Buttonville Tower set to close in July!

[PlanePaully]

This is for any pilots who fly around Toronto and southern Ontario. Nav Canada has indicated that the Control Tower at Buttonville will be closed in July of this year, and CYKZ will then become a Class E MF Control Zone.

Nav Canada and TC initiated a study in 2017, some time after Toronto Airways moved their FTU out to Oshawa in late 2016, and many of the locally based pilots had also found new homes for their aircraft. Obviously, Nav Canada found that the number of aircraft movements had plummeted, and they felt that there was no longer a need for the Class D Control Zone at CYKZ.

The argument is that both Brampton and Burlington also exist safely under the Pearson Class C terminal shelf, both of them without control towers, and both had more movements last year than Buttonville. However, the majority of Pearson landing traffic are routed to Runways 23 and 24L & 24R, which has them regularly flying immediately overhead the Buttonville Zone.

Since the beginning of 2018, a lot of things have changed at Buttonville. The airport has announced that it now expects to operate for at least five more years. The Canadian Flyers FTU moved from Markham Airport to Buttonville, so there are now many more training flight movements happening every day. Aircraft that left for new bases have come back to the hangars at Buttonville. It is a much busier airport now than it was when the study was completed in mid 2017. There are still fast jets coming and going IFR, while slow moving training Cessna’s are buzzing constantly around the circuit.

If you think that closing the tower at Buttonville is a bad idea, it might be worth your time to send a letter to Nav Canada, Transport Canada, maybe even your local MP, to voice your concerns.

[20DMEYYZ]

when flying the old early evening 208 bank runs in there occasionally we got pressed getting open on freq to establish with twr. it would of been even more tricky w/o twr keeping up the cadence for everyone.

[Cessna 180]

I sent an email to NavCanada and cc'd TC Ontario and the Minister of Transport

[PlanePaully]

Good work @Cessna 180! Thanks!

The story got some ink from CBC online today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/buttonville-airp ... -1.4652213

[Cessna 180]

If anyone wants to copy my letter (change it up a bit), here it goes. I took a bit from the OPs post.

To: service@navcanada.ca
Cc: tc.aviationservicesont-servicesaviationont.tc@tc.gc.ca, marc.garneau@parl.gc.ca

Dear Nav Canada:

I'd like to express my concerns with the impending closure of the control tower at Buttonville Airport.

I understand that in 2017, NavCanada studied the airspace at the Buttonville Airport and determined that since the departure of a major flying school and many business customers relating to the proposed closure of the airport, traffic levels were less than similar airports such as Brampton. I understand that with the reduced traffic volumes, it made sense to reduce costs by closing the control tower and reverting to a 24/7 uncontroled mandatory frequency airspace.

Since the beginning of 2018, a lot of things have changed at Buttonville. The airport has announced that it now expects to operate for at least five more years. The Canadian Flyers flight training unit has moved from Markham Airport to Buttonville, so there are now many more training flight movements happening every day. Aircraft that left for new bases have come back to the hangars at Buttonville. It is a much busier airport now than it was when the study was completed in mid 2017. There are still fast jets coming and going IFR, while slow moving training Cessna’s are buzzing constantly around the circuit.

In addition, with the increased level of traffic, lack of control increases the hazard to the frequently used runway 23, 24R, and 24L approaches at Toronto Pearson, which are directly overhead the Buttonville Airport. This can mean a hazard to the numerous passenger and cargo aircraft operating to the Toronto Airport and can result in costly delays resulting from a missed approachs. The lack of control at the Buttonville Airport could result in potentially fatal situation caused by an unaware aircraft operating at the Buttonville Airport.

Buttonville is also the only General Aviation airport within the GTA that can accommodate jet aircraft. Many operators prefer or require flight into towered airports and Toronto Pearson is the only other option. Toronto Pearson is very costly for General Aviation aircraft, and the added traffic only assures that congestion at the already strained Toronto Pearson Airport will increase.

I strongly suggest that NavCanada reevaluate its position on closing the Buttonville Tower. From the points I have listed above, the cost of closing the tower at an important Toronto area airport would be far greater than the saving. It would be a huge loss to Canadian aviation and a mistake.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry.

