On the whole I personally feel YYZ does a very good job. I do apologize for our new copilot. Can't seem to read back a clearance to save his life. No wait, a clearance correctly!!
YYZ Frequency changes
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
170 to xray
- Rank 3
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:48 am
- Location: cyyz
How come the parallels are used with such little frequency? The parallels being 24R and 24L. From a pilot's prespective it looks like it would ease congestion to have one for departures and one for arrivals. I know this is the case on occasion, but why not more often? Just curious.
On the whole I personally feel YYZ does a very good job. I do apologize for our new copilot. Can't seem to read back a clearance to save his life. No wait, a clearance correctly!!
On the whole I personally feel YYZ does a very good job. I do apologize for our new copilot. Can't seem to read back a clearance to save his life. No wait, a clearance correctly!!
I've never been given a coded taxi instruction at YVR, but always when you pull up to the hold short line or behind the other traffic holding short you swith to tower. If you don't, you're going to miss your takeoff clearance.zzjayca wrote:This is my point. You aren't switching frequencies on your own. You have been instructed to switch frequencies at a certain location. It doesn't matter if the instruction is verbal or written (on a chart) it still is an instruction and the controllers are expecting it.bcflyer wrote:Yup I'm sure. Fly in and out of their (YVR) almost everyday. (well when I'm working anyway!) They are using coded routes for taxi most of the time and if you read the whole page it tells you when to switch to tower,
And the other monkey wrench in the whole system is Edmonton. There you pull up to the hold short line or in line behind other traffic, switch to tower on your own, but will NOT be issued "to position" or takeoff clearance until you specifically tell tower you are ready.
Very frustrating. We can be the only ones moving on the entire airport, no arrivals in sight either, sitting there like idiots wondering WTF the delay is!
Summary
YYZ- don't switch to tower until told by ground
YVR- switch at standard published points
YYC- switch once you are holding short or in line
YEG- switch once holding short, but also have to say you're ready to go.....
ARRGHHHH!
Very frustrating. We can be the only ones moving on the entire airport, no arrivals in sight either, sitting there like idiots wondering WTF the delay is!
Summary
YYZ- don't switch to tower until told by ground
YVR- switch at standard published points
YYC- switch once you are holding short or in line
YEG- switch once holding short, but also have to say you're ready to go.....
ARRGHHHH!
I fly out of Calgary. If we wait for ground to instruct us to switch over to tower, we will wait for years. It doesn't happen. Everyone in Calgary is expected to automatically switch over to and monitor (don't call, my God, don't ever call or you'll get your head bitten off) tower. But if you're in Edmonton, you are supposed automatically switch and call...
This isn't published anywhere that I can remember reading.
How is someone who normally flies out of Calgary or Edmonton supposed to have even the foggiest idea what the "norm" is in Toronto? Or vice versa?
I certainly appreciate this topic. Thank you, YYZ Tower, for the insight. It's amazing how far a little cooperation and communication can go in this idustry!
I don't know who's system is right, YYCs or YYZs or YEGs. Probably all, in their own situation. However, when the systems aren't standardized, it creates problems.
Immagine you're working a Tower position in YYZ. For a few hours, a certain Ground Controller is telling every aircraft when to switch to your frequency. All is flowing smooth. Then, a couple of hours later, a different controller takes over the Ground position. This different controller doesn't believe in telling each and every aircraft when to switch to Tower. He feels that it's a wasted call, and that every Pilot should "know" that when they're at the hold line, they should switch to Tower. And, immagine that this different Ground Controller has the authority to operate this way! Immagine the confusion between Tower and Ground while the Tower Controller is figuring out this new guy's system.
This might be the way pilots feel every day. They depart one airport and it's system, then just a couple of hours later, they're at another airport and it's system. Fine, if the pilot knows each airport's system. However, not every pilot has been to every airport in the world on a regular enough basis to know each airport's system.
I guess what I don't understand, is why this isn't standard. In IFR, it's standard; we switch frequencies when told. (Sometimes we make a mistake. Take the wrong call. Miss-hear something, etc.) But it's standard, and all pilots and all controllers know the standard.
Is there a published standard for "Aircraft-On-The-Ground-"Hand-Offs?"
This isn't published anywhere that I can remember reading.
How is someone who normally flies out of Calgary or Edmonton supposed to have even the foggiest idea what the "norm" is in Toronto? Or vice versa?
I certainly appreciate this topic. Thank you, YYZ Tower, for the insight. It's amazing how far a little cooperation and communication can go in this idustry!
I don't know who's system is right, YYCs or YYZs or YEGs. Probably all, in their own situation. However, when the systems aren't standardized, it creates problems.
