They have a snow sweeping team out to do a complete runway pass every few minutes, while it's snowing.

ODA wrote:I tend to wonder about that length of runway and contaminated runways dealing with a jet, but defiantly got a chuckle seeing 5000' and STOL in the same sentence.

Sorry to hijack the topic.

Cheers

STOL is a marketing invented by de Havilland in the 60s. The only reason the Q400 or CS100 isn't considered STOL is because Bombardier isn't using that marketing term anymore.

The geared turbofan on the CS100 will behave more like a turboprop than a traditional high bypass jet engine on takeoff, since the fan stage is much bigger and slower spinning. A big slow spinning fan is more dynamically efficient at low altitude, hence the takeoff performance is better.

Hozer wrote:For the peeps at Porter, Do you think the current "gong show" at city hall will have any bearing on City Council's decision for Jets at YTZ. ie: a delay to their decision, change in outcome of their decision. If Ford is no longer the mayor do they still have their "pull" with city council? Just wondering what you guys think?

I worry about the decision being delayed if anything. The Deputy Mayor is a fan on the expansion as well, so it shouldn't change the outcome if Mr. Ford is not there. As it stands now, the decision is scheduled to be made by mid December.

my definition of a contaminated rwy is the one we use for the Q400 and is defined by a rwy which is more than 25% covered in width, length with standing water, slush or snow or 100% compact snow

yes I would agree that YTZ has a crfi several times throughout the winter but is not contaminated due to the excellent snow removal team

I wonder if the runway extension will get caught up in Rob Ford political fallout seeing as he was such a big proponent if it. His opponents now smell blood and I'm sure would love to show him to be lame duck mayor. I hope people are able to separate the issues and vote on the merit of the proposal not what is politically expedient.

Valhalla wrote: As it stands now, the decision is scheduled to be made by mid December.

After all, it's not like a new incoming mayor could reverse the decision of the previous administration leading to a lawsuit and a huge payoff for Bob Deluce. Nothing like that could ever happen to an infrastructure project at the Island. It would be unthinkable.

So you're flying a C Series into or out of Toronto Island Airport and a TS goes through and now the runway is wet. Apparently the C Series is capable of being fully loaded with pax and fuel for the leg to LAX or YVR, be able to meet balanced field requirements. I call BS. Try rejecting in a fully loaded medium sized jet on a contaminated runway with less than 5000 feet. I think you would run off the end, into the lake. Next the landing. Big slow fans or not you cannot reverse fans nor count it anyways when determining landing distance. There is also this little thing YTZ called the 4.8º glide slope. I don't know any approach that is used by a passenger jet flying such a steep approach.

I would be very surprised if Deluce could pull this off.

There is also this little thing YTZ called the 4.8º glide slope. I don't know any approach that is used by a passenger jet flying such a steep approach.

ILS RWY 09 at EGLC has a glideslope of 5.5 degrees. Lots of passenger jets there.

https://ivao.aero/db/ss/airport.asp?Id=EGLC

The Airbus A318 is a passenger airliner and regularly uses London City's (EGLC) 5.5 degree glideslope. Presumably with weight restrictions and other performance penalties, etc but it's doable. The CS100 will have much better performance & noise characteristics, so with airlines like Swiss and Odyssey ordering the CS100 specifically for use at LCY with it's much steeper slope, I submit CYTZ will operate just fine with these a/c when they enter service. IMHO. Time, as they say will tell. Cheers

privateer wrote:So you're flying a C Series into or out of Toronto Island Airport and a TS goes through and now the runway is wet. Apparently the C Series is capable of being fully loaded with pax and fuel for the leg to LAX or YVR, be able to meet balanced field requirements. I call BS. Try rejecting in a fully loaded medium sized jet on a contaminated runway with less than 5000 feet. I think you would run off the end, into the lake. Next the landing. Big slow fans or not you cannot reverse fans nor count it anyways when determining landing distance. There is also this little thing YTZ called the 4.8º glide slope. I don't know any approach that is used by a passenger jet flying such a steep approach.

I would be very surprised if Deluce could pull this off.

apperently the sale is conditional on the c-series making the numbers. If they can't make the numbers they don't buy the airplane if the construction doesn't happen they don't buy the airplane. Unless your a test pilot with Bombardier or a member of the c-series design team, I'd say you don't know about it's ablilities or short commings. that plane has technology 25 years more advanced than an NG and alot of conditional sales based on the numbers they published. porters 30 swiss's 30 which is a subsidiary of the Luftansa group and could lead to a order in the hundreds if their happy with it. The last think Bombardier want's is the reputation that their airplane came in below expectations and was losing customers because of it. That can be a death sentance for a new manufacturer in an established market.

photofly wrote:

Valhalla wrote: As it stands now, the decision is scheduled to be made by mid December.

After all, it's not like a new incoming mayor could reverse the decision of the previous administration leading to a lawsuit and a huge payoff for Bob Deluce. Nothing like that could ever happen to an infrastructure project at the Island. It would be unthinkable.

