Thoughts on jets in YTZ
Thread Starter
Thoughts on jets in YTZ
Good Evening All:
Just some thoughts on YTZ expansion plans.
At KLGA runways 04 22 13 and 31 are 7,000 feet in length all 150 feet wide. Runway 13 31 has a overrun of 460 feet. From recollection YTZ longest runway is just under 4,000 feet with no over run.
Has anyone seen the plans for YTZ expansion? What are the runway lengths? What is the runway overrun plans call for? What sort of upgrades to Emergency Services?
From News reports the First Responders from the Port Authority of New York were on scene in under five minutes.
I can only trust if they put jets in at YTZ they will not go cheap and put in a proper runway, proper overrun and upgrade the emergency services.
As a point of interest the nose is sticking over the East River so they almost went in the water (remember a 7,000 foot runway with over run).
Given a choice I will only use YYZ
Just some thoughts on YTZ expansion plans.
At KLGA runways 04 22 13 and 31 are 7,000 feet in length all 150 feet wide. Runway 13 31 has a overrun of 460 feet. From recollection YTZ longest runway is just under 4,000 feet with no over run.
Has anyone seen the plans for YTZ expansion? What are the runway lengths? What is the runway overrun plans call for? What sort of upgrades to Emergency Services?
From News reports the First Responders from the Port Authority of New York were on scene in under five minutes.
I can only trust if they put jets in at YTZ they will not go cheap and put in a proper runway, proper overrun and upgrade the emergency services.
As a point of interest the nose is sticking over the East River so they almost went in the water (remember a 7,000 foot runway with over run).
Given a choice I will only use YYZ
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning!
Well, first of all, in this incident the aircraft skidded off to the side of the runway. Accident: Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing
Second of all, in the photo on AvHerald, the runway looks "contaminated." In the US in my experience, they don't really have a non-subjective system of reporting how contaminated the runway is... here in Canada, along with some basic "rules" about what constitutes a "contaminated runway" we use CRFIs, where in the US there are arbitary Mu values and this "good/fair/poor" stuff. All subjective. (Edited to add - for those who may not be familiar with CRFIs, they are basically charted values which we take and put into other charts which show us maximum crosswind limitations for that specific value, along with runway length required. Contamination levels are also factored in. So, from the AvHerald article, I've calculated that the crosswind component is 9kts. If the runway had more than 25% "loose dry snow" at greater than ⅜ of an inch, the crosswind limit I would have to adhere to in my operation would be 8 to 14 kts, depending on CRFI (or "good" vs "poor" or "fair").)
Thirdly, no matter what aircraft type it is, there won't be anything landing at the island - or any airport - if the numbers don't work for it. Higher weights = more runway length required. On days where there is ice accumulation, higher speed requirements increase runway length required. If the numbers don't work, you don't land. This is all factored into the dispatching of aircraft as well.
Also... the snow clearing equipment at the Island is fantastic; the folks there keep the runway in great shape, and unless a freezing rain storm goes through, it's rarely contaminated. If it is contaminated, there are company-imposed CRFI limits that are much higher than those implemented than at outstations where the runways are much longer.
You asked about CFR - the other night a small Cessna reported an electrical burning smell on start up. The fire trucks were there in less than 3 minutes.
It's definitely not a bush operation.
The proposed new takeoff distance is 5438', which does not include the roughly 500' long RESA on the far end. (The new landing distance, not including the RESA, is 4502'.) I have a link to the airport master plan if you're interested.
(And somewhere, I'm sure, is a public link to the CS100 performance charts showing that it can easily make it work. We're not talking about an MD88 or any random jet, here... just the CS100.)
You mentioned CYYZ - that runway wasn't long enough for Air France....
KMDW - that wasn't long enough for Southwest... (that's the one that skidded to a stop at the gas station.)
Well, first of all, in this incident the aircraft skidded off to the side of the runway. Accident: Delta MD88 at New York on Mar 5th 2015, runway excursion on landing
Second of all, in the photo on AvHerald, the runway looks "contaminated." In the US in my experience, they don't really have a non-subjective system of reporting how contaminated the runway is... here in Canada, along with some basic "rules" about what constitutes a "contaminated runway" we use CRFIs, where in the US there are arbitary Mu values and this "good/fair/poor" stuff. All subjective. (Edited to add - for those who may not be familiar with CRFIs, they are basically charted values which we take and put into other charts which show us maximum crosswind limitations for that specific value, along with runway length required. Contamination levels are also factored in. So, from the AvHerald article, I've calculated that the crosswind component is 9kts. If the runway had more than 25% "loose dry snow" at greater than ⅜ of an inch, the crosswind limit I would have to adhere to in my operation would be 8 to 14 kts, depending on CRFI (or "good" vs "poor" or "fair").)
