MATS Document NavCanada SHARE PDF

[xplane]

Can anyone share the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) from Nav Canada?

I contacted them and they refuse to share it. It’s a public document in every other country I’ve looked into: USA (7110), UK (MATS), Australia (MATS).

I just want to reference it when I have ATC questions just like I reference the AIM when I have pilots questions. Many of TC pilot publications reference the MATS, but it’s one of the only documents that’s not accessible.

Please somebody share it!!!

[DHC-1 Jockey]

MATS replaced MANOPS a few years ago. You can find old copies of MANOPS online. While it's presented differently, MANOPS fundamentally is the same as MATS.

As well, MATS is based off of the CARS and AIM RAC (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services), so referencing those documents may answer your questions.

You can always ask your questions in the ATS subforum as well and we may be able to help you.

[digits_]

MATS replaced MANOPS a few years ago. You can find old copies of MANOPS online. While it's presented differently, MANOPS fundamentally is the same as MATS.

As well, MATS is based off of the CARS and AIM RAC (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services), so referencing those documents may answer your questions.

You can always ask your questions in the ATS subforum as well and we may be able to help you.

Do you know what the reasoning is to keep this document secret from pilots? Seems a bit bizarre.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Do you know what the reasoning is to keep this document secret from pilots? Seems a bit bizarre.

Do you know what the reasoning is to keep this document secret from pilots? Seems a bit bizarre.

Because NavCanada has deemed it proprietary information. Same as Air Canada not publishing their SOP's or Flight Operations Manuals. It's neither bizarre or not bizarre and it's definitely not "keeping it secret" which implies maliciousness... any company can do what they want with the documents they produce, and NavCanada is no different than Air Canada or CN Rail or Joes's Plumbing in that regard.

As well, OP quoted other ATS service providers that do publish their documents, but all of those organizations are either fully operated by the government or at least partially operated by the government, and they may be required do disclose certain things due to being government-owned and taxpayer-funded. NavCanada is a fully-private organization who can decide themselves what they do and do not want to publish.

Lastly, an average pilot would not understand how to read the document and correctly interpret the rules. This could lead to a misinterpretation and more confusion than not having the document at all.

[digits_]

Do you know what the reasoning is to keep this document secret from pilots? Seems a bit bizarre.

Because NavCanada has deemed it proprietary information. Same as Air Canada not publishing their SOP's or Flight Operations Manuals. It's neither bizarre or not bizarre and it's definitely not "keeping it secret" which implies maliciousness... any company can do what they want with the documents they produce, and NavCanada is no different than Air Canada or CN Rail or Joes's Plumbing in that regard.

NavCanada has a monopoly on ATC services in Canada. That's a huge difference.

As well, OP quoted other ATS service providers that do publish their documents, but all of those organizations are either fully operated by the government or at least partially operated by the government, and they may be required do disclose certain things due to being government-owned and taxpayer-funded. NavCanada is a fully-private organization who can decide themselves what they do and do not want to publish.

Now you're debating semantics. They are providing a public service. What's the harm in publishing that information so its users can verify what service to expect and/or understand how the system works?

Lastly, an average pilot would not understand how to read the document and correctly interpret the rules. This could lead to a misinterpretation and more confusion than not having the document at all.

Lol. Seriously?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

NavCanada has a monopoly on ATC services in Canada. That's a huge difference.

Having a monopoly or not has no bearing on whether an organization shall/should disclose internal operational documents. There's no rule that says "This organization has a monopoly. They must disclose their operations manuals."

As well, NavCanada doesn't have a Monopoly. There is airspace accessible to all pilots that is controlled either by the RCAF or SERCO, so make sure you have your facts straight.

As well, OP quoted other ATS service providers that do publish their documents, but all of those organizations are either fully operated by the government or at least partially operated by the government, and they may be required do disclose certain things due to being government-owned and taxpayer-funded. NavCanada is a fully-private organization who can decide themselves what they do and do not want to publish.

Now you're debating semantics. They are providing a public service. What's the harm in publishing that information so its users can verify what service to expect and/or understand how the system works?

I'm not debating semantics at all. The OP referenced other ATS organizations that publish their documents, and I clarified that they all happen to be government-run and perhaps that's the reason they have to disclose them. I directly addressed their concern that other organizations disclose these documents, and the fact that they are government-owned is most likely the reason for that disclosure.

