Porter CSeries/Airport Expansion

[MartinB]

http://burl.co/597FEA4

[Rockie]

Looks like Quebec City is going to step up. Personally I'm relieved, this is on the brink of being a real Canadian success and it would have been borderline criminal in my mind if the provincial/federal governments let it die just as it's ready.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombard ... -1.3292411

[Gino Under]

I wonder if Mr. Trudeau is willing to stand by and watch 18,000 Liberal supporters lose their jobs if Bombardier fails and to see that lost income tax both provincial and federal governments collect replaced with EI payouts? What about deHavilland? It just might cost him and a couple of his snowboard buddies a few Quebec ridings in the next Provincial and Federal elections. I also suspect the old boys of the Liberal party might want to hold onto power for awhile this time. It was a long road back and debts will need to be paid.

I doubt Porter's 12 jets, if not purchased, are likely be the sole cause of Bombardier's demise because there are greater concerns for this company at the moment than just that.

For me, I've had enough of former television personalities sitting in government. If the ones we've already had are any example.

Then there's the TTC lawsuit... any chance back door political lobbying makes that go away?

Somebody's No Jets stance gets harder and harder to defend.

Gino

[bizjets101]

So the Bombardier C-Series house of cards is gonna come crashing down because Porter can't buy a few of them to operate outa the Island, resulting in Govt of Quebec infusion of cash with Trudeau Feds anti-up as well.

As I stated it's not about Porter - Porter just happens to have purposely chosen the C-Series for all the reasons it will get approved - the cards are falling into place.

Mr. Deluce will sleep good tonite !!

NoJets People - not so good

[Rockie]

On a side note, does anyone know if Deluce's plans for the runway include some kind of arresting material (EMAS) at the ends? The plan I saw only includes the ICAO recommended Runway End Safety Area (RESA) which seems inadequate given what's off the end of it. After all, an airplane towed out of an EMAS after deplaning passengers is better than one lifted out from under the ice and 50 feet of water containing bodies.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
Good question.
I think that this runway expansion is a dead end...(pardon the weak pun). If you add 1200 feet, plus stopway, plus the approach exclusion area, one soon realizes that the inner harbour area has become a NO sail zone. When one adds the same amount to the other end, for the total runway they say they want, then the boat channel is severely compromised.
Plus, the environmental impact of getting approval to dump thousands of tonnes of fill into the lake would make this seem unapprovable.
Cheers.

[Rockie]

Another killer is from something called TALPA-ARC (Takeoff and Landing Performance - Aviation Rule making Committee). This is an FAA committee struck to address runway excursions whose recent recommendations are being adopted worldwide by manufacturers, operators and airports. It is happening at Air Canada now. Basically the old way of calculating takeoff and landing distance tables for a transport category aircraft have been deemed insufficient and non-representative of what happens in the real world from among other things an aircraft handling perspective, so they've changed the way they are calculated to better represent the real world.

Bottom line, on a dry runway the new calculations increase landing distance by about 25% - on a wet or contaminated runway it is as bad or worse.

Bombardier will have to redo their performance numbers as well to comply with the new standard. This is a big deal that makes Deluce's runway plans obsolete.

[Gino Under]

Aren't BBD certifying their new aeroplane under the latest and applicable FAR 25 rules? Why would they certify then re-certify? I don't get it. Usually, amended regs apply to aircraft manufactured after a specific date and I doubt that date will be known until regulations have been written into law. Proposed regs have no weight that I know of, until they become law.

Are you saying this is NOW lawful regulation under FAR 25? If it is, then the CSeries would likely be compliant. BBD and Mr. Deluce would likely have to revisit runway requirements since no one has committed to a runway extension yet. Plus, it doesn't sound like BBD are having issues with the aeroplanes performance.

Air Canada may take it upon themselves to revisit and adjust their performance considerations by fleet but on what basis? Recommendations? I don't believe Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer are going to re-certify all types in their product line that were previously FAA certified. That would really send the industry into another unnecessary financial crisis, not just BBD and Mr. Deluce.

Curious information though.

