Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?

[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.

[nvcatc]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[rookiepilot]

[
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.

For context:

I fly IFR and VFR, based in the GTA. I've visited our ACC and YYZ Tower, to educate myself.

I've heard of these staffing issues in YVR for quite a number of years now. Not a new story.

I'm not bashing controllers, I am bashing management. No one else is bashing controllers either -- from my read.

New York City can handle VFR's. So should YVR.......

[rookiepilot]

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.

Why is this a localized problem then? It's not an issue in YYZ.

[jakeandelwood]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well maybe the majority of controllers should be pilots, there are plenty of pilots that are trying get in in with Nav Canada and it seems like to me (because I've asked) that Nav Canada doesn't really value that as an asset. The hiring process is just strange, that ridiculous "Wonderlic" test at the start of the process is nothing but a game and proves nothing, once you know how to play that game it's easy to pass, (Google beat the wonderlic). A question: why does the application ask if I'm a visible minority? Why would that matter? Is that actually an asset? (not trying to offend, just seems like a strange thing to ask)

[photofly]

Today I asked for a radar service close to YYZ and was cheerfully vectored through the fringes of Class C airspace to my destination and back again, at my requested altitudes. The controller was handling both Satellites East and Satellites West desk running a mixture of VFR and IFR traffic above and around 8 different airports. He was busy, with the frequency rarely quiet, But there was no suggestion that VFR traffic was causing a problem with workload.

[kevenv]

The only people who think being a pilot is a big help in being a controller is of course pilots. Any who are trying to get in and for whatever reason don't make it, complain that the process is ridiculous. Rest assured that if being a pilot was a ticket to success, you would be a shoe in. Whoever in the world can come up with a sure fire way of predicting success in controller training (like being a pilot) will be a very rich person. ANSP's the world over would be lining up to pay for the answer. I have seen commercial pilots make it through training and I have seen commercial pilots not make it through training. Being a pilot helps you in the initial phases of the process only. Speaking on the radio, phraseology, terminology, a/c performance etc. This advantage diminishes as time passes and the abinitio students develop matching skills and confidence. A number of my co workers are CPL's. A number are university grads (not one in any aviation related field), and a number are just high school educated with no special assets.

Pre pandemic I have had pilots visit and sit in and they invariably comment that it isn't what they expected.

Edited to add: There are controllers who are qualified in one specialty that move/cross over to another specialty and are unsuccessful. I am not bashing or disparaging pilots and what they may bring to the table but training controllers isn't as easy as some like to think.

[rookiepilot]

Today I asked for a radar service close to YYZ and was cheerfully vectored through the fringes of Class C airspace to my destination and back again, at my requested altitudes. The controller was handling both Satellites East and Satellites West desk running a mixture of VFR and IFR traffic above and around 8 different airports. He was busy, with the frequency rarely quiet, But there was no suggestion that VFR traffic was causing a problem with workload.

It's clearly us though who don't get it, PF.....

ATC Big Picture is too complicated for a mere GA pilot to comprehend....

[controllercrazy]

Well maybe the majority of controllers should be pilots, there are plenty of pilots that are trying get in in with Nav Canada and it seems like to me (because I've asked) that Nav Canada doesn't really value that as an asset. The hiring process is just strange, that ridiculous "Wonderlic" test at the start of the process is nothing but a game and proves nothing, once you know how to play that game it's easy to pass, (Google beat the wonderlic). A question: why does the application ask if I'm a visible minority? Why would that matter? Is that actually an asset? (not trying to offend, just seems like a strange thing to ask)

Google employment equity act Canada and you'll realize it's not strange to ask at all if NC is mandated to do so. Kevenv knocked the rest out of the park.

ATC Big Picture is too complicated for a mere GA pilot to comprehend . So I'm told here ---

Yet YYZ seems to work. Interesting. Must not be the insane hub YVR is

with all due respect rookiepilot, yes the Big Picture is indeed too complicated for a mere GA pilot to comprehend.

But no one is asking GA pilots to "comprehend" otherwise they can hold an ATC license - they are asking GA pilots to trust what's going on.

