Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?

[rookiepilot]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

[Braun]

COPA’s new president works for Nav Canada. Maybe a nice email or letter would be a good idea if you feel there is a problem!

[photofly]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

you could have got a clearance before you departed...?

[rookiepilot]

Here's another anecdote that has never happened to me flying around NYC, DC, Miami, all of which have a ton of traffic, I found curious....

I filed an IFR flight plan, Pitt meadows to Everett, to visit the Boeing plant (highly recommend). I always file IFR crossing the border, it ensures the flight plan is transferred...anyway.

Tower instruction was: "Climb to 3000' overhead the airport --might have been higher-- and wait for your clearance, we'll get back to you" 15 minutes of orbiting later -- I'm assuming with traffic my responsibility during that time? -- -- I get my clearance and handed off to terminal.

Different.

you could have got a clearance before you departed...?

Wouldn't give it to me, if I'm remembering correctly. I believe they wanted me to take off VFR and orbit, maybe so they wouldn't have to hold the airspace during the time it took me to take off?

Weather was Cavok, NP, but I was responsible for my own traffic separation.

[photofly]

I don’t see that ATC can entirely refuse you a clearance for a flight plan you filed. You might have to wait a bit, but you ended up doing that in the air instead of on the ground, anyway.

[stabilizedapproach]

How is getting a tower controller in Langley to give you flight following practical? The zone is 3 miles, by the time you get a word in edgewise you're long gone. VFR traffic is allowed in class C terminal airspace, it says so right in the AIM. I get tired of this VFR frowned upon in Vancouver terminal airpspace, Why when I fly from YYJ to YKA I never have trouble getting service from terminal, but the other way it's usually a problem? I guess because I'm already in class C out of YYJ? Wouldn't more controllers help? If you look at some of the other forums on AV Canada there is a whole long list of people trying to get in at Nav Canada including myself, ive been trying for 5 years. How do busier airspaces handle more traffic? In the end it comes down to simply more "traffic" whether it's VFR or IFR. I just don't get the difference if I'm flying VFR from A to B or IFR A to B on a clear day why I get shoo'd away VFR but the controllers make it work if I'm IFR, I'm still the same aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same speed.

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit. Langley's zone is actually 6 miles from edge to edge (3 mi is radius) and in my little 152, it'll take a few minutes to cross overhead and plenty of time for me to get a word in. I don't understand why VFR units handling VFR traffic is such an issue here. Everyone has a job to do in the system; that's why controllers are split between IFR and VFR. Just because you're VFR and feel the need to talk to an IFR unit doesn't mean they have to entertain you... if I know I'm going to be too busy to provide you any meaningful kind of service, I'd rather not talk to you either unless you're about to enter my airspace.

VFR traffic is allowed in Class C airspace and I'm not going to argue that it's in the AIM, but what the AIM might not say is that controllers are allowed to restrict to a level that they can safely manage. This does not only apply to the terminal Class C, but also any control zone. If I can't handle you, you will be instructed to wait outside until I can and that's the way it's going to be because I'm not about to be a hero and take on more than I can handle just to make pilots happy with me. My job is to always be self-aware of my own workload and keep planes separated from each other. That trumps any kind of other service I can provide.

I don't know what routing you take from YJ to KA, but people need to stop comparing terminals. Comparing Victoria and Vancouver Terminal is literally comparing apples to oranges - they're not the same, the work they do is not the same, the complexity is different, the traffic mix is different. The same goes for comparing the service Vancouver vs. Toronto can provide - just because it works in Toronto doesn't mean it will work in Vancouver because of a myriad of factors.

Whether you are IFR or VFR, nothing ever happens quick with smaller planes. You will invariably descend a lot slower, climb a lot slower, actually be a lot slower... and all without consistency in aircraft performances either. If you file IFR to fly in your 172 (or whatever you fly), IFR controllers can make it work all the time because you are exactly the client they serve. They will ensure you are given proper IFR separation because that is their job - even if you are causing all sorts of headaches for spacing and sequencing. If you are VFR, the only goal of an IFR controller is to keep VFR away from IFR aircraft. You might not understand how you could possibly conflict with a 777 60 miles away from the edge of terminal airspace, but our tools are pretty good and we can predict with some degree of accuracy that you and the 777 will co-locate if you got what you wanted. I hope you will understand one day why terminal Class C restrictions are necessary when you are plugged into position and working the traffic.

