The problem with runways at Canada's major airports - CBC

[golden hawk]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/th ... -1.4568085

[rookiepilot]

"According to Transport Canada's documents, Canada is now one of only four of the 191 ICAO countries that has not yet increased standards."

Canada, the world leader.

Again. In the wrong direction.

[JetSetter87]

Interesting read.

[Heliian]

Runways will never be long enough for the ones who miss the runway. The TSB's job is to come up with recommendations, that is really all they do and TC just nods and continues it's course.

Maybe they'll take it into consideration for new builds but we can't go around extending every runway in Canada.

[ahramin]

Maybe they'll take it into consideration for new builds but we can't go around extending every runway in Canada.

Interesting response. What is so special about Canada that we cannot do what almost every other country in the world has been able to do? I keep hearing about how infrastructure in the US is crumbling and yet:

According to Transport Canada's documents, Canada is now one of only four of the 191 ICAO countries that has not yet increased standards.
Pilot Dan Cadieux, with the Air Canada Pilots Association, said Canada should make all 300 metres mandatory.
"The U.S. government gets it; 97 per cent of all U.S. runways meet that standard,"

[Heliian]

Canada has lots of snow, ice and pilots pushing weather.

Nearly all of the runway overrun incidents are due to poor pilot decision making. Air France would have just plowed through the 401 if it had more runway.

The TSB video shows a few accidents trying to make it look like a runway problem but most of them were in marginal weather and pooched approaches.

Don't be so hypocritical about ICAO standards, you want to be in line here but not on duty days?

North Bay has 10000ft, should they add another 600m? Do you think that's money well spent on safety?

[Edmonchuck]

Maybe they'll take it into consideration for new builds but we can't go around extending every runway in Canada.

Interesting response. What is so special about Canada that we cannot do what almost every other country in the world has been able to do? I keep hearing about how infrastructure in the US is crumbling and yet:

According to Transport Canada's documents, Canada is now one of only four of the 191 ICAO countries that has not yet increased standards.
Pilot Dan Cadieux, with the Air Canada Pilots Association, said Canada should make all 300 metres mandatory.
"The U.S. government gets it; 97 per cent of all U.S. runways meet that standard,"

It is the same problem I am running into, space. You also would need to move the entire ILS infrastructure to accomodate.

I am not advocating doing nothing. Possibly the use of collapsable concrete or other arresting devices would be better suited than just raw pavement. However, forcing aerodromes that already are heavily encorached on would force the buyout of landowners and homes. That NEVER goes well. Put this on a must buy situation, and you don't have governmental powers behind you, and the price skyrockets for the alleged benefits proposed by the TSB. In my project, it would add millions.

That is the core reason why you are not seeing the change in existing infrastructure.

[Cessna 180]

Canada should have CAT II/III ILS approaches (at more airports), runway center line lighting, concrete runways, grooved runways, and a boat of other features like pretty much every other country, but it's never going to happen. We'd never be able to pay for the PMs vacations to Florida and India. Plus could you think of the carbon tax to build that new grooved concrete runway?! It would be absurd.

[ahramin]

Edmonchuck, how long is your runway?

[complexintentions]

Using AF358 as justification for lengthening runway overrun areas is the worst sort of reasoning. They were attempting to land in a major storm cell, were high, fast, way outside of the touchdown zone, and didn't apply reverse thrust. And then went merrily off the end at 80kts. Quelle surprise! How unforeseeable!

Margins are built in to account for rare failures, not wilful negligence. Too harsh? Ok, dismally poor decision-making and completely incorrect procedure, then.

I'm all for bringing Canada up to standard, but attempting to link it to an accident that was entirely due to poor piloting and nothing whatsoever to do with airport design is ridiculously illogical. The industry equivalent of trying to pad the sharp corners of the furniture instead of teaching the children to walk.

[valleyboy]

Canada spends more money on terminal buildings than on runways. Our runways and airports are badly designed. The person(s) who thought up deicing at our major airports should be shot and pssed on. Toronto is the worst. Deicing bays should be at the departure ends of runways where they do the most good and hold over times are never an issue. Move the equipment and not the aircraft --
Almost every city in Europe has at least a cat 2 runway, our nation's capital -- NOT - they should bring back the PAR there -- haha -- let's face it, Canada is still 3rd world when it comes to aviation, just look at NWO and Manitoba. The high arctic has better runways and facilities than those two out dated areas - fuel in every stop, CARS operators, wx - what a concept

But on the other side of the coin here the condo developers for the "Island" will be fully erected and salivating and Porter will lose it's niche market trump card. The end result - nothing will change or changes moves so slow it appears stationary and that my friends is so canadian.

[A346Dude]

"Transport Canada's coming regulations will allow airports to use those engineered systems or to formally shorten their runways. A reduction in declared runway length would reduce an airport's declared distance, which could impact what types of planes could land there."

Great, let's take a piece of pavement, do nothing with it except pencil whip it to make it less useful, all to meet an arbitrary standard.

[Cliff Jumper]

Margins are built in to account for rare failures, not wilful negligence. Too harsh? Ok, dismally poor decision-making and completely incorrect procedure, then.

Nope.

Human errors exactly why RESA's are built. How many overruns/undershoots were caused by 'rare failures'?

A few, but not many.

