Some may argue that the Toronto Port Authority has every right to conduct its business in any way that suits itself.  Nevertheless, it is a federally appointed quasi-government body receiving taxpayer dollars and holding very substantial public assets and, as such, should conduct itself as a public steward.  It may even want to commit to that higher standard towards the whole community in which it is located, not only that part which serves its purpose.  The question of noise and its effect on the TPA’s airport neighbours is an example of a questionable standard of conduct.

Much has been made on this blog about the whiners and whingers who constantly bring up noise complaints.  One notable exception was Joe who offered a number of suggestions (See Has Anyone Talked to the City?  2/27/2009).  His ideas were met with a mixture of despair and cynicism, the result of experience of the TPA’s dealing with the community’s noise complaints.  There are reasons for the despair and cynicism.

About two years ago the TPA augmented its telephone noise complaint system with an online process.  It allows a complainant to email a grievance.  One large advantage is that it creates a transparent record of calls and action.  Its other major advantage is that it shows how ineffective the TPA is in enforcing its and Transport Canada’s restrictions.  Flyovers, curfew violations and noise complaints are good examples.

On January 14, 2008, the TPA complaint log shows that the pilot of a P-180 was contacted because the plane was tracked at 450 feet over the Ward’s Island Community.  Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation Regulations 602.14 states that a person shall operate an aircraft 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle from 2,000 feet away from the aircraft on a horizontal plane over a built-up area.   The pilot was breaking a Transport Canada regulation.

A year later on January 22, 2009, the TPA complaint log shows that the pilot of a P-180 (the same kind of aircraft) was not contacted even though the plane was tracked at 650 feet over the Ward’s Island Community. 

This time the log recorded that the aircraft was on arrival, possibly meaning that its flight path took it over Ward’s Island.  The log doesn’t make it clear.  That may be why the pilot wasn’t contacted.  The TPA isn’t required to warn a pilot if the plane is lower than 1,000 feet over buildings if on an approach.

However, the TPA claims that landings and takeoffs are over water as part of their airport’s noise abatement policy.  In other words, it appears to have allowed the overflight claiming that the plane was on a flight path that the TPA doesn’t recognize.

On December 23, 2007, Porter flight POE 668 landed at 11:32 p.m. after the curfew hour.  The log shows that the airline was contacted.  On January 18, 2007, Porter flight POE 393 took off at 11:07 p.m., also after the curfew hour.  The curfew is between 11 p.m. and 6:45 a.m.  The Tripartite Agreement, a legal contract that governs the airport and signed by Transport Canada, the TPA and the City establishes the hours.  The log shows that a year later, December 23, 2007 and January 18, 2009, the TPA still isn’t enforcing the curfew in spite of their legal obligation.

The complaint log shows the same kind of unsuccessful results when people criticize the noise generated by the Q400.  Entries a year apart show no action taken because the noise generated is part of regular operations.  It’s as if the Q400 can make as much noise as it wants because it is flown by a regularly scheduled airline within the regular operating hours.  The TPA is, however, investigating reported incidents.

As for the TPA’s responsiveness to the complainants, last year in his examination of the port authority, Roger Tasse reported the following.

Finally, the TPA has a process in place to deal with noise complaints; and an extensive system of monitoring to ensure compliance. When a complaint is received, all available information is obtained from the complainant, the control tower logs and monitoring equipment is used to determine what was occurring at the time. To the extent possible, this information is used to determine what aircraft was the source of the complaint, and the pilot / company are contacted to discuss what measures could be taken to ensure compliance with the formal rules and informal policies which are in place. The TPA advised me that he
complainant is always contacted and advised of the results of the investigation.

As someone who has followed the process and reported scores of offending aircraft, I have received feedback twice.  This is hardly ‘always’ as the TPA claimed.  I wonder about the rest of their claims.

Bob Kotyk