Nav Canada Closing all training airspace west of CYXX

Kenny G · Post by **Kenny G** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:57 pm

hey everyone

Nav Canada is trying to close down GV and North Pitt to shave off 1min of flight time for West Jet and AC into CYXX....by "close down" I mean no upper air work. (nothing above 2000ft)

If you want to save our airspace please come to a meeting on the 21st, 1300 at the Delta Town and Country

Do you realy want to go to the sumas practice area for airwork?

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:44 pm

WOW I was think'n of going to that meeting today but wasn't able to fit it into my Sked...kinda wish I had now...hmm will DEFINITLY try to make it to the next one..

so what's going to happen to EVERY school in boundry bay?
abbottsford & chilliwack will be the only people with airspace...& BOY will it be crowded
boundary bay will be closed down, that will have a TERRIBLE impact on the local industry & economy!

Front. · Post by **Front.** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:49 am

So how are people supposed to transit eastbound to a town like chilli then? gotta go down to Alder, overfly CYXX, and fly through Sumas into Chilli?

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:44 am

Front. wrote:So how are people supposed to transit eastbound to a town like chilli then? gotta go down to Alder, overfly CYXX, and fly through Sumas into Chilli?

take westjet............

prophet_mohammed · Post by **prophet_mohammed** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:42 am

clunckdriver wrote:many of the experienced staff are ready to retire so the experience level is about to take a major hit. My sources tell me of heavies being head to head, TCAS saving the day but just where are the reports to be found?

No reports will be found if neither the TSB nor TC decided to investigate and publish a report. They review the AORs every day and decide what needs to be pursued. It's not a conspiracy.

Don't characterize a head-to-head as though it is becoming a regular occurence that is somehow tied to experience level. I don't know that there's ever been a correlation between experience level and incidents. And trainees who are prone to creating and/or missing conflicts don't get licences, period.

Recently everyone was griping about keeping training aircraft away from high density arrival routes into major airports, and "why wasn't someone doing something about it?" Is that not what is happening in this case?

Kenny G · Post by **Kenny G** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:00 am

Everything at CZBB CYPK & CYNJ will have to transit through cyxx. This means competing with CYXX flight schools, PPL training costs going up, and possibly needing 3hr bookings to get everything done.

In the perfect world Nav Canada want positive control from the surface to FL180....

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 am

Isn't it odd how a supposedly "private" corporation owns all the airspace in Canada?

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:30 am

NavCan is also trying to make airspace within a 65nm radius of Toronto above 6,500 class C. Apparently WJ doesn't like descending into Class E airspace.

If they succeed, I'm going to assume NC won't have the capacity to allow VFR into this airspace.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:07 am

If Glen Valley is gone, it suddenly makes it economically competitive for schools from ZBB to go to the Island to train -> busier terminal airspace and dozens of light singles crossing the water several times a day. Forget the purely economic implications, the safety implications of closing GV are enormous!

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:23 am

I heard old Clive at WJ has hacked into Pro IFR's email server, and decided that with current load factors, a pitch to Transport may just work....

STL

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:41 pm

Folks there’s also a “public” meeting which has been somewhat less than well published in YYJ on Monday Oct 23rd from 19:00-21:00 At the Sidney Travelodge… I suggest everyone who has the opportunity drop on by; without anyone there to express their opinions were going to end up with no voice at all; and at the very least it will be a good excuse to hit up the Charles Dickens afterwards

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:37 am

Hedley wrote:Isn't it odd how a supposedly "private" corporation owns all the airspace in Canada?

Hedley...

Because NavCan is a private entity, it must be ratified by TC.

-Guy

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:22 am

Thx TC Guy - I did not know that. I was under the impression the gov't had "sold off" Canada's airspace to NavCan, much in the same way that Industry Canada will sell/licence portions of the frequency spectrum.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:24 am

NavCan is controlled by the major airlines, and tries to get away with doing whatever the airlines want them to do. One of their favorite tactics is the poorly publicized public meeting. Few GA people show up, less speak, and fewer yet write. NavCan then uses this as evidence that the GA community has no issues with their plans.

They've also purged their management over the past few years. Former controllers who had worked their way up the management ranks in TC, before the switch to NavCan, have been largely replaced with MBA type professional managers. The first to go were any who voiced opinions that planned changes to traffic management systems would not work, would not be safe, or were not necessary.

NavCan is only interested in making the system work for the airlines; not the entire aviation community. The airlines pay the bills, and as the golden rule says; those with the gold make the rules.

JW · Post by JW » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:08 pm

I heard old Clive at WJ has hacked into Pro IFR's email server, and decided that with current load factors, a pitch to Transport may just work....

That was clever....

JW