Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?

[jakeandelwood]

I always plan to fly around the class C airports when i fly from YYJ to YKA and i try to make it (in my belief) as less intrusive as possible to ATC when i do it. The only reason i want to be in terminal airspace to be honest is the idea of a mid-air collision in the idiot show of uncontrolled airspace in the lower mainland scares the crap out of me. There has to be at least 5 or so CADORS reports a day for pilots flying thru ZBB, YPK, YNJ airspace without calling them up, not holding short when asked, taking off when not cleared etc, etc, another 5 CADORS reports a day just for pilots not calling YNJ ground when taxiing, that one blows me away, thats basic 1st day of flight training stuff. i want to be in terminal airspace because i feel alot safer in the hands of Nav Canada's controllers. Can the controllers here tell me if my routing makes it easier for them? Because that's why i plan it like i do: YYJ direct East point direct white rock then direct Hope while staying just south of YXX, i usually ask them if they want that because sometimes they say to. I then go from hope direct to YKA along the coke highway, my altitude is '7500. the return is the same route but at '8500 then down to '6500 at Hope, I call up VR center at Agassiz. like i mentioned earlier i never have an issue to YKA but frequently have issues from YKA trying to get into the class C, but not always, i always feel relieved and thankfull when they accommodate me. I dont want to fly VFR in terminal airspace because "I feel chatty" or "I want to play with the big boys" or "I feel it's owed to me" I just feel alot safer, that's all.

[ahramin]

Personally, I would start with direct and modify if required. If you want to be able to plan ahead of time though, why not use one of the two published VFR Routes to cross the water? For YYJ YKA I think East Point to Cherry Point would be appropriate. Why WC?

[patter]

Page 1 of this weeks CADORS has 7/15 incidents on the page involving Langley. Haven’t looked page 2 yet

[patter]

Page 2had 10/15 incidents involving Langley.

[jakeandelwood]

Personally, I would start with direct and modify if required. If you want to be able to plan ahead of time though, why not use one of the two published VFR Routes to cross the water? For YYJ YKA I think East Point to Cherry Point would be appropriate. Why WC?

Im sitting at home and i have a somewhat older VTA and it shows no VFR route from East point to Cherry point, it does have a "terminal class C route" from East point to WC for 4500 and above. i have the newest VTA and CFS in my plane, they might show different? i havent flown to YKA since last summer.

[kevenv]

Personally, I would start with direct and modify if required. If you want to be able to plan ahead of time though, why not use one of the two published VFR Routes to cross the water? For YYJ YKA I think East Point to Cherry Point would be appropriate. Why WC?

Im sitting at home and i have a somewhat older VTA and it shows no VFR route from East point to Cherry point, it does have a "terminal class C route" from East point to WC for 4500 and above. i have the newest VTA and CFS in my plane, they might show different? i havent flown to YKA since last summer.

Screen Shot 2020-07-11 at 8.23.29 AM.png (1.66 MiB) Viewed 1923 times

[stabilizedapproach]

To leave no one hanging:

Abbotsford is managed by Victoria terminal, not Vancouver. Pitt is indeed very close to the published STARS to Vancouver for 26’s. Airplanes are routinely given descent down to 3000 there. If you are low and out of Class C, it is a good idea to monitor your nearest tower because you might be getting passed off as traffic, and they might want to reach out and pass you traffic. Citabria says the rest well.

Not policy to not provide service in Class E per se but as I’ve said, it is all workload permitting. Just because Toronto provides service now, they could just as well say they will not talk to anyone in Class E starting tomorrow and are well within their right to do so. There are also references in our rule book to providing information service to airplanes in Class E airspace as much as practicable, and a host of factors that are reasons to not do so including traffic, workload, to name a couple. TC AIM RAC 5.something also echos our manuals on the same about VFR aircraft in Class E and how provision of service is traffic and workload permitting.

