What else is new with this council. They all have their eyes on the election in Oct to ever make decisions that are controversial
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, the MEZ wouldn't significantly be altered.
 
picard102 said:
From what I've seen, the MEZ wouldn't significantly be altered.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the MEZ grow by the same amount as the runway at a minimum, and possibly by more than that if TC determines that the jets require more leeway and more gradual ascent/descent slopes? Besides, in the post I responded to, weren't you essentially saying that the expansion would not result in the loss of public space? Isn't that a nonsensical statement in the context of an "expansion"?
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
Wouldn't the MEZ grow by the same amount as the runway at a minimum, and possibly by more than that if TC determines that the jets require more leeway and more gradual ascent/descent slopes? Besides, in the post I responded to, weren't you essentially saying that the expansion would not result in the loss of public space? Isn't that a nonsensical statement in the context of an "expansion"?
Click to expand...

Jets don't require any thing different than the normal 3 degree glideslope. Airplanes are built to existing standards. Not the other way around. The only way a steeper approach might be required was is there are noise abatement concerns (a la London City). But in this case, if that happens, I don't see them getting approval for the changeover to jet use anyway.

The reality is this, the aircraft is well on its way to qualifying to the noise emissions standards that exist for the airport today, and under which the Q400 operates. Excepting the CS100, does not in any way, shape or form set a precedent allowing other aircraft in. All the rest will still have to meet the noise abatement standards and they won't. Ergo, they won't fly to YTZ.
 
kEiThZ said:
Jets don't require any thing different than the normal 3 degree glideslope. Airplanes are built to existing standards. Not the other way around. The only way a steeper approach might be required was is there are noise abatement concerns (a la London City). But in this case, if that happens, I don't see them getting approval for the changeover to jet use anyway.

The reality is this, the aircraft is well on its way to qualifying to the noise emissions standards that exist for the airport today, and under which the Q400 operates. Excepting the CS100, does not in any way, shape or form set a precedent allowing other aircraft in. All the rest will still have to meet the noise abatement standards and they won't. Ergo, they won't fly to YTZ.
Click to expand...

I have been wondering if the approach speed would have more to do with the MEZ as you may get a higher percentage of overshoots when you factor in some of the wind-rocked approaches I have experienced flying into the airport - there really is NO OPTION for overshooting on an aborted take off... its basically "fly" or "swim".
 
Admiral Beez said:
Why is the CS100 an exception? None of the above makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

sure it does....what kEIThZ is saying ( I think) is something i and others said a few pages ago.....allowing the CS100 to land at YTZ because it meets the noise regulations does not set a precedent allowing all jets (as some would have us believe)....it probably sets a precedent that all jets (and non-jets) that meet the noise regulations can land there....but, then again, what is the issue there if we take the logical and sensible approach to regulate noise rather than technology.
 
I was reading through Unbuilt Toronto on Harbour City. Quite neat to imagine what could have been!

I wish airport opponents would frame their protests more in terms of what YTZ could be rather than whining about Porter constantly.

The opportunities of building a new area from scratch right there would be huge! it would really connect Toronto to the lake. Not that Harbour City was specifically the greatest plan, but there would be big opportunities for sure.
 
Yea, it's usually easier to run a campaign against the status quo than for a specific alternative since, by specifying an alternative, you're reducing generality and reach.

In this specific case, though, greater specificity could help anti-YTZ groups. Pretty big chunks of the electorate don't attach any huge costs to having Porter on the Island. There was a lot of FUD spewed about the airport early last decade, and now about the expansion, but most of it was pretty obviously not true. Since fairly few people seem to see anything wrong with the status quo it'll be harder to get traction on a negative campaign.

OTOH, if island groups came out with some sort of alternative (broadly imagined), the debate could be framed in terms of the opportunity cost of this airport. Rather than holding up those stupid placards shaped like the C-Series' turbines (nobody cares about turbine diameter..), protestors could say 'we're missing out on X-billion of development activity and tax revenue which would come from building on these areas" or the benefits which would come from more parkland.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top