NAV CANADA is currently conducting an aeronautical study to review the airspace requirements in the vicinity of the Abbotsford International Airport. The flight path for the current restricted RNAV (RNP) RWY 25 IP, the only procedure providing IFR access to Runway 25 results in pilots of aircraft flying this approach descending from Class C into Class E airspace before entering the Abbotsford CZ where conflicts between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft occur; 16 TCAS resolution advisories having been reported since 2017. This procedure is only available for use by pilots of Boeing 737-NG aircraft operated by WestJet. The pilots of other IFR aircraft executing an IFR approach to Abbotsford Airport must either cancel IFR if they are able and continue VFR to Runway 25 or circle to the south following the STAR to intercept the FACF MISAR adding at least 20 NM to the flight compared to if an approach was available for Runway 25. The presence of CYA 187 precludes the design and publication of IFR procedures serving Runway 25 that would provide IFR access to runway 25 to most aircraft operating IFR and result in a reduction of track miles flown by pilots of aircraft other than those flying WestJet Boeing 737-NG aircraft. Publishing IFR procedures for Runway 25 will also reduce the number of occasions in which pilots have to land on Runway 07 with a tail-wind. NAV CANADA therefore proposes to eliminate CYA 187 and revise the airspace east and northeast of the Abbotsford Airport as follows (the proposed changes are depicted on the VTA segment):
adjust southern boundary CYA186 to between 0.5 and 1.5 NM north of the current southern boundary,
lower base of Class C over Fraser R. from 6500 feet to 5500 feet,
eliminate CYA 187,
lower base of Class C south of Fraser R. (including area included in northern portion of former CYA 187) from 5500 feet to 4000 feet (above 1500 feet AGL would remain Class E (no contact)
lower base of Class C in SE portion of former CYA 187 to ABV 3500 feet (above 1500 feet ASL would become Class E (no contact),
and in SW portion of former CYA 187 to ABV 2500 feet (above 1500 feet ASL would become Class E (no contact), and
extend boundary of YXX CZ east 2.5 NM.
Subsequent to the publishing of the proposed airspace changes NAV CANADA would publish IFR procedures to provide IFR access to Runway 25 that would be available to pilots of aircraft that were suitable equipped and the current restricted RNAV (RNP) RWY 25 procedure would be revoked.
What impact would these proposed changes have on FlyBC Paragliding?
All questions or comments regarding the proposed airspace changes should be sent to: studies.etudes@navcanada.ca
end of an era? Airspace grab!
-
flybc
- Former Director
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:00 am
- Location: Eagle Ranch, Harrison Mills BC
- Contact:
end of an era? Airspace grab!
Jim Reich
Professional Paragliding Instructor
www.flybc.org
www.flybc.org/used.htm Demo Gear
www.flybc.org/training.htm Training Facilities
www.flybc.org/siteoftheday.htm Whazzup in the Valley
Professional Paragliding Instructor
www.flybc.org
www.flybc.org/used.htm Demo Gear
www.flybc.org/training.htm Training Facilities
www.flybc.org/siteoftheday.htm Whazzup in the Valley
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
Do you have a link to the actual publication?
Looks like someone didn't like the recommendations of the airspace review last year and is starting from scratch again.
Looks like someone didn't like the recommendations of the airspace review last year and is starting from scratch again.
-
flybc
- Former Director
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:00 am
- Location: Eagle Ranch, Harrison Mills BC
- Contact:
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
We need to start an immediate letter writing campaign.
No effing way we should give up our CYAs.
No effing way we should give up our CYAs.
Jim Reich
Professional Paragliding Instructor
www.flybc.org
www.flybc.org/used.htm Demo Gear
www.flybc.org/training.htm Training Facilities
www.flybc.org/siteoftheday.htm Whazzup in the Valley
Professional Paragliding Instructor
www.flybc.org
www.flybc.org/used.htm Demo Gear
www.flybc.org/training.htm Training Facilities
www.flybc.org/siteoftheday.htm Whazzup in the Valley
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
If the ceiling is lowered to 4000 ft in the middle of the valley it will put an end to Fraser Valley crossings west of the Agassiz bridge.
And unnecessary because IFR planes approaching Abbotsford will never be that low in that area.
And unnecessary because IFR planes approaching Abbotsford will never be that low in that area.
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
The problem of loosing a strip on the south side of Woodside CYA186 is that the proposal includes lowering the C ceiling from 6500 to 5500 over the 'Fraser River' which apparently will include the annexed parts of CYA186. There is a low resolution image in the proposal and it looks like this includes Harrison Knoll and possibly even Woodside Launch (or at least the South Knoll).
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
All questions or comments regarding the proposed airspace changes should be sent to: studies.etudes@navcanada.ca
If all the calls to never giving up a single flying site (at one of the more recent WCSC meetings) translate into action NAV Canada should soon be swamped with emails/letters!
