Project: Parkland Airport - West of Edmonton

[rac007]

Add the mis information and fear mongering and it simply makes one wonder whats the real story...because its pretty obvious there is more going on.

With the city already up against the stony plain res, I would bet money that the whole area north, west and south of the parkland airport has already been targeted for subdivisions. And the developers don't want an airport in the middle of their future subdivisions. So that is at least one group behind the curtain (shades of the puppet masters at city center).

[Peitz]

Here is the way I see it:

This airport is good for the area and it is going to happen.


End of story.

It will be good for spruce grove and the boom they are going through. It will be good for the neighbouring land owners who will sell their now valueable land at a huge profit. (noone would buy farmland in sandhills for any other reason) It will be healthy for ERAA to have some legitimate competition in the area, maybe then they will step their game up and stop trying to be Calgary.

With the amount of people @ city centre looking for a new home I think this airport will have enough people advocating to make it possible. And the protest from the local farmers is to be expected. But it won't amount to a pile of horse hit (pardon the pun) to annoy some farmers with little air traffic.


IMHO

[Aunty Aerodrome]

Yes, I'll plead ignornace. I don't recall seeing this thread in February. I'm not from the area so it may have been a big issue locally. I was just going by reports in the media that stated that neighbours felt blindsided.

I retract my above comments about there not being enough notification and "snowballs chance". Thank you for pointing that out SB.

I would like to clarify something here.
First, the open houses that the PADC had earlier this year were regading sites other than the one purchased and they were met with opposition in those locations. The"blindsighted" neighbours are the ones that were NOT in any way informed of the current site because the PADC did not hold an open house regarding the current site for fear of further opposition. The current site was in fact purchased behind lawyers and agents in a blind sale with no opportunity for the most local of residents to have any say whatsoever.

Secondly, regarding the concerns of the community. An airport in this location does not only affect the local area. One poster mentioned that there are far more people at the community meetings than would be affected. Wrong. Everyone within an 8 km radius could POTENTIALLY be affected if the Federal government at any time decides to enforce the regulations of TP1247.

Third, the area as a whole runs on sisterns and wells. There has never been pipes for water in the area. Not even for the nearby subdivisions. We do not anticipate that changing any time soon. This means, that if the airport uses the water table, which is low flowing as it is, to support this type of development, the nearby residents will be lacking water. All residents getting their water from the aquifer have a right to be concerned and question this type of development.

Additionally, fuel and other hazardous materials will be stored on the site. Should an accident happen, and it COULD, the area's water table could potentially be compromised leaving residents and livestock with no water. The community has the right to be concerned about the possibility of this happening.

Let me add that the community truly feels badly for the displaced people and businesses being evicted from City Center, however, the location that the PADC has chosen is simply not the best solution for all concerned, human and otherwise.

I too have concerns about the precedant that could come down the pipe for the aviation community. Some valid points have been brought up here. I hope for the sake of the aviation community that this doesn't go that far. However, I also hope that the developers of this site recognize that the community and the county have no intention of being bullied any more than they have been. The developers have spit in the faces of the community and the county with their blatent disregard for local authority or for the concerns of the community...more than once. And all of these incidents are being recorded, should it ever go to court. Too bad this wasn't all handled better from the start.

As far as anyone questioning the County's stand against this development, and wondering if this is just a lot of political posturing, it may be a good idea to read the County's news release against the development and then read the letters written by the Mayor to the Minister of Transport taking a very public stand against an airport in this location for a number of reasons he has listed therein.

Should I also mention that the County's lawyers are working hard to fight the realization of the Parkland airport?

Both the aviation community and the Parkland community have valid concerns. Bottom line, the residents were there first, they feel bullied and invaded and yes, they are on the defensive. People in that state can scream pretty loudly... they've been pretty good to the PADC and the aviation community in the media. They have been silent while being called "volitile", "NIMBYs", etc. I'm wondering how much more they are going to take before they scream in a much more public forum than their community meetings. I am afraid that the PADC is shedding a negative light on all aviation enthusiasts and I believe it is unfortunate considering that after reading much of this forum, there are some very good people among you that could suffer as a result.

[Tom H]

Aunty Aerodrome

Thank you for your post

I'm going to address some of the points and my responses are generic not directed at you personally. Many will be from the devils advocate point of view.

