Ugly rumour...

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:57 am

Why would you classify this as an "ugly" rumour?

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:30 am

cpt sweet'njuicy wrote:because it directly affects how much money i make

Ah, but of course.

Hot Garbage · Post by **Hot Garbage** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:53 pm

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:28 pm

cpt sweet'njuicy wrote: why else would I care...if it didnt have to do with the cash flow....

Ah, but of course.

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:37 pm

Nice to know that TC plans to level the field. The original field obviously had a downhill slope if the operator couldn't meet the accelerate/stop distance.

R580XD · Post by **R580XD** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:40 pm

Don't the green tailed tubes out of YWG fall into this grandfather clause with all of MBs northern short strips?

planett · Post by **planett** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:03 pm

The clause is an exemption available to all companies operating in 704 with small aircraft, but only granted to those who apply for it. Many operators never need it due to better runways in their region. It essentially allows a 704 commuter to act like 703 where ASDA requirements cannot be complied with. It is time limited to 2010.

A look through the CARS will reveal many exemptions for many types of aircraft or operations where economic factors made a stronger case to regulators than one level of safety did.

J31 · Post by **J31** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:10 am

Hey S & J
Are you talking about CAR 724.44 Exceptions? Haul no more than 9 passengers and CAR 724.46 Take-off Weight Limitations allows for Relief from Accelerate-stop Distance Requirements and Engine-out Take-off Distance Requirements.

Lots of aircraft like the Beech 99, Beech100, 200, 300, 350’s, 1900, Metros, Jetstreams operate with this exception

Is there an exemption to carry more than 9 passengers and not meet the ASDA?

If you are talking about the Metro II I believe they have Accelerate-Slow charts not Accelerate-Stop charts.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:37 pm

Take-off planning, certification requirements, aerodrome certification requirements and grandfather clauses are so complicated, many operators can hide behind this complication. It all comes down to how you interpet the AFM and what parts of an airplane certification standards we fall under. Definatley, you can operate a Metro 2 into a shorter strip than you can a Metro 3 or 23, simply because of the certification standards in place when the airplane was first designed. Even though the Metro 2 actually requires more runway.

planett · Post by **planett** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:41 pm

Regarding a level playing field:

I say sure, lets level the playing field across the country in airport facilities. Forget new terminals for now, lets have better lighting and approaches in the north, also, 3000' and 3500' runways are simply out of date for the amount and type of traffic the north actually sees, especially Manitoba.

I know it's far from the minds of the general public in the south, but a huge amount of Canada's aviation business exists north of the Trans Canada Highway. To tack on 500 or 1000 feet and rewire the lighting is not exactly rocket science. The companies would benefit and would have larger taxable revenues, the public would see less cancelled flights or missed approaches, and I believe the level of safety would improve.

I find it strange that some of the lodges have hundreds of feet more runway than the communities around them housing hundreds or thousands of year round residents.

moe · Post by **moe** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:34 pm

you can carry more than 9 and not meet asda if you are under 12,500 with ops spec.

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:21 am

planett wrote:To tack on 500 or 1000 feet and rewire the lighting is not exactly rocket science. The companies would benefit and would have larger taxable revenues, the public would see less cancelled flights or missed approaches, and I believe the level of safety would improve.

I agree. As always, the issue can be distilled down to "who will pay?" Everyone wants it, nobody wants to foot the bill.