Aviation In Canada

My posts here are done.

2005-11-01T08:41:00.002-04:00

(This was supposed to have been posted on Nov 1, but I forgot to do it)

It's official. This is the last day that I intend to post to this blog. For now, I have decided to move the posting to Aviation.ca, where the posts will continue as they have been here on a more or less daily basis. For those who won't follow me over there, I wish to thank you for stopping by and contributing. It's been great to have you around. And for those who will read over at the new place, I'll see you there. All of you have made this worth doing by visiting and writing back, and it has been rewarding for me. Thanks for everything!

If you post something here, I'll still get an e-mail about it. And for those wishing for the RSS feed, well, at the time of writing this, I'm still working on it. I hope to resolve it sometime in the near future, rather than later... Please accept my apologies in the meantime.

Aerial Exploration

2005-10-30T09:20:00.000-04:00

For my last post to this blog, I thougth I'd end on a more positive note that some of the posts I've made. As mentioned, I'll be moving to Aviation.ca starting November 1st. This blog will still be online for reference, but there will be no new posts after Nov 1.

The enjoyment of flight has been around me for a long time now. I received my pilot's license back in 1988, while still in high school. While others my age were saving for their first car, I was flying planes and enjoying the crap out of it. Since I recieved my license, however, one thing that has really fallen by the wayside was cross country. The time it takes, and the amount it costs, was just way too far beyond my budget.

I went without flying for 8 years, and then a good friend of mine took me flying a few years ago. As a current instructor, he saved the left seat for me, and had me do the entire flight. My first flight in 8 years. I knew I missed it, but it had been so long that I couldn't remember why. It hardened my resolve, and the next thing I knew, I was qualified and flying on my own again.

Thinking back to this cross country thing, I decided that I would do one or two. The enjoyment, the travelling, and the exploration, too. Exploration. What would there be to explore? I had been developing a fascination with the coastline of the Bay of Fundy. I knew there were huge cliffs and rugged features, so I went for a look. And what was there? About 3NM in shore, somewhere I wasn't even looking, some motion caught my eye. It was a waterfall. I took some photos from a distance, but didn't, for some reason, venture inland. The photos revealed this waterfall, based on estimated distance (GPS track, position of the falls believed to be within 100m) and known focal length, to be in the order of 100m (300 feet) high. In my own back yard! After a second flight for aerial reconnaisance, I found a way to get to it. It is indeed about 300 feet high. It's not Niagara Falls with the huge amount of water, but it's in a scenic river gorge and it's beautiful. And it's something I would have never known about if I didn't do that little cross country flight, since the area is not accessible by car, nor is it visible from the Bay itself.

I'm planning some other cross country flights, now, to see what else I can see. Flying is absolutely wonderful!

In case you're interested, I've posted a picture to try to show you what I saw. Click Here. It's nearly 3MB, just to get the detail in it.

This Blog is Moving

2005-10-28T06:12:00.000-03:00

If you've been following this blog for a while, now, you'll recall that the folks at Aviation.ca invited me to write for them in a blog-like environment. I accepted their invitation, and am currently mirroring (well appoximately) this blog on their site, in a "column" entitled "Controller's Corner". I have been talking with their administrators, and have decided to discontinue this blog and write on their site. Their editor is a little easier to get along with and has plenty of features (including scheduling of posts for future, which I like and can't seem to do on Blogger).

Since posting there, I've come to like the site for a variety of reasons. For one, the aviation news always seems to arrive there before my local newspaper, which I can't trust anyway, and for the fact that if I'm looking for aviation news I don't have to wade through every other story to find it. Also, the community in the forums seems to be quite interesting. There are a number of individuals there with a lot of experience from different angles. It all makes for some good reading.

Anyway, as of November 1st, I will stop posting here and formally move my blog writing to their site. I know some of you already visit their site, but I really hope the rest of you will stick with me. Even Frank, to help keep me in line when I post a duplicate story. Which, BTW, there are some of those stories I've told twice here which haven't been written at all there, so you'll have to endure them again sometime. We've had some good discussions with some posts here, and you've been a good group to write for. If you don't care to follow me over, well, thanks for you participation here. If you do, maybe I'll see you there.

Altimeter, I say again, Altimeter

2005-10-27T08:09:00.000-03:00

Have you heard ATC or FSS say the altimeter twice in your travels? Perhaps just listening to the scanner? Probably most who are reading this already know the rule for this little quirk.

The idea is to add emphasis to unusually high or unusually low altimeter settings. The vast majority of the time, we hear alimeters expressed in inches of Mercury (inHg) as "two niner" something something, or "three zero" something something. But what happens when a deep low or high high pressure system rolls through?

The bigger conern is the low pressure system. Given how often we set 29.XX in the little window, it's awfully easy to mistake 2898 for 2998 or 2989 or some other close-sounding setting. The big danger, of course, is having a subscale in the altimeter gauge set about an inch too high, meaning your alimeter will read higher than you actually are. This would lead a pilot to thinking he was 2,000 feet, when he's really at 1,000. He may be thinking he's 1,000 feet above the charted terrain, when really, he's about to get a close up look at it. If you're VMC, you can see it out the window, but if you're in cloud, that's a little tougher to do.

So when the barometric pressure is below 29.00, ATC and FSS personel are supposed to read it twice. The official phraseology is, "Altimeter two eight six seven. I say again, two eight six seven." That way if a pilot is dialing up 2967 in a bit of a rush, he might reply the transmission: "Did he just say that twice? That's unusual for 2967... Maybe I didn't catch that right." And then he can ask for it again to ensure he has set it right. It's a little safety mechanism in the system that evolved for a reason, and, while annoying for those who have to read it and listen to it, it is probably a good thing. The altimeter setting is supposed to be read twice when it's above 31.00 as well, though this side is less critical, since it results in an altimeter set too low, meaning it's showing lower than the aircraft really is. And hey, rarely has a pilot hit terrain or obstacles for being too low. This one is more of a concern with other traffic in the area.

Incidentally, they ran some stats in our local paper the other day. There was a record set by a hurricane this year for the lowest recorded barometric pressure in the eye of a North Atlantic storm. I forget which one scored it, but the pressure was 883 millibars, equivalent to 26.07 inHg. That's pretty low. The only storm lower was a typhoon in the Pacific, which measured 870mb, or 25.69.

Altimeter Readbacks

2005-10-26T06:49:00.000-03:00

This question arises every now and then as well: Do I have to readback an altimeter. I've done some research on it in Canadian books and have yet to find anything written about it. There is, apparently, no requirement to read back an altimeter setting to ATC, whether you're IFR or VFR.

Having said that, the vast majority of pilots will readback altimeter settings issed them by ATC, and it just seems to have become one of those work practices. As a controller, I'll listen to the readback as dilligently as I listen to a clearance readback. In fact, I've caught more errant altimeter readbacks than IFR clearance readbacks that were in error. This said, I think the practice of reading back altimeters by IFR aircraft should continue, personally.

I say IFR, since IFR aircraft are often operating in cloud, and this becomes especially important for aircraft on approach during IMC. Even with an ILS to guide you, where the glidepath covers you for altitude guidance, the altimeter is used as a cross check at the FAF as well as the guage you generally look at for determining when you're at the Decision Height. As such, it is vital, even with vertical guidance, to have the correct altimeter setting.

For VFR, however, the altimeter setting is secondary, since a VFR pilot's main way of flying is by looking out the window. Sure, there are gauges which are truly important (ASI, tachometer, altimeter, compass, etc) but mostly, you're determining how high you want to be (in a general sense) by what's out the window, using the altimeter as a reference point once in a while. Is the altimeter setting important to you? Sure. But not as critical as for IFR flight.

As a controller, I have never chased an aircraft for an altimeter readback. I'll definitely say that when a pilot doesn't read it back, I do feel like something is missing in his transmission, and it's almost an urgent feeling, too, one that I often tell myself to let go of. I quite readily listen for them, though, and given the number I have caught, I think a readback is an appropriate practice and hope it continues.

Initial Contact - VFR Flight Following

2005-10-25T06:48:00.000-03:00

This question has cropped up for me a number of times in the three years I've been writing publicly. "When I want to call up for VFR flight following, do you want me to just check in, first, or just say everything?" There are a few different ways to look at it.

Some say if they blurt everything out at once, there are fewer transmissions and things can go quicker. Others say that there should be an "attention getting" call made first and give ATC a chance to get ready for you. Here's my take on it.

Often in a call for flight following, there is a fair bit of information to get out there from the pilot and be picked up on by ATC. Just because the radio may be quiet doesn't mean the controller isn't busy. A pilot's radio being quiet, in the same sense, doesn't mean he isn't busy, either. We have many hotlines, phonelines and adjacent controllers to coordinate flight data with, as well as keeping up on changing conditions such as traffic patterns and weather conditions.

If you call up and spit everything out at once, there remains the possibility of having to say it all again if the controller misses it for being busy doing something else when you call. Often, even if I'm on the phone when you call, I find that I can catch your callsign, or at least know that someone called and I can answer you when I get a chance. Also, I've zinged more than one IFR aircraft through a localizer on a radar vector because someone tied up my frequency at an inoppotune moment with a call like, "Moncton Center, this is Cessna Golf Romeo India November. I'm over Grand Lake at 3,500, VFR, heading for Moncton along the highway. It looks like there are some clouds up ahead so I might have to descend a little bit. Requesting flight following." If he simply called up with his callsign and let me answer him, I could either issue my turn to final or at least say, "standby," without having to issue a correcting vector later.

The initial call of, "Moncton Center, Cessna Foxtrot Romeo Oscar Golf," gives me as a controller a chance to get my pen and paper handy to copy the information I want when I'm ready to answer you. It does mean, as some point out, an extra transmission or two, but in my eyes, it's worth the extra radio traffic. And I'm firmly one for clear and concise communications over the radio as anyone who has read my writing before can attest. I believe firmly in saying everything needed in as few words as practical to save air time. The more we all talk, the more chances of tying up a frequency for someone who really needs it.

Pet Peeves

2005-10-24T08:07:00.000-03:00

Time to share some pet peeves. I hope you'll participate.

Here are some things that pilots do that can become interesting, if not irritating:

1. Ask for "direct FIIXX, the IF for runway 05" when their at least two ATC units removed from the destination aerodrome, some 500 NM away. All for a 1° course change, when the controller their talking to doesn't even know (nor does he care) if the runway will even be available by the time the aircraft gets there. My suggestion? The only one who can tell you for sure your desired runway is available is the controller on the frequency marked "ARR" on the top of the approach plate. Maybe waiting until you talk to him to make the request would be a good idea, unless you know otherwise.

2. Change frequency without telling us. This is more so for VFR flight following than for IFR. Many VFR pilots call for flight following and then disappear into the ether. I can't provide you with any services if you're not listening to me.

3. Pilots who won't acknowledge a frequency change. "Contact Gander on 132.3" should be acknowledged somehow, even if it's a quick "see ya", or a double mic click. If you don't acknowledge it, I have to keep looking for you, even bothering the controller I told you to call to see if you did check in.

4. Back to the IFs, request a clearance direct to an IF, acknowledge it, and then project a waypoint off to the side. This means that you're aiming at a point 4-5 NM away from what I'm expecting you to do. With your RNAV abilities, I'm expecting a nice, straight track to the fix, and I could be putting someone on a parallel vector beside you, only to see you two converge. If you want to do this, all you need to do is ask. But at least let us know what you intend to do.

5. Accept a clearance for "the straight-in ILS runway 03 approach via URVAM", then see the airport and conduct a visual approach instead. By doing this, you're no longer adhering to the IFR clearance you were issued and acknowledged, and it may affect separation with other traffic. If you want to do the visual, seek approval from ATC (either directly or relay through FSS), or cancel IFR and do your own thing. If you take a turn to the airport earlier than expected, it may affect separation with departing traffic, both in terms of you getting closer to the departure's outbound assigned track, as well as shaving a minute or two off the separation that ATC believes exists.

Alright. Now that I've spouted off some stuff here, have a go at me. What sorts of things do ATC do to you that twist you out of sorts?

Lottery Jackpot

2005-10-23T06:27:00.000-03:00

It has been a while since I honestly believed I would actually win one of those super jackpots out there. Last night's $30 Million, yes with a capital "M", does inspire dreams, though...

What kind of plane would you buy if you won a large sum of money? Would you look at a hot single, like a Mooney Ovation with the glass cockpit? What about a light twin? If so, what kind? If you're into that kind of money, why not see if you can pick up a Beech 200 Super King Air, or the like? It's hard to believe that anyone would spend such a large amount on getting into a jet, but you never know... There are a number of entries into the "very light jet" category on the books that look sharp and perform nicely, all without the high price tag of a nice, new G5.

So what would it be, if you won $30M? Me? I'm thinking I'd keep it fairly simple with a Beech 58P, and look at the idea of building my own hangar if guaranteeing hangarage wherever I end up living would be difficult. Yes, a nice, comfortable turbocharged twin. Ah, the dreams...

UFOs

2005-10-21T16:26:00.000-03:00

A reader asked me about UFOs recently. You know who you are.

I can honestly say I haven't seen anything that related to UFOs while on the job. Or at least, nothing that stayed unidentified. For example, I once saw a target on radar, no transponder return just the reflected radiation (aka Primary Radar), that was heading directly to CYHZ in an area where no known traffic was operating, with a groundspeed of over 1700 knots. Being the keener I was, my thoughts went to the SR-71. No, wait, they're not flying any more (they weren't at the time). Well, perhaps, ... Could it be?... An Aurora? The product of speculation in recenty years as the works of the Lockheed Skunkworks in Area 51? Wow! Turned out to be an erroneous set of returns when we looked at the raw radar data. The target did exist, just not at the azimuth that was being reported, and therefore the plotting of the changes in distance made for an exaggerated groundspeed.

We've had other stories, though. When I worked in the TWR I received the odd call from time to time of someone in a panic asking if we knew of an airplane in their area. Typically, these calls came in about 2:00 am, and alcohol was suspect...

And another time I had a B727 underflying a formation of a KC-135 and 3 F-15s in the wee hours of the morning. The 727 pilot called in a panic asking if we had traffic for him. Well, my instructor nearly shit himself since he wasn't paying much attention (it was late in my training, and I was easily capable of handling two flights) until this call came in. It shocked me, so I scanned the radar, then the databoard, to see what I had forgotten and began immediately thinking about how short my career in ATC would be. Then it hit me. The formation flight was directly overhead, about 7,000 feet above him, but he was likely looking at the wide spacing between the nav lights and filling in the black hole between them, with perspective making it seem like it was a single airplane just outside his windshield. But a UFO, it was not. Fortunately for all of us, it wasn't a problem with traffic, either. But I think the pilot needed a new seatcover, if you know what I mean.

Anyone else out there with UFO stories from an ATC or pilot perspective?

Magazine Articles

2005-10-19T06:53:00.000-03:00

I don't have much to write about today, except that the magazine articles I was invited to write may not happen. It seems NavCanada has a problem with me writing without their thumb in it, since "you can't write from your perspective without representing NavCanada." What can I say? I don't mind an editor turning down an article, but I have a problem with NC looking over my shoulder and vetoing anything I write. It's too much like censorship to keep my interest. This shouldn't bother me, since the way I intend to write should be clean as far as they're concerned anyway, but it still bugs me to no end. I haven't decided what I'll do about it just yet. I'll talk to the editor, first, just to see how this is going to go...

ATC Simulator

2005-10-18T06:50:00.000-03:00

A software company in the US has produced an Air Traffic Control simulator program for some time, called ATC Simulator. I've never, personally, been incredibly happy with it, although many rave about it. I'll give it that it's better than the old Kennedy Approach for the Commodore 64 was 20 years ago, but there was something that just didn't make me enjoy it. Reportedly, they designed the look of the porgram to mimic US ATC radar displays very well, though I haven't seen one in person to say yes or no to it. Either way, it was interesting, if nothing else.

Why am I telling you this? Because radar has always been what most people think of when they think of ATC. Well, once they understand that air traffic controllers are not the guys who wave flashlights around at parking airplanes. There are several facets to the ATC world. Not getting the glory, but perhaps more difficult than any other type of ATC is referred to as "procedural" control. This is where IFR ATC has its roots. No radar, just pilots giving position reports and the ATC using his Mark I Brain and a set of rules to determine if separation exists, and if not, assigning pieces of airspace to make sure it does.

The same company who released the ATC Simulator radar product has now taken the next step, releasing a non-radar ATC simulator. You have flight progress strips and a clock to guide you and you must use your brain to figure out if you have separation and make it happen if you don't. I haven't seen how well this simulation actually simluates the environment, but the idea does sound interesting. I'd hate to buy a copy and be disappointed, but it would be neat to see. It's nice to get another aspect of ATC in the public eye, even though it may differ somewhat from how Canadian ATC operates.

Here's a link to their website, and you can find info about the new product there.

http://www.atcsimulator.com/

Question Explained

2005-10-17T07:35:00.000-03:00

Wow. I got a number of good answers to the post on Saturday. Thanks to all who participated. Some of the answers there described directly or indirectly what I was getting at. The direct answer I was wondering about was whether a SID was considered part of the route for an aircraft, or if it was departure instructions. The way the question was worded was, I fully admit, ambiguous if that's the answer I was looking for, but I had to word it in a way that would avoid "leading the witness," or so to speak.

The real reason I wanted to know what people thought of that question was related to IFR clearance format. ATC has direction to issue IFR clearances in a consistent format, and, while not all items are included in every IFR clearance, they should always show up in the same order. According to our Manual of Operations, or MANOPS as some will know it, we have to issue IFR clearances in the following format:

1. Prefix (In most cases, this is "ATC Clears")
2. Aircraft Identification
3. Clearance Limit
4. SID
5. Route
6. Altitude
7. Mach Number
8. Departure, Enroute, Approach or Holding Instructions
9. Special Instructions or Information (Transponder code here, for example)
10. Traffic Information

Notice the location of the SID in there: just before the route. The reason this topic came up is that we have had a number of SID violations in the Moncton FIR in the past few years, with the vast majority at uncontrolled airports in case you haven't been following recent threads. Several pilots seem to have misinterpretted the clearances received. When I talked to pilots outside of work, it's often given to me as a reason, which I can plainly understand, that part of the confusion may be derived from the location of the SID in the standard clearance format. For example, the following flight plan may have been filed:

ACA601, A320, CYFC YFC V352 HUL J509 YOW J546 YSO SIMCO2 CYYZ, FL340.

To which the following IFR clearance might be issued (bearing in mind that the CYFC7 departure instructions are "runway heading for radar vecrtors, maintain 5,000" with comm failure included):

"ATC clears ACA601 to the Toronto Pearson airport via the Fredericton Seven departure, direct HUL flight planned route, depart runway 27, squawk 3601."

The discussion I'm looking at right now is the placement of the SID in the above clearance. Many people argue that a SID is a set of pre-planned departure instructions and as such, belongs after the route (with the runway number to be used for departure) in the standard format as itemized above, and not before it. Several pilots have indicated that, when in receipt of such a clearance, they interpretted the "Direct HUL" as a modified SID heading since it followed the mention of the SID, essentially allowing the pilot to proceed on course immediately after take-off, rather than having to fly the runway heading as depicted on the SID plate for the CYFC7. I can see how this could be interpretted that way. Anyone else? In such a case, the term "flight planned route" may not be useable without first assigning the route to the first compulsory reporting point, and so something must be said instead of just "flight planned route". Since the controller issuing this clearance has no intent (and no desire) to see the aircraft take off and turn directly to the YFC VOR before setting course (since this would require a turn to the east before turning back to the west on course), he is amending the route to allow the aircraft "direct HUL" to pick up the FPR from there, rather than back to YFC, first.

The discussion now moves to, "where should the SID be in a clearance?" Many, if not all, of the controllers I work with believe the same thing, that a SID is departure instructions. The majority of pilots I have spoken with concur. It should be noted that this is by no means a scientific poll, nor is it anywhere near a representative number of controllers or pilots. However, those who write the procedures believe that a SID is actually part of the route, and therefore belongs elsewhere in the clearance, not near the end with the departure instructions. If, indeed, the SID should be considered departure instructions and it belongs later in the clearance, the clearance might then sound like this:

"ATC clears ACA601 to the Toronto Pearson airport via direct HUL flight planned route, depart runway 27, Fredericton Seven departure, squawk 3601."

What do you think? Does this make more sense than the original clearance quoted above? Do you think this would be less likely to be misinterpretted? I'm really curious to know how many people think one makes more sense than the other, and which one they think makes more sense, if either. Perhaps there is another format you think would make even more sense and be less likely to be mistaken? I'll welcome any comments on this.

BTW, for those who think I was being discriminatory by asking for background, I'll explain myself. If you're a controller, you'll have received the same training I have and may believe, since you were told to put it there, that the SID belongs where it currently is. If you're a pilot, I'm thinking that you're probably looking at the clearance and trying to make sense of what to do, and since you're the one who may misinterpret it, I'd put more importance on your view. If you're an observer or simulator pilot only, your feedback may be of interest, too, since you have the luxury of not having to deal with one side or the other.

Question

2005-10-15T09:26:00.000-03:00

I have a simple question to ask of my readers. I'd like as many responses as I can, but I need some information from you as well. Below, I'll ask the question. Then, without first reading the comments of any others, formulate your opinion, and click on the comments line to enter yours. After entering your answer, feel free to review the answers of others. I'd also like to know something about you: Are you a pilot (IFR, VFR, simulator only), ATC, industry observer, airspace planner, or whatever. What's my point? There is some discussion about the subject, and I want to know, in a non-scientific poll, how others feel. I'll leave this up until Monday, hopefully getting more answers, and then fill you in on further details. All I want today is your answer to the question, and we can get into discussions of why you think the way you do starting Monday. So don't defend yourself or your stance, and don't criticize others for their view here today, just let everyone answer the way they feel about it. The question is asked in a very general way, since I don't want to lead readers' answers. Don't think in terms of definitions and rules, or how you might explain it to someone. Just give the first answer that comes to mind. Now on to the question:

What is a SID (Standard Instrument Departure)?

Avoiding Becoming a Statistic

2005-10-12T08:01:00.000-03:00

In a recent article on Aviation.ca, it was reported that three aircraft were heading from St.John's, NF, to Halifax via Port aux Basques, NF. When they encountered bad weather, one landed at an airstrip, one carried on to Halifax, and the third, the one that garnered the attention, landed on a highway.

The part of the article that had my interest was the wording. They said the RCMP received a "complaint" about an aircraft landing on the highway. Was this simply a term chosen without thought, or was it really a complaint? Perhaps "report" might have been better? If it was truly a complaint, the complainant should be educated.

While I wonder why the pilot didn't head for the airstrip like the other fella did, at least he used his brains and chose not to continue on in deteriorating weather. He could have become a very different form of "complaint" call if he tried to continue. It's always a tough decision to make a precautionary landing, especially somewhere like a highway. I doubt he made that decision lightly. It may be a demonstration of strength of character rather than total idiocy. Of course, with two sides to every story, we'd have to know more to draw any such conclusions, but at least the pilot of this aircraft and his passenger are still alive to talk about it.

Here's the link to the article in question from a few days ago. Cessna Landing Story

Pre-Taxi Clearances Revisited

2005-10-11T06:54:00.000-03:00

I don't know how many have read back to see the recent reply to my Pre-Taxi Clearance post. An unidentified user posted some very good points that deserve a reply, and I wish to address that.

