55+ wrote:"This thread alone is worth the amusement of reading how some people almost have an aneurism anytime the subject of NC's authority comes up."
Well........... there are some who have been inside NC(like me) and know what is going on. Like the countless re-orgs that have been going on over the past five years, if not more that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars(From airspace re-alignments and back again, AIS shifting, this list goes on and on). If people who read these threads/posts knew what NC was doing with their money , they would be quite amused I am sure.
Please spare me the NC platitudes as I have been around to long
You forgot CAATS.
Actually NC inherited that 20 yr old project from the Feds aka TC and as you may be aware NC reduced it's so called capabilities due cost overruns and software issues. A good many in NC/TC got lucrative retirements out of that project alone.........
charlie_g wrote:First I've heard of this. I don't fancy the thought of having to write down the ident of every flight that comes off the ground...
Same here. Only time I've heard of any sort of requirement to give a civil, except where there was confusion between to company idents (and that's done on the fly at the discretion of the controller or specialist, not by some overriding company directive), is where a company hasn't paid their fees. In that case we're given a company name, and a list of civil ident which we're not supposed to provide most services to.
Flyinhigh, do you have anything official to document this, or is it just the rumor mill? (edit: should have read the rest of the thread... disregard...)
Grimey when you read the next "FS Directives" you will see that it is true. The pilot of a plane that is flying under a center stored flight plan will be required to give his civil ident on his initial call. We will be required to enter it into NCAMS so that the airline doesn't get double billed.
Like someone said earlier airlines are charged ona per plane per day basis. This will make it easier for billing to corelate data and make sure NavCan doesn't over charge which will save companies money and hopefully time trying to get it fixed.
It will be a pain in the rear for a while til we get used to it, but really it will only affect planes flying under a center stored flight plan. If you file a normal flight plan they ask for your registration so the civil ident won't be required in that instance. Not sure about flying under a company itinerary though i'll have to check on that one.
Lets break it down though it will take about 2 seconds extra to give your civil ident once on departure. I'm sure it's not that busy that this will break a pilot to give the ident.
---------- ADS -----------
FSS: puting the Service back in Flight Services....
We'll have to give it on our initial call. With each controller, each station? If we Get cleared for the approach with center, go over to say Churchill, we'll hav e to give it again? Go from ground to tower, tower to departure. Tell us to contact next station in 10 minutes, will we have to give it each time?
Because if so, why have Company flight numbers, other than to sound cool of course? Its not like we telaport (or however you spell it) airplanes around, can't they keep track. If one airplane ends somewhere, guess what, its next flight is gonna start there.
I don't know why it would come as a surprise to any of you that the ANS operator has authority over call signs?
Is NavCan now issuing Restricted Radiotelephone Operator's Certificates to pilots now, too? From your tone, I would have to assume YES - that Industry Canada is out of the picture.
Does anyone else find it very strange that a supposedly private company has the authority of the federal government?
Great, the only brief thing about NAC's radio calls used to be HAMMER, now I gotta wait for the guy to figure out which plane he's flying with the microphone pressed.
Just kidding NAC, but it'll ring true for some operators...you know it.
sweetgal wrote:we are working the radio, we are facing away from the window. This has proven to be unsafe and they have decided to invest some money. I have to say it's not a luxury. So if you think we have state of the art equipment and they overspend, you're wrong.
Umm, aren't you in FSS??? So why do you need to "see" the runway? Oh yeah, so you can write up pilots for crossing the line.....
cyyz wrote:Umm, aren't you in FSS??? So why do you need to "see" the runway? Oh yeah, so you can write up pilots for crossing the line.....
I assume you are joking right? Do you have a concept of what the job entails?
You have to bloody joking...he's a pilot, they don't have a goddamned clue and don't want to know. If they really understood what the ATS sytem did they'd have very little to bitch about except themselves.
cyyz wrote:Umm, aren't you in FSS??? So why do you need to "see" the runway? Oh yeah, so you can write up pilots for crossing the line.....
I assume you are joking right? Do you have a concept of what the job entails?
You have to bloody joking...he's a pilot, they don't have a goddamned clue and don't want to know. If they really understood what the ATS sytem did they'd have very little to bitch about except themselves.
Do a search a read up on one of the "towers" not sure which northern ontario FSS site was being slandered, but the comments were that people were frequently being written up and getting nice letters from TC because FSS "saw" the pilot crossing(touching) markers, or turning innappropriately on the taxi-ways, or what have you...
Sorry, If you want to build a tower for FSS, just make the bloody site a TOWER not a farking FSS. I wouldn't have a problem with them(tower) writing people up, but the FSS job DOESN'T entail writing up pilots because you "saw" them "break the rules."
cyyz wrote:Sorry, If you want to build a tower for FSS, just make the bloody site a TOWER not a farking FSS. I wouldn't have a problem with them(tower) writing people up, but the FSS job DOESN'T entail writing up pilots because you "saw" them "break the rules."
Yes Jerky, it does. Want me to quote chapter and verse from our operations manual?
cyyz wrote:Sorry, If you want to build a tower for FSS, just make the bloody site a TOWER not a farking FSS. I wouldn't have a problem with them(tower) writing people up, but the FSS job DOESN'T entail writing up pilots because you "saw" them "break the rules."
