Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

So about what other major hub airports in the world do?

If the pilots have a tough time with this one, they had better avoid JFK, LAX, LHR, etc at peak. I see no issues with 2 min event spacings on the mains. This is in an era of, and aircraft equipped with ACARS, FMS and RNP/RNAV. It's not like they have to read back a transatlantic clearance before lining up, like the past. Technology should facilitate an increase in productivity without compromising safety. Are these guys just upset they have to work harder for their six figure paycheques?



Pure FUD.

Did you just forget to mention all the other factors like AF358 landing half way down the runway (when they should have gone around), or the lack of grooved pavement at the time, hurting the runway index?

If you have to resort to sensationalism to make your case, then your case isn't as strong as you think.

Labeling something FUD. makes it easy to dismiss, but look deeper. to me its bean counters squeezing pilots into a tighter and tighter box for profit. Yes AF358 had other factors, all major accidents are never just one factor. The key to aviation safety is and always will be the elevation of safety over money, with in reason.

Squeezing wake turbulence separation to get a few more aircraft into Pearson an hour is unsafe, and puts money in front of safety. It is a setup for the next big accident, and when it happens they will call it pilot error, not bean counter error.
The article is fact based and represents the view of multiple line pilots, and other aviation professionals, including myself. Yet you dismiss it as simple FUD, why?

 

[MarkBrooks]

So about what other major hub airports in the world do?

If the pilots have a tough time with this one, they had better avoid JFK, LAX, LHR, etc at peak. I see no issues with 2 min event spacings on the mains. This is in an era of, and aircraft equipped with ACARS, FMS and RNP/RNAV. It's not like they have to read back a transatlantic clearance before lining up, like the past. Technology should facilitate an increase in productivity without compromising safety. Are these guys just upset they have to work harder for their six figure paycheques?

JFK (or any major jet airport in the snow belt in North American) is not achieving the constant, consistent, 48 movements a hour on one runway that the GTAA masterplan calls for in IFR conditions. But It is at capacity most of the day.

The FAA is so concerned by JFKs runway capacity and the local bean counters pressure on pilots that it has a standing order restricting movements to 81 an hour. ( 40 per runway )

See :


https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...tions-at-john-f-kennedy-international-airport

So what magic pixie dust is the GTAA planning on using to get the extra capacity it needs to stop Pickering ? cutting safety margins is the only plausible way.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes AF358 had other factors, all major accidents are never just one factor.

Which is why it's FUD to distill that crash down to one specific factor which even the investigators didn't consider the most significant.

Squeezing wake turbulence separation to get a few more aircraft into Pearson an hour is unsafe, and puts money in front of safety.

You have any actual studies and evidence from regulators to back this this up or just your assertions?

The article is fact based

No it isn't. It's your assertions vaguely supported by strawman arguments. Show me something that say Transport Canada thinks 2 min separation on the mains is somehow dangerous for wake turbulence, especially when there's less and less disparity between weight classes.

JFK (or any major jet airport in the snow belt in North American) is not achieving the constant, consistent, 48 movements a hour on one runway that the GTAA masterplan calls for in IFR conditions. But It is at capacity most of the day.

Hardly a reason to build another airport. Good reason to build another runway though.

The FAA is so concerned by JFKs runway capacity and the local bean counters pressure on pilots that it has a standing order restricting movements to 81 an hour. ( 40 per runway )

Good thing Pearson's plan calls for 30 per runway....


Again. You can make a case for Pickering based on facts. Or you can resort to strawman and red herring arguments and conspiracist nonsense. None of this, however, is actually going to sway investors. Do you think they won't be talking to TC and GTAA before plunking down hundreds of millions to build Pickering?

 

[rbt]

Or you can resort to strawman and red herring arguments and conspiracist nonsense. None of this, however, is actually going to sway investors. Do you think they won't be talking to TC and GTAA before plunking down hundreds of millions to build Pickering?

I've actually worked for a tiny company which got purchased for roughly $1B (2001) by a fortune 500 telecom with very little due diligence. They got dumped less than 2 years later as a lemon for around $10M. Even the best investment teams make mistakes sometimes.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Which is why it's FUD to distill that crash down to one specific factor which even the investigators didn't consider the most significant.



You have any actual studies and evidence from regulators to back this this up or just your assertions?




No it isn't. It's your assertions vaguely supported by strawman arguments. Show me something that say Transport Canada thinks 2 min separation on the mains is somehow dangerous for wake turbulence, especially when there's less and less disparity between weight classes.



