Terminals/aircraft on ramp too close to the runway up north

[pelmet]

Read an article recently with the quote below. I was just curious if anybody knows which airports might be affected by this?

Many of Canada's northern airports are legacy facilities constructed by Transport Canada, built when the largest aircraft of the day was the rugged DC-3. They simply weren't designed to host Dash-8's, ATR's and Boeing 737's let alone the aircraft of the future.

Nourse cites the issue of regulated runway transitional zones, the ramp area that must remain clear of any obstacle that could hinder the safe operation of aircraft. "Transport Canada has become more rigid, and someone says were now breaking the transitional slopes because the old terminals are too close to the runways" he said. "Also, modern aircraft have higher tails, so we have a situation where we can't technically park an airplane in some places. And Transport Canada won't issue an exemption anymore"

[Meatservo]

This actually brightens my day a little, because it signifies that some office drone who was searching for some way to justify his existence and look busy has finally found something to write stuff and be concerned about. Hopefully this will contribute positively to his "performance metrics" at his next performance review.

Also, I've noticed lately that some planes are bigger than DC-3s. I'm glad someone else has noticed the same thing. I wonder how long this has been going on?

[Rowdy]

DC-3 wingspan 95ft 3in. Dash 8 wingspan 90ft 0in. ATR-42 wingspan 80ft 7in

BOOM!!

The troglodytes need to be kept at bay.

[Saxub]

I don't see it being much of an issue on a day to day basis. The DC3 can squeeze in about anywhere, but when it gets interesting is when the DC3, -8 and Hawker all come in at the same time to a small pad like CYPM. On top of that there's usually a Navajo or two holding and a PC12 or B1900D sitting there too.

I can't think off the top of my head any Ontario MTO terminal that is too close to the runway that it would make it dangerous.

[pelmet]

I believe that this has to do with aircraft height, not wingspan. Also, with there being no more exemptions.

Thanks.

[bobcaygeon]

The problem with the MTO buildings, etc being to close to the runways is that it prevents the airport from being approved for a "non-precision approach" ie approaches with minima of less than 500' AGL as a starting point.

These facilities don't meet the requirements of TP 312 or allow instrument procedures to be built in compliance with TP 308 without penalties.
The airspace around the runway must be obstacle free. Think "upside down birthday cake"

In plain english. I can give you a LPV approach but the minima is still going to be 500' AGL because you built "shit" too close to the runway.

IMHO

[Saxub]

If that's the case, it's more than just the MTO. There are cell towers everywhere, roads 15 feet from thresholds, trees that haven't been cut in years etc.

For fun I fly LNAV/VNAVs down on slow while watching the PAPI and how high I am from the ground. There are some airports I will never use the PAPI at night up north... and there are some airports I know to fly the slope a little high because, well there are trees that are 5' below my wheels on short final.

[fish4life]

DC-3 wingspan 95ft 3in. Dash 8 wingspan 90ft 0in. ATR-42 wingspan 80ft 7in

BOOM!!

The troglodytes need to be kept at bay.

Atr 72's are closer in wingspan at 89' but it's the length also being 89' that makes them a much tougher fit into these places vs the DC 3 being only 65' long. Add on top of the size of airplane's is the numbers now, these reserves are busier than they have ever been with a population growing every year. Airports that used to be served by one maybe 2 DC-3's a day are now getting 3 Dash's, a few King Air's with the odd ATR / Hawker in there to.

[valleyboy]

Most airports in the north were built with lack of foresight, influence by operators (if Stan Deluce had his way runways in northern ontario would only be 2500 feet long) who lobbied the government, and just provincial government attitude. Back in the 60's the Nungesser road and the North road out of Pickle were started with idea they would link up and service many of the reserves. As late at circa 1970 MTO had survey crews camped on the Berens River cutting line and surveying north from there. Then it all stopped and runways started to show up. First Big Trout and Sandy ( around 1974) followed by Round lake (around 1976). All sked flights up until this time were floats and skis and Barney Lamb (OCA) started the first wheel sked with a DC3 out of Sioux Lookout in 1975 (merged with Hooker Air) which had stops in YPL (new runway moved from Central Pat to existing location around 1973 along with the noval idea of Weibenville and Hookerville-damn) to Trout, Sandy and Red Lake and eventually Round with skeds alternating direction every other day. By 1978 Austin Airways moved in and purchased OCA from Barney, Fort Hope and Landsdown were added. Slate Falls, Bearskin and Austin were all in the sked business. More airports were continually added and today we have the existing structure. Unfortunately the model is based on what was initially thought was adequate in the mid 70's (Big Trout started at about 3100' if memory serves me. Just another example of hardware morphing faster than support system.

Oh ya - did I mention no nav aides except at Red and Sioux with a teletype xmitter in Trout which could be picked up at about 190 mhz on your coffee grinder adf -- the one good thing, no verbal diarrhea on the radio

Northern Manitoba was slightly ahead with more airports. Gillam, Thompson and Churchill all had jet service in those days.

[Rowdy]

I believe that this has to do with aircraft height, not wingspan. Also, with there being no more exemptions.

Thanks.

Its not the aircraft or their respective size that are the problem...


As someone else mentioned.. how about the obstacles off the approach and departure ends of the runways? Many communities I've flown into throughout the northlands have cell towers, power lines, trees etc.

Could someone post the exact criteria for LNAV/VNAV approaches below 500ft AGL? How about actual distances from MAP to terminal/pad placement at the communities it would make a difference at? Shouldn't be too hard with google earth..

[Saxub]

CYTL has mins of 401' and has gas tanks 200' from the threshold of 32, and an MTO building not much farther. The so I agree the buildings don't seem to make a huge difference.

[WileyCoyote]

Almost any airport in Nunavut...