C-Series?

Discuss topics relating to Porter Airlines.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

ascend
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:13 pm

C-Series?

Post by ascend » Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:16 pm

Any updates on whats going on with Porter and the C-Series (A220)?

Been seeing a lot of Porter advertisements and the plane kinda has a jet look to it.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
porter.PNG
porter.PNG (61.56 KiB) Viewed 3997 times

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by FL007 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:01 pm

Looks like a q400 with the gear up to me.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by daedalusx » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:08 pm

Q4 would have a T tail ...
---------- ADS -----------
  
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by atphat » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:57 pm

Porter will operate the A220 when they fly them out of Pearson. Anything else is a pipe dream.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by FL007 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:09 pm

daedalusx wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Q4 would have a T tail ...
You can't really see a T tail in profile...

go ahead and compare them if you want. Rumours about jets from a logo is ridiculous.
q4.jpg
q4.jpg (80.26 KiB) Viewed 3874 times
---------- ADS -----------
  

lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by lownslow » Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:46 pm

atphat wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:57 pm
Porter will operate the A220 when they fly them out of Pearson. Anything else is a pipe dream.
Yep, even if they were to assassinate all supporters of #nojetsTO there are still unfortunately many reasons the A220 couldn’t operate off the island.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by C-GGGQ » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:56 am

Just base them out of Ottawa. When Toronto loses business, they'll either cave or not. They've already upgraded the terminal in the island and expanded the taxiways, just need approval for lengthening the runway and they are off and running
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by atphat » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:00 am

Those who want to take a jet to LA can take a 25 minute train ride from downtown. There will never be jets from the island. Canada and especially Toronto are way too anti-business for that.

If there is a business case for basing out of Ottawa I hope it works out for them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by C-GGGQ » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:18 am

People will often drive across the border to get a cheaper flight. You give good long distance flights out of Ottawa and people would drive from TO i think
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by atphat » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:36 pm

LOL. No one will drive from Toronto to Ottawa so they can fly on Porter.
---------- ADS -----------
  

lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by lownslow » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:07 pm

C-GGGQ wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:56 am
They've already upgraded the terminal in the island and expanded the taxiways, just need approval for lengthening the runway and they are off and running
The terminal is tailored specifically to the length, wingspan, and entry door position of the Q400 and they just finished a huge renovation aimed to continue that standard. I'm not sure you could still use the taxiway if you had a jet nosed up to a gate, either.

There's also this to consider.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Gino Under » Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:30 pm

I fail to see the relevance of your TERPS reference. However, I do confess my ignorance of the island airport’s taxiways and runways.
With it being a Commercial use Airport under TCCA regs I would have thought any pertinent TERPS had already been dealt with and should they ever extend a runway, due thought and consideration will be given to the runway and any TERPS relevance at that time.
I don’t see any TERPS notations on any CYTZ charts but I’m confident TCCA regulations meet or exceeds TERPS.

Gino
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by C-GGGQ » Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:50 pm

lownslow wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:07 pm
C-GGGQ wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:56 am
They've already upgraded the terminal in the island and expanded the taxiways, just need approval for lengthening the runway and they are off and running
The terminal is tailored specifically to the length, wingspan, and entry door position of the Q400 and they just finished a huge renovation aimed to continue that standard. I'm not sure you could still use the taxiway if you had a jet nosed up to a gate, either.

There's also this to consider.
Everything I've said is from people at Porter. According to them it's when not If and right now it's only the Federal Govt in the way. (Tripartite agreement)
---------- ADS -----------
  

lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by lownslow » Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:22 am

C-GGGQ wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:50 pm
Everything I've said is from people at Porter.
Weirdly enough, same here. We must have spoken to different people.
Gino Under wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:30 pm
With it being a Commercial use Airport under TCCA regs I would have thought any pertinent TERPS had already been dealt with and should they ever extend a runway, due thought and consideration will be given to the runway and any TERPS relevance at that time.
My understanding was that it had to do with the distance between the gate and the runway. Since you recognized the TERPS you probably already know this but for those who don’t, when you’re near the ground you can picture your airplane flying in a trough. For whatever segment of the flight the area is assessed for, there is a flat lower boundary of some safe width below your intended track and outward sloping sides. The exact dimensions are irrelevant (and I don’t remember them) but the point is that no obstacles can poke into that trough. In the case of the runway at YTZ, the tail of a Q400 nosed up to the terminal is clearly outside that trough but the A220 would not clear it on account of that plane being both longer and taller. For those who haven’t been to YTZ, most planes at the terminal are parked with their tails pointing to the runway. Note also that when the wx goes down on the island they use a different hold short line for 26, probably for the same reason. I was told a lateral displacement of the runway would be required to routinely operate bigger aircraft using the existing ground infrastructure.

You do make a good point about how that should then show up on the plates but perhaps there was no requirement since only Qs can presently use that terminal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Gino Under » Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:07 pm

All obstacle departures start at the DER (departure end of the runway). So, while I appreciate the point you’re trying to make, the obstacle plane (I think you referred to it as a trough) would be nowhere near the airport infield and therefore irrelevant to the terminal distance. Another consideration would be both PANS-Ops and TERPS use the same climb gradient but starting from different points, neither of which are where or how an aircraft is certified from in the event of an engine failure.