I don't know what you want me to say. It's NavCanada's document, and they don't have to publish it for all to see if they don't want to. They own it, they deem it proprietary information, and they don't want it out there in the world.

There's nothing more to it than that. There's no conspiracy or "secrets" being hidden. It's an internal operational manual for ATS personnel, and not for you or other members of the public.

[digits_]

NavCanada has a monopoly on ATC services in Canada. That's a huge difference.

Having a monopoly or not has no bearing on whether an organization shall/should disclose internal operational documents. There's no rule that says "This organization has a monopoly. They must disclose their operations manuals."

I'm not claiming they are breaking any rules. I'm claiming there is a huge difference in asking an organization as NavCanada for publication of documents vs asking your local plumber or even Air Canada for the publication of certain documents. Don't like the plumber? Hire another one. Don't like AC? Fly another airline?

Don't like NavCanada? "We are doing the best we can! We can't vector you more efficiently! No training flights because we are at capacity! Can't provide the required spacing/capacity", and guess what, we can't go anywhere else. What the public/users could do, however, is verify these claims when their internal procedures are known.

While it may technically be a private company, they do have control of our airspace. It's not strange at all to request insight into the internal procedures.

As well, NavCanada doesn't have a Monopoly. There is airspace accessible to all pilots that is controlled either by the RCAF or SERCO, so make sure you have your facts straight.

Right... No monopoly at all... I'm sure airlines can operate without needing NavCanada's services.

I don't know what you want me to say. It's NavCanada's document, and they don't have to publish it for all to see if they don't want to. They own it, they deem it proprietary information, and they don't want it out there in the world.

There's nothing more to it than that. There's no conspiracy or "secrets" being hidden. It's an internal operational manual for ATS personnel, and not for you or other members of the public.

Why not? It's the same organization that initiates CADORs for pilots. Why can't pilots look at ATC's manuals to see if any possible violations take place and report it accordingly?

You mentioned earlier that the old MANOPS document was published. Do you know why they deiced to not publish the updated MATS document? What changed?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Why not? It's the same organization that initiates CADORs for pilots. Why can't pilots look at ATC's manuals to see if any possible violations take place and report it accordingly?

For the same reason that I don't need to know Air Canada's operational procedures to see if they've committed some sort of violation. We have a manual that details which things we have to report, but I don't have access to Air Canada's manuals to dig into it myself.

A classic example is a below-standard visibility departure. I have no idea of the processes, flows and procedures to determine if an aircrew and aircraft is certified to do a below-minima departure. I simply file a below-minima departure report and I assume it goes somewhere to verify that the flight was conducted legally. I'm not digging into each airline's individual Flight Ops manuals to determine if the pilots were legal or not, because A) I might misinterpret the policy or procedure as I indicated earlier and either report something that doesn't need to be reported or alternatively not report something that needs to be reported; and B) Air Canada and the other airlines have no obligation to provide me their documents.

As well, the only "initiating" of a CADORS I'm doing is because as an ATC I'm REQUIRED to report these incidents as per the CARS 807.01. I'm not going out of my way looking for things to file reports on. This is a common misconception that ATC's are "snitching" on pilots, but we have a manual listing the items that are required to be reported under the CARS, and that's what we follow. This runs the gamut from aircraft emergencies to bird strikes to low-vis departures. We also have to file reports on internal NavCanada events such as a temporary closure of a tower for a relief break or an ATC-induced safety issue or loss of separation or missed readback. These become CADORS as well, so it's not just ATC's "snitching " on pilots... we report on ourselves.

You mentioned earlier that the old MANOPS document was published. Do you know why they deiced to not publish the updated MATS document? What changed?

The old MANOPS document is published on some file sharing site that I found simply by Googling it. I don't think NavCanada ever published it for public consumption, so it was probably posted by an ex-employee or former trainee that uploaded it without NavCanada approval. So in that regard, nothing has changed.

So again, it's NavCanada's document and they have every right not to publish it if they see fit. Same as any other organization providing a service to a customer (monopoly or not). If you want some more reading on what the CADOR's process looks like, I invite you to read this: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... tem-cadors

If you believe a controller made a mistake, you as the pilot can file a report yourself at: https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/form/air-tran ... urrence-re because there was "a collision or risk of collision with any other aircraft or with any vehicle, terrain or obstacle occurs, including a collision or risk of collision that may be related to air traffic control procedures or equipment failures."