Thirdly, no matter what aircraft type it is, there won't be anything landing at the island - or any airport - if the numbers don't work for it. Higher weights = more runway length required. On days where there is ice accumulation, higher speed requirements increase runway length required. If the numbers don't work, you don't land. This is all factored into the dispatching of aircraft as well.
Also... the snow clearing equipment at the Island is fantastic; the folks there keep the runway in great shape, and unless a freezing rain storm goes through, it's rarely contaminated. If it is contaminated, there are company-imposed CRFI limits that are much higher than those implemented than at outstations where the runways are much longer.
You asked about CFR - the other night a small Cessna reported an electrical burning smell on start up. The fire trucks were there in less than 3 minutes.
It's definitely not a bush operation.
The proposed new takeoff distance is 5438', which does not include the roughly 500' long RESA on the far end. (The new landing distance, not including the RESA, is 4502'.) I have a link to the airport master plan if you're interested.
(And somewhere, I'm sure, is a public link to the CS100 performance charts showing that it can easily make it work. We're not talking about an MD88 or any random jet, here... just the CS100.)
You mentioned CYYZ - that runway wasn't long enough for Air France....
KMDW - that wasn't long enough for Southwest... (that's the one that skidded to a stop at the gas station.)
Last edited by surveytheworld; 6th Mar 2015 at 16:34. Reason: CRFI clarification
Thread Starter
Good Afternoon Survey The World
Yes I would appreciate the master plan link if you could post it.
As far as our friends involved in the over run in YYZ it was my understanding they were caught by a micro-burst which put them above glide slope leading to a unstableized approach before landing around the mid point of the runway which was wet.
If proposed runway length for YTZ is as suggested in my view it will have thin reserves.
My only experience with Bombardier is the CL-65/100 series where if use engine/wing anti ice is used it was a 15% WAT penalty which resulted in load restrictions x YFC (6,000 foot runway) or leave light and go to YQM refuel for YYZ.
With no comments until accident report is published LGA was always a positive landing with firm braking full reverse which was experienced on the DC-9, B-727, A-319, A-320, A-321, B-767 and a couple on the L1011.
As far as the slide off the runway I think it would be more prudent to wait for the accident report from the NTSB has reviewed and published the report
Yes I would appreciate the master plan link if you could post it.
As far as our friends involved in the over run in YYZ it was my understanding they were caught by a micro-burst which put them above glide slope leading to a unstableized approach before landing around the mid point of the runway which was wet.
If proposed runway length for YTZ is as suggested in my view it will have thin reserves.
My only experience with Bombardier is the CL-65/100 series where if use engine/wing anti ice is used it was a 15% WAT penalty which resulted in load restrictions x YFC (6,000 foot runway) or leave light and go to YQM refuel for YYZ.
With no comments until accident report is published LGA was always a positive landing with firm braking full reverse which was experienced on the DC-9, B-727, A-319, A-320, A-321, B-767 and a couple on the L1011.
As far as the slide off the runway I think it would be more prudent to wait for the accident report from the NTSB has reviewed and published the report
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to hear the outcome of the Delta incident - luckily the NTSB issues preliminary information, so we won't have to wait years. I'm curious to learn touch down point, if they had any unrelated issues, etc. No arm chairing here, just pointed out that there was obviously snow on the runway.
Here is a link to some specs for the CS100 - note the landing distance is for max landing weight and of course is reduced for lighter weights. (As an aside, this aircraft is being planned for use at London City airport as well; 4900', surrounded by city and water, and a nice 5.5 steep slope approach... it's only 4.8 at YTZ!)
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier...S100_EN_V1.pdf
Here is the public link for the current YTZ master plan:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...ize+8-5x11.pdf
Here is a link to some specs for the CS100 - note the landing distance is for max landing weight and of course is reduced for lighter weights. (As an aside, this aircraft is being planned for use at London City airport as well; 4900', surrounded by city and water, and a nice 5.5 steep slope approach... it's only 4.8 at YTZ!)
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier...S100_EN_V1.pdf
Here is the public link for the current YTZ master plan:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...ize+8-5x11.pdf
Thread Starter
Good Evening Survey The World
Thank you for the link and if you can find some WAT charts it would be interesting to see the actual performance figures for the aircraft.
As our old instructor in performance many years ago said "if you ever see a standard day" (sea level 15 C 29:92) send me a post card...
Thank you for the link and if you can find some WAT charts it would be interesting to see the actual performance figures for the aircraft.
