Tc May Extend Runway At Yz Island... Plus Others?

[Kip Powick]

The Toronto Port Authority is warning that Transport Canada might order a 50-metre extension at each end of the island airport’s runway for safety reasons, regardless of the Porter Airline proposal.

“We expect that as early as 36 months from now, Transport Canada will require every major commercial airport, including Billy Bishop, to install an extended (runway end safety area),” said port authority chairman Mark McQueen at a luncheon speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade on Monday.

That could mean at least 50 metres of “land mass at each end of our current runway, all of which would need to be built into the water beside the airport,” he said, and that’s regardless of whether Porter Airlines gets its wish to fly larger Bombardier jets there.

To date, Transport Canada says it has not conducted a specific study on runway end safety areas at the island airport. But in July, it put out a request for proposals for an independent review of runway end safety areas at airports in Canada.

City of Toronto staffers, and hired consultants, are studying a proposal from Porter Airlines that asks for a runway extension and a lifting of the current ban on jets at the airport.

City council is expected to vote on a formal staff recommendation at December’s meeting.

When Porter Airlines CEO Robert Deluce announced plans in April to fly the new CS100 jet from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, he noted that the emergency safety runoff area might be coming, and included it in his initial 168-metre extension at each end.

In September, Deluce put forward a second proposal calling for a 200-metre extension at each end, though he said Porter didn’t favour one length over another.

Fiona Chapman, director of the city’s Waterfront Project division, which is overseeing the review, said city staffers hope to get necessary information and data in time to make a recommendation to city council.

“If we get an approval by the end of 2013, that will allow us enough time to put in the changes and improvements we need to receive those first aircraft scheduled for early 2016,” Deluce told reporters after McQueen’s speech.

Both Bombardier and Transport Canada have promised to deliver key noise data by month’s end, but Chapman said it is unclear whether it will be enough information.

“This is a very odd set of circumstances, where a tenant drives the process, and all of the unknowns remain, and you’re asking the city to weigh in,” said Chapman, who attended the luncheon.

“We find this very challenging that the port authority has not played their hand, if you like,” she said, though it is footing the bill for studies, which is edging close to $1 million.

McQueen reiterated on Monday that the port authority, which operates the airport, will take no position on Porter’s expansion plan until after city council rules, arguing elected officials should decide first.

“If they aren’t in favour of that change then we don’t need to have a position,” McQueen told reporters afterward, adding if council agrees to expansion then the port authority will look to see if there’s a business case with a “do no harm” goal.

Passengers would be on the hook for costs associated with airport’s expansion, and McQueen added Porter wouldn’t bear the expenses “for the same reason that trucking companies don’t pay for an off-ramp to their storage facilities up on the 401. The airport operator has to pay for capex (capital expenditure), same as the (pedestrian) tunnel,” which is being financed privately, he said.

During his speech, McQueen took a shot at airport opponents, saying dire warning of plummeting property waterfront values haven’t materialized, with values jumping 60 to 70 per cent in a decade.

“Ten years ago, before Porter was launching, a whole bunch of claims and doomsday scenarios were put out there, and they turned out not to be true,” he said.

NoJetsTo chair Anshul Kapoor said his citizens’ group opposes island airport expansion, and is worried it will have a detrimental effect on Toronto’s waterfront.

“They’re hiding behind a veil of not taking a position,” Kapoor said. “But they will take a stab at any opposition out there, whether it’s Community Air, whether it’s NoJetTo.

“If you’re taking stabs at opposition, you’re clearly taking a position, and your position is clearly aligned with Porter’s plans.”

[J.O.]

There's another option - displacement. Reduce the available runway length to accommodate the RESA requirements. If they were to use Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) technology, the amount of room required is quite small.

[Don Hudson]

Exactly JO - I was wondering about EMAS - an additional 50m is always positive but if the aircraft travels beyond that, it is once again at risk, whereas EMAS pretty well settles the matter...technically speaking of course. Nothing can settle the politics but power...

[Super 80]

This situation is about to get a whole lot uglier, Ottawa has tired of the City of Toronto's meddling.

[Guest ACSideStick]

I'm gonna run out and buy that gas station off the end of 05 in YYZ right away. I can't wait for the GTAA to be forced to buy it. I'll recoup my airport fees from over the years and then some.

