kEiThZ
Superstar
Nope. If an aircraft is over Max. Landing Weight in an emergency, they have to either burn fuel or dump it till they are below MLW. Doesn't matter what type of engines it has.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
Nope. If an aircraft is over Max. Landing Weight in an emergency, they have to either burn fuel or dump it till they are below MLW. Doesn't matter what type of engines it has.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Shooting an approach is perfectly legal. Landing there is not. I've been in the back of an air force C-130 that shot an approach to 15/33 with a turn around the CN tower. We never landed.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'd caution that flightaware is sometimes wrong with aircraft types. And if it did land, we don't really know the context. It could have been an emergency or a simple medical evac flight (operating without declared MEDEVAC callsign). One thing is for sure, it you are a "jet" you won't get clearance to land at YTZ without a good reason. And if you do anyway, you will be fined for landing without a clearance.
Peepers
Banned
I just read the cover story about progress on the tunnel and I wonder if the $20 airport improvement fee is going towards improvements in addition to the tunnel?
It seems to me with the planned expansion something has to be done on the mainland side to ease congestion because that is quickly becoming a choke point. The tunnel will help but vehicular traffic is also a major issue.
What I think should be done is build a check-in terminal in the area currently occupied by the abandoned concrete silo's and public school. This facility would have a multi-level parking garage as well as lots of space for taxi's and dropping off passengers. The Queen's Quay street car could loop inside the terminal to drop off passengers. All check-in and security clearance would be done from this terminal. It would also include space for restaurants, bars and lounges as well as other shops. Passengers would then take a series of escalators down to the tunnel level where the moving sidewalk would take them to the departure gates.
If the $20 airport improvement fee is only going towards the cost of building the tunnel then something seems fishy to me. According to the TPA website the tunnel is being built by a "private / public partnership" (which they incorrectly claim is how the 407 was built). With over 1.5 Millions passengers a year using the airport we are looking at $30 Million a year in revenue to build a tunnel that costs $78 Million? I hope this $20 airport improvement fee isn't just a shakedown of passengers with nothing else of value being delivered?
It seems to me with the planned expansion something has to be done on the mainland side to ease congestion because that is quickly becoming a choke point. The tunnel will help but vehicular traffic is also a major issue.
What I think should be done is build a check-in terminal in the area currently occupied by the abandoned concrete silo's and public school. This facility would have a multi-level parking garage as well as lots of space for taxi's and dropping off passengers. The Queen's Quay street car could loop inside the terminal to drop off passengers. All check-in and security clearance would be done from this terminal. It would also include space for restaurants, bars and lounges as well as other shops. Passengers would then take a series of escalators down to the tunnel level where the moving sidewalk would take them to the departure gates.
If the $20 airport improvement fee is only going towards the cost of building the tunnel then something seems fishy to me. According to the TPA website the tunnel is being built by a "private / public partnership" (which they incorrectly claim is how the 407 was built). With over 1.5 Millions passengers a year using the airport we are looking at $30 Million a year in revenue to build a tunnel that costs $78 Million? I hope this $20 airport improvement fee isn't just a shakedown of passengers with nothing else of value being delivered?
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
kEiThZ
Superstar
Hope you come down before you run out of fuel! How is the wifi up there!
You should see the hamsters that run inside a herc's engines. They could go forever!
No wifi, but we do have SATCOM that the taxpayer pays for. It makes Rogers roaming rates look unbelievably cheap!
kEiThZ
Superstar
Environmental concerns and Porter's business interests actually lineup.
If I was Deluce, I would be asking for strict noise exposure limits and no growth in slots at YTZ (at least for the next few years). This would be quite tough for Air Canada and Westjet to deal with. It would mean they would have to buy the CSeries to compete and pay up to outbid Porter for slots at an airport that is not a hub for either airline.
Westjet's business model is built on operating a single fleet type and they have over 30 737s on order in addition to the 80+ 737s they fly now. That would make a CSeries buy a non-starter. And while Air Canada would consider the CSeries, they are smack in the middle of recapitalizing their long-haul fleet with 37 787s coming. They won't have the capital to add yet another fleet type, and spend even more on slots. And even if either one would want to buy the CSeries, Bombardier is sold out till 2017. That gives Porter a solid head start. And with Air Canada not due for a short-haul fleet recap till 2020, Porter will have built quite the advantage by then.
If I was Deluce, I would be asking for strict noise exposure limits and no growth in slots at YTZ (at least for the next few years). This would be quite tough for Air Canada and Westjet to deal with. It would mean they would have to buy the CSeries to compete and pay up to outbid Porter for slots at an airport that is not a hub for either airline.