In my opinion

First, the open houses that the PADC had earlier this year were regading sites other than the one purchased and they were met with opposition in those locations. The"blindsighted" neighbours are the ones that were NOT in any way informed of the current site because the PADC did not hold an open house regarding the current site for fear of further opposition.

So even though the other sites were in the same general area no one paid attention? Missed the notices, had no idea what was under discussion in the area? Tough sell.

PADC did not hold an open house regarding the current site for fear of further opposition.

The fear of opposition is an assumption... as devils advocate opinion it could just as easy be they assumed they had heard from all interested parties and selected a site that best fit the information from the other open houses.

From what I have observed, if I used that approach in a City of Edmonton consultation meeting I would be accused of not paying attention, yes I have seen someone do it in an airport consultation during the debate and be reproached that way.

The current site was in fact purchased behind lawyers and agents in a blind sale with no opportunity for the most local of residents to have any say whatsoever.

Sorry, but irrelevant. Would you ask your neighbors for permission before you sold your home?
I certainly would not, its not their business.
There is no requirement on the sellers part and this is an issue between buyer and seller

An airport in this location does not only affect the local area. One poster mentioned that there are far more people at the community meetings than would be affected. Wrong. Everyone within an 8 km radius could POTENTIALLY be affected if the Federal government at any time decides to enforce the regulations of TP1247.

After reading your post I drove there area again and in my opinion, as that is what we are both using, I am standing by my original opinion. Yes invested the time to drive through the area a second time to see if my original observations may have been incorrect.

As to the regulation...in addition to the regulation you might want to look up the section of the airport regulations to see how they are applied and take a drive by Villeneuve, Josephburg, Westlock (as they are comparable) to see how the application of the regulation has affected the surrounding areas.

Even within 2NM of Edmonton City Centre there are buildings much taller than the statement in the reg as well as other related items. You have to read all the information to understand the implication, not just the reg. Also as I have suggested earlier its a good idea to see how they have been applied in practice which is easy in this region.

Third, the area as a whole runs on sisterns and wells. There has never been pipes for water in the area. Not even for the nearby subdivisions. We do not anticipate that changing any time soon. This means, that if the airport uses the water table, which is low flowing as it is, to support this type of development, the nearby residents will be lacking water. All residents getting their water from the aquifer have a right to be concerned and question this type of development.

Villeneuve operates on a Cistern system and considering the permissions and expense involved with drilling a well it could very well be that is Parkland Airports plan. Try driving over and asking them, matter of fact that may answer many of your questions and they are very approachable.

Additionally, fuel and other hazardous materials will be stored on the site. Should an accident happen, and it COULD, the area's water table could potentially be compromised leaving residents and livestock with no water. The community has the right to be concerned about the possibility of this happening.

Being a farm boy...are you concerned about the farms around you? Particularly the larger ones that store the same type of fuels in quantity. Jet fuel is essentially diesel fuel ( a jet engine will run on diesel and a diesel truck will run on Jet fuel) as Aviation gasoline is the same as auto fuel to the same extent as described with Jet fuel to diesel.

Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides as well as oils, cleaners and other maintenance materials are all on a farm...with number of operations around that area they would in total likely be a larger water table concern, but I don't hear concerns about them.

Let me add that the community truly feels badly for the displaced people and businesses being evicted from City Center, however, the location that the PADC has chosen is simply not the best solution for all concerned, human and otherwise.

Three questions.
While I take your expressed concern at face value Aunty Aerodrome the letters to the editor, comments on other sites related to this argument and others that have posted on this forum have certainly not shown that concern.

1) If the community truly feels badly how have they shown it?
2) If the site PADC has chosen is not the best solution what have you based that opinion on?
3) Have you suggested alternative sites (other than Villeneuve where lands cannot be purchased)?

it may be a good idea to read the County's news release against the development

Read it some time ago thank you.

then read the letters written by the Mayor to the Minister of Transport taking a very public stand against an airport in this location for a number of reasons he has listed therein.

Love to...but an internet search does not bring them up. Can you post them to the site or provide a link?

Should I also mention that the County's lawyers are working hard to fight the realization of the Parkland airport?

Well I hope for the Parkland tax payers they first review the Supreme court decisions on the topic then pursue other avenues.

This one is by far my largest concern...

