You're not there to serve GA, and sometimes you don't. I don't know why you expect a round of applause for it, though

.

Sorry Photofly but I have a problem with you implying that YYZ terminal does not offer a service to VFR aircraft as per the question posed at the start of this thread. You are right...our sole purpose is not to serve GA...and you are right...sometimes we don't. However it is not down to the implication that we are providing a poor service. It is about trying to provide the right balance between GA and YYZ/YTZ/YHM traffic.

Scraps from the table don't count as good service

YYZ: null points

But in terms of the question asked at the top of the thread, unless you are inbound to YYZ there's no service offered in the terminal area.

But I can't applaud you for great service when the service I seek isn't offered

I am looking for an understanding from the pilot community that when you get within 20 miles of a busy airport you will get (staffing permitting) a service that provides both you and me with some flexiblity. There HAS to be some understanding from the GA pilot side. It isn't about rounds of applause or thinking you are getting a shit/great service...it is about where you fit in a busy traffic environment. I have worked in the UK...it is the same there....I work alongside ex US controllers..they say the same. I asked an ex New York controller today about altitudes through New York airspace...he said that so long as you aren't in the way there is a lot of flexibility...the minute you impinge on EWR/JFK/LGA....**** off.

The things I'm likely to be interested in are basically the same as Rookie:

- essentially unrestricted climbs out of CYTZ to up to in any direction. I don't expect to be cleared all at once, but restricted westbound to 2000 until nearly into the Hamilton zone doesn't float my boat, sorry!
- maintaining 4500 southbound from say CYQA over the top of CYKZ
- inbound over the lake from Buffalo at something like 10k until 5 south of CYTZ.
- occasionally transit eg Kingston to Brantford without a great detour north, or descend to 2000 along the lakeshore

I repost your list here as these are the things you would consider a service (you did mention 4500 over YKZ southbound without mentioning a runway config at YYZ). None of these things as a low performing VFR aircraft give me ANY flexibility as a controller in YYZ TCU and I did mention the problems. We all like to think we do the job to the best of our ability. I like to think that I have never said "no" to any aircraft without a legitimate airspace/safety concern attached. I am sure when sitting in the cockpit that "no" seems like the lack of service you allude to. I maintain it isn't like that in YYZ terminal. Not getting what you want dosen't equate to poor service.

I don't doubt you do your job to the best of your considerable ability. The system isn't set up for me to tell you that you're providing me great service. Much as we'd both like it to be.

Not getting what you want dosen't equate to poor service.

You're taking a administrator-bureaucrat's viewpoint, where you consider the quality of service you offer is equal to how well you fulfill your manager's expectations for your job. An inside-looking-out view. It's not the right view.

I view things from a customer service point of view, where the quality of service you give me is equal to how well and how often you can provide me with what I need for a safe and expeditious flight. It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

photofly wrote: It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

But for the many hundreds of other aircraft that are provided with great customer service day in and day out operating within each Canadian TCU I think they would argue that.

16SidedOffice wrote:

photofly wrote: It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

But for the many hundreds of other aircraft that are provided with great customer service day in and day out operating within each Canadian TCU I think they would argue that.

No doubt they would. But we're into the third page of this thread, and I don't yet see them saying so here. Perhaps none of them are VFR traffic; in which case that reinforces the original poster's comments.



I'm getting the idea that you guys in ATC are actually quite surprised to hear that not everyone thinks you're providing great service. Perhaps you need to hear it more often. Perhaps this thread is a step in the right direction.

You can complain about the service on here all day long but it doesn't change the fact that the terminal controllers across the country bust their asses to move traffic as safely and expeditiously as possible. Nobody is denying service because they get enjoy it. Let Nav Canada's safety track record speak for itself.

Controllers are far from perfect but they have the bigger picture to consider, it is easy to look out the cockpit window and think that you have a better idea of what is going on around you but you really don't. I thought that way for years until I learned how many other factors a controller has to consider in their day to day interactions and decisions.

Pilots and controllers are all on the same team if they considered one another as teammates instead of adversaries it would be amazing how much more smoothly the system would run. Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment to a more realistic level of what constitutes good service.

TA/RA, there was a time when there was mutual respect and co-operation between controllers and pilots.

Reading these sad discouraging ongoing attacks on the people in ATC is convincing me that ignorance and the self only attitudes shown by some pilots is beyond fixing.

It is far far easier to be a pilot than an air traffic controller, my advice to you guys is don't even try and explain your position to them because it seems to be hopeless.

Most of us who are professional pilots understand the problems and will work with you.

