Edmonton City Centre Airport

[shitdisturber]

I thought that the Blatchford family put a covenant on the airport land when they donated it to the city?

I was under that impression as well; but I would think if that were the case somebody at Airco for instance would have used that as a slam dunk to put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. I wonder how the city of Edmonton is going to like bankruptcy though; because I guarantee you that the first critical patient that dies on the ambulance ride between the international and a hospital is going to have the lawyers circling like vultures.

[A-Team]

Hate to bust your bubble Highflyer188, and Lost Lake, however, the city actually made over one million in profit last year even with all their effort to close it. NONE of your taxpaying dollars has gone into the airport to keep it open but instead seems like it was spent to close it.

The general public’s idea, along with those who are “Taxpayers/Pilots” that they are funding the airport for the privileged few irritates me. Not only is the city earning a profit, but I also see and work everyday with those who come and go from CYXD and they are average class citizens just like you and me, who love the city centre airport because it lets them go home to their family at night and spend that extra 2 hours with their wife, son & daughter, which if you are a parent, you would appreciate and agree that it is a priceless commodity.

[Moose47]

Here's a little historical article I did on Cowboy Blatchford. He was the son of Kenneth Alexander Blatchford, a one time mayor of Edmonton.

Cheers...Chris

Cowboy Antics

by Chris Charland
Associate Air Force Historian
1 Canadian Air Division

When you're on the tail of an enemy aircraft in the heat of battle and you find the guns are out of ammunition, what do you do? That is the dilemma that faced Flight Lieutenant Howard Peter 'Cowboy' Blatchford of Edmonton Alberta as he lined up his sights on an Italian Fiat CR.42 ‘Falco’ bi-plane of the Corpo Aero Italiano. Benito Mussolini had convinced Adolf Hitler that the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) could help with the final victory for fascism in Europe, despite the express misgivings of the Luftwaffe's Commander-in-Chief Hermann Goering.

On the 11th of November, 1940, as a retaliatory measure for the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm’s attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto, the Regia Aeronautica set out to bomb the English port of Harwich. A small number of Luftwaffe Bf-109s accompanied the formation. They were intercepted by Hurricanes of No.s 17, 46 'Uganda' and 257 'China-British' (F) Squadrons. While 'Cowboy' Blatchford of No.257 'Burma' (F) Squadron was flying Hurricane s/n V6962, he discovered much to his shock that he was out of ammo. He instinctively rammed the CR.42 with his propeller. It subsequently chewed up the enemy's top wing, sending the fabric bi-plane tumbling earthwards.

For his daring escapades, 'Cowboy' was presented the Distinguished Flying Cross on the 6th of December 1940. Sadly, as with so many fine young men, Wing Commander H.P. 'Cowboy' Blatchford DFC MiD and only 31 years old, was killed in action. On the 3rd of May 1943, now the Coltishall Wing Leader, 'Cowboy' was taking part in a Ramrod 16 escorting Royal New Zealand Air Force Lockheed Ventura Mk. II bombers to Ijmuiden, Netherlands. He was engaged by Luftwaffe Fw-190's of JG 1 and was forced to ditch his aircraft in the North Sea. His body was never recovered. 'Cowboy's' record was six destroyed, three probables and two damaged.

[highflyer188]

[quote="A-Team"]Hate to bust your bubble Highflyer188, and Lost Lake, however, the city actually made over one million in profit last year even with all their effort to close it. NONE of your taxpaying dollars has gone into the airport to keep it open but instead seems like it was spent to close it.

You have to be a bigger prick than that to burst my bubble.

As I originally said , I have a 48 year history with the Muni and I would be very sad to see it go. I just cant see how it will ever regain to be a self supporting viable entity and the direction, cannot, at this point, go back to the way things were in the good o'l days.

The profit records should be public record, perhaps you could direct me as to where to see them. I find it hard to believe that 80,000 movements generated 1 million in profit or that the profit was directly related to GA activities within the boundaries of the airport.

I do know the costs of operating the airport and having union workers, OT and so on just doesn't add up in my book.

I do wish all the Muni supporters all the best, but I feel the writing on the wall is finally engraved in stone.

[aviator2010]

The ECCA employs roughly 1,000 people and adds $18 million in tax revenues for the city of Edmonton[citation needed]. It generated $4.6 million in direct revenue for Edmonton Airports, with expenses of $3.9 million[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_C ... d)_Airport

citation needed means there has been no cedible source quoted, but $700 000 when most passengers will just transfer to the international if CYXD is no longer, seems like preety simple economics to me.

