CDL.TO
Moderator
That's a great and thorough answer kEiThZ. Thanks.
I'd like to see some changes to help minimize the issues that people have with the airport. This is my plan. With such a move, you could pass a regulation restricting the use of other approaches that take planes closer to populated areas.
That calls for 06/24 to be extended to the same length as 08/26. At all but the busiest times, I don't see why you couldn't have both takeoffs and landings route over lake Ontario (takeoffs with a heading of 24 and landings with a heading of 06).
If you need a consistent flow, you could have takeoffs with a heading of 24 and landings using 26, minimizing noise for residents and operation over land.
You are referring to Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations (SIRO), an extremely hazardous air traffic control situation, that is avoided at most major airports with good reason. There is probably no way the island would ever attempt this without significant aircraft separation....which would result in slower traffic anyway....defeating the original purpose.
Thanks for the good, knowledgeable answers kEiThZ.
Would use of 24 and 26 really be SIRO, though? The paths of aircraft taking off or landing would never actually intersect as the runways only meet at their eastern tip (and with an extension of the runway, even this could be eliminated). Paths would only cross when taxiing and I know that's pretty common at any airport.
24 and 26 intersect sufficiently from what I can see, that using both would be SIRO. There can be some risk mitigation here... Using one runway to land and one to take off would result in most landing aircraft departing the active before the point of intersection, and hopefully departing aircraft would be airborne before crossing the intersection.
Yeah. I'm saying that it should be doable with some modifications. TCCA is not YYZ.
SIRO would still involve a staggered operation....ie aircraft lands on 24, and has slowed enough to stop before aircraft on 26 is given the departure clearance.
Indeed. That's what I was assuming. Isn't any less efficient or less safe than single-runway operation, right?