Thank you Cat. Not all but many controllers are also pilots and work hard to provide a good service because they too are users of the airspace. The end goal is the same for both pilots and controllers get airplanes to where they need to go safely be it GA or fancy callsigns.

Meanwhile, after the love-in...

TA/RA wrote:Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment

I'm well aware how you want me to change my expectations. How do you think you you should change your expectations?

An inside-looking-out view. It's not the right view.

That is the main breakdown between pilots and ATC...and as TA/RA has just said...we have the big picture...unfortunately you don't. Staffing issues aside...air traffic control should make decisions based on the big picture. You in the cockpit have the view directly in front of you in the direction you are flying. You do not have the picture of what is coming in/out from every direction or what is pending from other airfields in the area.
An outside looking in (ie an individual pilot) is not the right view to take either...because you don't know how what you want will affect traffic further along. It is our job in ATC to try and balance these demands..and although we make mistakes...our decisions are based on the whole picture, not just an individuals traffic requirements.

where the quality of service you give me is equal to how well and how often you can provide me with what I need for a safe and expeditious flight. It doesn't matter how fabulous and compelling the reasons you can't provide me with that - for as long you don't, it's not great service.

C'mon Photo!!....take for example one of the things you would like off YTZ..unrestricted climb in any direction??? In a low performer VFR??? You tell me from the outside looking in...HOW that can be achieved when YYZ is on ANY configuration. Denying this is not poor service...it is just common sense. If you need this to be safe and expeditious then you are asking for it in the wrong place. Putting yourself in conflict with other traffic for you to be safe in flight just creates another hazard.

Perhaps expectations on both sides require some adjustment to a more realistic level of what constitutes good service

.

I'm getting the idea that you guys in ATC are actually quite surprised to hear that not everyone thinks you're providing great service. Perhaps you need to hear it more often

I am quite happy to get criticism..and I frequent this forum and PPRUNE to try and learn more. I am also not immune to mistakes...and I can accept when I have ****ed up or done a bad job. With my accent and all I stick out in the terminal...so it is easy to know when it is me making a mistake....accepting transiters....or denying transiters.
I am not surprised to hear gripes about service because it is the nature of the industry.
I am more surprised that when certain gripes are addressed with legitimate reasons as to why what is required is not always available with reasons that have nothing to do with poor service...that these reasons are not accepted and all that we get back is "you don't provide a good service". I have provided air traffic control reasons as to why what you want is not always available. I am providing these reasons from a fully staffed unit which works a varied mix of traffic both IFR and VFR.

You have not provided me with any compelling reasons yet as to 1, why you SHOULD get what you want in the traffic environment I work in the aircraft types we are talking about here and 2, if you did....HOW can it be incorporated SAFELY into the IFR mix of aircraft into YYZ, YHM and the Porters in YTZ.


As a final point, you say you have done afew photo surveys in the terminal with no problems.There is a photo survey flight that has been trying to do a job at 4000ft over Downsview this summer and has been told "no" every single time..as this is right on the departure path on the 06s and the GS point on the 24s. On the 06s the jets climb to 5000ft, noise abatement is 3600ft so we can't level them at 3000 below as we are breaking the noise constraints...there is no way for traffic to depart YYZ without confliction. On the 24s the survey area is right at the 4000ft glideslope point so for it to work arriving aircraft would have to be slam dunked to 3000ft...which we can't do further out as YKZ owns that airspace.
The company/aircrew have begun to get p***ed at us for denying this flight as it is a survey that HAS to be done (allegedly). We have asked the company if they can operate at 5500ft which gives us some wiggle room and does not affect operations at YYZ to the extent 4000ft does. We have been told "NO" as they don't have the lens required to photo at that altitude. We also know that they accepted this survey without coordinating with our backroom as to what would and wouldn't work this close to Pearson.
Now according to your logic....because we are denying this flight survey we are providing a poor service....yet they want an altitude that affects YYZ traffic and puts them in direct conflict with YYZ traffic....and have given us no other options as to how we can accomodate them.

I say that in as much as air traffic control can be frustrating for pilots to work with sometimes and especially on the GA side of things as this thread shows, it is just as frustrating for us on the other side to have to explain to pilots why what they want isn't always possible.
To continue to say we don't provide the service you require is as frustrating for me in that I don't think you understand the airspace around YYZ and I don't think you understand the traffic mix in YYZ terminal. If you did you wouldn't say we provide a poor service to VFR.

How do you think you you should change your expectations

My expectations are based on aircraft performance, climb rate, time spent in my airspace, whether or not I think you can maintain VFR and how much you are going to affect my traffic picture.
Safety in air traffic control is based on aircraft doing what is expected of them.