A new VTA is coming out soon per the NAV Canada website so you’ll be able to take home the one in your plane for planning. If I recall though, the East Point to White Rock route has been deprecated for some time now, and replaced with the East Point to Cherry Point route. WC to EP crosses lots of Victoria/Vancouver Terminal traffic so that is likely why it’s been replaced. Just also note that it seems your routing puts you exclusively in Victoria Terminal’s airspace. On your return, you might conflict with the complicated RNP approaches into Abbotsford so you may be told to stay out. If Victoria tells you to stay clear, you can get flight following from Abbotsford back to Cherry Point and talk to Victoria again for the Strait crossing there. Whether a route is “easier” is hard to say because a lot of little things can suddenly make the route unfeasible, such as conflicting traffic etc. Kamloops and Hope are a little too far for me to speak to though. Hope that helps.

[AirFrame]

I appreciate this professional--- response. I'll post a specific question, then: Why is VFR FF routinely denied even as far out as Abbotsford / Pitt Meadows -- that is a long, long way to YVR.

Well, to be honest, you don't need FF to get from YXX to YVR in the lower mainland, with all of the excellent geographical references (and the fact that the lower mainland is a wide valley pointing almost right at YVR). Draw on the pilotage and dead reckoning skills that you learned when you were a student, or just follow the magenta line. Monitor the local frequencies, and keep your eyes out the window.

And to Airframe: VFR's are routinely admitted to YYZ class C every day....along the lake.........

Sure. I'll say it again: different airspace. How close are the mountains to YYZ (real mountains, that is)? How much room is there for commercial traffic to have a standard pattern that allows for a standard VFR route that close to YYZ? YVR is constrained by geography to the north, and somewhat by the US border to the south.

[photofly]

It’s not really admission to class C airspace that seems to be a contrast; it’s that a VFR radar service is readily available everywhere in Radar coverage in Ontario.

[jakeandelwood]

Personally, I would start with direct and modify if required. If you want to be able to plan ahead of time though, why not use one of the two published VFR Routes to cross the water? For YYJ YKA I think East Point to Cherry Point would be appropriate. Why WC?

Im sitting at home and i have a somewhat older VTA and it shows no VFR route from East point to Cherry point, it does have a "terminal class C route" from East point to WC for 4500 and above. i have the newest VTA and CFS in my plane, they might show different? i havent flown to YKA since last summer.

Screen Shot 2020-07-11 at 8.23.29 AM.png

Yes, I see the change, I was out at the plane today and noticed that change.the old route was from East point to white Rock beacon

[jakeandelwood]

To leave no one hanging:

Abbotsford is managed by Victoria terminal, not Vancouver. Pitt is indeed very close to the published STARS to Vancouver for 26’s. Airplanes are routinely given descent down to 3000 there. If you are low and out of Class C, it is a good idea to monitor your nearest tower because you might be getting passed off as traffic, and they might want to reach out and pass you traffic. Citabria says the rest well.

Not policy to not provide service in Class E per se but as I’ve said, it is all workload permitting. Just because Toronto provides service now, they could just as well say they will not talk to anyone in Class E starting tomorrow and are well within their right to do so. There are also references in our rule book to providing information service to airplanes in Class E airspace as much as practicable, and a host of factors that are reasons to not do so including traffic, workload, to name a couple. TC AIM RAC 5.something also echos our manuals on the same about VFR aircraft in Class E and how provision of service is traffic and workload permitting.

A new VTA is coming out soon per the NAV Canada website so you’ll be able to take home the one in your plane for planning. If I recall though, the East Point to White Rock route has been deprecated for some time now, and replaced with the East Point to Cherry Point route. WC to EP crosses lots of Victoria/Vancouver Terminal traffic so that is likely why it’s been replaced. Just also note that it seems your routing puts you exclusively in Victoria Terminal’s airspace. On your return, you might conflict with the complicated RNP approaches into Abbotsford so you may be told to stay out. If Victoria tells you to stay clear, you can get flight following from Abbotsford back to Cherry Point and talk to Victoria again for the Strait crossing there. Whether a route is “easier” is hard to say because a lot of little things can suddenly make the route unfeasible, such as conflicting traffic etc. Kamloops and Hope are a little too far for me to speak to though. Hope that helps.

Yes it helps, thank you

[iflyforpie]

Well, to be honest, you don't need FF to get from YXX to YVR in the lower mainland, with all of the excellent geographical references (and the fact that the lower mainland is a wide valley pointing almost right at YVR). Draw on the pilotage and dead reckoning skills that you learned when you were a student, or just follow the magenta line. Monitor the local frequencies, and keep your eyes out the window.

