Raitt caves to the NIMBYs over aerodromes. Tell TC NOW!

[Pop n Fresh]

It's a bummer but comes as no surprise.

Hey look a squirrel

There should be a Dug avatar here.

[2R]

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BN ... 0_.jpghttp


http://www.jacobzflores.com/wp-content/ ... rrel-2.jpg

[Shiny Side Up]

Is it possible that part of the solution to this is to have Rait removed from her position as minister of Transport? This last year has left no question in my mind that she is definitely not aviation friendly and seems to have personal stake in persecuting it.

[Jack In The Box]

Hey, if an airport moved next to me I might not be thrilled either. Just sayin', no need to be high and mighty about it.

Appreciate your point but...there is nothing high and mighty about it.

Particularly from the stand point of personal recreational aviation...why should me having a grass strip have to go through gyrations of a public consultation to pursue my pursuit when my neighbor can set up a ATV/Motorcycle/Ski Doo track (for personal use) on a whim and not have to consult me?

How is that fair?

Otoh, if I moved next to an airport I'd have nothing to complain about. 2 different things

Agree, but the ability to operate my personal aircraft from my property is also different than an airport.

Taking it a step further...the costs of the proposed public consultations will pretty much ensure the end of new small airports...how is that fair?

In my highly biased personal opinion

Your post is fair. I will just say this: if you wanted to set up a grass strip on your property right next to me, I would at least like to have a conversation about it and ensure some good faith between us so that I am not being woken up at 2 am by airplane noise or having Cessna flying over my house at 50 feet!

Don't get me wrong, I hate nimbys as much as anyone. But its funny how, if you or me in their shoes, all of a sudden my views will change.

[MrWings]

I agree with JITB. I love airplanes. But if I don't want to live by an airport, I should have a say in whether or not one gets built next to me.

If I choose to buy a piece of property and build myself a grass strip its my business.

I don't believe grass strips have triggered the review. But I have no doubt the Parkland issue has. And that is way beyond a grass strip.

[culver10]

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/ ... c5a0d17da1

This fellow is having the same issue with nimbys, but totally non-aviation related. I personally cannot stand this fellow, but I totally support his cause since it the same as a person wanting to land his Cub at his own farm.

[AirFrame]

Lisa Raitt's mom and dad live near the new proposed aerodrome and are opposed to the whole deal. This agenda is very personal and has nothing to do with TC's views.

Which aerodrome are you talking about here?

[sportingrifle]

Dear Mr. Carter,

I was somewhat dismayed and very concerned to learn that Transport Canada was considering amending the Aeronautics Act to involve local governments involvement in the certification and approval of airports and aerodromes. As a professional pilot for the last 31 years, aircraft owner, and president of a local flying club, I feel compelled to point out in the strongest possible terms the perils that these sort of contemplated changes could bring to the aviation industry.

1) Transport Canada has the jurisdiction and responsibility to regulate and manage aviation in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, much like the National Energy Board does with respect to pipelines or the Ministry of Finance does with taxation. These powers rest solely with the Federal Government due to a combination of their fields being in the national interests of all of Canada and due to the concentration of expertise within the Federal Government. Transport Canada should no more abdicate their responsibility to municipalities than should the National Energy Board or Revenue Canada abdicate their responsibilities to a lower level of government. This would set a precedent that most Federal Government departments would be very loath to embrace.


2) Municipalities often do not understand the long term benefits of an airport or aerodrome in their community until it is well established. The ability to host air ambulance service, commercial air service, the tourism and business benefits, the increased tax base, are all often only apparent after they exist. A small local minority of voting "NIMBY’s" is very apparent before an airport even gets under construction and many small town politicians don’t have the ability to take the broader longer term view.


3) Conversely, some municipal governments covet the aviation real estate of established existing airports for higher density development, thereby placing the municipalities in a position of conflict of interest with the developers or operators of an airport.


4) Aviation is a “top down” industry in Canada. The vast majority of every AME and pilot working in commercial aviation got there thanks to much smaller airports. Whether it was part of their training or their early jobs, without the smaller GA airports, the glitzy high dollar end of the industry would be struggling. This can be seen in other parts of the world that don’t have a strong general aviation heritage – severe pilot and maintenance engineer shortages that are causing brand new airplanes to remain parked! For Canada to start down this road will in time doom our thriving aviation industry to a similar fate, depriving the government and the country of tax dollars and jobs.