If you want me to change my expectations..then make a PA28 perform the same as a Q400.

If you want me to change my expectations..then make a PA28 perform the same as a Q400

Maybe he could try EGLL airspace in that PA28 ?

Married a Canadian wrote:

How do you think you you should change your expectations

My expectations are based on aircraft performance, climb rate, time spent in my airspace, whether or not I think you can maintain VFR and how much you are going to affect my traffic picture.
Safety in air traffic control is based on aircraft doing what is expected of them.

If you want me to change my expectations..then make a PA28 perform the same as a Q400.

It was actually TA/RA who suggested expectations could be adjusted on both sides. I'm asking him what he meant on his side, by that.

As I said many times earlier, I don't expect to get any of the things I'd like. For reasons that I understood long before this thread (although it's cute that you want to keep trying to explain them to me).

I'm still not drinking the "great service to VFR" koolaid though.

Maybe he could try EGLL airspace in that PA28

We were talking about that at work today...the Heathrow zone is Class A...which I ALWAYS disagreed with as it allowed no flexibility whatsover for ATC or GA traffic. Traffic on LL approach would have to be taken off final on a gin clear VFR day if there were Cat 1 police ops near final..less than 3 miles. It is debated on PPRUNE every so often...and I side with the pilots on this one...Class D works at all the other airports around London....so it should be good at LL.

YYZ is Harrods compared to Heathrow when it comes to what you are and aren't allowed to do.

I don't expect to get any of the things I'd like. For reasons that I understood long before this thread (although it's cute that you want to keep trying to explain them to me).

So you don't expect what you would like....you understand why you don't get it...and that still means we provide poor service to VFR?!!
Explain to ME how that works from your perspective as a pilot?

London CTR is changing to Class D, September 18

And not before time!!

London CTR is changing to Class D, September 18.

http://www.nats.aero/environment/consul ... ification/

Yes, London and Toronto are different worlds.

I was based at North Weald for some years, started there with the DC3 group in the T V series Band of Brothers and then flying for Miramax, best job I ever had.

Married a Canadian wrote: So you don't expect what you would like....you understand why you don't get it...and that still means we provide poor service to VFR?!!
Explain to ME how that works from your perspective as a pilot?

It's not poor service. (I don't think I ever said poor service). It's definitely not great service though.

Here's an operational question for you: If I contact you in the class E under the YYZ TCA, outbound east or west from CYTZ why do you (not you personally) restrict my altitude long after I could have climbed on squawk of 1200? I'm asking for traffic advisories VFR, not a deconfliction service. Is there a better way for me to request what I'd like? I presume you'd rather have me in contact, but the way it works now is not much of an incentive.

photofly wrote:
Here's an operational question for you: If I contact you in the class E under the YYZ TCA, outbound east or west from CYTZ why do you (not you personally) restrict my altitude long after I could have climbed on squawk of 1200? I'm asking for traffic advisories VFR, not a deconfliction service. Is there a better way for me to request what I'd like? I presume you'd rather have me in contact, but the way it works now is not much of an incentive.

Why are you presuming ATC would rather talk to you in class E airspace. Don't know about YYZ, but here in YUL ACC, I can pretty much speak for everyone when I say that is not the case. Call me up when you are about to enter class B/C/D. Anything else, and we are perfectly fine with you being on common freq. Respect the class E zones with mode C requirements and have fun on your own if you feel that is the best option.

On the other hand, if you do want some flight following in class E, especially at higher altitudes (6000ft +) call us up and we will gladly give it to you.


And btw, remember those service charges i was talking about, for IFR flights. A B77W from YVR-YUL, $4895. The breakdown of that fee is as follows....

En route fee $2,294.17
Terminal fee $2,600.99

That plane will be in a terminal airspace for no more than 20 minutes, and yet more than half the charges are incurred during that time. Another thing to think about, especially when you want an unrestricted climb from YTZ in any direction.

photofly wrote:London CTR is changing to Class D, September 18.

http://www.nats.aero/environment/consul ... ification/

That's a good point you bring up............... Europe, that is.

European airspace, especially the likes of London, Moscow, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, are far more restrictive than any Canadian city will be in terms of VFR GA movements.

I went to visit AMS TCU 6 years ago. It was a beautiful day and I did not see 1 VFR aircraft within 20 nm of AMS. Period. Your NATS link to the LHR tower zone is another proof of how restrictive these airports can be for VFR flights. Even after the change of classification, the inner area will still be PPR, and a Mode S transponder will be mandatory. Tell me, how many VFR GA's here in Canada have mode S transponders? Heck, quite a few can't even make their mode C work, and yet we still accept them in TCU airspace.