[goingnowherefast]

I expect we'll see more EMAS in Canada, especially in real estate limited airports. 150m of EMAS is probably equally as safe as 300m of hard concrete

[Edmonchuck]

Edmonchuck, how long is your runway?

5,000' - 1524m

[Edmonchuck]

I expect we'll see more EMAS in Canada, especially in real estate limited airports. 150m of EMAS is probably equally as safe as 300m of hard concrete

I would expect the same.

One other thing I am trying to get to the bottom of is runway approach lighting. Given that this could eat up significant space, and approaches are changing, would having approach lighting embedded in the EMAS or displaced threshold help? I would think that below DH the slope of the approach lights would be less necessary.

[av8ts]

Canada spends more money on terminal buildings than on runways. Our runways and airports are badly designed. The person(s) who thought up deicing at our major airports should be shot and pssed on. Toronto is the worst. Deicing bays should be at the departure ends of runways where they do the most good and hold over times are never an issue. Move the equipment and not the aircraft --

I’ve been based in YYZ for 15 years and have never gone over my Type 4 holdover time

[valleyboy]

I’ve been based in YYZ for 15 years and have never gone over my Type 4 holdover time

I would go out and buy a lottery ticket but how many times have you sat there checking your watch, would it not be much nicer and safer to deice and go within 2 to 3 minutes -- I'm just sayin

[fish4life]

I’ve been based in YYZ for 15 years and have never gone over my Type 4 holdover time

I would go out and buy a lottery ticket but how many times have you sat there checking your watch, would it not be much nicer and safer to deice and go within 2 to 3 minutes -- I'm just sayin

So the US would be considered what 4th world when it comes to de-icing??? Honestly I think the Canadian CDF system works well instead of the randomness to the US airports including gate spraying

[valleyboy]

Well like everything else in this world, even if it seems to work well there is always room for improvement. Why are people so opposed to change. I've seen systems that work better than what we have and with the development of new runway standards improvements should be explored.

[Cliff Jumper]

The person(s) who thought up deicing at our major airports should be shot and pssed on. Toronto is the worst.

and then.....

even if it seems to work well there is always room for improvement. Why are people so opposed to change.

I hear you! Couldn't agree more. It works well, with room for improvement, but the designer should be urinated on, and murdered.

[cossack]

It isn't the location of the CDF that's the problem, its the location of the terminals. Crossing active runways is never ideal and that's what we are forced to do. It impacts on the movement rate and its has risks.
In my 15 years here, I've not heard of holdover issues unless its been caused by a flow delay, then the flow time gets amended.
As for the leaving CDF and departing in 2 or 3 minutes? You've got to be kidding? There is seldom a long line for departure if everyone is deicing (unless snow removal has caused a delay) because we can depart at a much faster rate than aircraft can be deiced. That's why they want to make the CDF bigger in YYZ.
The delays to departure that have become more prevalent over the last couple of years is the engine runs prior to departure. 10 seconds, 30 seconds, only on the runway after take off clearance has been issued, within 5 minutes of departure. WTF? We try very hard to accommodate but it is very labour intensive and requires a lot of radio chatter. That's the major impediment to your de-ice and go philosophy.

[complexintentions]

Margins are built in to account for rare failures, not wilful negligence. Too harsh? Ok, dismally poor decision-making and completely incorrect procedure, then.

Nope.

Human errors exactly why RESA's are built. How many overruns/undershoots were caused by 'rare failures'?

A few, but not many.

You've completely missed the point. No amount of margin will suffice if crews make multiple gross errors. Certainly, human errors are the main cause of overruns/undershoots, and that indicates a failure of training and proficiency, not of facilities. Which was, actually, my point if that's not clear.

On any modern airliner there are sophisticated performance tools that will very precisely indicate if the aircraft takeoff can be rejected safely, or or the landing made safely. And those tools build in a whole lot of margin already. They're only valid if you actually follow proper procedures though.

By your logic we should mandate 20,000 foot long runways for those for whom 10,000 feet is not enough.

[photofly]

You've completely missed the point. No amount of margin will suffice if crews make multiple gross errors. ...
By your logic we should mandate 20,000 foot long runways for those for whom 10,000 feet is not enough.

And by your logic, we shouldn't mandate any margin at all. Crews should simply not make mistakes, then margins are not required.

The point is that people do make mistakes, and those mistakes will kill people. To err is human. Margins acknowledge that, and save lives.

[complexintentions]

WTF are you talking about - where did I say that there should be no margins at all? There already ARE performance margins built into every aspect of takeoff/landing operations: factoring of landing distances and the like, time allowance for the recognition of a failure before initiating an abort, and so on. And of course there are overrun strips in place. No one expects perfection in human or machine performance, fact is the allowances are already pretty generous in this regard.

My point is that margins should be there to protect against minor errors, not gross ones that are entirely preventable. Like choosing to land high, fast, long, in a thunderstorm, and then not using proper braking technique. Adding even more "margin" to account for that type of event goes way beyond designing for the average.

I mean, if you can't properly calculate landing distance, properly brake the aircraft, or execute an aborted takeoff, perhaps it's just better if you don't get behind the controls?

I guess there are two schools of thought: one is to design things around the absolute lowest common denominator, the other is to expect performance to a pretty reasonable and easily-achievable level, with some safeguards built in for small imperfections.

I prefer the latter, but that's just me. I'm old-school like that.