On that, I digress momentarily here: It's clear to me that you want to be a controller, so I understand it's frustrating spending 5 years trying to make it through the process. It's been well reported that new candidates are constantly being added to the list and the company calls back only the top candidates for further. It's so easy to say "STAFF THE UNITS" as if training doesn't cost the company much, but it is approximately $1M to train a single IFR controller, and not everyone makes it through so each IFR qualification actually costs millions. Unfortunately, CT is a harsh reality if standards aren't met but as controllers, we wouldn't want standards lowered to increase staff count; we need to have unwavering trust that the controller next to us is able to do their job properly and has my back when I need it. As a pilot, you probably don't want to hear someone who doesn't have what it takes controlling you either. This has nothing to do with "OT protection" garbage that I've seen floating around this forum. The more people who qualify in my unit means that a) in the short term, I get more leave picks approved, I get to go enjoy my life and the workload is spread thinner amongst us, and b) in the long term, I get to transfer out of my unit and go somewhere else.

The point I truly want to impart is this: whether you believe it or not, controllers are not out to screw pilots. We don't wake up in the morning thinking how we can make life hard for pilots because that just makes life harder for us, and so if you are hit with a restriction or be told to remain clear, we aren't doing it to flex our authority or to be "lazy" as some have suggested. You may not realize it, but maybe being told to remain clear was the safest thing I could've done for you today.

COPA’s new president works for Nav Canada. Maybe a nice email or letter would be a good idea if you feel there is a problem!

That's an idea! If this issue is such a point of contention for many, there are avenues in which you can have your voice heard. I encourage anyone passionate enough about making Vancouver airspace work better for pilots to join the BCGA and find out how you can get involved with having the future needs of GA met. I heard they're stakeholders in the airspace modernization project, so their voices are heard by those who can make changes. This forum is great to air your grievances but it's akin to screaming into a black hole and achieves no changes whatsoever.

[photofly]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

[rookiepilot]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

Yeah, I'm really confused, too.

[AirFrame]

Here's a scenario for you: Three airplanes in close proximity are transiting overhead a control zone (quite often the case in the Mainland). One calls terminal, one calls the tower, and one calls no one at all. Does having three airplanes on three different frequencies in a one mile radius sound safe to you? If terminal starts taking whoever calls them, we will run into that situation. As a controller, if I am talking to a majority of those airplanes, I can help you achieve separation, but I'm handcuffed if I'm not talking to most of them. Locally, it's almost an unspoken rule now that airplanes transiting the Langley zone overhead will be at least listening to that frequency even without a check-in.

You won't talk to terminal for more than a few seconds before you're either accepted up into their airspace (in which case, keep talking to them, climb up, and you're out of the uncontrolled region anyway), or you're told to PFO and you're only left with "call langley" or "monitor/go nordo" as options anyway. Terminal won't do anything for you if you're not in their airspace, and they don't usually allow you in anyway.

Second, if it's a serious concern regarding the amount of traffic in that circle and the fact that it's a designated route to/from the south suicide area (ah, I mean, south *practise* area), then the real solution is for it to be positively controlled by someone, with no class E region at all. Sadly, that's the direction all airspace in the lower mainland is headed.

I agree there's an "unwritten rule" there -- but because it's unwritten, nobody knows what the "rule" is. I've heard it said that (1) YNJ doesn't want to hear from you, (2) that they don't expect you to be on their frequency, (3) that they do want to hear from you, (4) that they want you to be monitoring but not for you to call in, etc. I suspect all of these are true at times, depending on how busy YNJ is.

[ahramin]

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit.

Forgive me but I thought you spoke to the joint VFR/IFR controller for the airspace you were in? Does BC have separate desks for IFR and VFR in the same airspace?

Yeah, I'm really confused, too.

The confusion is justifiable. I think what we have here is a VFR controller talking way outside of their specialty.

You can't always "staff" a problem away. Having more cooks in the kitchen doesn't necessarily make the food taste any better.

ATC units aren't kitchens. "Due to reduced system capacity" sure sounds like a staffing problem to me. Specifically YVR TML missing ~17 trained controllers. What else is reducing the capacity from normal?

there is only so much fixing NAV Canada can do to allow GA and heavier commercial traffic to co-exist in a very confined area. There are efforts underway to try and make the airspace better for everyone though, but to see any results would be years down the road.