Immagine you're working a Tower position in YYZ. For a few hours, a certain Ground Controller is telling every aircraft when to switch to your frequency. All is flowing smooth. Then, a couple of hours later, a different controller takes over the Ground position. This different controller doesn't believe in telling each and every aircraft when to switch to Tower. He feels that it's a wasted call, and that every Pilot should "know" that when they're at the hold line, they should switch to Tower. And, immagine that this different Ground Controller has the authority to operate this way! Immagine the confusion between Tower and Ground while the Tower Controller is figuring out this new guy's system.
This might be the way pilots feel every day. They depart one airport and it's system, then just a couple of hours later, they're at another airport and it's system. Fine, if the pilot knows each airport's system. However, not every pilot has been to every airport in the world on a regular enough basis to know each airport's system.
I guess what I don't understand, is why this isn't standard. In IFR, it's standard; we switch frequencies when told. (Sometimes we make a mistake. Take the wrong call. Miss-hear something, etc.) But it's standard, and all pilots and all controllers know the standard.
Is there a published standard for "Aircraft-On-The-Ground-"Hand-Offs?"
Thanks YYZ Tower, I understand what you're saying about about the handoff, but there are definitely occasions where there was no instruction to switch, and the tower is already asking if 'we're on' or 'ready?' In those situations where we suspect that someone 'forgot' about us, we usually monitor both freqs just in case and it does happen from time to time. But don't get the wrong idea, I'm not in the habit of assuming or guessing what the other guy is thinking and trying to anticipate the next frequency or instruction and acting on it...that's like Russian Roulette!
I did get the alert to your PM, but it didn't actually turn up in the inbox.
Cheers
I did get the alert to your PM, but it didn't actually turn up in the inbox.
Cheers
170 to xray
The use of 06R/24L in conjunction with the other 2 east-west parallels (tripling) requires the use of 2 extra controllers. One is a monitor for the south tower controller there to ensure correct readbacks of instructions and compliance with them. The other is the 3rd ground for reasons I gave earlier. Our staffing is such that even with copious amounts of overtime, we are unable to staff the shift with enough people to do this for more than a couple of hours in the evening. It is never done before 3pm as the traffic demand doesn't warrant it and hence staffing is less at those times.
Turkey
It does seem that some form of standardisation would help. Each airport has developed its system over a long time and would probably be reluctant to change.
Self-initiated frequency changes are all-well-and-good at places where the traffic is all in line for a while before it reaches the runway. 05 excepted that isn't going to happen at YYZ.
It was requested in the development of our standard taxy routes that frequency changes were embedded in them. The controllers here have resisted that very strongly and will continue to do so.
Kurwa
I believe you! Maybe Tower was looking over Ground's shoulder! I'll try the PM again.
The use of 06R/24L in conjunction with the other 2 east-west parallels (tripling) requires the use of 2 extra controllers. One is a monitor for the south tower controller there to ensure correct readbacks of instructions and compliance with them. The other is the 3rd ground for reasons I gave earlier. Our staffing is such that even with copious amounts of overtime, we are unable to staff the shift with enough people to do this for more than a couple of hours in the evening. It is never done before 3pm as the traffic demand doesn't warrant it and hence staffing is less at those times.
Turkey
It does seem that some form of standardisation would help. Each airport has developed its system over a long time and would probably be reluctant to change.
Self-initiated frequency changes are all-well-and-good at places where the traffic is all in line for a while before it reaches the runway. 05 excepted that isn't going to happen at YYZ.
It was requested in the development of our standard taxy routes that frequency changes were embedded in them. The controllers here have resisted that very strongly and will continue to do so.
Kurwa
I believe you! Maybe Tower was looking over Ground's shoulder! I'll try the PM again.
YYZ tower...settle the @#$! down will ya?
Learn to communicate with your fellow man and take it from there...
Learn to communicate with your fellow man and take it from there...
"FLY THE AIRPLANE"!
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
YYZ Tower,
The impression I get from reading your first post is that you believe all pilots are wrong to change frequencies before being told, while taxiing at airports. Hopefully, with the examples given from other areas of the country, your eyes have been opened to where this is coming from.
I respect the additional challenges that YYZ faces over places like YYC, YEG and others. The procedures developed to mitigate those challenges at YYZ are, no doubt, required.
A pilot cannot be expected to follow a procedure that he/she does not know about.
I don't think it should matter that some facilities at some airports would be resistant to change. Who's in charge? Is there no agency in Canada who has authority over each individual facility? (Yours included?) There needs to be a standard.
It just so happens that this topic was started by a frustrated controller. It could have just as easily been started by a frustrated pilot. If both sides of the industry are talking about it, maybe something good will come of it?
The impression I get from reading your first post is that you believe all pilots are wrong to change frequencies before being told, while taxiing at airports. Hopefully, with the examples given from other areas of the country, your eyes have been opened to where this is coming from.
I respect the additional challenges that YYZ faces over places like YYC, YEG and others. The procedures developed to mitigate those challenges at YYZ are, no doubt, required.
