Joe supports jets at the Island Airport
By the time many of you return from the TPA meeting, you will likely already be aware of the article on page A23 of the Sep 3 Star recommending that JETS be allowed to use the TCCA, regardless of whether or not the tunnel is built.
I've already mentioned the hypocrisy that the jet ban represents. Particularly when one considers that the 2 primary complaints leveled by CAIR are NOISE & POLLUTION.
Consider that MANY business jets are much quieter than the Q400 already using the facility. While the Q400 generates between 93.1 and 94.8 db of noise on approach (CAIR Figures), compare that to the Citation I - 77.7db, Mitsubishi MU3 - 77.2db, or the Eclipse 500 VLJ (Very light Jet)- 72.8db.
When you add in that a difference of 10db represents a 50% reduction in the perceived noise, you see how keeping these aircraft OUT of the airport is actually keeping noisier aircraft in business.
In my research I could not find another airport in North America that has a complete jet ban like the TCCA. Santa Monica, CA and other places limit jets based on their size or weight but do not have an outright BAN.
The pollution issue is also relevant as these newer jets utilize the latest engine technologies that reduce exhaust and burn much less fuel.
IF CAIR thinks it is fair to argue that the 1985 amendment to allow the Dash 8 to use the TCCA did not envision the Q400 derivative, it is ALSO fair to argue that in 1985, no one could have conceived of the technological advancements that would make jets quieter than some prop aircraft.
It is strictly an issue of PERCEPTION and nothing more. People see jet engines and automatically make assumptions about noise. Put a cardboard propeller in front of the jet engine and suddenly no one is concerned. Of course I'm being facetious but the point needs to be made that perception & misinformation like the kind used by David Miller in his campaign against the bridge are ALL responsible for the attitudes the community embrace. The numbers are there to see that many of these jets are indeed quieter than the Q400. In fact, many people in the community have complained about the Piaggio Avanti P180 - which is a prop. The issue of whether or not it should even be allowed to use the TCCA is not part of this debate. The FACT is many jets are much quieter than the P180 which is a regular visitor to the TCCA.
We are using a 24+ year old document to dictate what types of aircraft should be using the airport. Obviously, the Q400 flies in and out almost 100 times per day - every day - so it seems a moot point to say it isn't a suitable aircraft. Preventing QUIETER aircraft, regardless of their type of engines is counter intuitive and hypocritical to the stated goals of reducing noise and pollution.
I don't agree with the tunnel given the other funding priorities in Toronto. I do agree with Jets because they will help make the airport traffic less obtrusive to the community - something I believe everybody wants.
Joe.
I've already mentioned the hypocrisy that the jet ban represents. Particularly when one considers that the 2 primary complaints leveled by CAIR are NOISE & POLLUTION.
Consider that MANY business jets are much quieter than the Q400 already using the facility. While the Q400 generates between 93.1 and 94.8 db of noise on approach (CAIR Figures), compare that to the Citation I - 77.7db, Mitsubishi MU3 - 77.2db, or the Eclipse 500 VLJ (Very light Jet)- 72.8db.
When you add in that a difference of 10db represents a 50% reduction in the perceived noise, you see how keeping these aircraft OUT of the airport is actually keeping noisier aircraft in business.
In my research I could not find another airport in North America that has a complete jet ban like the TCCA. Santa Monica, CA and other places limit jets based on their size or weight but do not have an outright BAN.
The pollution issue is also relevant as these newer jets utilize the latest engine technologies that reduce exhaust and burn much less fuel.
IF CAIR thinks it is fair to argue that the 1985 amendment to allow the Dash 8 to use the TCCA did not envision the Q400 derivative, it is ALSO fair to argue that in 1985, no one could have conceived of the technological advancements that would make jets quieter than some prop aircraft.
It is strictly an issue of PERCEPTION and nothing more. People see jet engines and automatically make assumptions about noise. Put a cardboard propeller in front of the jet engine and suddenly no one is concerned. Of course I'm being facetious but the point needs to be made that perception & misinformation like the kind used by David Miller in his campaign against the bridge are ALL responsible for the attitudes the community embrace. The numbers are there to see that many of these jets are indeed quieter than the Q400. In fact, many people in the community have complained about the Piaggio Avanti P180 - which is a prop. The issue of whether or not it should even be allowed to use the TCCA is not part of this debate. The FACT is many jets are much quieter than the P180 which is a regular visitor to the TCCA.
We are using a 24+ year old document to dictate what types of aircraft should be using the airport. Obviously, the Q400 flies in and out almost 100 times per day - every day - so it seems a moot point to say it isn't a suitable aircraft. Preventing QUIETER aircraft, regardless of their type of engines is counter intuitive and hypocritical to the stated goals of reducing noise and pollution.
I don't agree with the tunnel given the other funding priorities in Toronto. I do agree with Jets because they will help make the airport traffic less obtrusive to the community - something I believe everybody wants.
Joe.
Comments