Calgary International Airport II

Nick? cyeg? Do we go up to 56 with the ILS monitor in place? 2 active runways at all 4 but 3 different rates.

[Nick]

I guess in theory we would need a monitor in place to run 6 NM in trail for both runways. We would call that GIT 6 here, for Ghost in Trail, but I don't think other airports call it that as they didn't have CRDA spooking up the radar with ghosts.

Having a monitor controller in place means that the arrival controllers don't have to provide lateral space between aircraft on either approach. The monitor watches to make sure arrivals don't transgress between the approaches and has the ability to override us in the tower if an arrival is screwing up his approach too bad.

Those numbers I believe are what sets the flow rate, which is what the TMU and the TCU could use to determine the amount of aircraft to some in. Usually YYZ has a higher flow rate than that. The other part of that page you are chopping off would show restrictions such as closures and flight checks that may impact the operation. So YYZ's rate is low there and the others are at their normal high rate. YUL's rate is a bit low compared to normal. But again, this isn't what the capacity of the airport is, it's the amount of arrivals that the current mode is set at and the flow is dictated from that. Say a spike or arrivals were to come to YYC, we may change the mode to increase the mode, but that may just be for a short stretch as well.

The different rates you see there shows that all the airports are quite a bit different because of layout, traditional flows, weather, taxiway infrastructure etc. We are all special in our own way.

That makes sense, thanks. Sounds like on Saturday at the opening the first set of arrivals, they were parallel and contacted the monitor but after everyone went right from 125.9 over to the respective tower.

[Johnny Aussie]

I don't want to be labelled the grim reaper so somebody else should post about the further BA 787 delay. :-/

[Bokimon]

Just admit it, the Speedbird Dreamliners are merely just an extended wet dream..
It will be winter or 2015 when they make the swap or when AC 787's start being used in YYC..

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Nick

I guess in theory we would need a monitor in place to run 6 NM in trail for both runways. We would call that GIT 6 here, for Ghost in Trail, but I don't think other airports call it that as they didn't have CRDA spooking up the radar with ghosts.

In VFR weather conditions, it's quite simple for a single person to run 6 miles to both runways (~48 arrivals/hr). What can make it more difficult is variable ceiling/vis and weather conditions, a wide range of aircraft types (for instance a Navajo on one side and a DC-10 on the other) and sheer number of transmissions (freq congestion). You need to be accurate with your headings to final but as long as your #2 in every pairing is kept a little quicker, then you can close it up from 3 to approx 2 miles stagger fairly consistently. Obviously, with a monitor in place, you can start to run them side-by-side independently in any kind of weather. With the use of visuals, you can also do that "dependently". 9 times out of 10, if you see traffic side-by-side, it's that one or both are on a visual approach. It's beautiful, all rules go out the window.

With regards to those posted rates, as Nick mentioned, it's a multitude of factors. In YUL's case, I can only surmise that it has to do with staffing numbers, but frankly their 'peak' hour rarely reaches 40 arrivals so a 36 isn't going to hurt anyone. YYZ usually posts 60 arr rate using their triple parallels (unrestricted visuals to one of them, and departure spacing to the others). YVR has a very steady number of arrivals throughout the day but never does it have huge peaks and troughs, unlike YYC. YYC can be considered quiet for 6-7 hours a day but from mid-afternoon on (weekdays), it can get pretty busy. With our new increased runway capacity, it remains to be seen what effect it will have on airline scheduling. I think the traffic pattern will only get 'peakier'; gung-ho some hours and deadsville other hours.

I think 44 is a reasonable arrival rate to post because even though 48 is the theoretical maximum number should everyone be spaced 6 miles to each runway, that's only reached if you actually have a plane for each runway, perfectly separated all hour long. Nice, in theory, never gonna happen in reality. The 44 rate is a compromise, the right amount of lifting your foot off the gas a little. Traffic isn't always balanced to each runway, either, so some airborne crossing over will be necessary to keep traffic from turning final over Pincher Creek. Some of you spotters may come to hate it when we do that, expecting so-and-so on the east runway and instead is directed to the west. Sorry.

[YYCguys]

I was cabin crew for WS 112 from YYC to YMM yesterday, and it was my first time taking off on the new runway. Unfortunately, as I was working, I was unable to view the takeoff out the window, but asked guests to help out the aviation geek and take a video. I don't think anyone did, unfortunately.

[yyc_engineer]

Had a great time spotting this Saturday! Thought it was cool that both the first arrival & departure were both pseudo-symbolic flights (longest domestic and longest international). But even better was seeing dual departures over the city this weekend and driving in to planes taking off over top of Airport Trail this morning.