One point was made that in a terminal environment, aircraft departing on SIDs simply don't progress far enough to see many potential SID violations, and that it is entirely possible that many of these departures actually could end up being SID violators. At an uncontrolled airport with a mandatory frequency, such as the airports in question where Moncton is planning to institute the PTC operation with FSS (CYFC, CYSJ and CYYG), pilots are making calls on the MF, as per CARs, and may lose sight of the SID in the process. There are several points that are made by themselves, here. First off, SID or no SID, MF or no MF, an IFR pilot has to follow an IFR clearance. My "theory" regarding a pilot's likelihood of misunderstanding a SID at an uncontrolled airport stands, in my opinion, since that's the most common defense offered by pilots subsequent to a SID bust at one of these places. It's not something I made up, nor is it a n unproven belief that I attached myself to.

Also, I didn't say the pilots at larger airports never bust SIDs. The term I used was "rarely", and this is especially important to stress when we look at the sheer number of IFR departures at CYVR, CYYZ, CYYC, CYEG and any other major airport compared to CYFC, CYYG and CYSJ. How many SIDs were actually busted out of your example of CYVR last year? 10? 20? 100? Out of how many IFR departures at this airport? When we talk about an airport with one or two percent of the IFR departures, and having an equal or greater number of SID busts, something has to be looked at. And your comments regarding the fact that ATC simply may not see SID busts at the larger airports because of the terminal environments there only furthers my point that we don't have the equipment structure at these airports to monitor this adequately. Last evening, for example, a pilot departed CYFC, runway 09, Fredericton 7 departure (runway heading, 5,000) and told us he was "heading 120 to intercept V93 on course". H120 out of CYFC's runway 09 is a heading for CYR724, noted on charts as "continuous live firing". If he didn't tell us that off the ground, how close could he have gotten to that restricted area before he got high enough for us to see what he was doing? Most pilots who depart these airports with clearances that allow them to go on course (versus SID) will simply not tell us what they're doing. But if we issue clearances that allow them to go on course out of CYFC, we specify the direction of the turn after take-off to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

As far as union grievances go, please find one that made any headway. There wasn't, to my knowledge, and I was in the thick of it, anything to do with one labour group versus another that stopped this procedure last time. As I mentioned in my original post, the tower at a controlled airport gives the IFR ATC unit flexibility which doesn't exist at an uncontrolled airport: More efficient cut-offs regarding IFR arrivals versus IFR departures, the ability to issue IFR clearances with conditions that are not read to the pilot but kept "in house" between units (for example, a complete IFR clearance issued with the term "clearance validation required, such as would be used between an ACC or TCU and a TWR in just such a case with PTC). The few people who objected to this in the past based on some kind of union stance were quickly and repeatedly shut down by local management, and for the griping they may have done, this was not the cause of the cancellation of the procedure last time.

The number of SID busts at CYYG being lower compared to CYFC and CYSJ is most likely a function of the traffic levels. CYFC and CYSJ were significantly busier than CYYG. Also, the number of IFR operators at CYYG compared to CYSJ and CYFC at the time this last procedure was in place was largely Air Nova, Air Atlantic, and Air Canada. These three operators have in place a training support which private operators don't have in place, and therefore the number of violations after the first three or four months from these operators was small compared to others. These two factors combined to change the overall appearance of more compliance at CYYG than the others. But, rest assured, there were still a number of SID busts, since an investigation, normally only a brief one, has to be conducted to ensure that ATC and FSS staff are not at fault for ambiguous communication before "writing up" a pilot, and I remember being pulled from the boards for several CYYG SID busts over the term of the test.

As for my opinion of FSS, please don't speculate on that. In every job and in every position, we see a small percentage of weak people. I have seen the odd occasion where an aircraft instructed to climb straight out made a turn and the FSS operator didn't tell me, and confirmed that he had seen the departure make the turn in a later point in the investigation by management. But that was just one flight service specialist. Overall, the group we happen to work with is not just good, but very good. I don't mean to say that FSS will simply sit on their hands, saying, "oh, well." I would hope that they would recognize the dangers involved and say anything they can to help prevent a pilot from rolling when he shouldn't. What I was referring to was the regulatory structure: FSS is not permitted to give instructions to pilots, and a pilot who knows his way around would also be aware that FSS has no authority over aircraft movements. If FSS makes a suggestion, should they listen? Undoubtedly. Will they? Most likely. Are they required to accept suggestions and comply with them? No. At least with a tower, non-compliance with an ATC instruction results in penalty, or at least a defense process, and this regulatory structure does not exist with FSS. There was no disservice to FSS intended.

As far as confidence in flight crews go, I believe in the system we're using presently and have had very few problems with it. Certianly many fewer problems with the current methodology than with the previous institution of PTC. Transport Canada's own statistics clearly demonstrated that we had fewer IFR clearance violations when issuing a clearance under current methods than we had for the duration of the PTC and SID trial last time around. And as far as I'm concerned, the clearances we issue now are a little more complex than the clearances issued with a SID, and the crews have fewer problems adhering to them. This leads to more confidence in the flight crews than you suggest I have. The only reason I mentioned that private operators will have longer term difficulties with this is because of the training environment I mentioned earlier with the airlines. If one of their pilots makes a mistake, the training crews can get a hold of it, investigate it, and make a report for other crews to help them understand what was said, what happened, and what should have happened. Some of the private operators that run into these airports may fly here once in a year, or may not even have the occasion to return. So perhaps I miscommunicated my intent on that line. It wasn't to say that every private operator would have a problem with this every time. I meant that private operators could be seen having trouble with the procedure long after the airlines have greatly slowed their problems with it, simply because some may not have flown into one of these airports for some time after this procedure begins, and may not have been exposed to it. I don't believe for a second that a pilot who got stung in the past would do it unwittingly again under normal circumstances. And this issue should be alleviated, anyway, since the new procedure will not be open, apparently, but only be used by operators by prior arrangement with NavCanada.

Have I left any comments unexplained? I'm open to continuing the debate.

ATC and Non-Radar Separation, Part 2

2005-10-10T07:36:00.000-03:00

Continuing from yesterday, we'll talk a little about lateral separation, looking at how much airspace must be protected for an aircraft on any given track. How much ATC must reserve for an aircraft depends on how he's navigating. Aircraft operating in domestic airspace with no navigation guidance from NAVAIDs or on-board systems (basically dead reckoning his way from point A to B) are provided with 45NM either side of track in a non-radar environment. Quite a chunk of airspace. It means that the pilot may, as far as ATC is concerned, be anywhere within a 90NM swath of airspace centered on the flight planned track. This is hardly efficient if you have more than one aircraft who want to operate in the area. So we need some navigation guidance, something to narrow down the amount of airspace to protect.

If he's using a VHF NAVAID like a VOR, then the basic airway width is 4NM either side of track until it meets lines that splay at 4.5° from the airway centerline, at a distance of about 50NM. An airway based on two VORs less than 100NM apart is, therefore, only 4NM wide throughout. It's only when you exceed the 100NM distance between VORs that the 4.5° splay comes into place. NDB airways are similar, though slightly wider in basic width and splay. Technically, parallel airways based on VORs need only be a little over 8NM apart to say that the tracks are laterally separated. I don't know if there is anywhere in Canada that two airways run on parallel tracks that could be used practically in this way, or at least for any long distance.

If an aircraft is using RNAV, also known as Area Navigation, then ATC has other options. For aircraft that are operating in RNPC airspace (which stands for Required Navigation Performance Capabilities) and are RNPC certified, ATC can use 10NM either side of track. It's a bigger cut than VORs, but not everywhere has NAVAIDs to be used on the tracks desired. For aircraft that are on crossing tracks but not on airways, RNAV distances from a common point on both tracks may be used to determine longitudinal separation. Ok, so who is RNPC certified? Anyone with a "G" in their flight plan counts in this category. This is why in a recent post about the non-IFR certified GPS I made the point about not filing G in the flight plan. If that's what ATC sees, he may apply an RPNC minimum between you and another airplane. If your receiver isn't certified, then you can't be 100% certain you are where your receiver says you are for a variety of reasons, and less than ideal circumstances may exist, possibly leaving less than the required separation. But look at it this way: You may get to enjoy the in-flight movie on the other airplane.

It is more often that tracks converge than run parallel. For example, most VORs in the country are "tie downs" for more than one airway, which means that the airspace from one airway will overlap the airspace to be protected for another. If ATC were to have to aircraft converging at a common VOR at the same altitude, he'll look first at the times for the two aircraft, and see if longitudinal separation exists. The aircraft must be considered in this, too, since a faster behind a slower won't necessarily keep enough separation after passing the NAVAID. If there isn't enough time between them, ATC must act to ensure another form of separation exists before the second aircraft enters the area of overlap, and this is most often done by forcing an altitude change to one aircraft. ATC must also provide a buffer case the estimates are off, and this "fudge factor" is equal to half of the appropriate longitudinal separation minimum. If time is being applied and 10 minutes is the minimum, then the second aircraft must be at the new altitude 5 minutes before before he is estimated to enter the area of overlap. If distance is the tool, then half that minimum is what's applied. DME can be useful for determining the separation to be applied, as can RNAV (including GPS), as mentioned earlier.

So now you know a little about how ATC controls in a non-radar environment. ATC has many other tools in the toolbox, but this was a basic look at how ATC must visualize the protected airspace concept.

ATC and Non-Radar Separation

2005-10-09T07:44:00.000-03:00

A reader asked about how ATC uses GPS to determine separation in a non-radar environment. Before we go there, we should take a look at the basics of non-radar separation. This is actually quite a lengthy topic to do in detail, so we'll just skim the surface.

The Canadian Aviation Regulations, or CARs, contain the separation standards used by ATC. There are a number of other procedures that are contained within an "in-house" document, but the foundations are all in the federal regulations.

One of the many concepts that ATC uses in a non-radar environment involves what's known as protected airspace. The ATC clearance issued to each aircraft defines the airspace that ATC will ensure is clear of other traffic for that aircraft to operate in. This contains a route of flight, an altitude, and a time frame, largely determined by speed. As such, ATC can separate aircraft by assigning different altitudes (1,000 feet for most airspaces as we all know), by assigning airspaces that don't overlap, or by ensuring that there is enough spacing between aircraft on the same or crossing tracks at the same altitude. At all times, ATC will monitor the positions of his aircraft to ensure that separation exists. This monitoring, in a non-radar environment, is accomplished through position reports by pilots over fixes and NAVAIDs and estimating the times of arrival for subsequent fixes along the route of flight. If it is determined that separation may be compromised, ATC will take action to ensure that another form of separation exists before he loses the current one he is working with.

As an example, two aircraft are operating on tracks that cross over a NAVAID. One is flying from north to south, the other from east to west. ATC will first check their altitudes. If they're separated by the appropriate minimum, then he has to check no further. If they are at the same altitude, he'll look at the times the aircraft are estimated to arrive over the NAVAID. ATC has conditions to meet, including the speeds of the aircraft and who is in front, to determine if there is enough spacing between the aircraft. If there is more than the minimum time between aircraft at the NAVAID, then longitudinal separation exists, even though the tracks converge, and nothing more needs to happen but monitoring to ensure they continue as expected. If it is determined that the minimum longitudinal spacing does not exist, ATC must ensure that he provides another form of separation before the aircraft are too close and separation is lost. In this case, ATC will likely force one of the aircraft to change altitude, and instruct the aircraft to reach the new altitude by a certain time or a certain distance from the NAVAID, and that time or distance would equate to the lateral separation minimum. ATC could also delay one of the aircraft from reaching the NAVAID on his estimated time of arrival there, and perhaps "build" more longitudinal separation at the NAVAID. The delay could consist of a speed restriction, or a short holding pattern far enough away from the NAVAID to ensure that lateral separation exists between the airway for one aircraft and the holding airspace assigned to the other.

Tomorrow we'll look at some more to do with this topic.

Morning Star C208 Crash

2005-10-08T06:55:00.000-03:00

By now, whoever reads this blog is likely to have already heard about the crash of a Cessna 208 near Winnipeg Airport within the city's boundaries. They're looking quite seriously at the weather, and in particular the icing reported by the pilot in her last words to Winnipeg ATC.

It was reported in Moncton's local paper, the Times-Transcript, that the pilot was a Dieppe native. Dieppe is a city in southeastern New Brunswick that abuts against Moncton's city boundaries, and is where the Greater Moncton International Airport is. Apart from the pilot's connection to the city, Moncton ATC also know her. She had been running the Moncton to Charlottetown route in one of MorningStar's Caravans for some time prior to flying in Winnipeg, and her voice was well known by Moncton ATC and the FSS staff at Charlottetown. I actually met her at the Nova Scotia International Airshow in 2004.

I hope all is as well as it can be for her friends and family.

Off-Airway Navigation

2005-10-06T06:27:00.000-03:00

When determining a route of flight, there is no real need to run on an airway. If two NAVAIDs are in close enough proximity to each other that at least one can be received at all times, filing NAVAID direct NAVAID is perfectly acceptable. You fly outbound on one until you can receive the other. This is the basic idea behind airways in the first place. There is a little more to it, though.

Airways are assessed for obstacle clearance and NAVAID coverage. Hence you'll see at least an MEA (Minimum Enroute Altitude). This guarantees signal coverage continuously through the route. If the airway segment is safe at a lower altitude, a MOCA (Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitude) may also be published. Flying below the MEA but at or above the MOCA means that you're above terrain and obstructions, but you may be below signal coverage at least at some points between airway segments. With no airway, you don't have the benefit of these established altitudes to know you're safe. The basic rule of IFR flight now comes into play: Ensuring you're at least 1,000 feet above the highest terrain or obstruction within 5NM of the aircraft. Now, if you're in one of the 5 Designated Mountainous Areas (detailed in the AIP and the Designated Airspace Handbook), then you have to be 1,500 or 2,000 feet, as appropriate, above the terrain and obstructions. This can be tougher to figure out and be 100% sure of. If you're operating off airway, then the pilot is responsible to ensure his altitude is acceptable. One thing you can use is a GASA, or Geographical Area Safe Altitude found on LO charts, as well as, perhaps, overlapping 100 NM safe altitudes from airports where instrument approach plates are published. Just make sure that whatever altitudes you use are good for your route segment, and include a reasonable overlap just in case you drift a little off course.

One way pilots can file flight plans including route portions where NAVAIDs without airways between them are used is the radials/tracks they'd be flying between them. For example, the pref route published for FL180 and above out of Halifax for Toronto has "YHZ 303 MLT VLV" and onwards, with the 303 between YHZ and MLT representing the YHZ 303 Radial. The idea is exactly what was described above: Flying outbound on the YHZ303R until you receive MLT and flying direct MLT from that point on whatever radial you end up on when you pick it up. Now that's a high altitude pref route and obstacle clearance is not an issue at that altitude for the Moncton FIR.

If you do your homework right, you can find a safe altitude for the route segment to be flown. It would be wise, also, to become very familiar with the surroundings along that route, just in case you have a problem, such as encountering ice that you can't get above and end up having to descend instead. It would be nice to know a course of action that's possible to keep you out of harm's way with the terrain around your route if worse were to come to worst.

GPS Question

2005-10-05T05:43:00.000-03:00

I received a few questions recently, and the most interesting ones regarded the filing of flight plans with non-certified GPS units. A reader said he has been flying with a non-IFR certified GPS unit, and filing flight plans indicating GPS equipment with remarks stating "non-IFR certified GPS". ATC in his area had been issuing clearances to fixes that were not contained in the GPS database, and the reader was confused about why ATC would be relying on his GPS equipment, as evidenced by the clearances issued, and whether he should be accepting them. Here's the best answer I can give.

If you're talking legalities, then no, a non-certified GPS is not a legal method for navigation for IFR. To get certification of an IFR GPS, certain minimum requirements must be met, though to be honest, I don't know what they are. They are contained in documents, though, and the certification level is coded as TSO-C129a or higher. There are different levels of certification, including those that make use of WAAS. If it doesn't meet that, the GPS receiver may be not be used as a method of navigation. If a unit meets the standard, then it is legal and may be used. The reason for certification is to ensure the unit meets standards of redundancy and standards of reporting to a pilot if it isn't operating up to standard for accuracy. For example, if your GPS stops receiving good satellite geometry and the navigation solution has a high HDOP (Horizontal Dilution Of Position), does your receiver let you know? If it doesn't meet TSO129C, then it may not report such a situation at all, or the reporting method may not be adequate to let you know you have a problem. If you can't be certain about your position then what happens if ATC clears you on a routing and separates other traffic from you, only to find out that you're not where you thought you were?

I have seen a couple of situations in which my basic GPS receivers showed in error, and one in particular that was dramatic, and inexplicable. It showed me 35 km away from where I knew I was, out of 21,000 feet climbing at 65 km/h when I was stopped on the surface nearly at sea level. There was excellent geometry with the satellites, but no indication on the unit that something was going wrong. 35km is almost 20NM, and if ATC is using your G as coding for a capable GPS and something like this were to happen, you could end up anywhere between where the unit says you are and 10NM on the other side of the traffic ATC is separating you from. I think you can see how this could be bad.

Another issue with GPS is the database. For example, some people believe it's fine to enter waypoints into a GPS by hand, set up a route including the fixes, in order, associated with a GPS approach, and use the GPS to guide them in. Apart from the issues I just mentioned above, there are other points that need to be made. The approaches, to be legal, may not contain waypoints entered by hand. Instead, the approach must be pulled from a database and run through automatically in sequence, rather fixes that are "hand picked" by the pilot. The reason for this is the possibility of a serious error when a digit is missed by one, or two digits reversed. Image descending on an approach profile you loaded by hand only to pass a step-down fix and suddenly take a 90° left turn. Just before you head off toward the hillside that's beside your approach path, you realize that you inadvertently entered "45 53.760" instead of "45 57.360" translating to an error on the order of 5 NM. By the time you disconnect the autopilot and start a turn back, you may have already progressed to a dangerous position, and you're at a low altitude already having completed most of the approach. Similarly, even if the named fixes are in a database, the approach must be pulled from the database to ensure errors don't occur by choosing the wrong name. A few years ago, a pilot asked for "direct BIMKU" at Moncton (it no longer exists), and took a turn of about 90° to the left. When queried, the pilot realised in accidentally entered "BIMTU", which was at Bathurst, about 90NM north of Moncton. This in itself could have been serious if I had traffic on a parallel vector north of him, but the consequences on an approach could leave very little room for error indeed.

Now to the flight plan. Not all remarks you file in your flight plan will make it to the controller's eyes. If you file as having GPS on board, their flight information may reflect GPS equipped. ATC only sees one equipment suffix, so if you file G, it will show up over S and many others. Also, the remark about it being non-IFR certified may get lost somewhere along the way due to equipment limitations or processing of the flight plan. Hence, if they see a G in the equipment suffixes on your aircraft, you'll quite likely receive clearances direct to VORs that are not in range and to fixes. Also, ATC may separate you from other traffic relying on your GPS and therefore reducing separation between you and other aircraft.

In short, I'd recommend sticking with your airplane's capabilities, and filing flight plans accordingly. This is the only way to ensure that you get clearances that keep you on routes within the aircraft's capabilities, and that you are capable of continuously and reasonably navigating what you are assigned. Separation, and therefore safety, could be compromised if you're not meeting standards. I know the standards thing can seem constraining at times like this, but those standards are not without their reasons and there is a lot of background data that we just aren't privy to in the general populace. Transport Canada has been slow to react to GPS, but they have their reasons for going cautiously. I understand completely the issue made about the long way around on some airways. If the issue is really that important, getting an IFR certified GPS installed in the aircraft might be worth it. I'm sure, with the price of gas, there can be a business case made for the long term fuel savings vs. the cost of purchasing and installing a regulation unit. Not to mention the peace of mind that comes with knowing you're doing it right.

*an important add on for information has been added as a comment to this post. References to the other standards for GPS installation and TC approval have been added. The section of the AIP that deals with GPS is COM 3.16.

Sleep

2005-10-02T07:25:00.000-03:00

Anyone who works shift work knows the importance of sleep, and at least some of the difficulties surrounding getting sleep. I used to be a sound sleeper. I could sleep through anything. Now, just about anything wakes me up. I often wonder how pilots do it. Some of their schedules are worse than mine (they must be to be in the air when I get to work for an early shift).

As tired as one could be, adrenaline often keeps one awake and alert while things are hopping. I picture this being the same in the cockpit starting up, taxiing and preparing for take-off, and in the initial phases of flight. The descent to landing, the approach, and the touchdown in particular are all things that I would expect would keep a pilot awake. But the enroute portion, especially on a long leg, I picture being largely boring enough to prevent the release of adrenaline (unless, of course, your ATC were to make a mistake), and I can see how monitoring gauges and looking at a sometimes endless sea of white cloud below and blue sky above, or indeed nothing on a dark night over the ocean, could lead one to become very drowsy.

For ATC, looking at a largely empty piece of airspace with no conflicts to monitor and nothing to say as everybody goes about his business can be pretty, well, tough. I mean, in order to do your job, that is to provide "full time attentive flight monitoring," you have to watch what's going on, and staring at a blank screen and keeping your attention focussed on the job can be a challenge. Statistically, they say that most incidents in ATC occur not when things are busy, but when things are slow.

Of course, being well rested is very important. A good night's sleep can help stave off sleepiness that can arise from a low workload, which in turn lends itself to a low stress load. As bad as too much stress can be for an individual, too little can also be a bad thing. And as pilots well know, there are few chemical remedies that can be legally be used to help get sleep or keep someone awake at those crucial times. I suppose that's where coffee comes in, since caffiene is legal.

For all it's importance, sleep is still underrated. A good night's sleep is so important, and yet we'll all forgo some sleep at some point in time voluntarily for that awesome party or whatever else takes one's attention. As long as we don't let it get in the way of the radar screen we're looking at, or the cockpit tasks we have to monitor, we should be OK, no?

Airbus Landing

2005-10-01T11:47:00.000-03:00

I'm sure we've all heard of the Jet Blue A320 that landed with the nose wheel cocked to the left. I just head something this morning that had me thinking. Apparently the A320 in question had the in-flight entertainment system available to passengers, and CNN was one of the stations they could tune in. Given the fact that the A320 can't dump fuel and had to circle to burn it off, first, there was plenty of time to get news crews all over that airport to watch it, and "capture it for the public". Apparently, many of the passengers on board watched their own plane from the outside as sparks flew from the nose strut after touchdown.

So here's the question: Suppose the situation were more dire. Would you, as a passenger, want to watch your own death on TV as it happens? Maybe so. Perhaps it would kind of detach you from the situation, allowing more peace of mind at the big moment, since you now have an outsider's perspective on how things are going. I'm not sure what to think of this. Either way, with or without the TV, there's nothing you can do to cahnge the situation. But would you want to watch it all?

Vectored Approaches in a Non-Terminal Area

2005-09-30T08:27:00.000-03:00

Something I just realized that I didn't answer was one reader's question about being told not to expect a vector if another controller weren't available to help the controller who was working his flight. There are all kinds of possible reasons for this, but they essentially come down to the same thing: Division of workload.

The more air traffic controllers there are available to work in a given area, the more focussed a controller can be in a given area. That's the whole background to ATC and "sectorization" of airspace. There is an infamous, if not hated quote from a controller in Moncton Center from years ago: "Give me two good men and an ashtray and I'll work the whole center." Tongue in cheek, of course, but his point of view is that some people were complaining about putting too much airspace together, not allowing them to watch the finer details and help pilots in their operation.