I too have concerns about the precedant that could come down the pipe for the aviation community. Some valid points have been brought up here. I hope for the sake of the aviation community that this doesn't go that far.

Well that is something your group and those opposing the airport should have thought of before choosing the route you have gone. This is a prime example of a few hundred (taking the meeting numbers as valid) may damage a way of life and livelihood for thousands and then sit back and blame PADC.

Both your county and your group have many other options to deal with PADC than the political route you have chosen. Note I say the route you and your group have chosen as you have choices unlike many of the people that could be effected.

Something that the airport opposition may want to consider.

Bottom line, the residents were there first, they feel bullied and invaded and yes, they are on the defensive. People in that state can scream pretty loudly.

Now lets take that statement and turn it around...in the last few short years the aviation community has lost.
St. Albert Airport, Walters strip, Blodel Field, Edmonton City Centre Airport and at least 1 other...
The aviation community was there first in each case, so who should be feeling bullied and invaded?
Who is feeling on the defensive?
Now who is facing, what could be, a national precedent that may have massive negative effects across the country both short and long term?

They have been silent while being called "rich boy hobbyists", "entitled", etc.
Puts another perspective on things doesn't it.

I'm wondering how much more they are going to take before they scream in a much more public forum than their community meetings.

Been wondering the same about the aviation community myself...especially with another historic aviation centre under threat in Fort MacMurray.

This post is not meant to be a personal attack or attack on your opposition.

Rather to show the argument from the other side, how some things don't stand scrutiny and how actions are not following words.

Once again I have no dog in the local fight, but I am very concerned at the tactics chosen, their implications and the anti aviation sentiments being shown by the anti airport group involved.

I would strongly suggest you consider the "real" effects this may have on your area as opposed to "imagined".

Examples:
Your group really thinks an airline or Transport Canada would allow a 737 of any description to operate from a single runway field with no instrument approaches and limited services when a few short miles away better infrastructure exists? Really?

Bird migration is suddenly an issue when there have been private aerodromes and Villeneuve Airport in your area for decades?

Suddenly contamination of the water table is an issue when farmers have been storing fuel and hazardous materials in the area for years?

Noisy, polluting 2 cycle ATVs, motorcycles and such are ok, airplanes are not?

Aunty Aerodrome
I have not posted this to be adversarial, but to point out the weakness of many of the arguments and attitudes I have seen in this discussion and the potential greater damage the airport oppositions tactics can cause.

Albertan22 has posted a road map of other methods at your groups disposal that can more effectively and less hazardously provide effective opposition.

And I'll add one for individuals and personal use.
Go talk to them, individually or in small groups, politely and openly.
Both sides will likely, with less expense, effort and animosity, get a better understanding of the issues and find solutions both can live with once the real issues are clear.

Apologize to all for the long post and I am desperately trying not to be condescending or personal and hope I have not.

As always
In my highly biased personal opinion

[Prodriver]

I think some of the locales are sore as they never sold there land! I was raided around farms and we spilt a lot of fuel and chemicals!! I have to agree with Tom H's points!

[Aunty Aerodrome]

Tom H,

Thank you for your response. I think we can both agree that this is a highly controversial and emotionally charged topic with two very different sides/views.

I am working very hard to be diplomatic here, but to be honest, sometimes it feels a bit like those who are aviation enthusiasts just do not hear the side of those who have to live next door to an airport when they did not choose to. I get the impression from the community that yes, they do feel blindsighted.

Hear me out here. Many of the same people in opposition to the current site were in oposition to the former site. When the former site was met with their opposition at a town hall meeting, and the PADC chose not to purchase that property, the residents were under the impression that the PADC were looking elsewhere other than Parkland County. When they "suddenly" popped back up on the radar after having bought a property via a blind sale, yes, the community felt like the PADC did NOT hear their protests to an airport within their area, and they felt like the PADC (and by extension the aviation community) spit in their face. To clarify your comments regarding the blind sale... the seller of the property, whom I know personally did not know who he was selling his land to until it was too late to back out of the sale without serious financial reprecussions. THAT is a blind sale. The PADC bought the land hiding behind the coats of their lawyers. There is nothing illegal here. From a legal perspective, and having experience in this area, many times a blind sale is used when someone with alot of money or stature is wanting to buy a property without the price being jacked up simply because the seller thinks they can get more because of who the seller is. This wasn't the case here however. (And none of the above is conjecture...I have evidence of what I have stated above).

