CDL.TO
Moderator
That's a great and thorough answer kEiThZ. Thanks.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
That looks like a good plan. I'm not sure what the Island airports practices are but using 06/24 as the primary runway would actually route more aircraft over the city particularly if takeoffs are NE along 08, and landing approaches are SW along 24. It looks like runway 8/26 is the primary runway anyway so I would route aircraft along that runway allowing aircraft to veer/approach from the south over the lake on takeoffs/landings.
8/26 is also the longer runway.
CDL.TO
Moderator
That calls for 06/24 to be extended to the same length as 08/26. At all but the busiest times, I don't see why you couldn't have both takeoffs and landings route over lake Ontario (takeoffs with a heading of 24 and landings with a heading of 06).
If you need a consistent flow, you could have takeoffs with a heading of 24 and landings using 26, minimizing noise for residents and operation over land.
If you need a consistent flow, you could have takeoffs with a heading of 24 and landings using 26, minimizing noise for residents and operation over land.
jn_12
Senior Member
Planes take off and land into the wind if it is over X km/h (don't know the exact number). I don't know if this is a general rule, or one in place only on the island to make sure planes don't get pushed in to the lake. Landing from and taking off towards the lake surprisingly adds a fair bit of time to the trip and usually accounts for an extra 4-6 minutes, which is significant when you have 30minute or less turn around times.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Keep in mind, planes take off with air speed not ground speed...
G/S = A/S + W/S (taking into account only the ortogonalized component of the wind vector that are parallel to the flight path) where windspeed is negative if it is opposite to the direction of travel . While taking off and landing you want to be as slow as possible...low G/S but A/S above stall to get you off the ground. To be as slow as possible you need to take off and land into the wind.
I don't know what the prevailing winds are at YTZ but that would have a lot to do with it. Cross-wind landings are a b---- at the best of times....worse still if you are flying a slow moving t-tail with a barn door like side surface area. Extending 06/24 might work if the prevailing winds aren't too bad at the island.
From a noise perspective, noise emanates from the side of the aircraft not ahead and behind.....owing to the placement of the engines. Ideally for this, you would want to depart straight south over the lake. But that would mean with shifting winds, that you would have to depart straight north over the city....so the present solution is a pretty good compromise. 08 is a good departure for east bound trips and 26 probably has a low noise impact if the post-departure turnout is a left turn over the lake. 06/24 would add the complication of an immediate turn to heading after take-off (on 06) to avoid overflying portions of the city.
All that being said....no pilot would ever be opposed to an extra runway.....
G/S = A/S + W/S (taking into account only the ortogonalized component of the wind vector that are parallel to the flight path) where windspeed is negative if it is opposite to the direction of travel . While taking off and landing you want to be as slow as possible...low G/S but A/S above stall to get you off the ground. To be as slow as possible you need to take off and land into the wind.
I don't know what the prevailing winds are at YTZ but that would have a lot to do with it. Cross-wind landings are a b---- at the best of times....worse still if you are flying a slow moving t-tail with a barn door like side surface area. Extending 06/24 might work if the prevailing winds aren't too bad at the island.
From a noise perspective, noise emanates from the side of the aircraft not ahead and behind.....owing to the placement of the engines. Ideally for this, you would want to depart straight south over the lake. But that would mean with shifting winds, that you would have to depart straight north over the city....so the present solution is a pretty good compromise. 08 is a good departure for east bound trips and 26 probably has a low noise impact if the post-departure turnout is a left turn over the lake. 06/24 would add the complication of an immediate turn to heading after take-off (on 06) to avoid overflying portions of the city.
All that being said....no pilot would ever be opposed to an extra runway.....
kEiThZ
Superstar
Take-offs and landings are always in the same direction. And the island does try to route them as much as possible over the lake. With 24 its a little harder though. The turn to final has to be over the city to be far enough out to allow a safe shallow approach, unless we wanna start getting into LCY type steep approaches.....I am cool with it...but Porter might start using up barf bags pretty quick...
There is a also rule that states that in an engine out the aircraft must be able to make it to shore.....that's harder at lower (traffic pattern) altitudes....hence the need to route over the city at times.
You are referring to Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations (SIRO), an extremely hazardous air traffic control situation, that is avoided at most major airports with good reason. There is probably no way the island would ever attempt this without significant aircraft separation....which would result in slower traffic anyway....defeating the original purpose.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Thanks for the good, knowledgeable answers kEiThZ.
Would use of 24 and 26 really be SIRO, though? The paths of aircraft taking off or landing would never actually intersect as the runways only meet at their eastern tip (and with an extension of the runway, even this could be eliminated). Paths would only cross when taxiing and I know that's pretty common at any airport.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Aircraft only taxi down runways which are not active on a given day. Crossing an active runway always requires a specific ATC clearance. Runway incursions are a major flight safety problem and the cause of many fatalities. This is the reason, that parallel runways with parallel taxiways are increasingly the preferred layout.
24 and 26 intersect sufficiently from what I can see, that using both would be SIRO. There can be some risk mitigation here... Using one runway to land and one to take off would result in most landing aircraft departing the active before the point of intersection, and hopefully departing aircraft would be airborne before crossing the intersection.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Yeah. I'm saying that it should be doable with some modifications. TCCA is not YYZ.
kEiThZ
Superstar
No it isn't but the rules for aviation aren't written differently for big or small airports.
SIRO would still involve a staggered operation....ie aircraft lands on 24, and has slowed enough to stop before aircraft on 26 is given the departure clearance.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Indeed. That's what I was assuming. Isn't any less efficient or less safe than single-runway operation, right?
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's more efficient but also inherently more risky. No airport would resort to that type of ops unless there was serious capacity constraints. The island will never reach that point...it'll max out on many other fronts before it maxes out on runway capacity.
C
Comrad Miller
Guest
I am wondering about this new terminal people are talking about, I flew into YTZ for the first time in 5 years last week, not on Porter but on a private plane and I couldn't believe how much space Porter has taken up.
I am delighted to see the airport so active and delighted to see the squatter scum getting a well deserved FU from Deluce - but I can't really visualize what form the expanded terminal will take given the position of the original terminal and the hangars.
Can somebody sketch it out?
I am delighted to see the airport so active and delighted to see the squatter scum getting a well deserved FU from Deluce - but I can't really visualize what form the expanded terminal will take given the position of the original terminal and the hangars.
Can somebody sketch it out?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
I heard a rumour some time ago that The Port Authority had a plan to build a terminal on their lands at the foot of Bathurst St. incorporating the ferry,ticket offices and customs.I dont know if that is realistic in that area.
jn_12
Senior Member
I've seen the plans. The terminal is going to be very big. I can't go into specifics, but I can confirm that there will not be a landside terminal other than what is already in place. I guess the other thing I can say is that it'll be located behind the circa-1939 building and much of the current terminal will be used for office space/training/storage.
I only work weekends now due to school but last Monday they were bringing over some fencing on the ferry. I'll see if there is anything new when I go in this weekend.
I only work weekends now due to school but last Monday they were bringing over some fencing on the ferry. I'll see if there is anything new when I go in this weekend.