Regards,

xxxx

cc: Transport Canada Civil Aviation Ontario Region; The Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport

[skybluetrek]

If anyone wants to copy my letter (change it up a bit), here it goes. I took a bit from the OPs post.

To: service@navcanada.ca
Cc: tc.aviationservicesont-servicesaviationont.tc@tc.gc.ca, marc.garneau@parl.gc.ca

Dear Nav Canada:

I'd like to express my concerns with the impending closure of the control tower at Buttonville Airport.

I understand that in 2017, NavCanada studied the airspace at the Buttonville Airport and determined that since the departure of a major flying school and many business customers relating to the proposed closure of the airport, traffic levels were less than similar airports such as Brampton. I understand that with the reduced traffic volumes, it made sense to reduce costs by closing the control tower and reverting to a 24/7 uncontroled mandatory frequency airspace.

Since the beginning of 2018, a lot of things have changed at Buttonville. The airport has announced that it now expects to operate for at least five more years. The Canadian Flyers flight training unit has moved from Markham Airport to Buttonville, so there are now many more training flight movements happening every day. Aircraft that left for new bases have come back to the hangars at Buttonville. It is a much busier airport now than it was when the study was completed in mid 2017. There are still fast jets coming and going IFR, while slow moving training Cessna’s are buzzing constantly around the circuit.

In addition, with the increased level of traffic, lack of control increases the hazard to the frequently used runway 23, 24R, and 24L approaches at Toronto Pearson, which are directly overhead the Buttonville Airport. This can mean a hazard to the numerous passenger and cargo aircraft operating to the Toronto Airport and can result in costly delays resulting from a missed approachs. The lack of control at the Buttonville Airport could result in potentially fatal situation caused by an unaware aircraft operating at the Buttonville Airport.

Buttonville is also the only General Aviation airport within the GTA that can accommodate jet aircraft. Many operators prefer or require flight into towered airports and Toronto Pearson is the only other option. Toronto Pearson is very costly for General Aviation aircraft, and the added traffic only assures that congestion at the already strained Toronto Pearson Airport will increase.

I strongly suggest that NavCanada reevaluate its position on closing the Buttonville Tower. From the points I have listed above, the cost of closing the tower at an important Toronto area airport would be far greater than the saving. It would be a huge loss to Canadian aviation and a mistake.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry.

Regards,

xxxx

cc: Transport Canada Civil Aviation Ontario Region; The Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport

Good stuff, thanks, will do. Thanks to the OP as well for adressing the issue. This is not only about GA pilots complaining, is about public safety. I hear it all the time flying in and out of ykz: ''Unidentified airplane flying over Buttonville at 2500 are you on this frequency'' or ''C-XXXX do not enter the CZ, orbit outside and descend to 2000''.
Some services shouldn't be run by a corporation anyways.

[PlanePaully]

April in Indiana showed exactly what can happen when you mix fast jets IFR, slow VFR, intersecting runways, poor radio communications and no control tower to keep everyone safe:

https://www.flyingmag.com/citation-and- ... na-airport

[PlanePaully]

I attended the monthly Buttonville Flying Club meeting last night for an update. Here is my take on what was shared there: CYKZ management is working hard to have the tower closure decision rescinded. Since the beginning of the year, movements are up substantially at Buttonville. However, a lot of senior people at NAV Canada reviewed last year's Aeronautical Study and signed off on it. TC is taking the position that Nav Canada has done their homework and that the basis for the decision is sound.

Basically, we have a lot of senior officials at large bureaucratic institutions that have made a decision based on faulty/old data, and now they do not want to have to eat crow and publicly change position. It is going to be tough to turn this one around. Your help would be much appreciated!

[172_Captain]

Towered or not, those jets flying into YYZ are operating above the CZ in class C airspace. I really don’t see the concern. Obviously Nav Canada have done their due deligance and have data to support their decision which we’re not privy too.

[PlanePaully]

PM me and I can email you a copy of the NAV Canada study PDF. To support their decision, they assumed ZERO movements from September of 2017 onward.