Hardly a reason to build another airport. Good reason to build another runway though.



Good thing Pearson's plan calls for 30 per runway....

No problem, but I will not answer your straw man approach or your red herring 2 min number. If you seriously want to defend the GTAA then you will need to use facts, not misinformation or rules of thumb. Let’s start with some basics Chapter and verse, right from the current version of the GTAA masterplan ( the one transport choked on since no airport in the snow belt has every achieved these numbers per runway, in IMC hour after hour, day after day).
Page 46 ( I underlined it for you )
They are planning 48 movements an hour on runway 23. That is 20% higher than the max limit on a similar runway at JFK. How are they doing that? No explanation is given. There is only references to “ expected future technology”. As aircraft upsize there is an expected change in the traffic mix size differences that today is much worse than JFK, but at best it will match JFK.
On the closely paired 24L&R they are unable to do simultaneous operations as they are to close together. Instead they are planning 60 total an hour. Although aggressive , this is doable under the right conditions, including having the departing aircraft turn 45 degs after take off etc to reduce the wake turbulence min down to 1 min between landing and departing aircraft. Get ready for a lot of new noise complaints from the homes being overflow. but doable, if everyone hits thier speeds perfectly, the sort of precision not yet consistently achieved at Pearson.

No new runway is planned, as thier own work shows that the cost benefit would not be worth it as they have no space to build one able to do simultaneous operations.
For details see:

https://pickeringairport.org/is-building-pickering-better-than-building-a-sixth-runway-at-pearson/

For wake turbulence separation standards see Nav Canada:
http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/ICAO-Doc-4444-EN.pdf

and the CARS ( Canadian air regulations) .

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part8-standards-821-531.htm

This separation is distance based, but even switching to a time based system doesn’t help that much except with heavy headwinds.. right now the average landing traffic medium jet at Pearson is about 1:30- 1:40 secs give or take 10 secs( pilots are not perfect , even with autopilots). Don’t believe me, go stand under a runway at Pearson and count. That’s about 36 - 40 a hour based on traffic mix which is what the old GTAA masterplan called max peak load.
Minimum radar separation in IMC is 3 miles, but don’t confuse this with wake turbulence separation standards, different distances based on aircraft types & sizes.

Even if Traffic at Pearson is limited to 40 on runway 23, allowing the proper implementation of minimum wake turbulence separation standards, it may not be enough, but it’s a good place to start.

To quote the NTSB, from a wake turbulence encounter in 2009 in Vancouver:

“The TC study on The Increase of Wake Turbulence Events in Canada indicates that wake turbulence events have averaged about 15 per year. Of significance is that the trend is increasing at a time when air traffic volume is projected to increase substantially in the next 15 years. Given the number of incidents that occur when minimums are met or exceeded, the current wake turbulence separation standards may be inadequate. As air traffic volume continues to grow, there is a risk that wake turbulence encounters will increase.”

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Just digging on some of the claims, and Mark Brooks is author of:

Is Pearson airport reducing safety to increase capacity?

March 4, 2018 Mark Brooks
https://pickeringairport.org/gtaa-reducing-safety/

Short on time to read this right now, but will later, but to buttress Mark's points, I'm aware enough by conversation with pilot friends that this is a very real issue, and contrary to best practice in most advanced nations:

The problem with runways at Canada's major airports

How much room is needed at the end of runways to keep passengers safe? Transport Canada and TSB at odds

Ryan Tumilty · CBC News · Posted: Mar 14, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: March 14
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/the-problem-with-runways-at-canada-s-major-airports-1.4568085

 

[lenaitch]

It seems that distance is not the only issue because part of the problem with the Air France incident is that it fell into a ravine. Runways that abut Airport Rd. are pretty much constrained. One would think that Pickering, as a new build, would be designed to above minimum standards but the ever-present pressure to maximize revenue through land sale and leases could raise its ugly head. I don't know enough about the industry or regulations to know if an engineered material arrestor system ('crushable concrete') is a viable, if likely costly, alternative. As the article states, this is not a Pearson-only problem.

 

[steveintoronto]

It seems that distance is not the only issue because part of the problem with the Air France incident is that it fell into a ravine. Runways that abut Airport Rd. are pretty much constrained. One would think that Pickering, as a new build, would be designed to above minimum standards but the ever-present pressure to maximize revenue through land sale and leases could raise its ugly head. I don't know enough about the industry or regulations to know if an engineered material arrestor system ('crushable concrete') is a viable, if likely costly, alternative. As the article states, this is not a Pearson-only problem.