Parallel Runway Ops + future International Terminal Expansion = YYC in the big leagues.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

With regards to those posted rates, as Nick mentioned, it's a multitude of factors. In YUL's case, I can only surmise that it has to do with staffing numbers, but frankly their 'peak' hour rarely reaches 40 arrivals so a 36 isn't going to hurt anyone.

YUL ground ops is a mess bordering on epic fail. To fix the mess the transborder preclearance terminal should be moved to the east side (swapped with domestic terminal). Under this scenario almost all US flights would use the east runway where as west runway would be used for domestic and international traffic with a few departures on east runway.

The big problem for YUL is the domestic satellite terminal. The alleyway is unidirectional and the far side of the satellite interferes with cross wind runway. There is insufficient space between the terminal and the cross wind runway to allow for adequate taxiway system.

Another problem for YUL is the short distance between domestic terminal and runway 24R. The distance only allows for queue of about 2-3 aircraft without impacting the movement of arriving aircraft.

For the above reasons the arrival rate to YUL is adjusted downward. There have been various proposals since the early 80s to fix the situation. One proposal was a midfield terminal about where the present day central deice facility is located. However this would require a large investment in LRT/train/people mover to get pax out to the midfield.

My turn for a question to the ATC folks, will VFR side step procedures be allowed? IF so how far back will the side step have to be performed?

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Cage

YUL ground ops is a mess bordering on epic fail. To fix the mess the transborder preclearance terminal should be moved to the east side (swapped with domestic terminal). Under this scenario almost all US flights would use the east runway where as west runway would be used for domestic and international traffic with a few departures on east runway.

The big problem for YUL is the domestic satellite terminal. The alleyway is unidirectional and the far side of the satellite interferes with cross wind runway. There is insufficient space between the terminal and the cross wind runway to allow for adequate taxiway system.

Another problem for YUL is the short distance between domestic terminal and runway 24R. The distance only allows for queue of about 2-3 aircraft without impacting the movement of arriving aircraft.

For the above reasons the arrival rate to YUL is adjusted downward. There have been various proposals since the early 80s to fix the situation. One proposal was a midfield terminal about where the present day central deice facility is located. However this would require a large investment in LRT/train/people mover to get pax out to the midfield.

My turn for a question to the ATC folks, will VFR side step procedures be allowed? IF so how far back will the side step have to be performed?

Re: YUL, all you mention is nothing new. Rwy 28 is exclusively used for props and the odd narrowbody for departures, thus alleviating the need for departure room on 24R/L, in turn enabling tightened up spacing on approach. 36 arrival rate is far below the normal arrival acceptance rate. It was likely due to taxiway or runway closures, in lieu of staffing issues. In my years there, never was it so low unless there was a NOTAM affecting airfield capacity.

As for side-stepping, I've no concrete answer to your question, but I will say that I don't see why it won't be allowed after sometime. I have heard that this has led to the occasional OI or missed approach and then that reflects poorly on the airport when an AOR is filed as a result of it. I'm sure Transport prefers it not be done, again interested in everything but efficiency. I would imagine it needs to be conducted prior to or just as the a/c is crossing the FAF in order to have a semi-stabilized approach. I can't see that being popular for transport jets but I could see it useful with DH8's and King Airs and so forth.

[Nick]

From a tower perspective, we can do it unrestricted once the aircraft is our control. Towers take control of arrivals in order to use visual spacing and minimum runway spacing to expedite traffic. In IMC, we can't do this so that's why traffic is often reduced at that time.

However, with the stagger and when we actually first talk to and get control of the aircraft means that it's a pretty extreme manoeuvre, and wouldn't be used unless it was a small prop plane. We practiced it in the sim, but I haven't seen it upstairs when I've been working yet.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Re: YUL, all you mention is nothing new.

Correct on nothing new. My old man worked scheduling dept for AC for two stints, one in the early 80s and again in late 90s.

I grew up being the why child (much to Dad's delight a trait taken up by my daughter). First conversations about YUL ground operations occurred when I was 8 years old, it was then I learned about the unidirectional alley and short taxi problems with 24R. The late 90s was a refresher plus more complex discussions about network scheduling. The ground operations difficulties and the lower arrival rate are primary reasons why YUL is considered a poor choice for banked hub operation. A large midfield terminal would have solved these problems. However much like with YYZ, AC has never been able to get airports onside with the midfield terminal concept.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Nick

However, with the stagger and when we actually first talk to and get control of the aircraft means that it's a pretty extreme manoeuvre, and wouldn't be used unless it was a small prop plane. We practised it in the sim, but I haven't seen it upstairs when I've been working yet.

