Buttonville Airport . . . CYKZ

[bizjets101]

MarkhamResident; to have opposition to an airport, or it's owners, is fair - if done so in a honest, fair, and at least somewhat intelligent way.

To come on, after the airport deal is already done anyway, is a moot point.

However, you've come on, don't have facts straight, don't come from an aviation background - yet claimed to be a pilot - and fly by Buttonville regularly.

You wrote the most insensitive and disrespectful comment I've ever read regarding an accident - and now I see you've posted another -

http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/11 ... ronto.html

Clearly by the three posts above yours - all grieving friends of the very young crew on board the Seneca Aircraft.

As a person your insensitive, and a disgrace to the Markham Community.
Nor do you know what you are talking about.

If you wanted to post factual information, and be honest - people who even disagree with you would treat you with respect. Clearly that is not the case.

PS: As your sole agenda seems to be Shit disturber (first swear word I've posted on the internet) I'm suggesting to AvCanada mods that your posts be removed - and you be either kicked off these boards or at the least suspended.

As for your slanderous statements on Buttonville, it's owners, and their operations - are definitely worthy of a defamation of character lawsuit - which unfortunately may involve AvCanada in a lawsuit. I suggest they be removed before that takes place.

[kzcvtm]

I'm suggesting to AvCanada mods that your posts be removed - and you be either kicked off these boards or at the least suspended.

As for your slanderous statements on Buttonville, it's owners, and their operations - are definitely worthy of a defamation of character lawsuit - which unfortunately may involve AvCanada in a lawsuit. I suggest they be removed before that takes place.

+1

[MCB]

I have tried to bite my tongue, but MarkhamResident - enough is enough. There is a time and place for everything and this clearly isn't the time or place for this. Your posts seem uneducated, misinformed, and of a trolling nature. I've seen nothing productive in any of your posts.

As a Seneca student, room mate of Lloyd, and friend to all the others, I am absolutely disgusted by the remarks you have made. There are several things I would like to say to you right now, but will refrain as the bigger person.

I really hope you become more aware of your impact on our community and show a tad more sensitivity towards an already very difficult subject.

Sincerely,
Michael
Seneca Aviation - Class of 2012

[MarkhamResident]

[fleet16b]

:

2) Other airports like Markham are profitable

MarkhamResident

By this statement , it seems that you imply that you have intimate knowledge of Markhams Finacial Records (?)
However this statement proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Evidence shows that Markham is neither profitable as an airstrip or trying to be profitable. ( if there was any profit , they sure didn't put it back into the airstrip ! )
As someone who has done work for the owners, I have a little more knowledge to the inner workings than you do.
In the past, the impression I was left with was that they did not want any profit to be made.
I will not speculate here why they chose that path but I am sure the owners have their reasons for this.

[fleet16b]

a:
5) As a resident I think it should be expected that an airport should have a good working relationship with the community that surrounds it, Buttonville does not.
.

The more I read your comments above the more I have to laugh.
Do you actually think that Markham has a history of good working relationships with the public / community ?
WOW ! that sums up everything about you . You are either an employee of the owners or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Markham Airstrip.
Your comments on this forum remind me of someone that is an employee of the owners the airstrip and I suspect that I may know your identity.
If my hunch is correct it explains everything about you and your retarded statements.

[gustind]

markhamresident (I specifically lower cased your name to show how small you are in this forum),

It is interesting as no one has threatened you with anything as far as I have read. Even if threats are being made towards you, they are not being made with the purpose to persuade you as you are too hard-headed to realize what you are saying and the impact it actually has on the readers. I, speak for many, am glad you are not on the administration at Seneca - not like you ever would be - as your attitude during this time would be completely uncalled for and would most likely warrant your contract not being renewed in the coming semesters. I only write this tirade (A long, angry speech of criticism) since you've clearly taken an issue dear to our hearts and completely used it in an inappropriate and disgusting manner. Otherwise, I respect your thoughts on the issue, just not how you convey them to us.