No one is stating that NavCanada needs to move mountains. For a start NavCanada needs to get their staffing levels up to where NavCanada itself has said they need to be. That's a long way from moving mountains. No one is asking for a miracle way to have a slow small plane transit where a big fast plane needs to be so there's no point making excuses and claiming it cannot be done. I've attended briefings on the "efforts" underway and they are a shambolic gong show. Controllers claiming that aircraft on an RNP approach are "locked in" to that approach and cannot maneuver for traffic. Also claiming that they need 1000' separation between VFR and IFR traffic. It's a mess and the excuse that there are mountains around simply isn't good enough.

For example this is exactly the type of garbage I hear during those briefings:

YNJ happens to be on a long final to YVR - perfectly in line if you look on the VTA and when the 26's are active, planes could be given vectors and descents to join final right over YNJ. The approach controller is most interested in giving airplanes a stabilized approach, and me in my flight school's 152 is most interested in not getting flipped over by the wake of an A380 overhead.

YNJ is 21 nm away from the YVR thresholds. A normal approach puts you at 5000 to 7000 feet in an airliner, but this is used as a reason for keeping traffic at 2500' and below? An A380 is big, but it isn't magic and can't flip over a C150 4000 feet below it.

I’m not a commercial pilot but as I understand it, airliners like to be established on a straight line to the ground. If approach is running their airplanes overhead and they won’t let you climb because it’s unsafe, what do you want them to tell you?

I am a commercial pilot and your understanding is wrong. In heavy jets ideally the last 6-9 miles are straight, 3-9 for medium jets. Beyond that we couldn't care less. At 21 miles any controller who thinks that climbing above 2500' is unsafe needs better training.

Why not let VFR units work VFR traffic and IFR units work IFR traffic?

Have a look at the airspace classifications in Canada. The only airspace that excludes VFR flight is class A. YVR TML is not an "IFR" unit. YVR CTR below 18 000' is not an "IFR" unit. All of the control zones in BC and all of the class C airspace in BC is IFR and VFR airspace.

[ahramin]

I should also add to this thread that while I have occasionally had spectacularly dangerous and poor service from many towers and terminal units in BC, 95% of the time I get excellent service from all controllers in BC, particularly YVR & YYJ TML. If this is not your experience, consider that it may be partially your fault. I have found the following helps:

1. Standard Phraseology. Know it and use it.
2. Keep it short. If the controller says "squawk ident" on initial contact, no need to give your location. Know what you need to say and say it.
3. Bring your A game. Know where you are and be familiar with the airspace and procedures in your area. Be able to hold altitude and navigate to where the controller wants you to go.
4. Have your aircraft in fettle. Pitot/static checks done as required by the CARs including the transponder and encoder. Radio clear, mike muff on your headset, ANR headset if you fly a noisy plane.
5. Be pushy. You are the PIC in command of an airplane, ATC is your service provider. Insist on that service. I don't know how many times I've gone across the water at 4500' listening to other aircraft being held down at 2500'. If you accept 2500', they'll leave you there. If you refuse it, they'll give you higher.

[rookiepilot]

I should also add to this thread that while I have occasionally had spectacularly dangerous and poor service from many towers and terminal units in BC, 95% of the time I get excellent service from all controllers in BC, particularly YVR & YYJ TML. If this is not your experience, consider that it may be partially your fault. I have found the following helps:

1. Standard Phraseology. Know it and use it.
2. Keep it short. If the controller says "squawk ident" on initial contact, no need to give your location. Know what you need to say and say it.
3. Bring your A game. Know where you are and be familiar with the airspace and procedures in your area. Be able to hold altitude and navigate to where the controller wants you to go.
4. Have your aircraft in fettle. Pitot/static checks done as required by the CARs including the transponder and encoder. Radio clear, mike muff on your headset, ANR headset if you fly a noisy plane.
5. Be pushy. You are the PIC in command of an airplane, ATC is your service provider. Insist on that service. I don't know how many times I've gone across the water at 4500' listening to other aircraft being held down at 2500'. If you accept 2500', they'll leave you there. If you refuse it, they'll give you higher.

This is excellent, except # 5 should never be required. Atc needs to accommodate safe procedures without pushing. In Ontario they don't routinely push us into thunderstorms, nor are we sent far over Lake Ontario.

English: it's not racist to say: if you cannot articulate clearly in the predominant language in use, you don't belong anywhere near class C airspace.
The place to practice is on the ground, not in the air.
I didn't start talking to yyz terminal when I learned until I was good and ready, my instructor enforced this.
Airspace isn't the place for ESL class.