Regarding the letters from the Mayor's office... they are available for public viewing here http://www.antiaerodromecoop.com/progress-updates.html

You reponded to me "As to the regulation...in addition to the regulation you might want to look up the section of the airport regulations to see how they are applied and take a drive by Villeneuve, Josephburg, Westlock (as they are comparable) to see how the application of the regulation has affected the surrounding areas."

I do not disagree that the regulations are not always adhered to. But, I had also used the word "potentially" in my post. The concern isn't that these regulations WILL be enforced, it's that as llong as those regulations are not amended, there is the future POTENTIAL of enforcement. The community is just as concerned about the future as the aviation community is. Until regulations are changed at the Federal level, the potential exists.

You also responded "While I take your expressed concern at face value Aunty Aerodrome the letters to the editor, comments on other sites related to this argument and others that have posted on this forum have certainly not shown that concern." I have shown you the courtesy of not holding you to what other proponents of this project have said, please do me the same courtesy. It is a fact that not everyone involved on either side expresses themselves in the same way, however the majority of the community do feel badly for the situation that the aviation community has been put in. Whether they express it appropriately or not is on each of them individually. Of note, I also feel badly for the homeless man who is outside of my work every morning, but I do not ask him to move into my spare bedroom.

You stated, "The aviation community was there first in each case, so who should be feeling bullied and invaded?
Who is feeling on the defensive?". Let me ask you... If the whole world took on the stance of "an eye for an eye", wouldn't the whole world be blinded? Just because the aviation community feels displaced, does not make it acceptable to displace other neighbourhoods when yes, there are other options.

We also touched on that briefly. Other options. FYI, I have spoken to the PADC about other options, as have others, (long before this became the situatio it is today) and their answer to our suggestions (which would not have met with nearly as much opposition if any because it wasn't in the middle of a residential/agricultural locale) was "That's not as convenient. Our pilots do not want to drive that far". And again, the community felt like their "neighbours" were not trying to work with them, but were only thinking of their own "inconvenience".

Tom, do not misunderstand me. I do not know everything. I only have the information I have thusfar. I value information, regardless of which opinion it supports. I am learning something new everyday. But please, do not underestimate my knowledge or my intelligence. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, but I am equally willing to stand up for what I know to be right.

My feelings ultimately? At the end of the day I just want peace. Some kind of resolution that pleases the majority and puts the whole thing to rest. I suppose time will tell.

All just my humble, inconsequential opinion.

[Tom H]

Thank you again for the response

To start with:

Tom, do not misunderstand me. I do not know everything. I only have the information I have thusfar. I value information, regardless of which opinion it supports. I am learning something new everyday.

Appreciate that and its why I have been trying to politely provide the information I can and the other side of the issue rather than rant, rave and attack.

But please, do not underestimate my knowledge or my intelligence.

As I will think you will agree I have not, with an an anonymous internet forum unlike the face to face world you never actually know who you are dealing with and I prefer to believe most people are reasonable until otherwise proven.

We also touched on that briefly. Other options. FYI, I have spoken to the PADC about other options, as have others, (long before this became the situatio it is today) and their answer to our suggestions (which would not have met with nearly as much opposition if any because it wasn't in the middle of a residential/agricultural locale) was "That's not as convenient. Our pilots do not want to drive that far". And again, the community felt like their "neighbours" were not trying to work with them, but were only thinking of their own "inconvenience".

Please do share the options put forward. I am sure if reasonable it will only build your case here.

Let me ask you... If the whole world took on the stance of "an eye for an eye", wouldn't the whole world be blinded?

As someone who is still in the middle of dealing with the effects of ECCA closure and will be for years to come, the misinformation spread, the vitriol and venom surrounding the issue this is not a time to be asking that question...because in spite of my attempting to be reasonable and open it certainly appears the world is blinded when it come to aviation, but everyone certainly wants the benefits.

Just because the aviation community feels displaced, does not make it acceptable to displace other neighbourhoods

Excuse me for shortening your quote, already touched on "other options".

As I currently see it, you are not being displaced is the point here. You do not have to move, alter your lifestyle etc. unless you choose to.

