COPA Flight 8 Captain Mike Shaw remains the contact person for Flight 8's input into this study, so please send your comments to him or, better yet post them here for discussion.
Message from COPA
Patrick Gilligan, Vice President, Operations, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association writes:
"Nav Canada is proposing airspace change to the region of Ottawa and Quebec from currently class D airspace specified as transponder airspace to reclassify as class C airspace. The purpose is to eliminate conflict between IFR and VFR aircraft. For complete details see the message/invitation for comments below and the included document.
- Class D specified as transponder airspace, requires bilateral communication with appropriate ATC, the pilot’s intended flight and an encoding transponder.
- Class C requires authorization from ATC, bilateral communication with appropriate ATC with the pilot’s intended flight and an encoding transponder.
Message from Nav Canada
Yan Tremblay, Nav Canada writes:
As per the Oct 30th, 2012 notices of aeronautical study for the review of the structure and classification of the Ottawa TCA and Quebec City TCA/CZ, Nav Canada initially met with COPA, APBQ and AQTA on Nov 30th to provide details on the proposed changes and search feedback from their executive and membership.
This document is distributed to support the association’s internal briefing. Feedback is to be provided directly to the following point of contact no later than Jan 7th, 2013.
Nav Canada will soon after schedule local consultation meetings at Ottawa and Quebec City for a broader feedback.
Yan Tremblay
Shift Manager
Montréal Area Control Centre
Nav Canada
1750 Chemin St Francois
Dorval, QC
H9P 2P6
Yan.tremblay@navcanada.ca
service@navcanada.ca
Phone: (514) 633-3365
Fax: (514) 633-3371
Nav Canada Ottawa/Québec Airspace Change Proposal
COPA – APBQ – AQTA Briefing, November 30, 2012
As per the Oct 30, 2012 notices of aeronautical study for the review of the structure and classification of the Ottawa TCA and Quebec City TCA/CZ, Nav Canada initially met with COPA, APBQ and AQTA on Nov 30 to provide details on the proposed changes and search feedback from their executive and membership.
This document is distributed to support the association’s internal briefing. Feedback is to be provided directly to the following point of contact no later than Jan 7, 2013.
Nav Canada will soon after schedule local consultation meetings at Ottawa and Quebec City for a broader feedback.
QUEBEC AIRSPACE PROPOSED CHANGES (TCA and CZ)
(Refer to the attached depictions)
- IFR/VFR conflicts are frequent and repeating occurrences in this airspace. The current “D” airspace classification does not support systematic conflict resolution between IFR and VFR aircraft. Consequently Nav Canada is opting for changing the TCA and CZ classification to “C” (ref RAC 801.02).
- INSET A: Floor raised from 3500’ to 4500’ to reflect the actual use of the airspace and relieve VFR compression
- INSET B: The frequency range in this quadrant is affected by terrain. Broken communications are often experienced. Raising the floor from 1400’ to 2500’ will mitigate the issue.
- INSET C: Floor raised from 1400’ to 2500’ to reflect the actual use of the airspace and relieve VFR compression
- INSET D: Floor raised from 1400’ to 1500’ to relieve VFR compression especially at CNV9 and CST7 INSET E: Floor raised from 3500’ to 4000’ to relieve VFR compression and allow for the CYA616 alternative
- INSET F: Withdrawal and replacement of the Class F CYA616 airspace and surrounding Class D airspace (when CYA616 is not active) by a Class E transponder required airspace from 2000’ to below 4000’.
Through the use of radar, ATC will provide wake turbulence separation between IFR and VFR aircraft operating within the transponder required Class E airspace through mandatory ATC operating procedures. VFR training operation will not be impacted by the change neither required to be in contact with ATC.
IFR traffic operating in the southern portion of the Quebec airspace will benefit from additional altitude options when conditions dictate (ie CB, turbulence, icing, IFR conflicts)
The Class E airspace final dimensions still need to be defined through consultations with customers.
OTTAWA AIRSPACE PROPOSED CHANGES (TCA)
- IFR/VFR conflicts are frequent and repeating occurrences in this airspace. The current “D” airspace classification does not support systematic conflict resolution between IFR and VFR aircraft. Consequently Nav Canada is opting for changing the TCA classification to “C” (ref RAC 801.02).
