I've noticed a number of pilots commenting on U.S. airports handling more traffic and that it's simply the controllers that make it happen. If you look at the numbers, the U.S. is definitely pushing more tin, but how? CYYC does roughly 245,000 movements and KLGA does roughly 355,000. CYYC has basically the same layout as KLGA except KLGA is stuck in the middle of numerous Int'l airports and tons of low level traffic. So why the big difference in numbers? Is there steady traffic into KLGA 24hours, do the pilots really fly different down there, are the MANOPS in the US that much different? Anyone from YYC go on a fam to the U.S.? If so, what was the big difference between the way they handled the traffic?

How can an airport layout like CYYC push 40,000 more movements than CYVR currently does and only 50,000 less than CYYZ? Putting flow control into CYYC regularly, does present a legitimate question when CYYC is doing 110,000 movements less than KLGA. Is it cowboy land down there with no rules, or do they know something that we don't?

TreeBlender wrote: CYYC does roughly 245,000 movements and KLGA does roughly 355,000. CYYC has basically the same layout as KLGA except KLGA is stuck in the middle of numerous Int'l airports and tons of low level traffic. So why the big difference in numbers?

Movements in CYYC occur primarily between about 7am and 11pm local. The catch here is that there is not a steady demand during each and every hour of the day. The peak arrival demands occur during select hours. There are hours were the demand is in excess of 55 aircraft wishing to land in the same 45-60 minute period. Obviously the airport can not support the level of traffic. The overage spills over and compounds into the next hour.

It is not a question of the airspace, it is a function of the airport. If we had an even demand during the entire day you would see significantly higher numbers.

TreeBlender wrote:do the pilots really fly different down there, are the MANOPS in the US that much different?

In short Yes! I doubt that in the "busy" airports pilots don't argue with the controllers. Request special treatment for opposite end operations. Design company specify procedures. There is a general feeling that CYYC isn't a real airport and many crews conduct themselves accordingly. There are some that are very good but others that create nothing but problems.

CYYC is at a much higher altitude so the aircraft also do not perform as well on the ground there. In the US there are a lot more visual approach rules that allow less spacing between aircraft.

Also - CYYZ does about 200,000 more movements than YYC

You are asking why they have more movements. They have more movements because there is more demand and more airlines willing to endure the extensive delays that operating out of a saturated airport entail.

What you are I think trying to ask, is why is the movement rate higher at US airports. Correct? Most airports have about an 18 hour day: 0600-2400 give or take and within those times there are peaks and troughs.

Also your movement totals are a little off.

YYZ in 2009 was 407,724, YVR 313,984 and YYC 233,145. LGA in comparison was 354,048.

This will probably turn into a weighty post, but there is no real way to quickly explain this.

The difference in movement rates comes down mainly to the rules the controllers have to apply. Yes there are differences which enable US controllers move more traffic per hour than us Canadians. We're not trying to delay traffic and no controller can be a cowboy and get away with it.

I'll try and give a few examples of the differences with YYZ as the Canadian example as that's where I work.

Departure separations:
In YYZ aircraft on the same SID from the same runway have to be separated by 3 miles when transferred to Departure. This is the same in good weather or bad. Notice how big the delays get for LGA, EWR and JFK when the weather is less than 3 miles/1000'. That doesn't happen here as badly.

In YYZ jet aircraft, other than a few specified examples (CRJ1/2s, E135/145s and some corporate types) cannot be turned off the SID before 3600' except to avoid weather. This means that we are providing 3 miles in trail unless we have a turnable jet or a prop in the mix, which can be turned.

In the US there is a provision for separating subsequent departures by 1 mile and 15 degrees. So as soon as one aircraft lifts off the next can roll as long as there is 15 degrees divergence. This is way more efficient than 3 miles in trail. Visual separation of departures is still not an accepted procedure Canada-wide, although arrivals can and are routinely visually separated.

When YYZ is using only one departure runway, i.e. 33R when landing 33L, this 3 mile requirement really hurts. Especially since it takes longer to establish 3 miles as there will be at least a 25kt headwind.

If you decide you'll fly a VNAP-A, this delays all aircraft behind you by about 15 seconds per VNAP-A aircraft, as we have to wait longer before the next departure since your speed over the ground is reduced flying that profile and it takes longer to get the 3 miles. If we fail to provide 3 miles to Departure, or some other form of separation, it is considered an OI. We are treading a fine line between efficiency and a deal. You'll have to forgive us if we are a little cautious sometimes, especially with high performance types.