One of the requirements that ATC has is to watch all of his airspace, plus a margin for taking hand-offs and so forth. If staffing is low, requiring the "consolidation" of airspace into a smaller number of radar screens, each controller working must watch more airspace. This means that he has more airports to watch over, more enroute traffic to concern himself with, and must watch a larger range. Vectoring to final may become difficult, or at the very least inefficient, since it is harder to vector accurately when you watch a large range. Terminal control units, who vector regularly and use as little as 3 NM between aircraft, are very focussed and are always one a much smaller range than their enroute counterparts since their repsonsibilities often include a very small area and only a small number of busier airports. It's easier to determine, with accuracy, where a vector will take an aircraft if you're watching a 60 mile range than if you're watching 500 miles from side to side.

Also, even if the airspace a controller is watching is comparatively small, there are always a number of other duties that must be tended to. For example, in a busier enroute sector, there may be handoffs to neighbouring ATC units, incoming phone calls from other facilities, and coordination of flight data between controllers. None of the above mentioned activities can be heard on the radios, so it may sound like the controller isn't busy but he may very well be tied up. These activities all require the attention of the controller, as well as his voice. If he's talking to an adjacent ATC unit, he can't issue you a vector to final, and may end up "zinging" you through a localizer, which we all know wouldn't be a very efficient operation, and may be less than helpful at best.

So if a controller says he can't vector you to final because of workload or because, "another controller isn't around to help," there may not be much you can do about it. And he's not necessarily being lazy or uninterested in helping out, either.

Multiple Approaches - Uncontrolled Airports

2005-09-29T06:31:00.000-03:00

To answer a recently asked question, and hopefully help some folks understand why things are the way they are, we'll look at uncontrolled airports and how things with ATC work when more than one IFR aircraft are inbound at the same time.

For starters, the rule that ATC has to work with is that only one aircraft may be cleared for an approach at an airport at a time. This holds true for all airports in controlled airspace, with the exception of those in a terminal environment. A terminal environment is one where ATC has radar to the ground, a tower in operation, appropriate radar and radio backups, and an airspace structure internally which allows for closer monitoring than the average enroute sector can accomplish. Most airports in Canada are in ATC sectors which are fairly large, and may not allow the controller to "range down" enough to actually watch things as close as a terminal control unit is organized to do. Add to that the radar coverage issue, and you'll see that most airports, even if radar coverage is good, are below radar coverage to the point that even if ATC could monitor the airspace on a small enough range, they wouldn't be able to see well enough to provide a terminal service at most of them.

So back to the multiple approaches outside of a terminal operation. Without the above mentioned abilities, ATC has to go back to the all-covering rule of one on approach at a time. In VFR weather, ATC may only clear one IFR aircraft for an approach to an airport at a time. This means that until the first one lands, the second one must be kept at an altitude above that of the inbound aircraft until he lands. In fact, ATC must protect for the possibility of a missed approach, too. So if #1 is on approach out of 2,300 feet and the missed approach altitude is 2,500 feet, then the lowest available altitude for #2 is 3,500 until #1 lands or cancels IFR. If the weather is IFR, then it gets a little worse. ATC must now wait until #1 lands and taxis clear of the runway to be used by #2 before he can clear him for the approach. If we get the "on time", then we can issue a lower altitude to #2, but we still can't clear him for the approach until #1 has taxied off the runway.

The same statements mentioned above are true for an airport where a control tower is in operation but terminal control service is not provided. Only one on approach at a time at these controlled airports.

But wait. There are two more wrinkles. There is the possibility of successive visual approaches. #2 sees #1, ATC may be able to approve a visual approach, clearing #2 to follow #1. Another one that most pilots don't understand (and many aren't aware of) is the transfer of control of an IFR aircraft to the tower at a controlled airport. When a preceeding IFR aircraft, whether on a visual, contact or instrument approach procedure, enters the control zone, and weather permits, tower may be able to assume responsibility for control of the IFR aircraft, thereby allowing the IFR controller to issue an approach clearance to the #2 airplane. If you were following the thread earlier about the missed approach on a visual approach, you'll remember I said at a controlled airport ATC (in this case the tower) will issue instructions for the aircraft on a visual who must do a missed approach. That's what this statement was about.

So basically, outside of a terminal environment (only at larger airports), you'll normally only see one IFR aircraft on approach at a time.

Pre-Taxi Clearances

2005-09-28T10:10:00.000-03:00

There is a move afoot in the Moncton FIR to reintroduce "Pre-taxi clearances" at uncontrolled airports. Here is a little background.

At many towered airports, certainly the larger ones, the towers will issue "canned" clearances to IFR aircraft. They're normally based on SIDs that are published for the field, include the aircraft's flight plan route if at least the initial segments of that are acceptable (meaning don't penetrate restricted areas, have proper, valid airways/fixes within the originating FIR, and so forth), and a transponder code. The idea from the ATC side of things is to reduce coordination between the IFR unit, which is responsible for issuing IFR clearances, and the tower, who communicates with the IFR unit for said clearances and "releases" for IFR departures. Where these canned clearances aren't in effect, the tower must call the IFR ATC unit (a terminal or ACC) for each IFR clearance, and they often don't include SIDs but are the old fashioned, "full clearances" which may include things like initial headings, altitude restrictions, radial climbs and so forth.

Pilots have said they like the idea of getting pre-taxi clearances because they have the opportunity to brief the departure and if they get the same thing all the time, then there is less of an opportunity to make errors.

The idea that is being introduced is to allow FSS to issue similar canned clearances and call for a release of an IFR departure. We attempted to do this many years ago, and met only with a moderate amount of success. There are SIDs published for the target airports, but there were so many errors by flight crews in the departure instructions that it ended up being terminated and normal ops resumed. The SIDs, with the exception of Fredericton off runway 15, were all "runway heading for vectors to assigned route, maintain 5,000" were so frequently broken it was unreal. Many pilots took off and made the turn on course, and even some outright admitted they were climbing to their flight planned altitude as well. This resulted in some losses of separation as overflights and arrivals were being planned based on the SID being flown. Nobody has come up with a definite answer as to why all these SIDs were being busted, but the most prominent belief is that the mindset of the pilots being at an uncontrolled airport leads to the pilot not flying a SID. Some of them have gone so far as to say that the SID at an uncontrolled airport is confusing. Which is funny since the pilots are strong supporters of this procedure. They're saying they want the same thing everywhere they fly. So if they get a SID at Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax and so many other places, why can't they understand how to fly them at these smaller airports? We rarely ever see SIDs busted at Halifax or Moncton in our FIR, but at one point the clearances were busted upwards of 8 times a day at Saint John, Fredericton and Charlottetown.

Another aspect At uncontrolled airports, this sort of thing is a little more difficult, technically speaking. At a controlled airport, there is someone in the tower who has the authority to stop an aircraft from taxiing, entering the runway and taking off, so there is an element of control there that is needed for IFR operations. Without a tower, if a pilot believes he has a valid IFR clearance, then there is nobody who can stop him from taking off, regardless of where his traffic is.

So this will likely be implemented again in the near future. The airlines will likely fair better overall, since they have training departments to help spread the word. The individual operators are the ones who will likely have longer term difficulties with this. Here's hoping it goes well, when it goes.

Meteors

2005-09-26T06:19:00.000-03:00

All around the world, people are encouraged by various groups to report fireballs and meteors by various officials, and pilots are asked to do the same through ATS facilities. These reports, to ATC, are so unimportant to us (overall) that it's a good thing fireballs are not often visible, or at least not often reported. Having said that, I have taken my fair share of reports of fireballs over the 13 years I've been in ATC.

This post, while it has little to do with Aviation in Canada, was sparked by what I saw yesterday afternoon: My first daytime fireball. It appeared where I happened to be looking when I was playing with my kids. No sound, but a brilliant yellow with the odd flash of white while it fell, leaving a rapidly dissipating "train" or smoke trail. I've seen many over the years at various times through the night, but this was the first I saw during daylight hours. Since I knew that someone was always looking for reports, I decided I'd try to find somewhere on the internet to send a report, and a quick Google search revealed the name of a man at the University of New Brunswick who had such an interest. There. I've done my good deed for someone today.

Visual Approaches

2005-09-25T07:08:00.000-03:00

Ah, here's one that's stirring debate at Moncton ACC. The rules ATC have to follow for a visual approach. We'll cover the basics, then I'll explain the opening statement.

First off, in order for ATC to clear a pilot for a visual approach, or to approve a pilot's request for a visual approach, the weather must meet certain minima. I say it that way because unlike a Contact Approach, ATC may initiate a Visual Approach whereas a Contact Approach must be requested by the pilot. The weather minima include a minimum of 3SM visibility and a ceiling that is at least 500 feet above the minimum IFR altitude. The term "Minimum IFR altitude" confuses a lot of people, since there are so many altitudes that could be chosen Quadrantal altitudes, 100 NM safe altitudes, whatever. If a Minimum Radar Vectoring Altitude is established for the area, ATC will use that (note that MRVAs are not published for pilot reference). If none, they will look for something that is appropriate for the airspace concerned. The way this is arrived at flows something like this: The MRVA at CYQM is 1,800 feet ASL. The aerodrome elevation is about 200 feet, so that makes a ceiling requirement of 1,600 feet plus the 500 foot addition mentioned above, for a ceiling of 2,100 as a minimum for approving a visual approach (remembering that METAR cloud levels are heights above ground, rather than altitudes above sea level).

Once the weather minima are out of the way, ATC has to look at some other points. If the aircraft is number one, it's simple: The pilot merely has to report the field in sight. He doesn't have to be within a certain distance or anything fancy. If he's not number one, he has to see the aircraft he will be following. If he's not number one at the field, but the other aircraft is landing on another runway, he has to see that traffic and be instructed to maintain visual separation from him. ATC must take caution to ensure the correct aircraft is spotted in multiple aircraft situations, and will say the aircraft type in the clearance. For example, "... cleared for the visual approach runway 14, follow the Dash 8 on left base."

Pretty simple. Now, for the complications. It used to be common practice in a terminal environment that when, say, a Dash 8 is 6 miles final and the 2nd aircraft is 40 miles out, but calls the field in sight, ATC could clear the 2nd aircraft for the visual approach, using the applicable radar separation minimum to verify that positive separation exists. Hey, it should be good having over 10 times the minimum, right? What I understand is that it is still done that way across most of the country. In our FIR, though, things are different. They're telling us that this is not legal, and that number one must see number two, or we have to become the "visual nazi" -- no visual for you! They tell us it's a "national ruling", but nobody else in the country has received direction to operate this way. And it makes no sense, but we have to tell pilots "no" and leave them shaking their heads. In so many situations like the above, it would be impossible for one aircraft to catch another or even be within 10NM of the other, even if he wanted to. What more can I say? So much for consistency and common sense.

Missed Approach on a Visual Approach

2005-09-24T12:45:00.000-03:00

Eric wrote in and asked a few questions about today's title subject. This is not a cut and dry issue, and I expect plenty of debate about this. At least, there is in other circles where I've had discussions about this. For the American readers, remember that what I write below is out of Canadian rule books and may differ from your procedures somewhat.

His question revolved around the opening statement, "On an IFR flight plan, after you have been cleared for a visual approach, controlled or uncontrolled airport, what is ATC expecting the pilot to do in case of a go around?" Actually, there is a difference between controlled and uncontrolled aerodromes. At a controlled airport, remembering that a controlled airport is one with an ATC tower in operation, the tower will give appropriate instructions and clearances which will tell the pilot what to do, or let the pilot do what he wants to do. That's pretty simple. It's at an uncontrolled airport where things become a little less than clear.

At an uncontrolled airport (served by FSS, CARS, etc), pilots are expected to operate clear of cloud and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing is not possible, the AIP tells aircrews that they must remain clear of cloud and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Sounds good, right? Then it goes on to state that "ATC separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances." As a controller, I can envision some circumstances that that prove this last statement wrong, even though they are supported by ATC rule books.

The visual approach is not an instrument approach procedure. It is an IFR approach, though. An IFR aircraft on a visual approach is still an IFR aircraft, though he is no longer flying by reference to his instruments, such as while on an ILS approach. Since it is not an instrument approach procedure, there is no missed approach segment for such an approach. ATC does provide separation from other IFR aircraft on instrument approach procedures, but not for visual approaches. At controlled airports, the tower will look after it, as mentioned above. At uncontrolled airports, ATC will not clear the second aircraft for an approach until one of these following happens: 1) the #1 aircraft lands, 2) #1 cancels IFR, or 3) #2 reports seeing #1 and is cleared for a visual approach and instructed to follow (if using the same runway) or maintain visual separation from (if using a different runway) the preceding aircraft. Now here's the set up. What if the aircraft can't land? Perhaps a VFR aircraft crashes on the runway, forcing both aircraft to go around. How is ATC expected to provide separation between these two aircraft? The aircraft may not be on radar any longer, and therefore ATC may have nothing else to rely on.

Admittedly, after 11 years in the ACC, I haven't seen any circumstances actually happen where this has become an issue. Despite theoretical arguments and hypothetical situations, it just hasn't come up. I'm pretty sure someone has had to deal with it, but I haven't heard the story myself.

Sorry, Eric, but I can't answer all of your questions directly. Technically, the visual approach clearance is an IFR procedure, and therefore accepting a visual approach clearance doesn't cancel your IFR flight plan. However, there is no missed approach procedure, and effectively, if you have to go around, you're operating as if you are VFR since you're not allowed to enter cloud until you contact ATC and receive a further clearance. Since there is no missed approach segment for a visual approach, and you weren't cleared for any other instrument procedure, I think you'd be hard pressed to justify flying an instrument missed approach procedure, especially if it would take you into cloud. I can say this about separation: The pilot becomes responsible for his own separation from other VFR aircraft (and preceding IFR aircraft if cleared for a visual and instructed regarding it as mentioned above), as well as providing his own separation with respect to wake turbulence, obstructions, terrain, and Class F airspace. The pilot must also assume responsibility for adherence to noise abatement procedures. At a controlled airport, the pilot should operate as cleared or directed by the tower, who also looks after the other aircraft around him in the usual fashion.

Any other thoughts? How about comments? Let the discussion begin.

Weather Follow Up

2005-09-23T08:14:00.000-03:00

I didn't realize just how busy a month September can be. I've missed a few days recently.

Anyway, this post is intended to be a follow up to Eric's comment from the post on the 21st. I didn't quite answer his question.

When aircraft make PIREPs to ACC controllers, we are supposed to pass those along to FSS, who will then enter them in the system for retrieval by others over the AFTN, the Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network. This network is accessible by dispatchers, ACCs, FSS, and a number of other agencies connected with the movement of aircraft and information.

The problem is this, in practice: There are a lot of reports, and often people are too busy to actually pass these to the supervisor. Unless there is something significant like severe turbulence or severe icing, these reports may not get passed on to someone who can enter this into the AFTN circuits. Often these reports are held at the sector by the controller for verbal communication to pilots who are flying in his area, and shared with adjacent sectors who have aircraft that are flight planned through. If it's only occasional light chop, these are often disregarded.

Canadian Aviation Weather Online

2005-09-21T06:44:00.000-03:00

One thing that NavCanada has been working on which I tend to use a fair amount is the public availability of aviation weather information. Eric wrote in recently to ask me a question about whether pireps were available online, but I couldn't find which article his message was attached to, so I figured I'd address it here. And actually, for those who are interested in Canadian weather information and aren't aware of the website, it's a pretty good resource available for free on the internet, so it would be a worthwhile post anyway.

So here it is:

NavCanada's Flight Planning Webpage

The screen that comes up will have a number of buttons which are largely self-explanatory. Those who are reading this are likely to know a few location identifiers to help get the weather reports they need, though it is possible to enter a place name for a look up. Given that I know all the ones that I want to use, I have never used the location lookup before so I don't know how useful it is. You can't get US weather and reports here, but Canadian PIREPS are available through this interface. NOTAMs and many other products such as weather radar images are linked through here as well. It's quite a useful site for weather watchers like myself, but certainly more useful for those who are planning flights.

Busy day

2005-09-20T07:59:00.000-03:00

My apologies for missing a post yesterday. Between the walk, the kayak ride, the bike ride and the golf, I had little time to do anything else. What a great day! Now if only I got flying yesterday, too...

Today is shaping up in a similar way, so I'll just leave you with something quick:

An airliner was taking off from Kennedy Airport. After it reached
comfortable cruising altitude, the captain made an announcement over
the intercom, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking.
Welcome to Flight 293, nonstop from New York to Los Angeles. The
weather ahead is good and we should have a smooth and uneventful
flight. Now sit back and relax and. . . OH MY GOD!". . . .

Silence followed. Then after a few seconds, the captain came back on
the intercom and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so sorry if I
frightened you earlier, but while I was talking to you, the flight
attendent brought me a cup of hot coffee and spilled it in my lap." He
chuckled and said, "You should see the front of my pants!"

A passenger in coach yelled loudly, "That's nothing. You should see
the back of mine!"

Aviation Medicals

2005-09-18T07:40:00.000-03:00

Ah, the old "turn your head and cough" trick is loved by all men. There is only one other test men hate more, at least 90% of us anyway, and fortunately that's not included as part of the Cat 2 or 3 medical category. But getting a medical is often easier than keeping it, since many of us get into aviation licenses when we're younger.

Yes, keeping a medical can be harder than getting one. As we age, we tend to wear our bodies out. And many of us endure things that aren't planned by any stretch. Broken bones, kidney stones, minor surgeries. All those wonderful things. In the past few years I've dealt with a few of these issues myself. The minor surgeries are often no more than a few days off work (perhaps more for those who fly, depending on the nature of the surgery), and sometimes require letters from attending physicians. After a kidney stone episode, my doctor was willing to declare me fit for duty. Civil Aviation Medicine wanted one of three tests to prove it. And I can understand the need for it, too. The problem was this: They sent me a letter, asking me to forward the results of one of these tests with a letter from my attending physician stating there were no risidual stones and that I was fit for duty. Sounds easy, since my doctor was willing. I had to call back. I said to him, "I'm not sure what the health care system is like in Ontario, but with my doctor telling me I'm OK, I'm not a priority for treatment. The shortest waiting list of the 3 tests that would be acceptable was 3-4 months!" They wanted a reply to that letter in 30 days. They ended up sending me a restricted medical, which basically made my pilot license useless and had me in the office at work.

Eventually, the tests were done, the letters forwarded, and my LVC was returned to normal. But it gave me a whole new outlook on the medical. I'm eating better, exercising more (have I mentioned how much I'm loving mountain biking?) and watching my health better than ever. Strange, since that's all stuff I should be doing anyway. But now I realize just how much my job (ATC) and on of my favorite pass times (flying) depend on my health (which I apparently had been taking for granted). So lift a weight for me as you keep yourself fit for duty. It seems a whole lot easier than trying to get tests done and get doctors to write letters to prove that you're good to go.

News

2005-09-17T12:24:00.000-03:00

First off, let me say that I tried to avoid it as long as I could. Given the spam comments, I had to go with Paul Tomblin and Aviatrix's suggestion: Turn on word verification for comments. It means an extra step when you want to leave a comment, but it beats everyone seeing stupid ads about irrelevant websites.

Secondly, Canadian Aviator Magazine has invited me to write a column in their bimonthly publication. Truly an honor. I hope to get started with them right away, perhaps even making their next issue. I'm quite excited about this, and hope I can do a good job for them and their readers. I can't wait to see the first article they feel is worth publishing in actual print!

Airplane Watchers

2005-09-16T08:57:00.000-03:00

I was one of them, and occasionally still fill the role. An airport watcher. You know the kind: they sit near an approach path just outside the airport fence, or perhaps on a hill overlooking a particular part of an airfield. They often have long telephoto lenses, radios (and some like myself, more than one with a mixer and a loud speaker so everyone can hear more than one channel continuously) and a huge love of airplanes and aviation. Many of these people subscribe to one of the disciplines to an extreme compared to most people. Some have incredible camera setups, with the sole intention of capturing airplanes of all kinds. Some have fantastic radio gear, whose only radio frequencies not found in the VHF and UHF air bands are those associated with airport security and operations.

These groups tend to annoy other groups. While most of the diehards will park clear of pavement, they often draw other, casual observers in who don't understand the finer points of getting out of the way of traffic first, which leads to complaints and a police presence. Then they are often shooed away, only to return later. Some airport security personnel tend to view these people as security risks, when in fact all they want to do is watch airplanes. Airport authorities dislike these people, since they are often seen as the public eye, watching carefully for anything that doesn't go as it should, possibly exposing liability.

The Greater Toronto Airport Authority was one of those until recently. Then, a group of these airport watchers got together and did something that surprised me, among others. They put together a little organization and made an agreement with the GTAA that had them as unofficial watchdogs, an extra set of eyes for airport security. They have no authority to arrest individuals or issue parking tickets, but they have a structure and some respect now and act to help keep an eye open and report suspicious activities near the airport. All of this in return for a little peace and quiet and to be left alone while they watch the operations they meant to see all along -- the airplanes.

Have a look at their website, for curiousity's sake if for no other reason. And the next time you fly into LBPIA (CYYZ), have a look on the final approach path by the fence and see if they wave you in.

http://www.canairradio.com/airportwatch.html

Projecting Approach Fixes

2005-09-15T06:27:00.000-03:00

I received a question about aircraft using RNAV to project fixes for use on approaches. I have to say that from an ATC point of view, there are some possible pitfalls for this procedure. Let me explain.

In years past, just before the publishing of Intermediate Fixes (IF) on final approach courses, some operators with RNAV (most notably certain Air Canada aircraft) were asking for "direct to the centerline fix". I'm not sure if these were projected in the cockpit or calculated on the ground by system engineers and added to the waypoint databases on the aircraft. Either way, the idea was the same as the use of the IFs now: to allow, where possible, the use of the aircraft's RNAV and FMS to fly the airplane to final approach without, or with as little as possible, ATC intervention. Some controllers disliked it for various reasons, some controllers made use of it where they could, but eventually, it was determined as an inappropriate procedure and we (ATC) were directed not to allow it.

The reason for this is that the fixes were not published. This meant it left some ambiguity as to what altitude was safe for a given area, where the fixes actually were (Air Canada's, I believe, were all placed at 10NM, but some operators got keen on this and projected 8NM gates, and one did a 12NM gate), and some aircraft seemed more capable of others on "smart turns" which turn before the fix while others flew over it before turning, allowing a window of opportunity for separation problems or unexpected flight paths.

With IFs published now, things along those lines are considered reasonable. Now, some pilots are asking for clearances for "direct FIXXX" which is an IF, but fail to mention that they plan to project a fix off to the side for base leg when approach angles to the IF and final approach course are great. The projection of a fix falls again under the same issues that were raised in the past (obstacle clearance, non-standard positioning, etc), but the bigger part to me is the fact that pilots doing this are rarely ever mentioning that's what they plan to do. They ask for direct FIXXX and fly to a projected waypoint somewhere off to the side. In a terminal area, the controller might be expecting the plane to track nicely directly to the fix requested (why wouldn't he? -- the plane is obviously capable of a direct track since he asked for it), but instead makes an unexpected turn. If the fix is, say, 5NM from the centerline and an aircraft is put on what is expected to be a parallel vector, this could lead to a converging traffic situation since the controller may be using as little as 3NM, effectively aiming the vectored aircraft on the wrong side of where the RNAV aircraft is unexpectedly going.

