nohojob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:28 am
Wow ! You're lucky.
I am not complaining, those things happen, and ATC is doing a good job, but I am based in YUL and it happened to me a few times.
Of course it happens, everyone makes mistakes. It can be pretty difficult to vector aircraft sometimes with strong winds, frequency congestion etc…
Also, it seems that with the integration of new aircraft into fleets there is a wider range of performance when it comes to turns. The A220 turns so quickly it’s pretty common for us to wait a bit longer with the turn to final, sometimes with tailwinds this can play tricks on us. Inversely if we turn an A220 too early they often intercept
To shallow so timing is key and with anything human performance related errors will happen.
As I said, I am not complaining, and yes we are not immune to mistakes
What I can say is over the years YUL vectors to finale has improved. Years ago, it was not uncommon to end up to high on the approach.
Now a day, you're either bang on or slightly bellow the GS when you intercept the LOC unless of course, for traffic you're vectored 20 miles final.
nohojob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:28 am
Wow ! You're lucky.
I am not complaining, those things happen, and ATC is doing a good job, but I am based in YUL and it happened to me a few times.
Of course it happens, everyone makes mistakes. It can be pretty difficult to vector aircraft sometimes with strong winds, frequency congestion etc…
Also, it seems that with the integration of new aircraft into fleets there is a wider range of performance when it comes to turns. The A220 turns so quickly it’s pretty common for us to wait a bit longer with the turn to final, sometimes with tailwinds this can play tricks on us. Inversely if we turn an A220 too early they often intercept
To shallow so timing is key and with anything human performance related errors will happen.
As I said, I am not complaining, and yes we are not immune to mistakes
What I can say is over the years YUL vectors to finale has improved. Years ago, it was not uncommon to end up to high on the approach.
Now a day, you're either bang on or slightly bellow the GS when you intercept the LOC unless of course, for traffic you're vectored 20 miles final.
That is one area in which we've put a lot of emphasis in order to help with the ''new'' stabilized approach criteria. I am glad there is a noticeable difference haha, we've been working on that!
On my end, as a controller, if a pilot requests a direct to the IF or a fix that cuts the STAR significantly, I expect you to come down at an appropriate rate so I can get on the LOC at a decent altitude. This isn't always the case and it is a pet peeve. If it is controller initiated I'd expect the controller to put the crew in the picture of how many track miles left or what rate of decent I need.
Braun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 7:45 pm
It’s always super interesting and informative to exchange. It’s not always the most productive forum but it does allow for some interaction.
I sense in the next few years we’ll be seeing some airspace changes to yul. We’ve been hampered by several noise complaint lawsuits that basically stopped any sort of improvement or modification of STAR’s, approaches and SID’s. We’re eager to work on it!
We have better taxiways now but the rest of the airport is such a construction mess that it makes it impossible to optimize runway usage.
Like I said, I am always open to discussions and I don’t hide behind my screen name! Cheers!
I mirror Dan’s sentiment in regards to appreciating a professional back and forth dialogue.
Any word in regard as to how those modifications will impact current approches and or future operations out of YHU with the expansion plans there being in the works?
Thanks!
TPC
So as of today « upgrading » the approaches, arrival routes and general airspace around YHU is the priority. We’ve been working since September on modifying internal sectors and procedures to be able to handle the extra movements. There will several phases to it but in general the first phase is mostly internal stuff to Nav and the next phases will come in time. We’re looking at ways to add STAR’s and updated RNAV approaches into YHU. Again, noise considerations are an issue.
The other problem is YHU’s proximity is to YUL. Since it is east of YUL and most the traffic flows east to west and vice verse it makes it a bit more complicated to integrate than say a YTZ vs YYZ which is south of the field. It basically forces every single arrival into yhu to cross at least 2 of yul’s STAR’s and multiple of its departure routes. Also, for some odd geographical reason, the winds in yhu are fairly frequently in the opposite of YUL which means often have to operate on 06’s in yul and 24’s in yhu for example. Which also complicates things.
So yeah, some changes are coming but at first it’ll be a bit more transparent for the users and eventually we’ll have more updates to the yhu operation. Any form of airspace changes take forever because of all the consultation and red tape we have to go through. We’re talking years (thanks TC)
It’s certainly very interesting to hear your side of all this.
I wonder if Porter’s expansion into YHU has anything to do with revisiting arrival routes into YUL. It’ll be interesting to see, due to the orientation of the airports (as you mentioned)
I mirror Dan’s sentiment in regards to appreciating a professional back and forth dialogue.
Any word in regard as to how those modifications will impact current approches and or future operations out of YHU with the expansion plans there being in the works?
Thanks!
TPC
So as of today « upgrading » the approaches, arrival routes and general airspace around YHU is the priority. We’ve been working since September on modifying internal sectors and procedures to be able to handle the extra movements. There will several phases to it but in general the first phase is mostly internal stuff to Nav and the next phases will come in time. We’re looking at ways to add STAR’s and updated RNAV approaches into YHU. Again, noise considerations are an issue.
The other problem is YHU’s proximity is to YUL. Since it is east of YUL and most the traffic flows east to west and vice verse it makes it a bit more complicated to integrate than say a YTZ vs YYZ which is south of the field. It basically forces every single arrival into yhu to cross at least 2 of yul’s STAR’s and multiple of its departure routes. Also, for some odd geographical reason, the winds in yhu are fairly frequently in the opposite of YUL which means often have to operate on 06’s in yul and 24’s in yhu for example. Which also complicates things.
