General aviation, the Q400, helicopters and the Tripartite Agreement
(This letter was recently sent to the minister by Bob Kotyk.)
The Honourable John Baird
Minister of Minister of Transport,
Infrastructure and Communities
Minister:
I am responding to your email response dated October 16, 2009 and asking for clarification on two points you made. The first is the presence of the Q400 at the island airport. The second is the question of the inclusion of helicopters in the next NEF.
As you are no doubt aware, the Tripartite Lease Agreement signed by your ministry, the Toronto Port Authority and the City of
With reference to the Q400 allowed at the island airport, you cite a clause in the 1985 amendment to the Tripartite Agreement that adds it under the definition of general aviation.
I am somewhat confused. General aviation is defined by your ministry as “All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire.” http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/secretariat-terminology-glossary-192.htm#general_aviation
Your ministry definition certainly falls in line with the ICOA’s definition. “General aviation: All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire or aerial work. Annex 6 Part1, Chapter 1.”
http://www.icao.int/anb/aig/Taxonomy/R4CDAviationOperations.pdf
A similar definition appears in the Tripartite Agreement. It reads in part, “general aviation” consists of all civil aviation activities, other than a limited commercial STOL service, undertaken by individuals, associations, organizations, partnerships or corporate entities … .
How, by any of these definitions is the Q400 allowed under the general aviation definition when its only use at the airport is for scheduled airline services and by your own admission it is not a STOL aircraft?
By definition of general aviation, the Q400 (DHC-8 400 Dash aircraft) does not comply with the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement. Its use at the island airport is a breach of the Tripartite Agreement.
As for the inclusion of helicopters in the next NEF, your response does not make clear if helicopters will be included.
My original email did not contain complete information about the City’s request that flight paths be established under the Tripartite Agreement.
Ms Baxter Trahair, the City’s Waterfront Project Director, first wrote to Ms Debra Taylor on March 1, 2006, “requesting that the Minister of Transport ‘specify flight paths for all helicopters operating to or from the Island Airport’ “. That was 3 ½ years ago, there are still no helicopter flight paths and your response intimates that there won’t be any for another six months.
Given the requirements of Section 35 of the Tripartite Agreement, your reference to a six-month wait is curious.
Section 35. (1) states, “Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if the Lessor demonstrates that in the immediate preceding calendar year or the then current calendar year:
(a) the total number of all helicopter movements has exceeded four thousand (4,000); or
(b) the number of heavy helicopter movements has exceeded five hundred (500),
the Lessor by notice may require the Minister within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of such notice to specify flight paths for all helicopters operating to or from the
Simply put, your ministry had six months from March 1, 2006 to come up with flight paths and did not. They had a second chance after the City’s June 6, 2008 request and did not. Now you are saying that a further six months is required. Is this inaction gross incompetence or malfeasance on the part of your ministry? Either way it is another clear breach of the Tripartite Agreement.
Your ministry’s clear violation of Section 35 of the Tripartite Agreement raises two questions about the planned NEF study.
As your officials are no doubt aware, the inclusion in the NEF study of noise generated by helicopters will mean that the number of commercial flights allowable will be reduced. First, have your officials not responded to the City’s repeated request under Section 35 in order to avoid including helicopters in the NEF study and thus protect commercial interests at the airport? Second, are your officials now planning to carry out the NEF study before the six months are up to avoid including helicopters?
I trust your response, unlike the last one, will take less than three months and I look forward to it.
Respectfully,
Bob Kotyk
Volunteer Researcher
Community AIR
Comments