Until fixes on base leg are published, there is a level of ambiguity that must be resolved somehow, and the only way to resolve it is by communication. My guess is that someone will eventually have a hair-raising incident with this sort of practice, from the ATC side or the pilot side, and the brakes will be put to it anyway. It may lead to published fixes, and perhaps that's what is desired and needed. I'm sure we'll run out of five-letter fixes before they get published, though. Perhaps some sort of naming convention including numbers can be published for this?

Custom Instrument Approaches

2005-09-14T06:08:00.000-03:00

Westjet has begun altering the face of instrument approach procedures in Canada. Recently, they contracted another company, Naverus, to design some "company" instrument approach procedures for them for a number of airports they serve, and the Greater Moncton International Airport was on thier list. The idea behind a company approach is that it is not published in the Canada Air Pilot so only those with the information and authorization are allowed to use them. The authorization would come from Transport Canada. All the pilot has to do is ask for the approach procedure and ATC gives a clearance for that approach just like any other published approach. Asking for it tells ATC that you have authorization to conduct the approach.

There are a few issues with these that I can see. First off, what's wrong with the published ones? The ILS on R29, for example, has lower limits than these RNP RNAV approaches. While they may be useful if the ILS is shut down, the approaches are otherwise the same. They didn't take the time to do their own base leg fixes, which means ATC still has to get involved in vectoring them downwind, just as an aircraft doing a stright-in ILS R29 via the IF would. Secondly, they have different fixes other than those established, such as a different FAF and missed approach point, as well as (more importantly) different missed approach instructions and altitudes.

The real problem comes in when trying to mix aircraft doing the different approaches and trying to remember what each plane is going to do. Canjet has the new B737-500s now, so what if they decide to design their own approaches? And what about Air Canada and AC Jazz? Have we opened the floodgates to see a number of personalized approaches across the country?

It probably seems like I'm being a little resistant to change. Perhaps I am. But I don't see the need for this as it just creates unnecessary confusion, in my opinion. It's evidenced by the control staff around me, and I can tell you I'm not the only one harbouring such views toward these approach procedures. I do wonder what controllers across Canada think of this concept, though. Do they like an operator designing their own approaches at busier airports? I mean, a satellite airport with no approach procedures published is one thing. Airports already served by existing approaches, I feel, do not need additional approaches.

Unrestricted Approach Clearance Revisited

2005-09-13T07:30:00.000-03:00

A reader asked a good question yesterday. His post read as follows, in case you didn't see it:

The first time I encountered this "cleared for an approach" was coming into Kingston Ontario (to meet another reader of this blog, David M). It was severe clear, and I was on a IFR clearance mostly because it's easier with cross border flights than trying to switch to a FSS frequency to open a VFR flight plan, and then begging for Rochester for flight following. At the time they cleared me for any approach, they also turned me over to the FSS frequency for the field. I had the field in sight from 30 miles out, and I told the FSS station that I was going to enter the pattern and land visually.

The only answer I have found is this, that technically, he has done something wrong. Is it a big deal? No. Years ago, visual and contact approaches were allowed when in receipt of a clearance, "for an approach." I'm still not sure of the background, but that had changed and the way it stands now is that visuals and contacts are only allowed if specifically approved by ATC. The exchange, for example, could go something like this:

ATC: "Alpha Bravo Charlie, cleared to the Sumspot airport for an approach."
Pilot: "Alpha Bravo Charlie cleared to the Sumspot airport for an approach. Requesting the contact approach."
ATC: "Alpha Bravo Charlie, the contact approach is approved."

In the situation above, where he was talking to radio when he decided he wanted to fly visually, he should have asked FSS for a clearance for a visual approach, or cancelled IFR so he could proceed on his own. The funny thing about this is that communication is often incomplete. In my experience, a pilot often tells FSS that he wants to do a visual or contact approach, and the FSS simply acknowledges this as a change of intent on the part of the pilot, leading the pilot to believe that he has received approval for the visual approach.

In either the case just mentioned or Paul's case, I find it hard to believe that it would cause a problem. The fact that the pilot is in receipt of an unrestricted approach clearances means that there is no other traffic around to conflict with, and therefore ATC is unlikely to have an issue with a pilot doing a visual or contact approach anyway. In actual fact, as pilots already recognize in such situations, ATC knows that the pilot is likely to land sooner on a visual approach than doing an instrument procedure anyway, so it is to ATC's benefit as much as it is to the pilot's. Why, then, is this rule in effect? I have no idea. We've tried to change it in the past in Moncton Center, but have had no luck in convincing those above us who obviously have the "bigger picture" and say that it's not acceptable.

Unrestricted Approach Clearance

2005-09-12T11:03:00.000-03:00

I've seen a number of questions about the clearance, "...cleared to the Sumspot Airport for an approach," and what it means. I'm hoping to shed some light.

A long time ago, a Northwest Airlink airline (strangely, their callsign was Northeast) who flew in the Moncton FIR often received these clearances as some of the flights were after hours when traffic is light. After several months of flying in the region, one pilot asked about this clearance. He said, "Moncton, do you keep giving us that approach clearance because we're Americans?" Uh, no. That's, "For an approach", not, "foreign approach."

Seriously, though, the unrestricted approach clearance gives the pilot the right to conduct any published instrument approach procedure, and includes the right to navigate from any point on his flight plan route (including present position, of course) to any fix associated with the approach or any published transitions. For example, they may leave an airway and fly RNAV direct to an IF for a straight-in approach. They may fly to a fix on a DME arc and fly the arc for a straight-in. They may fly to a fix associated with an RNAV approach. Whatever. There are two approaches that are conspicuous in their absences from this right: Visual and Contact approaches. While they are IFR approaches, they are not instrument approach procedures and hence are not included in the authorization when in receipt of a clearance for "an approach." Pilots wishing to conduct either of these must ask for authorization from ATC if in controlled airspace prior to leaving a published instrument approach procedure or transition. Controllers and pilots alike seem to agree on this as being a little silly. If a controller has traffic at an airport, he would likely issue a specific approach clearance rather than unrestricted, so why can't a pilot fly a visual if he wants to? Rules are rules, I suppose...

Another rule about the unrestricted approach clearance is that a pilot is required to inform ATC as soon as possible of the approach that will be conducted, and method of transition to be used. I'd say we're running about 50% compliance on this. Also, once stated, a pilot is not supposed to deviate from the approach procedure he notified ATC he would use without prior authorization.

In short, clearance for, "an approach," may be issued at times when traffic is light or if ATC doesn't have the facilities to allow arrival vs. departure style separation. A pilot is supposed to inform ATC what procedure is to be used, and then stick to it unless he receives approval for something else. And a pilot may not conduct a visual or contact approach unless he requests it (and obtains approval) from ATC. Informing a flight service station or other type of facility at destination that you want to do a visual/contact approach doesn't count as asking for, and receiving approval from, ATC. When relayed through an FSS, a clearance would actually be prefixed with, "ATC clears..."

NSIAS

2005-09-11T05:50:00.000-03:00

I'm back from the Nova Scotia International Airshow. Well, technically I was back yesterday from it. And technically I didn't actually go to it. My airshow days start with the day before the show itself when most of the participants fly in. This year, due to other commitments, this was my airshow in its entirety. I had to be back in Moncton yesterday so I missed the show itself. And for the number of airshow aircraft, it almost appears as though I'll miss nothing. The show was quite thin compared to past years, and the $18 admission (that's per person not per car), I don't feel like I made a bad choice, especially after seeing how little arrived.

Given that this is the only annual airshow in the maritime provinces, I feel like the days of it are numbered like all the others. It makes me wonder about the idea of arranging a new one, this time in an airport much closer to home. It's a big undertaking to get one going, but maybe that's what's needed out here. Perhaps some interest can be generated in my own city on getting one together. We had one in the past, why not another one? Perhaps it's time to lend a hand in organizing one instead of just observing one. Where's my pen? I better get the letter writing campaign going soon.

Another Absence

2005-09-06T06:29:00.000-03:00

Things are getting quite busy for me, here, so I'll be taking a few days away from posting. I should be back around by the beginning of next week, following the Nova Scotia International Airshow. I hope everyone who reads this is seeing weather as good as we have forecast for our region.

ATC Radio Chatter

2005-09-04T09:16:00.000-03:00

This is a recent exchange between a pilot outbound to Deer Lake from Halifax (a track of about 063°M) and Halifax Terminal. The pilot was given a heading of 075 for "vectors around traffic". The traffic was inbound from Deer Lake and not on the terminal's frequency yet.

Pilot: "Are we able to go direct Deer Lake yet?"
ATC: "No, you're on vectors around traffic."
Pilot: "Well, we don't see any traffic."
ATC: "Fly heading 060 and you'll probably get a pretty good look at him."

Seriously, though, there are a number of answers that could have come from that comment. "I guess I'm doing my job well then." Or how about, "That's what ATC is all about." There used to be one group of pilots who flew the Moncton FIR regularly and they often made remarks like, "Where's my traffic?" as if they were expecting us to say, "Oh, you caught me. I actually didn't have any for you. You can proceed on course now." When all it did in the short term is waste air time on the radio, and in the long term lead to a bad working relationship. Thankfully, there isn't a lot of this going around any more, but obviously still a few pilots who think that way.

NOTAMs

2005-09-03T07:11:00.000-03:00

It seems fewer and fewer pilots are reading their NOTAMs lately. The most recent example, silly as it is, comes from the Rolling Stones' concert in Moncton. Yesterday, there was a tiny restricted area in effect a ful day before the concert that begins this afternoon. It's only a 1 NM radius and it's capped at 3,000 feet ASL. The problem? It's only 8 NM from the airport, just north of the departure path of runway 29, the runway normally in use during fair weather due to the prevailing winds and it's length over the other one. In an IFR world, restricted areas are effectively bigger than the advertised dimenions since ATC must apply separation from the boundaries of them. In this case, since it's located so close to an airport in a terminal environment, we have to keep aircraft 3NM from the edge (making it effectively a 4NM radius) if they're below 4,000 feet. If a pilot accepts a visual or contact approach, he is then responsible for separation from this kind of area and the 3NM need not apply.

The trouble is, only one IFR pilot destined for Moncton yesterday was even aware there was restricted airspace near the airport, and he admitted he had only the faintest notion, saying, "I read something about that. Where is it?"

I've seen a lot of evidence of pilot's being less and less likely to read NOTAMs in the past few years. NAVAID outages, runway closures, restricted airspace, military activities, and so forth are always advertised in one of the three levels of NOTAMs. There are the airport NOTAMs which this Rolling Stones thing would have been advertised, as well as NAVAID outages. Then there are the regional NOTAM files which include items not associated with an airport like a runway closure, but would include things like military exercises and their areas. Then there is the Headquarters file (HQ) which includes things like NOTAMs about regulation changes, and other nationwide issues such as those items that occured on Sept 11, 2001.

As much as load factors and flight plan routes are important, the NOTAM summary should be consulted. I'm not suggesting that every airport along the route of flight be researched, but certainly the departure point, destination and the alternate aerodrome should be on the list of priorities.

Changing Transponder Codes

2005-09-01T08:30:00.000-03:00

Here's something that's kind of interesting about transponder operation. Changing codes. When assigned a code while airborne, many pilots will select "Stnadby", change the code, then select "On" or "Alt" again. Did you know that this isn't the preferred method from the other side of the scopes?

I know, most pilots will tell me they do this to ensure they don't inadvertently select any of the emergency codes. But the reason this is bad is that it causes ATC to lose the target on radar while the code change is taking place. The last thing we want, if we're trying to confirm which target is you on radar, is to stop seeing you on radar.

The soon-to-be vanquished AIP Canada actually has a passage about it in RAC 1.9.1, para 3, which states, "Do not select "STANDBY" while changing codes as this will cause the target to be lost on ATC radar screens."

In the same paragraph, they give advice on how to prevent inadvertent selection of codes. Their example is changing from 1700 to 7100 by changing the second digit first, making it 1100, then changing the first one to show 7100. This requires a little thought as to which codes could be "moved through" in the process. Another idea is to change the last digit first, which is often not a zero.

Whatever method you choose, it would make a controller on the other end happier not to lose your target when changing codes. Oh, yes, don't operate the IDENT feature when you change a code. Changing the code is enough. The ident feature should not be used except when directed by ATC. Some pilots seem to like being cool and calling in on departure like this: "Good afternoon, Center, Airline 123 with you off AirportX through 1,900 with the flash." Save it, please. Wait until instructed to use it. What if, just before you called in, someone else was told to squawk ident? Then two targets are flashing at the same time, and technically, neither one can be considered radar identified.

Not Busy if not Speaking on the Radio

2005-08-30T07:29:00.000-03:00

Which side of the radio do you think I'm writing this one about?

The answer is both. I've seen it from both sides: The pilot who thinks because the controller isn't talking on the radio he must not be busy. And the controller who thinks the pilot isn't busy since he hasn't said anything on the radio in a while. I think anyone who stops to think about these myths for even a few seconds can realize that there are many things on both sides of the radio that can prove this to be untrue.

Pilots programming an FMS, perusing weather data, going through a checklist, briefing for a departure or an arrival, setting up instruments, etc. So many tasks and such possibility for inducing a small error if interupted. For example, I once watched a pilot take an unexpected 90° left turn after errantly entering BIMTU instead of BIMKU in the RNAV. He reported that he was interupted in his processes and apologized for the error.

Controllers have hotlines to other ATC units, landlines to other facilities, other controllers in adjacent sectors to coordinate with, and, increasingly, more and more data sensitive systems to work with. Information on aircraft must be coordinated to ensure everyone is operating with the same data, clearances must be issued for relay through other units, and simple planning of traffic flow takes time that is not evident over the radio.

Fortunately, most pilots are aware of controller's having other things to do, and most controllers are aware that pilots are often likewise busy. It's only the odd one out of either bunch that gets impatient and disrespectful. But boy do they stick out of the crowd. So if either side doesn't reply right away, it may not be that they didn't hear the call. A few seconds of patience where possible can go a long way. Emergencies, Ok, fair ball. Get their attention. Otherwise, give 'em a little time.

Transponder Interrogation

2005-08-29T07:15:00.000-03:00

Every now and then, a pilot won't believe me when I tell him I don't have him on radar. He'll look at the little light on his is transponder and say, "Well, Moncton, I'm showing interrogation," as if to say, "look a little harder." I have difficulty in seeing why I might try to lie to a pilot and tell him I don't have him on radar since it's most often to my advantage to see an airplane, but anyway, there are several possible explanations as to why you see evidence of interrogation but I don't see you.

First, there is the radar source issue. I have radars across the region. So do other ATC units like adjacent ACCs/ARTCCs and Terminal Control Units. As most people know, the TCUs in Canada are, for the most part, integrated into the parent ACCs now. For example, when you talk to Halifax Terminal, you're talking to someone working within Moncton ACC. They will see the same radar sources that the parent ACC sees. An example where this is not so is a military TCU. These are often located right on the military airfield, and they will normally have their own radar antenna as well. What all this means is that you could be seeing interrogation from a radar antenna that is not fed into the unit that you're talking to, whether it be an ACC and you're receiving interrogation from a military TCU's radar, or the other way around.

Also, TCAS works by broadcasting an interrogation signal and listening for responses, then processing the returns as a direction finding antenna would and calculating range. This means that there is an airborne source for interrogation which may be showing up on your transponder that certainly no ground source will see.

So, showing interrogation doesn't necessarily mean that the ATC unit you're speaking with can see you. Maybe another one can, but that's not necessarily the case, either.

Misused IF's

2005-08-28T07:11:00.000-03:00

A long time ago, in an FIR far, far away, IFs were established. These Intermediate Fixes were placed on the final approach courses of many an approach, typically somewhere around 10NM final, but with some variation. The idea was to allow aircraft with RNAV a certain flexibility, at least when approaching from some directions, to conduct their own navigation to final without the need for DME arcs, procedure turns or ATC intervention in the form of vectors, if ATC were even able to see the aircraft on final on radar. The theory was good, but there seemed to be a lack of direction and some problems started to occur. Well, they weren't problems all that often, but certainly the potential was there. The problems were small, insidious little things that kind of crept up.

These IFs were great when the airplane was coming pretty much straight in already, or even off to the side in what would amount to a base leg, an angle of 90° or so from the FAC. But what about when the angle exceeded that? Many aircraft systems would reject the turn to final in such cases. Especially when the FAC was pretty much a 180° turn from the course inbound to the IF. That didn't stop aircraft from asking for direct to the IF, though. Pilots are pretty clever, and the nav gear became more sophisticated, and this combination had pilots doing some things which were a little unexpected. Many would "project a waypoint" off to the side of the IF, then navigate to the IF and join the FAC from there. Problem is, they'd ask for a clearance to the IF, receive and acknowledge it, leading those crotchety old ATC types to think they would navigate to the IF instead of an imaginary, temporary and unnamed point. The best part is, the ATC would think they could depend on the aircraft's nav gear to take it on a nice, straight track to the IF, since it had the ability, only to find out the aircraft was aiming often around 5NM beside the IF instead of at it. In a terminal environment, ATC could have another aircraft on a vector approaching the fix, planning on the course for direct to the IF for the "self sufficient one", when he only needs 3NM radar separation between them. The unannounced course could have the airplane on the wrong side of his traffic. A little communication could go a long way to alleviate expectations for this one, though.

Another problem occured when the pilots received a clearance for a straight-in approach via an IF. Some pilots, especially those flying into uncontrolled airports, often decided after acknowledging such a clearance to disregard the IF and point directly at the Final Approach Fix, hoping to save a minute or two of flight in the process. Hey, with gas prices in this FIR, anyone can appreciate that. Unfortunately, those darn ATC types would be taken by surprise again, expecting to have that minute to use when issuing a clearance to an aircraft who wanted to take off. Now, the window of validity for the departure was compromised, as was the lateral separation expected when the departure got airborne since the arriving aircraft might be as much as 5NM or so closer to the airport than he should have been when approaching on a base leg style track when he makes the turn to final.

And the last one was a little different, since it often didn't compromise separation. Some pilots, keen on using the advanced nav gear and wanting to set up an FMS to do its thing, would ask for clearances to these IFs from hundreds of miles away. This often meant that those controllers had to ask "down the line", or so to speak: One enroute controller had to ask another, who had to ask another, who often had to relay the request to the controller working the airport in question, who had to send the approval or denial back up the line to the original controller. Many controllers, not wanting to make a pilot wait that long, would often clear the pilot to the requested fix and either tell the next guy on the hand off, or actually forget to tell them. Sometimes the fix requested wasn't associated with the runway in use, which meant the pilot would set up his computers for an approach he might not get. There was even the rare pilot that would get upset about this, and demand an inactive runway saying that it had already been approved for him, since he received a clearance 30 minutes ago or other such arguments. Another tough one to deal with.

Well, the problems, small as they were perceived by some, continued on a daily basis without either side being aware of the other's concerns, since both groups had bigger fish to fry. Unfortunately, for those reading this story, no such thing has happened in this little far away FIR for us to learn from, so we'll have to come up with our own little solutions. Maybe we can solve these issues before they lead to a problem, perhaps even before those in the little imaginary FIR where this story originated.

Carbon Monoxide Story (with followup)

2005-08-27T08:13:00.000-03:00

(Readers of the forums at Aviation.ca will already be aware of the post referred to below. I'm writing about this for the benefit of those who read my blog here, which is mirrored there)

Someone posted a recent experience with Carbon Monoxide in the forums at Aviation.ca. The odorless and colorless gas is an insidious little problem which is difficult to detect, and can have deadly consequences, both directly and indirectly. It's effects are slow and sublime, and can cause death simply by itself but also due to incapacitation which could result in a loss of control. Luckly, the writer survived and landed his plane before anything could happen, evne though his passengers had already suffered too much exposure. His story was written to remind everyone about the existence of such a problem. The reason I'm writing about it is not only due to the story of the experience, but also because a reader added an informative follow-up post with some interesting information about CO exposure that I think we can learn from. Follow the link below to the forum's post (no registration is required, the forum is public) and see just what was written.

http://www.aviation.ca/component/option,com_simpleboard/Itemid,119/func,view/id,1165/catid,4/

"Hot Areas" Mapped Online

2005-08-26T12:18:00.000-03:00

One of the many areas in which the Canadian Air Navigation System is concerned with safety involves the large number of warning and restricted areas across the country. There are rocket ranges, military flying areas, and all kinds of other activities. If they're marked as continuously active, then it's pretty easy for a pilot to know they're active (now they just have to look a chart to figure out where they are). A large number of these are, however, not active continuously. They are plotted on charts and NOTAMed active. Many pilots seem to be quite willing to fly into a region without making themselves aware of the NOTAMs. In any case, the US FAA has taken another step that's quite interesting. A reader sent me this release, so I'm copying it here:

...AND HOT AREAS MAPPED ONLINE IN REAL TIME
An FAA database called the special-use airspace management system
(SAMS) now will tell anyone with Internet access whether any
restricted area, military operations area, military route, or warning
area anywhere in the country is going to be "hot," AOPA said on
Monday. It updates every six minutes, and the schedule is accurate 24
hours in advance. AOPA said it has been lobbying for access to this
information since 2001. SAMS has been in the works for a while, AOPA
said, but it took time for the FAA to coordinate with all the Air
Traffic Control centers to ensure that the data is kept updated.
href="http://sua.faa.gov/atcaamap.jsp">http://sua.faa.gov/atcaamap.jsp

Interesting read, no? What about the concept, too? I think it's great to have this stuff available, personally, though I'm not sure just who would be surfing the internet while flying a plane...

Snowbird Crash

2005-08-25T06:27:00.000-03:00

It saddens me when I read about any incident regarding the Snowbirds. I feel a certain pride over them, despite having no more connection to them than any other airshow spectator. Because their Canadian? Because they fly airplanes? I don't know.

My biggest fear about the Snowbirds rrests not with the pilots. These guys are enthusiastic, and are true professionals. They analyze their show, plan their every move, and practice hard and often. They know the risks, and yet still push on to give a show for the public, the vast majority of which will never even begin to appreciate what goes into doing such an act, and even the most dedicated to their shows will never *really* know what it's like.

No, my biggest fear is the possibility that one day we won't have them. Someday someone will probably say, "Look, the airplanes are getting too old. Look at how many problems we've had over the last XX years. I'm sorry, we have to stand them down." They've already talked about it in the past. I'm afraid it may only be a matter of time. With each incident like the recent crash, I feel that time gets a little shorter.

I'm extremely pleased that Snowbird 8 survived the incident. Its great to know he's alive and well. I hope his dedication continues, and that the Snowbirds survive as a team just as he did for years to come.

Stupidity Recognized

2005-08-24T07:08:00.000-03:00

While telling some people about my little injury (mentioned yesterday), I would mention that, "I saw it coming," and yet, "let it happen." Obviously I felt that it may not happen or I would have stopped, right? And yet, even with my little vision, I ended up getting hurt. I started thinking about this when people I spoke to would tell me about their own little stories. "I was cutting shingles while roofing my house and I could see I was doing something stupid and ended up proving it." "I was hammering away in an awkward position I knew was stupid, saw that my thumb was in a bad place and ended up getting confirmation in a painful way."

It's interesting in an aviation sense because I'm sure this feeling comes into play in a lot of human error incidents. Can't you just see a pilot saying, "Looking back, I knew I shouldn't have tried but did it anyway"? I've heard some people, being involved in minor events, saying similar things. That's what judgment is all about, and yet how often is it ignored? What if it was heeded? I wonder how many major events could be avoided by listening to that meek, little voice that suggests against doing something. Think about it for a minute. What has happened to you that you somehow just "knew" would happen but you went ahead and did anyway, only to suffer for it somewhow? Care to post any? Hey, I posted mine.

