The majority of controllers are not/were not pilots. I don't know how to fly a plane, I just know the relative performance capabilities of the aircraft I usually talk too. If a controller issues a clearance or instruction that an aircraft is not capable of doing, or that makes the pilot uncomfortable, it is up to the pilot to say so. If you can't comply, that's fine - you just need to tell me and I will come up with another solution.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:22 pm 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?
Nav Canada is not refusing to staff any specialty, and has never said that training is too expensive. Training is expensive, that's a fact (especially considering the low success rates), but it's not stopping them from doing it. Nav Canada is trying to staff all specialties and towers, but as has been mentioned earlier, only so many trainees can be on board at any given time without overloading each specialty/tower. And even at max capacity, not every trainee gets a license - not even half for IFR. Then add in that existing controllers can lose their medicals, retire, move, etc, and you can see that it's not as easy as just pulling a few people off the street and sticking them in chairs to increase capacity.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:22 pm 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.
Does that mean you can't feel frustrated as a pilot when the service you want is unavailable? Of course not. But understand we're doing what we have to do to keep everyone safe. Training is ongoing to get more controllers, but it's a slow process and attrition can potentially nullify each new license we get, which makes it even slower. Not trying to make excuses, but it's really frustrating as a controller to hear "you need to staff up" because we are trying, but licenses don't happen over night.
To your last point that I quoted, again every specialty is different, so suggesting "[X] location does it so you should be able to too" isn't that straight forward. Some areas have very simple procedures and traffic flows, among other things (terrain, minimum altitude shelves, underlying airports, radar/frequency site locations, surrounding ATC units, special use airspace, etc), and some are very complex. Vancouver terminal is notoriously complex, which adds to the reasons why they may restrict VFR on a given day and why it takes longer to increase staffing. Is the system perfect? No. But your anger towards them isn't fair either, they're not sitting there laughing at the VFR aircraft that was just denied entry while they sit back twiddling their thumbs. They are doing what they need to do to keep everyone safe, and priority rightly goes to IFR traffic.
The point of this thread just seems to be to bash controllers as dysfunctional and lazy. More goes on behind the scenes than what pilots hear on frequency, but some here don't seem to want to accept the bigger picture. I hope that once the pandemic is over and things open back up, you take the time to tour your local towers and the ACC, ask questions in person as to why things are the way they are, and they can show you on their screens why traffic is managed a particular way.