What I'm trying to say is, you guys have it good here in Canada. You just don't know it because you are looking at it from one perspective. Us on the other hand have the entire picture of the airspace, and we try to get everyone where they need to go, as quickly as possible, whether you pay 70$ a year or 5000$ per flight. You do have to understand however that we apply certain methods and procedures that benefit the system as a whole.

In 20 years from now, you will probably be wishing you had the level of service you have now !

Thenoflyzone

Why are you presuming ATC would rather talk to you in class E airspace

Really, it's irrelevant whether they want to talk to me or not. The sevice I'd like is for traffic advisories - only. Is there a compelling reason why that can't be provided?

Remember you're trying to convince me that VFR traffic gets great service around the terminal area, and this is a service I'm seeking.

I went to visit AMS TCU 6 years ago. It was a beautiful day and I did not see 1 VFR aircraft within 20 nm of AMS. Period.

Just to lighten this thread up a bit every ATC on earth has some flexibility in what they will allow.

One day we were landing at Schiphol on a nice clear VFR day in the Dutch PBY and the tower asked us if we could do a low fly by of the tower.......

....So with my understanding of clearances I did a 60 degree bank 360 turn around the tower at tower height, it was great we could see crews in the jets on the ramp and taxi ways looking up at us and stepping on each other asking for more.

It was so entertaining the west tower had us do the same for them.....

Aviation does have some pleasant times despite all the rules and regulations...you just have to have something to offer they want.

Cat Driver wrote:One day we were landing at Schiphol on a nice clear VFR day in the Dutch PBY and the tower asked us if we could do a low fly by of the tower.......

....So with my understanding of clearances I did a 60 degree bank 360 turn around the tower at tower height, it was great we could see crews in the jets on the ramp and taxi ways looking up at us and stepping on each other asking for more.

Sounds like airshow weekend in YYZ.

Just in case Married and 16Sided think i'm completely down on NavCanada, i'm not, really... I'm on a first-name basis with the tower controllers at my home airport, and I find that controllers at home, and in fact at all of the GA airports in the region, are extremely accommodating. Even the YVR Terminal controllers, when I do occasionally get in and spend time on frequency with them, are very friendly and accommodating. The issue is with whatever policy, procedure, or MANOPS entry that makes it necessary for them to deny service to VFR aircraft unless you use the correct secret phraseology of the day.

I have heard that there are ongoing labour disputes affecting that area, that leave the region under-staffed. I understand that these things happen, but they've been going on for 5 or 10 years, and it doesn't seem like much is being done to fix it. Attempts have been made to reduce the variability of VFR traffic, by creating designated VFR routes. Unfortunately, even with those in place, we are denied the minimal service we need to use them.

I was talking to a local pilot on the weekend about this and mentioned half-joking that the anarchist's solution would be to squawk standby, keep your eyes peeled, and climb up anyway. He stared at me blankly, and said "but... that's what we're doing now..." Apparently this is common practise... While nobody talks about it, everyone is doing it, and Transport is well aware of it.

Married/16Sided/others, do any of you work in the YVR Terminal area? Can you enlighten us as to how many other airspaces or regions you might be monitoring at the same time, while you're monitoring YVR Terminal? When the frequency is quiet, and a GA aircraft calls up, what things do you have to check before you decide to allow or deny the GA traffic?

Here's an operational question for you: If I contact you in the class E under the YYZ TCA, outbound east or west from CYTZ why do you (not you personally) restrict my altitude long after I could have climbed on squawk of 1200? I'm asking for traffic advisories VFR, not a deconfliction service. Is there a better way for me to request what I'd like? I presume you'd rather have me in contact, but the way it works now is not much of an incentive.

I have to ask...are you asking about climbing into Class C airspace or staying in Class E?
If you are staying in Class E....what type of altitude restriction are we talking about?...I can ask the satellite sector concerned. You are right in that you could climb on a 1200 code but not into Class C airspace. The altitudes in question are not the ones mentioned earlier in the thread.

If you are talking about climbing into Class C airspace then the restrictions are as we have spoken about already..and have nothing to do with service provided to VFR aircraft.

I work in the region, but not in the terminal. I have flown a fair amount around the Lower Mainland before ATC (a couple thousand hours). When flying I've always found everyone pretty accommodating, and I didn't have too many instances where I thought I was not getting the service I deserved (there were a handful of times).

I can't recall many times that I wasn't given exactly what I wanted from Terminal, or at least a reasonable substitution.

Looking back on things, and seeing how things are from both sides, things are being done pretty much as best could be expected considering staffing etc. I believe the reason staffing is such a concern is that the qualification rate of new controllers in the terminal areas is quite low, even for already experienced transfers. So sick days/holidays etc play havoc with having enough people there. So there is a lot more at play than what may appear.