Geography is easy. Avoiding traffic and not busting the absolute clusterfuck of airspace is what's hard. I did YCW to YVR with no flight following and still managed to bust a moronic "control area extension" buried under god knows how many wedding cake layers of terminal airspace outside the goddamn control zone (just make the zone bigger FFS).

And to Airframe: VFR's are routinely admitted to YYZ class C every day....along the lake.........
Sure. I'll say it again: different airspace. How close are the mountains to YYZ (real mountains, that is)? How much room is there for commercial traffic to have a standard pattern that allows for a standard VFR route that close to YYZ? YVR is constrained by geography to the north, and somewhat by the US border to the south.

And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. Victoria controls south of the 49th and IFR traffic is kept above 7000 feet on the North Shore. The closest mountain a STAR downwind comes to is QE Park at a whopping 500 feet! Jeez... you'd think that this was Kai Tak doing the checkerboard for one-three and having to deviate for TV antennas on final and watch for junks in the missed rather than the same 4 and change nautical mile downwinds with options to close the STAR that any flatland airport has.

There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.

[jakeandelwood]

Well, to be honest, you don't need FF to get from YXX to YVR in the lower mainland, with all of the excellent geographical references (and the fact that the lower mainland is a wide valley pointing almost right at YVR). Draw on the pilotage and dead reckoning skills that you learned when you were a student, or just follow the magenta line. Monitor the local frequencies, and keep your eyes out the window.

Geography is easy. Avoiding traffic and not busting the absolute clusterfuck of airspace is what's hard. I did YCW to YVR with no flight following and still managed to bust a moronic "control area extension" buried under god knows how many wedding cake layers of terminal airspace outside the goddamn control zone (just make the zone bigger FFS).

And to Airframe: VFR's are routinely admitted to YYZ class C every day....along the lake.........
Sure. I'll say it again: different airspace. How close are the mountains to YYZ (real mountains, that is)? How much room is there for commercial traffic to have a standard pattern that allows for a standard VFR route that close to YYZ? YVR is constrained by geography to the north, and somewhat by the US border to the south.

And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. Victoria controls south of the 49th and IFR traffic is kept above 7000 feet on the North Shore. The closest mountain a STAR downwind comes to is QE Park at a whopping 500 feet! Jeez... you'd think that this was Kai Tak doing the checkerboard for one-three and having to deviate for TV antennas on final and watch for junks in the missed rather than the same 4 and change nautical mile downwinds with options to close the STAR that any flatland airport has.

There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.

yes, i agree with your statement about flight following, I've never wanted flight following because i might get lost or i can't navigate, i ask for it strictly because for traffic awareness

[AirFrame]

Geography is easy. Avoiding traffic and not busting the absolute clusterfuck of airspace is what's hard. I did YCW to YVR with no flight following and still managed to bust a moronic "control area extension" buried under god knows how many wedding cake layers of terminal airspace outside the goddamn control zone (just make the zone bigger FFS).

Geography is easy, yet you managed to fly into airspace that's clearly marked on the VTA? Did you even look at the VTA?
"Make the control zone bigger" Sure, and we end up with all the control zones in the lower mainland touching, and no way for NORDO traffic to transit, or even worse choke points where all uncontrolled VFR traffic has to go... reducing safety, not increasing it.
Mid-air collisions between VFR traffic are exceedingly rare. I can think of only two near the lower mainland in my (almost 50 year) lifetime. "Close calls" are a dime a dozen, mostly because anyone who gets within 500' of another plane says "OMG we almost died!" when they didn't even need to deviate course.

And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. ... There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.

Commercial traffic comes in higher, you're right. But VFR traffic has no other route. It is, as I said, constrained by the geography. All the smaller airports are packed in there close as well, and most of the places people want to go are West and Northwest, or initially right over YVR.

Where are most of the small airports relative to YYZ? What routes do a majority of people want when flying in and out of those airports? I would bet the desired direct routing isn't mostly directly towards YYZ.

