ATC Rant..

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:50 am

Hey Doc,
Were you in TWW yesterday coming into YQT landing on 12,
we were on the ground watching the left hand base to final looked cool.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:50 pm

Hey there guys, i'm not ATC but i will wade in on this one anyways. One thing i have seen in pilots and this happens to most. A lot of pilots don;t see the big picture they see the small slice of pie that is there life and work at that moment in time. You may have to follow that 172 doing circuits but that 172 pays there NavCan fees just the same as you do and he is paying for gas just the same as you. I understand that your gas is being burned quicker and you have passengers in the back but the small guys and the bigger guys have the same right to the sky as you. As for ATC well they have a plan for there traffic where everyone is gonna fit into there small airspace and well maybe there is a reason you are being vectored out that your not aware of. A lot of trimes there is a lot of things going on that the pilot in the cockpit isn't aware of. It comes down to inter job awareness, thats why i love going up for a ride witha pilot. it allows me to see the world from there perspective so that i can better serve them in the future. the saying is so true "You can never truly understand someone til you walked a mile in there shoes".

stef · Post by **stef** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:51 pm

I've been working out of Thunderbay off and on for the last 6 years and have found ATC there to be nothing but excellent. I'm pretty sure they're always trying their best to get us where we're going as effiently as possible, and I know we're always trying our best to fit ourselves into their plans.

Thank you and keep up the good work.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:45 pm

"You can never truly understand someone til you walked a mile in there shoes".

You mean to truely understand Birddog I gotta walk a mile in red high-heels? Screw that for a game of marbles.

And as to Nimbus' quote:

They just don't really know how bad it is for a turbine to descend 60 nm early.

Don't be too sure of that mate. Airspace structure, traffic flows and adjacent sectors can have a great deal to with when we need you to start down. Personally, I would love to let you guys hang it up until the last minute and start down when you're ready, but in busy airspace such as YYZ (and the London TMA) for example, sometimes this isn't feasible for all players involved.[/quote]

split s · Post by **split s** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:47 pm

You would have to agree that 90% of the time things work out pretty well around YQT and YWG. Give 5% to--I wonder why, and 5% to-- thank god they woke up before we ended up in XXX.
My question for the YWG controllers is, if we are in vmc and are allowed to cancel IFR(S.O.P.'s) will it make any significant diiference if we do? Will it cut down on the vectoring, get us in any quicker, does it help you guys at all, ect... It did not seem to make much of a difference in YQT.
I guess I have two ?. Do the gates really help,are they necessary? Were they an experiment at one time that turned into a permanent thing?

thanks SS

split s · Post by **split s** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:56 pm

I'm with you guys on the seperate forum for these questions. It is an excellant idea! Great to see more FSS and Controllers on here! Bring more with you! And jerricho, Doc wasn't kissing your ass, YOU ROCK!

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:06 pm

Hi Split S

Speaking for Winnipeg, your cancelling IFR does change how we're going to sequence you, and may actually end up delaying you more than if you were just vectored into the sequence. Our standard way of handling VFR is set you on course to the field, descend you to 3000/3500 (wake turb cat depending) and ship you over to the tower. Thing is, if there is a line of traffic coming in (especially if were on 18 and the "Perimeter Wall" is making it's way down from up north), we have to co-ordinate with the tower to make a gap. It could mean you have to spin in the downwind.......or if you're lucky you may get the other runway (if the tower isn't short staffed

).

The "gates" we use for Winnipeg do serve a purpose in directing the "flows" of traffic with "departure" and "arrival" gates, and they do cut down on the co-ordination between the terminal and enroute. Although, I'm sure some drivers may be scratching their heads at times when they're heading up to YIV (or similar destinations) and find themselves heading 040 from the field for 45ish miles before heading north.

ATC · Post by **ATC** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:21 pm

Anything about YUL ATC ??!!

Any comments, critics welcome !

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:58 pm

We love ya!

Scuba_Steve · Post by **Scuba_Steve** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:49 pm

I've flown into YUL a few times, no complaints. But I have never worked around there on a day to day basis.

Cheers

Busted · Post by **Busted** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:41 pm

If Jerrico is who I think you are, we wish you were in arrival ALL the time.
The rest could just go home.

When the accent is working I know I am not going to be pissing around all my possible profit sharing or atleast, I will be on sked after my turn.