Smoke in the Cockpit

2005-08-20T07:52:00.000-03:00

Smoke in the cockpit is a serious concern. Few people would argue. I wrote about this a while back, speaking more along the lines of fire detection until fatal crash. This time, I just wanted to write a little entry in the blog about how often it happens.

Like the last time I wrote about this, I refered to Swissair's Flight 111 that piled into the waters just off the coast of Nova Scotia. This very high profile incident scared many people, and sparked a spike of smoke or smoke smells in the cockpits. This is a quite normal reaction when something is brought to our attention in such a nasty way -- people all of a sudden start to question things they may have written off in their minds as, "insignificant until it becomes significiant." Now they may just be a little more aware of the significance. The funny thing is public perception.

Pre-Swissair, an airliner diverting for smoke in the cockpit was just a little filler on the corner of the newspaper's 10th page, or a brief mention on the news but no details mentioned. After Swissair's crash, it was front page news every time for a while, and reporters doing the old, "it's the third time since Swissair's MD11 crashed for the same reason!" or, "It's the fourth airliner to divert to a different airport this month!" I checked our unit log book, the document we make entries in about abnormalities in the operation within our region. In the 8 months leading up to the big Swissair one, there was an average of one airliner declaring smoke in the cockpit or smelling a burning sort of smell in the cabin each week. Most of these either declared an emergency or asked for some kind of handling (have the trucks ready, we're landing now; looking to divert to another airport; or perhaps just mentioning it; whatever) and rarely was a big deal made from any angle. There was no significant increase in the overall rate (yes, there were a few more than usual, but not too many), but the heightened awareness of it all in the media really showed through. And that was just in the Moncton FIR. I have no data for this post from other regions in Canada.

Ultralight Crash in NB in July

2005-08-19T07:32:00.000-03:00

The report was recently released about the crash of an ultralight aircraft near Fredericton, NB, on July 20th of this year. The impact site suggested a high angle of impact, while the metallurgical analysis suggested no signs of pre-impact failure. The pilot was flying from CYTN, Trenton, NS, to Ontario. The weather was good at point of departure, and past Moncton, as well, though both Fredericton and Saint John weather at the time were IMC. CFB Gagetown, the closest weather report to the crash site, was also IMC, reporting a 300 foot overcast condition. The "Wag-A-Bond" aircraft was not equipped for IFR flight, and it appears the pilot attempted to descend with the clouds as he encountered them travelling westward, resulting in low altitude, low level flight. This eventually led to the loss of control of the aircraft, as all systems and the airframe appeared to be serviceable prior to the crash.

I find it hard to believe that with all the publicity around such bad weather flying that this could occur these days. There are many well documented accidents, most of them fatal, of what flying into IMC can do to a VFR pilot, or even to a pilot who is IFR trained but not supported by appropriate instrumentation. It's a shame that yet another had to add itself to the pile.

Aircraft Speed Limits

2005-08-18T08:14:00.000-03:00

I'm not exactly sure what made me think of this, but I did a search for it this morning and found that CARs was available online at the Justice Department of the Canadian Government in a searchable format. Anyway, on with the post.

I've had several questions as a controller, most of them off the radio, about the item formally known as the "speed limit order" before CARs came into existence and Air Regs and Air Navigation Orders were the laws of Canadian aviation. The most common question was this: If ATC asks a pilot to "Keep his speed up", does this mean he can exceed 250 knots indicated below 10,000 feet? There are two parts to the answer.

The first part is found in CARs, 602.32. Here's a link to it:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-2/SOR-96-433/2698.html#section-602.32

This pretty much says "no". The fact that it is spelled out about the 200 knots below 3,000 within 10NM of a controlled airport and there are no such exceptions for the 250 below 10,000 point says it all. ATC has neither the authority to direct a pilot to exceed 250, nor can they authorize a pilot request to exceed 250 below 10,000. Period.

The second part is where we'll get a bit wishy washy. The simple fact is that ATC can't be proof positive that an airplane is being flown above 250 below 10,000. There are a number of reasons that come together to ensure we can't know. ATC sees only groundspeed on the radar, simply because that's all a radar can track is your velocity relative to itself, firmly fixed to the ground. Next, the difference between true and indicated. You may be at 9,000 feet, indicating 250, but your true airspeed may be in the range of 275 or 280, so your groundspeed would be in the same range -- with a caveat from the following sentence. Next is winds. If you have a 50 knot tailwind, your groundspeed will be much higher, even near sea level where the difference between true and indicated speeds are very small.

ATC can always make a pretty good guess about whether you're over the speed limit or not, but honestly, I don't think there are many controllers out there who care. If you exceed the speed limit and it helps us and other aircraft behind you, we likely won't give it a first thought, let alone a second.

I'll offer this, too, though I'm not 100% certain it's true so take it with a grain of salt. I've been told that the 250 below 10,000 regulation is not a VFR see and be seen issue. I'm told it's an ICAO directive more to do with reducing damage due to birdstrikes, rather than an issue of other traffic. Someday I may actually take the time to try to confirm that, but it won't likely be for a while.

Another CF-18 Down

2005-08-17T07:16:00.000-03:00

I always hate reading news like this. We lost aonther CF-18 out of Bagotville yesterday morning. Happiy, the pilot survived, was taken to hospital with no word on injuries. The plane, however, has seen better days.

This makes me wonder. I think I read a long time ago that we were originally supposed to receive some 138 F-18s, but never did get that many. The fact that we have already mothballed some of them is interesting enough, but then you look at the number we have lost in operation since then and it makes you wonder. How many do we have left? How long will they last? Is the Canadian government considering these issues and planning ahead? Nobody knows the answer to the second question, though some could offer educated guesses. I'm sure aviation enthusaists out there know the answer to the first one, and know the tailnumbers of the remaining ones (Please post!). The last one, I think we all know the answer to. Someone somewhere is looking at it seriously and having a hard time convincing someone in a position of power to realize that it's something to look at now and not at election time somewhere down the road.

Until then, we can only read of the reports and see the odd CF-18 at an airshow unless we're lucky enough to live close enough to one of the few places these things are stationed at. *sigh*

Here's the news item: http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/1254/117/

"Call the tower when you get in."

2005-08-16T07:45:00.000-03:00

Many of us while flying have heard the phrase, "After you land, please call the tower." Most of us at some point during flight training, but other times as well on the odd occasion. At Aviation.ca, someone asked in the forum about this directive. Should you call?

One person wrote back that he often didn't call (Often? How often does he get this?), while another wrote in stating with great authority that one should never call the tower under any circumstances. I can't figure out why not.

When the tower asks for this phone call, they're likely trying to find out why you did something, and perhaps give you a reason not to do it again. Sure, the controller may be upset, but more than likely he or she is trying to help you without going further. It may be a way of telling you something (like what was expected of you when this was said, for example) without admonishing you on the radio for all to hear. Or they may be trying to correct a certain type of behaviour without "writing you up". ATC is not a traffic cop, but both pilots and ATC have a responsibility to "write up" anything observed that seems to contravene regulations. They may have witnessed something that was against the rules and rather send some paperwork your way, they may be sticking their neck out to say, "Hey, don't do that again." Why do I say sticking their neck out? Because if something did happen that was wrong, and someone else reports it when they simply asked you to call the tower, they can get in shit for not reporting it themselves.

I'm not trying to say that this is always what happens and you won't get reamed out when you call, but I think if you ever hear this, perhaps you should make the call. The guy who demands that pilots should never, under any circumstances, make that call is likely a problem for more than just ATC in the air and is too arrogant to figure out why. Perhaps too stupid to recognize it, too.

Arguments on the Radio

2005-08-15T07:32:00.000-03:00

I've seen it several times over the years, initiated from both sides of the radio. Somebody does something wrong or unexpected, and the "affected party" gets the hair on the back their neck up. Suddenly, a question asked turns into a standoff on the radio. So far, in the 13 years I've been in ATC, I haven't seen anyone win one of these arguments.

The biggest problem I have with arguing over the radio is that it gets people riled up. A lot like road rage. The pilots are put upon at a time when they should be concentrating on flying an airplane. The controller, whose mental abilities are also important, is distracted by the situation while it's happening and afterward, as well. Neither side is where he should be mentally after one of these confrontations. It's a major distraction, and, like I say, doesn't resolve anything at the time. There are always emotions that simply stay either on the top or just under the skin and affect everything that happens for a while afterwards.

Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes the mistakes cost a little to one side or the other. A real point may exist to be made, but the odds of it being made on a radio seem to be so much slimmer than on any other medium, it seems. Sometimes it's just better for everyone to let it go and let karma do its thing. Maybe the offending party, on whatever side of things, will have already seen the mistake and be thinking about it anyway, so the point really doesn't have to be made. It'll at least save the frustration that is likely to come from a radio confrontation.

Circuits

2005-08-13T08:41:00.000-03:00

I recently read a post on another aviation related site that had a person speaking of circuits during his flight training. He mentioned how much he enjoyed them, and then how his instructor told him he would eat those words as time went on. I remember feeling similarly during my training, and eating my words later.

I sometimes found myself back then going up for circuits simply because I couldn't get a plane long enough or didn't have the money to take one for a longer time, all in the name of currency. I started to get discouraged, since circuits were boring. Then I met a member of my new extended family when my widowed mother married a widower. He was an instructor in years gone by, and he encouraged me to take advantage of such opportunities. Basically being forced into circuits was an opportunity? Then he explained it to me.

He asked where I trained. CFB Shearwater (CYAW). What's the shortest runway? 5,600 x 200 feet. Have you even landed on something shorter or narrower? No. Try it. Run with markings on your long runway and pretend the runway is shorter and narrower than you're used to. Set yourself some goals and try to fly the plane to them. Instead of looking at an 8,000 foot runway, see if you can think of it as a 1,500 foot runway by use of the right markings. Also, pretend the runway is only 40 feet wide or some other value, by landing on the centerline markings, or other markings, and considering it a failure if you don't track straight. I thought about it. Having a runway nearly 9,000 feet long and 200 feet wide as my usual piece of pavement, I had become very lax about tracking the centerline or "spot landings". That's a good idea, I thought. What if I had to use a shorter runway? Would I be prepared?

So now, the "forced circuits" are actually looked at as an opportunity, with a challenge in it that makes it kind of fun -- or at least proves an important point about my skill level. In fact, most flights I do now I include a couple of touch and goes for practice in these very issues before my final touchdown . I've made the circuits fun again, or at the very least, worthwhile again.

ATC Radar (Digital)

2005-08-12T07:45:00.000-03:00

The next generation of ATC radars included some new technology. In this case, the data that was received by the radar antenna was processed by computers and turned into digital data. This way the data could be sent great distances by using modems and satellite links. Now, the ACC's could start spreading radar antennas around without having to man them at each site individually, but could now all operate out of the same building.

The old system in use in Canada, called JETS (Joint Enroute Terminal System) was implemented. This system promised to reduce some workload. By the use of Mode C readouts, controllers no longer had to ask pilots for altitudes on a contunal basis, and could instead ensure on reading is valid and use it from there. This cut down some communication and created some efficiencies with it. Another benefit was data tags. The old systems detected aircraft and displayed them, but even though codes were selectable to an extent, the radar still displayed them (as a single slash if the code was not selected, a double slash if it was selected). The computers involved now could not only display the code, but could also add a data tag showing the controller the aircraft's identification, his altitude and groundspeed. Also, a little two-letter symbol was added just above the target to show who was working the aircraft. This came to our next coordination saving device: A system handoff. Rather than transferring radar identification of a target from one controller to another by using voice ("20 miles west of Moncton is ACA123 at FL240") on a hotline or actually, physically pointing to the target on the receiving controller's screen, a controller could put the target in "handoff mode" which makes it flash on the receiving controller's screen so he knows the airplane is coming his way. A little more savings on communications.

With all the processing power, JETS had its disadvantages. You could only view one radar source at a time, which meant some sectors would constantly switch between sources depending on what airspace they needed to view. Also, in order to provide for a more accurate track on a target, code was introduced for "track smoothing". This worked reasonably for a high speed, enroute target, but was no good for an aircraft on a radar vector to final. The displays we called "time shares" showed analog radar data from nearby sites with digital data superimposed over top of it. It was often seen, especially when an aircraft took a tight turn, that the analog target (what the radar was actually showing) would make the turn, while the digital target (processed by the computers with track smoothing) would continue relatively straight ahead for another sweep or two, then jump to where the target should be. Track smoothing seemed like a good idea, but it was clearly demonstrated that it was not what it was cracked up to be, and ATC had to use 10 NM between targets.

Along came a new system called RAMP. Transport Canada (then operator of the ATC system) built a new system of radar antennas that were designed to be more accurate, totally digital, and included a new processing system in the units that would make use of the data. This system offered a number of advantages over JETS. First and foremost, the systems takes the overall picture from all the radar sources fed into it and "mosaics" them together to make one picture. No more radar source switching. The radar sites themselves all send processed data to the ACCs, so no more complex controls at the sector for the controller. Every gain has it's disadvantages, though, and ATC's weather picture has greatly worsened. The change in wavelength for the primary radar and the digital processing (which means no fine tuning controls for ATC) meant, inadvertently, that the weather display capability was greatly reduced (See previous posts for more on the weather capability).

In any case, the new system was still drawn as a vector display (also mentioned in recent post), and since it was built in the 80's, the computers didn't have much memory. Recent upgrades in the ACC's have led to newer, color, raster displays on 20" square monitors (2048x2048 resolution), much more memory and much more functionality, too.

ATC's radar systems have come a long way over the years. Have I forgotten anything? Want more info on a particular item? By all means, write. I'll see what I can come up with.

ATC Radar (Light History - Analog)

2005-08-11T09:12:00.000-03:00

Don't be put off by the title if you hate history. This is background, more so than anything else.

The term Radar isn't specifically meant for something that rotates and plots targets. It's meant as RADio Detection And Ranging. Strictly speaking, it's the use of radio waves to determine if something's out there, and if so, how far away it is. Naturally in our business, if you find something, you'd like to know where it is to make the information more useful. So now, we add the rotating antenna and measure its azimuth (which direction it's pointing) at any given moment so we know where a return (in the case of ATC radar, a reflection of radiation or a transponder reply) comes from. The antenna emits very short pulses of radiation at rapid intervals, and where the antenna is when the return comes in is known. The rate of pulses given out over a 360° rotation of the antenna is called the Pulse Repitition Frequency (PRF) and the more pulses given out in a single rotation, the more accurate the radar can be in terms of azimuth. You'll notice that long range radars tend to rotate more slowly than short range (compare airway surveillance and ASDE, the very short range, airport oriented radars), and this aids their ability to be accurate at long ranges. The more rapidly a radar rotates, the more quickly a radar image is updated, thereby allowing for a closer-to-real-time plotting of movements. The radar's intended usage is considered at the time of design, and the best compromise of update rate and range required is determined before the system is built.

Another issue for radar is the nature of the display. There are several methods of plotting information on a display. Perhaps you'll recall the old home video game called "Vectrex", or the old-style arcade games of "Battlezone" or the oringial "Asteroids". These were plotted in a vector-based method. Straight lines, single color, each line being comprised of a start and end point (even a dot on the screen had two points, they just happened to be the same). Anyone remembering these will recall how crisp the lines were regardless of direction. Your computer monitor in front of you is drawn in the method called "raster", which simply means the image is drawn on the screen a line at a time, starting from the top left and drawing one line lower on each pass. The downside of this display is the "pixel" effect, where a diagonal line is drawn as a series of blocks, making it look jagged when compared to a true horizontal or vertical line.

The old radars used by ATC were drawn differently again. Though I don't remember a name for it, they were plotted from the center out as returns were gathered. Each pulse of the antenna was drawn on the screen as it was sent, so the azimuth on the screen was tracked in time with the antenna. This is called an analog radar display, since there is no digital conversion of any kind taking place. If the radar received something, it would plot it on the display on the current azimuth at the range determined. There was no computer processing to determine if a return was an actual airplane or background clutter, or weather. If it "saw" something, it showed it to you. There was a mess of switches and knobs that were used to vary any of a number of "filters" (affecting the polarization of the signals, reducing the antenna gain, and so on) that would allow ATC to peer through heavy weather systems to see airplanes and so forth, but it was all controlled by the controller, not a computer.

The big downside of the analog systems is that since there was no digital data returned by the antenna, the range that the data could be transmitted was very limited. This resulted in Terminal Control Units being located at the airport, away from the parent Area Control Centers. I doubt you'll find a terminal controller who worked in the old days hating this fact. The airport was a good place to be for a TCU, and offered a few advantages, too. They could hear their departures, their backup communications were often simple, and they also worked in rooms very near the tower staff, so close working relationships were formed with the individuals on both sides. But not all TCU's are 24-hour operations and when the TCU closed for the night, the parent ACC didn't have access to the data from that radar antenna in many cases, leading to inefficiencies for those flying through the night time.

More tomorrow.

ATC Radar (Secondary Surveillance Radar)

2005-08-10T06:36:00.000-03:00

We looked at Primary Radar (aka "Skin Paint") yesterday. Now we'll take a look at SSR, or Secondary Surveillance Radar.

SSR is really the mainstay of the ATC system these days, and for many reasons. First off, SSR works by having a radio transmitter that "replies" to "interrogations" it receives, and we pretty much all know these as transmitter-responders, or Transponders. The radar antenna sweeps the sky in much the same way as the PSR antenna does, but instead of emitting a powerful signal and looking for reflected radiation, the radar sends out a small signal on 1030MHz and listens for any transponders to reply to it on 1090MHz. The transponder replies in any of several "modes" which include different information. The SSR reply is received by the radar antenna and the distance is calculated along with the azimuth in the same method described yesterday to determine the position of the aircraft.

This method has several benefits. First, the range is increased since there is no need to detect reflected radiation. Instead, a simple radio signal broadcast from the aircraft is stronger than PSR returns, so the range of SSR is increased 2-3 times over PSR. Next, with the "IDENT" feature, a special code is sent to change the appearance of the target on the radar screen, thereby increasing the controller's confidence of which target is which. Further to that aspect, each transponder responding on what is known as Mode A will transmit a four-digit code. The numbers are octal values (they range from 0-7, giving eight possibilities for each place), giving a total of 4,096 different codes as possibilities. This allows a controller to see what code has been selected by the pilot, making it easier to track a particular aircraft. Mode C is the next greatest advance, in that aircraft so equipped can transmit their pressure altitude (note this is not the altitude indicated on the altimeter) to the radar station, providing an instant readout of altitude to the controller.

All those benefits and then some. In terms of equipment required for the radar antenna, there are advantages as well. Instead of a huge, parabolic antenna, the SSR system needs only a bar, much like what can be seen on ships. This bar still rotates as the other system's antenna does, but it can be mounted on top of a PSR antenna, or by itself as a stand-alone unit. This allows areas that don't warrant a full PSR antenna to be covered by less complex and less powerful antennas in an SSR-only environment. NavCanada, Canada's ATS provider, uses several of these types of stations called ISSRs (Independant SSR) to provide radar coverage over a much greater area than ever before. Using less power (only a radio signal to be transmitted, not needing to be enough to reflect a useful "radar shine" off an airplane), these antennas cost less to operate, too.

More tomorrow...

ATC Radar (Primary Surveillance Radar)

2005-08-09T08:00:00.000-03:00

I was thinking about radar the other day (considering the weather abilities of our stuff), and I began to wonder what about radar would be interesting to talk about anyway. I honestly can't remember what I knew about radar before I got into ATC, so I thought I'd take a couple posts and write a little about it. I'm not getting into true radar theory partly because I don't know everything about it and partly because I feel some background is good but the truly technical issues are better left to technicians to describe and deal with than for us. Today's post will deal mostly with one type, and I'll continue tomorrow.

The two classes of radar that ATC use are called Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR). Primary radar has nothing to do with its importance, but rather it is the name of the class that deals with reflected radiation. No equipment is necessary on the airplane for this radar to work, and indeed no equipment on the airplane will help this radar in its ability to see an airplane. This is strictly radio waves emitted from the radar antenna and the reflected radiation being picked up by the antenna.

The primary radar antenna is a parabola and is normally encased in a big dome (or "golf ball" on top of some staging. In the old days, and at some locations still, the antenna is not encased and may be recognized by its size. It's a big net of metal, often a frame work rather than a solid sheet, that's bent on both the horizontal and vertical axis so as to focus radiation to a point in the same fashion as a satellite dish focuses signals from a larger area on a smaller area, increasing the gain of the antenna. A larger aircraft will reflect a larger amount of radiation and will be visible to the controller at a greater distance, generally speaking, than a smaller one. The materials an aircraft is made of will make a difference in reflected radiation as well, since metal will reflect more radio waves than some composites will. So generally speaking, the further the aircraft is from a radar antenna, and the smaller the aircraft is, the less radiation is returned to the antenna, so the less likely it will be that the radar can "see" the airplane.

In the case of PSR, the time between the emission of the radio signal and the time that some reflected radiation is received is directly related to the distance between the antenna and the object. Of course, since this is the round trip time, the distance accounted for is twice the actual distance, so the radar has to account for this fact. The azimuth of the antenna is measured continuously, so the direction of the reflected radiation is known as well, thereby allowing the display of a radar hit, or "target", in an appropriate place.

As mentioned earlier, no equipment on the aircraft is read through this method, and therefore altitude is not something can be determined by the simplest of primary radar antennas. The only way altitude can be figured out is to add another antenna that would "sweep" the sky vertically, such as with a "quad radar", those used for precision approach guidance. In this way, a controller can see the vertical axis on one section of the screen as well as the horizontal axis, and both would plot distance. But the average radar antenna used for airport and airway surveillance is incapable of determining an altitude for a given primary radar return.

The antenna doesn't tilt upward, but rather the radiation emitted is more like a triangle if seen from the side, looking from the horizon upward. This leads to a blind spot directly above the antenna, similar to the "cone of ambiguity" over a VOR or NDB. If an aircraft flies very close to the geographical location of an antenna at high altitude, its straight path would seem to curve as it approached the antenna and eventually resume its normal path once it got far enough on the other side. This is due to slant range, similar to DME. It may be nearly right over the antenna, and therefore nearly zero miles from the location, but it's 5 miles up and that distance is also measured simply by the way radar functions. The radar screen would have the target plotted at 5NM from it, and the speed would also appear to shift dramatically as it passed directly over (passing a huge azimuth range in a short time due to the actual horizontal distance being short).

More will follow in the days to come on other types of radar and the changes technology has brought to us.

Canadian Aviation Fun

2005-08-08T09:16:00.000-03:00

Here's a little break from the seriousness of things lately. This game, strictly aviation related, and also Canadian. Probably most readers of this post will udnerstand that when the see the airplane involved. Have fun with this little game!

http://bassel.free.fr/jeux/canadair.swf

Canadian ATC Weather Radar, Part II

2005-08-07T07:20:00.000-03:00

A couple of responses yesterday prompted this post, which is a little further on the subject brought up yesterday.

I'm not completely sure of the current plans for furthering ATC's weather capabilities. I know there are provisions for displaying "echo tops" to the controller, but that information isn't coming in yet and I don't know where it stands. Currently, we get a separate weather radar feed (original sources include Environment Canada and the US weather service), but this data is displayed on a separate monitor, and therefore little more than just information, since we can't compare it directly with aircraft positions on the radar screen we use. We can look at landmarks and sector boundaries and say that this particular blob of red, which is close to current but not necessarily, is in this general area, but a vector around it is hard to judge at best.