Runway occupancy:
HIRO is advertised almost 24/7 at YYZ, but runway occupancy times (ROT) are sometimes brutally long both from arriving and departing aircraft. We have annual surveys of ROT times and the results are startling, with times in excess of 70 seconds recorded. 2.5 mile arrival spacing is authorized on runways where ROT is 50 seconds or less. Not all runways at YYZ qualify due to the location of the exits but on those that do, we really need you to go into the exits quickly.

Time taken to line up is sometimes too long also. ROT here should also be 50 seconds or less. Have you ever received a take off clearance on a busy runway and you're not yet on the centreline? That means you're wasting space!

Are ROTs in the US consistently less? Probably, but I have no evidence to prove it.

Airport layout:
YYZ is a mess! Its not designed for the efficient movement of traffic. There are runway crossings required on many taxy routes, aircraft are often required to taxy to the furthest runway due to the standard split of traffic. When the 15s or 33s are in use this only gets worse. Don't even mention de-icing.

It would be great if everyone could depart from the closest runway, land on the runway closest to parking, but that just isn't possible much of the time.

I've rambled on long enough.

I'm not going to actually answer the Cowboy comment... But your statement is not far off the mark

All that being said, they can bend the rules easier than us and are less restricted in a lot of areas, now how our incident rate compares I don't know...

News answered my own question today:

FAA Reports 51% rise in operational errors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Ok some good points, but we also have provisions allowing less then 3 miles on departure when turns are issued. Correct me if I'm wrong but the inability to turn jets is only due to Noise abatement. Does the US have lax noise abatement rules? I don't know the specifics on KLGA but I can't imagine that they are less restrictive in their departure procedures than CYYC with 4 major airports surrounding it and numerous small airports and low level traffic strewn all over in between. I'm still not seeing any one big difference jumping out here. It seems strange that a few slight differences allows a third more traffic to be pushed. Does anyone have the peak hourly movements for YYC vs. LGA?

The huge difference is that LGA consistantly has traffic and as stated previously YYC has bursts so obviously yearly there will be a difference.
Also for the turning jets thingy I don't know about LGA but when I was in LAS they would turn every single jet almost so that gives you a lot of options for departing aircraft which we can't use at a lot of airports here! You have to remember every mile, half mile, quarter mile saved due to a difference in separation standards at the end of the year adds up to A LOT of space for more traffic!

This link was posted on PPRuNe recently. Its an ROT information package done by pilots for pilots.

Every year in the fall at YYZ there is someone in the cab for a few weeks gathering data on ROT and reaction times. We see some startling numbers.

Is there anything you could do differently?

cossack wrote:Every year in the fall at YYZ there is someone in the cab for a few weeks gathering data on ROT and reaction times. We see some startling numbers.

Interesting. If by 'startling' you mean 'shitty' and 'wasteful', then yup, I believe it. I've flown (as a pax) enough into/out of busy American airports to understand how things should be done but you never get that same sense of urgency flying with a Canadian carrier landing at a Canadian airport. Naturally, this all applies to bare & dry runways and not slippery ones like we'll probably see on average 20-30% of the year. If that's not the reason for poor ROTs, then it's all about safety ("slooooow and steady"), comfort ("can't shift those bags in the overhead bin"), and efficiency ("don't touch those brakes, they're expensive and easily overheat"). If YYZ experiences poor runway occupancies, I can only imagine what YYC's would look like.

Good points, never thought the ROT would make that much of a difference. Back to the turns though.

I've watched departures at airports in the US while waiting for connections and it seems like everyone is turning. It doesn't matter if they're prop, jet, light, med, or heavy. Why doesn't Canada use turns more? Does turns really make that much of a difference in the noise pollution? It looked like most of the turns taking place in the US are happening immediately on departure. Half they time they have it cranked and the wings level before they are even outside of the airport road and look like they are just as high or higher than the flights departing straight out. Why would this cause so much more noise pollution than climbing straight ahead? If it does actually cause significantly more noise, how does the US get away with blasting jets with continuous turns when Canada is so restricted due noise?

I'm not trying to call anyone out, just trying to get an idea of the differences in rules and why the pilots are always praising the way they push the metal down south.

The FAA just imposed a max movement rate at KLGA at 75/hour, does anyone know what TMU West is allowing for hourly movements in YYC?