Gino

[Rockie]

It's not a re-certification, it's a revised method of calculating landing distances to better reflect real world handling (also changes how contaminated takeoff a and landings are calculated). What it will do is change the landing distance required but it won't affect certification. This is more recent than the numbers Deluce used to calculate his runway requirements on the island, and it would be very strange indeed if Bombardier decided to be the exception to the eminently sensible rule.

[Gino Under]

The ARC you're referring to was assembled to discuss a method of more accurately determining RSC and to create a matrix for determining that braking effectiveness following a Southwest accident (that occurred at Midway airport in a snowstorm 6 years ago).

This won't affect the CSeries landing performance or any other aircraft's landing performance for that matter, except for flight crew having to learn a new way of interpreting runway surface condition and braking action reports when landing at US airports using an unfamiliar matrix. The matrix won't apply in Canada since we already have a method for assessing braking action and RSC called the Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI)

By saying Deluce will need "a revised method of calculating landing distances to better reflect real world handling (also changes how contaminated takeoff a and landings are calculated)" specifically for the CSeries is simply incorrect. Besides, when he conditionally bought those aeroplanes, performance was based on 'predicted' data. The aircraft performance is better than predicted and any increase in landing distance due to degraded surface friction will still be determined by the CRFI and likely to fall within the proposed extension anyway.

Nice try.

Gino

[Old fella]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e27074974/


Here it is.............

[Rockie]

Nice try.

I get the impression you think I'm making this stuff up Gino.

The ARC goes beyond contaminated runways and also effects dry runways. With contaminated all it does is add refinement and helps determine which contaminant is controlling when there is more than one type. In Canada we have CRFI (which I agree is superior, but there are other methods) but it is advisory only, and is still based on dry runway landing distance which is changing. Instead of assuming the wheels impact at 1000 feet down the runway now they consider 7 seconds air time from crossing the threshold and 4% of speed bleed off from the threshold to touchdown. This adds distance and is much more realistic - then you apply the contaminated corrections.

Manufacturers, operators and regulators were all part of this rule making and it is the new standard. I suppose BBD doesn't have to comply, but if they want to sell airplanes in the US they will have to. Unless of course you think they'll have one set of performance numbers for the US and another for Toronto Island?

[Giggidy]

Rockie,
Good question.
I think that this runway expansion is a dead end...(pardon the weak pun). If you add 1200 feet, plus stopway, plus the approach exclusion area, one soon realizes that the inner harbour area has become a NO sail zone. When one adds the same amount to the other end, for the total runway they say they want, then the boat channel is severely compromised.
Plus, the environmental impact of getting approval to dump thousands of tonnes of fill into the lake would make this seem unapprovable.
Cheers.

Pretty sure the plan is to keep the expansion within the current Marine Exclusion Zone (MEZ), which is the area cordoned off (by buoys) at each end of runway 08/26 .

Technically, the physical footprint of the airport will not change. Displaced thresholds will be used (the current runway thresholds will not be moved) so sailboat traffic won't get clipped by approaching aircraft.

On the environmental impact, are those studies complete and published as yet? Genuine question.....haven't seen them as yet.

I have no dog in this fight. Don't work on the island anymore and I might even benefit from a "NO" decision, but I prefer to see facts debated in the open, when they become available.....rather than speculation, conjecture and mis-information.

Giggidy

[Gino Under]

"Manufacturers, operators and regulators were all part of this rule making and it is the new standard. I suppose BBD doesn't have to comply, but if they want to sell airplanes in the US they will have to. Unless of course you think they'll have one set of performance numbers for the US and another for Toronto Island?"

BBD participated in this ARC so this isn't likely news to them. I am just wondering... If it's law, then BBD will have to certify under those regs ONLY when they go for an FAA type certificate. Which I'm sure they will. Right?

FAA regulations don't apply in Canada. ADs don't apply outside the US. Compliance is up to the equipment operator. ACs, same same. SAFOs.

In your previous post you stated there wouldn't be any new regulation under FAR 25, only a rule.
I hate to say it but I'm totally lost here. How would they comply? Rule? Regulation? Is there a difference?

