Re Joe’s contention that my arguments on STOL and noise "don't pass muster"

To Joe’s chagrin, they do.

The Tripartite Agreement defines “excessively noisy aircraft” just the way I set out in my recent post. The Q400, being within that definition  by contravening two of the three limits, is within that definition and prohibited. Couldn’t be clearer.

Yes, the Tripartite Agreement refers to the method for calculating noise characteristics as published by the ICAO. But there’s nothing about averaging the three noise measurements to bring two of the three into line with the noise ceilings in the Tripartite Agreement.

Yes, the TPA has attempted to import into the calculation the averaging permitted by the ICAO for compliance with ITS noise limits. But the Tripartite Agreement would have to specifically permit that averaging for it to be permitted. It does not.

The result – breaches occur with every Q400 flight. And the noise inflicted upon our waterfront continues.

And re STOL – the Minister of Transport has confirmed in writing that the Q400 is not a STOL aircraft. Surely that’s the best possible evidence.

We’ve demanded time and again that Porter and the Port Authority respect these rules. They ignore us.

An application to the court for a judicial ruling on our position would be most welcome. We have asked for that. To no avail, though, as the community does not have the legal standing to bring such application. The TPA does, but has refused to do so.

We’ve appreciated your support on some of our issues, Joe. Now it’s time to accept that we’re on solid ground on this one too.

Brian Iler