From: Mark McQueen [mailto:mmcqueen@wellingtonfund.com]
Sent: June 4, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Brian Iler; ALIN@BOREALIS-CAPITAL.COM
Cc: LRaitt@torontoport.com; robert.deluce@flyporter.com
Subject: Re: Island Airport and Safety Margins
Thanks for this. Will review and respond.
--------------------------
From Wellington Financial LP
via my "designed in Canada" RIM
Our Team Blog:
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/index.php
TRUE GROWTH CAPITAL
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Iler <biler@ilercampbell.com>
To: Mark McQueen; Andrew Lin <ALIN@BOREALIS-CAPITAL.COM>
CC: lraitt@torontoport.com <lraitt@torontoport.com>; robert.deluce@flyporter.com <robert.deluce@flyporter.com>
Sent: Wed Jun 04 15:49:17 2008
Subject: - Island Airport and Safety Margins
The story below reinforces our safety concerns with respect to the Island Airport, as its safety margins are far inferior to Pearson's. Those concerns are set out in detail in the attached letter.
Insurance coverage, as your legal advisors will point out, is dependent upon full disclosure of all material risks to the insurer. In the absence of such disclosure, the insurer has the right to void the policy, and refund the premium paid. The result: no coverage in the event of a loss.
In these circumstances, it would be prudent for each of Porter, and the TPA, to immediately advise their liability insurers of the material risks present at the Island airport, as outlined in the attached.
Brian Iler
Chair, CommunityAIR
Suite 700, 890 Yonge Street
Toronto M4W 3P4
Work: (416)598-0103 x114
Cell: (416)835-4384
Fax: (416)598-3484
http://www.communityair.org/
Jun 04, 2008 04:30 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF, TorStar
OTTAWA - Pearson International Airport's newest runway lacks proper safety margins and falls short of international standards, Air France alleges in a lawsuit following the dramatic 2005 crash of one of its jets at the site.
The French airline and its insurers are suing the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, the federal government and the country's air-traffic control agency for some $180 million, charging they all cut corners that contributed to the crash of its Airbus A340 jet.
The airline takes aim at the airport operator, saying the design of Runway 24 Left - which ends at a steep ravine - failed to ensure there was an "adequate margin of safety for aircraft in the event of an overrun event."
It also says in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations."
Flight 358 arriving from Paris was battered by a violent thunderstorm just as it touched down on Aug. 2, 2005. Going too fast, it ran off the rain-slicked runway and into the ravine, where it broke apart and burst into flames.
All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived the accident but 33 people were taken to hospital - two crew members and 10 passengers were admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many more have struggled with memories of the incident.
In its lawsuit, Air France pins the blame on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Nav Canada and the individual air-traffic controllers who guided the big jet to the airport in the fateful minutes before the crash.
"The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.
While Runway 24 Left was only opened in 2002, an adjacent runway was the site of a fatal accident in 1978 when an Air Canada jet ran into the steep ravine leading down to Etobicoke Creek, killing two people and seriously injuring 47 others.
An investigation into that accident found the "ravine beyond the overrun area left no additional margin for error and contributed to a high casualty rate."
Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.
It also charges that the airport failed to install an apron of special concrete designed to quickly slow aircraft unable to stop on the runway. And it notes that the runway lacks grooves to help carry away rainwater and improve braking.
Transport Canada estimates the potential penalties in the lawsuit at $180 million, plus any damages awarded passengers in an ongoing class-action suit, according to a department briefing note obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin under Access to Information.
But in its defence, the federal government says Air France knew that runway runoff areas "are not standard in Canada" and noted the airline operated from Pearson for "many years" before the crash.
"Air France has continued to operate flights including those by A340 aircraft on Runway 24L since the said incident," the government says in its statement of defence.
Federal officials point the finger at the pilots, saying the crew failed to calculate a safe landing distance, despite reports thunderstorms were expected at the time of landing.
An investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concluded last December that the jet touched down almost halfway down the 2,740-metre runway and was still travelling at almost 150 km/h when it went off the runway.
Officials with both the GTAA and Nav Canada refused to comment yesterday on the lawsuit. However, both insisted that their respective agencies are running a safe operation at Pearson.