[More-rudder!]

Excellent discussion, which I think just became elevated. Is NavCanada operating the Vancouver TCA de facto as Class B owing to staffing shortages?

[ahramin]

# 5 should never be required. Atc needs to accommodate safe procedures without pushing. In Ontario they don't routinely push us into thunderstorms, nor are we sent far over Lake Ontario.

English: it's not racist to say: if you cannot articulate clearly in the predominant language in use, you don't belong anywhere near class C airspace.
The place to practice is on the ground, not in the air.
I didn't start talking to yyz terminal when I learned until I was good and ready, my instructor enforced this.
Airspace isn't the place for ESL class.

Maybe pushy is the wrong word, but the point is not about the willingness of ATC to accommodate safe procedures. The YVR TML specialty is brutally understaffed, the airspace structure is a disaster, and the managers don't care. That's not the pilot's fault but it isn't the controller's fault either. My point is that we as pilots need to take charge of our flights rather than thinking that ATC is responsible for us. I have seen way too many pilots put their aircraft in an unsafe state following "instructions" from YCD Radio. They know it's not a tower, they know they are the PIC, but as soon as they hear something coming over a pair of earphones they somehow think that someone else is flying their plane for them.

[rookiepilot]

# 5 should never be required. Atc needs to accommodate safe procedures without pushing. In Ontario they don't routinely push us into thunderstorms, nor are we sent far over Lake Ontario.

English: it's not racist to say: if you cannot articulate clearly in the predominant language in use, you don't belong anywhere near class C airspace.
The place to practice is on the ground, not in the air.
I didn't start talking to yyz terminal when I learned until I was good and ready, my instructor enforced this.
Airspace isn't the place for ESL class.

Maybe pushy is the wrong word, but the point is not about the willingness of ATC to accommodate safe procedures. The YVR TML specialty is brutally understaffed, the airspace structure is a disaster, and the managers don't care. That's not the pilot's fault but it isn't the controller's fault either. My point is that we as pilots need to take charge of our flights rather than thinking that ATC is responsible for us. I have seen way too many pilots put their aircraft in an unsafe state following "instructions" from YCD Radio. They know it's not a tower, they know they are the PIC, but as soon as they hear something coming over a pair of earphones they somehow think that someone else is flying their plane for them.

+100.

[jakeandelwood]

how about this scenario: (and it happened to someone i know) there is a notam saying VFR traffic in Vancouver class C airspace MAY be denied. It's a nice clear day and you have to fly from YYJ to YVR to pick up the wife who just flew in from Mexico. you get your code and clearance in YYJ says no to VFR into YVR. so you shut down, file IFR and 5 minutes later call YYJ clearance back and your good to go. What magical thing just happened that made space for you? its sounds to me that ATC just made more work for themselves, now they have another plane they have to provide IFR separation to when before they didnt, maybe they hope you dont fly IFR and will just go away? if they can make space for you IFR why not VFR? i remember about 15 years ago ATC would say thank you when you cancelled IFR, makes sense, they dont have to provide the separation anymore.

[jakeandelwood]

How is getting a tower controller in Langley to give you flight following practical? The zone is 3 miles, by the time you get a word in edgewise you're long gone. VFR traffic is allowed in class C terminal airspace, it says so right in the AIM. I get tired of this VFR frowned upon in Vancouver terminal airpspace, Why when I fly from YYJ to YKA I never have trouble getting service from terminal, but the other way it's usually a problem? I guess because I'm already in class C out of YYJ? Wouldn't more controllers help? If you look at some of the other forums on AV Canada there is a whole long list of people trying to get in at Nav Canada including myself, ive been trying for 5 years. How do busier airspaces handle more traffic? In the end it comes down to simply more "traffic" whether it's VFR or IFR. I just don't get the difference if I'm flying VFR from A to B or IFR A to B on a clear day why I get shoo'd away VFR but the controllers make it work if I'm IFR, I'm still the same aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same speed.

I thought I was pretty clear before why having a VFR unit work VFR traffic is a better idea than trying to solicit service from an IFR unit. Langley's zone is actually 6 miles from edge to edge (3 mi is radius) and in my little 152, it'll take a few minutes to cross overhead and plenty of time for me to get a word in. I don't understand why VFR units handling VFR traffic is such an issue here. Everyone has a job to do in the system; that's why controllers are split between IFR and VFR. Just because you're VFR and feel the need to talk to an IFR unit doesn't mean they have to entertain you... if I know I'm going to be too busy to provide you any meaningful kind of service, I'd rather not talk to you either unless you're about to enter my airspace.

