Hopeless?

[G.N. Thompson]

Honourable Leona Aglukkaq



Federal Minister of Environment







Honourable Bill Bennett



BC Minister of Energy







Subject: Site C Impacts on Aviation Weather







Reference:



www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/98093E.pdf



www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/98065E.MP3







Dear Ministers,







Dating back to 1963 here in Ft. St. John, I worked in various Canadian weather offices presenting aviation weather and forecasted conditions to the air crews. In 1968 I took pilot training, bought my first aircraft in 1969, and remain a student of aviation today.







It has been my observation that industrial emissions from development in and around our air traffic control zones has steadily increased the disruptions, the risks, the costs and the environmental footprint in the aviation community.







I believe it is also true that no Official Community Plan in our province provides a thoughtful setback distance between proposed industry and our airports. Thus the largest OSB mill in North America was given permission to locate right in the center of the Fort St. John Air Traffic Control Zone.







My dismay with that decision was increased considerably when I read in BC Hydro’s environmental impact statement that “the impacts to aviation weather will be restricted to within 1 km of the proposed reservoir (Site C).”







Please let me assure you that I can find no professional in the aviation community who believes Hydro’s statement to be even possible, let alone a likely outcome if the dam is constructed. Further, it is clear to me that no one on BC Hydro’s project team or environmental consulting team holds the required credentials to properly assess the impacts on the aviation community and the flying public.







I therefore wrote the BC Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency requesting that persons with seasoned credentials flying scheduled air service and/or issuing aviation weather forecasts and/or issuing air traffic control instructions at Ft. St. John be appointed to the Environmental Assessment Board for the Site C project.







Inexplicably this request was ignored. Also inexplicably, when Environment Canada and Transport Canada were asked to speak at the Joint Review Panel the entire topic was ignored. There was no mention of 7 years worth of construction dust or a million cubic meters of wood debris being burnt under our inversions, or the heat added to the downstream river during our winters, or the changing water levels that would keep the ice on the reservoir open . There was no credible calculation for the new moisture coming off the new reservoir that would be in addition to the background pollution and moisture caused by an absence of planning of previous industrial development.







I was not allowed to present the last photograph in the reference given above when attempting to present on this topic at the Site C Joint Review Panel.




. Given two more minutes I could have explained that:



1. The aircraft in the picture had boarded their passengers for a 6am departure.



2. Contrary to forecast, the visibility had deteriorated to less than take off limits.



3. The aircraft was de-iced in the position shown.



4. For passenger comfort the APU on the aircraft was kept running until 1030am.



5. At 1030am the aircraft had to be refuelled.



6. There are no meals on board the aircraft.

and:



7. The air crew had spent half their work day moving approximately 200 meters.

8. The aircraft had missed it’s slot time and connections at destination.







With respect to the Site C Project approvals, apparently it now falls on two ministers, one provincial and one federal, to look into our aviation past and future and do the right thing. To date it appears that the government people looking at the impacts are satisfied that their jobs will be safe after a meeting with the janitor at our airport. In my view, if the assessment work submitted by BC Hydro is not endorsed by the professionals who work in aviation weather every day, then the project should not be approved on any day.











Respectfully,











G.N. Thompson (250 787 5228)




RR1 Site 8 C37



Ft. St. John, B.C.



V1J 4M6

[Johnny#5]

.

[ahramin]

With the current government, totally hopeless. They've gutted as much government oversight as possible. The bureaucrats left at Environment Canada are not going to waste what little resources they still have on the enemy (aviation). Transport Canada similarly has been systematically dismantling itself for a decade and isn't about to change direction.

If you had a couple million dollars to hire some lobbyists, spokesmen, facetwit campaigners, and letter writers you'd still have a tough go but at least you'd stand a chance. Without the money though ... not much hope even if your presentation had been delivered within the time limit and your letter was coherent.

[.Ben]

If it wasn't for industry there would be no economy and passengers to fly and this would cease to be a problem.... We need more aviation weather influencing industry asap! Before it all goes overseas where the weather and the aviation will be

On an also serious note, I'm actully shocked that the weather could be that affected! You learn something everyday

[G.N. Thompson]

Hard to remain calm and completely coherent after listening to EC's and TC's presentations...I did not expect to have to try one but it was like the Minister of Enablement had told them to put in a show at the hearing without actually saying anything to do with aviation impacts.

EC spent most of their 20 minutes on fish habitat but did explain some errors in Hydro's modelling techniques.

Then TC spent theirs on the water navigation act because, after all, there are 1.7 boats every day...would have felt much better if they had tried to shed some light on the probable impacts to 1.7 pax every 4 minutes.

Realized at the end that the Joint Review Panel did not understand any aviation perspective and would not be consulting any when they said "Let's hear Hydro's closing comment". The Hydro response was that TC's Senior Air Specialist (who does not answer my emails) had agreed at the airport meeting to let the modelling ignore all IFR, VFR, and SVFR parameters and the super cooled liquids being dumped into our control zone.