I agree that if Buttonville were to survive, the owners would have to change their train of thought. However I lack the ability to observe the obviousness which relates aviation deaths and accidents to the way an airport is run by its owners. I admire your negative feelings toward Seneca however I've immediately dismissed them since I've come to the conclusion that you're shitting from your mouth. You've weakly attempted to speculate the causes of such an accident and tie them to how unsafe the airport is. I shall not dwell on these issues as they will be constructively answered in due time. However the maintenance at Seneca is top notch and an aircraft would never be dispatched if it was unsafe; the accident has had a great impact on all the faculty and students especially considering the safety culture at Seneca and how influential it is in our daily operations. Safety, markhamresident, is not a big concern at Buttonville simply because, the airport is safe.

I will also proceed in backing up Michael (notice full first name ), kzcvtm and bizjets101. I can see how you are failing to prove a real point since you've taken a shot at us from behind while we weren't looking. I know you are trying your best however you are one, against all. As stated already, you have brought shame to the community and I hope that in the future you may find real knowledge and wisdom which you may actually use to better our society.

Without Respect,

Daniel Gustin

[MarkhamResident]

[bizjets101]

As the Thompson Family own Markham Airport, and they are by far the wealthiest family in Canada, and 20th wealthiest in the world - your saying the Sifton's have more clout to get things done.

If you have any involvement in aviation at all, what would make you post the following absurd and disrespectful comments;

http://www.rollerfunk.com/local-news/se ... ane-crash/

[MarkhamResident]

[Truthteller]

I see nothing but common sense from the Markham guy, some others who oppose him I'm not too sure. Facts are facts and cannot be disputed. When the first crash of the year happened at the toy factory in Markham, Derek Sifton went on record stating the last crash that happened in their control zone was in the 1980s. Okay so that's one crash in say 20-30 years. Then a month later another one crashes in Richmond Hill. Then a couple months later one nearly crashes but manages to bring it down on the 407. Then a couple of months later the most recent Seneca crash. I don't know about you but what does common sense tell you. Never mind anger, I said common sense. You don't need to be a genius here to see a pattern. It can be pure coincidence or something is up. Again 20-30 years vs 4 events, 6 dead in about 6 months. Not to mention sheer luck in every single event that there was no collateral damage. The toy factory and banner flyer crashes could have each one caused severe collateral damage.

If I were to fly out of Buttonville these days I'd be more than a little worried. But that"'s just me.

MarkhamResident; to have opposition to an airport, or it's owners, is fair - if done so in a honest, fair, and at least somewhat intelligent way.

To come on, after the airport deal is already done anyway, is a moot point.

However, you've come on, don't have facts straight, don't come from an aviation background - yet claimed to be a pilot - and fly by Buttonville regularly.

You wrote the most insensitive and disrespectful comment I've ever read regarding an accident - and now I see you've posted another -

http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/11 ... ronto.html

Clearly by the three posts above yours - all grieving friends of the very young crew on board the Seneca Aircraft.

As a person your insensitive, and a disgrace to the Markham Community.
Nor do you know what you are talking about.

If you wanted to post factual information, and be honest - people who even disagree with you would treat you with respect. Clearly that is not the case.

PS: As your sole agenda seems to be Shit disturber (first swear word I've posted on the internet) I'm suggesting to AvCanada mods that your posts be removed - and you be either kicked off these boards or at the least suspended.

As for your slanderous statements on Buttonville, it's owners, and their operations - are definitely worthy of a defamation of character lawsuit - which unfortunately may involve AvCanada in a lawsuit. I suggest they be removed before that takes place.

[fleet16b]

Markham was busy building a 4000' runway before the town put a stop to it, so why would you think they are not investing into the airport? I really can't understand the hostility you have to Markham, Buttonville has already decided to close, Markham wants to expand, so what is the problem?

