Has it been stated (or questioned) yet how the noise frequency varies between the Q400 and the c-series jets? Decibels alone are an incomplete picture as I believe higher frequency sounds carry farther and could have more impact. I'm curious to know how the two planes differ in this regard.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I always think it's odd how we associate jets with noise,while giving props a reputation for relative silence. If you've ever heard a Piaggo P.180 take off (same props as a Q400, but in pusher format), or for that matter the cottage-bound float planes struggling into the air at full throttle, you'll think that it's not just jets that are noisy.

And forget about the airport. The nosiest thing in the sky over my backyard in Cabbagetown is that damn Ornge helicopter hovering over my house. Air ambulance is an essential service, but other medical services use much quieter aircraft, such as London’s (UK) Air Ambulance.

Here's some interesting info on air complaints from the Island airport from 2009 https://www.torontoport.com/Toronto...teAssets/Noise Management/09-2009-TCCA-NC.pdf
Click to expand...

There have been some little planes buzzing around the past few days -- way noisier than the Porter/AC planes
 
Don Peat ‏@reporterdonpeat 34m
"That's over the top" Cllr Gloria Lindsay Luby says Porter CEO called her home phone line at 4 am on Sunday RE: airport expansion #TOpoli
 
innsertnamehere said:
MEDEVAC flights don't need to comply to the regulations, they are allowed to fly jets whenever they want with whatever noise level engines they want.
Click to expand...
That needs to change, IMO. There are plenty of helicopters that are designed for relatively quiet ops.

For example, California and London's (UK) air ambulance service use the MD Explorer, which is designed without a tail rotor for quiet ops, and is thus much less noisy than Ornge's S-76 and AW139 aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_Helicopters_MD_Explorer
 
PinkLucy said:
Pretty sure these aren't MEDEVAC. They are buzzing around doing manoeuvres.
Click to expand...

Flight School? Anyway I believe the flight school is exempt from the noise ban.

*Edit*

Does anyone know if there were meetings for the two new runways built at Pearson in the late 90's early 2000's and how they went/were accepted by locals. New runways would add more traffic, altered flight paths, and noise to the neighbourhood.
 
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Does anyone know if there were meetings for the two new runways built at Pearson in the late 90's early 2000's and how they went/were accepted by locals. New runways would add more traffic, altered flight paths, and noise to the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...
They whined and complained, and lost. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2012/08/15/community-activism-not-enough-to-deviate-toronto-flight-paths/

If you live near an airport, there's going to be planes overhead. In a great example of egalitarianism, even the Queen has to put up with tons of flights right over Windsor Castle. Her descendants decided to build the castle right in the path of Heathrow's runway. Even the royals can't claim they were there first and thus deserve noise abatement.
 
Voltz said:
I've heard West Jet say they would be able to land their smaller 737's at the island airport after the runway gets expanded, but I think their intention was to try and discourage Porters expansion by scaring the public with the prospect of even more, larger and louder jets.
Click to expand...


They could land it there now. Once. Not so sure about departing again.

And they would have a terrible economic case for operating the 737 from YTZ. Even with the extended runway. Severe load restrictions.
 
ttk77 said:
Has it been stated (or questioned) yet how the noise frequency varies between the Q400 and the c-series jets? Decibels alone are an incomplete picture as I believe higher frequency sounds carry farther and could have more impact. I'm curious to know how the two planes differ in this regard.
Click to expand...

Higher frequency sounds carry further? Hmmm no. There's zero scientific basis for such an argument.
 
Hipster Duck said:
You may think this is hyperbole, and maybe that comment made insertnamehere "seriously laugh" but, technically, there is no difference. The harbour is "land" that technically belongs to everyone, since it is held in public trust.
Click to expand...

Technically, there is no land or water, not already dedicated to the airport, being filled. It's not public land/water, it's part of the current airport.
 
It is technically true that the fill will be placed in the existing MEZ. But as a result of the expansion of the runway into the existing MEZ, wouldn't the new MEZ be taking formerly publicly accessible waters (and airspace rights in the port lands, if last week's report is to be believed)? It is called an "expansion" for a reason.
 
kEiThZ said:
Higher frequency sounds carry further? Hmmm no. There's zero scientific basis for such an argument.
Click to expand...

Sound attenuation is very much function of frequency. That much at least I remember from university, but I did have it backwards. Lower frequency sounds will not dissipate as readily and will carry farther. It still invites the question of how the jets compare to the Q400s. The frequency of the sound needs to be considered as well as the amplitude.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top