TreeBlender wrote:The FAA just imposed a max movement rate at KLGA at 75/hour, does anyone know what TMU West is allowing for hourly movements in YYC?

There is no "cap" at YYC. Weather/runway/infrastructure issues (and sometimes tower staffing) dictate how many planes go in/out. It's just a piece of garbage, and some people don't feel like working that much harder to move a few more per hour....

I know the answer to this question,but i feel that the answer is worth at least a case of beer so i will refrain from answering your question .But if any Management types want the answer it will cost you a case of beer and where i live a case is twenty four

I'm a little late in posting here but just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write this. It explains a lot.

cossack wrote:You are asking why they have more movements. They have more movements because there is more demand and more airlines willing to endure the extensive delays that operating out of a saturated airport entail.

What you are I think trying to ask, is why is the movement rate higher at US airports. Correct? Most airports have about an 18 hour day: 0600-2400 give or take and within those times there are peaks and troughs.

Also your movement totals are a little off.

YYZ in 2009 was 407,724, YVR 313,984 and YYC 233,145. LGA in comparison was 354,048.

This will probably turn into a weighty post, but there is no real way to quickly explain this.

The difference in movement rates comes down mainly to the rules the controllers have to apply. Yes there are differences which enable US controllers move more traffic per hour than us Canadians. We're not trying to delay traffic and no controller can be a cowboy and get away with it.

I'll try and give a few examples of the differences with YYZ as the Canadian example as that's where I work.

Departure separations:
In YYZ aircraft on the same SID from the same runway have to be separated by 3 miles when transferred to Departure. This is the same in good weather or bad. Notice how big the delays get for LGA, EWR and JFK when the weather is less than 3 miles/1000'. That doesn't happen here as badly.

In YYZ jet aircraft, other than a few specified examples (CRJ1/2s, E135/145s and some corporate types) cannot be turned off the SID before 3600' except to avoid weather. This means that we are providing 3 miles in trail unless we have a turnable jet or a prop in the mix, which can be turned.

In the US there is a provision for separating subsequent departures by 1 mile and 15 degrees. So as soon as one aircraft lifts off the next can roll as long as there is 15 degrees divergence. This is way more efficient than 3 miles in trail. Visual separation of departures is still not an accepted procedure Canada-wide, although arrivals can and are routinely visually separated.

When YYZ is using only one departure runway, i.e. 33R when landing 33L, this 3 mile requirement really hurts. Especially since it takes longer to establish 3 miles as there will be at least a 25kt headwind.

If you decide you'll fly a VNAP-A, this delays all aircraft behind you by about 15 seconds per VNAP-A aircraft, as we have to wait longer before the next departure since your speed over the ground is reduced flying that profile and it takes longer to get the 3 miles. If we fail to provide 3 miles to Departure, or some other form of separation, it is considered an OI. We are treading a fine line between efficiency and a deal. You'll have to forgive us if we are a little cautious sometimes, especially with high performance types.

Runway occupancy:
HIRO is advertised almost 24/7 at YYZ, but runway occupancy times (ROT) are sometimes brutally long both from arriving and departing aircraft. We have annual surveys of ROT times and the results are startling, with times in excess of 70 seconds recorded. 2.5 mile arrival spacing is authorized on runways where ROT is 50 seconds or less. Not all runways at YYZ qualify due to the location of the exits but on those that do, we really need you to go into the exits quickly.

Time taken to line up is sometimes too long also. ROT here should also be 50 seconds or less. Have you ever received a take off clearance on a busy runway and you're not yet on the centreline? That means you're wasting space!

Are ROTs in the US consistently less? Probably, but I have no evidence to prove it.

Airport layout:
YYZ is a mess! Its not designed for the efficient movement of traffic. There are runway crossings required on many taxy routes, aircraft are often required to taxy to the furthest runway due to the standard split of traffic. When the 15s or 33s are in use this only gets worse. Don't even mention de-icing.

It would be great if everyone could depart from the closest runway, land on the runway closest to parking, but that just isn't possible much of the time.

I've rambled on long enough.

cossack wrote: Also your movement totals are a little off.

YYZ in 2009 was 407,724, YVR 313,984 and YYC 233,145.

And those stats are also a touch misleading.... Not in YYZ or YYC's cases, but YVR's. For the sake of this comparison to US airports, we're discussing planes that land on a hard surface, and not water, which pegs YVR at 258K "runway" movements for 2009 (and only 255K for 2010), not that much ahead of 3rd place YYC.