In my neck of the woods, speaking for our group, we always try to accommodate to the best of our ability. A lot of us are pilots too, and we can appreciate that when you're out flying around burning off $$$, you want to do what you have planned. We reach a point we can handle only so much traffic before our ability to keep you safe becomes compromised, so we need to stop before we reach that point. So sometimes we are going to deny a request because of that exact reason. Another thing to consider is that what you hear on the frequency isn't always a good indication of how busy I may be. I may be trying to sort out some sort of issue with another controller next to me, in another tower or the ACC on a phone line. I suppose the biggest eye opener for me is that I thought I could understand the big picture from in my plane, but you can't. It's an incomplete picture of what I might be juggling. Nevermind the countless amount of regulations and rules that I might be juggling that I had no idea existed while I was flying along prior to joining ATC.

So I can safely say the immediate group I work with are trying to do the best with the resources we have to provide you with a service, but having to keep in mind a lot of other factors you may not be aware of. I can tell you that I won't deny you a request for something unless I have a good reason not to.

Just to clarify AirFrame, are you suggesting flying through Terminal Class C airspace with your transponder off and not contacting the appropriate controller? I just hope you are aware if that's the case what the threat is to you. The reason this is designated is to keep you safely separated from fast moving IFR aircraft. Frankly, with the closing speed of some of that traffic, are you really confident that you can see and avoid? As well, are you really going to possibly put the lives of others at risk to make a statement like that?

Pilottoatc wrote:We reach a point we can handle only so much traffic before our ability to keep you safe becomes compromised, so we need to stop before we reach that point. So sometimes we are going to deny a request because of that exact reason.

I totally understand that. But when a GA aircraft calls up asking for higher over the water, and is denied, and minutes later a commercial aircraft calls up and is given higher, clearly the controllers weren't *that* busy. If a space opened up, why not offer it to the GA aircraft who called first?

Another thing to consider is that what you hear on the frequency isn't always a good indication of how busy I may be. I may be trying to sort out some sort of issue with another controller next to me, in another tower or the ACC on a phone line. I suppose the biggest eye opener for me is that I thought I could understand the big picture from in my plane, but you can't. It's an incomplete picture of what I might be juggling.

Again, no problem with any of that, but see the same question above. Why then do commercial flights *always* get in, and GA *rarely* get in. On sunny weekends when controllers like to have time off too.

I can tell you that I won't deny you a request for something unless I have a good reason not to.

That's good to hear, i'm just trying to find out what reasons really apply that I can work with to ensure that when I cross, I can get the altitude I want for safety.

Just to clarify AirFrame, are you suggesting flying through Terminal Class C airspace with your transponder off and not contacting the appropriate controller? I just hope you are aware if that's the case what the threat is to you. The reason this is designated is to keep you safely separated from fast moving IFR aircraft. Frankly, with the closing speed of some of that traffic, are you really confident that you can see and avoid? As well, are you really going to possibly put the lives of others at risk to make a statement like that?

IFR traffic, in Terminal Airspace... Will be talking to Terminal on the same frequency we all do while in that airspace, right? And you'll be passing them prime targets, right? How often do you route IFR traffic directly through the designated VFR routes, which were chosen to *avoid* IFR routed aircraft?

What you're not getting is that if the airspace really is that busy, we can hear it on frequency as we approach, and adjust our course of action appropriately. None of us want to fly into a gong show. When the airspace is congested, we'll stay away. We won't like having to cross below our gliding altitude, but we'll grit our teeth and bear it. The issue is when all of the frequencies are quiet for the duration of our flight, but we are still denied.

FWIW, what I hear around the lower mainland is that many pilots are *already* doing this. The ones i've asked were surprised that I haven't been. They've been squawking 1200 though, so they're visible if not immediately identifiable.

AirFrame wrote:IFR traffic, in Terminal Airspace... Will be talking to Terminal on the same frequency we all do while in that airspace, right?

Most TCA's have a separate position and frequency available for VFR traffic. If you are on this frequency, and it is not combined with an IFR sector, you will not hear the IFR traffic. However, there are times when the VFR position is combined into an IFR sector and the controller is able to transmit/receive on both frequencies. When this happens, then you will here both the IFR and VFR traffic.

AirFrame wrote:And you'll be passing them prime targets, right?

At times, there is a lot of "prime target" clutter on the radar displays. Birds, weather, stuff, etc. It would be impossible to pass traffic for every prime target we see. And to clarify, when I talk about "prime targets", I am talking about a target with no transponder.