I shall address this response directly.

Mr. Kotyk:

Nowhere in Joe’s “Comment on Safety” did he conclude that the presence of difficult weather, ground obstacles, or ring-neck gulls make an approach safer. Joe made a clear reference to the WEATHER LIMITS for the ILS, which requires the pilot(s) to have the runway environment in sight at a higher altitude.

The most challenging portion of an ILS Approach is the last 200’ before decision height. Without spending excessive time on technique and technical details, it is a product of increased sensitivity in the aircraft’s receiving equipment caused by close proximity to the transmission source.

The Runway 08 ILS requires the pilot(s) to make the “land/don’t land” decision (discussed earlier) 109’ higher than a standard ILS approach. This makes the approach both easier to fly, as the most challenging part is not flown, and safer, because the aircraft is higher off the ground at the decision height.

The higher decision height for the ILS RWY 08 approach is a product of design criteria and, in this case, I can assure you that difficult weather, ground obstacles, or ring-neck gulls are not the cause. If you would like to have a more detailed discussion on the complexities of antenna location, wave propagation, decent gradients, and design considerations, I can put you in touch with the right engineers at NavCanada.

In this, and a number of other postings, you repetitively mention the TCCA’s “seven pilot cautions” as a cause for safety. What you fail to mention is that all those related to vessels and the Hearn stack can be negated by following the APAPI or PAPI lights for the appropriate runway. You mention that Toronto International has only two cautions, but fail to mention the 61 pages of complex procedures and instructions found in the CAP and CFS, each of which is littered with cautions and directions. There are a further seven TEMPORARY cautions posted by NOTAM for cranes, construction, and temporary runway and taxiway restrictions.

You repeat again and again that the airport is unsafe, but yet you cannot substantiate your claim. Safety cannot be objectively accessed by reading a few pilot cautions in the CFS and making conclusions. Nor through interpreting CADORs reports, even with flawed statistical analysis. Nor by your propagating the conception that missed approaches from the decision height or missed approach point mean an unsafe condition exists.

Aviation safety comes from years of dedicated study and professional conduct by those in the industry. It comes from the mistakes, often fatal, of those that have gone before us in decades past. Pilots have no interest in being unsafe, as they are typically the first to arrive at the scene of an accident.

At the end of this exercise, what evidence do you have to offer that the airport is unsafe?

Peter Jay