Why does Toronto need a 65nm mode-c veil?

[Paul Tomblin]

According to "Fly With Blake",
http://fly.blakecrosby.com/2007/03/toronto_airspace_changes_expla.html
the YYZ "Class C Mode C" airspace stretches out to 26nm, and now they are
going to make the ring from 26nm out to 65nm from 6,500MSL to 12,500MSL
"Class E Mode C", meaning you don't need a clearance, but you need to be
squawking mode C. Does this seem slightly ridiculous to you? I can get
to within 30nm of airports like JFK and LAX without a Mode C, and I bet
they handle more traffic on a slow Sunday than YYZ handles all week.
Where is the need for this air space grab?

Do Canadian pilots get as upset about needless airspace grabs as American
ones? Or are they resigned to this being the best that they can get?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
We are not gentle tolerant people. We like drastically effective solutions.
-- Steve VanDevender

[cavedweller]

On Mar 11, 3:40 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> According to "Fly With Blake",http://fly.blakecrosby.com/2007/03/toronto_airspace_changes_expla.html
> the YYZ "Class C Mode C" airspace stretches out to 26nm, and now they are
> going to make the ring from 26nm out to 65nm from 6,500MSL to 12,500MSL
> "Class E Mode C", meaning you don't need a clearance, but you need to be
> squawking mode C. Does this seem slightly ridiculous to you? I can get
> to within 30nm of airports like JFK and LAX without a Mode C, and I bet
> they handle more traffic on a slow Sunday than YYZ handles all week.
> Where is the need for this air space grab?
> Do Canadian pilots get as upset about needless airspace grabs as American
> ones? Or are they resigned to this being the best that they can get?

According to the full text, COPA has been involved with this one.

I only get upset when Canadian airspace is restricted south and east
of Detroit when Air Force One lands at DTW and the Selfridge F-16s are
blasting around "south" of the border.

;)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

(Paul Tomblin) writes:

> According to "Fly With Blake",
> http://fly.blakecrosby.com/2007/03/toronto_airspace_changes_expla.html
> the YYZ "Class C Mode C" airspace stretches out to 26nm, and now they are
> going to make the ring from 26nm out to 65nm from 6,500MSL to 12,500MSL
> "Class E Mode C", meaning you don't need a clearance, but you need to be
> squawking mode C. [...]
> Where is the need for this air space grab?

One may give the benefit of doubt to ATC and accept that it would
probably help keep airplanes separated. The effect is probably to
permit controllers to vector jets while mostly ignoring primary-only
radar returns, permitting ATC presume that the latter are below the
new ring.

In this day and age, how much trouble do you believe it is to get a
working mode-C transponder in the plane if one wants to cruise 6500 ft
up -- i.e., how many people would be inconvenienced by this "grab"?
(Note that gliders at a nearby field are excepted.)

- FChE

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Frank Ch. Eigler) said:
(Paul Tomblin) writes:
>> According to "Fly With Blake",
>> http://fly.blakecrosby.com/2007/03/toronto_airspace_changes_expla.html
>> the YYZ "Class C Mode C" airspace stretches out to 26nm, and now they are
>> going to make the ring from 26nm out to 65nm from 6,500MSL to 12,500MSL
>> "Class E Mode C", meaning you don't need a clearance, but you need to be
>> squawking mode C. [...]
>> Where is the need for this air space grab?
>
>One may give the benefit of doubt to ATC and accept that it would
>probably help keep airplanes separated. The effect is probably to
>permit controllers to vector jets while mostly ignoring primary-only
>radar returns, permitting ATC presume that the latter are below the
>new ring.

As COPA says, there is no need for a jet to be below 12,500 when it's 65nm
out unless it's crashing.

>In this day and age, how much trouble do you believe it is to get a
>working mode-C transponder in the plane if one wants to cruise 6500 ft
>up -- i.e., how many people would be inconvenienced by this "grab"?
>(Note that gliders at a nearby field are excepted.)

In this day and age, how much trouble would it be to keep jets up high
until they're close in? Every Class B in the US manages somehow. And
those controllers are inefficient government employees and union members,
not lean and mean private company employees like NavCanada.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"You are all but subwidgets in a composite container whose logical tab
group I have registered the traversal order of. I can merely point at you
and your popup dialogue will be unmapped unless XmNautoUnmanage is False."

[Ash Wyllie]

Paul Tomblin opined

>According to "Fly With Blake",
>http://fly.blakecrosby.com/2007/03/toronto_airspace_changes_expla.html
>the YYZ "Class C Mode C" airspace stretches out to 26nm, and now they are
>going to make the ring from 26nm out to 65nm from 6,500MSL to 12,500MSL
>"Class E Mode C", meaning you don't need a clearance, but you need to be
>squawking mode C. Does this seem slightly ridiculous to you? I can get
>to within 30nm of airports like JFK and LAX without a Mode C, and I bet
>they handle more traffic on a slow Sunday than YYZ handles all week.
>Where is the need for this air space grab?

>Do Canadian pilots get as upset about needless airspace grabs as American
>ones? Or are they resigned to this being the best that they can get?

Without mode C, how will they know if someone is in the "Class E Mode C" or just
cruising along at 5,500'? Did the FAAsneak across the border?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[cavedweller]

On Mar 12, 7:54 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>
> As COPA says, there is no need for a jet to be below 12,500 when it's 65nm
> out unless it's crashing.
>
errr..believe they said 7000 (6500 + 500).

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:


> In this day and age, how much trouble would it be to keep jets up high
> until they're close in? Every Class B in the US manages somehow.


And class C and D also.




And
> those controllers are inefficient government employees and union members,
> not lean and mean private company employees like NavCanada.
>

We're not all union members. Probably only about 65% of the controllers
are in the union