A pilot recently wrote to CommunityAIR questioning the statements that we have made on our website about safety at the Island Airport.  Bill Freeman, the editor of this blog, sent him the following reply.  We have edited the pilot's name out of the letter for privacy reasons.
 

Thanks for your reply. 
 
The main problem that members of CommunityAIR have is with the location of the Island Airport.  The airport is within a short distance of very heavily populated neighbourhoods.  The one that is most affected is the Bathurst Quay neighbourhood but new condos have been constructed along Queen's Quay West, around Fort York and the railway lands.  Thousands of people are coming to live on the Waterfront and this is just the beginning.  Additional development is being planned for Queen's Quay East and the Port lands which are close to the flight path.  We believe the location of the Island Airport is incompatible with the redevelopment of the Waterfront as a residential community and the prime recreational areas of the city and must be closed. 
 
Porter Airlines now has six aircraft and the company president has said they plan to expand to 20 aircraft and possibly more.  This is bringing air and noise pollution from the aircraft to thousands of people, along with an increase in road traffic, but safety is also a concern.  You are a pilot and you will know that the Island Airport has a significant number of pilot cautions.  As the Waterfront continues to be redeveloped with high rise condos, the number of cautions is bound to increase.  Pearson, on the other hand, lists no pilot cautions. 
 
There is only one runway at the Island Airport long enough to handle the Q400, and it is so short it is causing serious concerns.  The runway cannot be lengthened because there is a provincial moratorium on the filling of the lake.  The length of the safety stopways at the end of the runway do not meet international standards.  Bombardier's own specifications for the Q400 show that the runways at the Island Airport are too short, and because of this Porter Airlines has reduced the number of seats in their aircraft to 70, a wise decision.  That means that the aircraft is now considered safe to operate out of the airport by Transport Canada, but when you total all of these factors up, the number of pilot cautions, the short runways and the inadequate stopways, and then when you consider that, if there is a problem of either pilot error or equipment failure, the aircraft will end up  in the water, where it is very hard to access survivors, then I think it is fair to say that this is not a very safe airport.
 
(...), we are reasonable people, and perhaps you are right, this is our community and we are fighting hard to improve the quality of life in our neighbourhoods, but I hope you understand that this airport is simply in the wrong place.  Our fight is not with Porter Airlines, or the Q400, or the airline industry.  It is with the government regulators who have allowed Porter to locate at the Island Airport.  Porter should relocate to Pearson where it can operate safely and efficiently.  We should close the Island Airport and turn its lands into recreation uses for all of the people of Toronto.
 
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.  It is certainly time for reasonable dialogue on this issue.  Bill Freeman