jakeandelwood wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:32 pmIm 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.ahramin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:19 am 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?
Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:09 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.
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.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:08 pmI 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.
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 to Airframe: VFR's are routinely admitted to YYZ class C every day....along the lake.........
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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 beaconkevenv wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:27 amScreen Shot 2020-07-11 at 8.23.29 AM.pngjakeandelwood wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:32 pmIm 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.ahramin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:19 am 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?
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
stabilizedapproach wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:49 am 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
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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).AirFrame wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:47 am 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 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.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.
There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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 awarenessiflyforpie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:17 pmGeography 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).AirFrame wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:47 am 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 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.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.
There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
Geography is easy, yet you managed to fly into airspace that's clearly marked on the VTA? Did you even look at the VTA?iflyforpie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:17 pmGeography 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).
"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.
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.And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. ... There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.
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
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:21 amGeography is easy, yet you managed to fly into airspace that's clearly marked on the VTA? Did you even look at the VTA?iflyforpie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:17 pmGeography 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).
"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.
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.And YVR is still hardly constrained by those at all. ... There's plenty of room underneath for VFR traffic.
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.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:32 amAs for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.
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.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:52 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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?iflyforpie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:17 pm 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.
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
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
It's not remotely the same thing at all.AirFrame wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:31 amSure, 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.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:32 amAs for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
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.AirFrame wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:31 amSure, 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.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:32 amAs for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.
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.
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:24 am
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
Some local pilots from Langley have expressed concern over the high level of micro-management of circuit traffic--instead of being assigned traffic to follow, controllers often issue turn instruction, which can of course disrupt the normal approach sequence used by many pilots (base-leg speeds are typically flown at 1.4 Vso). There is not a lot of wiggle room over the touch-down zones at Langley (owing to the short runway) so speed control in the base leg can be really critical, especially for pilots with less experience (student pilots) having to manage a speed reduction during a descent. What is the controller perspective on this? Is there in fact intense management of the traffic pattern? If so, why? Is this related to the Class C requirements? Could controllers cut more slack in a Class D environment?
Another issue is restrictions on the number of aircraft allowed in the pattern. It varies, I think, but generally four appears to be the limit. In the days for Warner, we are told, it was normal to have 6 and more in the circuit. Does this relate to Class C pressure on controllers? Are controllers resorting to radar to control the pattern, rather than visual reference?
I would love to hear the technical rationale on these issues, especially from the controller perspective.
Another issue is restrictions on the number of aircraft allowed in the pattern. It varies, I think, but generally four appears to be the limit. In the days for Warner, we are told, it was normal to have 6 and more in the circuit. Does this relate to Class C pressure on controllers? Are controllers resorting to radar to control the pattern, rather than visual reference?
I would love to hear the technical rationale on these issues, especially from the controller perspective.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
Y’all seem to have a lot of faith in the efficacy of a cheap handheld. There’s a reason fitting a TSO radio in a type-certified radio will cost at least $5k.jakeandelwood wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:14 amyeah the argument is different considering a hand held radio costs the same as a tank of avgas while a ballistic parachute costs what i paid for my plane, i cant afford to purchase another airplane but i can afford a tank of avgas, you see the difference? besides, they dont make a ballistic parachute for my certified model of aircraft, and if they did i would seriously consider trying to make it work financially because like a radio i think a parachute is a great safety item, especially so for single engine aircraft. Maybe in the future ballistic parachutes will come down in price so everyone can afford one just like hand held radios have.AirFrame wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:31 amSure, and if you're flying a single-engine airplane over a populated area you can afford a #%@&#%$ ballistic full-airframe parachute. The argument isn't any different, you've just chosen a lower price point.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:32 amAs for NORDO, if you're gonna fly in busy airspace and can afford a plane, you can afford a F-------- handheld.
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
Absolutely. But let's not derail this into a thread bashing the cost of going to an avionics shop.
Yes, the difference is exactly what I said it was... The price point. A handheld radio is pocket change for some people. A ballistic parachute is pocket change for others. We don't all fly at the same price point, and a handheld radio doesn't guarantee your safety any more than a ballistic parachute does.jakeandelwood wrote: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?
Any risk can be mitigated with enough money or regulation thrown at it, we have to decide what level of risk we're willing to take when flying. NORDO flight, or flight into/out of uncontrolled airports with no airframe parachute, is currently the acceptable maximum level of risk that is permitted. Prove me wrong, but it hasn't been shown to be an issue in the lower mainland. The last two midairs I can think of both involved aircraft with radios, and in one case, I think the occupants even had parachutes. None of that helped any of them, they still died.
Your best defense is your eyes out the window. I was taught to pick up traffic visually, myself, *before* a controller passed it to me.
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
We don't need to. The radio is $2k, and $3k is a very reasonable fee for fitting it. I know this because I've done the grunt work on a bunch of my own avionics installs (under supervision) and I know how long it takes and how much work is involved.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Is the Class C Control Zone at Langley Airport Dysfunctional?
I suggest we scrap the entire ATC system, then.
Yank radios out of the 777's out there. Save some money.