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
Does anyone have a link to the proposal?
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
The proposal was selectively sent in the form of an Email to participants and user groups on a list. I'm not sure there is a online proposal outline that is considered "public". It would be inappropriate for myself to post the content. On the other hand, a director that is "on the list" may be ok to post its content? (BTW... this is very typical of the Transport Canada and NAV Canada process, "consult... then do what ever they want")
As a past director/executive I was provided content, I reviewed the proposed changes and did post a response to both the NAV representative and the study committee.
As a independent former executive, This is my response:
**************************************************************************************
Mr. Stockall,
It was recently brought to may attention Nav Canada intends to implement changes to airspace in the Fraser Valley.
I am currently a member of the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada. I am a founding member involved with several previous airspace reviews. I was directly involved with establishment of the original CYA protecting our hang gliding and paragliding activity in the Fraser Valley.
I have two very serious concerns regarding the proposed changes.
First, the safety of our members will be compromised by the suggestion that the southern boundary of CYA 186 is to be moved North.
Regardless of the distance involved, hopefully, NAV understands we are not able to move the mountain that our site operations are based from?
It is apparent, the proposal is oblivious to the fact both launch, landing areas and the bulk of normal day to day flight operations would fall outside the proposed CYA.
The whole purpose of a CYA is to increase awareness of what potential activity may be found within its boundaries. This proposal represents a serious safety risk to both our members and other users of the airspace south of the new proposed boundaries.
The CYA must include both launch and landing zones and must include normal flight operations defined by the topography of Mount Woodside (flying site).
In fact, the site currently requires that the present Southern boundary to be adjusted further to the south to insure some separation from the primary landing zone and the neighbouring airspace. A properly aligned CYA will be a safety benefit to all of the airspace users in the area.
The southern boundary of CYA 186 needs to resemble the following image (with the Red Stars representing the Primary Launch and Landing areas):
It should be made quite clear, the Mount Woodside flying site is one of the most active sites in all of Canada. On any typical “good” day of soaring, dozens of gliders will be in the air from surface to 6000asl, many on cross country flights within the entire CYA and or surrounding class E.
The second issue of concern is our members cross country route from the areas CYA 105H at Bridal Falls back to CYA 186. The lowering of C class airspace from 5500asl to 4000asl will eliminate the ability for pilots to return to their starting point within CYA 186. Loosing 1500ft of vertical will make this task impossible and a loss to the membership. (As a reminder, Hang Gliders and Paragliders do not have a power source and rely on their ability to find and utilize lift for cross country flight… in our form of aviation, altitude = fuel).
The following image shows the western boundary of a typical return flight from Elk Mountain to Mount Woodside LZ (In Blue). Further the image introduces in Red, the proposal to amend the extension by either “stepping” the extension (floor of 5500 asl as per the current airspace) and or simply truncating the extension (remove section in red), retain the current 5500 Class C that is presently in place:
Of lesser concern is the proposed changes to CYA 187. The historical sites of Sumas and Vedder are seldom used but with out question, the proposed changes would eliminate any possible future use. Given the demands of modern ATC, I fully understand how it would not be possible to accommodate these flying sites. Of bigger concern (regarding the loss of 187), the ramifications of loosing this practice area to local flight schools as they will now need to venture further afield for flight training (and no doubt increased use of our shared use CYA’s).
Well I understand the dilemma West Jet and other potential users may experience with not having a direct 25 for YXX (having been included in past West Jet user group meetings and have the pleasure of living directly under the current approach pattern), I find it hard to believe that these airspace users would not be able to adjust to a corrected CYA 186 southern boundary and a truncated or stepped Class C eastern extension (to accommodate direct 25 YXX approach).
Sincerely,
Martin Henry
(Past President of the HPAC/ACVL)
Abbotsford B.C.
As a past director/executive I was provided content, I reviewed the proposed changes and did post a response to both the NAV representative and the study committee.
As a independent former executive, This is my response:
**************************************************************************************
Mr. Stockall,
It was recently brought to may attention Nav Canada intends to implement changes to airspace in the Fraser Valley.
I am currently a member of the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada. I am a founding member involved with several previous airspace reviews. I was directly involved with establishment of the original CYA protecting our hang gliding and paragliding activity in the Fraser Valley.
I have two very serious concerns regarding the proposed changes.
First, the safety of our members will be compromised by the suggestion that the southern boundary of CYA 186 is to be moved North.
Regardless of the distance involved, hopefully, NAV understands we are not able to move the mountain that our site operations are based from?
It is apparent, the proposal is oblivious to the fact both launch, landing areas and the bulk of normal day to day flight operations would fall outside the proposed CYA.
The whole purpose of a CYA is to increase awareness of what potential activity may be found within its boundaries. This proposal represents a serious safety risk to both our members and other users of the airspace south of the new proposed boundaries.
