ProjectEnd
Superstar
As long as they're not touching the Zeidler atrium, I'm on board!
Toronto Hospital For Sick Children: Peter Gilgan Family Patient Care Tower | 169m | 29s | Sick Kids | Stantec
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I wish they can extend the cruciform Zeidler wing along with the atrium upward.
AoD
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...if that's the gull shaped glass roof business on the east end, it doesn't appear to be from the proposal schematics.
xy3
Active Member
The tower portion looks decent but the plaza on University is a streetwall killer, not a fan.
Couldn't the facade fronting University be retained or reconstructed? It has warmth and has nice 1940s/mid century details, a lot better than that dull podium in the render
Couldn't the facade fronting University be retained or reconstructed? It has warmth and has nice 1940s/mid century details, a lot better than that dull podium in the render
TwinHuey
Active Member
With the risk of getting more technical than required:
Hospital rooftop heliports are categorized by Transport Canada as H1.
H1 heliports are restricted to multi engine helicopters certified for Category A operations.
Helicopters operating under Cat A are capable of continued safe flight or safe rejected takeoff in the event of an engine failure.
Under Cat A, helicopters must be operated within restrictive weight, temperature and crosswind limitations that would otherwise not apply to the same aircraft for non H1 heliports (surface level heliports outside of built up areas, etc).
Simply put, for those H1 heliports with limited approach / departure options, there are times when the helicopter may not land / takeoff due to wind direction.
The inability to land on a hospital heliport by an EMS helicopter could result in a negative patient outcome.
Ideally H1 heliports are located as high as possible to provide the most approach / departure options.
The Aviation Impact Assessment (thank you @Northern Light) shows HSC's somewhat limited approach / departure corridors will not be negatively impacted.
However, it does not appear to study the potential increased operational capability by relocating the heliport to the rooftop of the new 29-32 storey building.
Reference the attached diagram of the HSC heliport as published by Nav Canada.
The approach / departure corridors are marked "ARR/DEP".
Last edited:
1Ć0
New Member
Northern Light
Superstar
Three MZOs were issued on Friday.
All have the backing of Mayor Chow.
One is applicable to this thread:
All have the backing of Mayor Chow.
One is applicable to this thread:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...er, silly question time: When they build this hospital tower, how are they going to deal with the likely temporary helipad relocation and subsequent flight path variance that may result? I mean, that said tower is going to be in the way when under construction? Non?
TwinHuey
Active Member
Good question @UtakataNoAnnex.
I'm not sure I'm reading this site diagram correctly, but does the orange indicate the areas of proposed construction? If so, what is that section attached to the west side of the heliport? While there may be a way to accommodate the construction of the new tower, it would be extremely difficult to continue flight operations while that heliport level of the building is extended to the west.
Here is a photo from the '80's that may help. Understood it's dated, but I don't believe a lot has changed since then. (FYI the H on a hospital heliport points North)
Back then the building south of HSC (525 Elm?) was being built. It may be approximately the same distance from the heliport as the new 32 storey tower.
While 525 Elm was under construction, the radius of the tower crane jib allowed it to encroach into the flight path. To ensure it was out of the way, the crane operator was contacted prior to landing / take off. Regardless, pre landing / pre takeoff checks included crane visual / confirming contact with the operator and we were especially cautious when the crane was not occupied and the jib was left to weathervane with the wind.
Flight operations to HSC continued without interruption during that time.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not relocating the pad to the new tower seems like a missed opportunity (plus doing so will facilitate the eventual redevelopment of the Burton wing - instead of having to think about relocation when that happens).
AoD
AoD
TwinHuey
Active Member
You nailed it. "Missed opportunity" is an understatement.
Take a look at Sunnybrook. For over 35 years we used the surface level helipad. However, it did present challenges as most of the time we required a land ambulance to transport the patient from the helipad to the main building. Not ideal.
We worked with Sunnybrook to find a better location (roof top), which now provides unlimited approach departure corridors. It's been several years since I have been involved, but according to Nav Canada, Sunnybrook kept the surface level pad and has two landing sites. Not a bad idea as the weak point of any hospital rooftop helipad is the elevator access. Typically serviced by a single elevator, the helipad is out of commission when the elevator is not serviceable.