Westjet's business model is built on operating a single fleet type and they have over 30 737s on order in addition to the 80+ 737s they fly now. That would make a CSeries buy a non-starter. And while Air Canada would consider the CSeries, they are smack in the middle of recapitalizing their long-haul fleet with 37 787s coming. They won't have the capital to add yet another fleet type, and spend even more on slots. And even if either one would want to buy the CSeries, Bombardier is sold out till 2017. That gives Porter a solid head start. And with Air Canada not due for a short-haul fleet recap till 2020, Porter will have built quite the advantage by then.
Kitsune
Senior Member
A Dassault Falcon 10 Business Jet landed tonight at 9:24 PM after a short flight from Oshawa!
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BFF100/history/20130411/0100Z/CYOO/CYTZ
It is now headed on London Ontario:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BFF100/history/20130411/0200Z/CYTZ/CYXU
It does not appear to be on a MEDEVAC flight (these are designated with a red-cross symbol on FlightAware)
Did it look like this:
EDIT: I notice a couple of hours earlier another Falcon 10 Jet landed at City Centre - originally scheduled to land at Buttonville but diverted to City Centre.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FEX11/history/20130410/1300Z/CYYT/CYKZ
Yep thats indeed what I saw... it was the earlier flight. I could of swore it never landed though.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I know, I heard the roar from my place in Cabbagetown, the dishes in the cupboard rattled and my dog began to howl. Will no one think of the children?!
themarc
Senior Member
That would have been a "carrier-esque" landing (and a real fun one too)!
themarc
Senior Member
themarc
Senior Member
I guess the real question (that Vaughan touched on) is can such a restriction be put into place and not be in violation of the "Open Skies Agreement"? If it can then that's one item checked off the list. I would also prefer to see the runway extensions pushed out into the Humber side of the airport - that would appease a lot of people.
mettle
Active Member
would you be in favor of maintaining the current noise exposure limits even if it was more advantageous from a business perspective to increase them?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Please heed the advice from city councilors and avoid drinking tap water for 24 hours after a jet landing at YTZ
dowlingm
Senior Member
Not all aircraft have in flight fuel dump capability. I tried googling around but could not confirm that Q400 has it. Inter/transcontinental aircraft tend to be the ones most likely to have it because of the differential between Maximum Take Off Weight and Minimum Landing Weight for an aircraft with fuel for 5+ hours flying time. MTOW is higher because takeoff doesn't impose the stresses on landing gear to the extent that thumping down onto a runway at 180kts does. A Q400's shorter sector, plus the short runway at YTZ, likely means that the gap between MTOW and MLW can be closed by flying a few circuits, and if you need to get down fast enough that you need to exceed MLW it's likely to be by a smaller proportion with consequent inspection and repair of overstressed components. All that to say: if anyone's dumping fuel in Lake Ontario it's more likely to be an Air Canada 777 or an Air France A340 out of Pearson than anything out of YTZ.
themarc - London City Airport's Consultation Committee would be a good one to look at in terms of what's possible in terms of involving elected officials, airport operators and the community in deciding how the airport functions, not least given its location deep within a much larger urban centre than Toronto. I suspect a regime crafted to noise and emissions requirements without blatantly writing so that only certain operators can use the facility would stick, but IANAL etc.
Does anyone know if non-commercial jet flights have been permitted to land during the air show in the past? CIAS 2013 is three months after scheduled CS100 first flight - BBD could pull a stunt by operating empty into/out of YTZ or at least shooting an approach to show off the aircraft.
AoD: " As to whether it sustains jobs in Montreal, that's really not my concern." It was David Miller's concern this morning on Matt Galloway's show this morning when he reminded us how he propped up Bombardier Thunder Bay (1383km away compared to Montreal's 543km) with billions worth of subway and streetcar orders. Obviously you don't speak for him or vice versa, but thought that was worth noting.
themarc - London City Airport's Consultation Committee would be a good one to look at in terms of what's possible in terms of involving elected officials, airport operators and the community in deciding how the airport functions, not least given its location deep within a much larger urban centre than Toronto. I suspect a regime crafted to noise and emissions requirements without blatantly writing so that only certain operators can use the facility would stick, but IANAL etc.
Does anyone know if non-commercial jet flights have been permitted to land during the air show in the past? CIAS 2013 is three months after scheduled CS100 first flight - BBD could pull a stunt by operating empty into/out of YTZ or at least shooting an approach to show off the aircraft.
AoD: " As to whether it sustains jobs in Montreal, that's really not my concern." It was David Miller's concern this morning on Matt Galloway's show this morning when he reminded us how he propped up Bombardier Thunder Bay (1383km away compared to Montreal's 543km) with billions worth of subway and streetcar orders. Obviously you don't speak for him or vice versa, but thought that was worth noting.