Suggesting that the surface braking coefficient should be based on the dominant contaminate is a sensible approach, I agree. The likely result of this however, if performance requirements make a Boeing look bad and less attractive to potential buyers, will have the lobbyists out in droves.

I'm puzzled as to how this becomes a certification issue without regulations or the system being adopted in Canada.
If it applies under the FAA regs, then the 121 operators of C series (there are none as of today) will likely have to address it until such time as performance methods under FAR 25 are amended. Either way, BBD will have to comply.

Just some musings on the subject.

Gino

[CID]

Gino, there are a few misleading statements in your comments.

FAA regulations don't apply in Canada.

Many aircraft include FAA CFRs as part of their certification basis. Furthermore, US operators that enter foreign airspace are still obligated to follow the applicable FAA rules as well as the applicable foreign rules.

ADs don't apply outside the US.

If you meant to state that FAA issued ADs against aircraft manufactured outside the US and not ever operating in the US, then you are (partially) correct. An AD issued by the FAA on a domestic aeronautical product DOES apply in Canada.

ACs, same same

Nope nope. FAA Advisory Circulars are accepted by TCCA as acceptable means to establish compliance with the related standards.

When aircraft are type certified in foreign countries these days, there is often a corresponding foreign AFM. Each country can place whatever requirements they like as conditions of type certification. There is no obligation on the part of the state of origin to follow suit unless that foreign country places specific restrictions on foreign operators and includes it (in the case of the US) in CFR 129.

[Gino Under]

CID

I’m not trying to mislead anyone with my comments. At least that’s not my intention. This is supposed to be about the C series. But since we seem to be headed off in a totally different direction...

FAA regulations certainly DON’T apply in Canada, but I’ll try to give you my understanding of CFR 14 (I’m not a lawyer, nor am I an expert, and I certainly stand to be corrected, but I’ll give it a shot). CFR 14 contains pretty much all the air transportation FARs and is a compilation of Federal Regulations authored by the United States Government, and enforceable in the U.S., NOT in Canada. Regulations found in CFR 14 apply to domestic and foreign N-registered aircraft.
my apology in advance if that sounds like I'm trying to teach you how to suck eggs

“Many aircraft include FAA CFRs as part of their certification basis.”
If you mean Transport Canada regulations closely mirror the FARs, then yes, I agree there are numerous similarities between the two but separate certification processes. The same applies to the Australians, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, you name whatever Sovereign State you like. The FAA regulations don’t apply in those countries either. But in many cases, I think you’re saying those states either accept or mirror the FARs.

FAA ADs don’t apply outside the U.S. either except for N-registered aircraft. Unless Transport Canada accept and issue their own AD to match the FAA AD. Without that, I don’t think anyone here is obliged to comply. I’m not saying it would be smart to not comply, but even the non-compliant C-registered aircraft flying from Toronto to Dallas falls under the CARs not the FARs.

As I said, FAA ACs are advisory and don’t carry much weight outside the U.S. unless you’re flying an N-registered aircraft with an FAA certificate, but the same process ( I believe ) is in play in Canada. That is, if TC agree with the content of an FAA AC, then they will likely issue a similar AC for Canadians.

The C series will undergo FAA, Transport Canada and EASA certification very shortly. Each state will issue their own type certificate for the aircraft based on their own regulations which may closely resemble FAR 25 requirements anyway. I’m sure the FAA will certify it under the FARs, not the CARs and anyone flying an N-registered C series will have to comply with CFR 14, FARs, ADs, and ACs.

If that’s your point, we’re having an agreement.

“Furthermore, US operators that enter foreign airspace are still obligated to follow the applicable FAA rules as well as the applicable foreign rules.”
Yes, I know that. Again, N-registered aircraft.

“If you meant to state that FAA issued ADs against aircraft manufactured outside the US and not ever operating in the US, then you are (partially) correct. An AD issued by the FAA on a domestic aeronautical product DOES apply in Canada.”
Again, only if it’s N-registered. What about an N-registered A330, DH8, or EMB70.

