Brian Iler's Response to Mark McQueen Mark – I am sorry you were offended by my response to you. That was not the intent. Our ultimate goal, as you know, is to achieve a livable, enjoyable, clean and green waterfront. Your airport is the major obstacle to that. Until your board comes to the conclusion that the airport must be closed, we will continue to fundamentally disagree.
However, there are numerous issues that we can address constructively, and I would hope we can do that without rancour. I respond on several of the issues you raise:
1.The Q400 as an “Aircraft generating excessive noise”
You are right – we have had constructive exchanges of e-mails. However, you have still not answered this question from my June 10 e-mail to you: We have had great difficulty obtaining answers to issues we have raised with your management – hence our resort to you. Entirely unanswered, for example, is how the Q400 does not violate the “aircraft generating excessive noise” prohibition in the tripartite agreement, when the ICAO data clearly establish that breach on approach.
You responded the same day:
On the Q400 front, I believe you have been advised by TPA and Transport Canada staff that this aircraft satisfies the STOL requirement, both legally and practically. You may not agree with their determination, but Transport Canada is, to the best of my knowledge, the body in Canada that licences aircraft and makes such determinations. It is not for the TPA to play this role.
I responded, again, the same day:
FYI - here’s the response from Transport Minister Cannon, confirming that the Q400 is not STOL.
What he, and the TPA, are left with is a lot more spurious – it is impossible, in our view, to stretch the meaning of “Dash-8” included in the 1985 tripartite amending agreement, as a plane acceptable for use for general aviation purposes (that plane was half the size of the Q400, and a STOL plane), to include the Q400, which while it may be a derivative, was never in the contemplation of the parties then as an acceptable aircraft for commercial operations out of that airport. Any objective interpreter would, we think, agree with us.
And it’s the TPA board’s responsibility, I am sure you will agree, to ensure that the TPA stays in compliance with the tripartite agreement, not Transport Canada. And the answer on “planes generating excessive noise “ is?
You did not reply. And your current reply still fails to address this fundamental issue.
If, as the ICAO has confirmed, the Q400 is by definition in the tripartite agreement an “aircraft generating excessive noise” and therefore prohibited from the Island Airport, why is your board allowing it to continue to use that airport?
And why is it not – at least – charging the required $5,000 (in 1981 dollars) penalty to Porter for each breach?
These are breaches of the tripartite agreement and, if not remedied, could lead to termination of the tripartite agreement. Your board has, as a fundamental duty, the duty to ensure that the TPA complies with its obligations – particularly an obligation so fundamental to the surrounding communities’ protection. I raised this very issue by letter to you and the other board members last November 14. Neither you, nor any other director, nor staff of the TPA, chose to answer on this issue.
2. Curfew Breaches
You suggest our information on the many curfew breaches is somehow wrong. I assure you we verify this information in various ways (we know too well the consequences of distributing information that is not verifiable), often by personal observation – it is hard to miss a Q400 flying near your home after the 11:00 pm. Curfew. And some of the online flight monitors do provide real-time flight logs, which we have found to be quite accurate. Perhaps providing us with your airport logs on a regular basis would assist in ensuring our information is accurate.
And you did not respond at all to this question:
But why would Transport Canada have to ”develop regulations”? The TPA operates the airport, and is bound by the tripartite agreement to enforce the curfew. It has all the authority it needs to do so. For Mr. McQueen to hide behind Transport Canada’s skirts (it’s always been so notoriously pro-airport) is yet another lame excuse for inaction.
As you do have the authority to strictly enforce the curfew (as it is a legal obligation on the TPA under the tripartite agreement), what possible reason is there for not having done so?
3. Air Ambulance
If asked by the Ministry of Health, in the interest of improving travel times for critically-ill patients, will the TPA allow the Ministry’s current lease to be terminated? Better, we could jointly approach the Minister with that request. That solution is “win-win” – for those patients, and for the waterfront communities, who would no longer have to endure the tremendously disturbing noise from Ministry helicopters at all hours of the day and night.
Brian Iler Chair, CommunityAIR