I do not disagree that the regulations are not always adhered to. But, I had also used the word "potentially" in my post. The concern isn't that these regulations WILL be enforced, it's that as llong as those regulations are not amended, there is the future POTENTIAL of enforcement. The community is just as concerned about the future as the aviation community is. Until regulations are changed at the Federal level, the potential exists.

As does the potential for expropriation, the current PADC folks changing their mind and creating a high density sub division or an oil refinery or any number of nasty uses.

Which is why I suggested some realistic examples of the implementation of the regulation as an example of what is realistic to expect long term.

To clarify your comments regarding the blind sale... the seller of the property, whom I know personally did not know who he was selling his land to until it was too late to back out of the sale without serious financial reprecussions. THAT is a blind sale. The PADC bought the land hiding behind the coats of their lawyers. There is nothing illegal here.

The sellers decision not to have the buyer disclose was his to make. He could of, at anytime, prior to closure insisted on knowing who the buyer was. He didn't and that doesn't mean he is foolish or a bad person, he made a choice.

At the same time to demonize the buyer is also wrong in my opinion.

Regarding the letters from the Mayor's office... they are available for public viewing here http://www.antiaerodromecoop.com/progress-updates.html

Thank you for the link I will read them later.

I am working very hard to be diplomatic here, but to be honest, sometimes it feels a bit like those who are aviation enthusiasts just do not hear the side of those who have to live next door to an airport when they did not choose to.

Seems we are both working very hard to be diplomatic.

Lets discuss the term "aviation enthusiasts" for a moment.

To begin with and for your information:
You may not realize it but using the term in the context you are is quite derogatory to those that own primary businesses in aviation and/or aviation is their sole source of professional income or rely on a business or personal aircraft in their non aviation business. The same would apply to those working to get into the profession.

Similar to calling a farmer with several sections of land a hobby farmer or the owners of a family farm hobbyists. An approach you may wish to change.

Now as to not being heard.
You have been exposed to a lot of information here from me and others. The information I have freely supplied has been to help you understand the real context of what you are dealing with instead of the fear mongering and over the top information I have been seeing promoted.

I hope it has helped in the realization of what this development really is as opposed to imagined, but as you haven't responded to those comments specifically I am going to choose to believe they have been taken seriously by you. That said...I have doubts about others in the airport opposition.

I am running short of diplomacy but one last shot to try and get the point across.

The Parkland Airport is a single runway development with no air traffic control tower, no instrument approaches and limited services compared to Villeneuve.
It is a niche' market airport appealing to those that wish to buy their land due to issues that have hurt them at ECCA and others for their own reasons.

Villeneuve is a four runway airport two paved runways, one paved runway soon to be 5000' with instrument approach, two grass runways of 3500'. With a control tower, extensive in place services and room to expand dramatically.Which many are praying happens.

But you will never own the land you are investing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on. Something after the events of the last few years is unpalatable to some

It will be the primary growth secondary airport for the metro region in my opinion. It's just the way it is.

It's my opinion based on decades around the industry, Transport Canada and for that matter no airline or airline insurer is going to permit Jet operations on the scale of a 737 Airliner into a 5300' single runway airport with no tower and no instrument approach when 2 minutes away is an airport with those required amenities.

That is the way it is with a new 737 costing in the area of 15 million dollars +.

So final couple of comments:
1) When your group plays the 737 airliner card it reduces their credibility to the aviation industry as well as others and using quick draw "bird migration" and "water table" fears does the same, in my opinion. Which is why some of the aviation community tunes your group out. You're not being credible in my opinion.

2) You and your group choose to oppose the Parkland development...fine it's your right and I defend it.
But do it at the County development level (per Albertan22's post) where it is the Parkland Airport that is opposed instead of attacking the airport approval process and hence the industry with a potential of a precedent with Nation wide effects.

Change your approach in the areas of those two comments and folks like me with no dog in the fight go away. Because you and your group are being credible and not threatening the greater aviation community in Canada.

Now I'm going to wander away from this thread for a bit to read the link you have kindly provided and to regain some of my lost diplomacy.

I hope this conversation has shed some light on the "other side of the story" for you Aunty Aerodrome.

In my highly biased personal opinion

edits in blue added a few minutes after original post

[Aunty Aerodrome]

Thank you again for the response

Lets discuss the term "aviation enthusiasts" for a moment.