Dumping a bunch of dirt onsite hardly means they are extending the runway. It can also mean they are preparing the land for other reasons. They have had 20 years of as you say being profitable and not an improvement of any note has ever happened there . Markham has been run on a very minal budget and is largely the same as it was 20 years ago. If Markham has ever wanted to expand as you say, then they sure are going about it in a strange way.
Looking a little deeper , it seems that the airstrip is not the real reason why this land was purchased but I will not say anymore than that on a public forum.
Plus the Municipality has no jurisdiction over Airport Development, it is under Ferderal control.( see latest COPA regarding the Canadian Judicial System ruling) and cannot put a stop on anything. Using this ruling would be very advantageous as it would allow a contractor/owner to start erecting industrial buildings to do what they like without Municipal interferance.
I am not saying that is what is happening there but that kind of scenario could work ......couldn't it ?
As for hostility, it comes from people that have worked at the airstrip not me
Many many people I know have stopped there to enquire about flying or the so called "museum" etc only to be run off or ordered off the property. If the owners were really serious about developing an airport do you really think they would allow that type of treatment of the public to continue for as long as it has?
Markham had the potential to be a really good little strip but for the past 20 years this has not been allowed to happen. You have to ask yourself why and only the owners have the answer to that.
My bet is that Markham will be housing or industrial park not a replacement for Buttonville.
Bottom line, the owners are an astute business group and IMHO they realize there is no profit to be had by developing an airport at that site or it would have been done by now.

The pipe dreams continue...........................

[bizjets101]

I see MarkhamResident made to work in time to post as Truthteller . . .

Guess you can't wait too get home and fly your imaginary plane . . .

[bizjets101]

FlightExec has put their YKZ based Falcon 10/100's on the market.

C-FEXD Falcon 10 and C-FICA Falcon 100 are listed for sale.
C-FBNW Falcon 10 is leased, and I'm not sure if their still flying this one.
C-GOJC Falcon 10's lease was taken over by NovaJet.

London based Citation Excel C-GJRB is also on the market.

They currently operate a Challenger 604 and 850, Falcon 900EX and a Westwind 1124
among their jet fleet and at YKZ Falcon 7X C-FAWZ.

Another YKZ based bizjet - Citation Mustang C-GTTS was recently added, and Magna International are awaiting delivery of their brand new Falcon 2000LX for YKZ.

Magna currently operate 5 biz jets, 3 based at YKZ -

C-GMKZ Citation XLS
C-GMII Falcon 50
C-GMGX Falcon 7X

[kzcvtm]

A well adjusted individual would look at the points made and respond directly to them, trying to keep your opinions civil and well thought out.

We have for the most part, however your misinformed responses continue to baffle us - especially about how wonderful Markham airport is...

Maybe the most damaging response to my comments/issues/concerns would be to show some reflection that maybe the way you do business at Buttonville has to change, certainly that should be obvious based on the fact that so many accidents are coming out of Buttonville lately. But that is not you Buttonville, as I experienced in the past when I was doing my IFR and renting aircraft from TAL, there is a problem with the culture at Buttonville that include some hateful, narrow minded, mean spirited people, and what I’m hearing from you now is it hasn’t changed.

My response to this is the culture there is HIGHLY safety oriented and COMMUNITY oriented. They do in fact give back to the community on a regular basis - ie Open Houses and flights donated to United Way annually as one example. Safety is a high priority there as I've stated before... unsafe flying will get you turfed from a programme with no appeal. But since you haven't been there recently, you wouldn't know. Your predjudices against the airport/company don't allow you to see this through your rose coloured glasses...

1) The Sifton Family have ask for and got public support of their private airport in the past (100+ million over 50 years), and now they are asking to have the public build them a new airport in Pickering (estimates are over a Billion dollars).

Please, for the sake of clarity quote your sources and provide documentation for this outrageous statement. Inquiring minds want to understand your delusional perspective on this.

2) Other airports like Markham are profitable and not demanding of public funds.

Do you have a copy of their annual balance sheet? Contact the Thompson Group and see how far you get. More hot air..

3) The propaganda and BS put out about by Buttonville has to be answered. You are not the busy vital airport to the GTA you make yourselves out to be – the GTAA, and all levels of government have come to that conclusion too.

Please provide us where you get your stats from, because Transport Canada would likely be interested. No one on Markham Council even has a clue about what happens at Buttonville... they only listen to the squeaky wheels which squeak the loudest and which will be more politically correct... like a 'Holiday Tree' as a prime example.

