• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About gator

  • Rank
  1. Canadians can't even listen to simple instructions on boarding... when zone 2 is called 3 and 4 line up and the zone 2 people have to "butt in" while the zone people crowd the entry to the line. Making rules more complex will only make it worse. I used to think that loading the back windows, then the middle windows, back aisles, front windows, middle aisles, front aisles would work the best because aisle people wouldn't have to stand up to allow the windows to board. The problem is in trying to allow groups/families to board together.... more from a technology perspective. The reason why the Southwest system works is because people load the window seats first by default. The bottom line is that inefficient boarding is caused more by people carrying all of their crap on board with them than any procedure.
  2. I agree with you, mo, and I often do that. I always call runway in sight when i can to help with high/low separation and often do tell the controller if we need a bit more runway for landing when we're heavy in a no wind condition. Not usually an issue with 6 miles of separation behind me, but most airports can get 2 departures out in six miles. YYZ can't get one out in 4.7. That's a lot of expensive concrete sitting there empty and gas being burned and connections being missed for some local rule. A couple of times when I've had the FO tell him "ready immediate" I've been disappointed. And YYZ is set up as a "monitor" when holding short, not a "contact". The signs even say it. Then the ground controller says it. So calling is something that we're not spring loaded to do. Pilots operating in YYZ have been lulled into a condition where they don't expect anything to happen fast. It's a completely different mindset than in ORD, LGA, LAX, or LHR. We rise to the occasion in other places and we can do it in YYZ, but we're mentally not set up for it because there's no need 99% of the time. Anytime we have less than 3 miles behind the previous lander we're briefing go around procedures again because we know that we might get one just because there is some archaic, apparently local, rule that will trigger it. In LGA or ORD, it's just normal. There was a time a few years ago where things started getting better, where we would be at 200 ft with the previous departure rotating, but they've gone downhill again. The irony is that it doesn't make it any safer. Pilots who are paying attention because they know things are happening quick are a lot safer than those who are lulled into complacency. I'm not saying it's the individual controllers' faults. It's the system. I can only assume that someone has been reprimanded because there has been a technical (but still safe) loss of paper separation when they've tried to be efficient, so everybody spreads stuff out just make sure that it doesn't happen to them. The rules should be there for planning and shouldn't be considered absolute for reprimand or even external reporting if a 3 mile rule is busted by a couple hundred yards. It might be our Canadian attitude of rule compliance that creates this environment. I'm not saying to disregard them, just that they should be a bit elastic in operation vs planning. I can certainly see needing 3 mile separation for 2 aircraft pointed at each other, but 2 aircraft pointed at 45 degrees to intercept a localizer? If one doesn't hit the LOC button at YYZ and flies through, the pilots and the controller have 50 seconds to correct it before it's a "noise" event and then only in the 1 in 50 situation where they are perfectly abeam each other. There's a dedicated controller to make sure nobody crosses the hold short line when clearing from 24L, but no dedicated controller assigned to improve the arrival efficiency and safety by watching aircraft intercept the localizer. I've dealt with management at NC and they circle the wagons at any suggestion that their procedures are anything less than perfect, and they're not. The only other major airports in the world that design their STARs like YYZ are Guangzhou and Beijing, yet NC management says they're world class. And, because they think their procedures are perfect, any non-compliance, even minor or inconsequential, is probably met with reprimand. If you're a quarterback and the coach pulls you out of the game every time you throw an incomplete pass, you just start running the ball...
  3. I see what you're saying but there was lots of time if good communication procedures were used. In every other busy airport around the world, the clearance goes like this when the landing traffic is at about 100 ft .... "Behind the landing A320, line up behind". Or, 'behind departing B777, line up behind'. Sometimes they say "Be ready immediate". They even say the last part occasionally in YYZ. And sometimes they ask if we are ready immediate. And even, sometimes, the first part. Sometimes it's 'contact departure airborne'. sometimes it's 'stay with me', sometimes nothing. Notice the words "occasionally" and "sometimes". I know that "conditional" clearances were not allowed in Canada some time ago; not sure if that is still the case, but if they aren't, hiding behind an archaic MANOPS is not a good excuse. There's stuff in there that prescribes localizer and glideslope intercept criteria that was designed for non-radar procedure turns, even when in a radar environment. There was exactly 2 minutes between the two flights that we were not allowed to fit between and 2:20 between flights where they did fit us in. I know 20 seconds is a lot of time sometimes, but not when the base is 2 minutes. (Of course, none of this deals with the question as to why the arrival controller didn't protect the required spacing through vectors or speed control (for "4 go arounds this afternoon")... or maybe the arrival controller follows MANOPS or maybe radar practice/guidelines/procedures and the tower has their own practice/guidelines/procedures). And why would they force a go around at 2 miles... why not wait until the arrival is a mile back to see how things work themselves out? .... we practice go arounds from 200 ft and can probably do them better from there than from 600 ft. If they didn't wait until the lander was past the button (plus some, sometimes), then we could be in position when the previous flight clears the runway and we would be well off the ground in less than 30 seconds from takeoff clearance ... about 1 mile. If they clear us conditionally, then the whole operation could be less than a minute... with a minute to spare. On that particular day, using webtrak, it can be seen that we were airborne when the lander behind us was at 925 ft... about 1.2 miles back. Even a 30 second delay would have had us airborne before the lander was at 200 ft. We never know if they're going to hold us or clear us to position. On that day we were rolling our eyes when they didn't clear us. Then, the next arrival wasn't too much farther back on TCAS... we didn't know what was going to happen.... should we be ready? or ready for another disappointment. No heads up from the tower as to what they were planning. But communication is not a big part of Nav Canada or YYZ. They don't give us distance to fly even when they plan to send us 25 miles downwind at 3000 ft, despite it being ICAO standard to do so. We don't get descent speed restrictions until AFTER we start descent, which means we wasted a bunch of fuel in cruise (at $100 per minute) when we could have started down earlier, and now have to use speedbrakes ... no advice about arrival delays until we're on the close-in controller, even when ground holds are in effect.... all part of the same lack of communications. We're told about our expected London hold by Shannon... a completely different country, let alone a different sector. Maybe they should start following global standards instead of local rules of thumb. In my dealings with Nav Canada managment, they're quick to quote MANOPS, but apparently have a different standard for day to day ops. If YYZ thinks they're a world class operation, then they should start looking around the world to see what the standard is because it's not happening here. I'd love it if Canada's ATC was the best or even close, but something is stopping them from moving out of the 80's. Introducing RNP approaches is not moving into the future if the rest of the system is still buried in the past.
  4. Hurricane Harvey