[Seeker]

I'm gonna run out and buy that gas station off the end of 05 in YYZ right away. I can't wait for the GTAA to be forced to buy it. I'll recoup my airport fees from over the years and then some.

They won't buy that, they'll buy the field on the other end - cheaper.

[J.O.]

The GTAA already owns the land between the airport and Dixie Rd. I've also heard (but can't confirm) that the deal to take over the airport included control of any changes of ownership or use of the properties adjacent to the other runways.

[inchman]

I think you'll find that the GTAA owns a lot more land around the airport than you might imagine, including the CAE/AC sim building land. I would be surprised if they didn't already own the land that that gas station sits on.

[Guest ACSideStick]

Eeesh, it's a joke guys, I'm pretty sure they will lengthen the other end or shorten the runway to accommodate the changes before cul des saccing or rerouting Dixon. They might also simply require all pilots to land within the confines of the existing very long runway. Any airlines or pilots unable to do so because they lack the skills could simply be banned.

It's always been quite universally accepted that you must land on the runway, and remain on the runway. There seems to be some Mavericks who wish to challenge this assumption and who think landing long or short is ok, and it's the runways fault when they can't land wherever they want to.

Perhaps they could erect a series of billboards in series near the new arresting area so the pilot had something to do as he crashes and to help clear his mind for the upcoming story formation of how this is not his fault. You could read them in this order maybe starting 1000 feet from the end and spaced every 200 feet

HEY NUMNUTS

HOPED YOU ENJOYED MILKING THAT LANDING

THE LANDING AREA IS 7000 FEET BEHIND YOU

NEXT TIME REMEMBER, YOU HAVE REVERSE YOU COULD HAVE USED, BUT FORGOT

WHOA BIG FELLA

KISS YOUR BUTT GOODBYE!

RELAX, AND GO TOWARDS THE LIGHT

[J.O.]

Two thoughts:

1. I highly doubt that anyone who ended up running off the far end ever intended for it to happen. Instead of posting signs to deride their inferior intellect, maybe we could spend a little time thinking about why it all made sense to them at the time?
2. For the crew who did everything by the book but were handed an airplane that was actually 10 tonnes over gross when they rejected and ended up in Etobicoke Creek, what would your series of signs say?

[MD2]

Pilots often lament about their deteriorating work conditions and compensation, yet some seem so eager to deride their colleagues and diminish their efforts. This is certainly not the case among other professionals. Is it any wonder then the eroding conditions?!

[Guest ACSideStick]

Man, this can be a tough crowd.

[Don Hudson]

ACSideStick;

They might also simply require all pilots to land within the confines of the existing very long runway. Any airlines or pilots unable to do so because they lack the skills could simply be banned.
It's always been quite universally accepted that you must land on the runway, and remain on the runway. There seems to be some Mavericks who wish to challenge this assumption and who think landing long or short is ok, and it's the runways fault when they can't land wherever they want to.

and,

Man, this can be a tough crowd.

Well, three comments aren't a crowd, and J.O.'s comments (the only one addressing your points), aren't 'tough' at all but precisely reflect current thinking regarding aircraft accident prevention. What I did take away from your comments was, there should be rules requiring pilots to land within the confines of a very long runway, that pilots who overrun runways should be banned from the cockpit and that staying on the runway is a long-accepted principle of aviation.

First, (and I think you must know this given the abundant evidence), rules can't prevent human error, they can only describe it, and principles requiring that one "stay on the runway" is like mandating breathing - it's absolutely true but trivially so because in spite of the rule, "Do not crash this airplane", it occurs. J.O.'s responses were about finding out why this happens so it can be prevented or at least reduced.

This link on runway excursions might be of service - http://www.nlr-atsi.nl/services/runway-safety/runway-excursions/

Edited to add a PS - In general, regarding approaches and landings:- Long, fast landings and no go-arounds where there should have been one (according to stabilized approach criteria) is an almost universal phenomenon among air carriers, (except those which have had a serious or fatal runway excursion and actually know the results of having to deal with an accident - QANTAS' B747 BKK non-fatal overrun comes to mind - they got on this with a vengeance and fixed the problem after the AAIB told them the overrun was "in their data" and they did nothing about it).

If anyone here has any ideas on how to get crews to land in the TDZ and not 3000ft+ down the runway even if it is 12000ft long, and how to increase the ratio of go-arounds to seriously non-stabilized approaches, let's hear them because I don't have the answers.