Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
27 times over 6 years or 4.5 times a year. Certainly worthy of investigation but is it the most urgent issue needing to be addressed? Remember the report stated that the runways DO met current safety regulations so there is little impetus to make expensive changes. Again pilots need to follow ATC commands.
I'd be curious to see what airports they looked at and what specifically about the arrangement at Pearson is unique. Newark for example has a similar runway pair in their 04/22 pair (sure they have a taxiway between the runways) any aircraft landing on 22L still needs to cross runway 04L/22R to get to the terminal. LAX has two paired runways, 06/24, and 07/25 and in both cases landing aircraft need to cross the inner runway when landing on the outer runway and there are NO taxiways running around the end of the runways. Paris CDG also has two paired runways 09/27 and 08/29 and NO perimeter taxiways around the end of the runways. Even Manchester, though not exactly paired, still requires an aircraft to cross one runway to get to/from another runway. I just don't see how Pearson could be so unique that pilots are so thrown off that they start driving into active runways with other aircraft on them.
It would appear the difference between Pearson and other airports is the lack of a taxiway in between the pairs (see Newark for example), thus runway perimeter taxiways would not fix it. It would require a complete rebuild of the south runway complex moving one or both runways apart in order to fit in an interior taxiway.
This sounds to me like media speak. Luck has nothing to do with it, ignoring ATC command has the potential for serious consequences whether it's stopping at runway thresholds or maintaining assigned tracks or flight levels.
There are operational ways to mitigate this situation. Pearson could use the inner runway for arrivals and the outer runway for departures, though you still have an aircraft having to cross a runway (this time at the end of the runway instead of in the middle). Or you could eliminate use of the high speed turn off during times where both runways are being used for simultaneous departures/arrivals, though this could affect airport efficiency. Or you could simply fine the airlines that fail to stop at that runway threshold, that would get airlines and pilots attention
Did you see the part in the Master Plan that said " we will continue to protect land that would make this runway alignment possible, both as we make land use decisions on the grounds of Toronto Pearson and as we consider registered zoning beyond the airport boundary "?
