Evaluating aviation services in Canada
I didn’t really want to write this article, but a flight specialist in my regional FIC pressured me to make comments in an attempt to improve the system.
The specialist believes the only way FIC staff can improve their services and offerings to pilots is through discussion.
Because her level of service was a cut above the norm and because she shamed me into taking some action on my complaints, this must be committed to print. Many of us are frustrated with some of the services we receive from NAVCAN, but their VP, Kathy Fox, advises there are few complaints on their services as evaluated by the minimal pilot feedback through the toll free number they provide.
A few years ago on the way to the Maritimes I was riding in the jump seat of an Air Canada F-28 (shortly before 9/11). The crew was unable to reach Montreal FSS for a weather update.
When the captain contacted American services, they didn’t have weather for our destination or alternate. Moreover, tailwinds were much weaker than forecast so fuel became a consideration.
Then, our vectoring was so badly handled by the approach controller in weather hovering around minimums that we ended up with inadequate fuel on board to meet the legal requirements for overshooting and going to our alternate in Moncton.
In fact, we had to land off this approach in a howling blizzard because there were no options. Previous Air Canada flights had overshot or flown directly to their alternates.
So, did the Air Canada captain complain to NAVCAN’s hotline? No. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.
Consider the politics and press considerations of admitting inadequate fuel etc., and potential disciplinary activity that would ensue.
Well, to give Kathy some ammunition for change, I filed a report on the incident. So, was I subsequently satisfied with the outcome? Not hardly.
I was advised the reason Montreal FSS could not be reached for an urgent request for a weather update was because of frequency changes in the system and the fact the aircraft was outside of the range on its track from Toronto to St. John. Well, that’s really reassuring.
Then the manager of Moncton center called me directly to try to tell me the controller had tried to do everything right - duh, he failed - and my life was only one of dozens in the lurch! This was NAVCAN’s idea of problem solving - give an area manager my phone number.
So, one doesn’t need to wonder why many pilots don’t call with complaints/observations. I don’t blame Kathy Fox because I know she is dedicated; however, I do see protectionism and the old boy’s network on the job in a sector that has its hands tied by unionism and guaranteed positions.
Many low time pilots are intimidated by ATC and I can understand this when I hear controllers verbally “ream out” pilots in the air - often for something that is not their fault.
Commonly an ATC transmission is “stepped on” and when a pilot doesn’t hear the transmission and doesn’t comply, some controllers go ballistic. I’ve had a few try to give me a rough time, and presuming I haven’t stumbled and done a “no-no,” I am right back at them.
It might be time to remind controllers they have jobs because it’s their duty to provide services to aviators, not the other way around. Their task is to expedite the orderly flow of traffic and in many cases our safety is dependent on them doing their jobs correctly.
If a controller or part of the system reduces our safety margins, it is our responsibility to report same for the good of all concerned. Let’s not let our system deteriorate into the morass of ineffective controlling seen in many other parts of the world.
Now a few words about weather forecasting - especially in my region. It’s abysmal!
Flight service folks I talk with candidly admit the US system is far superior. When I talk with other professional pilots in the area I am often shocked to learn they are not using FIC briefers due to occasional long waits on the phone or because they prefer using American online weather information.
For two years I have been monitoring actual vs. forecast weather in the Victoria area and I am convinced the weathermen are either blind or evil. If you are doing the best you can with this lackluster performance, then have the decency to get out of the way and let someone else do the guessing.
If this level of prognostication is the best we can do, then let’s hire the American’s to provide our meteorological services. (No, I’m not really serious on the latter - it might be better to contract the task to private industry though.)
In fact, numerous flight service specialists have advised me they have additional useful data, but are forbidden to use it. It doesn’t help that NavCan has to buy their weather services from the weather folks and need to budget to consider what services they can afford to pay for.
It also doesn’t help that their major customer can’t pay its bills and all of this makes it even more challenging for the corporation.
Those of you who attended the first Summerside COPA convention may remember this director standing up to the senior Transport Canada representative commissioned with selling the new system.
I told him the system was a fiasco in New Zealand and that pilots were in revolt there. Many if not most refused to pay the fees for weather briefings, flight planning etc. The TC rep. was shocked.
In my opinion, safety has been compromised in many ways with TCA unloading Canada’s air navigation system.
