[CapCurk]

EDIT: here are radius circles drawn from Pearson at 5/7/8/9 miles.....for perspective, we just (barely) get covered by the 9 mile circle.

View attachment 111324

I grew up inside the 5 mi circle to the east. It was loud sometimes. A 727 or a DC-9 could really screech.[/QUOTE]
Here is a handy web site that tracks the noise monitoring stations around Pearson. It also shows the flights and aircraft types. It's about ten minutes behind so its not "truly live".
http://webtrak5.bksv.com/gta

 

[Edward Skira]

http://webtrak5.bksv.com/gta

Great. I guess I'm not working today!

 

[jje1000]

Article concerning runway end lengths in Canada (applies to Pearson as well):

Canada's airport runways aren't as long as they need to be (and the feds' plans won't fix them)
Ten years ago, a TSB investigation recommended extending safety areas on Canadian runways. It still hasn't happened— despite several accidents.

Twelve years later, 10 years after a Transportation Safety Board (TSB) investigationcalled for runways to have longer end-safety areas, Transport Canada, which actually sets the rules for airports, is only now consulting on possible extensions.

There have been at least 16 other runway-overrun accidents in that time.

Despite the board's suggestions, Transport Canada is also only calling for a 150-metre safety area -- half of what the accident report called for and below international recommendations.

“There is risk to passengers and property, because Canada doesn’t meet the international standard,” said Kathy Fox, chair of the Transportation Safety Board.

Today, Canadian airports must have 60-metres at the end of runways and are encouraged to have an additional 90-metres. Transport Canada’s proposed recommendation would make that 90-metres mandatory for a total of 150 metres of space.

Safety areas are essentially buffers of level ground that aircraft can slow down in when things go wrong. Ideally, planes land on runways, but ideal situations aren’t the TSB’s concern.

In the Air France investigation, TSB recommended extending runway end-safety areas to 300 metres. Air France came to a stop within that distance, but was in the ravine.

The 300-metre distance aligns with a recommendation the International Civil Aviation Organization made in 1999 and it’s standard at American and most European airports.

He said even where airports might not have the physical space, there are engineered stopping systems, already in use at American airports, that could do the job.

“The systems are there. The engineering is there. The technology is there. We just have to apply it.”

Cadeaux said the money collected from passengers should go to this kind of upgrade instead of renovating terminals with more retail space.

Some Canadian airports have made the upgrades, but most haven’t. Fox believes the cost and uncertainty on the rules might be behind those delays.

“Until they develop those standards airports may be reluctant to implement something that might not meet the standard.”

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa...king-slow-half-steps-on-runway-expansion.html

 

[Amare]

I guess Transport Canada is just waiting for a major accident before implementing a fix. As if the Air France incident from 10+ years ago wasnt a big enough wakeup call; I really dont know why the government keeps dragging their feet at implementing important safety protocols.

 

[kEiThZ]

This has long been known. And there's been lots of complaints in the aviation community. Grooved runways and engineered materials arrestor systems (EMAS) would, in all likelihood, have prevented that crash from becoming a hull loss with dozens of injuries.

Transport Canada refuses to mandate international standard RESA (runway end safety area). They refuse to mandate EMAS where proper RESAs can't be put in. And they refuse to mandate grooved pavements at major airports (which improves braking action in the rain). They are putting the business interests of airport owners and operators over public safety.

EMAS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system

 

[TransitBart]

This has long been known. And there's been lots of complaints in the aviation community. Grooved runways and engineered materials arrestor systems (EMAS) would, in all likelihood, have prevented that crash from becoming a hull loss with dozens of injuries.

Transport Canada refuses to mandate international standard RESA (runway end safety area). They refuse to mandate EMAS where proper RESAs can't be put in. And they refuse to mandate grooved pavements at major airports (which improves braking action in the rain). They are putting the business interests of airport owners and operators over public safety.

EMAS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system

And why do they refuse to do this? What is the rationale?

 

[kEiThZ]

And why do they refuse to do this? What is the rationale?

From what I gather, TC argues that:

1) International standards are optional. They aren't wrong on that one.

2) Canada has a solid safety record in aviation. This is also true.

But point 2 fails to account for the fact that aviation could be safer with such implementations. And they feel the above justifies avoiding additional costs for airport operators.

 

[Amare]

From what I gather, TC argues that:

1) International standards are optional. They aren't wrong on that one.

2) Canada has a solid safety record in aviation. This is also true.

But point 2 fails to account for the fact that aviation could be safer with such implementations. And they feel the above justifies avoiding additional costs for airport operators.

Good for Transport Canada on continuing to play their games with safety. I hope they dont forget that we were almost responsible for the single largest aviation disaster in history at San Francisco. Although unrelated, that just shows how pathetic their rational is.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

So the Master Plan page has been updated, removing the old (2007?) plan with some rehashed material about the Southern Ontario Airport Network and the Regional Transport Hub.

https://torontopearson.com/masterplan/##

Nothing new but a sign that a new plan is on the way shortly.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link:

On August 2, 2005, while landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport at 4:02 p.m. EDT, it crashed into nearby Etobicoke Creek, approximately 300 m (980 ft) beyond the end of the runway. All 309 passengers and crew aboard the Airbus A340 survived, with 12 people sustaining serious injuries.

Have the powers that be corrected the problem? Probably not.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually the problem maybe the pilot trying to land in the middle a thunderstorm halfway down the runway.

AoD

 

[timio]

Side note: I was working for 411 at the time of the crash and remember fielding a bunch of calls requesting obscure airlines in smaller airports, eg Finnair in London, ON. Took us a while to figure out what was going on.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Actually the problem maybe the pilot trying to land in the middle a thunderstorm halfway down the runway.

AoD

Alos interesting enough there was a recommendation at one extend extedn taht runway further, if they had that plane would hve ended up on the highway apprenty.

 

[kEiThZ]

Have the powers that be corrected the problem? Probably not.

I don't think there's EMAS on every runway in Toronto. So definitely not. It's unfortunate that GTAA isn't more proactive.

Actually the problem maybe the pilot trying to land in the middle a thunderstorm halfway down the runway.

Aviation uses the swiss cheese model. It takes more than one action to result in an accident. In this case, it's pretty obvious that EMAS would definitely have reduced injuries and damage. And very possible, the aircraft would have remained in flyable condition after.

 

[BurlOak]

I was thinking of a plane version of the "dragnet" truck arrestor, that is found in North Bay. The old loose gravel bed was removed because it would work properly if the gravel was saturated with water and frozen.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.3373...4!1sLZz6vWhwxFSk36Chq2WQjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656