1) I’m not sure of your point in saying that Pearson is fogbound on many but not all the same days as the island airport.

My point is that when fog envelopes the waterfront, it is an added risk to an already risky location. Sadly, a U.S. businessman proved that point on July 7, 2003 when he flew his six-seater Beechcraft Baron into Lake Ontario while approaching the island airport for a landing in the fog.

Island airport opponents would cite the crash as an example of one of the dangers of the island airport location.

Island airport proponents might argue the crash was caused by pilot error.

2) I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make when you say that many other runways in Canada don’t have the recommended 300 metre stopways. The fact that they don’t, doesn’t improve the situation at the island airport. The statement would carry weight if you gave figures on how many more 4,000 foot runways with short stopways handle Q400s. Do you know of any?

As for Pearson, the shortest runway at Pearson is 8,500 feet. The longest runway at the island airport is 4,000 feet. Even without 300 metre-stopways, I would rather take my chances in a Q400 landing at Pearson than at the island airport.

What is the basis for your claim that a pilot overrunning Runway 08 will land in relatively shallow water? What depth of water will a pilot encounter when overrunning Runway 08, Runway 26? Bathymetry charts show a depth of five fathoms (over nine metres) off the end of the runway. The Q400’s overall height is 8.34 metres.

I suggest you refer to Canadian Hydrographic Charts 2053, 2058 before opining as to the relative danger of having a plane land on a highway and a plane submerging in a lake or bay.

Bob Kotyk