4) Safety at Buttonville is a real concern for many, as I’ve said everyone at Buttonville should be concerned, and if these concerns are not constructively answered then Buttonville should close sooner than later, and this includes the latest Seneca flight/accident.

Let's see here... the aircraft that have had accidents - with the exception of the Seneca accident - were all privately owned aircraft. The Cirrus crash was from Brampton Airport, the banner tow plane was owned by a company working out of Buttonville, the landing on the 407 was a privately owned aircraft in which the pilot flew from Lindsay and suffered fuel starvation.(Check out the CADORS). Now how can you justify TAL/Buttonville for safety concerns here? In all these cases, the problem was with the pilot/owner not Buttonville. CYKZ only provides the means for takeoff/landings for these aircraft, not ownership. The Seneca issue is still up for grabs as to a mechanical/safety issue. I would wait until the investigation is completed before commenting.

5) As a resident I think it should be expected that an airport should have a good working relationship with the community that surrounds it, Buttonville does not. It might be this arrogant response you constantly give up concerning complaints about Noise Abatement and Safety. To sum up your attitude it would be the phrase “Buttonville was here first”, but actually Old Markham / Unionville etc was here first, and so on that point you should be avoiding those areas, but you don’t and you don’t care. Sad since simple alterations to you flight path into and out of Buttonville would appease most residents – at least when flying over people’s houses you should be high as possible for as long as possible (and with consideration to your power setting).

I've already mentioned one example of community relations at the airport, but consider that 'Cathedraltown' has built up over the last 4 years (just north of Major Mackenzie to Elgin Mills Rd, east side of 404), Markham and Unionville have expanded tremendously over the 80's and 90's. Buttonville, in consultation with Transport Canada with regards to noise abatement, two years ago have created north/south corridors along Woodbine Avenue to the north practice area and east corridor to the east practice area along the 407. (check out the latest Toronto TAC or the CFS, if you own one). Coming into Buttonville from the north and east, ATC reminds pilots to remain at 2000' ASL until entering the circuit, FYI. If you read the CFS, any takeoffs from Rwy 15 require minimum height of 1000' AGL before commencing any turns eastbound or westbound and right hand circuits. When leaving the runways, it is strongly recommended that flights climb to 2500' ASL to help in noise abatement. Further, while climbing to altitude, as a pilot you need high engine RPM to attain altitude. I think that Buttonville/TC have done what was necessary/required/requested by residents of the area. I lived for 10 years in Thornhill, and had more noise from trains than planes. Those who live nearby should understand this prior to purchasing a house near the airport, or better yet, sell their house to deaf people who the noise wouldn't bother. (a small joke here if MarkhamResident decides to take up the cause for hearing impaired people).

I would be most interested if Markham Resident can respond to this with documented backup of all his allegations. Further, by naming names here as you have in previous posts, does leave you wide open to civil litigation for defammatory comments, FYI.

[Truthteller]

Respond to this...why doesn't ckyz allow a standard left handed circuit flying out southbound smart ass. If your planes didn't make noise Markham would have no issue letting them fly over their residents. Instead Buttonville sends them the other way. Yeah, yeah we know TC handles this but when you go to the root of the issue you find Markham in cahoots with Buttonville on this and TC standing idly by...which is nothing new for them.

This is why Markham airport will never see a clear path to expansion. Their planes would fly over the mayor's and council members houses. Do you really think they want that? You don't have to think too hard to understand why council is blocking Markham airport. It would be sweet irony to have Markham built up to a busy airport and have those residents suffer.

If you think a highway makes more noise than the airport you have no clue dude.

Buttonville has been absolutely uncaring about noise. I can't wait until the bulldozers show up and level the place. I also can't wait to see the place implode on itself as the employees figure out how they've been boned. Well the smart ones at least. All the others will go down with the ship. Beeeeehhhh said the lamb.

[Truthteller]

I'm going to tell you one last time. I have no idea who the Markham person is. I just happen to agree with the opinions. Well everything except Markham development. Although it would be highly ironic to have it be expanded I know it's not going to happen. If it was expanded the Siftons would have no part in it and the Markham residents suffer. Ironic isn't it?