However, having access to MATS is not going to answer your concerns about the efficiency of my vectors or the capacity of traffic I can manage. Sorry. For that you can always find the unit phone number in the CFS and bring up your concern with the associated Manager of said unit.

[digits_]

However, having access to MATS is not going to answer your concerns about the efficiency of my vectors or the capacity of traffic I can manage. Sorry. For that you can always find the unit phone number in the CFS and bring up your concern with the associated Manager of said unit.

Now if I had access to that document I would know that

Seriously though, does it not tell you how close you can vector traffic in a different set of circumstances? I thought that was part of it, but I can absolutely be wrong (because I can't access the document)

From a practical point of view, I would have loved to have access to that document in 2 situations:
1) This was a case where I was quite certain the controller was using incorrect phraseology consistently at an airport I visited multiple times a week. If I had access to your MATS document -it's my understanding the phraseology is very rigorously described there- I could have looked up the applicable situation, either realize I was wrong, or have a solid reference to bring it up with the local ATC unit. I did not have that access, so I called up the ATC unit regardless. The response was that the controller did indeed use 'sloppy phraseology', but what the correct phraseology would need to be was kind of left up in the air.

2) Another situation was the other way around. A grumpy controller accused me of using wrong phraseology. Possible, cool. Now what? I am assuming that the MATS document would have described the proper terminology and I could have figured out what was correct and in what situation I could have used what I was using. I was pressed for time and did not contact the ATC unit. I'll also admit I'm not very keen to change what I'm doing unless I can find a reference that tells me how to do something or what I was doing is wrong. I could not find such a thing in the pilot publications.

Perhaps another way of looking at it: you've likely seen quite a few discussions here on AvCanada talking about the CARs and what is and isn't allowed or how certain regulations should be interpreted. Both sides have full access to the CARs, and there's still a discussion going on, often with good arguments from both sides.
Now imaging what this would look like with only one side having access to the CARs and the other side trying to guess what its contents is?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Now if I had access to that document I would know that

Well, I don't know what else to say. For the last time, this document is proprietary to NavCanada and they have no obligation to share it with you or anyone else they don't want to. You can lay out all the hypotheticals that you can think of that you could gain clarity on if you had access to MATS, but that's just not going to happen. That's life.

I was on an Air Canada flight recently that definitely flew across the top of some convective weather resulting in some really bad turbulence. I'd love to see what their FOM says about how wide of a berth they need to give around convective weather (altitude and miles laterally) so I can make sure they were not violating their own regulations.

And I was on a WestJet flight last month that put their final flaps down well below 1000 AGL. I wish I could see if they were below a gate for their stabilized approach criteria. If only they posted their SOP's online so I could correlate that with the altitude on ADSB to see if they were in violation and should have done a missed approach. I guess I'll just have to make do and never know.

And that's the point. I'm a user of their services, but even as a pilot AND ATC myself, I have no need or right to access those documents. Air Canada and WestJet keep them safeguarded for the use of their crews and that's it. Imagine the number of spurious complaints armchair quarterback pilots would lodge if they thought they were right based off their incomplete knowledge of what the manuals and documents contain. Some things are better left out of the public eye.

For your two examples you gave, I invite you to post the particulars below or in a DM and I'll try and steer you in the right direction. But otherwise, this topic has run its course.

Safe travels.

[digits_]

Well, I don't know what else to say. For the last time, this document is proprietary to NavCanada and they have no obligation to share it with you or anyone else they don't want to. You can lay out all the hypotheticals that you can think of that you could gain clarity on if you had access to MATS, but that's just not going to happen. That's life.

Again, I am not disputing that with the current rules and regulations they don't have to share that information. I am however trying to understand why they are so resitant to it. The only reason I see is a "cover your ass" argument in case someone screws up. That's the perception this is creating.

If there was no advantage to publishing this document, why do other countries do exactly that? Surely there must be *some* relevance.

For what it's worth, I am not opposed to companies having to publish SOPs either. I don't think that would be as valuable though as every company is slightly different. The ATC system however is used by most pilots and most controllers. Hiding the inner workings of said system seems counterproductive.

Imagine the number of spurious complaints armchair quarterback pilots would lodge if they thought they were right based off their incomplete knowledge of what the manuals and documents contain. Some things are better left out of the public eye.

The nice thing is we don't have to imagine. Australia has their document published. Are they getting spurious complaints?
I can't find any online sources alluding to that.