To begin with and for your information:
You may not realize it but using the term in the context you are is quite derogatory to those that own primary businesses in aviation and/or aviation is their sole source of professional income or rely on a business or personal aircraft in their non aviation business. The same would apply to those working to get into the profession.

My appologies. I was unaware of how that came accross.

as you haven't responded to those comments specifically I am going to choose to believe they have been taken seriously by you.

I am taking them seriously and doing my own research. Thank you for the guideance.

It's my opinion based on decades around the industry, Transport Canada and for that matter no airline or airline insurer is going to permit Jet operations on the scale of a 737 Airliner into a 5300' single runway airport with no tower and no instrument approach when 2 minutes away is an airport with those required amenities.
That is the way it is with a new 737 costing in the area of 15 million dollars +.

Please allow me to elaborate on the current belief of the community and ask for some clarification if you have the knowledge. It is the community's understanding through extensive research, that certain models of the 737 can land on a runway of less than 5300 ft. The community's concern stems from the PADC originally saying that the runway was only 2600 ft and that has since changed to 5300. It has also been stated by the PADC regarding the former site that eventually they would have a tower. Now while I concede that a tower etc. may not be in the plans today, it has been reported inthe media that the developers fully plan to expand to have one at some point. Again, the community is not as concerned with the current status of the airport decvelopment as much as what could happen in the future, which they would have no control of. Please clarify for me, can a 737-600, 737-300, or 737-700 land on a runway of less than 5000 ft in ideal conditions?

your group choose to oppose the Parkland development...fine it's your right and I defend it.
But do it at the County development level (per Albertan22's post) where it is the Parkland Airport that is opposed instead of attacking the airport approval process and hence the industry with a potential of a precedent with Nation wide effects.

In the community's defence on this, there has been some confusion surrounding who's jurisdiction this falls under. When the community approached the County, they were told that this type of development apparently falls under Federal jurisdiction. Even the developers themselves are referring the County and the community to the feds. Apparently the County Planning and Development Department have no say because the developers themselves have said so. Hence, the lack of permits to work on the land and the County issuing a Stop Work Order until jurisdiction is clarified. So the community, being pointed in the direction of the Federal Government took their concerns there. That was not the initial reaction months ago. Months ago, it was the County development that were being addressed...it was the Parkland Airport Development Corp. that sent everyone to the Feds. Just clarifying the facts, not in any way trying to be combative.


I appreciate you shedding light on the shadowy areas of this controversial subject and I thank you for your time and for sharing your knowledge.

Regards,

[Flybabe]

For some reason, I feel the need to comment on the plausibility of a 737 of any model using the Parkland airport, should it be expanded to 5300'. I have to preface this by admitting that I do not - and probably never will - operate a 737, but have been in the industry long enough to understand operations to a fair degree.

I could be wrong, but I cannot see Parkland being utilized as an alternate airport (much less PRIMARY) unless there is some serious infrastructure built. Approaches, ground handling, servicing, ability to handle passengers - ALL would need to be in place. This is not something that happens in a short period of time. One only needs to look at commercial carriers using, say, Red Deer as an alternate for YEG. I can't comment for sure but I highly surmise that an alternate for, say, a Cdn. North '37 would more than likely be Calgary, as opposed to Red Deer.

Quite honestly, I find the the fear of a 737 (of any species) irrational.

I will also submit that I myself would likely realize no benefit from Parkland. I understand the concern of neighboring landowners. I do not believe the potential environmental impact that is being espoused by opponents is credible in the current state of the industry.

Just some of my thoughts. Perhaps someone involved with '37s can comment. Carry on.

[Tom H]

Quickly before I get to enter my world...

In the community's defence on this, there has been some confusion surrounding who's jurisdiction this falls under. When the community approached the County, they were told that this type of development apparently falls under Federal jurisdiction. Even the developers themselves are referring the County and the community to the feds. Apparently the County Planning and Development Department have no say because the developers themselves have said so. Hence, the lack of permits to work on the land and the County issuing a Stop Work Order until jurisdiction is clarified. So the community, being pointed in the direction of the Federal Government took their concerns there. That was not the initial reaction months ago. Months ago, it was the County development that were being addressed...it was the Parkland Airport Development Corp. that sent everyone to the Feds. Just clarifying the facts, not in any way trying to be combative.