Having said all that I have one piece of advice for you, I would focus on your real job and figuring out a way to not have a repeat of recent events.

I see MarkhamResident made to work in time to post as Truthteller . . .

Guess you can't wait too get home and fly your imaginary plane . . .

[bizjets101]

Sure - guess MarkhamResident can't respond yet until you, I mean he get's home form work - hahaha

kzcvtm; you upset him so much, he responded from work as Truthteller in your
response to his postings as MarkhamResident. hahaha

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flyin ... ets-2.html Check out post #23 on today's pprune.

One guy posts he is looking at buy biz jet block time, another poster - a broker comes on and tells him about what he has to offer.

Pprune moderator comes on to say both posters are posting from the same IP address!!

[fleet16b]

them.

You don't have to think too hard to understand why council is blocking Markham airport.

Even if the owners were trying to expand Markham ( which I do not think they are), the Town has no jurisdiction or hope in hell of stopping them.
See the ruling below.

3 NOVEMBER 2010



Who has the final say as to where an aerodrome may be located in Canada: the federal government, the provinces, or both?

According to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), the unequivocal answer is the federal government alone. In the first of two decisions released October 15, 2010 which were sponsored by COPA’s Freedom to Fly Fund, the SCC ruled that a provincial law which prohibited non-agricultural land uses in provincially designated agricultural zones could not apply to aerodromes. In the second decision, the SCC ruled that a municipal by-law, which prohibited the use of a specific lake as a water aerodrome, was beyond the jurisdiction of (“ultra vires”) the municipality and thus, the by-law could not apply to the aerodrome. In the result, the owners/operators of the aerodromes in question remain free to carry on their aeronautical activities unhindered by provincial or municipal prohibitions to the contrary.

These two decisions are a reaffirmation and an expansion of decisions dating back 60 years. In 1951, the SCC decided that aeronautics was a matter of national concern and thus should be within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Since taking off and landing was an essential part of aeronautics, the location of aerodromes was necessarily part of that federal power. In that case, the provincial (Manitoba) law in question that authorized municipalities to prohibit the establishment of aerodromes was ruled to be beyond the jurisdiction of (“ultra vires”) the provinces (the “Johannesson” decision).

Notwithstanding this 1951 ruling as well as a number of similar decisions in the decades which followed, provincial and municipal legislators, regulators and by-law officers have relentlessly sought to control the establishment of aerodromes and activities thereupon. They have sought to do so through provincial and municipal planning controls, by the imposition of permit and fee requirements and through the passage of outright prohibitions against aerodromes. In some cases, such efforts to control aerodromes did succeed. For example, in 1987, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a municipal by-law which prohibited the use of a privately owned airstrip by anyone other than the property owner (the “Van Gool” decision). In 1990, the Québec Court of Appeal upheld a provincial law which prohibited a property owner from using his land as an aerodrome because the property was located within a provincial designated agricultural area (the “St-Louis” decision).

The threat to the freedom to fly posed by such decisions, as well as numerous other instances of provincial and municipal attempts to regulate aerodromes, was clear. If such efforts succeeded, it would mean a patchwork of regulations affecting aerodromes which could change from province to province or indeed, from municipality to municipality. On behalf of tens of thousands of aviators, COPA became very active in defending the principle that the federal government, and only the federal government, had the jurisdiction to control aeronautics through a single regulatory scheme that would be consistent across the country. This included the power to determine whether and where to establish aerodromes and how such power was exercised. A number of years ago, the COPA leadership created our Special Action Fund (now called more appropriately the Freedom to Fly Fund) to, amongst other things, provide a source of funding to defend this principle. It was recognized that it might be necessary to take these issues back to the SCC, particularly in light of the Van Gool and St-Louis decisions.

As matters turned out, COPA became involved in two such cases: one involving a private aerodrome (“Laferrière” also known as “COPA”) and one involving a commercial aerodrome (“Lacombe”). Both cases directly involved the issue of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics and provincial and municipal attempts to encroach into same. On October 14, 2009, the SCC heard appeals in these two cases. We are pleased to report that on October 15, 2010 the SCC ruled in favour of COPA’s long-standing position. In addition, SCC expressly recognized that the Van Gool and St-Louis decisions had been overruled and were no longer good law.

