I think we all appreciate that those who fly are, for the most part, careful and cautious in how they fly into the Island Airport. No one is suggesting that is not the case.

 Safety, though, is never an absolute – there is always a level of risk that one assumes, in any activity. The level of risk that is acceptable varies, depending on other factors – often economics trumps safety concerns.

 In aviation, one cannot deny risk – accidents happen, even with highly trained pilots and air traffic controllers – due to mechanical failure, weather, or simple human error. Often there is a combination of factors that alone would not have been a problem, but together cause a serious accident.

 1.      Pilot Cautions

At the Island Airport, the presence of the numerous pilot cautions – including high-rise buildings, numerous birds, and frewquent fog -  suggests that there is a higher level of risk present. In large part, that risk is addressed by informing pilots of the risks, causing them to exercise greater care, but they do nevertheless increase risk of a serious accident.

 On October 19, 2007, one person died and two people were injured after a small aircraft that took off from Vancouver International Airport crashed into the 9th floor of an apartment building on a busy street in Richmond, B.C. The risk of this happening in Toronto is higher than in Vancouver since thousands of people live in high-rise buildings close to the Airport.

 Waterfront residents are properly concerned that the increasing frequency of flights increase their risk of being involved in just such an accident - even more.

 2.      Runway Length

The runway length must also add risk – the longer the runway, the greater the margin of safety in the event something goes wrong. The longest runway at the Island Airport, and the only one that is able to handle the Q400, is 1220 metres long.  A fully loaded Q400 requires 1402 metres for take off and landing, almost 200 metres more than the longest runway, according to the manufacturer’s specifications.  While Porter insists that that runway at the Island Airport is adequate for the Q400 because it does not fly the aircraft fully loaded, others disagree:

 **Transport Canada’s own Canadian Runway Friction Index recommends that a safe landing distance of 1741 metres is required for a turbo prop.  Transport Canada’s own Canadian Runway Friction Index recommends that a safe landing distance of 1741 metres is required for a turbo prop.  This is 321 metres longer than the Island Airport main runway.

 ** A study of required runway and safety zone lengths to support Q400 (and other regional planes) for Arcata-Eureka regional airport in California called for a minimum runway length of 6,000 feet (1828 meters) to serve the Q400.

 Two recent incidents confirm that the risk arising from a short runway are real:

**A Horizon Air Q400 carrying 76 passengers went off the runway and 50 feet into the grass at Washington’s Bellingham International Airport on August 16, 2009. The runway at the Bellingham Airport is 6701 feet (2042 meters) long - 2700 feet longer than the Island Airport’s longest runway.

**A WestJet Airlines Ltd. plane skidded off a runway at Ottawa's International Airport when it came in to land late on Feb 17, 2008. Flight 846 from Calgary to Ottawa "exited beyond the runway" after it touched down and came to rest in snow in open space at the end of the tarmac.

With deep water at each end of the Island airport runway, the risk of loss of life IS real. As Toronto Police Sgt. Eric Goodwin said, referring to the Cessna that slid off the Island airport last Friday night, the situation would have been worst if the Cessna had rolled another 45 metres and ended up in the dark lake: 

“Thank goodness they didn’t end up in the water,” he said. “That would have been another situation entirely.”

3.      Runway end safety areas

According to the Bird Strike Committee, established by the U.S. government, and the airline industry, over 195 people have been killed worldwide (and property damage incurred exceeding $600 million to U.S. aircraft) as a result of bird and other wildlife strikes since 1988 (see http://www.birdstrike.org/birds.htm). The accounts there of serious incidents are chilling.

Porter aircraft were involved in numerous bird strikes in 2007 - two in Halifax, one in each of Montreal and Ottawa, and a disproportionate seventeen at the Toronto Island Airport. There were five just in the month of June 2009.

Pilot cautions for the Island Airport confirm this risk: “Extensive bird activity on aerodrome.”

The alarming frequency of bird strikes at the Toronto Island Airport, as compared to other airports that Porter flies into, suggests strongly that the margin of safety for flights in and out of the Toronto Island Airport is insufficient, due to the “extensive bird activity”.

6.      Transport Canada

Transport Canada was severely criticized in the judicial inquiry into the 1989 Dryden crash.  Judge Virgil Moshansky’s report concluded budget cuts at Transport Canada combined with deregulation of the airline industry were the root causes that led to the crash of an Air Ontario jet just after takeoff.

The Globe and Mail on January 17, 2008 stated,  in an editorial in relation to regulation of the nuclear industry:

“Without proper safeguards in place, one mistake can have horrific consequences. And those safeguards can be provided only by an independent watchdog able to stand up to private and public interests alike.” 

This applies with equal force to the aviation industry - Transport Canada has been such an avid supporter of both Bombardier’s aviation division, which manufactures the Q400, and the Island Airport, that it is virtually impossible to rely on it to ensure sufficient safeguards. We need a dedicated and fiercely independent agency in place.