And that's about the extent of our weather information usage, including lightning. What we see is provided for flight information only. We will not, generally, vector an airplane around a blob of weather unless the pilot asks us to. We'll offer vectors, where practical, but the responsibility we have is limited to passing information about what we see, just the same as passing traffic information on a VFR in Class E airspace. If one airplane goes through it, damn near crashes coming out of it, we may very well take further action with the next airplane simply because we have an idea of its effect on flight safety, but until we know something substantial like that, it's only information to provide to the pilots.

Another comment that I received through other channels is important here. Someone poked at me, wonder why ATC would have allowed the aircraft into CYYZ with thunderstorms all around. His question was, "Why did the controllers even let that airplane in there?" He's a truck driver by trade, so I offered him an anedotal situation. I'm in the passenger seat of his truck on a delivery and, on a relatively narrow road, an old bridge comes into view. He plans to cross it. I, as the passenger, say, "I don't think that bridge will hold us. I don't want you to cross it," and asked him how he would feel about that. He said, "Don't tell me how or where to drive." And I said that captured things just about perfectly. It is my job as a controller to give the pilot what he wants to the best of my ability. I must provide him with what information I can to help him make his own decisions, but if he says, "I want to do this," and traffic and regulations permit it, then who am I to tell him, "No"? The pilot has the ultimate authority on what he wants to try. Period.

Canadian ATC Weather Radar

2005-08-06T07:14:00.000-03:00

A number of pilots are flying in Canada without the benefit of weather radar on board. Many of these know that ATC has some capability of weather radar. Even those who have their own on board often ask ATC what they show. The usual response includes some kind of statement denouncing our capabilities.

In the past, the analog radar ATC used had a number of dials and controls that could be used to filter out weather to increase the ability to see aircraft. These same "filters" could also be adjusted to spot weather phenomena better. With Transport Canada's RAMP initiative (Radar Modernization Project), new radars were built and installed, and these units used a different wavelength on the primary radar (the radar which relies on reflected energy to detect aircraft). The changes in the wavelength put together with computer processing of target information changed many things in the controller's presentation, and the weather detection suffered in the process. ATC often sees "blobs" of weather that either isn't there or is not significant from a pilot's point of view, and often will be told about weather when we don't see anything there. Mind you, if the radar covering a particular area doesn't have primary capability, no weather will be shown at all, regardless. And ATC's weather capability is limited to 100 NM from a capable radar anyway, so our weather radar capability is quite limited.

Thankfully, a relatively new addition to ATC's weather displaying ability has made its way across the country in varying stages. I believe Moncton was the last to come online with it (I amy be wrong about that fact, but in any case it was largely due to the implementation of CAATS, our new system, which delayed Moncton's displays). Canadian IFR ATC units now have the ability to display lightning strikes detected by the National Lightning Detection Network. Once each minute the data is updated and displayed, with the source of the lightning detection reported as being accurate to within 500m, or 1/2km, or in nautical terms, about 1/4 NM. This doesn't predict where lightning will strike, but it shows where it has struck, and give ATC an idea of the direction of movement of a system and how much lightning is generated by it, also possibly giving some insight as to whether the system is strengthening or weakening over time.

I know some pilots are already aware of other units' lightning information availability, since a week before Moncton finally received the same information, I had two pilots ask me about lightning data while a heavy set of cells romped through our FIR. Anyway, hopefully this will be able to help ATC plan around thundercells and help pilots steer clear of them. As we've been talking lately, CBs are no place for an airplane to be.

Very Light Jets

2005-08-05T08:17:00.000-03:00

Aviation Week magazine published an aritcle on the new segment of aviation that's cropping up, the VLJ, or Very Light Jet. These little jets are in the weight range that is below 10,000 lbs MGTOW, and I believe at least publicly pioneered by the Eclipse 500. 4-6 seats is all you can count on but the performance of most models so far is the Cessna Citation range, with a couple of competitors aiming for higher speeds, closer to Lear Jets. What an interesting thought -- buy yourself a minijet for anywhere from the $3M figure, down to the price tag expected for the Eclipse, a paltry $1.3M.

What does this do for us all? First off, smaller airports might see a little boost in that these jets are often capable of using runways as short as 3,000 feet legally and safely. While many larger jets are capable of landing and taking off on short runways, the big issue is one of failure -- how much runway is needed for a rejected take-off from just below V1? What if the runway surface is contaminated with sluch or snow? Other sorts of what ifs tend to extend legal runway lengths required for the bigger ones, but the little ones may be able to slow down faster, thereby reducing the runway length.

This has potential benefits for the buisness traveller. Those who are often stuck buying full-fare tickets at the last minute, those that spend hours on layovers at airline hub airports, and those who can't fly close enough to destination, even though there is a little airport just over the hill. These jets will be small enough and cheap enough for some business flyers who could otherwise fly themselves to allow them to skip the security delays at major airports and such and get to destination on their own.

Another interesting development is the "Air Taxi" style service. There are a few companies and individuals who now see operators of PA31s and BE100s and the like running small charters, but with the jets, service will be faster, and perhaps cheaper as the hourly rate is liekly to be higher, but the rate for distance flown may end up being cheaper due to the extra speed. There were three operators in the article announcing plans to run this kind of service already with large numbers of airframes on order before they even enter production. They claim they're building their own market and not planning to leech off current charter operations, and their claims are at least plausible at this point. We'll have to see what happens.

The implications for ATC are interesting in this point, too. We are more likely to see less experienced business flyers now instead of professional pilots in the cockpits of the business jets we talk to. Also, regardless of the size of an airplane, it still takes up at least a portion in the skies on radar. Were more of these to be flying around, they still have to be fit in somewhere in the traffic line, and now we're talking about light category for wake turbulence, which means another mile for each of them on the final approach course with many airports servicing a large deal of medium category aircraft.

Personally, I kind of like them -- for now. I can't wait to watch this segment develop as time goes by.

Aircraft Lightning Strikes

2005-08-04T08:16:00.000-03:00

Once again, an aviation occurence brings out the experts (Damn, I hope I'm not lumped into the category I'm demeaning right now). This short comment is about lightning strikes on aircraft.

There are some comments floating around with rampant speculation about whether the Air France A340 was struck by lightning on final or on the runway and what damage may have been done. Some sources say things like, "Aircraft are designed to handle lightning strikes and therefore never suffer damage from them," while others (especially frantic passengers, scared eye-witnesses, and fear-mongering or sensationalistic media moguls) state things like "a lightning strike is always a disaster!" I think we have to look at this one through different colored glasses, people.

There have been many incidents of lightning strikes on aircraft. Sometimes nothing more than burnmarks on the skin are evident, while other times critical systems can be affected. Think about it: Any conductor carrying electricity will dissipate some of it as heat. With a lightning strike, there is a LOT of current to dissipate. Even if no electrical current overloads a system or two on the way through, the heat can fuse parts or have an effect on system operation. This doesn't mean it will, but it can. Also, the simple fact of a system like a radio designed to run on comparatively low voltage (anything compared to the power contained in even a weak lightning bolt is comparatively low) could easily be overloaded or burnt out by a strike. Having said what I have about the possibilities of damage, most aircraft struck by lightning survive to make a landing.

Once again, I stress that we have to let the real investigators do their work and see what they have to say about what happened here, rather than leave it up to the new media who think they are investigative reporters.

AFR358 Crash at CYYZ

2005-08-02T22:34:00.000-03:00

Of course, it's an aviation incident and it happened in Canada. I have no choice but to make a comment on it, do I? Unlike the myriad of other "experts" who are quite excited to have the opportunity to spout off their opinion of what happened. Well, now that the passengers are all confirmed to have lived, and all the crew survived as well, I'll say this. These experts commenting on the incident on the news are idiots.

Let's look at it: There is a reason why there is a dedicated group of individuals whose sole function is to investigate incidents such as this. Why have them if everyone and their dog has the correct opinion of what happened. There were microbursts in the area. There was water on the runway. Lightning struck the airplane, and killed all power on board, and therefore the hydraulics failed, too. They were landing "extremely fast" and hydroplaned off the runway. So many theories, so few of them comprehensive, even fewer correct. Phooey on them all, damn it! Some newscasters are even pilots themselves, so their opinions are worth more? I think not.

Let's let the real investigators interview the pilots, look at the recorded radar, weather, flight data and voice recorders and come up with the real story. Planting all of these stupid and unnecessary ideas of what's safe and what's not into the public's heads is stupid, and speculation is not helping anyone's job, nor is it helping anyone's view of aviation.

For now, let's, instead, focus on the fact that the crew was apparently quite capable of getting everyone off that plane before it was completely engulfed in fire. This is truly a credit to their training, and their abilities under duress. I can't wait to read the REAL report and see just what actually happened. Until then, I guess I'll have to continue to listen to the speculation of the idiots who think they're experts simply because they were there, or because they have a microphone planted in their faces.

Air Canada's Pilots Time Out

2005-08-01T08:52:00.000-03:00

A post in our newpaper today reported that Air Canada had to cancel about 4% of it's flights yesterday with their pilots timing out. Once again, the media runs with a report and makes assumptions without following them up. While the statement from Air Canada wasn't false, it seems to me that there was enough left unsaid that the general public consuming that report will not understand what it's all about.

Airline pilots are not the only ones who "time out". They just happen to do it more quickly than others. Still other groups advance in this list faster than them, but under the Canada Labour Code, I believe most workers are covered to some extent. There is a limit on how much employers can work their employees in a given period and the CLC is but one factor. Many groups have contracts that cover them providing a different limit (less than the CLC) which could be reached earlier. And many of these groups are at least as essential as the passengers would see their pilots being.

ATC, for example, is also governed by it. In a given period, controllers are only allowed to work so many overtime hours before timing out. In a well-staffed unit, this isn't a problem. In a chronically understaffed unit, you start seeing issues. Often pilots and aircraft operators are the only ones who end up knowing about it. They will get notice, often short notice since the understaffing for a particular shift or time period is short notice, or it's just not covered ahead of time when the situation is known for whatever reason. Things like delays at destination, restrictions on altitudes allowed by certain flights or on certain routes. These are often dictated by which "specialty" is affected by the staffing conditions, and therefore which piece of airspace is affected by the staffing. These will often cost airlines and other operators extra in fuel, and sometimes even extra time in flight, which could add up to help cost in pilot's flight times that is the title of this particular post.

VFR Flight Following and Altitudes

2005-07-31T07:14:00.000-03:00

This is an appropriate post given the season. More and more pilots are flying in the finer weather generally afforded by summer, and many seem to have some confusion about flying VFR and talking to ATC for flight following.

Yesterday, for example, I spoke with a pilot inbound to Charlottetown, PEI. He was at 5,500 feet in a C172, and seemed to me to remain there for a long time, and pretty close in to the airport. I asked him when he planned to descend, and he said, "As soon as you let me down." Ok. I try to be diplomatic in such situations and hope that my words and tone convey the message properly wihtout sounding too trite. The basics are needed here.

It's unlikely that this same pilot would have considered a need for permission for descent if he weren't talking to me for flight following. So why now? It seems that some pilots think ATC is always the one in control once their radios are tuned to their frequency. This isn't always the case. The rules are the same whether in contact with ATC or not, and all depend on the class of airspace in which the aircraft is operating. In the case of CYYG above, the entire area around is Class E airspace, including the control zone itself. This means IFR aircraft require a clearance (and therefore permission from ATC to descend), but VFR aircraft do not. Whether in contact with ATC or not, the pilot may climb or descend at pilot's discretion. Other rules still apply, mind you, such as cruising altitudes and direction of flight. The one thing I will ask of a VFR pilot in contact with ATC is that he should advise ATC when he plans to descend. The controller may be working other aircraft in your area and may have already determined that you are not traffic for other flights since you last checked in and told him you'd be maintaining 4,500 enroute to Timbuktu. Once you change your mind and descend, you suddenly become an issue for the other guy at 4,000 feet, 3,500 feet or whatever.

So the important thing is class of airspace, not contact with ATC. If you're in Class D, C or B airspace, there is a whole new component introduced. In each of these cases, permission from ATC is required, and if you want to climb or descend, it's as simple as asking. I understand American pilots are subjected to a different mindset. Especially in busier areas, controllers can be a bit snippy from time to time if requests are made. We in Canada are often confronted with pilots who will simply not request descent, but rather wait until ATC initiates a clearance for it. This often includes American VFR pilots, since, it seems, they don't carry enough information to determine what class of airspace they're in and don't want to do anything wrong. I can appreciate this, but I also believe in carrying charts and having a certain amount of situational awareness.

It's a good time to refresh your memory on what is required of you for each class of airspace you intend to fly in, if you're not already familiar. Then again, perhaps another look at the rules would be in order anyway, since you never know what you may "learn" again for having forgotten or simply not had the occasion to use.

More on Runway Number Changes

2005-07-30T06:40:00.000-03:00

I love the title. It's a good look at what's coming...

As a followup to July 28th's post, I want to mention a runway numbering issue that happened in the Moncton FIR a while ago. At CYGR, Les Iles de la Madeleine, QC, the runway had been 08/26 for a while. The magnetic variation had changed in the area, requiring a renumbering of the runway. Neil, a regular reader, may be able to shed more light on how things happened the way they did, but it ended up being that the runway had been repainted to reflect the change, but the approaches were not renamed. Apparently, the data was still valid on them, but they still reflected the old runway numbers. Here was a conversation that would happen there fairly regularly for a short time until things settled out:

Pilot: Alpha Bravo Charlie requesting descent.
ATC: Alpha Bravo Charlie, Moncton, you're cleared to the Grindstone Airport for the straight-in LOC/BC DME runway 08 approach.
Pilot: Alpha Bravo Charlie requesting the contact approach.
ATC: Alpha Bravo Charlie, roger, you're cleared for the contact approach runway 07.

As if a normal runway numbering change isn't bad enough...

Runway Number Changes

2005-07-28T07:57:00.000-03:00

Halifax, as mentioned here before, is undergoing some formal changes to their runway numbers. Now reopened, for the most part, runway 06/24 is now 05/23, and 15/33 is now 14/32. The logic was already mentioned, and the need is there t oconform with standards, but what a bugger it is to deal with this. As long as I've been interested in aviation, as long as I can remember, this airport has had the old numbers. I believe they opened in 1960 with those old numbers. It's a hard adjustment. In fact, a pilot tripped me up last night, too. He asked what approach they were using (already mentioned he had the ATIS), so I told him they were lining up for Runway 23. He asked for R15. I correct him, and said oh yeah, we got the ATIS and I guess we'll use R24 if if we have to.

I thought, surely the TWR wouldn't put R24 on the ATIS if it's now R23. So I had to look silly and ask the TCU guys next to me. This runway number change is big news around there, so they thought I should damn well know about it. Alright, I took the wet noodle of my own before slapping the pilot I allowed to lead me with it. Simple miscommunication. He meant R23, but out of habbit said R24.

I can't wait til we all get accustomed to this new change.

Is ATC Stressful?

2005-07-27T06:38:00.000-03:00

Someone asked me this recently, as they were considering a career change. Here's what I can say about this:

There are some people who just can't handle stress. Regardless of where it comes from. There are some who can handle stress aimed at themselves, but can't deal with a situation where they are required to help someone else who won't help themselves. There are some who thrive on it in almost any form. Stress can be good, since it does help make some people more alert than usual, but then too much stress often causes an individual to drop out of useful consciousness and go NORDO. Consider these points with what I say below.

ATC has been described varyingly as "90% boredom with 10% terror". This can be quite true, regardless of the unit you're operating in. A low density unit (one with little regular traffic) demonstrates this as a controller shows a calm demeanor when things are quiet and freaks out with a voice whose pitch is two octaves higher when it's busy. In a high density unit, the controllers get very well practiced at the regular flows, but when the thunderstorms roll in, or some dufus does something completely unexpected, it can really throw a huge wrench into your day and the days of hundreds of other people. You have to be able to deal with it. Also, like a doctor who has to deal with the death of a patient, and the family afterwards, consider how you would feel to know you were the last person to talk to someone who just crashed. And what it if it was something that you said that contributed to the fatal impact? How about watching two airplanes narrowly avoid hitting because you reacted too slowly or incorrectly? Or simply doing everything right but having a pilot up there in your sky ignore all the warnings and information you gave him and still proceed to do himself in?

The normal workings of ATC are stressful, but for most people who are successful in the training, this is seen as something to learn from, grow from, even brag about. "Look how I fit this guy in the line!" This is the kind of stress that a controller can often enjoy or hate while it's happening, but easily forget about later when he gets home. It's when things go wrong that the real stress can come about. This can be the lasting stress that they say can take time off your life. But then, some people can even enjoy that kind of pressure, too, since they can draw from the experiences, spread the knowledge to other individuals (controllers, pilots or aviation afficionados) and move on.

ATC isn't for everyone. And so far, I haven't been able to identify a "type" of personality it's good for. Some people are book smart, but action stupid. Some the other way around. I watched one trainee who could hardly cite a passage out of a rule book, but who could make a plan for traffic flow and smoothly make it work (even if his plans weren't the best early on, he still made them work). Many people don't have much background in aviation, and this is something I'd like to see change, but if they possess the skills and mental abilities to perform the tasks assigned, understand the issues and deal with them, and take the day to day pressures and continue on, then so be it. You'll only really know if you try.

Aviation.ca

2005-07-26T07:35:00.000-03:00

Back in June, I was contacted by Curtis Peters of Aviation.ca, the website I mentioned here some time ago. This time it wasn't about another one of my stories, but rather all of them, in effect. He had found my blog, and was interested in me doing some posting there. They are trying to build an aviation home page, or so to speak, for Canadian aviation interests. They're getting underway fairly well, I think.

They have forums, galleries, links, and all that good stuff, as well as daily headlines in aviation news right on the "front page". I don't know of how much of an honor it actually is, but it has become one of the few "daily stops" on the web that I haven't failed to visit in the recent weeks (except for my vacation, of course).

Right now, I'm posting there what I'm posting here, in my own little section called "Controller's Corner" (their name choice, not mine). I made them promise to make my stuff accessible "on the cover" if they wanted me. They have free "memberships" which allow more customized content, but I didn't want people to have to click here, sign in there, and click, click, click some more to find my stuff if it were to become a permanent home. I like simplicity, and therefore I aim for it. For now, I'll continue to run the mirrored operation, but eventually I plan to move there completely and permanently. I'd really like some feedback on this plan. Would you mind clicking over there and checking things out (if only my column, if you plan to keep reading), and tell me here what you think about this potential move? I'd like to hear from you. The site is simply, http://www.aviation.ca.

RADAR FOD Detection

2005-07-25T06:44:00.000-03:00

I'm back from a well needed vacation, and we'll get right to it.

QinetiQ (What's wrong with the real spelling of the word, kinetic, anyway?) out of Britain has developed a high-resolution, short range radar which is designed to detect FOD on a runway. It has an effective range of about 2 kilometers (1 NM=~1.85km), and they say it can spot a small rock, or a wheel from a suitcase in that range, and plot it accurately within about 3m (10 feet) for pickup. The current method of FOD detection includes pilot reports, but is primarily a field foreman running the runways and taxiways in a truck, trying to spot debris. Not easy at a busy airport, at night, in the fog or any combination of these. You may have limited time to run a runway that's a mile and a half long, so you may have to scan quickly, making it easy to miss anything but the biggest piece of engine killing FOD.

At first, it may seem like something that's not significant. But if you're the one footing the bill for that little luggage wheel that just got sucked up into the multi-million dollar B777 engine, and maybe the cost of an aborted take-off or a single-engine return to point of departure, you're probably thinking, "It's about time!" The cost of FOD on aircraft, it is said, is $4 Billion US annually worldwide. Hey, it was some FOD that contributed to the demise of a Concorde a while back.

So why did I bring this British system up in Aviation in Canada? This system has been purchased by the Vancouver Airport Authority, and they'll be the first commercial airport in the world to run with it. If this radar pans out, it may very well be worth the money. We'll have to keep an eye out for fruther information.

Vacation

2005-07-19T06:40:00.000-03:00

I'm on vacation this week, and I'll be out of town most of the time. As a result, there will not likely be any new posts here until Monday of next week, that being July 25th. Have a great week. I intend to.

Runway Number Changes

2005-07-18T06:39:00.000-03:00

Someone wrote a question recently regarding runway number changes. I thought it an interesting topic and I know that not everyone is aware (though I suspect most people reading this will be), so I thought I'd elaborate on it here, as well.

The reason is simple, once you know about it: a shift in magnetic north. A look at any well done map of certain projections will have mention of magnetic variation in the area (usually the center of the map unless specified), and with that should be a date (or at least a year), along with a rate of change. It might be something like "1997 Variation 21.2°W Annual change 2.4' East". This means that variation will change from the 21.2°W moving eastward at 2.4 minutes (1 minute is 1/60 of a degree), so over 25 years, variation would change to 20.2°W. This rate will be different for different areas since it's all relative to magnetic north and true north. Right now (2005), the magnetic north pole is in the Canadian Archipelago, at 82N114W, and is moving northwestward slowly.

When I first started working at CYHZ in 1992, the runway headings were 056/146/236/326. A few years after I moved to Moncton, they changed in the pubs to show 055/145/235/325. Last fall, they changed again to 054/144/234/324, thus passing the point where they should be renumbered. Given the construction planned (I've raved about this a few times, haven't I?), they decided they'd give an extension to the current numbering, and renumber them after construction while painting the numbers on the new pavement. That said, they missed the next publication deadline, and are now forced to issue NOTAMs ammeding approach plates, CFS entries, et al, instead of having correct information out there off the top. Another example of poor execution on the HIAA's part.

ATC Radios

2005-07-17T06:49:00.000-03:00

A pilot from the Netherlands recently wrote me, asking about a flight experience he had while flying through Gander's airspace. The concern he expressed related to the fact that it was obvious to him the controller was working more than one frequency, and the fact that aircraft on each frequency were unable to hear pilots talking on the other one. This lead to missed readbacks, communications being "stepped on" and so forth. He cited it as an unacceptable safety concern, and wondered how this was possible.

In fact, many ATC units in Canada deal with this on an ongoing basis, as do other units in other countries. Especially in low level sectors where large pieces of airspace must be worked by one controller, it is quite common to have more than one frequency per sector. The higher the airspace worked by a given controller, the less likely they are to need more than one radio since VHF is line of sight and can often reach everywhere in the sector. But down low, terrain and distance often preclude the use of only one radio to reach the entirety of the airspace. Hence, a controller is often "plugged in" to more than one radio. Generally speaking, ATC simulcasts on all of his radios at once, while all are open to receive at the same time when not transmitting.

This leads to some confusion sometimes, as for some strange reason, it seems that dead air is often followed by more than one aircraft calling in at once on separate frequencies. The controller is often able to distinguish who was calling, based on numbers or partial callsigns heard in the mix, but not always. The problems really arise when a clearance readback is stepped on by an aircraft on a separate frequency. There's a little bit of professionalism in a pilot who won't immediately ask for something when ATC just finishes issuing a clearance to an aircraft, even if he doesn't hear the pilot's readback right away. And then, sometimes a well-intentioned pilot doesn't know a clearance was just issued, for whatever reason. Perhaps he just tuned into a new frequency, waits for a second or two to make sure he isn't stepping on someone before calling, and then calls over a readback on a different frequency. Some ATC will get quite impatient with a pilot for such a thing, but hopefully they'll get over it.