5) The aviation infrastructure in Canada is based on a close knit network of airports. Whether out of economic necessity or for reasons of safety, this network cannot tolerate localized “holes” in it to any degree. If you close 50% of the airports in the country over time, you will not reduce aviation activity by 50% - you will by much more, probably closer to 80%. An example of this is the sharing of bulk truck loads of fuel between several smaller airports. Without the neighboring airport , this doesn’t happen and the cost of fuel for general aviation fuel rises significantly. This causes less flying activity, which in turn causes less economic activity, taxes, and fewer jobs. Aviation is an activity that requires a critical mass to function so small scale local repression of airports and airdromes has much more profound effects.


6) A network of small airports across the country increase aviation safety by allowing people with mechanical or weather difficulties safe places to land.


I urge you and your department to withstand the short sighted political pressure to change a system that has fostered the safe and efficient of Canada's aviation infrastructure for decades. I fear that if implemented , the proposed changes would open an ever increasing "Pandora's Box" of problems for Canada's airports and aerodromes. And it is almost assured that the proposed changes would place so many local hurdles to any proposed new airports that few, if any, would ever come into existence.


I would be very pleased to to provide any more assistance or information of required and thank you for your consideration.


Yours Truly,


Kevin Maher

B.A.Sc., ATPL, President Duncan Flying Club.


CC. CARAC -TC

Hon. Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport

Gary Wolfe, RAAC

Tim Cole, COPA

[Tom H]

I don't believe grass strips have triggered the review. But I have no doubt the Parkland issue has. And that is way beyond a grass strip.

Agreed

But these proposed changes infringe on my ability to have my own grass strip, runway etc. and that is the point.

Don't get me wrong, I hate nimbys as much as anyone. But its funny how, if you or me in their shoes, all of a sudden my views will change.

What is funnier is how as soon as you add wings it's a problem.

If your rural neighbor want to run a pig farm you have zero say according to the county regs as I read them, or an ATV track for personal use, or a heavy truck operation or a host of other things.

But a 65hp day VFR Piper Cub is going to require public consultation...please.

Funnier still is how many things change with ZERO public consultation and unless you happen to stumble on them before approved you are SOL. Several property developments in my area have come down exactly that way.

So as I see it there are going to be 2 different sets of rules.
1) With wings.
2) Everybody else.

And that is what really makes me angry

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Pavese]

Add me to the list who have written to CARRAC to support GA facilities, actually make that 2 letters today.

I hope more have written and made their voice heard than have posted up here and if you have written and not posted, let's have a quick note to encourage those who haven't, the more the better.

We each hold a small part of the future of aviation in our hands.........

Tom, thanks for all that you do, you inspire the rest of us.

Tks.

D

[Tom H]

Tom, thanks for all that you do, you inspire the rest of us.

Tks.

D

Thanks for the kind words but this is not about me.

It is about a culture that has traditionally been fueled by passion and dreams.

It is about not just keeping what we currently enjoy, its about keeping the door open to the future and all those that can come after us.

Most of all...its about things being fair.

Aviators and those in aviation are painted as many, many things that are not true and then have those myths used against us as a whole.

Its about regulations that unnecessarily drive costs and close doors rather than open them.

We need to work together and the associations are not doing it for us at this time (though some are trying).

We are a culture, a community and a way of life.

Time to stand tall and hold the line.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Jack In The Box]

I don't believe grass strips have triggered the review. But I have no doubt the Parkland issue has. And that is way beyond a grass strip.

Agreed

But these proposed changes infringe on my ability to have my own grass strip, runway etc. and that is the point.

Don't get me wrong, I hate nimbys as much as anyone. But its funny how, if you or me in their shoes, all of a sudden my views will change.

What is funnier is how as soon as you add wings it's a problem.

If your rural neighbor want to run a pig farm you have zero say according to the county regs as I read them, or an ATV track for personal use, or a heavy truck operation or a host of other things.

But a 65hp day VFR Piper Cub is going to require public consultation...please.

Funnier still is how many things change with ZERO public consultation and unless you happen to stumble on them before approved you are SOL. Several property developments in my area have come down exactly that way.

So as I see it there are going to be 2 different sets of rules.
1) With wings.
2) Everybody else.

And that is what really makes me angry

In my highly biased personal opinion

An ATV is nowhere near as loud as an airplane lol.

Like I said, I don't think most people should have a problem with you wanting to build your own grass strip, but I imagine anyone (including me) would want to lay down ground rules about when/where you are flying it. An ATV buzzing a half mile down the road is nowhere near as loud as a 5 foot diameter propeller screaming over my head at 50 feet.

It has nothing to do with having wings, it's people's self righteousness that pisses you off. Believe me, I know. The sooner you can ignore it and not worry about it the happier your life will be!