“Nope nope. FAA Advisory Circulars are accepted by TCCA as acceptable means to establish compliance with the related standards.”
Therefore, TC will likely issue a similar AC to Canadians. Not the FAA.

“When aircraft are type certified in foreign countries these days, there is often a corresponding foreign AFM. Each country can place whatever requirements they like as conditions of type certification. There is no obligation on the part of the state of origin to follow suit unless that foreign country places specific restrictions on foreign operators and includes it (in the case of the US) in CFR 129.”
I'm not sure about the CFR 129 part, but I think CFR 129 pertains more to bilateral agreements between nations covering such things as the foreign carrier or operator leasing N-registered aircraft internationally (Saudia for example), but that’s semantics.

great conversation btw,
Gino Under

[Rockie]

Gino

Landing distance is not a certification requirement so I don't see why we're talking about it. Bombardier seeks to be a player in the transport category aircraft market and as such will comply with the revised and much more realistic methodology for calculating landing distance. Failing to do so would be foolish if they wish to sell airplanes in the US or Europe.

Compare it if you want to the TCAS issue - for many years TC did not make TCAS mandatory but if a Canadian operator wanted to fly in the US guess what? They had to get TCAS. Same applied to every other country's aircraft.

A few years ago all the major manufacturers got together and jointly changed their stall recovery procedures in the interest of safety.

Airbus and Boeing have jointly published a comprehensive paper on jet upset in the mutual interest of safety.

This initiative is also about safety. Bombardier could be the outlier and refuse to upgrade their calculations along with everybody else (assuming TC doesn't also make it a requirement but I wouldn't take that bet) but what is it you think they would gain by doing that? It wouldn't help them sell airplanes because anybody looking to buy them would know the suddenly much improved landing distance over the competition is a false advantage owed to the unequal methodology of calculating it.

WRT to TC/FAA autonomy, TC has long made a habit of letting the FAA do the work and setting the standard. Read the "referenced documents" section of most TC Advisory Circulars and you will find direct references to FAA AC's and TSO's. Anything to do with ADS-B and in particular PBN/RNP/RNAV the US is setting the standard that Canada will end up adopting - guaranteed.

[Old fella]

Is it fair to question the C Series viability in the commercial airplane production business when they(Bombardier) are up against heavy weights such as Boeing and Airbus. Seems this project(CS) has been quite a drain on that company's resources to the point that taxpayers are again being asked. It will certainly be interesting to see what the Trudeau Government plans. Methinks there will be some sort of infusion but not in the 1B range..............

[Gino Under]

Rockie
Rest assured Bombardier know how to certify an aeroplane under the FARs.

"Bombardier will have to redo their performance numbers as well to comply with the new standard. This is a big deal that makes Deluce's runway plans obsolete."

My initial thought was, whaaat? A "big deal"? I don't think so. FAR 25.125 hasn't changed or been modified AFAIK. Dry landing distances will always be the starting point according to the present regulations and almost all regulatory agencies copy FAR 25 to certify an aircraft type. I'm sure Bombardier will certify the C series under FAR 25 for FAA type certification, so the numbers will be just as good for Chicago Midway as they will likely be for CYTZ. And, UFN the CRFI applies in Canada.

"Manufacturers, operators and regulators were all part of this rule making and it is the new standard. I suppose BBD doesn't have to comply, but if they want to sell airplanes in the US they will have to. Unless of course you think they'll have one set of performance numbers for the US and another for Toronto Island?"

I can't imagine why Bombardier wouldn't have one set of numbers for all regulatory agencies.
My attempt at using regulations as an example (under whatever national authority we might imagine), doesn't matter. My attempt to make a point obviously didn't work. Okay. History.

To put it another way, yes, a foreign operator flying within the U.S. must be aware of subtle regulatory differences between their own regs and the FAAs. To simplify one of the points I'm trying to make should be fairly simple. Bombardier doesn't need to re-do any landing distance figures. I should think, YOU, as the pilot, simply need to know the landing distance factor to apply to those published numbers when landing on a contaminated runway whether it's the CRFI or TALPA derived factor you need to apply.

