As mentioned previously, the TPA seemed prepared to take no action against loud aircraft as long as they were producing their noise during regular operating hours.  The fact that they were also producing revenue for the TPA may have made the decision to be ineffective easier.

Mentioned on the same post, the TPA augmented its telephone noise complaint system with an online process about two years ago.  A year ago, the TPA started publishing statistics, including the number of complaints and the number of individuals who complained.  The strategy may have been to show the number of complaints was low and the number of complainers even lower.  The strategy may just have been an attempt to shoot the messenger.

The strategy seems to have overlooked a couple of significant factors.  Despite a year of the TPA’s lack of action to curb admitted operational breaches, people were still not willing to give up.  As Porter Airlines increased its number of flights and summer approached, the number of complaints and people complaining increased.  It appeared that the TPA’s status quo approach wasn’t going to work.

On September 11, at the port authority’s annual meeting, Mark McQueen, rotating Chairman, now permanent, of the TPA begged to differ.  He promised to include the community in advance of the final draft of a new noise abatement plane.  This was clear recognition that the TPA’s current noise abatement plan wasn’t working.  The current plan merely has aircraft landing and departing over water, as if noise doesn’t carry over water to residents living along the eastern flight path.

Representatives of Community AIR pointed out at the TPA’s annual meeting that the noise profile of the Q400 makes it a prohibited plane according to Paragraph 14(2)(b) of the Tripartite Agreement.  Clearly, the TPA did not know about this and said they would need time to confer with Transport Canada.

On November 25, the TPA consultants held its first meeting of its Noise Management Study and as promised Community AIR representatives were invited.  However, nothing was in the consultants’ presentation about the Q400’s noise profile.

The matter of the Q400 noise profile surfaced at the second meeting, on February 18, of the Noise Management Study Advisory Group.  The TPA stated that it was adhering to all its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement.  In the TPA’s view, the Q400’s noise profile meets the standards set out in the Tripartite Agreement.  However, independent data from the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Q400 manufacturer, Bombardier, show that the Q400 exceeds allowable noise limits in two of the three categories measured.  Extensive measurements by the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority back them up.

Nevertheless, The TPA insists that it is adhering to all its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement.  Trust us, they seem to say.

Bob Kotyk