Attached is the Nav Canada 'plate' for Sunnybrook. Look carefully and you can see both the helipads in the diagram.
Notice in the PRO section (at the bottom of the plate) the Rooftop pad arrival departure corridors are "001° to 360°" (unlimited) and the surface level pad is only "079°" (extremely limited).
Before I go off on an unhinged Statler and Waldorf rant, maybe there is something we are not aware of with the new tower at HSC that prevents a helipad. I'd like to know why it's not included in the plan and what consideration has been given to input from the EMS helicopter operator (Ornge).
As I've indicated on another UT hospital thread, rooftop helideck system 'kits' are reasonably inexpensive (about US$500k) and pretty much turn key (lighting, safety nets, snow melt, fire suppression, fuel spill, etc.). All that is required is elevator access to the roof (including a small entrance vestibule). Easy to do in the planning. Is this considered cost prohibitive?
Hamilton General Hospital initially had an extremely limited surface level helipad that we used for several years and I see they now have a rooftop helipad. Looks like they used the same kit as St Mikes and Sunnybrook. Well done.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Goodness, I was under the poor assumption that they where planning to move the helipad on top of the tower portion once it was finished...because that would make sense. Instead, the tower full of children, doctors and nurses will now pose as an obstruction risk for incoming emergency 'copters. Not to be alarmist or anything, but I gotta feeling that's not going to end well... /bleh
TwinHuey
Active Member
Let me say that I'm pleased we're having this discussion and I'm grateful UT members are concerned.
Maybe someone with HSC or Ornge will join the thread and tell us we're all mistaken and there is a helipad planned for the new tower. Or, if not, this discussion is brought to the attention of decision makers who re-visit the plan.
I should clarify that operating to / from the existing helipad adjacent to a 32 storey tower is not a flight safety risk. Thanks to @Northern Light research we see that the existing approach / departure corridors will be protected.
The risk is to patient outcomes.
Granted HSC's very narrow approach / departure corridors favour prevailing winds and have been used without serious incident since the heliport was established in 1975.
However, about 20 years ago Transport Canada introduced minimum performance standards for helicopters utilizing H1 heliports, greatly enhancing flight safety.
Those Cat A Vertical standards restrict crosswind operations, which means there can be times when the EMS helicopter can not land on the rooftop due to the wind direction not favouring the approach / departure corridor. The alternative to HSC is landing at St. Mikes, YTZ or Sunnybrook. For many patients time is of the essence and the additional trip via land ambulance could contribute to a negative patient outcome.
Locating on top of the tower may not provide for unlimited / approach departure (thank you @Koops65 and @steveve) but looking at those graphics I see there would be a dramatic improvement over the existing location. More approach / departure options = less risk of a missed landing.
If an opportunity presents itself to mitigate the risk, then why not take it?
Sunnybrook and Hamilton General did it.
Over.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Close, it's 525 University. We have a thread for it (with some discussion of the flightpath) here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/525-university-m-allied.33823/
Another question, from your perspective, why would they not be relocating the pad to the new roof? Too windy and unpredictable 175m up?
TwinHuey
Active Member
I can't see any reason why they are not relocating the pad to the new roof. On the contrary, from a flight operations perspective, it would be a definite improvement.
Full disclosure, it has been over 30 years since I last landed on HSC and the helicopters we operated back then would not meet today's minimum performance standards for rooftop heliport operations. Furthermore, I have no experience with the AW139's that Ornge operate and I may stand to be corrected for some of the info in my posts.
However, there are basic aviation principles that apply and one is that helicopters perform best when taking off and landing directly into the wind. Hence it is advantageous to have heliports with as many approach departure options as possible to allow for changes in wind direction.
You ask about "too windy". I appreciate your curiosity. Wind is beneficial. Simply put, helicopter performance improves when taking off directly into the wind vs. zero wind.
Thanks for clarifying the address I incorrectly identified in my previous post. Yes, it is 525 University. Good catch!
Last edited: