I am *not* complaining about Toronto service!)

[rookiepilot]

I’m still not understanding how GA around Vancouver is being done so badly by, compared to YYZ:

The standard NOTAM for YVR Terminal is now worded more to the effect of delays and alternative routing. I haven't been denied entry, but I also can't roll in expecting direct routing as requested every time.

No VFR traffic would *ever* expect anything other than alternative routing around Toronto, there’s no bloody point NOTAMing it. What am I missing?

(And please note, I am *not* complaining about Toronto service!)

When I was in YVR a few years ago, and wanted service (meaning traffic, or even a recommended routing, not being that familiar, and crossing a prime training area ) to transit Abbotsford to Pitt meadows (staying outside the class C) the response was, even though they could clearly see and hear me, was a curt "stay clear of the airspace". That's it, in an extremely busy terminal area below the floor of the class C, like where we get service in YYZ.

The prior flight there....no problem. So not always. But no assurance of ANY service. Take a look at the airspace. This isn't North of Sudbury "call me back in 100 miles -- sure". This is a Really hectic and compressed area.

I'm told this is so common as to be the norm. Again, unless that's improved recently.

[photofly]

Ok, a RADAR service is nice, and vectors for unfamiliar pilots is icing, and Toronto is very good at both those things. But if you’re not cleared into a Class C airspace does it matter whether you’re restricted by an instruction to “remain clear” or vectors, an altitude restriction and a smile? Really?

[rookiepilot]

Ok, a RADAR service is nice, and vectors for unfamiliar pilots is icing, and Toronto is very good at both those things. But if you’re not cleared into a Class C airspace does it matter whether you’re restricted by an instruction to “remain clear” or vectors, an altitude restriction and a smile? Really?

Before any trolls appear, no, traffic advisories / resolutions as YYZ provides, are not to be relied on for collision avoidance-- but they do help reduce workload. Let's clear that up. I look outside, all the time.

The other aspect, in a complex, unfamiliar airspace like YVR's with numerous floor changes, (and numerous obstacles!) is avoiding a violation, and service assists in avoiding this, too. Then one is choosing, head outside for traffic (awfully wise idea there) or inside on the chart, interpreting the boundaries on the fly. Remember there, mountains, ocean, US border on three sides, all very close together. And all the training areas, jammed together.

. It's just a workload issue. Of course it's possible to fly without service, but rather difficult crossing to Vancouver island, and still maintain gliding distance. In a sense, completely denying service can mean obeying the CARS there very challenging.

Toronto's airspace is simpler, and Winnipeg's, dead simple, without obstacles.

[photofly]

From a CARS point of view, you don’t need to maintain gliding distance. Just carry life preservers, they’re $70/seat.

If we care about regulations, Toronto’s altitude restrictions can make it very difficult to be able to land without hazard to persons or property on the surface. So what? We all just suck it up.

I’m still not feeling the pity for brethren out west.

[rookiepilot]

From a CARS point of view, you don’t need to maintain gliding distance. Just carry life preservers, they’re $70/seat.

If we care about regulations, Toronto’s altitude restrictions can make it very difficult to be able to land without hazard to persons or property on the surface. So what? We all just suck it up.

I’m still not feeling the pity for brethren out west.

Understand. It's just more stressful, additional risk from what I observed.

To defend toronto, I think Pearsons operations must govern, and vertical separation requirements. I'm not sure they could expand the class C due to buttonville, Burlington. But that's over my pay grade.

[photofly]

To defend toronto, I think Pearsons operations must govern, and vertical separation requirements. I'm not sure they could expand the class C due to buttonville, Burlington. But that's over my pay grade.

Are you so sure that the restrictions at YVR *aren’t* justified that your dig about staff going to Kits beach is valid?