And, on a lower level, when I call the FIC and ask for a weather briefing for soaring operations, I don’t want a briefer to tell me its a perfect day as the wind is light and the air is stable - exactly the wrong conditions for good soaring.
Since we have a considerable number of aircraft in Canada that soar, it seems prudent to educate the briefers to provide the service for which I am already forced to pay.
For the record, good soaring conditions are typically associated with the movement of energy related to, but not limited by: convective heating, steep lapse rates and strong winds and combinations thereof.
Also, I don’t expect briefers to be telling me it is not a good day for flying due to mechanical turbulence or some other phenomenon and attempt to end the briefing there. I am the aircraft captain and when I ask for a complete forecast and observations, I expect same and will make the required decision accordingly.
I think there are few if any FIC specialists around with my level of flying experience that should be attempting to make my flight decisions for me.
So, are these simply my observations? Not at all. I am hearing these comments from dozens of pilots in my region.
So NAVCAN there you go. Folks aren’t complaining about your services very much for a number of possible reasons that include, but are not limited to: 1) they are afraid that complaints will result in them being singled out, 2) they are now using someone else’s information such as computer generated weather or products from the USA or 3) they reckon it won’t do any good to complain as the government has already given away the airways monopoly.
Perhaps the current transportation minister will result in someone more capable - come to think of it, I’m sure it will.
So, what’s the bottom line? As pilots paying for the current system, we have the right to require the system to fill our needs in a safe, efficient manner. Essentially we are partially at fault for shortcomings in the operation that repeatedly go unreported. We must all do our best, for OUR navigation and meteorological services, by contacting the organization when safety infractions or services do not meet reasonable standards.
To contact NavCan with an observation or complaint, call 1-877-663-6656, or contact them online at www.navcanada.ca and click on feedback at the top of the page or write to them at NAV CANADA, P.O. Box 3411 Station 'D', Ottawa, ON K1P 5L6.
They do follow-up on all contacts.
Remember, if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
NAVCAN’S Kathy Fox responds
Kathy Fox, Vice President Operations was asked to respond to my article and she provided the following observations.
In an effort to provide better service, staffing levels have been increased by 200 personnel since 1996 and more than one billion dollars invested in technology to intensify the focus on customers.
The not for profit organization has received more than 20,000 requests from customers via telephone, fax and mails over the last year of which about 800 were of an operational nature.
Kathy adds: “We also encourage customers and users to contact site managers and supervisors directly to deal with any local problems. This allows for a timely and personable investigation and resolution of issues.”
In defense of NAVCAN, Kathy points out “weather briefers have information at their disposal that they are not allowed to provide to pilots.
“Transport Canada, our regulator, determines the stringent standards for aviation weather reporting. We follow these standards when providing aviation weather information to pilots. To this end, we have made provision in our Flight Services Manual of Operations that allows our Flight Service Specialists to verbally relay this information with the appropriate qualifier as follows: The following weather does not meet aviation standards and may be inaccurate."
Kathy then stated: “Finally, on your concerns dealing with the expertise of our weather briefing providers, you raise some good points. First, I agree that the decision to fly is entirely at the discretion of the pilot and not the briefer.
“In our experience, the majority of pilots want to be told up front that the weather is good VFR or VFR not recommended due to turbulence or other atmospheric phenomena. This tends to save time for all involved.” This author agrees. However, I have found on a number of occasions that briefers are reluctant to provide the requested further data as they have already determined the flight is impractical in their opinion. This is not their decision.
As a commercial pilot, it is common for me to fly in marginal VFR conditions when I determine the route and conditions are safe for the type of aircraft flown.
With respect to soaring/gliding information Kathy admits: “ To date, soaring is not a specific part of the FSS training. Based on the feedback you have provided me, I will investigate the possibility of including soaring requirements in this training.”
Ms Fox closes by thanking me for input and reiterates my statement about working together and she adds that by working together “we can ensure an ANS that is safe, efficient and cost-effective for its users.”
I concur.
Ken is a COPA director who lives in Victoria, BC. He provides services internationally in advanced training, expert witness, flight test and aircraft sales. He has logged 15,000 hours on 375 types of fixed wing and rotary aircraft. Soaring his Diamond Xtreme is what he does for pleasure.
Return to Ken Armstrong Articles