I have to admit I among others are so sick and tired of being vectored 10-15 miles south after coming in from the north while they fit in a 320,37, or a pilatus that I among others could easily cut in front of (2-3 miles is a long final). Being out there I think I can see Grand Forks......

I have more to say, but I am being advised to wait until I am sober..... All I can say is that YWG sucks on most days.
Oh yah would be nice if they would have had more then one guy on in the tower the night of the GREY CUP. LOVE that 10 - 15 mile seperation.....
On the other hand good job to the guy that was up there.

Salut.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:35 am

All I can say is that YWG sucks on most days.

Once again, and I hate to focus on the negative, but could you perhaps extrapolate on that a bit? Or you still pissed?

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:55 pm

While Montreal is good, the second language that is used there is annoying as you must rely on someone to tell you if there is a conflict, it is hard to determine it yourself. It does seem that english-speakers are in the minority.

And the taxiways are as rough as the road to the hotel!

-2 driver · Post by **-2 driver** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:50 pm

oldtimer wrote:
What I do believe sometimes happens is ATC tries to accomodate the first call, many times to the so called detriment of others. I find that often going into Regina in the morning where the Red Team want to depart RWY 31 and we want to land 13. They to depart the direction they are going and we to land the direction we are coming from.

The active runway is determined by the tower controller, not the terminal controller. In Regina, 31 is the preferred runway, due to noise abatement issues. That said, the active runway is supposed to be the one most aligned into wind if the wind speed is 5 kts or greater. If an arriving pilot requests the opposite end of the active runway from the terminal controller, he first must obtain the approval of the tower controller. The tower controller will make his decision on present and anticipated traffic. The opposite is true for departures; tower must first obtain approval from the terminal. I know (because I am one) that the tower controllers in Regina bend over backwards and try their absolute best to accomodate all requests. I am pretty sure that the same is true of the terminal controllers. If you don't get the opposite end of the active runway, there is a good reason for it. If you don't get 13, why don't you ask for 08? You are almost guaranteed of getting it. I don't know how things will be when the terminal closes; if I had a guess I would say that getting the opposite end of the active runway will happen only in times of very light traffic, if at all.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:42 pm

I am pretty sure that the same is true of the terminal controllers.

Oh hell yes. Out here in the flat lands if the terminal controller can get you your requested runway, they certainly will get it for you. Me, I love playing
"runway roulette" if the wind allows........although IMHO if for say at YWG the deemed active is 31 and you requested 36, if there was a lander for 31 and yourself requesting 36 both dead heat "tied" to the field, I would have to make the 36 number 2 in the sequence.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:41 pm

F.B. wrote:WG CENTER has a reputation of being very annal. For a not so busy place they seem to make a mountain over a mole hill. They seem to try an resolve problems far out instead of letting the flow evolve and resolve closer in. It's not that busy an airspace to micro manage that far out.

And you'd be best qualified to judge the complexity and traffic levels in a given airspace based on how much experience as a controller?

IFRATC · Post by **IFRATC** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:25 am

F.B. .....
I would be interested to know about your ATC background considering the fact that you have all the solutions on how YWG centres airspace is run. Come to think of it, we have our own problems with traffic volume and airspace density in YYZ. Please give us the answers on how we can streamline our jobs!?!?! (laughter).

IFRATC

split s · Post by **split s** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:51 am

This sight has got alot more interesting since other dynamics of aviation have started coming out of the woodwork and voicing opinions! Thank goodness!

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:57 pm

Well...looks like I'm involved in two of these stories, one positive and one negative.

First one was the MU2 that got routed 15 east of YQT approaching the field from the west for runway 25. We watched a Metro and 737 land in front as we were well past the field...after we had already slowed down. If we had been allowed to keep the speed up we could have done the right visual for 25 or straight in for 12 and we would have been in well ahead of those two. There may be some mitigating circumstance I don't know about...but we joked (inside voices only) every time we got vectors since then for 25 if we were going via Terrace Bay. I would appreciate that, if it is ATC's intention to vector me out that far, they give us a heads up. Most decents into YQT seem to be at our discretion so if we know ahead of time we can stay higher longer...those Garretts just suck back the gas down low.