The staggered threshold was one aspect that escaped me when I posed the side step question.

I can see Encore operations from east becoming an early and frequent request for side step. Followed closely by WS. I also suspect the WS cowboys will make a few attempts at side step before the Chief Pilot sends out a warning email advising caution with side step at YYC. I have seen this before during the early days of the RNP program. One such example was attempting to overfly the AC 320 arrival into YHZ and then toss out the anchor to make the piano keys. Needless to say the 737 could not slow enough and declared a missed approach. Made for a good CADORS read, but the AC 320 pilots were not amused at the front row seat to over aggressive flying.

My guess is that AC will almost never go for the side step. Actually I don't think AC even does side step @YYZ with 24R/L. But there not much to be gained at YYZ. At YYC, there is a lot shorter taxi time for WS Encore, which is the primary reason why I think Encore will be an early requestor.

To bad its shuttered but the spotter lounge at FRA T2 (lounge was on the roof) was the best place to watch side step inaction./ The day I was at FRA for spotting (must have been the 1998 trip) I must have seen half dozen side step arrivals, including one 343 on very short final.

[Nick]

Westjet aircraft have so much programmed that they probably wouldn't sidestep. Judging by who used to circle for 26 at the last minute while landing 29, it would be folks like Suncor, Syncrude, CMA, and other corporate aircraft. I wouldn't expect Enerjet to do it because they are flying the newer 737's which are programmed as much as Westjet's are. Out of any big ones I'd expect KLM A332 to do it because they take 29 departures and 35L from C3. So it sounds like they aren't overly restricted on what they can do

Thanks for the info guys, appreciate it as always... with AC crews and presumably WestJet as well I'll add that reprogramming may not necessarily be the difficult part of it, but if you've briefed for one approach a late switch might not be desirable as briefing for the new approach takes time, at a critical stage in flight. Not saying they can't do it, but it's not ideal. Worked on a lot of FMC's at school, and if I can dial in an approach with ease, I'm sure they can.

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

Parallel Runway Ops + future International Terminal Expansion = YYC in the big leagues.

The parallels alone make it feel big city. I was coming westbound downhill on CHB toward the airport on Sunday morning, with a WestJet 737 climbing off each runway with their slight banks away from each other... and the skyline/mountains in the background... so so awesome.

Originally Posted by cyeg66

In my years there, never was it so low unless there was a NOTAM affecting airfield capacity.

It's still 36 now... but alas: "RWY 10/28 CLSD AVBL AS TWY FM THR 10 TO TWY E"

YYC still showing as 44 in south flow 17L/R arrive/depart, and YYZ still at 56 with arrive 23/24L/24R and depart 23/24R. They must be having to do that 24L staggered arrival thing with 24R departures.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Cage

The staggered threshold was one aspect that escaped me when I posed the side step question.

To bad its shuttered but the spotter lounge at FRA T2 (lounge was on the roof) was the best place to watch side step inaction./ The day I was at FRA for spotting (must have been the 1998 trip) I must have seen half dozen side step arrivals, including one 343 on very short final.

Side-stepping at either YUL, YYZ, or YVR is one thing, where the thresholds are much lined up with each other. YYC, not the case. Switching to 35R from 35L would be much simpler and safer than the other way around. Swing the boat around, and I'm sure the most popular request will be to switch from 17L to 17R.

As for FRA, the runways are almost close enough to be considered one really wide runway. Switching would be hardly painstaking. Again, like I said earlier, no transport category (E190 and larger) a/c will really be interested in doing it regularly at YYC. Dash's and 1900's, alllllll day long.

[Bigtime]

So what's with traffic coming from the SW coming traveling across the city to the NE before looping around to land 17L?

Lots of that traffic came right over me at home.

Keep it up!

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So what's with traffic coming from the SW coming traveling across the city to the NE before looping around to land 17L?

Lots of that traffic came right over me at home.

Keep it up!

Bad vectors?
Honestly, I wouldn't know. I'm off work for 2 weeks. Must be balancing traffic to both runways... That, or perhaps pilots are asking to land on fresh pavement for the hell of it...

[YYCguys]

I have friends who live in the expensive acreage area called Yankee Valley Estates east of Airdrie and are now experiencing what I've experienced living in Central Airdrie for the past 9 years, having the flight path right over them for final approach! Haha!