[AllClutch]

That OSB mill in FSJ remarkably affects weather in a way I have not seen anywhere else in my career.
It can be severe clear 1 mile to either side of the runway and 0/0 in a straight line over the runway.
OF the few times I have gone missed in the Q it has mostly been FSJ.

[G.N. Thompson]

Thank you Clutch...I'm thinking it's better in the Q than it would be in the RJs. I would appreciate a comment as to what de-icing costs have done since the mill went in.

[ScudRunner]

I was following what you where saying and took your word that you are knowledgeable in aviation. However your last slide on the first link has a picture of a Jazz CRJ in fog Sept 2010 and you labelled it an "Air Canada 727" I thought you may have meant a flight number but AC 727 routing is LGA to YYZ and Jazz 727 is YQB-YUL.
So everything you say now comes into question since this basic aviation knowledge you could not demonstrate.

Furthermore that was your smoking gun? one delayed CRJ in 2010? Your going to need to find another smoking gun to substantiate your claims. Perhaps you need to find the on time performance records and delays in YXJ before and after the mill went in. I get it YXJ is a hole and you wanted to leave that day and in fact when Environment Canada surveyed many years ago it was a finalist only loosing to Thompson Manitoba as to where to place the tube if Canada needed an enema.

[pdw]

(if that photo is classed as 'heavy fog' .. maybe a bit vague to distinguish make/model/call-sign ?)

...last slide on the first link has a picture of a Jazz CRJ in fog Sept 2010 and you labelled it an "Air Canada 727" ...

Five days in Sept where morning FOG is recorded ... three of them past 9AM .. the 14th/17th/23rd... the 14th recorded "heavy" at 11am/ calm all morning / cleared at 11:28 (latest clearing of those three) by a south breeze / wunderground monthly WX-hist CYXJ.

[G.N. Thompson]

Ahramin:
1. As you have correctly forecasted, the response from EC was clearly from some one learning to speed read who has not looked at industrial pollution through the windscreen.
2. So how did GA become the "enemy"?? I worked for them for some years after graduating from DOT's Air Services Training School at Uplands...seemed to me 90% of our work was in support of aviation who were doing vital roles opening the remote areas of our developing country. I was glad to be part of it.
3. I am now thinking that EC's and TC's presentations at our hearing almost constitute dereliction of duty. I am thinking most Canadians believe EC & TC have the mandate, the expertise, and the responsibility to assess these projects properly, especially because the individual provinces have so little expertise on the topic.
4. I still think thoughtful and enforceable setback distances between our airports and proposed large industry would be a big step in the right direction. Think runway 15 at YXS.

[Pop n Fresh]

2. As expensive as it seems general aviation just does not bring in enough revenue for the 1%.

Much like the Calgary General Hospital Bow Valley center, some thing like Blanchford field Edmonton is worth more to the right people as a site for condos. The general public has a lust to get rid of all those noisy airplanes unless it's one taking them to Mexico.

[Shiny Side Up]

2. As expensive as it seems general aviation just does not bring in enough revenue for the 1%.

The main thing is that it doesn't bring them quick revenue. Doesn't pad pockets in lump sums. Its unfortunate that these "developers" can easily sell these schemes that aren't beneficial to the public, and geneally not in the public's best interest. Play up the noise and danger of an aerodrome, making these chunks of land easy grabs for them. This means that almost every airport that isn't a major airline center is a target for these guys. Adding to the list of big selling points for tearing up runways is the big tax revenues that often light up the eyes of local governments - forgetting the fact that while airports don't generate a lot of tax revenue, they also are substantially less burdensome on municipal resourses, than a comparative residential area. Airport also have an excellent synergy with commercial and industrial land development - which it also might be said are also not favoured by land developers.

Either way, get out there and get involved people if you want your local airport to stay.

[G.N. Thompson]

Mr. .. .,

1. You are quite correct. It is a CRJ. My bad. My sincere apology is offered. In fact there are more 3am errors in the presentation that will have to be corrected before I can offer it to UBCM, provincial aviation councils and planning think tanks. Hopefully the points that really matter will be received.

2. As to the enema, if that might purge all BS from government I will vote “bring it on”. But I am thinking the military would be required to help pile the sand bags before the ensuing tpoonami.

3. Back to topic, I have a few smoking gun pictures and videos. If most of you active flyers were to take cameras to work I think many more good examples could be posted here…

[Patels77]

Either way, get out there and get involved people if you want your local airport to stay. , I have a few smoking gun pictures and videos. If most of you active flyers were to take cameras to work I think many more good examples could be posted here
Thank,
The Cheesy Animation - 3D Corporate Presentation

[G.N. Thompson]

For example, maybe your picture could show:
1. Why there were 17 aircraft on frequency with no tower?
2. Why we had 41 minutes in the holding pattern?
3. Why we are using so much more glycol?
Edit:
4. Why we had 3/4" of frost all over the airfield lighting...what percent of design light output do we get with that?
5. Why braking action gets so different between runway ends...industrial plumes actually precipitate in the wrong conditions.

