Curfew Wording
Hello All,
Thanks for the text of the curfew in the tripartite agreement as provided by Mr. Iler. It specifically states "flights" and doesn't refer to taxiing or even starting engines.
If the intent was to be as strict as "SKYWATCHER's" curfew interpretation, then the curfew should have been worded like the one in Santa Monica California where over 150000 people live within 3.2 km of the airport.
http://www.smgov.net/departments/airport/content.aspx?id=9005
Santa Monica Municipal Code 10.04.04.080 part b) states:
b). No aircraft shall be started, run-up or depart the Airport between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Fridays nor between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, except in case of bona fide medical or public safety emergency, with the consent of the Airport Director or, in his or her absence, the Watch Commander of the Police Department.
As you can see, this curfew explicitly restricts taxiing since they aren't even allowed to start engines prior to 0700. Precedent and past practices at the Island, notwithstanding blatant late arrivals, has been to allow taxiing during curfew hours. NOISY Engine maintenance also takes place overnight because the curfew only appears to restrict "flying" or put another way "RUNWAY" operations (i.e. landing and taking off). I agree that engine maintenance is as loud as a departing aircraft but there is no specific restriction banning it during curfew.
The Santa Monica Municipal Code is very explicit and I think CAIR should approach the TPA to include the same restrictions in the Island Airport curfew. As Porter's schedule expands to more destinations, they will be under pressure to compete with carriers from Pearson that can depart much sooner to the same airports and, as a result, will probably schedule more early departures as well as late evening arrivals.
This brings up another related point that Mr. Iler alluded to. It is his opinion that "the curfew wording would be interpreted by a judge to reflect its intended purpose." In the past, the ICAO noise averaging methodology and status of the Q400 as a DASH-8 have also been mentioned as items a judge would (could) interpret differently than the TPA. With these three issues in mind, has CAIR sought a legal and binding interpretation of these important issues OR what is preventing this from taking place?
Take Care!
Joe
Thanks for the text of the curfew in the tripartite agreement as provided by Mr. Iler. It specifically states "flights" and doesn't refer to taxiing or even starting engines.
If the intent was to be as strict as "SKYWATCHER's" curfew interpretation, then the curfew should have been worded like the one in Santa Monica California where over 150000 people live within 3.2 km of the airport.
http://www.smgov.net/
Santa Monica Municipal Code 10.04.04.080 part b) states:
b). No aircraft shall be started, run-up or depart the Airport between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Fridays nor between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, except in case of bona fide medical or public safety emergency, with the consent of the Airport Director or, in his or her absence, the Watch Commander of the Police Department.
As you can see, this curfew explicitly restricts taxiing since they aren't even allowed to start engines prior to 0700. Precedent and past practices at the Island, notwithstanding blatant late arrivals, has been to allow taxiing during curfew hours. NOISY Engine maintenance also takes place overnight because the curfew only appears to restrict "flying" or put another way "RUNWAY" operations (i.e. landing and taking off). I agree that engine maintenance is as loud as a departing aircraft but there is no specific restriction banning it during curfew.
The Santa Monica Municipal Code is very explicit and I think CAIR should approach the TPA to include the same restrictions in the Island Airport curfew. As Porter's schedule expands to more destinations, they will be under pressure to compete with carriers from Pearson that can depart much sooner to the same airports and, as a result, will probably schedule more early departures as well as late evening arrivals.
This brings up another related point that Mr. Iler alluded to. It is his opinion that "the curfew wording would be interpreted by a judge to reflect its intended purpose." In the past, the ICAO noise averaging methodology and status of the Q400 as a DASH-8 have also been mentioned as items a judge would (could) interpret differently than the TPA. With these three issues in mind, has CAIR sought a legal and binding interpretation of these important issues OR what is preventing this from taking place?
Take Care!
Joe
Comments