Joe on Porter run ups and engine maintenance
Mr. Freeman,
I completely agree that NOISE from engine maintenance is a huge issue and that any action on the part of the TPA - even a noise barrier is long overdue.
Aircraft maintenance requiring an engine run may be planned or unplanned.
To address your question, some runs are indeed a result of scheduled maintenance while others follow repairs.
Keeping in mind that Porter has nearly 20 aircraft operating through the TCCA and if each plane required one planned maintenance run per month that would work out to 2 runs every 3 days.
Add to that, the possibility of unplanned events and you might get 1 per day. I don't have the actual figures but I'm sure the TPA keeps track of how many engine runs are approved. I would like to know the actual number myself.
In my opinion, a realistic solution is for the TPA to limit ANY engine maintenance activities to the hours of 7AM to 11PM. Eliminating overnight maintenance runs as well as implementing the sound barrier during other runs could result in a significant reduction in complaints resulting from this issue.
Furthermore, Maintenance runs should be factored into the NEF calculation so that the number of slots might be reduced to partially offset some of the noise generated by the maintenance. I don't think anyone can argue that these runs are as loud or louder than a regular landing or takeoff.
Porter isn't going to move their maintenance to an airport that they don't even fly to (Pearson). No airline in the world does this so it is unrealistic to expect them to do it.
However, there is always a possibility that Porter could open a second maintenance facility somewhere else in their existing network (probably Ottawa). This would alleviate some of the scheduled maintenance at the TCCA and therefore reduce noise complaints.
Take Care.
Joe
I completely agree that NOISE from engine maintenance is a huge issue and that any action on the part of the TPA - even a noise barrier is long overdue.
Aircraft maintenance requiring an engine run may be planned or unplanned.
To address your question, some runs are indeed a result of scheduled maintenance while others follow repairs.
Keeping in mind that Porter has nearly 20 aircraft operating through the TCCA and if each plane required one planned maintenance run per month that would work out to 2 runs every 3 days.
Add to that, the possibility of unplanned events and you might get 1 per day. I don't have the actual figures but I'm sure the TPA keeps track of how many engine runs are approved. I would like to know the actual number myself.
In my opinion, a realistic solution is for the TPA to limit ANY engine maintenance activities to the hours of 7AM to 11PM. Eliminating overnight maintenance runs as well as implementing the sound barrier during other runs could result in a significant reduction in complaints resulting from this issue.
Furthermore, Maintenance runs should be factored into the NEF calculation so that the number of slots might be reduced to partially offset some of the noise generated by the maintenance. I don't think anyone can argue that these runs are as loud or louder than a regular landing or takeoff.
Porter isn't going to move their maintenance to an airport that they don't even fly to (Pearson). No airline in the world does this so it is unrealistic to expect them to do it.
However, there is always a possibility that Porter could open a second maintenance facility somewhere else in their existing network (probably Ottawa). This would alleviate some of the scheduled maintenance at the TCCA and therefore reduce noise complaints.
Take Care.
Joe
Comments