VFR traffic is allowed in Class C airspace and I'm not going to argue that it's in the AIM, but what the AIM might not say is that controllers are allowed to restrict to a level that they can safely manage. This does not only apply to the terminal Class C, but also any control zone. If I can't handle you, you will be instructed to wait outside until I can and that's the way it's going to be because I'm not about to be a hero and take on more than I can handle just to make pilots happy with me. My job is to always be self-aware of my own workload and keep planes separated from each other. That trumps any kind of other service I can provide.

I don't know what routing you take from YJ to KA, but people need to stop comparing terminals. Comparing Victoria and Vancouver Terminal is literally comparing apples to oranges - they're not the same, the work they do is not the same, the complexity is different, the traffic mix is different. The same goes for comparing the service Vancouver vs. Toronto can provide - just because it works in Toronto doesn't mean it will work in Vancouver because of a myriad of factors.

Whether you are IFR or VFR, nothing ever happens quick with smaller planes. You will invariably descend a lot slower, climb a lot slower, actually be a lot slower... and all without consistency in aircraft performances either. If you file IFR to fly in your 172 (or whatever you fly), IFR controllers can make it work all the time because you are exactly the client they serve. They will ensure you are given proper IFR separation because that is their job - even if you are causing all sorts of headaches for spacing and sequencing. If you are VFR, the only goal of an IFR controller is to keep VFR away from IFR aircraft. You might not understand how you could possibly conflict with a 777 60 miles away from the edge of terminal airspace, but our tools are pretty good and we can predict with some degree of accuracy that you and the 777 will co-locate if you got what you wanted. I hope you will understand one day why terminal Class C restrictions are necessary when you are plugged into position and working the traffic.

On that, I digress momentarily here: It's clear to me that you want to be a controller, so I understand it's frustrating spending 5 years trying to make it through the process. It's been well reported that new candidates are constantly being added to the list and the company calls back only the top candidates for further. It's so easy to say "STAFF THE UNITS" as if training doesn't cost the company much, but it is approximately $1M to train a single IFR controller, and not everyone makes it through so each IFR qualification actually costs millions. Unfortunately, CT is a harsh reality if standards aren't met but as controllers, we wouldn't want standards lowered to increase staff count; we need to have unwavering trust that the controller next to us is able to do their job properly and has my back when I need it. As a pilot, you probably don't want to hear someone who doesn't have what it takes controlling you either. This has nothing to do with "OT protection" garbage that I've seen floating around this forum. The more people who qualify in my unit means that a) in the short term, I get more leave picks approved, I get to go enjoy my life and the workload is spread thinner amongst us, and b) in the long term, I get to transfer out of my unit and go somewhere else.

The point I truly want to impart is this: whether you believe it or not, controllers are not out to screw pilots. We don't wake up in the morning thinking how we can make life hard for pilots because that just makes life harder for us, and so if you are hit with a restriction or be told to remain clear, we aren't doing it to flex our authority or to be "lazy" as some have suggested. You may not realize it, but maybe being told to remain clear was the safest thing I could've done for you today.

COPA’s new president works for Nav Canada. Maybe a nice email or letter would be a good idea if you feel there is a problem!

That's an idea! If this issue is such a point of contention for many, there are avenues in which you can have your voice heard. I encourage anyone passionate enough about making Vancouver airspace work better for pilots to join the BCGA and find out how you can get involved with having the future needs of GA met. I heard they're stakeholders in the airspace modernization project, so their voices are heard by those who can make changes. This forum is great to air your grievances but it's akin to screaming into a black hole and achieves no changes whatsoever.

i realize a slower plane will be an issue in an area full of faster planes but being VFR if the weather is good shouldnt be a problem should it? We can all fly vectors and change altitudes and speeds as best we can.