Yes Jerky, it does. Want me to quote chapter and verse from our operations manual?
So how do the guys at Muskoka see the pilots skipping past the markers? Or see them sitting on the runway???? How is it possible they can magically do their job from wherever they're at now(formerly toronto)??
cyyz wrote:Sorry, If you want to build a tower for FSS, just make the bloody site a TOWER not a farking FSS. I wouldn't have a problem with them(tower) writing people up, but the FSS job DOESN'T entail writing up pilots because you "saw" them "break the rules."
Yes Jerky, it does. Want me to quote chapter and verse from our operations manual?
So how do the guys at Muskoka see the pilots skipping past the markers? Or see them sitting on the runway???? How is it possible they can magically do their job from wherever they're at now(formerly toronto)??
What does not seeing something have to do with seeing someone break the rules? Do you speak fucking english?
This post is completely off base. No you won't have to use your civil ident rather than your company call sign. It is simply a mixup with center stored flight plans where the companies are getting billed incorrectly.
If the flight is center stored as a JS31 and the actual plane is a SF34, chances are the pilots won't make the correction when they call for clearance and the bill will be made out to a JS31. Well the companies have complained or have gotten away with flying larger aircraft than they are being billed for so in order to stop the confusion, centerstored flights are required to give their company call sign along with their civil ident on initial call for clearance. This eliminates the billing mistakes with center stored routes.
As far as the mix-up of similar sounding idents are concerned this is a huge problem. For some reason Jazz in particular thought it wasn't a big deal to have similar idents in the same locations at the same time. ie JZA8578 and JZA8587. Well not only are the pilots mistaking the transmissions and the wrong pilot reading them back but the controllers are also missing the wrong readbacks. There's been several scenarios where one aircraft was told to taxi while the other aircraft was still holding short. The aircraft holding short read the taxi instruction back and proceded to taxi across the runway with an aircraft rolling/landing. It's getting a little too common for comfort and I think there is finally something being done to change it.
Muskoka is a Remote Aerodrom Advisory service, but there are aprx 60+ FSS sites that are located on site (plus probably less than 20 RAAS sites). For example YGK, YYB, YSN for your local spots. The main part of the job for most sites (non FIC) is too look out the window to give the advisories.
If Nav Canada killed the call signs, who was it that killed the radio star? I'm starting to wonder if it really was video or was it Nav Canada as well?
hydro wrote: The main part of the job for most sites (non FIC) is too look out the window to give the advisories.
So give out the advisories, and keep the other stuff to yourselves..... =)
One part of one whole chapter of our MANOPS covers Advisories. Can I tell my boss you said I don't have to do any of what is in the other chapters or the remainder of Chapter 4?
hydro wrote: The main part of the job for most sites (non FIC) is too look out the window to give the advisories.
So give out the advisories, and keep the other stuff to yourselves..... =)
One part of one whole chapter of our MANOPS covers Advisories. Can I tell my boss you said I don't have to do any of what is in the other chapters or the remainder of Chapter 4?
So 1 chapter says what you're essentially paid to do and what pilots want you there for, and then another 10+++ chapters on how to screw the flying traffic and be on the look out for student pilots who cross the wrong line....
cyyz wrote:
So 1 chapter says what you're essentially paid to do and what pilots want you there for, and then another 10+++ chapters on how to screw the flying traffic and be on the look out for student pilots who cross the wrong line....
Good stuff...
Yes, that's exactly it. We're all out to get you.
Are all pilots this paranoid and ignorant, or just you?
Hedley wrote:
After all, I thought FSS was there to help pilots, not to write them up for Enforcement and drive them away.
Which is what I do 99% of the time.
Edit: I'm not pissed off about one pilot or another disliking one FSS or another for something they've experienced. There are pilots I don't like flying near where I'm working, but I don't assume all pilots are incompetent or assholes because of one or two guys I know. What pissed me off is cyyz telling me what my job entails, when he clearly has no clue about it.
grimey wrote: What pissed me off is cyyz telling me what my job entails, when he clearly has no clue about it.
And what pissed me off was the fact you want to be tower "like," yet you want to degrade and undervalue yourself by calling yourselves FSS... It's okay pilots do it too... And then the funny thing is you have other FSSers ranting about how they do "tower work" and get paid FSS wages, and how they should be paid more.... Like I said, I don't care, You want to be tower, get paid FSS wages, that's cool too, saves me a NavCan buck...
And secondly, it's fine and dandy your manops and management say what you're to do, but if you weren't a monopoly, needless to say you'd be unemployed, because any other company would run an air traffic service properly.
SquearlFSS wrote:
In the future though I hope to seen a lessening of the gap between VFR and FSS salaries and responsibilities though. I think that an actual combining of these two jobs wouldnt be that crazy of an idea. As long as an FSS has the tools (Nards, 360/180 Cab, Schedueled relief for breaks) it is proven we can do upwards of 70-80k movements no sweat.
Most grade 1,2 towers could in my opinion be run by FSS, cutting costs drastically which would then be passed onto the users in effect decreasing operating costs and allowing more growth in the industry.
I be one of 'dem piloting types......... 