- INSET A: Floor raised from 2500’ to 4000’ over the CYND Class E airspace, north of the powerline for allowing VFR traffic to exit the CYND airspace without entering the Class C airspace (formerly D).
- INSET B: VFR aircraft transiting to/from practice area (yellow arrows) elect to stay on the ATC frequency while operating below the current 2500’ Class D airspace south of the YOW VOR. VFR aircraft transiting below the current 2500’ Class D airspace south of the YOW VOR (red arrow) are not on the ATC frequency.
This results in conflicts within the same airspace between VFR aircraft on separate frequencies. Locally changing the floor from 2500’ to 1500’ will ensure the CYOW – Practice Area flow is operated entirely under the same airspace rules during the transition to and from the CZ.
11 comments:
The base of the airspace in the southern TCA is all C based at 2500, but in the north, at 4000.
For those going south, this compresses E-W traffic between the river and the TCA - not desirable. If it were C/4000, we could transit at a reasonable altitude without VFR compression.
In the north, the Gatineau hills make the C based at 4,000 also compress VFR traffic...
Don't increase "safety" inside the TCA by decreasing it outside the TCA. As written, this is not a safe plan.
Dan: Good point!
From comparing the "current" and "proposed" maps it looks like nothing is changing - the controlled airspace still starts at 2500 feet in the south and 4000 feet in the north. What I think yo are indicating you would like to see is the TCA floor raised to 4000 feet in the south area.
My understanding is that the 2500 feet floor is established by MDAs and other procedural altitudes for instrument approaches in that sector which can't be themselves raised to stay in a higher TCA floor. In other words the floor cannot be raised above 2500 feet due to IFR restrictions, no matter how much it would benefit VFR traffic.
Adam - true, of course, however, having the airspace for all runways to be 'shielded' at all times, when the vast majority of IFR flights are approaches to 32, and where the flight tracks show the southernmost portion of the TCA is essentially never used for IFR, mean that some of that airspace is Class C for no reason (I was at the Hq NavCanada consultation where they displayed the tracks).
Also, the question of resources is important. My view of public finances indicates that folks like NavCanada will not be getting more people, in fact, more likely less. If resources stay the same, and the controller's tasks (IFR/VFR deconfliction in C, not necessary in D) increase, where will the money come from? User fees? Or will we simply be excluded, causing less safety outside the TCA?
It is quite true that not all airspace protected is needed with any one runway in use, but freeing up airspace not needed for runway is very manpower intensive and causes problems when a pilot requests another runway.
For instance in the area of Kars the TCA floor could probably be raised to 4000 feet when runway 25 or 07 was in use, but if a pilot requested a landing on 32 then the airspace would have to be quickly lowered. If there are uncontrolled VFR aircraft at say 3500 feet near Kars then how do you let them know? It gets pretty complicated!
I don't think the system would work if airspace floors changed with runway usage. That would confuse pilots and controllers and be prone to errors.
One problem with changing to Class C is the need for ATC to separate IFR and VFR traffic. If staffing shortages arise they must still follow Class C rules, hence the chance of denied entry rises for VFR flights. Why not leave as Class D and continue to provide Class C service unless resources require dropping to Class D. At least pilots would know to expect Class D rules. I suspect many pilots would not notice the change.
Apparently some VFR types have complained when Class D is treated more like Class C. They feel they are being denied their rights by being given ATC instructions limiting their movements. That view smarts of being dead-right! I don't think we should allow this behavior to dictate airspace classifications.
More fuel for the flyer...
Mike
I saw a NavCanada presentation Saturday in Calgary on the reorganization of Calgary TCA when they open a parallel runway. They will go from 35 mile to 30 mile TCA, and the remaining 5 goes from Class C to Class E Transponder airspace... They started from scratch. I will try to get a copy and send it to Mike/Kevin.
DD
Hey anything that results in shrinking the size of controlled airspace has to be a good thing, doesn't it?
Yes, and the flows in/out from Edmonton, with the other arrivals from the E-W routes, is as complex as Ottawa...
Well it would be nice to see the airspace shrunken here as well. A lot of it hinges on getting ATC to not bring the IFR traffic too low too far out.
Calgary TCA briefing sent to Mike and Kevin.
Great!
Post a Comment