A pilot cannot be expected to follow a procedure that he/she does not know about.
I don't think it should matter that some facilities at some airports would be resistant to change. Who's in charge? Is there no agency in Canada who has authority over each individual facility? (Yours included?) There needs to be a standard.
It just so happens that this topic was started by a frustrated controller. It could have just as easily been started by a frustrated pilot. If both sides of the industry are talking about it, maybe something good will come of it?
Well that went downhill in a heartbeat didn't it?
What I said in my last post about reluctance to change though is valid. Each airport has developed its own procedures over time, they work for them, why should they change? To help keep everything standard and help pilots is why. Am I someone who could make that change happen? Very unlikely. It would need to come from the other end, i.e. you demanding standardisation/harmonisation. If AC says "jump", Nav Canada says "how high". The YYZ trial of these routes was at the behest of AC after all.
I started this not just because its frustrating, it can be down right dangerous. We moved from frequency changes at inappropriate times, to frequency changes written in standard taxy routes. Similar but not the same thing. I've been in this job nearly 20 years at a variety of places and I've only noticed it being a problem at YYZ.
That's not the impression I was trying to give at all. I am well aware of silent frequency changes all over the world where they are used pefectly successfully. I even said later that they were on the drawing board here but were resisted by all controllers here. Their resistance is based on their knowledge of the complexity of the ground control environment. The crossing/confliction points here are numerous and so you (pilots) can't always be sure that you've passed all conflicts until very close to the runway or apron. We can put you all line astern earlier if you want but things will go real slow. I think we should stick with what we've got.The impression I get from reading your first post is that you believe all pilots are wrong to change frequencies before being told, while taxiing at airports.
I agree. There is no frequency change procedure at YYZ, so you wait until instructed.A pilot cannot be expected to follow a procedure that he/she does not know about.
What I said in my last post about reluctance to change though is valid. Each airport has developed its own procedures over time, they work for them, why should they change? To help keep everything standard and help pilots is why. Am I someone who could make that change happen? Very unlikely. It would need to come from the other end, i.e. you demanding standardisation/harmonisation. If AC says "jump", Nav Canada says "how high". The YYZ trial of these routes was at the behest of AC after all.
I started this not just because its frustrating, it can be down right dangerous. We moved from frequency changes at inappropriate times, to frequency changes written in standard taxy routes. Similar but not the same thing. I've been in this job nearly 20 years at a variety of places and I've only noticed it being a problem at YYZ.
-
Canus Chinookus
- Rank 7
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:30 pm
If you want pilots to 'follow the rules' standardize the goddamn rules! Is the an ICAO standard you guys could use? If so, use it across the entire country! There'll be alot less of us confused pilots who may or may not frequent your particular airport daily. That goes for YVR, YYC, YEG, YYZ, YHZ(off the top of my head).
I think the problem here is every airport feels the need to reinvent the wheel. If you want to hold our hands all the time with frequency changes? Fine, make it standard. You want us to auto-switch and monitor tower til our number's called? That's fine too. Do you ground guys realize that the most complicated part of a pilot's job can be getting to the gate after we land?
don't get me wrong, it's great you're explaining the 'why' it is the way it is in YYZ, but please understand that it doesn't happen that way anywhere else in canada, that I've noticed.
Cheers.
I think the problem here is every airport feels the need to reinvent the wheel. If you want to hold our hands all the time with frequency changes? Fine, make it standard. You want us to auto-switch and monitor tower til our number's called? That's fine too. Do you ground guys realize that the most complicated part of a pilot's job can be getting to the gate after we land?
don't get me wrong, it's great you're explaining the 'why' it is the way it is in YYZ, but please understand that it doesn't happen that way anywhere else in canada, that I've noticed.
Cheers.
I don't mind if different airports have different procedures. But those procedures should be published. In the absense of a published procedure, there should be a standard. That standard should be the same all across the country. Then, when an individual airport needs a special procedure due to a specific challenge, they should publish it. ie standardized taxi routes, mandatory hold shorts, madatory frequency changes, etc.
I don't intend to hack on any one airport, but I will use YYC as an example. They do not use the phrase, "monitor tower holding short." They do, however, expect pilots to switch to and monitor tower automatically when holding short.
With no published procedure, and no verbal instruction, how can they expect this? Immagine a YYZ pilot in YYC waiting for the instruction to switch to tower because that's what he/she has been accustomed to do in YYZ. They'll be waiting a long time.
The same thing happens in reverse. A YYC pilot automatically swithes to tower in YYZ before he has been told because that is what he/she is used to doing. He/she doesn't know that tower doesn't yet have the strip (or equivalent).
I don't think the specific problem of switching to tower vs not switching to tower, while holding short of the assigned runway, is us pilots' fault. The problem exists because of the lack of consistancy between different ATC facilities. If you don't all become more consistant, the problem will continue.