[ditar]

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local ... montonHome

Local airline Airco has lost its bid to stop the closure of a runway at the City Centre Airport. The company has been fighting an injunction to keep the runway open despite city council's decision to close it in August.

CTV News has learned a judge has dismissed the company's application, which means Runway 34 will most likely close as planned this summer.

Airco has argued that the city broke its 56-year lease.

"An injunction would have been very clear cut and easy. It would have ensured that runway was open for businesses and now everything is back up in the air," said Mary Anne Stanway, Airco spokesperson.

Controversy has surrounded the issue since city council voted to close the airport several months ago.

A new lobby group has launched into its own battle with the city. The group argues the closure would harm northern communities and medivac services that heavily rely on close proximity to hospitals.

"Why would you want to shut down a perfect jewel of a transportation hub? It's a tragedy," said Charles Allard with Envision Edmonton.

Yet some councillors aren't willing to revisit the issue.

"After 8 months of research on this issue I found there really wasn't a business case to keep it open," said City Coun. Kim Krushell.

Still, there are some who feel city hall may have rushed the decision to close the airport.

"I really don't feel we fully comprehended what the closure of that runway would mean and I still don't believe we do today," said City Coun. Linda Sloan.

Airco can still move forward with its lawsuit, but the judge insisted that the broken lease is an issue for trial not an injunction.

Another lawsuit has been filed by the Edmonton Flying Club.

[swordfish]

Good post, carrier.

To add a bit of fuel to this controversy - although I can see both sides of this battle - if we have to go to the International, (medivacs) what do we use for an alternate. The KA's with the -42 are heavy enough to get to YXD holding YEG, but if we have to hold YQF, YYC, YZU, or other more distant places, we are committed to a fuel stop on the way down.

The -41s might be able to do it (I actually haven't analyzed this) but we have 1 aircraft that takes 2 patients, we carry at least 1 escort on those trips, and 2 medics. We certainly won't have the fuel to hold YYC with that load, maybe YQF - if it's any good. Typically the whole of Southern Alberta craps out when YXD/YEG are down. And from memory we will need 900/3 for Red Deer because of the current limits.

[Cod Father]

The GPS/WAA instrumentation intended to be installed this summer will permit landings on Runway
12 if there is 342 foot visibility. For Runway 30, the visibility must be 749 feet.

The ILS on Runway 34 permits approaches with cloud ceilings of 200 feet. The approach to Runway 16 is not a precision
approach. It allows approaches down to cloud ceilings of 409 feet.

Runway 16/34 is slate to close on July 31st 2010. Most of it will be converted to "Taxiway E".

[swordfish]

The GPS/WAA instrumentation intended to be installed this summer will permit landings on Runway
12 if there is 342 foot visibility. For Runway 30, the visibility must be 749 feet.

The ILS on Runway 34 permits approaches with cloud ceilings of 200 feet. The approach to Runway 16 is not a precision
approach. It allows approaches down to cloud ceilings of 409 feet.

Runway 16/34 is slate to close on July 31st 2010. Most of it will be converted to "Taxiway E".

You mean "ceiling" in lieu of visibility, I assume, for the 12/30 approaches?

The DH on the ILS is presently about 500'. Is this going to be changed again, back to 200'? Then they're going to close the runway? All this makes no sense. If I understand the "rationale" involved in this jerk-me-round, the DH on the ILS was raised because encroachment of the overshoot into the Namao airspace. Is this incorrect? How does a 200' DH fix that??

With the current NOTAM and CAP approaches, there is absolutely no published straight-in approach onto 16 at present. You have to drop from 4400' ASL to ground in 3.7 miles IF you are visual at the beacon to be able to land straight in on 16.

The whole thing has gone from madness to berserk. It goes against 30-year-old safe approaches at this airport that I have personally been doing - even when Namao was active! And no one in NavCanada can explain why this is all happening.

They seem to have political imperatives confused with operational logic.

[Edo]

Well some jackass approved a building near the approach to 34. I think the NOTAM says crane 700' laterally from the extended centerline. I think thats the reason for the higher ILS.

[slowmo]

The reason for the new ILS 34, and NDB 16 min's was due to an airspace conflict with Namao. As I understand it, Transport Canada had changed the requirements for IFR separation from restricted airspace within the last few years and it was only noticed last year when the new RNAV approaches were developed for 12/30 that there was conflict with the airspace. There is an agreement in the works with the DND that would restore the original IFR procedures for 16/34, hopefully soon.