Yeah, Transport Canada has taken a beating in the press of late for a number of airline issues, not just airports. And they want to effectively 'privatize' enforcement? I'm perhaps just right of centre, and believe Entrepreneurship, for better or worse, is the answer to a number of 'needs' we have, but enforcement? Noooo....

I'm loathe to state much more before having reference handy, but Canada is not exactly known for 'running a tight ship' when it comes to regs. San Fran was a real wake-up call. Literally, as per flying time per shift.

 

[lenaitch]

Yeah, Transport Canada has taken a beating in the press of late for a number of airline issues, not just airports. And they want to effectively 'privatize' enforcement? I'm perhaps just right of centre, and believe Entrepreneurship, for better or worse, is the answer to a number of 'needs' we have, but enforcement? Noooo....

I'm loathe to state much more before having reference handy, but Canada is not exactly known for 'running a tight ship' when it comes to regs. San Fran was a real wake-up call. Literally, as per flying time per shift.

The whole idea of the 'safety management system', where industries write their own paper plan, the government approves the paper plan, then leaves industry to self-regulate themselves with allegedly government spot checks, concerns me as a consumer. It's not just the commercial airline industry. We've seen similar issues with professional 'colleges', retirement homes and many others. Some appear to work reasonably well, such as the Technical Safety Standards Authority and the Electrical Safety Authority where there is an arm's length from the industry. It lets governments off the hook and cut staff and save money (or at least spend money on other things). Again, just a consumer here.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

It seems that distance is not the only issue because part of the problem with the Air France incident is that it fell into a ravine.

It landed half way down a wet runway and skidded off of it the pilot actually made a bad judgement call on where he landed it. If the ravine had been decked over like was sated after another disaster it would have landed on the highway on that side of the airport. A plane in a ravine is better ten a pane on a highway.

 

[steveintoronto]

It landed half way down a wet runway and skidded off of it the pilot actually made a bad judgement call on where he landed it. If the ravine had been decked over like was sated after another disaster it would have landed on the highway on that side of the airport. A plane in a ravine is better ten a pane on a highway.

I beg to differ. The other side of the 'ravine' (Etobicoke Creek) is an open field.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/To...23555502ab4c477!8m2!3d43.653226!4d-79.3831843

 

[lenaitch]

 

[kEiThZ]

right from the current version of the GTAA masterplan ( the one transport choked on since no airport in the snow belt has every achieved these numbers per runway, in IMC hour after hour, day after day).

They are planning 48 movements an hour on runway 23.

Wake turbulence is a red herring unless you know the weight categories of all those 48 aircraft arriving and how they will be stacked.

The operative word there is “planning”. They may achieve it. They may not. You know as well as I do, there are far too many assumptions that go into that number to discuss here. It’s quite the insinuation to suggest that Transport Canada might sign off on a plan that’s unsafe, that controllers will then stack aircraft too close for effective wake turbulence management and that piots will see a heavy 2nm off the nose and follow them right in to the same touchdown point. This is what I am talking about when I say this is FUD.

Minimum radar separation in IMC is 3 miles, but don’t confuse this with wake turbulence separation standards, different distances based on aircraft types & sizes.

Remind me again, who is responsible for separation in IMC? You suggesting controllers are going to stack some RJ behind an AC 77W?


And again, let’s take this back to the point of this discussion to begin with: Pickering airport. You aren’t going to sell any investor by arguing that Pearson is unsafe or doesn’t have the capacity, everyone from the regulator to the airlines to the ramp rats say otherwise. So do you have a plan to actually fund Pickering beyond simply arguing that Pearson can’t handle growth?

Because the way I see it, air traffic is a fugible commodity. They could cap Pearson tomorrow at the movements they have today and the airlines would respond by prioritizing their highest yield destinations and using larger aircraft to consolidate trips. Do we really need 40 flights to Montreal. On a Sunday? Pearson is also funding that mobility hub for a reason. Any sort of rail development that would allow for reduction in flights in Southern Ontario would go a long way to saving slots. With all that in mind, what’s the case for another airport when airlines seem to have options. I assume investors should be stepping up if there’s such a lack of options that the glaring market inefficiency offers a billion dollar investment opportunity.

