YYZ ATC

[skidoo_driver]

Would like to correspond with a controller from YYZ ATC. I have a few questions. Anybody in here?

Thanks

[ex-EGLL]

Hi, If no one owns up to being a YYZ controller, I'l try to help :), I worked there many moons ago, now in Ottawa.

ex-EGLL

[ 08 November 2001: Message edited by: ex-EGLL ]

[skidoo_driver]

Ex EGLL:

Thanks for jumping in. I'm trying to obtain more information on why it is that at YYZ, when winds force us to 33 ops, simultaneous parallel visuals cannot be run? Is this a regs issue, a manpower issue, a noise issue or some combination of the three? Thought the horse's mouth would be the best place to start.

Thanks

[lubicon]

If you don't get a response here, try Aeforum Page (http://www.aeforum.net) . It seems to be the main page for many airline pilots and probably a few controllers too in Canada. You will probably get a response there.

[ex-EGLL]

If memory serves (and thats a big IF these days), the runway separation is not wide enough even to allow visuals and given the fact its YYZ noise is bound to be an issue. Give me a couple of days as I am on the road at the moment and I'll try get a "real" answer.

[Coast]

Hi skidoo
In Toronto the 33 parallels are too close to each other to run simultaneous appraches, it's in the manual (somewhere)!!
Cheers

"cleared direct MIILS"

[Tweety]

Coast baby,

Long time no hear! Whats up these days.

TTFN :D :D

[skidoo_driver]

Thanks for the replies. I suspected there was a regs problem. This has to change. While probably no other airport in Canada has a serious issue with this, Pearson certainly does. I suspect the annual cost to my company alone, although that would be difficult to put a finger on, is measured in tens of millions of dollars. STL and MSP, among others, all have much tighter parallels and run simultaneous visuals. It's a thing of beauty! Is there anywhere online that one could find ATC regs for Canada?

Thanks again,

Strack

[Coast]

Sorry I haven't been here for a while!! I'll try to dig up the references for you.

Hey Tweety, how've you been? :)

[Scott Voigt]

Try KSFO with 750 feet between centerlines. They do visual simos all the time... It kills the flow rate when they have to do IFR approaches...

regards

[Coast]

Hi s-d. .Sorry it took so long to get back here. I was looking in the Navcanada ATSAMM (management manual) and found the section dealing with parallel approaches. It says that there must be at least 4200' between centre lines (where they got this number I don't know) for "simultaneous INDEPENDENT parallel approaches", anything less than that then they are "Dependent approaches", ie. must be staggered. I don't know for sure if this is also in the CARs (air regs) or not, but they are our rules. So in YYZ on the north/south parallel runways the aicraft must be staggered. What impact this has on the controllers working arrival I'm not sure as I'm in a high level sector, however, it does start backing thing up for us. Hope this answers your question. Feel free to email me if you want me to find anything else..........Cheers

[Scott Voigt]

Coast;

That is for actual IFR approaches and not for visuals. Now, I have NO IDEA if Canada requires that visuals retain the same separation standards for runways for visuals as they do the IFR kind. Here south of the border we can go down to REAL close for visuals <G>.

We use the 4200 feet between runway centerlines too. That is what has been found to be safe when trying to keep two aircraft apart on simo approaches when using a standard rotation approach radar system. This gives you enough time to see a pilot blunder into the no transcression zone and then be able to break one of the aircraft out and send them around. With the new PRM (precision runway monitor) radar the US goes down to about half that. The PRM radar is phased array and updates every second. It is VERY good radar and right now it appears that the only hold back to using the procedure is pilot training and reaction speeds...

regards

[skidoo_driver]

All:. .. .Sorry I was out of the loop for a while...thanks to all of you for the responses...excellent info.. .. .Not sure exactly how far apart 33's are at CYYZ but just a quick glance at the aerodrome chart puts the value easily in excess of 3000'. Can anybody tell me if NavCan/TC are even looking at reduced separation requirements for visual ops? When 33's are required, it's always VMC so the issue is not simultaneous instrument procedures but visual ones.. .. .Currently, when we move from E/W to N/S ops at YYZ, we suffer about a 40% reduction in capacity due to these restrictions - all because of wind, not cigs/vis. We are, in fact, better off in RVR 2400 on 06/24 than in CAVOK on 33's. This makes no sense. Further, we are in the process of a huge expansion at YYZ that will see a massive new terminal and new E/W runway twinning which will bring the hourly capacity to some 200 movements/hour (so I am told). So, in the near future, instead of a 40% reduction in capacity, a switch to 33's for wind will now entail a whopping 65% reduction. This will paralyze the airport for 18-24 hrs min in any prolonged circumstance even with the new terminal facilities.. .. .Questions:. .. .1. Do we need special equipment to operate the reduced visual separation minima as do our American friends?. .. .2. If so, do we have it or can we get it?. .. .3. Is there a manpower problem associated here?. .. .4. Why can't I exit DV for departure runway when the ramp is congested beyond all recognition and taxiways C and D are empty? Everywhere else in the WORLD inner is for inbounds, outer is for outbounds.........(oops...was that out loud?). .. .Thanks again for the dialogue, folks. Appreciate the effort!. .. .Per Ardua ad Astra,. .. .ski