[Jeff Alton]

Yes, it was a great exchange of info back then. We have widened our pool of info, so to speak. I have decided to not do all the talking about theoretical problems and fuel burns and power off descents etc around the board room table. Don't get me wrong, it is good to know where the customer stands and what their expectations are, but.......

It is entirely different to go sit in a cockpit (or simulator) and watch it all happen. It was great to have the simulator crew say "why can't we just do this" and we could explain the implications. And we could say "what if we drew the approach from over here?" and they could show us the deck angle and feet per minute and fuel burn...... It was fantastic, and I know the airline who we visited feels the same.

I am hoping to also bring student ATCs out to the simulators in the future (long term goal) and also bring pilots into the classroom to talk with our students.

I have only a few hours flying light singles and I always felt for the last 15 years, that we just did not have enough info. Now that I do airspace design (approach and departure) as well as approach control, I feel the need is even greater.

The sad part is this, when you get slammed dunked in your single aisle jet, the controller thinks he is doing you a favor. These guys try so hard to do the best they can, not realizing that sometimes it is not the best. There is a long long story as to why and how we got to that....

But, now that I am in a position where I have some control over the design of our airspace it is nice to be able to mix the needs of the customer in with the safety requirements of the system. We are trying to get more flexible so that when the complexity is low, the cutomer's needs move up the totem pole. Safety trumps everything, but I am trying to move towards an idea where if we can do something, we should.

Scott, if you ever fly up to CYVR, CYYJ or CYXX drop me note, I would love the feedback on how we treated you!

Cheers