[swordfish]

The reason for the new ILS 34, and NDB 16 min's was due to an airspace conflict with Namao. As I understand it, Transport Canada had changed the requirements for IFR separation from restricted airspace within the last few years and it was only noticed last year when the new RNAV approaches were developed for 12/30 that there was conflict with the airspace. There is an agreement in the works with the DND that would restore the original IFR procedures for 16/34, hopefully soon.

Thanks for that info, slowmo.

Indeed that is promising, but still leaves the credibility of the whole mess in doubt since there is no aeronautical activity at Namao, and it is now closed. I understand some helicopters still conduct ops from there, but how difficult would it be to stay away from - or under - the approach / departure path of 16/34...

Do we have a typical knee-jerk reaction to a discovery that has taken years to reveal, and survived 30 years of safe operations? Additionally, do we really need restricted airspace around Namao? ...rhetorical questions, btw...

The terminal controllers must have had their hands full from time to time, coordinating traffic in the YXD/YED area when they were busy, considering communication links with the military and civilian ATC's are tenuous at best (at least, going by what it's like in the Cold Lake terminal).

[tailgunner]

I believe that the restricted airspace around CFB Edmonton (Namao) has nothing to do with the Helicopter ops. of 408 sq. It has everything to do with the extensive live- fire ranges .
The approach to 34 will never return to its original minimums if the runway stays open. There is a new high-rise tower approved for Jasper ave and 116-117 st. that is expected to rise to 30- 34 floors. The existing buildings in the area were all capped at around 18 floors due to the ils safe area. In fact, I beleve that the foundation is already being poured for the new tower already. Face it....I think CYXD is seeing its last days.

[swordfish]

Thanks, tailgunner.

[slowmo]

Here's the new IFR procedures for 16/34 that are as per NOTAM....

100139 CYXD EDMONTON CITY CENTRE(BLATCHFORD FIELD)
CYXD AMEND AD CHART: DEP PROC:
ADD: RWY 34-1/2-REQUIRES A MINIMUM CLB GRADIENT OF 380 FT/NM TO
3800 ASL. CLB TO 4400 ASL ON HDG 343 DEG BPOC OR
SPEC VIS - CLB VISUAL TO 4400 ASL ON HDG 343 DEG BPOC.
NOTE: ROAD AND RAILROAD TO 2228 ASL APRX 600 FT PAST DEPARTURE
END OF RWY.
DEPARTURE CLIMB RATE V/V (FPM):
ADD: GROUND SPEED 90 120 140 160 180 200 250 300
380 FT/NM 570 760 890 1020 1140 1270 1590 1900
TAKE-OFF MINIMA BOX: RWY 34 TO READ: ASTERISK

100140 CYXD EDMONTON CITY CENTRE(BLATCHFORD FIELD)
CYXD AMEND ILS OR NDB RWY 34 (GNSS) APCH:
OPS NOTES: ADD: WHEN CYR232 IS ACT ABV 3000 ASL, ILS AND LOC
MINIMA NOT AUTH. USE NDB OR CIRCLING MINIMA ONLY.
PLAN VIEW: NO PT ALT TO READ 3300
YEG TO ULIXU: ALT TO READ 4200
PROFILE VIEW: PROC TURN ALT TO READ 4200
ZXD ALT TO READ 3300
MINIMA BOX: ILS TO READ: 2487(300) 1/2 RVR 26
LOC TO READ: 2720(533) 1 1/4

[Rudder Bug]

For those who want to vote against it:

http://www.630ched.com/

To the right (Poll of the Day)

[swordfish]

I'm afraid we're getting outvoted by 2:1

[ditar]

I do my best to support the efforts to keep YXD open by encouraging everyone to sign petitions, write letters, and all that. If I still lived there I'd be out volunteering with the rest of them. Unfortunately, I realize that it's probably all futile. Council made up its mind, and I think most residents are not informed enough to make an educated decision. Even if they manage to collect 80,000 signatures, I'm willing to bet it'll be voted closed if there is such a question on the next civic ballot. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[5x5]

Even if they manage to collect 80,000 signatures, I'm willing to bet it'll be voted closed if there is such a question on the next civic ballot. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Well, a number of opinion polls (done by legitimate research companies with random sampling throughout the Edmonton community) disagree with you. Typically the numbers have been only 25-30% want the airport closed while the rest want it open or are initially undecided but change to keeping it open after finding out more about what type of activity occurs at the airport - i.e. medivac, crew changes, commerce to and from the North, flight training, etc.