And - they're asking pilots to understand reasons why you're denied service so maybe it'd be polite to be respectful of those who work hard to keep things safe instead of arguing everything they say.

No one else is bashing controllers either -- from my read.

New York City can handle VFR's. So should YVR.......

Huh we must be reading different things. How can all this displeasure towards YVR TML be directed at anyone other than controllers who are the front-line working traffic and actually the ones saying "stay clear!"?

You think they don't want the work and apparently offloading their problems to other facilities (all your words, not mine)... so they're basically the definition of lazy to you, but then if you think that, don't change your mind halfway through and say it's actually just piss-poor management's fault, but no bashing of controllers to be seen here!

here's an idea. visiting YYZ TWR/TML doesn't mean jack for understanding YVR. Come over and ask for a tour " to educate [yourself]" some more. While you're here, just tell those YVR TML controllers to their face exactly what you think of them and their work ethics as well... sure they'll graciously welcome your feedback with a round of drinks after.

btw seems like you have a business background. I hear management positions have opened up so here's your chance to go apply and rectify their "wrongs". Don't forget to come back and let us know how it goes though.

And just calling it like it is - stop. comparing. airspace. Everyone does different work. No one is better than others. YYZ is not YVR. YYZ. Is. Not. YVR. And for the sake of fairness, YVR. Is. Not. YYZ.

Now you're just being an *ss.

Followed this thread for a while now and based on what I read, couldn't say it better myself.

Is CYNJ unsafe as a Class C control zone? Should it be dialed back to a Class D where responsibility for VFR separation is partially shifted from controllers to pilots? What is NavCanada's rationale for keeping CYNJ operations on par with YVR operations?

To bring it all back while I'm at it (apologies for this insane tangent OP), Langley has good radar coverage; class D control zones might have radar holes which is why they're D and not C. YNJ ops can't be brought to parity with YVR ops just by airspace classification alone; not the same.

--

EDIT: I notice you like to edit your posts rookiepilot. What happened to YVR being an insane hub? What happened to taking days off on nice beach days that apparently flies in Vancouver but nowhere else? Why not drive home the point again that you lived here? Maybe its too easy to backpedal on opinions sometimes.

[Zaibatsu]

ATC forgets that pilots are often the sole managers of air traffic in uncontrolled airspace. Sometimes with more aircraft than those days in YVR where you get held up only to find you’re only one of two planes in the airspace. We also do a lot of ATCs job for them. Must be nice not having to give a speed restriction or a vector or telling someone to wait for a decent clearance because we can see and hear what’s happening too and act accordingly.

And for lots of times the last reason we are asking is so we don’t get burned, legally. All we are doing is getting permission to do what we already know we can do, but waiting to be told we can’t with no explanation as to why.

Some controllers are awesome. I was flying in a friend’s 182 and cautiously asked for flight following and this guy working almost all of B.C. was more than happy to oblige. He’s working the Terrace gong show and the Kelowna gong show and Prince George and Kamloops and every little shithole in between, giving approach clearances and hold clearances and vectors so much that we almost couldn’t get a word in edgewise. Don’t tell me that requires less work and situational awareness than the north shore route in YVR where they can’t put you at a safe altitude across the straight cause of reasons.

[rookiepilot]

Most controllers are totally awesome. 98%
Including Vancouver Center in BC through the rocks.

That said YVR terminal is the only place Ive had issues both VFR and IFR. Doesn't sound like I'm the only one!

It hasn't been explained why TML can't offer FF in class E. much more logical than having Langley etc do it.
It's VFR traffic advisory only, and to stay legal. Separation is the pilots job.

I've flown a small plane around Toronto, NYC and down the Hudson, Washington DC transiting the Special flight area , Miami, Orlando, and others.

Want to argue -- fine. But don't tell me YVR is that much more complex than those.

Try NYC for a total zoo, but they move the tin, even when weather is lousy I had good service.

Florida is a nuthouse, but they get it done. Even YYZ is quiet compared to Florida.

I don't blame the controllers-- still. I'm sure there are some excellent ones there.

I'm not interested in arguing.

Yeah, I'm a business guy
Yeah poor management ticks me off
No I'm not interested in the job.