    Fuel in external containers must be declared and tax is payable. Just so nobody's surprised.
  5. If lowland flooding, loss of coral reefs and shifting climate doesn't bother you, maybe this will.. Is Global Warming Going To Create An Urban Rat Population Explosion? With warming winters, however, the rate of breeding and population expansion surges. “They have an edge of squeezing out one more litter, one more half litter,” Corrigan explained. USA Today reported last year, major cities saw spikes in rodent-related business from 2013 to 2015. Calls to Orkin, the pest control service, were reportedly ‘up 61 percent in Chicago; 67 percent in Boston; 174 percent in San Francisco; 129 percent in New York City; and 57 percent in Washington, D.C.'” Urban rats caused $19 billion worth of economic damage in the year 2000, partially due to the fact that they eat away at buildings and other infrastructure. Imagine how much they’re costing now.” Not to mention that whole disease thing...
  6. More lies. They only put this stuff out there because they know that people are too lazy to check it. From Environment Canada...." Canada's emissions in 2013 made up 1.6% of global GHG emissions." That's about 200,000 times more than your "various sources" suggests. And breathing is breathing. Everybody does it at the same rate, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. They just say stuff like that to distract and hide the lie deeper.
  7. And so yesterday I landed on 23 and the flight departing prior to our arrival was not airborne until we were about 1.5 miles final and they didn't tell us to go around. Sometimes I wonder what Nav Canada is doing. No... more than sometimes....
  8. Might seem simple to you and the written words are pretty clear, but the weather was well above CAVOK they day that I was waiting short and watching an empty runway for minutes at a time. If you listen to the LiveATC feed I linked to above, you can hear for yourself that controllers have been told to apply some other criteria and "somebody" has decided that the passage you quote is not good enough.
  9. Talked to the lead investigator on this yesterday. In every case of runway incursion between the parallels being investigated, the tower gave the hold short instruction and the traffic read it back. So why are pilots missing the stop line? Is it lighting? is it the corner just before the stop line that prevents a pilot from seeing the line in time? Should there be a big red light straight ahead on the deceleration lane? I advised him that the red spotlights at each end of the stop line are pointed parallel to the line, not at the approaching traffic. The minimum distance from the runway for the stop line is 90 ft. At YYZ it is 115. They also have a monitor controller who advises the primary controller if anyone goes over the line. But, even though they have an extra 25 feet before ICAO standard distance, it's still a runway incursion if they go past the line. Apparently, the monitor controller can't broadcast, probably because it's up to the primary controller to figure out the best course of action once the incursion occurs.
  10. Despite the volume of useless information on them, I do find that YYZ does issue the ATIS pretty consistently... about 7 minutes after the hour. The US and UK do their weather readings at 50, so it would make sense that their ATIS's are issued 6 or 7 minutes after the weather is assessed.... same as Canada... 1 minute before the new one is issued, it is about 1:06 old.... the same as Canada. ...apologies for participating in thread drift.
  11. There really isn't a valid way to compare air cleanliness (the methodology of the Fraser) to emissions (the methodology of the Conference Board). Production is based on per capita and cleanliness is based on cubic volume, of which Canada has much. If we had 1,000,000 people in Canada and they generated as much total pollution as the US, we would still have cleaner air than the US simply because of our size. But, needless to say, they would be very high polluters. I do feel that Canadians are incorrectly charged for the per capita emissions from the oil sands production. These should be charged, pro rata, to the countries that use Canadian oil, including Canada. And the US deserves some of the credit for the improvement in Southern Ontario's air quality. But, just because you $hit in a big forest and it doesn't stink as much on average throughout your forest, that shouldn't mean that you should $hit more than the guy in the little forest where the average stink is higher. Both the Conference Board and Fraser are correct. And, the Fraser Institute is smart enough to know that. For them to try to discredit the Conference Board by presenting data with different criteria and trying to say that the CB is wrong as a result is underhanded, at least.
  12. The ATIS in YYZ is the longest ATIS in the world as it is with year round warning of migratory birds (if they migrate, why are we talking about them in January) and now "small birds". I don't understand why they don't include rodents and coyotes. Can't remember if they still have the thing about operating transponders on the ground.... adding one more thing is just more noise. All the tower has to say is "Cleared to land, hold short 24R on clearing".
  13. Maybe it's the direction that they position the red wigwags beside the stop bar/line. They point the spot lights along the line of the stop line instead of at the approaching aircraft. As usual with Nav Can'tada, they do it different than almost everywhere else. And when it's the same, it's usually China, the best ATC in the world.
  14. Thales New 2020 Cockpit

    I hope this works better than their in flight entertainment systems.