That's why EnvisionEdmonton has come to the fore to force the issue. Council is NOT representing the views of the MAJORITY of Edmonton's citizens.

[tailgunner]

5x5,
Just a bit of a counter point...Every side can produce polls that support their own point of view, so to claim that the proponents of CYXD have a corner on ethical polling is a bit much. Plus, I don't think that "crew changes" is really the emotional tug that you think it is in regards to the average citizen. I may be able to buy the argument for medevac flights, and I may even buy the historical argument, however trying to sell me by the value of CYXD for the crew change industry just isn't gonna cut it.
I do believe that the future of CYXD is , or already has been decided. Buildings are going up, or are soon to be built that will make CYXD a VFR airport at best. Then the argument will shift to keeping a very valuable peice of real estate, or keeping a very convienient VFR airport. The real estate argument will win every day.

[5x5]

tailgunner,

first of all, not everyone has to agree with the value of the airport, just enough to succeed when the vote comes.

I was in no way trying to imply that anyone had a corner on ethical polling as I am fully aware of the pitfalls of any polling. I was merely trying to avoid any response that would question the validity of the polls that have been done. In the past, anti-airport people have cast aspersions on any polls that have been conducted claiming that they were done improperly. These were done as properly as any.

As for the development on 116-117 St, that would in no way infringe on the protected area for 16/34 as it is west of the boundary. Just as in the downtown core area east of 104 St and west of 97th or so, buildings can be as high as they want. Apparently, no developers have ever wanted/needed/been able to financially justify going higher than they already have.

There are areas of the city where taller buildings wouldn't be allowed, but many areas where no restrictions apply. To see the actual restricted areas got to Aviation Edmonton Association website and click on 'video presentation'. Slide 7 and 8 address the height restriction issue.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else, I just want the information that is out there on this issue to be as factual as possible so people can make an informed decision on their own.

[RatherBeFlying]

Mayor Mandel has thrown a hissy fit about a Wildrose politico signing the referendum petition:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... ebate.html

Comments are running against the mayor.

AvCanada members may like to add a few of their own and/or agree with others.

Lets not forget that this is really a contest between developers and aviation -- and that municipal councils are heavily loaded with developers and those who receive donations from developers.

[yodan]

Edmontonians are now beginning to see the real side of Mandel. He is a wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing with a buffoon smile. You have just seen "democracy" in action. When everything was going his way...all was well; but democracy goes right out the proverbial door when the battle heats up!!!

That "hissy fit" has just cost him a lot of votes;

BTW 2010, it appears you acquired you logic at the same place you learned how to spell. Must have been by correspondance during a postal strike! Keep this up and you're going to get BURIED!

[slowstream]

Edmontonians are now beginning to see the real side of Mandel. He is a wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing with a buffoon smile. You have just seen "democracy" in action. When everything was going his way...all was well; but democracy goes right out the proverbial door when the battle heats up!!!

That "hissy fit" has just cost him a lot of votes;

BTW 2010, it appears you acquired you logic at the same place you learned how to spell. Must have been by correspondance during a postal strike! Keep this up and you're going to get BURIED!

yodan,

First off I fought for years to try and save XD (likely before you even started flying) but to no avail.

Its just my two cents but I don't think Mandel lost much for votes, he's just one voice and one vote and the representative for council and he's just trying to do his job.

Democracy was done, there were two plebiscites, city council held open hearings and numerous studies have been down by numerous parties, so its wrong to say that democracy has not been done. Every concerned party has worked hard to try and secure the outcome they wanted and the losing side will always scream foul.

From a business perspective I thinks its a shame, XD has such value and one day the people of this city will realize their loss and regret it. The location for business and medivac is so valuable, the history although now limited to one hangar in the S.W corner is still there and warrants being preserved and saved. In my opinion the airport should be taken over by the Provence or the Feds, buts thats only my opinion and no one asked.

The bottom line is that Democracy as it is in our modern time has been done, lobby groups on both sides fought long and hard, both sides pulled every trick, fair and unfair out of their so called pockets but there could only be one winner.

Lastly, Mandel can't legally have any stake in the development of that land; before your time when one of our previous Mayors helped secure the land for the now CYEG from one of his farmer friends back in the 60's, it cost him his job and a lengthy legal battle.

[Edo]

Recently the City blocked the Edmonton Aviation Association from collecting signatures at Klondike Days, and events in Churchill Square.

How a booth asking for signatures can be banned from public events like K days is beyond me.