Wouldn't it be better to just impose a dB limit on aircraft wanting to use the airport, rather than saying a particular technology choice is prohibited?

I'd honestly be quite surprised if small jets are louder than those Q400's that Porter flies. I've stood right next to the fence at the end of the airport, and those prop planes are LOUD!

If someone can make a quieter jet, why shouldn't it be allowed to fly there?

(or is the real issue the lengthening of the runway?)
 
Admiral Beez said:
I'd say lengthening the runway is one issue, as passenger gets cannot apparently land on YTZ's 1,216 m (3,990 ft) runway. However this is a false excuse, as Boeing 737s regularly use similar short fields, such as Brazil's 1,260 m Santos Dumont airport, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos_Dumont_Airport
Click to expand...

If you assume that Transport Canada has the same runway length regulations as Brasil, then yes, its a false excuse. But that is not the case.
 
I'm hearing they wont re-open the agreement, but with other levels of support they would scrap it all together.
 
Duck said:
Wouldn't it be better to just impose a dB limit on aircraft wanting to use the airport, rather than saying a particular technology choice is prohibited?

I'd honestly be quite surprised if small jets are louder than those Q400's that Porter flies. I've stood right next to the fence at the end of the airport, and those prop planes are LOUD!

If someone can make a quieter jet, why shouldn't it be allowed to fly there?

(or is the real issue the lengthening of the runway?)
Click to expand...

I agree with this, as I find the Dash8/Q400s to have an incredibly penetrating sound, especially when taxiing. I can recognize one taxiing from a couple kilometers away.
 
Catenary said:
I agree with this, as I find the Dash8/Q400s to have an incredibly penetrating sound, especially when taxiing. I can recognize one taxiing from a couple kilometers away.
Click to expand...
I think there are aircraft that are louder than the Q400 that are allowed to land at the island....and there are certainly aircraft that are louder than c series jets that are allowed to do so.....but, no, it is much easier to just say "no jets".

For a generation that is supposed to be moving towards believing in science and "evidence based" decisioning....this is a bizarre approach.
 
Sound is not the only issue. Particulate emissions from the engines are another concern (jets being much worse in this regard.). And lengthening the runway is a huge impact.

- Paul
 
Tuscani01 said:
If you assume that Transport Canada has the same runway length regulations as Brasil [sic], then yes, its a false excuse. But that is not the case.
Click to expand...
I would think runway length regulations are set or at at least approved by international organizations. Otherwise how can aircraft manufacturers and airlines spec their operations?
 
I think its best to wait for the final INDEPENDENT report come out on the exact impact of this specific jet on the waterfront before we make any more claims or conclusions.
but IMO, I rather hear the roar of a jet than the sputtering of a prop regardless of the decibel. The noise pitch of a turboprop just irks me...
 
cplchanb said:
I think its best to wait for the final INDEPENDENT report come out on the exact impact of this specific jet on the waterfront before we make any more claims or conclusions.
Click to expand...

Not what the federal government of the day is doing though...as one party to the agreement, they have said they will not re-open the agreement....they have reached a conclusion before seeing the findings.

For a government that made a big deal over freeing the scientists to speak this week....this is a strange decision.
 
crs1026 said:
Sound is not the only issue. Particulate emissions from the engines are another concern (jets being much worse in this regard.). And lengthening the runway is a huge impact.
Click to expand...

What is the huge impact of lengthening the runway? How is adding a few hundred metres of concrete any more impactful than the Gardener? or 401 construction? Or any other major piece of infrastructure?

Are the Q400's really that much cleaner than jets? Is the increase in particulate emission from the jets greater than the offset of all the additional road traffic driving up to YYZ because they can't get a jet flight out of YTZ?

cplchanb said:
...I rather hear the roar of a jet than the sputtering of a prop regardless of the decibel. The noise pitch of a turboprop just irks me...
Click to expand...

It's sort of like Harley's vs. sportbikes. Sportbikes rev really high, but it's a smooth, consistent noise. Harley's on the other hand just BLAT BLAT BLAT BLAT BLAT LOOK AT ME BLAT BLAT BLAT so fucking loud and it takes your head off.
 
In the past I have said (and I still feel) that regulating noise has nothing to do with technology.......I always meant that in a general sense .

I don't know much about aircraft noise profiles so I really mean that we should set a noise level we accept and accept any planes that can operate below that level and ban any planes that are above that level. I fully expected, and accepted, that this would allow more props than jets...and may, in fact, not allow any jets.

A friend sent me this link the other day. It is about a totally different airport and I have no idea on the accuracy of the comparisons they show (around page 6) but it is the sort of analysis we should do. If this writer is correct, we are allowing a lot of non-jets to land that are actually noisier than a lot of jets that are banned.

It really makes no sense to me.

http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/home/noise_comparison.pdf
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top