[rookiepilot]

Where are most of the small airports relative to YYZ? What routes do a majority of people want when flying in and out of those airports? I would bet the desired direct routing isn't mostly directly towards YYZ.

You'd be wrong. Try looking at a chart.

As for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.

[jakeandelwood]

Geography is easy. Avoiding traffic and not busting the absolute clusterfuck of airspace is what's hard. I did YCW to YVR with no flight following and still managed to bust a moronic "control area extension" buried under god knows how many wedding cake layers of terminal airspace outside the goddamn control zone (just make the zone bigger FFS).

Geography is easy, yet you managed to fly into airspace that's clearly marked on the VTA? Did you even look at the VTA?
"Make the control zone bigger" Sure, and we end up with all the control zones in the lower mainland touching, and no way for NORDO traffic to transit, or even worse choke points where all uncontrolled VFR traffic has to go... reducing safety, not increasing it.
Mid-air collisions between VFR traffic are exceedingly rare. I can think of only two near the lower mainland in my (almost 50 year) lifetime. "Close calls" are a dime a dozen, mostly because anyone who gets within 500' of another plane says "OMG we almost died!" when they didn't even need to deviate course.

And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. ... There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.

Commercial traffic comes in higher, you're right. But VFR traffic has no other route. It is, as I said, constrained by the geography. All the smaller airports are packed in there close as well, and most of the places people want to go are West and Northwest, or initially right over YVR.

Where are most of the small airports relative to YYZ? What routes do a majority of people want when flying in and out of those airports? I would bet the desired direct routing isn't mostly directly towards YYZ.

The Vancouver VTA is hardly "clear", it's a mess really. In my opinion NORDO should be illegal, it's ridiculous pilots even think of flying purposly without one, why does the busy lower mainland airspace have to be set up to accomadate a pilot who is to stubborn and cheap to buy a radio?

[AirFrame]

As for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.

Sure, and if you're flying a single-engine airplane over a populated area you can afford a #%@&#%$ ballistic full-airframe parachute. The argument isn't any different, you've just chosen a lower price point.

They're not flying in busy airspace, that's the point. The lower mainland, despite all the hand-wringing, isn't *that* busy. There are busy places, yes, but there are a lot of open areas as well. There are lots of planes flying around without an electrical system, too.

[controllercrazy]

And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. Victoria controls south of the 49th and IFR traffic is kept above 7000 feet on the North Shore. The closest mountain a STAR downwind comes to is QE Park at a whopping 500 feet! Jeez... you'd think that this was Kai Tak doing the checkerboard for one-three and having to deviate for TV antennas on final and watch for junks in the missed rather than the same 4 and change nautical mile downwinds with options to close the STAR that any flatland airport has.

Just curious... how do you intend on being at 7000 on a 4 and change nautical mile downwind, and turning a base leg to join (what I’m also going to assume to be a 4 and change nautical mile) final?

You’re wrong btw. Airplanes routinely come down to 3000 and they don’t fly their downwind over the mountains... do not really plenty of room for VFR

[rookiepilot]

As for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.

Sure, and if you're flying a single-engine airplane over a populated area you can afford a #%@&#%$ ballistic full-airframe parachute. The argument isn't any different, you've just chosen a lower price point.

It's not remotely the same thing at all.

[jakeandelwood]

As for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.

Sure, and if you're flying a single-engine airplane over a populated area you can afford a #%@&#%$ ballistic full-airframe parachute. The argument isn't any different, you've just chosen a lower price point.

They're not flying in busy airspace, that's the point. The lower mainland, despite all the hand-wringing, isn't *that* busy. There are busy places, yes, but there are a lot of open areas as well. There are lots of planes flying around without an electrical system, too.

yeah the argument is different considering a hand held radio costs the same as a tank of avgas while a ballistic parachute costs what i paid for my plane, i cant afford to purchase another airplane but i can afford a tank of avgas, you see the difference? besides, they dont make a ballistic parachute for my certified model of aircraft, and if they did i would seriously consider trying to make it work financially because like a radio i think a parachute is a great safety item, especially so for single engine aircraft. Maybe in the future ballistic parachutes will come down in price so everyone can afford one just like hand held radios have.