[G.N. Thompson]

Gentlemen,
Maybe I've missed an important angle on this issue. Maybe the points that should have been stressed are:
1. the number of airports, airstrips, gas & oil camps, pipeline patrols, outfitters strips, mines, windfarms etc that use YXJ as their alternate?
2. and then comments as to the reliability of our Terminal Forecasts with industrial pollution surrounding the place?
Would that have helped?

[G.N. Thompson]

Response from Min Env in part:

Edit: "The project underwent a thorough environment assessment by an independent federal-provincial review panel. This review process included extensive, meaningful and respectful consultation with the public and aboriginal groups and provided the scientific and technical expertise to enable informed decisions by both governments."

Comments:
1. Much of the response is cut and paste from Governor-in-Council release as posted on CEAA's site.
2. Would "extensive and meaningful" and "provided the scientific and technical" mean that some of EC's seasoned meteorologists took a close look at Hydro's work? I don't think so.
3. Now, even the Chair of the Joint Review Panel, Dr. Harry Swain, has come out saying the province is rushing this through with many unanswered questions.

then further from Min Env:
"After taking into account the Joint Review Panel's report, I concluded that the Project would likely cause certain significant adverse environmental effects as defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012). As required under CEAA 2012, I referred the matter to the Governor-in-Council who determined that those effects of the Project are justified in the circumstances."

Comment: It is unlikely anyone on the Governor-in Council has tried an approach at CYXJ in IMC.

and:

"With respect to the impacts of this Project on aviation weather, this matter falls under the purview of Transport Canada. I am, therefore, forwarding your correspondence to the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, for consideration."

Comment:
Stay tuned.

[G.N. Thompson]

wait for it....

Dear Mr. Thompson:



On December 19, 2014, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, provided me with a copy of your correspondence of September 19, 2014, in which you expressed your concerns regarding the approval of the Site C Clean Energy Project and its impact on aviation weather. Please accept my apology for the delay in replying.



At this time, any impact the proposed dam may have on aviation weather is best addressed at the local level and resolved by local stakeholders.



I should note that it is ultimately the responsibility of pilots to operate aircraft in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations, regardless of manmade or natural local weather phenomena.



Potential impacts of the dam do not include an influence on levels of service provided by NAV CANADA. Therefore, Transport Canada has no role in this matter.



Allow me to assure you that the Department remains committed to providing a safe and efficient transportation system for all Canadians.



I trust that the foregoing information will be of interest.



Sincerely,











The Honourable Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Transport





c.c. The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P.

Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern

Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council

[G.N. Thompson]

It appears to me both ministries have snoozed thru two important large industrial proposals and the locals are effectively handcuffed.

Going fishing now and will try to regroup.

[G.N. Thompson]

Ahhhhh…well. Fishing is good for us, as it has been since we invented tools. Those of you who like fish are invited over.

March 25th 1740Z 1/8 to 1/4 in freezing fog, RVR 900 to1400, ceiling W1-2. The Q is missed... Glacier departing the hold for the alternate…our provincial Senior Environmental Protection Officer insists there is no impact…181 inbound from Sesam at 1917Z…emissions in approach 29,… island of clag over airfield extends 10 – 15 miles...passengers waited 4 hours at YYE...missed connections, missed appointments…etc.

So back to topic. The minister advises us to solve this problem “At this time” using “local stakeholders”, and TC has an old “tool” which they used at Pickering:

-The cost of the disruption to the community can be calculated at $30 per passenger per hour counting from the time the passenger should have arrived until the time the passenger actually did arrive.

Thus if the flight departed to here based on forecast conditions above landing limits, and was unable to land due to industrial impacts, and diverted to say YQU and chartered a bus, the “stakeholder” could bill a local fund:

1. $30 x 70 passengers x 4 hours $8400

-seems reasonable to me, in fact I would suggest adding some items…

[G.N. Thompson]

So, to finance that:
Raising "local funds" from industry should not be difficult considering embarrassment factors, malfeasance, and incompetence we have seen in the past. Each share of the contributions could be based on the ratio of emissions…if Jack puts out 500 metric tonnes per day, and Jill 1000, and Johnny come-lately 2000, then the portions are really not hard to calculate.

[Prodriver]

The river valley is already affected by Valley Fog, not a big deal as it mainly resides in the valley and is mostlikely caused by the warmer water on the peace river and burns off by 10:00 am. I will agree that the OSB should have been built on the south side of the peace, where the trees are and the rail line is located. They could have built a new bridge w/ Hydo to open a new Hwy to Chetwynd using the Jackpine RD, but the dim witted city council was so desperate to get that into the town for taxes all proper thought process went out the window.

Since this Dam is number 3 and there is eventually going to be 8 dams on the river I think the battle has already been lost so save your money. When the site was picked and proposed in the late 1950's early 60's by WAC Bennett.
Kinda cool to be part of something that was planned so long ago and see it brought to a finish. Can't wait to go boating on the new lake!