In other cases, it is the pilots' fault. ie just because they switched from North Ground to South Ground at this point last week, does not mean that they should automatically do it this week. I can see your frustration here, and I agree with it.
I don't intend to hack on any one airport, but I will use YYC as an example. They do not use the phrase, "monitor tower holding short." They do, however, expect pilots to switch to and monitor tower automatically when holding short.
With no published procedure, and no verbal instruction, how can they expect this? Immagine a YYZ pilot in YYC waiting for the instruction to switch to tower because that's what he/she has been accustomed to do in YYZ. They'll be waiting a long time.
The same thing happens in reverse. A YYC pilot automatically swithes to tower in YYZ before he has been told because that is what he/she is used to doing. He/she doesn't know that tower doesn't yet have the strip (or equivalent).
I don't think the specific problem of switching to tower vs not switching to tower, while holding short of the assigned runway, is us pilots' fault. The problem exists because of the lack of consistancy between different ATC facilities. If you don't all become more consistant, the problem will continue.
In other cases, it is the pilots' fault. ie just because they switched from North Ground to South Ground at this point last week, does not mean that they should automatically do it this week. I can see your frustration here, and I agree with it.
I appreciate the view from ATC, but I have to echo the frustration with unique expectations from every airport. As was said, if they are all the same, great. If not, then PUBLISH IT! Put a note on the airport diagram that says specifically 'thou shalt not EVER change a freq qithout a specific instruction to do so.'
Here's another one: Usually at YYZ it's 'monitor Tower, 18.7', but even when the instruction is 'contact tower 18.7' (when coming from ground at the hold line), you just don't. Or at least I think I know better than to tell a YYZ tower controller who/where I am after seeing many a Caravan driver in the morning receive a tongue lashing for calling up holding short. Is this still the case or am I just making up my own rules again?
Its noticeable that you all want something published. So today I have contacted my manager and he will raise the issue in the very near future and hopefully progress will be made.
Could you write them down rather than try and remember them? How about H G 15L/B3 X15R (/ = hold short)
Kurwa
Normally I say "monitor" for the tower and "contact" for ground, departure and apron. Sometimes contact just slips out. I don't think there's any place for abuse on an ATC frequency, especially over something so trivial. If you've told me you're not ready, I might say "advise tower ready..." and I'll tell tower you're not ready so he expects you to call.
This is a great place to discuss issues to which you wouldn't be able to easily get answers. I'm not having a go at anyone and I think its unnecessary for people to have a go at me. Let's keep it civil and professional. Together we can make a difference.
Yes we do. We know taxy routes can be long and complex so we'll try and break them up.Do you ground guys realize that the most complicated part of a pilot's job can be getting to the gate after we land?
Could you write them down rather than try and remember them? How about H G 15L/B3 X15R (/ = hold short)
Kurwa
Normally I say "monitor" for the tower and "contact" for ground, departure and apron. Sometimes contact just slips out. I don't think there's any place for abuse on an ATC frequency, especially over something so trivial. If you've told me you're not ready, I might say "advise tower ready..." and I'll tell tower you're not ready so he expects you to call.
This is a great place to discuss issues to which you wouldn't be able to easily get answers. I'm not having a go at anyone and I think its unnecessary for people to have a go at me. Let's keep it civil and professional. Together we can make a difference.
-
Canus Chinookus
- Rank 7
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:30 pm
-
170 to xray
- Rank 3
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:48 am
- Location: cyyz
YYZ tower I have another question regarding frequencies in YYZ.
We operate out of Skyservice midfield at EA. We are almost always departing off of 24 or 6. The other day we landed 5 and taxied up E. As we approached EA the north ground told us,
"enter the ramp at EA call apron 122.075 as you enter."
I have never heard that from south ground. It's usually call apron holding short of EA. So my question is this.
Do we need clearance from apron to enter the ramp at EA? I'm assuming this to be the case. Maybe north ground was just a little too relaxed in the clearance?
Thanks
We operate out of Skyservice midfield at EA. We are almost always departing off of 24 or 6. The other day we landed 5 and taxied up E. As we approached EA the north ground told us,
"enter the ramp at EA call apron 122.075 as you enter."
I have never heard that from south ground. It's usually call apron holding short of EA. So my question is this.
Do we need clearance from apron to enter the ramp at EA? I'm assuming this to be the case. Maybe north ground was just a little too relaxed in the clearance?
Thanks
Apron Advisory do not give "clearances" but you should not enter the ramp without having spoken to them. What they say may sound like a clearance but they are not a control authority, just advisors. Maybe a slip of the tongue on ground's part as our limit of control is the ramp entrance at EA and not actually on the ramp.
Of course you can.Can you get a progressive taxi at YYZ