Some units have what are called Radio Retransmit Units installed on some or all of their radios. This allows incoming transmissions on one frequency to be rebroadcast on one or more other frequencies, thereby allowing pilots on one to hear pilots on the others. This greatly reduces the chances of readbacks being stepped on. The one thing I like, as a controller working without this, is that while one pilot is calling, I can still take transmissions on other radios. For example, two pilots request altitude changes, and can do so in dramatically different ways. Compare:

"Moncton, JAZZ 8765 request 12,000"
vs.
"Moncton Center, JAZZ 8765, it's getting kind of bumpy up here, say, light occasional moderate chop. We're kind of riding the tops here. Is there any chance we might be able to get 12,000 as a final for this leg today?"

In a world with frequency coupling, as it is called, the pilot of an aircraft that suddenly experiences an emergency would be preempted on his frequency by the pilot of another while listening to the altitude request. Or sometimes a VFR pilot with limited experience might begin a long diatribe without realizing he's blocking other aircraft. Without coupling, ATC can mute the radio with the incoming Grammy acceptance speech and listen to the one with the emergency on another radio.

So the RTUs can be a blessing (and normally are), but they can also be a bit of a curse. There is no perfect solution, I'm afraid. It's a matter of knowing what you're up against, and using common sense.

Publications (Carry Them!)

2005-07-16T06:37:00.000-03:00

Just as an aside before today's post, I'd like to announce that I've been posting now for 185 days, so I made my first 6 months, nad only missed a few days in there during the run so far. I guess it's true... I really don't shut up...

Recently, I dealt with a pilot headed from KBGR (Bangor, ME) to CYYR (Goose Bay, NF) in a PA28, likely being ferried overseas as many do. He was flying IFR at 9,000. As I gave him the frequencies for Montreal Center, he asked me a question.

"Have you got the localizer frequency for Goose Bay? I don't have the approach plates with me and I need that."

You're kidding me, right? You're flight planned into an airport and you don't have the relevant information handy? I can almost understand if you're heading to an alternate airport, but you should have the information for the airport you're heading to. Let me ask you this: You're IMC, and so is your destination. Before you can ask this question of ATC, you're radio fails. Since you're in northern Quebec, there isn't much for cellphone service. What do you do now? What altitude can you descend to? What do you do without knowing where the terrain high points are, or what the ILS frequency is, or anything else? Personally, I find this to be poor airmanship.

A pilot should always have the pertinent enroute charts, as well as the approach plates for airports that he may need along the way to destination or to the alternate. ATC doesn't mind reading the information out to you, if needed. Such as in an emergency. For example, one pilot is flying the plane and the other is troubleshooting. But in normal circumstances, why wouldn't you have the charts you know you'll need?

Engine Failure on Take-Off

2005-07-15T06:31:00.000-03:00

This story was shared with me by a coworker upon seeing my blog. I couldn't resist sharing it here, with his permission, of course. You'll see why later...

The year was 1973, and he was a trainee in Halifax Tower. He had just cleared the Cessna 150 for take-off on runway 24, with the aircraft heading out toward the city, which was basically straight out off 24, roughly paralleling the highway. Shortly after take-off, the pilot reported his engine running rough. The controller trainee, having completed most of the training for his own pilot's license, offered the use of carb heat as a possible solution. The pilot said it made things worse. Well, that's what happens if it is carb icing, it gets worse but then melts the ice and gets better, right? The pilot refused and stated he was planning to land on the highway nearby. With his instructor watching over him, the trainee watched the aircraft sink beneath the tree tops. Evidence to the aircraft's attempted highway landing was seen in the tail lights of the cars as they slowed while going over the hill where the highway is visible from the tower cab. Repeated calls were made on tower frequency to see if they could raise the aircraft, attempting to find out if he was successful in his landing, even though the RCMP had already be dispatched.

Then, a call came in from the aircraft: He had landed, taxied off the highway onto an offramp, and was calling in on ground frequency for taxi back to the airport. The supervisor on duty was extremely angry with our trainee for bursting out laughing at this point.

Electrical Failure

2005-07-14T06:25:00.000-03:00

One morning, many moons ago, I was nearing the tail end of a midnight shift. Every weekday morning at this point, there would be four PA-31 Navajos that would scramble for simultaneous departure to their various destinations, CYYG, CYQM, CYFC and CYSJ (and then onward for their milkruns to other airports). In Halifax Tower we had just recently received the digital radar setup which wasn't yet commissioned, but we were allowed to play with it to get used to while the old radar, the one we were still formally using, kept turning during the testing and flight checking of the new one. We generally weren't assigning discrete codes to VFR aircraft leaving the control zone, so they were all left to squawk 1200.

The last of the Navajos departed, a few minutes behind the rest, on his way to CYFC. It was late winter and the morning was clear and chilly, leaving a huge but relatively low fog bank over Grand Lake, a pretty big body of water about 4 NM northwest of CYHZ, near the direct route from CYHZ to CYFC. The PA31 flew just north of it, causing me to lose sight of his lights in the dim morning light. I turned to the new radar to play a little bit and watch him go, the last airplane I would be likely to talk to that morning. Then I noticed his transponder had stopped replying -- I was seeing a primary return only. This occasionally happens to aircraft with perfectly serviceable transponder when an SSR return fails to make it back, for whatever reason.

As I continued to watch the target's path on primary radar, I felt that it was strange that I couldn't see an SSR return yet. Then I realized that he was no longer heading in the direction of CYFC, but more to the west. Because of the fog bank, I still couldn't see the aircraft out the window. I followed the target on radar. While scanning the sky south of the fog bank, where I figured I'd soon be able to see the airplane as his radar track showed him now heading south, I started to wonder what was up. It appeared as though he were flying a slant downwind/base leg for Runway 06, which he had departed only minutes earlier. Through the dim light at dawn, I finally spotted a slightly darker dot on the horizon, so I grabbed the binoculars to search for him. There was the outline of an airplane, with no nav lights on. It seemed pretty clear to me now that he was returning, and with the lack of lights, it probably meant a lack of radio, too, so I flicked the runway lights back on for him and grabbed our trusty light gun from WWII. I held the green light for him, the pilot landed and taxied in. Shortly thereafter, the pilot called and thanked me for the lights. He had an electrical fire on board, some dense smoke in the cockpit, and had to disable all electrics to a prevent further fire. I'm glad I was on the ground.

I was trained as a tower controller to watch my airplanes. Though not near the airport any more, and rapidly becoming too distant to watch, it would have been easy at that hour to turn my head away and not look out for him. Afterall, they did this every weekday morning at the same time and really, how many of them had problems? Not very many. Anyway, at least two of us were happy that I had been trained that way on that particular morning since he had no landing lights available and there wasn't enough ambient light for him.

Misunderstood Clearances

2005-07-13T07:06:00.000-03:00

We have miscommunications rarely, but they do happen. One thing I find interesting is that there is a new trend that is a bit alarming. We have better radar coverage than ever before. In the past, due to the lack of radar coverage, we had to work more non-radar, or procedural, separation in our environment in Moncton. That gets more complicated in many respects, as we have to ask pilots for DME, altitude, radials, etc, and in many cases, assign pilots restrictions to prove separation. A simplified case of a clearance to a departure could be something like, and it's a perfect example, out of Saint John, NB:

"... maintain FL280, depart runway 32, climb runway heading to intercept V314 and proceed on course, not above 4,000 til MOWND."

MOWND is an intersection on V314 about 30NM west of YSJ. The reason for such a clearance could be, perhaps, someone transitting northbound on V310, an airway also off YSJ, and this 30NM restriction would keep our departure under the enroute airplane until they are geographically spearated. This is a lot less complicated than some we used to issue, and rarely ever had pilots misinterpret. This is also an actual clearance given to a Jazz RJ not all that long ago (the tapes are long since gone, so he can't be incriminated now). Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because the pilot departed and flew the assigned route and climbed to 4,000. I was extremely busy during these particular moments and was unable to return to the aircraft to break his restriction and let him climb earlier when I saw him on radar. Since safety was assured by the clearance, my attention was briefly focused elsewhere. When my gaze returned in his area, he had long since passed MOWND and was still at 4,000 feet. Just as I went to ask if everything was OK, wondering why he hadn't started to climb after passing MOWND, he made a transmission: "Moncton, Jazz One Two Three Four when can we expect higher?"

The restriction was a self-cancelling type. Immediately after passing MOWND, a non-compulsory reporting point, the aircraft was allowed to climb to FL280. The pilot was told that, and he said he wasn't sure what he was allowed to do. I have a problem with this. If the clearance wasn't clear, why did he not question this on the ground before departure? I'd much rather have a pilot ask for clarification of a clearance than have him fly a clearance wrong. This is happening more and more often, and mostly with airline types. I think there are too many pilots expecting terminal service at airports that have a complete lack of terminal-type facilities to provide them with such services. Still, haven't many of these pilots done time in smaller airplanes (like the much maligned Navajo) into and out of these smaller airports in the past while building time? I wouldn't expect this kind of clearance to be completely unfamiliar.

Halifax International Airport Construction

2005-07-12T08:17:00.000-03:00

They made the news again. Surprise! This airport, with it's poor planning, has endured a very small bit of attention for their part in their issues since this all began, but things are finally starting to change.

They're reconstructing the entire manoeuvring surface at the airport in phases as time goes on. Reportedly, they consulted some 30 years of historical weather data and decided that July would be the best time of year, with prevailing VFR conditions, to do the critical part of the airport, the intersection of the two runways. During this phase, the localizer for 06 would be shut down, as well as the glidepath for 24. The construction activities have also required the closing of ruway 15/33, and the shutdown of their ILS, too. Remaining for instrument approach aids are the localizer 24 (to a displaced threshold) and the NDBs for 06 and 24.

Funny. All the "old timers" I work with agreed that this was probably the worst time of the year, historically, to run with this phase. October points to the best. July? There are always extended periods of fog in July there, hence the requirement for the CAT II ILS. Lately? There have been many days of 200-300 OVC, meaning that airplanes are trying the approach, missing, and heading elsewhere, leaving passengers in a lurch. At times, as many as 1,500 passengers crowd the airport, waiting for their flights that will never arrive. The ramp remains empty, while the the other airports in the region scramble to take the passengers in and process the luggage. The Canada Day holiday weekend was the worst, with local hotels everywhere booked solid.

The best part of this was the media release from the airport authority. They said today, publically, "only the most experienced pilots can land without NAVAIDs." If I were a regional airline or a newer airline, commonly misperceived by the public as having inexperienced pilots, I'd be pissed. This comment is incorrect at best, but inflamatory on any account. The good news is that the airlines have finally tired of taking the heat for the HIAA's piss poor decision making -- remove the most critical NAVAID during the peak of summer passenger traffic and throwing travel plans of thousands into the trash. I'm glad I'll fly out of Moncton where the airport is available, as they boast, 97% of the time. Even without the ILS's functioning, it's more accessible than Halifax. But then, so are the other airports (Saint John excluded) in our region, too. Halifax may have dealt themselves a long term publica relations nightmare with this operation.

Airshow in Saskatchewan

2005-07-11T19:43:00.000-03:00

Not to be left out in commentary about the incident, I have to add my words. I don't think I can say much about the accident itself, simply because words are not enough to describe the incident. The loss the loved ones feel, the emotions the spectators felt, the tragedy of it all.

The only thing I can say is the reporting. They hit that sore spot of mine again. CTV NewsNet reported the incident, showed the footage, and then closed the item with, "... It is not known whether either of the pilots attempted to eject." I'm sorry, but I feel deeply saddened by the network's reporting. It's almost as if they didn't even consult to to find out about the incident, the airplanes, or the people involved, but just added supposition as if from an "on staff expert". They don't have ejector seats, or parachutes, on these planes. It's just that simple. It just leaves me feeling like the reporters don't care enough. They got their story, their footage, and their paycheques, and that's good enough for them. I don't know how to describe my feelings about this. The media sucks in aviation.

For those who aren't aware of the nature of the accident, a link was sent to me earlier about it, from the National Post, of all newspapers, so I thought I'd pass it along for a place to start. My hat's off to these pilots, and my best wishes to their families and friends, most of all their fellow pilots who give their all, and sometimes all of them, to entertain us.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6914b672-d419-4864-bf52-2aac7f50f3a5

Lost VFR

2005-07-10T07:48:00.000-03:00

This happened recently, and since nobody died, you're not likely to hear any more about this on the news. The reason I feel strongly about posting this little story is that it's true, and it offers some lessons.

One of the things I like about the Moncton Flight College is their strong deire to know where their planes ought to be at any given time. We, in Moncton ACC, received a call from them yesterday morning, asking if we had been talking to one of their airplanes, or if we knew where it was. Of the controllers sitting at the time, none knew of the whereabouts of this aircraft, on a VFR flight plan heading from Moncton to Bathurst, then returning to Moncton. Purely by coincidence, I wasn't busy at my sector and overheard the supervisor asking the adjacent sector, the one through which the aircraft would have flown, about the aircraft and heard its identification. I ranged out on my radar, and caught the last radar hits of an aircraft on the previously assigned code, and it was well within Montreal's airspace, near Rimouski, QC (CYXK). This was about 110 NM from Bathurst.

I told the supervisor and we discussed it for a minute. This aircraft had been assigned this code, one of the codes from a block assigned to Moncton Center by international arrangement, that was considered to be one of our internal codes -- a code assigned to an aircraft whose flight would be solely within the Moncton FIR. The odds of an aircraft talking to Montreal for flight following or for IFR flight being assigned a code in this block are slim to none, especially when it happened to be the code we were looking for. This meant the odds of it being this aircraft, despite the distance from the expected position, were very good.

Our supervisor manned the phones while we asked aircraft nearby to call on other frequencies to try to contact this aircraft. I'm not sure by what mechanism we eventually found out for sure who it was, but it was confirmed that this radar target, now intermittent, was the flight we were looking for. Through an aircraft relay, we established that the pilot wanted to fly to Bathurst, so we asked for a climb (through the other pilot) and a turn toward the southeast to point the aircraft in the right direction. Eventually, the pilot was able to communicate directly with the controller, who was now dedicated to this one frequency and this one pilot, and more questions and facts were confirmed. It was determined that the weather, while hazy, was still good VMC. The pilot had full tanks when the aircraft left Moncton, and had been flying for 3 hours. The controller talking to the aircraft and I are both familiar with it and know that it has long range tanks, good for about another two hours. The position the plane was in put it about 1 hour from Bathurst.

The pilot flew on until the aircraft entered a radar hole. Given the hills there and the lack of radar antennas nearby, this was inevitable. Now, with the loan of the VFR charts I keep at work, the controller was able to continue flight following in a different kind of way. He asked the pilot to periodically call out prominent landmarks, waterways and highways, allowing him to get at least a general position and confirm that the aircraft was still heading in the correct direction. Our supervisor called the Bathurst Airport to confirm that the weather was still good VFR, and to ask about traffic in the vicinity so we could relay to the pilot. The non-radar flight following went on until the aircraft eventually called the Bathurst airport in sight, at which time the pilot was asked to give a call when on the ground so we knew the aircraft landed safely.

Lesson time. The pilot had very little idea of where the airplane was. The geography was unfamiliar, and said that calls were made on familiar frequencies. Problem is, the calls went unheard since the aircraft was down low and on the opposite side of the hills on the Gaspe Penninsula. The chart the pilot had on board was insufficient to help in navigating. The Moncton VNC (AIR 5003) covers the intended route of flight between Moncton and Bathurst, so there would be no expectation of a need for the Chicoutimi chart which begins coverage where the Moncton one ends, about 20NM north of Bathurst. Therefore, the pilot did not have the charts for the area in which the aircraft ended up. This meant there was no navigation assistance from the charts on board, and no radio frequencies for the pilot to use to call, other than the standard ones on which no responses were heard, according to the pilot. Maybe it's a good idea to include charts adjacent to the ones that are known to be needed. And make sure you have them with you, too. This situation also goes back to a post I made here some time ago, about knowing the radio frequencies for the ATC units in the area. Fortunately, we were able to get a hold of the pilot, but if the right frequencies were known for the area, the pilot would have been able to make a call for help earlier. Having all the appropriate charts on board or at least studying a little and noting important things before departure could make a difference.

Personally, I think the pilot did a good job, once things were established. The controller also had a good, calm demeanor, which lent itself to the pilot to help calm the nerves in the cockpit, too. Add to that the familiarity with the airplane and the geography, and he went a long way toward a good resolution. The supervisor I worked with made at least 12,000 calls in support of the operation, and my charts were a welcome addition. I knew I kept those for a reason.

Canadian ATC Issues

2005-07-09T06:17:00.000-03:00

I don't believe I'm in much of a position to comment on the "bargaining" currently not going on between NavCanada and the CAW/CATCA. Read the previous sentence again if you missed both subtle messages there. Oh, and don't bother to ask NavCanada what the issues are at the bargaining table, since it is quite clear they are unaware of them. Money is not the issue that's stalling things, and the union is quite willing to negotiate, should the company ever wish to engage in meaningful negotiations.

Another issue that someone mentioned some time ago which I conspicuously failed to comment on was the implementation of CAATS, the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System, in Moncton Center. This is a very contentious issue that the company would probably rather speak about on their own, rather than read my views on it publicly. Freedom of speech is one thing, but continuation of salary is quite another. I'm not really suggesting I'd be fired if I commented, because it's not really working *that* badly. But, I'll say this, in as much as no computer system ever functions perfectly, CAATS fits the expectations quite nicely. Read between the lines there, too.

ATC Radio Chatter

2005-07-08T08:13:00.000-03:00

Just a quick post this morning. I have a lot of things to do before heading to work. This one happened several years ago, before Air Canada Jazz came along, with Air Nova as the regional serving the maritimes.

(Check the call sign of the answering aircraft.)
CZQM: "Nova 895 contact Moncton on 127.12"
ARN871: "Over to 127.12, for Nova 871. We'll talk to you later."
CZQM: "Maybe sooner than you think."
(a few seconds pass...)
ARN871: "Uh, Moncton, they didn't want to talk to us on 127.12..."
CZQM: "See what I mean?"

Eurocontrol Information

2005-07-07T07:56:00.000-03:00

For those who may have missed it, a post was made by a German engineer on June 17 as a reply to June 16's article. In it, a link was added that I'm sure at least some of my readers would appreciate. It's a link to the European Aeronautical Information Publication, or AIP. The Canadian AIP as we know it is currently in a different format, but it will change to conform to ICAO standards this fall. The information that we all come to enjoy in the AIP Canada as it is now will be moved to a new pub, called the Aeronautical Information Manual, or AIM. This will sound quite familiar to the American visitors to this site. These two manuals will now be similar in content.

In any case, the link to the European pub will no doubt bring some welcome information and realism to flight simming in the virtual European skies. You're invited to sign up as a public user, and you'll have access to the Published AIP Management System, and therefore access to charts and airport information for many European countries. A reminder from the post, "it's not for real flight preparation, but hey, it's free!" Here's the link:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int

A big thanks to Helge from Germany!

Halifax International Airport Construction

2005-07-06T07:06:00.000-03:00

The Halifax International Airport Authority has decided it's time to redo the surface of the airport. Not an entirely unusual thing, since airport construction happens. Afterall, the surfaces do deteriorate over time. The HIAA has taken it upon themselves to redo the entire surface, in four phases, I believe. The current one, lasting upwards of four weeks in total, has been a bit of a bugaboo for the HIAA as well as many thousands of passengers and the airlines in particular.

Remember my Canjet post a few days ago? That was written on the heels of a letter to the editor to our local newspaper, asking them to contact other parties before reporting, rather than just sensationalize the words of a few passengers. You know, actually call the airline to get their story. What about the airport? Was Canjet the only one who couldn't get in? The basics of good reporting, here. Anyway, Canjet tracked down my phone number and called me last evening. He wanted to see if I was for real, and, if so, to thank me for throwing some sanity into the media frenzy over this. He said they thought about their options in this, and decided to let the storm pass, as one of the comments here had mentioned, rather than getting into a big public fight. The next "big thing" for the media will come along and hopefully all of this would blow over and be forgotten about. He confirmed everything we suspected here: The pilots didn't rocket right up with ear-blowing decompression and everything was done reasonably. He said, in fact, it would have been interesting to see if anyone noticed the difference if they weren't honest and up front about it all, since it was dark (the flight occured after nightfall) and little was visible out the windows with clouds and all. Still, I like the integrity of the company for being forthcoming about the situation with their passengers, rather than trying to hide things. I wonder if Jetsgo would have been equally up front... Nah. No need to compare these two companies.

Anyway, the airport construction has been hard on the airport users. In Moncton, the airport authority's president was quoted as saying they had more airplanes on the ramp here than at any point since 9/11. Parking actually became an issue, he said, as was dealing with the passenger influx. Bad enough that the airport had to work with this, but over the Canada Day holiday weekend with all the hotels booked up and so forth, there was no room at the inn, so to speak. Timing really is everything.

I'm still not sure what had the HIAA decide to do all of this construction at the height of summer passenger traffic, but it's the airlines that have quietly shouldered the blame for not making it in there so far. I haven't seen anything from any of them yet pushing that blame to the airport. They have NDB approaches and a localizer approach. That's it. Halifax has a CAT II ILS for a reason: They often need it. The airlines have likely paid out tonnes of cash for passengers' alternate arrangements, tonnes of fuel in holding and diverting. All this, and so far they've been quiet? I wonder if there is some kind of arrangement or it they're just sucking it up. It has to be monumentally expensive on every front (customer relations, crew resources, fuel budget, you name it) especially for a cut-throat business like this.

Phraseology

2005-07-05T07:23:00.000-03:00

As I've said before, I believe communication is an art, and an important one at that. Afterall, as an ATC, all you have is communication when you figure out what should be done. If you can't tell someone what you need them to do, where does that leave you? Today's post will have one from the opposite side of things from where I normally post -- this will be a gripe about something overheard from my end of the radio (though it wasn't me who said it).

In this particular situation, the controller spoke with an aircraft who departed Moncton, NB (CYQM), Runway 11, and was flight planned to Houlton, ME (HUL), and onward, as many of our departures do. The controller, wishing to turn him left and vector him around some inbound traffic before letting him go on course, said the following: "... radar identified, vectors for the on course, turn left heading three two zero, maintain flight level two eight zero."

Shortly after this transmission, I was sitting down to relieve this controller in our normal rotation of breaks. During the relief briefing, where the controller being relieved is supposed to detail to the relieving controller the necessary things (what each airplane is doing, the status of equipment at the sector and at the relevant airports, etc), I observed the aircraft in question turning past a track of 320°, to roughly a 290° track. Wind drift is possible, but 30° worth in unusual for a jet. I asked him to verify his heading, and he said it was 295°, which was the heading for HUL VOR. My initial reaction was to turn him back to the right to the assigned heading of 320, then think about it until he passed his traffic.

When I found out what the previous controller had said, it hit me why the airplane had taken the turn further to the left than we were expecting. I confirmed it with the pilot, when I had a second. He said, "We were given, heading 320 for vectors for the on course, but we were able to go on course right away so we turned direct to Houlton." Of course he did. Personally, I think it's a little bit of a stretch, but I can see the interpretation.

I have heard others use this phrase occasionally (certain controllers, anyway), and I have always thought it was inappropriate, since it's vague. Is he actually cleared on course or not? If his flight plan is an airway, that's one thing, but if his flight plan, such as this case, includes "CYQM > HUL J509", you can see where he might interpret this instruction that way. Certainly in this case the controller should have said, "vectors for traffic," instead of what he said, since that was the actual purpose of the vector. The chances of the pilot making an on course turn when told he was being vectored around traffic would be so close to zero as makes no odds.