"WRT to TC/FAA autonomy, TC has long made a habit of letting the FAA do the work and setting the standard. Read the "referenced documents" section of most TC Advisory Circulars and you will find direct references to FAA AC's and TSO's. Anything to do with ADS-B and in particular PBN/RNP/RNAV the US is setting the standard that Canada will end up adopting - guaranteed."

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

I hope that's a little clearer?

"Landing distance is not a certification requirement so I don't see why we're talking about it."

Read FAR 25.125 to understand why we're talking about it.

"Airbus and Boeing have jointly published a comprehensive paper on jet upset in the mutual interest of safety."

Yes they have. The FAA have also regulated LOC-I training into airline pilot training and NO ONE stood up in protest. Bad for business?
UPRT should be a licensing requirement at the PPL or CPL level and not at the airline pilot level. The ones pushing the hardest for it are the FAA, the LOC-UPRT-ARC, the training providers, and retired experts sitting on some of these obscure safety committees who think this is the revelation. EASA have eased up on the gas as far as mandating it.
How many aircraft has Air Canada lost due to LOC?
How many have BA lost due to LOC?
How many have ___ lost due to LOC? (You fill in the blank)
But the FAA have written it into law because someone somewhere says LOC accidents are the major cause of an increase in the number of GA accidents. That's right. General aviation. Research airline accidents for LOC as the major cause of an airline accident and you have to play with statistics to prove your point. Maybe we start with the Air France Concorde. How would mandated LOC training have helped that crew? LOC was a contributing factor. Not the cause.

Personally, I think UPRT is a great idea. Do we need it as a regulated safety requirement? Probably not. Proactive safety is always a great idea. If you want to undertake the expense of the training to the tune of approximately $6000 a head, great. When you start reading some of the airline accident reports you begin to see the figures to support it under mandated regulation somehow don't quite add up.

I'll leave it to you to form your own opinion on it.

Safe flight.
Gino

[CID]

Gino, I'm not the one sucking eggs...or a bong. Sorry but almost everything you wrote in your last post was wrong. Have you ever looked at a type certificate data sheet?

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/n ... x?lang=eng

Browse through that site and you will find very quickly that there are a great many aircraft type certified in Canada under a certification basis that is not "Canadian".

Another false statement that is easy to correct you on is the use of foreign ADs.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 56-552.htm

And then there are FAA Advisory Circulars:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... tm#571s_06

I could go on and on but I'd be here all night. Just be a little careful about posting about stuff you obviously have little knowledge and experience about.

[Gino Under]

Rockie and CID

You guys are right. Looks like I'm fulla crap. Not the first time and likely not the last.
Thanks for the references. They're appreciated.
I accept the need for more reading. There's always something more a person can learn anyway.
Even me.

Speaking with an acquaintance at BBD I've also learned that yes, the FAA has a new matrix for landing distances they will have to publish for their C series. More reading I'll have to do. Maybe it will affect runway length at CYTZ?
So, it's been a great week for learning new stuff.

Gotta go wipe some egg off my face.

Cheers,

Gino

[Cod Father]

. I wonder though, since Porter has already stepped pretty far outside their original business plan what's preventing them from setting up in Pearson with both the Q and C Series?

If they get stuck with the jets, maybe what they could do is keep the Q's at YTZ and operate the jets from Pearson and get a deal going where connecting pax get a free UPX ride. That or they could operate their own buses there.

That could work.

[Cod Father]

I don't think Adam Vaughan has even consulted with his leaders before speaking like that, a bit premature in my opinion.
Day 2 and he's speaking on behalf of the entire liberal government regarding this issue which is a few hundred million dollars worth in terms of jobs and economics. Easy there Adam...

Naw he said in an interview that Trudeau committed to him to keep the tripartite agreement closed. Jets at YTZ is not gonna happen.

Trudeau also said he is going to run a true cabinet government, which means he is but one vote at the cabinet table. All you need is 16 cabinet Ministers on side.

[Ypilot]

https://mobile.twitter.com/marcgarneau/ ... 6213256192

[Rockie]

Well, Chris Russell sure seems annoyed...