[stabilizedapproach]

I should also add to this thread that while I have occasionally had spectacularly dangerous and poor service from many towers and terminal units in BC, 95% of the time I get excellent service from all controllers in BC, particularly YVR & YYJ TML. If this is not your experience, consider that it may be partially your fault. I have found the following helps:

1. Standard Phraseology. Know it and use it.
2. Keep it short. If the controller says "squawk ident" on initial contact, no need to give your location. Know what you need to say and say it.
3. Bring your A game. Know where you are and be familiar with the airspace and procedures in your area. Be able to hold altitude and navigate to where the controller wants you to go.
4. Have your aircraft in fettle. Pitot/static checks done as required by the CARs including the transponder and encoder. Radio clear, mike muff on your headset, ANR headset if you fly a noisy plane.
5. Be pushy. You are the PIC in command of an airplane, ATC is your service provider. Insist on that service. I don't know how many times I've gone across the water at 4500' listening to other aircraft being held down at 2500'. If you accept 2500', they'll leave you there. If you refuse it, they'll give you higher.

This list is an excellent summary on pilot-ATC communication essentials. I wish all pilots understand how to smoothen their interaction with ATC. In-person unit tours allows us to address most of these interactions.

On point #5, aircraft are guaranteed 4500' crossing the water - says so right in the VTA and all terminal controllers know this. 4500’ is not always available right away due to heavier traffic overhead. If being kept at 2500' for the cross is unacceptable, it is within pilots' right to deny and advise the controller they will wait somewhere until 4500' becomes available. Sadly, I feel many don't bother because holding means more engine time and thereby more rental fees.

ATC is a particularly tight-knit community and we often chat between specialities to understand how things are done, so I'm confident in my knowledge. Most controllers are familiar with procedures outside of their airspace and part of training is to learn from adjacent units so we know what to expect from each other. I often find reading material for our trainees and ask questions to those who work exactly what we were talking about. I tried to lay out things short of explaining Terminal operations in detail and how VFR in terminal Class C can interfere, but it doesn’t not seem like explanations will satisfy the entire crowd. If I gave you the impression that I'm way over my head about something that I work with on a daily basis because I'm only a VFR controller, then I humbly apologize.

There is one separate VFR position in the Terminal but the terminal rightfully prioritizes opening IFR positions first because they are responsible for providing service to all IFR aircraft regardless of type and performance. When the VFR position is not separated, it is combined with another position in the Terminal. Controllers working Class C airspace must provide conflict resolution between IFR and VFR aircraft first and foremost, so if they cannot fulfill the obligation because of workload, they are entitled to implement restrictions. This is irrespective of the fact that VFR aircraft are allowed in Class C (we know they are), and no different than any controller working Class C airspace; if they cannot accept you, you are instructed to remain clear unless there is a good reason for them (i.e. emergencies, medevacs…) to give you priority. Workload could be present even if the frequency is quiet; lots happen behind the scenes that do not involve us being on the radio especially in the terminal. Task saturation and critical workload are not exclusive to piloting, and very much applies to ATC as well.

And the kitchen sink: Reduced system capacity could mean a variety of things, including staffing, equipment unserviceability, etc… You point out the terminal is short-staffed; that is no secret and widely known. Rookie offered the solution of "staff it", but I've outlined why staffing is such a difficult and costly endeavour, especially in the terminal even though the company is working on it. AirFrame suggested that (I hope I am interpreting this correctly) that overhead YNJ should be positively controlled as Class C so there is no ambiguity in whether they need to talk to ATC. I personally believe that stifles GA and could make it more dangerous because there would remain two thin corridors north and south of the YNJ zone in which pilots can transit without talking to ATC. Some pilots either don't want to talk to ATC, or airplanes are not equipped properly to fly through controlled airspace so there needs to be Class E airspace around. Jake said no VFR into YVR; that can sometimes be the case with VFR flow but has nothing to do with terminal Class C restrictions - not sure if a NOTAM comes up for that or if it’s internal; it's been a while since that's happened. The OP wonders whether Vancouver is de facto Class B - it is not because IFR and VFR aircraft (if cleared to enter) are both provided with conflict resolution and traffic information. Neither will receive these services in Class B.

Whether this post stirs up applause or uproar, this is the last one I will make on this topic because while I honestly believe dialogue is important, I feel the conversation is starting to drift into the realm of pilots vs. ATC and is making the working relationship sour. I recognize, like everyone else, that the system is not perfect and even with the upcoming airspace changes, those solutions won’t provide satisfaction for everyone either. The most important point I want to impart is this: this should not be a fight because no matter the limitations the system imposes, pilots and controllers are on the same team even if we may see things completely different. There must be a certain level of mutual understanding to make that "teamwork" work. If you need something, say something and we will try to accommodate. But trust that if we say no, it is most likely because of factors that prohibit us from granting your request right away. Ultimately, safety cannot ever be jeopardized - whether that comes as a loss of separation or a controller getting task-saturated - otherwise the ATC system has failed.

