^his lips were moving. Res ipsa loquitur, or perhaps Res Ipsa prevaricum...

But seriously, I don't really have a problem with Deluce lying. I expect it and as a shareholder I might be in favour as long as he met his legal obligations.

The problem is not Deluce's dishonesty, but rather the TPA's.
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
You mean the landfill used to extend the runway to the required safety limits?
Click to expand...

There is no such requirement (yet).

TPA claimed that lake fill was required in order to keep the marine vessels out of the Marine Exclusion Zone. They also claimed:

There is no plan to extend the runway at BBTCA. The TPA has operated the BBTCA based upon the terms of the 1983 Tripartite Agreement for the past 30 years, and will continue to do so.
 
picard102 said:
And you doubt Transport Canada is going to update standards to meet international guidelines?



And you have proof they were working with Porter planning to extend the runway then?
Click to expand...

Clearly you have joined the Borg then.

The TSB made a recommendation for RESAs to be mandatory back in 2005. Transport Canada referred the recommendation to CARAC, but only for Code 4 runways. YTZ barely even has a Code 3 runway.

Even if the regulation passed, even if the regulation were later extended to Code 3 runways, even if we waited the 20+ years before that would happen, EVEN THEN ... it is very easy to imagine that YTZ's existing runway would be exempted from the regulation as it is only 3 m longer than the maximum length of a Code 2 runway. The TSB's original recommendation even contemplates that existing Code 4 runways would be exempted if geographic circumstances do not permit extension.

As red herrings go, this is a real whopper, Captain.
 
k10ery said:
The TSB made a recommendation for RESAs to be mandatory back in 2005. Transport Canada referred the recommendation to CARAC, but only for Code 4 runways. YTZ barely even has a Code 3 runway.
Click to expand...

And they'll never ever improve safety standards at code 3 or lower runways?


k10ery said:
The TSB's original recommendation even contemplates that existing Code 4 runways would be exempted if geographic circumstances do not permit extension.
Click to expand...

The runway extends into a lake. The geographic barrier is putting dirt at the end of the runway.
 
^So, if I have property next to a waterbody, you're saying I can dump fill into the waterbody and claim ownership of the land I create as long as I leave a puddle? That is the abstract basis of your claim, if I undertsand it correctly.
 
picard102 said:
When the find enough soil to fill the entier lake, then I'll consider the issue of them owning the lake.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg


Entier?
 

Attachments

  • facepalm.jpg
    facepalm.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 301
voxpopulicosmicum said:
^So, if I have property next to a waterbody, you're saying I can dump fill into the waterbody and claim ownership of the land I create as long as I leave a puddle? That is the abstract basis of your claim, if I undertsand it correctly.
Click to expand...

Ironically isn't this the argument happening now in cottage country? As lake levels recede cottagers are losing access to the lake???
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Ironically isn't this the argument happening now in cottage country? As lake levels recede cottagers are losing access to the lake???
Click to expand...

Actually, the "receding waters" scenario is the opposite of the Island Airport scenario. Cottagers have a legal right to claim continued access under the legal doctrine of "riparian rights", but the same legal doctrine does not apply where the riparian owner "proactively displaces" the water and then claims it must be given ownership of the intervening land in order to have continued water access. That would be, essentially, tantamount to kidnapping yourself and then forcing a third party to pay you the ransom.

blazingsaddles.jpg
 

Attachments

  • blazingsaddles.jpg
    blazingsaddles.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 401
voxpopulicosmicum said:
Actually, the "receding waters" scenario is the opposite of the Island Airport scenario. Cottagers have a legal right to claim continued access under the legal doctrine of "riparian rights", but the same legal doctrine does not apply where the riparian owner "proactively displaces" the water and then claims it must be given ownership of the intervening land in order to have continued water access. That would be, essentially, tantamount to kidnapping yourself and then forcing a third party to pay you the ransom.

View attachment 13048
Click to expand...

Access to water isn't the same as ownership of that section of land. Property lines typically do not move when the water level drops or rises though they may be guaranteed the ability to pass over and use the newly exposed land to access the water.

The exposed land will normally be under federal ownership. There is also a good chance the lake already had a ring around it under federal ownership before the water level dropped which the adjacent property owners were allowed to use.
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
And they'll never ever improve safety standards at code 3 or lower runways?




The runway extends into a lake. The geographic barrier is putting dirt at the end of the runway.
Click to expand...

Jeez. The point is that Transport Canada has not even been THINKING about a regulation that would require extending the YTZ runway. Even if you think it will happen some day that day si realistically 20 years away. If that day comes then we can think about whether we want to extend our runway, or we can tell Porter to stop landing there.

There is no way you can turn this into an argument for landing jets at YTZ now.

And to pretend that Transport Canada is forcing this on us: you have to be a fool or a knave to be advancing that argument. I know which one Deluce is. How about it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top