[TOareaFan]

TD Bank sells real estate nowadays?

Has been in the commercial real estate brokerage business for a long time thru TDSI

 

[TrickyRicky]

I know nothing about plane runways or standards but if our runways are not up to standard why does flying into Pearson feel like butter? What I mean is that I can’t think of any personal airport landing experience outside Canada that feels as smooth, controlled, and roomy as flying into Pearson.

 

[kEiThZ]

I know nothing about plane runways or standards but if our runways are not up to standard why does flying into Pearson feel like butter? What I mean is that I can’t think of any personal airport landing experience outside Canada that feels as smooth, controlled, and roomy as flying into Pearson.

Weather, traffic and runway orientation.

Pearson is newer than major other major airports. It has more and better oriented runways. And doesn't get the traffic they do.

Personally, I don't find Pearson particularly spectacular. It's just not as bad as some say it is.

With safety standards, the issue is not normal ops. It's that moment where everything goes to pot, like Air France 358. And since that crash, nothing has changed. We stand a good chance of a repeat. And a high probability that the next such incident may be fatal.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Had AF358 landed on that runway in the opposite direction it would have been fatal - for many motorists on the 427.

 

[Filip]

Weather, traffic and runway orientation.

Pearson is newer than major other major airports. It has more and better oriented runways. And doesn't get the traffic they do.

Personally, I don't find Pearson particularly spectacular. It's just not as bad as some say it is.

With safety standards, the issue is not normal ops. It's that moment where everything goes to pot, like Air France 358. And since that crash, nothing has changed. We stand a good chance of a repeat. And a high probability that the next such incident may be fatal.

Do we know if the collapsible concrete that was mentioned as potential solution would even work in this case?

A loaded A340-300 landing halfway down the runway, during a thunderstorm.. Not much room left, rumble strips or not!

 

[lenaitch]

Do we know if the collapsible concrete that was mentioned as potential solution would even work in this case?

A loaded A340-300 landing halfway down the runway, during a thunderstorm.. Not much room left, rumble strips or not!

This from a couple of days ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/the-problem-with-runways-at-canada-s-major-airports-1.4568085

I couldn't readily find anything that described how/how much an "Engineered Material Arresting System" improves or reduces the safety margin over simply having open ground, at least in lay terms.

 

[kEiThZ]

Do we know if the collapsible concrete that was mentioned as potential solution would even work in this case?

Absolutely would have. They went straight off the runway. The only issue with EMAS is where the aircraft slips off the runway well before the end so that it's sliding across the grass. In that case, obviously EMAS wouldn't have helped.

But in this particular incident, EMAS would have flat out stopped the aircraft or slowed it enough that the aircraft could probably have been backed out and flown away.

A loaded A340-300 landing halfway down the runway, during a thunderstorm.. Not much room left, rumble strips or not!

The stuff is designed to stop fully loaded aircraft that abort a takeoff. An A343 at the end of a flight (limited fuel load) would not be much of a challenge. And not much room left is exactly the point. EMAS is designed to absorb the load and bring the aircraft to stop in a minimal stopping distance.

In 2005, EMAS stopped an arriving cargo 747 from overrunning at JFK:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaae/sets/72157624200042599/

And with load (arriving in the US is usually full) that plane probably weighed a multiple of the 343 which overran at Pearson.

I couldn't readily find anything that described how/how much an "Engineered Material Arresting System" improves or reduces the safety margin over simply having open ground, at least in lay terms.

There's a reason the FAA recommends it to all airports with short RESAs and mandates them in some cases. Look at its prevalence in the US:

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13754

This is not some gimmick. Major airports with short RESAs or where highways or embankments are close to the runway are installing them. Sometimes with mandates from the FAA.

 

[lenaitch]

Absolutely would have. They went straight off the runway. The only issue with EMAS is where the aircraft slips off the runway well before the end so that it's sliding across the grass. In that case, obviously EMAS wouldn't have helped.

But in this particular incident, EMAS would have flat out stopped the aircraft or slowed it enough that the aircraft could probably have been backed out and flown away.



The stuff is designed to stop fully loaded aircraft that abort a takeoff. An A343 at the end of a flight (limited fuel load) would not be much of a challenge. And not much room left is exactly the point. EMAS is designed to absorb the load and bring the aircraft to stop in a minimal stopping distance.

In 2005, EMAS stopped an arriving cargo 747 from overrunning at JFK:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaae/sets/72157624200042599/

And with load (arriving in the US is usually full) that plane probably weighed a multiple of the 343 which overran at Pearson.



There's a reason the FAA recommends it to all airports with short RESAs and mandates them in some cases. Look at its prevalence in the US:

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13754

This is not some gimmick. Major airports with short RESAs or where highways or embankments are close to the runway are installing them. Sometimes with mandates from the FAA.