As I understand the supreme court ruling and the regulations in simple form:
On the aviation related side the county and province have no jurisdiction it is Federal as it should be.

With regards to access roads and non aviation related the county and the province have jurisdiction.
Albertan22 covers it better.

Please allow me to elaborate on the current belief of the community and ask for some clarification if you have the knowledge. It is the community's understanding through extensive research, that certain models of the 737 can land on a runway of less than 5300 ft. The community's concern stems from the PADC originally saying that the runway was only 2600 ft and that has since changed to 5300. It has also been stated by the PADC regarding the former site that eventually they would have a tower. Now while I concede that a tower etc. may not be in the plans today, it has been reported inthe media that the developers fully plan to expand to have one at some point. Again, the community is not as concerned with the current status of the airport decvelopment as much as what could happen in the future, which they would have no control of. Please clarify for me, can a 737-600, 737-300, or 737-700 land on a runway of less than 5000 ft in ideal conditions?

The older 737-200 series could be permitted to operate from fields that short if the fields were equipped correctly.

Some of the newer 737s if very light and at low density altitudes could technically do it.

But with airlines and insurers have their restrictions.
Examples, in my opinion:
No airline in their right mind would run a route at a lightweight, they would lose money.
No insurer would allow them to fly into a non ILS airport in this day and age let alone one without a tower or full fire services unless it was an emergency situation, even then with a Tower and ILS 2 minutes away they would be directed there (except in the movies).

An example from my world...
I have had a number of guest aircraft come to the facility I run at ECCA.
When the first runway was closed that left only the shorter runway 4700'.

An aircraft that was scheduled to come for an event that during WW2 flew from 3500' runways with a full load was no permitted to come into the remaining 4700' runway very very light because of their insurers restrictions.

So if you choose to run the numbers right it may be technically possible in perfect conditions, the question is would anyone do it...my opinion, not a chance.

Now while I concede that a tower etc. may not be in the plans today, it has been reported inthe media that the developers fully plan to expand to have one at some point.

Again as I understand the system (and if wrong I am sure it will be pointed out) the airport is not the one that decides when and if they get a tower, it's Nav/Canada.

They decide on the basis of the level of traffic, type of traffic and other factors. The airport pays to have the tower built to Nav/Canada requirements at that point. Then there are airspce issues and other factors.

Now refer to my references of Parkland and Villeneuve in my last post.

The most probable scenario, in my opinion, is that with the tower at Villeneuve, the types of operation that require it and other factors Villeneuve will be the only tower in this area. Two towers that close makes no economic sense.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[fuelguy]

FYI, depending on the model, a 737 will operate between 80.000 lbs (light) and 140,000 lbs (heavy)

For that category/weight of aircraft, you need a very substantial runway, engineered to take the weight.
Additionally, you need substantial taxiways, and apron area. Even with the expansion at Villeneuve, it cannot accommodate aircraft anywhere near that size or weight. The longer expanded runway will be for small private jets that require the 5000 plus for accelerate stop distance. And very few have thrust reversers anymore.

[ScreaminBanshee]

FYI, depending on the model, a 737 will operate between 80.000 lbs (light) and 140,000 lbs (heavy)

For that category/weight of aircraft, you need a very substantial runway, engineered to take the weight.
Additionally, you need substantial taxiways, and apron area. Even with the expansion at Villeneuve, it cannot accommodate aircraft anywhere near that size or weight. The longer expanded runway will be for small private jets that require the 5000 plus for accelerate stop distance. And very few have thrust reversers anymore.

To add to that, from what I understand, when you calculate your accelerate stop distance, even if you have thrust reversers, you cannot use them in your calculations.

I imagine that Villeneuve tower will control Parkland

[Prodriver]

It looks like now is a good time to donate to the COPA "Freedom to fly fund" and get a membership in AOPA, with out these groups protecting our freedom we would be cooked! It is also time to send a letter to Minister Raitt and ask her to honor prior decisions and show your support for Freedom!!. You have to laugh at the Letter from the Mayor and the shock and horror they feel when they find that there is a hole in there post 911 bureaucratic system. Must be hard on the poor guy, he really need's to stopping listening to those screaming the loudest. Maybe it is election antics.

http://www.antiaerodromecoop.com/progress-updates.html

While this is funny, it can be dangerous if left unchecked, please right a letter of support! and support COPA who we will get engaged on this!