[rookiepilot]

I should also add to this thread that while I have occasionally had spectacularly dangerous and poor service from many towers and terminal units in BC, 95% of the time I get excellent service from all controllers in BC, particularly YVR & YYJ TML. If this is not your experience, consider that it may be partially your fault. I have found the following helps:

1. Standard Phraseology. Know it and use it.
2. Keep it short. If the controller says "squawk ident" on initial contact, no need to give your location. Know what you need to say and say it.
3. Bring your A game. Know where you are and be familiar with the airspace and procedures in your area. Be able to hold altitude and navigate to where the controller wants you to go.
4. Have your aircraft in fettle. Pitot/static checks done as required by the CARs including the transponder and encoder. Radio clear, mike muff on your headset, ANR headset if you fly a noisy plane.
5. Be pushy. You are the PIC in command of an airplane, ATC is your service provider. Insist on that service. I don't know how many times I've gone across the water at 4500' listening to other aircraft being held down at 2500'. If you accept 2500', they'll leave you there. If you refuse it, they'll give you higher.

On point #5, aircraft are guaranteed 4500' crossing the water - says so right in the VTA and all terminal controllers know this. 4500’ is not always available right away due to heavier traffic overhead. If being kept at 2500' for the cross is unacceptable, it is within pilots' right to deny and advise the controller they will wait somewhere until 4500' becomes available. Sadly, I feel many don't bother because holding means more engine time and thereby more rental fees.

Rental fees? Interesting...

So....you're saying all aircraft are proactively offered the opportunity to wait or change routing so that higher, guaranteed altitude is available?

This kind of help -- IS offered by other ATC facilities when a wait or course change is required. It's ATC's role to create safe solutions and offer them -- IMO...

Or is the onus on the low time PPL to argue for it and deny a clearance?

You're desiring that pilots and ATC are not communicating in a combative manner.

Seems to me Nav Canadas refusal to properly staff their facility puts the 2 sides in exactly that position.

Staff it properly. I'm personally not interested in any story how "it's too expensive".

Other facilities don't seem to have this issue, which clearly points to the management in your area.

[AirFrame]

On point #5, aircraft are guaranteed 4500' crossing the water - says so right in the VTA and all terminal controllers know this. 4500’ is not always available right away due to heavier traffic overhead. If being kept at 2500' for the cross is unacceptable, it is within pilots' right to deny and advise the controller they will wait somewhere until 4500' becomes available. Sadly, I feel many don't bother because holding means more engine time and thereby more rental fees.

Of course, the YVR terminal controllers know this, so the default response to VFR traffic is "stay away" until they get pushback. And as for it "saying so on the VTA", that just means they'll find a place for you at 4500'. It doesn't mean your route will be the one you flight planned. Expect to be routed well outside the YVR Terminal airspace, likely into YYJ Terminal where they have no problem accommodating VFR traffic across the water.

AirFrame suggested that (I hope I am interpreting this correctly) that overhead YNJ should be positively controlled as Class C so there is no ambiguity in whether they need to talk to ATC. I personally believe that stifles GA and could make it more dangerous because there would remain two thin corridors north and south of the YNJ zone in which pilots can transit without talking to ATC. Some pilots either don't want to talk to ATC, or airplanes are not equipped properly to fly through controlled airspace so there needs to be Class E airspace around.

I only suggested controlling the space above YNJ because you suggested that there would be people flying through there on three different frequencies... Terminal, Tower, and Nordo. The reality is that anyone talking to Terminal won't be in that sliver of airspace, they'll be up in Terminal. And that leaves only one frequency to monitor (optionally). If you think people need to be talking to *someone* through there, it's a slippery slope to concluding that the entire lower mainland needs to be under positive control at all times, with no Class E and no Nordo allowed.

Seems to me Nav Canadas refusal to properly staff their facility puts the 2 sides in exactly that position.
Staff it properly. I'm personally not interested in any story how "it's too expensive".

Now you're just being an *ss. You've already been told why this isn't as simple as "staff their facility." Apart from the cost, it's not easy to become a controller, the attrition rate in training is quite high and not everyone makes it. There's also been a lot of turnover due to retirement in the last while, I understand... stabilizedapproach could probably confirm that.