YVR High Speed Climbs

[7ECA]

Wondering if anyone with knowledge of ATC ops at CYVR can divulge what has been going on recently.

I subscribe to the CADORS from some of the airports around the Lower Mainland, and over the past week or so, there have been plenty of reports out of YVR about aircraft requesting high speed climbs (and subsequently "violating" the CARs in regard to airspeed restrictions at low altitudes). And also reports about aircraft operating in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet.

Is Nav Canada trying something new out? Are pilots getting bored?

Anyone elsewhere in Canada seeing the same thing in the CADORS?

[16SidedOffice]

The reports don't say anything about controllers assigning the speeds, so it's not anything that NC is doing besides filing the AOR. Non event really. "If the minimum safe airspeed for the flight configuration of an aircraft is greater than the airspeed referred to in subsection (1), the aircraft shall be operated at the minimum safe airspeed."

[7ECA]

I get that, but seeing as how previously most 777s, 747s, et el, were more than able to comply with the 250 knot limitations, what changed?

The reports are saying that pilots are requesting higher climb speeds, and in some cases operating above 250 knots. I'm assuming someone who is ATC would know the reason behind these requests.

[CpnCrunch]

Perhaps they're trying to clamp down on this?:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 68&t=95850

[16SidedOffice]

Weather possibly is playing a role with the recent heat and density altitudes. Keep in mind that the aircraft in question from the cadors requesting high speed climbs are possibly departing at near MTOW for YSSY, and RPPL and the one advising that they are accelerating to above 250 is destined for VHHH. They are requesting the higher speeds because they need it, it's not exactly out of the ordinary. Just not very common around Vancouver, but neither is 30+ degrees C and 80% humidity.

[Married a Canadian]

Weather possibly is playing a role with the recent heat and density altitudes. Keep in mind that the aircraft in question from the cadors requesting high speed climbs are possibly departing at near MTOW for YSSY, and RPPL and the one advising that they are accelerating to above 250 is destined for VHHH. They are requesting the higher speeds because they need it, it's not exactly out of the ordinary. Just not very common around Vancouver, but neither is 30+ degrees C and 80% humidity.

Just about every far east heavy out of YYZ this summer has asked for 260-270kts or so below 10000ft for clean speed. I think it is has more to do with the weather than anything.
Most controllers just say "Your discression". It isn't a problem. Most of us never understood the 250kt below 10000ft when it was brought in...we used to use speed for the departure sequencing out of YYZ. Took away a useful tool when they put a "no no" on it.

[CpnCrunch]

Why does the weather matter if it's IAS? Also, the temps were 15-17C when many of the YYZ CADORs were issued back in May/June.

[DSoup]

To meet the required climb gradients?

[7ECA]

There were a few more of them at the beginning of this week, when the temperature was in the neighbourhood of 15°C...

And I see a few more recently with the higher temperature and humidity.

Each one though states that the pilot is requesting a high speed climb, and being the CADORS no reasoning is given. The only other thing listed is that the report is due to a CARS infraction. I guess ATC is no longer "giving the nod".

[16SidedOffice]

It's not so much an infraction in any way, but more as indicated on the CADORS is that it's a deviation from CAR's. It's really a non event. It wasn't that long ago that assigning 300 or greater to departing heavies was normal and within the pages of the ANO's and Air Regs.

[Married a Canadian]

It's not so much an infraction in any way, but more as indicated on the CADORS is that it's a deviation from CAR's. It's really a non event. It wasn't that long ago that assigning 300 or greater to departing heavies was normal and within the pages of the ANO's and Air Regs.

This x 2. It really is no problem to me when they ask. I don't particularly care to be honest. We used to use speed control on departure if we had a stream going the same way. First guy speeds up and then everyone else follows. There were afew rolled eyes when the new regulation came out...and quite afew "why!?" being asked.
I got told off by an anonymous voice once when I told a pilot "his discression" when he asked for 265 knots below 10000ft.
"You do know that you aren't allowed to do that" said the voice.
"Yes" I answered. Silence!.

[7ECA]

I see. So essentially this is just the way things have always been done, but now for whatever reason CADORS are being generated each time it occurs.

I do like the idea of ATC saying "give 'er"...

[16SidedOffice]

It's not so much ATC giving the go ahead as they aren't allowed to bust CAR's, but the pilots can when needed due to their aircraft requirements.

[cyeg66]

I'm with Married A Canadian, I just issue a : "speed at your discretion". I'd have no issue with telling another pilot on the frequency to pound sand if they gave me a snarky "you can't do that". Like fvck you can't. If the pilot asks for it, there must be a valid reason, akin to someone requesting 35R instead of 35L; must be safety reasons (landing distance, crosswind component, surface condition, etc). Don't know, don't care. I'm a firm believer in staying out of the cab (tower) or the cockpit. The people in either of those are paid to make decisions outside of my pay grade. And yes, it's exploiting a grey area, provided you're aware of which rule you are or aren't breaking/bending. The CADORs mean nothing, non-punitive in nature. In the meantime, keep on keepin' on.

[Braun]

I'm with Married A Canadian, I just issue a : "speed at your discretion". I'd have no issue with telling another pilot on the frequency to pound sand if they gave me a snarky "you can't do that". Like fvck you can't. If the pilot asks for it, there must be a valid reason, akin to someone requesting 35R instead of 35L; must be safety reasons (landing distance, crosswind component, surface condition, etc). Don't know, don't care. I'm a firm believer in staying out of the cab (tower) or the cockpit. The people in either of those are paid to make decisions outside of my pay grade. And yes, it's exploiting a grey area, provided you're aware of which rule you are or aren't breaking/bending. The CADORs mean nothing, non-punitive in nature. In the meantime, keep on keepin' on.

This x10, I ain't no sky police.

[7ECA]

I see Nav Canada released an AIC document in January on this subject.

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... 01.pdf#top

[AuxBatOn]

Is that me or this AC reads like NavCan is stepping outside its lane by addressing regulation concerns and recommending pilots with a course of action? To me, this AC reads beyond management of air traffic...

[linecrew]

Is that me or this AC reads like NavCan is stepping outside its lane by addressing regulation concerns and recommending pilots with a course of action? To me, this AC reads beyond management of air traffic...

Seems like it's in cooperation with TC based on the fact that this AIC is only a "heads up" to what is going to be published in the AIM:

"These changes will be published in a future version of the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM – TP14371E)."