[ScreaminBanshee]

So in that letter did he just admit that his stop work order cannot be applied?

[5x5]

So in that letter did he just admit that his stop work order cannot be applied?

No, he is asking however that the National interest and control over aerodromes is removed. The stop work order was issued in the absence of any proof that TC approval of the development had been given. The Mayor realizes that such approval trumps his local governments ability to interfere.

This is the threat that is being discussed earlier in this thread. Local governments (and many citizens) frequently don't take a national view of things. And aviation, which allows movement to and from far distant places in relatively short timeframes needs to have an infrastructure that supports that. Myopic, local interests are never in agreement with developments that don't immediately and directly benefit them.

That is why this issue is a real threat long-term if in fact it gets some change/degradation to the National authority over aviation infrastructure.

[rac007]

Aviation will never be downgraded from federal jurisdiction because it goes beyond municipal, provincial, and national boundaries.

[CFR]

Aviation will never be downgraded from federal jurisdiction because it goes beyond municipal, provincial, and national boundaries.

Radio communications is also the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. Up until the recent amendment (2 years?) to the Act there was no requirement to get permission from local government or your neighbours to put up a tower. Solely a federal requirement. The amendment now requires that you "consult" with your neighbours and municipal government for towers above 60'. It does not give them veto, but IC will consider their input if there is a dispute. This appears to be what the mayor is asking for (or if it isn't, it should be) and because of the Radio Communications Act, a precedent has been set.

[fuelguy]

my 2 cents worth.

Kudos to PADC for their "smarts" in playing the Fed trump card.
However, the minute someone trys to park their motorhome in their hangar, or someone buys avgas for their snowmobile, or a trucking company opens an office on the aerodrome, ALL BETS ARE OFF! Now you ARE subject to provincial and municipal regulations. A great idea, but only as a pure aviation play. As an investor, lets hope the rules are clearly stated and understood or else.

[Prodriver]

No one cares what goes on inside your hanger as long as the door is closed! CYEG is building an 8 bay truck shop for Big Eagle services and they are playing the Federal building card as far as I understand.

[ScreaminBanshee]

my 2 cents worth.

Kudos to PADC for their "smarts" in playing the Fed trump card.
However, the minute someone trys to park their motorhome in their hangar, or someone buys avgas for their snowmobile, or a trucking company opens an office on the aerodrome, ALL BETS ARE OFF! Now you ARE subject to provincial and municipal regulations. A great idea, but only as a pure aviation play. As an investor, lets hope the rules are clearly stated and understood or else.

Well using 100LL in anything but planes in Canada is illegal (Correct me if I am wrong), PADC already stated the airport would be aviation only, as for the motorhome, I am assuming that if there is a plane in that hangar it is still being used for aviation.

[fuelguy]

The use of leaded avgas is still allowed for off-road use.
The exemption from provincial and municipal regulations, is only valid when the airport is for aviation use ONLY.
Storage of non-aviation vehicles such as a motorhome or a boat, will void the exempt status. It is clearly stated in the legislation.
Once activities that are non-aviation start, the requirement to conform starts. With YEG, the exemption doesn't exist, as the owner of the land IS the FEDERAL Government. Villeneuve, used to be owned by the Feds, now ERRA and some private owners. THEY ALL have to COMPLY with Sturgeon County requirements, (building codes. permits etc)

[Beefitarian]

Again, lead is being phased out. It might be kind of bad but... it was in ALL GASOLINE for a long time.

People used to light their BBQ with it and sucked some out of a hose to syphon fuel for transfer. If your parents/grandparents had a farm they probably spilled a bunch.

[Tom H]

Threat realized...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html

In my opinion:

The Mayor and residents have blown the facts out of proportion and have now created a National Threat to Aviation.

Wrap your head around the long range impacts of what the Mayor is trying to do.

For a region whose historic success lies in aviation we certainly have turned into a me, me place.

Yes I am very, very angry.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Shiny Side Up]

Its unfortunate that so many can't see what aviation does for them in this country. Maybe they need to remember, Edmonton used to be a place for aviation heroes.

[Flybabe]

There are so many holes in the argument in that article it's ridiculous.

SERIOUSLY.