I know that. I was looking for a link or reference that might be helpful by explaining how much it shortened run-out in layperson terms for the benefit of the post. The article is a little confusing as it sounds like Transport Canada is looking to mandate a RESA of 150m but "recommend" 300m (TSB recommendation), and no mention of EMAS except as an alternative of the 150-rule.

 

[kEiThZ]

I know that. I was looking for a link or reference that might be helpful by explaining how much it shortened run-out in layperson terms for the benefit of the post.

There's no linear relationship here. It's a matter of inertia, which is a combination of speed and weight. And I'm sure there's some non-linear dynamics which how the materials crushes/deforms and absorbs inertia.

The article is a little confusing as it sounds like Transport Canada is looking to mandate a RESA of 150m but "recommend" 300m (TSB recommendation), and no mention of EMAS except as an alternative of the 150-rule.

The problem is that 300m can't be built everywhere. But really, when we're talking a major airport like Pearson, it should not be optional. This is TC letting the airport owners and manager get off on being cheap. If we were serious about safety, every major airport in Canada would have 300m RESA + EMAS on all major runways at those airports.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

I don't think there is even 100m at the end of runway 05 at Pearson. What's worse, there is a petro can station at the end of it.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think there is even 100m at the end of runway 05 at Pearson. What's worse, there is a petro can station at the end of it.

There may not be much space on the eastern side of 05/23 there is _some_ space on the western side. On the other hand there is a LOT of space for the 06/24 pair (where the AF crash occured). It simply requires re-aligning an airport access road and filling in the etobicoke creek valley

 

[muller877]

It simply requires re-aligning an airport access road and filling in the etobicoke creek valley

TRCA might have something to say about that. Etobicoke Creek has a good buffer all the way from the Lake to the North end of Brampton. There is a small concrete area downtown Brampton for about 2 blocks but that is it. Creates a good nature corridor through Peel and Toronto.

And if they do that how do people then object to filling in the lake for the Island Airport?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think there is even 100m at the end of runway 05 at Pearson. What's worse, there is a petro can station at the end of it.

05 is one of the good runways at Pearson. It's got 600+ ft of extra pavement past the piano keys. And they can add another 200ft. This is also a great example of a place where a 200 ft EMAS bed would be great to prevent an overrun from running onto Airport Rd and possibly even the gas station and plaza across the street.

There may not be much space on the eastern side of 05/23 there is _some_ space on the western side. On the other hand there is a LOT of space for the 06/24 pair (where the AF crash occured). It simply requires re-aligning an airport access road and filling in the etobicoke creek valley

Why do that? Just put a 400 ft EMAS bed from the edge of the current displaced threshold (including converting most of the current RESA). No need to move any roads. Have a look at Runway 04R at JFK:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6455114,-73.7537871,330m/data=!3m1!1e3

Nobody is going to be rolling on those areas. And they are just there for emergencies. So no need to really move roads. Far more concerning is the end of 23 or 24R with almost no RESA.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

05 is one of the good runways at Pearson. It's got 600+ ft of extra pavement past the piano keys. And they can add another 200ft. This is also a great example of a place where a 200 ft EMAS bed would be great to prevent an overrun from running onto Airport Rd and possibly even the gas station and plaza across the street.



Why do that? Just put a 400 ft EMAS bed from the edge of the current displaced threshold (including converting most of the current RESA). No need to move any roads. Have a look at Runway 04R at JFK:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6455114,-73.7537871,330m/data=!3m1!1e3

Nobody is going to be rolling on those areas. And they are just there for emergencies. So no need to really move roads. Far more concerning is the end of 23 or 24R with almost no RESA.

What I was trying to say is that there is space here, https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.673792,-79.6633629,715m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en , to make the 05/23 runway longer if needed. For example to add extra pavement similar to what exists on the other end of the runway.

And yes adding extra length to the end of 24 would require creating an embankment to bring the land level, which _could_ impact the route of Convair Dr.

 

[kEiThZ]

What I was trying to say is that there is space here, https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.673792,-79.6633629,715m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en , to make the 05/23 runway longer if needed. For example to add extra pavement similar to what exists on the other end of the runway.

And yes adding extra length to the end of 24 would require creating an embankment to bring the land level, which _could_ impact the route of Convair Dr.

The problem with more pavement is that gives you braking room. But doesn't necessarily stop you before you depart the paved surface. EMAS has a substantially better shot of actually stopping the aircraft.


Back on topic, I am really wondering what Bombardier's game plan is here. I see no reason to stay in the GTA if Downsview is closed. Might as well consolidate in Montreal.