As our old instructor in performance many years ago said "if you ever see a standard day" (sea level 15 C 29:92) send me a post card...
Thread Starter
Good Evening Chuck:
That would be very true but I was more interested in maximum WAT figures as there was talk of YTZ YVR flights. As you know WAT interpretation gets interesting in summer with temperature barometric considerations as well as winter with anti ice, runway conditions etc.
That being said I really look forward to the results from their flight testing on the larger aircraft.
That would be very true but I was more interested in maximum WAT figures as there was talk of YTZ YVR flights. As you know WAT interpretation gets interesting in summer with temperature barometric considerations as well as winter with anti ice, runway conditions etc.
That being said I really look forward to the results from their flight testing on the larger aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the link previously posted, CS100 MTOW ("base") takeoff distance on a standard day is only 4000'.
The CS100 may not be able to do an MTOW takeoff on a very hot summer day on a 4000' runway, but neither can the Q400. There are so many solutions (route/flight/load planning) that'll make it work. So much stuff going on behind the scenes.
The company obviously isn't going to invest in a bunch of aircraft if they aren't going to meet expected requirements. Noise is a huge factor, performance is another. Bottom line - for landing or takeoff, it's all about the numbers. If Bombardier shows the numbers work, companies will buy the airplanes. Once the aircraft are on line, just like in any airline operation, if you get a bad RSC, you get iced up on the approach which makes the distance not work, it ends up being too hot at the planned weight to take off... if the numbers don't work, you don't land (or take off!!!)
YTZ is a really cool place to fly into, but in the end - it's just another airport that happens to have water at either end of the runway.
The CS100 may not be able to do an MTOW takeoff on a very hot summer day on a 4000' runway, but neither can the Q400. There are so many solutions (route/flight/load planning) that'll make it work. So much stuff going on behind the scenes.
The company obviously isn't going to invest in a bunch of aircraft if they aren't going to meet expected requirements. Noise is a huge factor, performance is another. Bottom line - for landing or takeoff, it's all about the numbers. If Bombardier shows the numbers work, companies will buy the airplanes. Once the aircraft are on line, just like in any airline operation, if you get a bad RSC, you get iced up on the approach which makes the distance not work, it ends up being too hot at the planned weight to take off... if the numbers don't work, you don't land (or take off!!!)
YTZ is a really cool place to fly into, but in the end - it's just another airport that happens to have water at either end of the runway.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tickawarra
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIR CANADA... no jets for Toronto Island.
Air Canada says no to jets landing at Toronto?s Billy Bishop airport | Financial Post
Air Canada says no to jets landing at Toronto?s Billy Bishop airport | Financial Post
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using it as often as I do I'm constantly amazed at the convenience of YTZ for city residents.
If the TPA really wanted to put jets in there couldn't they build a new runway on a more SW heading out into the lake without touching the inner harbour areas?
A 7000 ft runway on a hdg of 06/24 out into the lake would sure attract a lot of larger jets and customers. It would also free up the needed ramp space.
Landings with higher tailwinds would have to become more common to reduce approaches over the city and keep the noise complaints down I suppose.
If the TPA really wanted to put jets in there couldn't they build a new runway on a more SW heading out into the lake without touching the inner harbour areas?
A 7000 ft runway on a hdg of 06/24 out into the lake would sure attract a lot of larger jets and customers. It would also free up the needed ramp space.
Landings with higher tailwinds would have to become more common to reduce approaches over the city and keep the noise complaints down I suppose.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You couldn't get the glide path for jets to land on 24. There are too many towers on the approach, which would effectively be over the city.
Even a Cessna has to fly a slightly weird circuit in order not to crash into the Scotia tower. When the wind is from a certain direction, even that is fun
As a fairly well rounded stakeholder...
I live in sight of the airport, I fly Porter for business , I sail from a local yacht club and fly as a private pilot from CYTZ, I'm against the expansion of the runway .
Its not a noise thing its more of a preserving GA at the airport thing.
I've only just become a member of the pilot community and already I'm scared for its future.
GA is being squeezed out of City, buttonville is about to close and Oshawa's future is far from certain.
Even a Cessna has to fly a slightly weird circuit in order not to crash into the Scotia tower. When the wind is from a certain direction, even that is fun
As a fairly well rounded stakeholder...
I live in sight of the airport, I fly Porter for business , I sail from a local yacht club and fly as a private pilot from CYTZ, I'm against the expansion of the runway .
Its not a noise thing its more of a preserving GA at the airport thing.
I've only just become a member of the pilot community and already I'm scared for its future.
GA is being squeezed out of City, buttonville is about to close and Oshawa's future is far from certain.