[Lotro]

From the article on CBC posted in this thread:

Airports require 60,000 takeoffs and landings per year in order to have a control tower, Singer said, though there are exceptions like Windsor, which operates in international airspace, and Gander, which is an emergency hub.

According to Statistics Canada, Buttonville had 26,108 in 2017, whereas in 2014, it had 84,547 with a peak average of 363 daily in June of that year.

If Buttonville's traffic doubles perhaps a tower will return. Since all the flight schools (Seneca, Toronto Airways) have moved from YKZ, I don't see where another 34,000 movements will come from. The "good old days" Buttonville had movements in excess of 150K/year.

Accordingly to https://www.bramptonflightcentre.com/co ... formation/ there are 110,000 movements flown in a year at Brampton, all without a control tower.

I don't have much hope that you can stop the tower from closing. I'm also not certain that it's really a hazard to aviation safety.

Just my two cents.

[Lotro]

April in Indiana showed exactly what can happen when you mix fast jets IFR, slow VFR, intersecting runways, poor radio communications and no control tower to keep everyone safe:

https://www.flyingmag.com/citation-and- ... na-airport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Mu ... _(Indiana)

For the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008, the airport had 17,542 aircraft operations, an average of 48 per day: 92% general aviation, 7% air taxi, and 1% military. At that time there were 52 aircraft based at this airport: 83% single-engine, 6% multi-engine, 4% jet, 4% helicopter, and 4% ultralight.[1]

I don't see control towers popping up at airports with <20K movements a year anytime soon.

[linecrew]

Basically, we have a lot of senior officials at large bureaucratic institutions that have made a decision based on faulty/old data, and now they do not want to have to eat crow and publicly change position.

What do you mean by faulty/old info? What's your source on this?

[photofly]

Here’s the actual data, courtesy of Statistics Canada:

Total movements per month from January 2015 to February 2018, the latest available.

2015:
4,759 2,942 6,542 7,407 7,279 8,624 9,698 7,657 7,607 5,982 5,543 2,710
2016:
3,880 3,120 4,780 6,344 7,860 8,319 6,500 7,616 6,956 6,112 5,124 1,135
2017:
1,187 1,208 1,375 1,904 1,974 2,359 3,139 2,926 3,438 3,221 2,074 1,303
2018:
2,247 2,479

I don’t see anything there to make a reprieve look likely. By contrast, sleepy Oshawa had 13,000 movements in July 2017. Buttonville has very similar statistics to Kingston, and that isn’t getting a tower.

[gwagen]

Here’s the actual data, courtesy of Statistics Canada:

Total movements per month from January 2015 to February 2018, the latest available.

2015:
4,759 2,942 6,542 7,407 7,279 8,624 9,698 7,657 7,607 5,982 5,543 2,710
2016:
3,880 3,120 4,780 6,344 7,860 8,319 6,500 7,616 6,956 6,112 5,124 1,135
2017:
1,187 1,208 1,375 1,904 1,974 2,359 3,139 2,926 3,438 3,221 2,074 1,303
2018:
2,247 2,479

I don’t see anything there to make a reprieve look likely. By contrast, sleepy Oshawa had 13,000 movements in July 2017. Buttonville has very similar statistics to Kingston, and that isn’t getting a tower.

At least Kingston has a FSS, which keeps things pretty much sorted out as far as entering the control zone or circuit are concerned.

[photofly]

Then the campaign might be more fruitful if it focused on providing a ground station for the MF.

[PilotDAR]

'Seems to be staying open for a little while anyway...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/b ... -1.4659508

[photofly]

Pilots were outraged. It was outrageous, I tell you.

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

So the airport owner can close the airport but launches a court challenge when Nav Can wants to close the tower?

[skybluetrek]

I don't really understand why, beyond traffic statistics, anyone as a pilot would be against, or indifferent to, keeping an atc facility open? Economics? Is it to help the government with the budget? Or perhaps to help the private company NavCanada to manage their resources in a better/more convenient way for them, expecting that by closing this tower they will open/improve facilities in some other more needed location?