The CYA must include both launch and landing zones and must include normal flight operations defined by the topography of Mount Woodside (flying site).
In fact, the site currently requires that the present Southern boundary to be adjusted further to the south to insure some separation from the primary landing zone and the neighbouring airspace. A properly aligned CYA will be a safety benefit to all of the airspace users in the area.
The southern boundary of CYA 186 needs to resemble the following image (with the Red Stars representing the Primary Launch and Landing areas):
- CYA 186 South MinReq.png (162.65 KiB) Viewed 854 times
It should be made quite clear, the Mount Woodside flying site is one of the most active sites in all of Canada. On any typical “good” day of soaring, dozens of gliders will be in the air from surface to 6000asl, many on cross country flights within the entire CYA and or surrounding class E.
The second issue of concern is our members cross country route from the areas CYA 105H at Bridal Falls back to CYA 186. The lowering of C class airspace from 5500asl to 4000asl will eliminate the ability for pilots to return to their starting point within CYA 186. Loosing 1500ft of vertical will make this task impossible and a loss to the membership. (As a reminder, Hang Gliders and Paragliders do not have a power source and rely on their ability to find and utilize lift for cross country flight… in our form of aviation, altitude = fuel).
The following image shows the western boundary of a typical return flight from Elk Mountain to Mount Woodside LZ (In Blue). Further the image introduces in Red, the proposal to amend the extension by either “stepping” the extension (floor of 5500 asl as per the current airspace) and or simply truncating the extension (remove section in red), retain the current 5500 Class C that is presently in place:
- return corridor.png (139.14 KiB) Viewed 854 times
Of lesser concern is the proposed changes to CYA 187. The historical sites of Sumas and Vedder are seldom used but with out question, the proposed changes would eliminate any possible future use. Given the demands of modern ATC, I fully understand how it would not be possible to accommodate these flying sites. Of bigger concern (regarding the loss of 187), the ramifications of loosing this practice area to local flight schools as they will now need to venture further afield for flight training (and no doubt increased use of our shared use CYA’s).
Well I understand the dilemma West Jet and other potential users may experience with not having a direct 25 for YXX (having been included in past West Jet user group meetings and have the pleasure of living directly under the current approach pattern), I find it hard to believe that these airspace users would not be able to adjust to a corrected CYA 186 southern boundary and a truncated or stepped Class C eastern extension (to accommodate direct 25 YXX approach).
Sincerely,
Martin Henry
(Past President of the HPAC/ACVL)
Abbotsford B.C.
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
FYI, MR. Stockall acknowledged the letter and informs me it is being considered by the study group.
Martin
Martin
-
Jim DeLaHunt
- Former Director
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:10 am
- Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
I do not have a link to the NavCanada text of the proposal, but here is a summary by COPA (Canadian powered aircraft Owners and Pilots Association):
https://copanational.org/advocacy-updat ... 8333667G9R
Included in that page is a marked-up VTA to show the proposed changes. Consider marking up that illustration further, to show the free flight areas you are mentioning, and including that in your response. I had a hard time grasping the changes until I looked at the map, figured out where Woodside launch and Riverside LZ were relative to the changes, etc.
COPA says, "Anyone wishing to provide comments to be included in COPA’s response to this proposal, please send them to avops@copanational.org by July 31st." So, if you are a COPA member as well, consider adding your voice to COPA as well as replying directly to NavCanada.
https://copanational.org/advocacy-updat ... 8333667G9R
Included in that page is a marked-up VTA to show the proposed changes. Consider marking up that illustration further, to show the free flight areas you are mentioning, and including that in your response. I had a hard time grasping the changes until I looked at the map, figured out where Woodside launch and Riverside LZ were relative to the changes, etc.
COPA says, "Anyone wishing to provide comments to be included in COPA’s response to this proposal, please send them to avops@copanational.org by July 31st." So, if you are a COPA member as well, consider adding your voice to COPA as well as replying directly to NavCanada.
— Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, B.C. Novice paraglider pilot.
Re: end of an era? Airspace grab!
Huge thanks to Peter Spear for the input he's officially prepared on behalf of the free flight community. Also, for Martin, Jim, Claudia, Nicole, Margit, et al for rattling sabers.
After consulting with most of the people above, the club is recommending that feedback is kept to official channels. But (this is a big 'but'), it's every free flyer's prerogative to voice their displeasure with the proposed changes as and how they see fit. There's a lot at stake here. As proposed, we stand to lose Fraser Valley flying as we know it.
For a general overview of VAMP, here's the website: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/air-traffic ... ation.aspx
After consulting with most of the people above, the club is recommending that feedback is kept to official channels. But (this is a big 'but'), it's every free flyer's prerogative to voice their displeasure with the proposed changes as and how they see fit. There's a lot at stake here. As proposed, we stand to lose Fraser Valley flying as we know it.
For a general overview of VAMP, here's the website: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/air-traffic ... ation.aspx
James Elliott