[rac007]

Common courtesy is a whole lot different than a regulatory review with veto power. If someone builds a grass strip in the back 40 and the threshold is within a 1/4 mile of a neighbors house then they should definitely see if the neighbors have a problem with the noise, and maybe consider changing the orientation of the runway. If an approach path has the plane at 50 feet over a neighbors house then there might be a problem. As far as laying down ground rules with your neighbors, the problem is that most non-aviation people don't understand the requirements for small aircraft, i.e. you can't do a 90 degree base to final turn when you're 10 feet agl over the threshold just to avoid flying over their house.

[AirFrame]

The problem is that this is the thin edge of the wedge... Once NIMBY's can veto new aerodromes, it's a very small step to requiring existing ones to close. All it takes is a vocal jackass moving in off the end of the runway and raising a stink, and soon enough the municipalities will be clamoring for the same consideration they are given for new aerodromes...

Oh, and I'm still waiting for TimothyK to tell us which aerodrome Lisa Raitt's parents live beside.

[Tom H]

An ATV is nowhere near as loud as an airplane lol.

Like I said, I don't think most people should have a problem with you wanting to build your own grass strip, but I imagine anyone (including me) would want to lay down ground rules about when/where you are flying it. An ATV buzzing a half mile down the road is nowhere near as loud as a 5 foot diameter propeller screaming over my head at 50 feet.

It has nothing to do with having wings, it's people's self righteousness that pisses you off. Believe me, I know. The sooner you can ignore it and not worry about it the happier your life will be!

Really

I have many friends with ATVs and the current generation of high powered ATVs won't fit your description. Add the high performance modifications that are becoming more and more popular and they can and do make significantly more noise that an aircraft.

The same can be said of Snowmobiles and Dirt Bikes.

Now coming from an automotive background and having spent many years racing cars trucks and motorcycles I have no problem with any of the above, matter of fact quite like joining in when the opportunity permits, but its the point.

No permissions are required if you want to build a track and scream around on your own property making a hell of a pile more noise than a light aircraft.

Or a pig farm etc.

Its about being fair.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[PilotDAR]

I just received the following reply from my MP:

"Good afternoon Jim:

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have brought this to Minister Raitt's attention.

I look forward to receiving a copy of her response.

Sincerely,

....."

[ScreaminBanshee]

I sent a letter a while back. According to the COPA rag, only 15 responses were received. Aviation is a funny bunch. Everyone likes to talk, but no one like to lift a finger to help progress issues...

[photofly]

I sent a letter a while back. According to the COPA rag, only 15 responses were received. .

That was before I posted this thread. I'm confident we're up to 21 now.

[PilotDAR]

There have been three national "issues" where I disagreed with the impending Transport Canada policy, and I have written a letter - to be told that it was the ONLY one received. In two of those three cases, as this one, the issue would not affect me either way anyway, but I thought it in the greater good to voice my opinion. Canadian pilots will gradually loose privilege and opportunity, because they simply do not appreciate it enough to defend it.

There are so many countries where the freedom to fly is nearly non existent. Flying enthusiasts in those places would do anything to fly, but end up settling for next to no flying. It is just regulated out of the sky. The natural evolution of things will slowly take Canada there too. Noise restrictions, where you can operate a plane, cost of fuel, more burdensome regulatory oversight. I will have retired from flying, before it is a problem for me, but you younguns are going to begin to feel this in decades to come, unless you practice standing up for the rights you want.

Practicing this here and now would be good....

[AirFrame]

I've been copied personally on at least 15 letters that were submitted on this issue. All were emailed. Are they ignoring emails, and only counting actual, paper letters? It seems unlikely that the only 15 letters they got were the emails I was copied on, as all were from the BC lower mainland. Surely there are people in other regions that sent letters in.

[ScreaminBanshee]

I know a guy who used to be the Transport Minister's aid. He said that form letters were stacked and counted, emails were tallied, and mailed in letters were the ones that drew actual weight as far as getting a response yourself. That being said, if there were 1,000 form letters, 500 emails, and 100 snail mail letter, the total response should be 1600.

[Flybabe]

I sent FIVE letters out to various Ministers, the ONLY one I heard from was my local MP, and it was a canned response.

Dear Flybabe,

On behalf of Mr. James Rajotte, Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Leduc, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email and thank you for taking the time to share your concerns on this important issue.

Please be assured that your correspondence will be brought to Mr. Rajotte’s attention at the earliest opportunity and that your views will be carefully considered.

Thank you again for contacting this office.

Yours truly,


Carmel Harris
Constituency Assistant
James Rajotte, M.P.
Edmonton-Leduc
Phone: 780-495-4351
Fax: 780-495-4485