As for the missed approach procedure and TERPS, it is assumed to start no lower than the published OCA(H) or MDA(H) at the missed approach point, MAP.
TERPS makes no allowance for level flight or configuring.
TERPS will use an increase in MDA(H) to alleviate obstacle hazards versus higher than standard gradients.

Runway 08-26 doesn’t appear to have any obstacle of concern.
The C Series/A220 could easily operate out of CYTZ.

I hope this helps, cheers
Gino
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Mapleflt » Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:44 pm

I see the show stopper as the current jet ban, it would need to be rescinded and then every corporate operator with a Bay Street address will want to call it home base.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Cessna 180
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: YKF

Re: C-Series?

Post by Cessna 180 » Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:33 pm

lownslow wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:22 am
C-GGGQ wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:50 pm
Everything I've said is from people at Porter.
Weirdly enough, same here. We must have spoken to different people.
Gino Under wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:30 pm
With it being a Commercial use Airport under TCCA regs I would have thought any pertinent TERPS had already been dealt with and should they ever extend a runway, due thought and consideration will be given to the runway and any TERPS relevance at that time.
My understanding was that it had to do with the distance between the gate and the runway. Since you recognized the TERPS you probably already know this but for those who don’t, when you’re near the ground you can picture your airplane flying in a trough. For whatever segment of the flight the area is assessed for, there is a flat lower boundary of some safe width below your intended track and outward sloping sides. The exact dimensions are irrelevant (and I don’t remember them) but the point is that no obstacles can poke into that trough. In the case of the runway at YTZ, the tail of a Q400 nosed up to the terminal is clearly outside that trough but the A220 would not clear it on account of that plane being both longer and taller. For those who haven’t been to YTZ, most planes at the terminal are parked with their tails pointing to the runway. Note also that when the wx goes down on the island they use a different hold short line for 26, probably for the same reason. I was told a lateral displacement of the runway would be required to routinely operate bigger aircraft using the existing ground infrastructure.

You do make a good point about how that should then show up on the plates but perhaps there was no requirement since only Qs can presently use that terminal.
the runway 26 second hold short line is for glide slope interference. if planes are too close they can cause false glide slope readings. hence by the preferred approach is the localizer 26 (that and the substantially shallower vertical profile.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Gino Under » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:04 am

I’m a little confused.
Both approaches to 26 are greater than 3 degrees.
I’ve missed the point here unless this is simply subject drift.
Are we still talking C Series?
I believe the issues here are a ‘jet’ ban and the runway length.

:drinkers:

Gino
---------- ADS -----------
  

TeePeeCreeper
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: C-Series?

Post by TeePeeCreeper » Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:05 pm

Although not C-series related...

Am I the only one miffed by just how closely one clears the last “stack” when flying the LOC 26?

How on earth did that approach get certified?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Lightchop
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:03 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by Lightchop » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:00 pm

The point is you aren't supposed to see the stack when flying the LOC cause you'll be IMC :lol: ...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Gino Under » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:45 am

TeePeeCreeper

I can try to explain HOW this approach should have been certified using TERPS. As TERPS usually is the reference in North America. If I may?
Feel free to correct any errors.

As you probably know, approaches to any runway anywhere in the world are assessed for obstacles. This information is used to establish an Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) which is then assigned a minimum obstacle clearance height based on each segment of the approach being assessed. Since we know aircraft on approach will descend, the OCS will be lower in each segment as you near minima. The minimum clearance height is known as the Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) and will also differ in each segment.
Looking at the actual LOC Rwy 26 approach, as you approach OMTEX from the East the ROC is 1000 ft.
From the IAF, OMTEX to the IF, VIPRI, the ROC is 500 ft.
From the FAF, RABIX to the stepdown fix, XIDEK the ROC is 250 ft.
This approach would likely have been originally assessed based on a 3 degree angle of descent. If obstacles were to penetrate the OCS an adjustment would obviously be needed. TERPS uses one of 4 possible solutions to avoid obstacles by the required ROC.
1) Increase the DH (only allowed for existing obstacles)
2) Increase the OCS angle (this requires increasing the glide path angle, possibly reducing airport utilization)
3) Displace the runway threshold (this reduces the effective length of the runway for landing, also possible reducing airport utilization)
4) Remove the obstacle

Based on the charted Descent Angles for the ILS and LOC to this runway it looks like the solution was found in number 2.

I hope this helps?
Cheers,
Gino Under :drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

55+
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by 55+ » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:50 pm

Instrument Approach Procedures in Canada are designed in accordance with TP-308 Criteria for the Development of Instrument Procedures. The latest revision is change 7.0 incorporated January 2017.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fowler
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:20 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by Fowler » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:27 pm

Not to detract but has there been mention of basing the A220 in other bases? I may have missed it but did they sell their options?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: C-Series?

Post by C-GGGQ » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:50 pm

As far as I know the options are still there. Whether they will give up on the island and base it out of Ottawa or somewhere has probably been discussed... But likely above anyone's PayScale here
---------- ADS -----------
  

PT6onH20
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:13 am

Re: C-Series?

Post by PT6onH20 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:11 am

Don't worry, last i remember, they still had the C-series mentionned in the recurrent GS slides.

As the wise man says, "It's not a matter of if, but when." :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Porter Airlines”