The second one mentioned previously is the MU2 going into Hamilton (it was actually London). We were approaching from the north for 15. The controller informed us it looked like we were going to be in just behind a WJ 737 coming from the west. A few minutes later the controller asked for our speeds respectively, 250 for us and 240 for the 737. The controller instantly switched the order and told WJ that he was #2 to us. To me this makes sense. The faster aircraft on a straight in will get on the ground and out of the system quicker. If the roles had been reversed I'd still say, "GOOD JOB".

Most of the time I have nothing bad to say about ATC. I guess the negative ones stick in our minds longer.

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:52 pm

Ok, I have one.

Not the it piss's me off but it is more aless a huge nusence.
Today coming into yqt from yxl, we're at 150. We can see traffic to our 11 o'clock in decent, we requested the staright in runway 12 circling 07.
to which we were told that we had the same estimate as a pilatus, yet we were roughly 15 miles behind(thats a guess, a night illusions mess with you) so would we like 12 or 07.

We said ok what would you like which they said ok, vectors 07. oh and slow down to 210 knots now. WHAT THE HELL. so we decend down to 7000 now at 210 and oh now slow to 160, NOW this is just annoying, now we get decent down to 3100 and now a slow to minimum approach speed, you gotta be kidding me, really

You must me able to see it on your radar that we are obviously quicker, so why slow us down so much, vector the slow aircraft or ask them to slow down a few knots

Guess my thing is, If 2 aircraft have the same estimate, why are they making the faster one slow down in yqt alllllllll the time?

End of my rant

ywg-atc · Post by **ywg-atc** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:21 pm

I don't work the airspace at YQT, but I'll take a stab at an answer for you. Like you said, you're estimates for the airport are the same and you're already approx. 15 miles in behind. The point at which you'll get in front is when you're on the ground. So unless you can go a whole lot faster, you will not overtake and get in front of the PC12. It sounds like you're talking to the terminal controller, so you're probably no more that 35 miles out. If terminal spacing is 3 miles, you need to make up 18 miles in what, 10 minutes of flying time. Now, if you're estimates for the 15 mile arc are the same, then that would mean you should be number one for the airport, and the slower aircraft should be vectored out to make room for you to pull past, but based on what you've said that isn't the case here.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:45 am

ywg-atc wrote:If terminal spacing is 3 miles, you need to make up 18 miles in what, 10 minutes of flying time.

I agree. An MU2 will usually only have 20-30kts on a PC12/Beech 200/Metro, which equates to a 1 mile overtake for every 2-3 minutes. That 18 miles would take 48mins to achieve, so you'd have to fly to Wawa and back to make it work. Slowing down sounds like the better option to me. Unless you're talking 120kts or more for an overtake, trying to get you in front at that proximity to the airport is impossible. I wouldn't even give a medevac priority in that scenario.

Obviously more pilots need to come through the ACC and see what it's like. Instead of it being controllers not understanding descent and speed profiles, I would suggest that some pilots are ill-informed (or are making flawed assumptions) about how traffic can be managed, particularly in the terminal environment. There is a much bigger picture out there than what is visible out the windshield.

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:39 am

Hey guys, thanks. it could have been closer than 15 miles, like I said night illusions play tricks on distances, things seem farther and closer at times.

My next question is than, you mentioned a 15 mile arc for vectoring,

so when vectoring, is priority given to the aircraft that will make this arc first than and not the field?(thats what I got from reading the last post)

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:47 am

I don't think the word "priority" is the correct one. There are all sort of other considerations as well. Classic example is if noise abatement has to be applied. The Metro drivers into Winnipeg can (and do

) point it at the runway while the jets have to turn final at or outside the beacon. Makes a huge difference.

ywg-atc · Post by **ywg-atc** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:19 pm

flyinhigh:

"My next question is than, you mentioned a 15 mile arc for vectoring, so when vectoring, is priority given to the aircraft that will make this arc first than and not the field?(thats what I got from reading the last post)"

The 15 mile arc was just an example I was using. The 2 key pieces of information that you provided were; 1. you're already in behind, and the actual distance is irrelavent because: 2. your time for YQT is the same as the preceeding PC12. I was trying to illustrate that in order for you to overtake the PC12 and come in ahead, you'd have to overtake at some point before the airport (like 15 miles out). But 15 miles is in no way a scientific number, I'm not a QT terminal controller. Hope that helps.