Actually, changes to the airport rules or runway construction cannot be reversed by a new city administration as any changes to the airport require a consensus from the city, the federal government and the Port Authority. This is why the last mayor couldn't close the airport, Chicago style, even though he campaigned to cancelling the bridge to the airport and opposed airport expansion.

privateer wrote:So you're flying a C Series into or out of Toronto Island Airport and a TS goes through and now the runway is wet. Apparently the C Series is capable of being fully loaded with pax and fuel for the leg to LAX or YVR, be able to meet balanced field requirements. I call BS. Try rejecting in a fully loaded medium sized jet on a contaminated runway with less than 5000 feet. I think you would run off the end, into the lake. Next the landing. Big slow fans or not you cannot reverse fans nor count it anyways when determining landing distance. There is also this little thing YTZ called the 4.8º glide slope. I don't know any approach that is used by a passenger jet flying such a steep approach.

I would be very surprised if Deluce could pull this off.

The C Series will be steep approach approved out of the factory. And in my experience, landing from a steep approach does not lengthen the landing roll.

Also, the runway will be grooved, meaning it will dissipate standing water. But hey, maybe you should relay your concerns to the nerds in lab coats at Bombardier. They're the ones insisting that it'll work.

vrefplus5 wrote:The Airbus A318 is a passenger airliner and regularly uses London City's (EGLC) 5.5 degree glideslope. Presumably with weight restrictions and other performance penalties, etc but it's doable. The CS100 will have much better performance & noise characteristics, so with airlines like Swiss and Odyssey ordering the CS100 specifically for use at LCY with it's much steeper slope, I submit CYTZ will operate just fine with these a/c when they enter service. IMHO. Time, as they say will tell. Cheers

5.5 deg G/S corresponds to a 583 ft/nm gradient and based on say an apch speed of 130kts that translates to 1263 ft/min. Certainly coming down quite fast, then again that IAP is published(don't know of the restrictions but has to be some) so there are applicable standards being met. Would assume similar for Toronto Island and Cseries.......

The C series may be approved for a steep approach but I'd be willing to bet it'll be flying RNP approaches into the island.

justwork wrote:The C series may be approved for a steep approach but I'd be willing to bet it'll be flying RNP approaches into the island.

I'd bet you're correct, when all is said and done.

10 or 2 degree glide slope, your plan is to touchdown by the 1000' mark. Anything past that is a long landing and should be a go around, no questions asked. Anything short of that and you've gone even steeper on your approach.

That's how I operated the Q4 for 3+ years into this land with PD.

+1 for the RNP for all fleets at PD, sooner or later.

Side question, if the runway is to be grooved, would the work to be done affect the daily ops?

Jack Klumpus wrote:10 or 2 degree glide slope, your plan is to touchdown by the 1000' mark. Anything past that is a long landing and should be a go around, no questions asked. Anything short of that and you've gone even steeper on your approach.

That's how I operated the Q4 for 3+ years into this land with PD.

+1 for the RNP for all fleets at PD, sooner or later.

Side question, if the runway is to be grooved, would the work to be done affect the daily ops?

At YTZ with the steep G/S and high TCH of 58ft, the GPI(ground point of interception) calculates to be 691ft from threshold.

Jack Klumpus wrote:Side question, if the runway is to be grooved, would the work to be done affect the daily ops?

Concrete gets layed in sections at night. Then grooving happens, also at night, in sections.

4.8 degrees is beyond what is legally allowed for CAT 3 approaches
so LVP ops on the island is not possible.

Also swept wing jets and straight wing turbo props are two very different
types of toys. The talk that we will just start flying this plane like we do
the Q400 and everything will be fine, hints at the lack of experience and
naivety of many of the pilots on the Porter band wagon.

For many this will be their first transport category jet, and the environment
is well set for an incident.

Obbie wrote:4.8 degrees is beyond what is legally allowed for CAT 3 approaches
so LVP ops on the island is not possible.

You might want to re-think your absolute certainty: there already is an LPV approach at CYTZ.

Jets at the Island will NEVER happen! There must be some pilots at porter with some experience who realize this. Time to squash this silly rumour.

Valhalla wrote:

photofly wrote:

Valhalla wrote: As it stands now, the decision is scheduled to be made by mid December.

After all, it's not like a new incoming mayor could reverse the decision of the previous administration leading to a lawsuit and a huge payoff for Bob Deluce. Nothing like that could ever happen to an infrastructure project at the Island. It would be unthinkable.

Actually, changes to the airport rules or runway construction cannot be reversed by a new city administration as any changes to the airport require a consensus from the city, the federal government and the Port Authority. This is why the last mayor couldn't close the airport, Chicago style, even though he campaigned to cancelling the bridge to the airport and opposed airport expansion.

ACTUALLY, the city can and does have the right to hold up ANY new construction or development in the city. Even though the island is federally owned and operated by the PA. The surrounding area is city owned and all environmental assessments and considerations are the responsibility of the city.

photofly wrote:

Obbie wrote:4.8 degrees is beyond what is legally allowed for CAT 3 approaches
so LVP ops on the island is not possible.

You might want to re-think your absolute certainty: there already is an LPV approach at CYTZ.

Please tell me where I can find the CAT 2 or CAT 3 approach plates for the island.

There's no CAT 2 or CAT 3 ILS, but you'll find the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 08 in the RCAP, and it has only LPV minima, no others.

Ah - my error then - I read your LVP as a typo for LPV.

Steep approaches are actually the norm for short runway operations.

http://www.airbus.com/innovation/proven ... -approach/

http://www.baffinphotography.ca/steep-approach/

The Boeing C-17 uses a 5 degree slope when making short landings.