Clear and concise communications. Using standard phraseology where practical. All the various items stated in our training. They're there for a reason. And there's no teacher like experience. I doubt that controller will use that phrase again.

Aviation News Reporting

2005-07-04T07:10:00.000-03:00

This is more of a media rant, I'm afraid. Think about this: This is an industry that we know something about. We read the papers, hear the radio reports, and see the stuff on TV. And we all look at it and know how bad the "facts" are.

What about all those other news items out there. The ones we don't know much about. We count on the same newspapers and TV news shows to present us with the "facts" about these other categories. Just how far out to lunch are these people on other stories? And we tend to believe them. Who are the real fools here?

Oh, and Happy Independence Day to my US readers!

Canjet Flight

2005-07-03T07:03:00.000-03:00

I'm not sure how many headlines this story made out west, but about a week ago, a CanJet 737 made an unpressurized flight from CYYZ, planned into CYHZ. This made the news as passengers were quoted as being incredibly distressed that the airliner was unpressurized so their ears were popping, and then, to top it off, they wouldn't land at Halifax, the bastards! They complained as if Canjet was the only one who wouldn't land there.

First things first, what's the cabin pressure in a B737 at 37,000 feet? Something like 6,000 to 8,000 feet, no? The B737 that flew out of CYYZ on June 27 only flew at 10,000 or so. So the pressure wouldn't have been all that different from what they would have experienced anyway. Maybe someone can provide some details on what the normal cabin pressue would have been to compare to what they experienced. I'd like to know why this was reported to be so different from the usual.

Secondly, Canjet wasn't the only one not to land. You see, the Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) decided it was time to reconstruct the entire surface at the airport. In several stages, they're tearing apart the runways and taxiways to rebuild them. This is (hopefully) the worst of the stages in that they are working on 15/33, but so near to the glidepath antenna for R24 that they've had to shut it down. So let's look at this for a second. At the peak of summer traffic, the airport has chosen to effectively remove all ILS from use, and rely solely on one localizer and two NDB approaches to land airplanes, and the only CAT II equipped airport in the maritime provinces. There's a reason they're CAT II equipped -- They need it often! Yesterday, only a handful of flights made it in at all, and most were diverted to CYQM, CYFC, CYYG, CYYT and CYUL, among other places. Moncton's ramp was nearly full, while the hotels were chalk full for the holiday weekend. Good planning, guys. It's like taking away an ATC radar on a VFR day, since IFR traffic can do visuals and ATC won't need it. Yeah, right.

Anyway, CanJet wasn't the only one to miss that night for the very same reason, and nobody else got any attention for not making their destination. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to defend an airline. They're big enough to do that. I just can't stand the fact that the public seems to have no interest in learning about the tubes they're flying in, and the media feeds on that, since they don't know any better, either. Our local paper, by a staff reporter, said they had no idea why the ILS wasn't operating at CYHZ. The construction has only been going on since May, and all they had to do was ask any source, a pilot or an ATC (Hey, there are only 150 of us here in Moncton) not to mention, you know, actually calling the airport authority and asking. One would think that a reporter would have already done this and found out that reason after June 27th's incident and the hubbub it raised.

Flight Following Anyone? Part 3

2005-07-02T06:52:00.000-03:00

(...Continued from yesterday...)

This is more of a conclusion portion of the events described in the previous days, rather than a continuation. When I think back about this incident, there were several things that were interesting. First, if the pilot had departed 30 minutes later, he would have been over that area after dark, and there would have been no hope of finding that airfield. If the engine failed 5 minutes earlier he would have been over the cold waters and steep cliffs of the Bay of Fundy with little hope of survival. 5 minutes later, he may have been out of range of Apple River's strip. I drove to that area the following week and there is nothing but trees and rolling, rocky hills. Not even a straight stretch of road long enough to plunk down a PA28, in my thoughts. Also, the fact that not many of us in the Center were aware of a field there made my position a little more interesting in the mix. And why would I have not handed this aircraft off to Greenwood? Would they have known about this little field just outside their area? We don't see much traffic flying into and out of this little field.

As I mentioned, I drove down to find this little field a week later. I'm impressed by this pilot. I drove my car out onto the runway, keeping ever vigilant for power-out Cherokees on approach, as I made my way to the hangar. It was extremely rough for a nose-wheel aircraft, I thought to myself. About halfway along, there was a hangar with three walls, the open side cut into the trees. And there, inside it, was a CGNBO, with the tail propped up by supports. The airplane, other than the obvious lack of an engine, looked, upon quick inspection from a distance, no worse for the wear. So back out to the airfield. There were power lines on the edge of the road just prior to the start of R27. About halfway along runway 27, it started to slope down, as published. And, boy, did it. I couldn't see the threshold of 09 from the midpoint of the 2,500 foot runway. So this pilot, power off, made a forced landing over wires and onto the runway that was sloping away from him. All without further damaging the airplane in the dying light. I only hope I'll do as well if (when) it happens to me.

Flight Following Anyone? Part 2

2005-07-01T16:13:00.000-03:00

(Happy Canada Day! This is continued from yesterday, PA28 CGNBO had experienced an engine failure near Apple River, NS, and was attempting to find the grass strip I had mentioned to him, and was awaiting more information on the field which I had promised him.)

No sooner did I have the word details out of my mouth did my supervisor shove the Canada Flight Supplement under my nose open to the page. Quite alert to the word "emergency", he was. The pilot asked for a heading and pointed the airplane in the direction of the field, near the coast line. I considered a few things: We're getting close to dusk, and the area where this field is contains virtually nothing else. The community of Apple River is a small one, and there won't be many lights in the town, with none at the airfield itself. The pilot asked me to tell him when he was overhead the field to help him find it. Another thing that was quite amazing is that I was still able to talk to him on our main transmitter out of 3,500 feet. This was exceptional. I was beginning to lose him, so I ran for our backup transmitter with an antenna much closer to the area. This allowed me to continue the conversation. I read out the details: Runway 09/27, 2,500 feet of grass, field elevation 135 feet, power wires near the threshold of R27, and R27 slopes downward. He was lining up for R27.

The pilot soon reported the field in sight and was observed circling in the area as he slowly descended toward the grass strip. Eventually, we lost him on radar at an unusual 300 feet on the Mode C. From there, we could only hope. We had already called the local RCMP to go get him, but we didn't know how long it would take to get someone out there in this remote area.

Then, finally, an overflying Airbus, who was on the same frequency but had been transferred to his next one during the incident, called in to report that the pilot had broadcast a message. He had landed safely and was looking for assistance. We asked the airbus pilot to relay that we had called the RCMP and hopefully they would arrive soon.

(last part tomorrow...)

Flight Following Anyone? Part 1

2005-06-30T07:50:00.000-03:00

In October of 2002, I was working the sector which covers southwestern New Brunswick in the evening hours, just ahead of dusk. A PA-28 Cherokee had departed Fredericton, NB (CYFC), VFR enroute to Halifax, NS (CYHZ). Cruising at 5,500, he decided to call for flight following and was radar identified. About half an hour or so after departure, the flight was approaching Greenwood MTCA's airspace, and under normal circumstances I would have handed a flight on his track to Greenwood, since at his altitude on the frequency I was using, communications are often sketchy but Greenwood would be able to work him no problem. I'm still not sure why I didn't.

In the middle of a steady, but not really busy, flow of traffic, I heard through a readback of a clearance on a different frequency one of my aircraft, "declaring an emergency." I managed to pick out who it was but not the nature.

November Bravo Oscar, I heard you're declaring an emergency, but I didn't catch the nature of it.

This is something that I always love. Not the emergency, mind you. Every other pilot on all the frequencies I was working went instantly quiet. No more requests for direct this place, reporting of light chop or anything else. They were smart enough to know that someone was in trouble, and give me a clear and open frequency to hear him. Even though they may not know what frequency this pilot is on and may not hear him themselves, they still know to keep quiet so we can communicate.

The response indicated the seriousness of the situation. The pilot said his engine had failed and he needed a vector to the nearest airport. Most of the fields in the region are private grass or gravel strips, unsuitable for many aircraft types, especially the regular IFR aircraft in the region. As such, they were not indicated on our radar displays. I belted out quickly about Waterville (20 NM south) and Greenwood (22 NM southwest), but knew he wasn't likely to glide 20 NM from his current altitude of 5,300 feet. I knew there was another one nearby and scrambled to find the position of it. Apple River. CCA7.

November Bravo Oscar, there is a small grass strip called Apple River about 5 miles northeast of you, standby for more details...

(more tomorrow...)

OMNI Separation

2005-06-29T08:04:00.000-03:00

This topic is an interesting one, and is widely regarded as an elegant method of getting an outbound aircraft through an inbound aircraft in a non-radar environment without actually putting them through one another. There are uses as well that go beyond opposite direction aircraft. I'll try to explain a little bit.

The basics are the radials. I'll assume a certain level of knowledge of VORs when I write this, so please feel free if you want me to explain this part a little more.

The radials have to be 15° apart, and not necessarily even numbers like the 010R and the 025R. It's often more convenient, since an aircraft is normally tracking an airway or proceeding directly to a VOR anyway, to start with a radial that is already in use. In the Moncton FIR, the most common place we use OMNI separation is at CYGR, Les Iles de la Madeleine. The airway most commonly used there is V382, which is the 332R. So with an aircraft inbound from Gaspe (CYGP), we would generally make sure he is on the 332R and get a departure out either west of him (this would be 15° west, meaning no higher than the 317R), or east of him (clockwise, higher than the 347R).

It's obvious that there has to be at least one other condition when you think about this. Since the radials actually converge at the facility, having two aircraft established on different radials at 2 DME isn't going to give you much separation. That condition is actually 15 NM. If the two aircraft are established on their respective radials and will pass outside of 15NM from the VOR facility, then you have established OMNI separation, a form of lateral separation. This is, of course, only useable for opposite direction aircraft in this sense. Thus, a vertical restriction is specified to ensure that the aircraft will pass outside of 15NM before discontinuing vertical separation. For those who have flown this and remember hearing a different number, ATC uses different values depending on altitude if using DME to prove the 15NM. Most commonly, OMNI is used at lower levels, and therefore 17DME is the value most commonly referred to.

For example, the inbound aircraft is on V382 (the YGR 332R) from CYGP, while someone wants to depart and head to CYGP also on V382. The inbound aircraft is at 11,000, but wants descent. The outbound aircraft wants to climb to 14,000. The clearance for the outbound aircraft would read something like, "... maintain 14,000. Make climb from 4,000 to 12,000 established on the YGR 315R, not above 4,000 til 17 DME." The aircraft is cleared up to his flight planned altitude, simply because we can. His restriction for the radial climb means that he can't climb above 4,000 until he's established outbound on the 315R (which, incidentally, was chosen as a nice round number that gives at least 15° separation) and that he may not leave the 315R until he reaches 12,000, which is 1,000 feet above the inbound's current altitude. As the inbound aircraft descends, we can ask him for altitude reports; as he leaves 8,000, for example, we can let the departure go off the 315R and on course out of 9,000. This holds our established lateral separation until vertical is proven. As for the DME restriction, the outbound aircraft may not climb above 4,000 until he's on the radial AND outside 17 DME. This restriction is on there in case the outbound aircraft is slower than expected in getting away, allowing us to keep our vertical separation since the lateral provided by OMNI doesn't exist inside the 17 DME mark. Once our departure is airborne, we look at the position of the inbound (well, we ask for a position report) and determine if they will pass outside of 17 DME. If yes, then we can break the 17 DME restriction right off the top and allow the departure to climb, since OMNI lateral will be provided at the point where they pass. Once altitude reports indicate they have passed vertically and are separation by 1,000 feet, we can now cancel the radial restrictions on both, clearing the departure on course and, perhaps, clearing the inbound for an approach.

There are other cases where OMNI can be useful, such as when two departing aircraft are heading in almost the same direction. We can use 30° between them under certain circumstances, but this rarely seems to be a useful application, since other forms of separation are easier to set up and prove. OMNI can also be useful for two inbound aircraft when, for instance, the further is faster and you want to let him overtake the closer one. This is a bit tougher with today's aircraft and their normal speeds, though, as not only does the 17 DME apply again, but there is an additional condition: The second aircraft has to be at least 10 minutes from the facility by the time vertical is established. A restriction would be issued including a time to make good an altitude, giving the opportunity to let the pilot figure out if he can make such a restriction.

Anyway, there are the basics. OMNI is your friend, provided you get to know it.

Strip Marking Example, Part 4

2005-06-28T06:56:00.000-03:00

Finally, our hero in the PA31 gets his turn at the approach at CYFC. You can see by the strip below tht the pilot reported entering the hold at 2254z, and at some point after that, the preceeding traffic has landed and it's his turn. The controller issues the approach clearance:

Alpha Romeo Tango is cleared to the Fredericton Airport for the VOR Runway two seven Approach. Contact Fredericton Radio now on one one niner decimal zero.

And here is the strip as it appears after the approach clearance is issued:

The two things that mark an approach clearance are the big descent arrow in the center box, and the "Big 'A'" in the box on the right. The "O27" stands for the VOR runway 27 approach (Again, O for Omni). to denote the specific approach the aircraft received clearance for. The others we have would be "I" for ILS, "N" for NDB, "L" for Localizer only, "BC" for Localizer Back Course, "R" for RNAV, "G" for GPS Overlay, "V" for Visual, and "K" for Kontact. I don't know the background reason for a K instead of a C for a contact approach. If the aircraft is cleared for an unspecified approach (Alpha Romeo Tango is cleared to the Fredericton Airport for an approach), then the "Big A" is written on the strip, with nothing specified after, just as in the actual clearance. You can also see that in the small boxes between the altitude box and the information box (where the approach was written), that we have ruled out the holding instructions and written in the frequency to indicate to us that we are still responsible for the aircraft, but no longer in comminucation with him.

Eventually, FART lands and we simply write the time in the boxes on the left. Normally, we only write two-digit times, but if the time is a different hour from the estimate written in the far left, then all four digits have to go in, as seen below:

And this brings this little segment to a close. Any questions? Anything else you'd like to see that I might be able to demonstrate?

One thing you may have noticed about the flight strips: We don't carry information about your alternate airport. In Canada, our strips don't show us that. The requirement for an alternate remains a regulatory one, so it's still required, but we won't know where you want to go if you did a missed approach and simply said, "I'd like to go to my alternate now." I'd still be asking you where and how high.

Strip Marking Example, Part 3

2005-06-27T07:04:00.000-03:00

As our Navajo gets further from Saint John (YSJ), eventually he gets to the point where he is considered to be geographically separated from that area, meaning we don't have to consider him traffic over YSJ any more. At that point, the CYSJ departure strip can be removed from the board, and in his case, we only have one more strip, the arrival at CYFC. The controller issues landing information to the pilot (which includes ceiling, visibility, altimeter, runway and approach in use -- which happens to be runway 27 and the VOR RWY 27 approach -- and so on). Due to other traffic at CYFC, the controller has to give our intrepid hero a hold. The clearance sounds like this:

Alpha Romeo Tango is cleared to the Fredericton VOR via V310, maintain four thousand, hold east inbound on the zero nine three radial, expect approach clearance at two three zero five. Report entering the hold.

The strip is marked as follows:

The holding instructions are shown in the little boxes to the right of the center box, as is the EAC time. The little "O" in the big bos to the right indicates the clearance limit, O standing for "OMNI", a carry over from the old days. In the collection of little boxes to the left of the center box, you may have noticed a little check mark. This shows that the controller asked for the report of entering the hold. The time the pilot enters the hold will be marked in there, whether the controller asked for that report or not.

Strip Marking Example, Part 2

2005-06-26T06:37:00.000-03:00

Back to our little miniseries, the controller gets the call that the aircraft has taken off at a time of 2234z. This is marked on the departure strip as shown below:

The with new information to write on one strip, there is often information to be carried forward to the next one, and further, if required. In this case, there is only one other strip for this flight, the CYFC arrival strip. The only information to carry forward is the estimate, so about 20 minutes is added to the departure time to get the aircraft to CYFC, and the time is then passed to FC FSS. As our current procedures in Moncton dictate, we use a red pen to show that this estimate has been passed via phone line to Fredericton Radio. The arrival strip now looks like this:

Eventually, the aircraft calls in to the Center. He is radar identified, and climbs on course as the clearance indicates. For the sake of example, he gets up to about 5,500 and gets into icing, so he requests 4,000 as a final altitude where he wasn't in icing on the climb out. If he had reached 6,000, we would have placed a small check mark next to the "60" on the departure strip to show that he had completed the climb, and all useable altitudes below are vacated. The strips are now marked with the new altitude assignment of 4,000 feet, as shown below:

Eventually, when the aircraft levels at 4,000, a check mark will be placed on the strip next to the new assigned altitude. Procedures in Canada still require a pilot to report reaching an assigned altitude. In a "procedural", or non-radar, environment, this is much more critical. In a radar environment, this is rather unnecessary if their is a lot of radio traffic. How do you know the difference? If you've been told you're, "radar identified," you're in a radar environment until you hear the term, "radar service terminated."

More coming up in future posts, so stay tuned...

Questions Answered

2005-06-25T06:34:00.000-03:00

Before I continue the series, I'd like to try to answer the questions posted in response to yesterday's commencement of the Strip Writing Example. This is exactly what I'm hoping to do, is to spark some "conversation", at least as much as this format will allow.

Question one dealt with why the clearance limit was specified as the YFC VOR rather than the airport. First off, Canadian ATC actually has direction in our MANOPS which allows us to use a NAVAID rather than the airport if the destination is within our FIR. The airport should be used if it is outside the FIR. The reason? We pay attention to NOTAMs regarding facilities in our FIR, but not necessarily those outside it. For example, we'll usually know if the Gaspe VOR is unserviceable, since it's a facility adjacent to our FIR and it could affect the separation used on a route commonly flown between Moncton and Montreal FIRs. However, we don't know the status of the YYZ VOR, since it won't affect our operation. What would a pilot do in the case of a comm failure with the example clearance? Essentially the same as he would have done with the airport as the clearance limit. Comm failure rules, in Canada, allow the pilot to proceed to the clearance limit, and then to a fix from which an approach can be carried out. The time at which he is to leave the facility are specified in the AIP Canada under com failure rules, and include the latest of a number of items, including ETE in the flight plan, last estimate notified to ATC and acknowledged, etc. If I had my AIP, I could tell you properly, but it has temporarily gone missing. In any case, if ATC suspects a comm failure (sees a 7600 squawk, can't raise the pilot on radio, etc), rest assured that we'll be watching for you to figure out what you're doing.

Next, the runway assignment by an IFR ATC unit at an uncontrolled airport is a bit complicated. The pilot has to know the airspace around the airport. For example, at CYSJ, controlled airspace extends to the surface since it's in a Class E control zone. At CYCH, controlled airspace doesn't begin until 2,200 above ground. The difference is subtle. ATC can't issue taxi instructions, nor can they issue a take-off clearance, or for that matter, prevent an IFR aircraft from taking off. ATC can, however, in the case of CYSJ issue IFR clearances and restrictions that dictate when the IFR clearance is valid (and therefore when an IFR aircraft may legally take-off), and what directions he must comply with in the process. That means I can tell an IFR aircraft to depart a particular runway, but the pilot remains responsible to determine if he can depart the runway specified in the clearance, and at the time frame specified. If he is unable to do so (because of rules, traffic, weather, etc), he can certainly refuse the issued clearance and ask for something else. Since we may assign such conditions, we can narrow down what airspace we protect for the departure by assigning conditions as discussed. If such conditions are not specified, we must block more airspace to cover unexpected manoeuvers, such as a change of runway for departure if it is not specified in the clearance. In the case of CYCH, an uncontrolled airport below the base of controlled airspace, we don't have the authority to dictate such conditions, though we can specify times as to when the IFR clearance is valid.

The third question brought forward is a little more complex. As mentioned earlier, at airports that are below controlled airspace, we cannot specify departure instructions such as runway or turn after take-off. As for the obstacle clearance, the pilot is ultimately responsible for manoeuvers until reaching a published IFR altitude for the area regardless of whether the airport is in controlled or uncontrolled airspace. What is known is that for each aerodrome with a published instrument procedure, there is an aerodrome diagram which contains departure minima (visibility) and, where required, any departure procedures such as "climb gradient of 300 feet per NM is required to 1,900 before commencing turns" or any other such information. Basically, if the runway is assessed for obstacles on departure, a pilot can count on meeting obstruction clearance if he follows a few basic rules:

1. Cross the departure threshold at least 35 feet above the threshold elevation,
2. Climbs to at least 400 feet AGL before commencement of any turns, and
3. Maintain a climb gradient of at least 200 feet per nautical mile from there up to the published minimum IFR altitude (a sector altitude from an approach plate, an MEA for an airway if within the airway confines, etc).

This would be a standard departure procedure (not to be confused with a SID, or Standard Instrument Departure). In any case where the above conditions cannot meet obstacle clearance, the departure procedure will have notes and special instructions accompanying the airport diagram that detail any extra requirements either for the airport or for specific runways.

For more information on the last question, I wrote a much more detailed page on this very subject in a miniseries devoted to IFR flight and charts in my past "weekly topics" endeavor. Follow this link to find some examples and interpretations of IFR charts for departures. And remember, everything I have said here applies to Canadian airspace. Each country has their own way of assessing airports and publishing documents, so each country's regulations should be verified in their respective documents.

IFR Flight Part 2a: Departure Procedures

Strip Marking Example

2005-06-24T07:45:00.000-03:00

Here's the strip marking example I've been telling you I'd get to. I had an example flight plan made up on a Piper PA-31 Navajo going from Saint John, NB, to Fredericton, NB, filed at 6,000 feet along the airway V310, which surrounds the infamous CYR724 restricted area. I'll narate a little as we go.

In the first two images presented below, the strips have just come out of the printer, and the controller identifies the strips as the CYSJ departure strip and puts a slash in the middle boxes, and the CYFC strip as the arrival strip, and marks a cross there. The flight is proposed off at 2230z and is a westbound flight, so the strips are printed up with the identification info on the left and the fix posting on the right.

At 2229, SJ FSS calls and says "Alpha Romeo Tango is taxiing, requesting IFR clearance off runway 32." The controller slots the strips under the board, checks for possible conflicts, and issues the following clearance to be read to the airplane verbatim:

ATC clears Foxtrot Alpha Romeo Tango to the Fredericton VOR via Victor three one zero, maintain six thousand. Depart runway 32, turn right heading zero two zero to intercept Victor three one zero and proceed on course. Squawk four three two seven. Clearance cancelled if not airborne by two two three five.

The readback from FSS comes and is correct, and now the clock starts ticking. The pilot has to be airborne before 2235z (meaning 2235:01 is too late). The clearance has to be issued by radio, read back by the pilot, the airplane taxied onto the runway and departed by that time. Sound like a tight window? Maybe it is, but that's what the controller could offer. If the pilot can't make that easily, it's always the pilot's discretion to refuse the clearance and wait for a better time. Anyway, the strips now look like this when the clearance is issued:

The altitude is marked in the middle box, showing in hundreds of feet. Just to the right of that, a big "D" is marked indicating a clearance has been "delivered" (with a non-standard notation of time, 30 minutes past the hour). The runway number and departure instructions are written in a standard shorthand, with the "CC" indicating the "clearance cancelled" time. Note how little is written on the arrival strip? That fills up as we approach destination.

More to follow tomorrow... (don't you just hate when people do this?)