Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Automation Gallery said:
Would they still not have to extend the runway first, before this plane is able to safely land and do a test-run at YTZ:confused:
Click to expand...
Isn't the required runway length a function of both the onboard weight and weather conditions. Surely an empty plane with little fuel will need a shorter runway on a fair day.
 
nfitz said:
Isn't the required runway length a function of both the onboard weight and weather conditions. Surely an empty plane with little fuel will need a shorter runway on a fair day.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt they'd get the regulatory go ahead to test it in an urban area on a short runway. They can test it at Downsview though, and anyone who wants to hear it, likely the media, can get a feel for the noise. They could even land one of the planes they have now for comparison.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They really should to a test run of the plane and see what it is like.

AoD
Click to expand...

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Unless we can give ironclad conditional approval, we should rely on actual demonstrations of the performance of the plane before approving changes to the agreement.

AoD
Click to expand...


Sure. I'd support the idea. Though, I don't get what additional data this would create. Everything from aircraft performance to noise is being certifed three separate aviation authorities at the moment (Transport Canada, US FAA, Europe JAA). Policy decisions will be made on the certified results of those tests, not on some random fly-by. But if people want to see what the plane will sound like, I say go for it. Porter should have them do a few touch and gos and announce that to the community so they can show them what the plane will sound like. Maybe intersperse a Q400 in there too, to allow for a comparison.
 
themarc said:
The thing that bothers me is that the TPA nor Porter are abiding by Transport Canada regulations and releasing the Master Plan for the airport that was finished last year. Under TC regulations it is supposed to be on file at the Federal Offices up at Yonge/Sheppard. It is a closely guarded secret....
Click to expand...

Master Plan of an airport is a closely guarded secret? This is the first time I've ever heard of such a rule. Where'd you read this?
 
nfitz said:
Isn't the required runway length a function of both the onboard weight and weather conditions. Surely an empty plane with little fuel will need a shorter runway on a fair day.
Click to expand...

When flight testing, you want the maximum runway available, just in case something goes wrong. They start with super long runways, and certify downwards at various performance and reliability thresholds.

For this reason, they won't really land it at the Island any time soon. Touch and gos during the testing program, perhaps. As the testing program matures, towards the end of the year, they'll get to a point where they can certify down to YTZ runway length. Might see demos then.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Would they still not have to extend the runway first, before this plane is able to safely land and do a test-run at YTZ:confused:
Click to expand...

Nope. Without any substantial payload, this plane would have no issues operating from the runway right now. Heck, it would meet all the noise regulations too (and that's with a full payload).
 
kEiThZ said:
Sure. I'd support the idea. Though, I don't get what additional data this would create. Everything from aircraft performance to noise is being certifed three separate aviation authorities at the moment (Transport Canada, US FAA, Europe JAA). Policy decisions will be made on the certified results of those tests, not on some random fly-by. But if people want to see what the plane will sound like, I say go for it. Porter should have them do a few touch and gos and announce that to the community so they can show them what the plane will sound like. Maybe intersperse a Q400 in there too, to allow for a comparison.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Porter, though, should they not also intersperse some of the noisier machines that can land there? Who knows, the people around the airport might start a campaign to have it be exclusively Q400s and C100s!
 
TOareaFan said:
To be fair to Porter, though, should they not also intersperse some of the noisier machines that can land there? Who knows, the people around the airport might start a campaign to have it be exclusively Q400s and C100s!
Click to expand...

As per my understanding, Porter has specifically asked for a CS100 exemption to the "No jets" rule. They aren't asking for an overturning of the "No Jets" rule.

On top of that, even if the jet exclusion was lifted, aircraft would still have to meet the noise requirements to actually land there. This is why I find the jet exclusion unusual. There are noise rules that are more than adequate. You don't need to target engine type. Just enforce the noise regs on the books.
 
nfitz said:
I don't think anyone suggesting flight testing. Simply landing a plane there once certified.
Click to expand...

I expect we'll see some touch and gos at YTZ in the late Fall if Porter needs a PR boost. I doubt, however, you'll see one parked at YTZ (even for a PR stop) for another year.

If this does go through, I fully expect Porter to do compatibility testing very early (Summer 2014), at which point one will probably be parked at YTZ for at least a few weeks.
 
kEiThZ said:
On top of that, even if the jet exclusion was lifted, aircraft would still have to meet the noise requirements to actually land there. This is why I find the jet exclusion unusual. There are noise rules that are more than adequate. You don't need to target engine type. Just enforce the noise regs on the books.
Click to expand...

Are there existing noise regulations in the agreement? Some of the non Q400s that land there (private aircraft?) are much noisier. Assuming those aircraft are not in breach of the agreement, then any changes going forward to allow for the CS100s need to include a tightening up of the noise regulations.
 
TOareaFan said:
To be fair to Porter, though, should they not also intersperse some of the noisier machines that can land there? Who knows, the people around the airport might start a campaign to have it be exclusively Q400s and C100s!
Click to expand...
Say goodbye to the seaplanes :)

I like how LCY did it (London City Airport) - grade the aircraft by noise level, assign movement factors to each including specific limits at start and end of day. The London City Airport Consultative Committee should have been TPA's guide once Miller left and an administration more likely to engage from the City side was in place. The TPA doesn't seem to do public engagement well though - relying on Mark McQueen's interaction with Twitter users isn't likely to cut it.
 
Porter has created a special "Get on board" website where you can show your support for the CSeries.

https://www.porterplans.com/Info/Get-on-board

You can sign a petition that will go to elected representatives and you can order a Lawn sign or removable "I'm on board" bumper sticker:

lawn-sign.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top