Outstanding concerns over Vancouver airspace

 By Kevin Psutka

In May 2007 Nav Canada plans to revise the airspace and procedures within 50 miles of Vancouver. In addition to representations made by COPA HQ directly to Nav Canada in Ottawa, our local representatives, including Terry Wilshire, Ken Armstrong and Hardy Staub attended several meetings in the Vancouver area. The following summarizes COPA’s outstanding concerns as relayed to Nav Canada.

The consultation process was flawed. Although this complicated aeronautical study was initiated in 2003, the first round of briefings with our sector occurred in October 2006. With a deadline for finalization looming in November, it created the impression that the proposal was a done deal.

In response to strong opposition, a hastily arranged expert panel, on which COPA participated, was formed to address issues and this was followed quickly by another round of briefings. This short duration was insufficient to do a proper job of addressing all concerns and developing a structure that optimizes the airspace design.

At the first round of briefings Nav Canada stated that in order to maximize safety they want “positive control to the ground for the terminal area and beyond.” Safety is paramount, but it must be blended with ensuring that access to the airspace is maximized for all users. We estimate that there are at least 100 aircraft are neither equipped with transponders nor electrics and whose owners would be forced spend considerable money, relocate their aircraft or sell.

The positive control concept is also unacceptable because Nav Canada has not, in ten years of trying, achieved satisfactory staffing levels such that service to VFR aircraft can be reliably provided. VFR is always the first to lose service, and we are sceptical that cleaning up the IFR sectors will provide more staff for reliable VFR service, as promised by Nav Canada.

We also question the need for positive control over such an extensive amount of airspace in light of the U.S. experience, where much more IFR traffic is handled safely in TCAs that are generally a radius of 25 miles.

More fundamental issues are at play such that Nav Canada is unable to keep IFR traffic within a smaller parcel of airspace, and these issues should be addressed rather than capturing more airspace.

VFR Flyways have been developed for getting around Vancouver and crossing the Strait. Although the concept is a good one, the proposed flyways provide insufficient airspace and, in some cases, will cause considerable safety problems.

As an example, the two-way flyway planned along the Gulf Islands has an effective vertical dimension of only 400 feet due to the voluntary 2,000 foot cap over the islands and the 2,500 foot floor of the TCA in this area. With the accuracy of GPS navigation, aircraft will be right on track, resulting in an extreme risk of mid-air collision along this flyway.

In addition, service to VFR aircraft crossing the Straits of Georgia is inadequate now so many aircraft cross below a safe altitude that would permit gliding to land. The creation of flyways with an effective cap of 2,500 feet will not resolve this issue. The current proposal for flyways is insufficient and dangerous.

Nav Canada emphasized the safety benefit of equipping with Portable Collision Avoidance Systems. COPA disagrees for this “target rich” environment. PCAS is most useful on cross country trips, when a pilot’s scan of the horizon may not be as keen as in a terminal environment.

In a dense environment such as the lower mainland, these devices signal frequently if not continuously, and they consequently force the pilot’s attention into the cockpit and away from a proper scan of the horizon. Many pilots turn them off in such situations.

The solution to collision hazards are a combination of controlled airspace with adequate service and sufficient uncontrolled airspace with a consequent lower risk of collision.

Nav Canada plans to begin pilot briefings in May 2007 when the changes are implemented. This tight schedule will ensure that many pilots will not know about the changes, which in turn will pose safety and/or violation issues. There is insufficient time being provided to educate people about the changes before they are implemented.

We emphasized that designated training areas are essential for flight training and recreational GA activities and must continue to be accommodated within any revised structure. Although some changes are still planned, the result from our representation is much more acceptable now, with some new areas being created.

A plan to require transponders at Pitt Meadows and Langley has been delayed to allow time for adjustment. Abbottsford, however, will require transponders in 2007.

Nav Canada agreed to review transponder code acquisition procedures for the Victoria and Vancouver terminals to provide more flexibility.

COPA’s overall position is in support of the IFR changes because they promise to help improve controller qualification rates and airspace capacity. However, changes to VFR airspace and procedures require more emphasis on retaining uncontrolled airspace so that our sector can continue to access this area.

Members should check the Nav Canada website and the AICs as the May start date approaches for the latest plan.