So yeah, some changes are coming but at first it’ll be a bit more transparent for the users and eventually we’ll have more updates to the yhu operation. Any form of airspace changes take forever because of all the consultation and red tape we have to go through. We’re talking years (thanks TC)
It’s certainly very interesting to hear your side of all this.
I wonder if Porter’s expansion into YHU has anything to do with revisiting arrival routes into YUL. It’ll be interesting to see, due to the orientation of the airports (as you mentioned)
We’ve been wanting to get RNP approaches and a few modifications to the YUL STARS for a while but there has a huge lawsuit around noise abatement for years that was blocking us. I think it’s over now and obviously the YHU development will impact things too.
Braun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 7:45 pm
It’s always super interesting and informative to exchange. It’s not always the most productive forum but it does allow for some interaction.
I sense in the next few years we’ll be seeing some airspace changes to yul. We’ve been hampered by several noise complaint lawsuits that basically stopped any sort of improvement or modification of STAR’s, approaches and SID’s. We’re eager to work on it!
We have better taxiways now but the rest of the airport is such a construction mess that it makes it impossible to optimize runway usage.
Like I said, I am always open to discussions and I don’t hide behind my screen name! Cheers!
I mirror Dan’s sentiment in regards to appreciating a professional back and forth dialogue.
Any word in regard as to how those modifications will impact current approches and or future operations out of YHU with the expansion plans there being in the works?
Thanks!
TPC
So as of today « upgrading » the approaches, arrival routes and general airspace around YHU is the priority. We’ve been working since September on modifying internal sectors and procedures to be able to handle the extra movements. There will several phases to it but in general the first phase is mostly internal stuff to Nav and the next phases will come in time. We’re looking at ways to add STAR’s and updated RNAV approaches into YHU. Again, noise considerations are an issue.
The other problem is YHU’s proximity is to YUL. Since it is east of YUL and most the traffic flows east to west and vice verse it makes it a bit more complicated to integrate than say a YTZ vs YYZ which is south of the field. It basically forces every single arrival into yhu to cross at least 2 of yul’s STAR’s and multiple of its departure routes. Also, for some odd geographical reason, the winds in yhu are fairly frequently in the opposite of YUL which means often have to operate on 06’s in yul and 24’s in yhu for example. Which also complicates things.
So yeah, some changes are coming but at first it’ll be a bit more transparent for the users and eventually we’ll have more updates to the yhu operation. Any form of airspace changes take forever because of all the consultation and red tape we have to go through. We’re talking years (thanks TC)
Thank you Braun for the fantastic insight!
Out of curiosity what is required to have RNP’s into YHU?
I mirror Dan’s sentiment in regards to appreciating a professional back and forth dialogue.
Any word in regard as to how those modifications will impact current approches and or future operations out of YHU with the expansion plans there being in the works?
Thanks!
TPC
So as of today « upgrading » the approaches, arrival routes and general airspace around YHU is the priority. We’ve been working since September on modifying internal sectors and procedures to be able to handle the extra movements. There will several phases to it but in general the first phase is mostly internal stuff to Nav and the next phases will come in time. We’re looking at ways to add STAR’s and updated RNAV approaches into YHU. Again, noise considerations are an issue.
The other problem is YHU’s proximity is to YUL. Since it is east of YUL and most the traffic flows east to west and vice verse it makes it a bit more complicated to integrate than say a YTZ vs YYZ which is south of the field. It basically forces every single arrival into yhu to cross at least 2 of yul’s STAR’s and multiple of its departure routes. Also, for some odd geographical reason, the winds in yhu are fairly frequently in the opposite of YUL which means often have to operate on 06’s in yul and 24’s in yhu for example. Which also complicates things.
So yeah, some changes are coming but at first it’ll be a bit more transparent for the users and eventually we’ll have more updates to the yhu operation. Any form of airspace changes take forever because of all the consultation and red tape we have to go through. We’re talking years (thanks TC)
Thank you Braun for the fantastic insight!
Out of curiosity what is required to have RNP’s into YHU?
TPC
At this point we just need to properly set up the airspace to accommodate both airports. So we need to figure that out and then we can design the approaches that fit in that new system. Ideally we would also get RNP’s into yul first as it is and always will be the main airport. I wouldn’t surprised if they both come hand in hand.
I think consultation is also required with stakeholders before designing them so I think it’ll take some time. (I.e. Years) these things are slow.
Note to airport, buy any house that comes up then place a restrictive covenant on the deed I'm sure you could somehow put " I know I'm buying close to an airport, and waive my rights to bitch about it"
rigpiggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:31 pm
Note to airport, buy any house that comes up then place a restrictive covenant on the deed I'm sure you could somehow put " I know I'm buying close to an airport, and waive my rights to bitch about it"
rigpiggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:31 pm
Note to airport, buy any house that comes up then place a restrictive covenant on the deed I'm sure you could somehow put " I know I'm buying close to an airport, and waive my rights to bitch about it"
Or just ignore all the bitching
No noise abatement in the USA. Go 250 as soon as you can cuz we want the blip off my screen ASAP.