While these decisions vindicate the rights of Canadians to establish aerodromes, they do not mean that we can let down our guard against continuing challenges. This article is intended to explain what was decided, what the decisions mean and provide some guidance for those who are considering establishing an aerodrome and who may be confronted by local authorities because of their aerodrome. It also highlights the need for keeping our Freedom to Fly Fund strong.

[kzcvtm]

Respond to this...why doesn't ckyz allow a standard left handed circuit flying out southbound smart ass. If your planes didn't make noise Markham would have no issue letting them fly over their residents. Instead Buttonville sends them the other way. Yeah, yeah we know TC handles this but when you go to the root of the issue you find Markham in cahoots with Buttonville on this and TC standing idly by...which is nothing new for them.

You seem to know all then explain why when departing on Rwy 15 for a north departure you are cleared to a left turn upon departure? It's simply going over those residents you are so protective of. Southbound departures from 15 are directed a right turn to follow the highways (404/DVP). From Rwy 33, it's a left turn out to go southbound. From Rwy 03 it's a right turn out to go southbound over those houses you're so concerned about and from Rwy 21 it's a left turn out. Your argument has no validity whatsoever. Don't spout out about what you don't have a clue about. (Insert your foot here Truthteller or MarkhamResident if that's who you really are!!!)

If you think a highway makes more noise than the airport you have no clue dude.

You obviously don't read well... I said:

and had more noise from trains than planes.

Now that you have your foot firmly inserted into your mouth, I believe a good veterinarian can cure hoof in mouth disease, or are you suffering 'MAD COW' disease?????

[bcrosby]

When I was getting my PPL at YKZ, there was a culture of responsibility and being courteous to those who live in the vicinity of the airport. No one was encouraged to fly low and over.

+1

I can back up kzcvtm's statement. When I was getting my Multi rating, we did all the single engine stuff up near Orillia airport. Nobody around there to piss off.

I was a student with Seneca (part time program) and TAL. The culture of responsibility and safety was taught by everyone. CFIs, instructors, dispatch.. even the flight line crew always made sure that you knew how important it is to be a safe pilot.

MarkhamResident is a troll, he's trying to stir the pot (and it's working on some of you). Using the term "Sifton minions" is disrespectful to both the Sifton family and to the people he is labeling.

The bottom line is that yet another airport in Canada is closing, and there is no stopping this one. COPA wont be able to do anything, The Government wont be able to do anything, and neither will the general public.

A privately owned institution is closing it's doors. They can do whatever the hell they want and we have no say. Accept it and move on.

[bcrosby]

Respond to this...why doesn't ckyz allow a standard left handed circuit flying out southbound smart ass. If your planes didn't make noise Markham would have no issue letting them fly over their residents. Instead Buttonville sends them the other way. Yeah, yeah we know TC handles this but when you go to the root of the issue you find Markham in cahoots with Buttonville on this and TC standing idly by...which is nothing new for them.

Uhmm departures for 15 use right hand departures for noise abatement. All left hand turns have to be made above 2600'.

A *prime* example of the airport working with the community. Community complains about noise, airport/tc goes, "ok, will make these right hand circuits."

So.. I dont know what you're trying to argue?

[dcabrown]

This is why Markham airport will never see a clear path to expansion. Their planes would fly over the mayor's and council members houses. Do you really think they want that? You don't have to think too hard to understand why council is blocking Markham airport.....

So are you going to acknoledge the fact that Markham city council has NO jurisdiction over airport development? And therefore you aforementioned comment is not correct.

Come on now... don't let real facts get in the way of making yourself look like a total ignoramus!

[kzcvtm]

Now Truthteller/MarkhamResident, you've got Sidney's brother (bcrosby) involved! Now you're in trouble!

[bcrosby]

Now Truthteller/MarkhamResident, you've got Sidney's brother (bcrosby) involved! Now you're in trouble!

Bah! ... I wish I was related. That way I can actually afford to fly