 

[kEiThZ]

It seems that distance is not the only issue because part of the problem with the Air France incident is that it fell into a ravine. Runways that abut Airport Rd. are pretty much constrained. One would think that Pickering, as a new build, would be designed to above minimum standards but the ever-present pressure to maximize revenue through land sale and leases could raise its ugly head. I don't know enough about the industry or regulations to know if an engineered material arrestor system ('crushable concrete') is a viable, if likely costly, alternative. As the article states, this is not a Pearson-only problem.

We’ve talked about this in other threads before. It’s not some grand conspiracy. It’s that Transport Canada and TSB have different mandates and different points of view. Also, while it’s easy to argue that Canada is one of the few not imposing the same standards, Canada is also very different in the number of airports we have and the geography and climate they operate in.

FWIW, I do think 300m RESAs and/or EMAS should have been mandatory for code 4 runways at our major airports. But that’s not something that could not be built at Pearson. I fail to see why that’s something that would necessitate a new airport.

Mark’s concern about the number of movements that could be facilitated effectively is a far bigger concern than room for RESA construction.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Wake turbulence is a red herring unless you know the weight categories of all those 48 aircraft arriving and how they will be stacked.

The operative word there is “planning”. They may achieve it. They may not. You know as well as I do, there are far too many assumptions that go into that number to discuss here. It’s quite the insinuation to suggest that Transport Canada might sign off on a plan that’s unsafe, that controllers will then stack aircraft too close for effective wake turbulence management and that piots will see a heavy 2nm off the nose and follow them right in to the same touchdown point. This is what I am talking about when I say this is FUD.



Remind me again, who is responsible for separation in IMC? You suggesting controllers are going to stack some RJ behind an AC 77W?


And again, let’s take this back to the point of this discussion to begin with: Pickering airport. You aren’t going to sell any investor by arguing that Pearson is unsafe or doesn’t have the capacity, everyone from the regulator to the airlines to the ramp rats say otherwise. So do you have a plan to actually fund Pickering beyond simply arguing that Pearson can’t handle growth?

Because the way I see it, air traffic is a fugible commodity. They could cap Pearson tomorrow at the movements they have today and the airlines would respond by prioritizing their highest yield destinations and using larger aircraft to consolidate trips. Do we really need 40 flights to Montreal. On a Sunday? Pearson is also funding that mobility hub for a reason. Any sort of rail development that would allow for reduction in flights in Southern Ontario would go a long way to saving slots. With all that in mind, what’s the case for another airport when airlines seem to have options. I assume investors should be stepping up if there’s such a lack of options that the glaring market inefficiency offers a billion dollar investment opportunity.

I am guessing you may have missed a few big picture items. I therefore will be explicit about what the GTAAs motives could be in making its traffic claims.
The GTAA new capacity claims allows them to stand in the way of a new airport in Pickering by using section 44.01 of its Pearson land lease, by claiming they still have capacity.

See:
https://pickeringairport.org/493-2/

The fact that Pearson magically added 20% to thier old max capacity number, without any new airside build outs or new technology is explosive enough. The idea that this new capacity happens to magically match what is needed to block Pickering for another 10 years is just a bit to far fetched to believe.

From a pilots point of view it’s a given that they will not meet these numbers unless a new runway or new technology is introduced, but then they don’t have too. All they have to do is claim that they can. Then can claim that the congestion and canceled flights is a glitch, or blame it on NavCanada intransigence, or complain about about how pilots need additional Pearson specific training, or are not “on thier game” like herding cats etc. all dumping it down onto the pilots shoulders, and many of them are now young and dumb enough to push it until the next big accident happens.
And when an accident occurs, the prime cause with be listed as pilot error, when the real cause rests With the tight box and sliced safety margins of the airports planners.

Here is how managing that congestion will pan out:
https://pickeringairport.org/managed-congestion-the-gtaas-answer-to-its-capacity-problem/

Every year the GTAA delays Pickering by hoodwinking or befriending our elected politicians, is money in the bank for dozens of companies that are heavily invested in Pearson.

No one needs to convince Pickering investors of anything, all that is needed for the airport to happen is that the GTAA gets out of the way.

Since the GTAA clearly intends to fight, the question now is how big are the cojones on our Minister of Transport? Can he take on Ontarios biggest monopoly and survive the political fallout? Or will he kick the building infrastructure crisis down the road for the next guy, and for the next guy... like they did for years on the oil transportation/ pipeline crisis in Alberta, until the oil sector collapsed ?

So this is why the GTAA and Pickering supporters are locked in focused on discussing Pearsons runway Capacity.