Letter 1  -  An OPEN letter written by Christine Kollofrath. ALL HER OWN OPINION!

VERSION 1 UPDATED +  NEW VERSION 2.

 

I, Noel, AGREE with every word of both!! IT IS TIME TO RID OURSELVES OF THE BURDEN OF PRICE & FRIENDS!!

​

 

VERSION 2  -  UPDATED after the SCA All Candidates meeting

Dear Neighbours, Friends, concerned Residents,
It is time for CHANGE! Let’s reclaim our beloved town!
Please make your voice heard in the municipal election! We need to see a new mayor at the helm who listens to his constituents and respects their input and voices. It is high time for disrespect, disregard and bullying to be gone from council chambers. Furthermore, there needs to be a more gradual change and slower pace for new developments. Residents and the environment need to be given consideration.
After careful reflection and doing my due diligence in researching the nominated candidates, I would like to let you know my thoughts and opinions. Some of the candidates I already knew and some I have now spoken to.
As for the new candidates, Sara Duncan and Scott Garnett were extremely helpful with the Ardwell-Resthaven zoning change issue. Totally supportive as well were councillors Barbara Fallot and Peter Wainwright who voted against it.
The past council term was dominated by three councillors with the mayor casting his deciding vote resulting in a 4:3 outcome on most issues despite the residents’ wishes.
Mayor Price even had the audacity to claim that he is speaking for the silent majority. How would he know what so many of us think since he disregards all of us who make our voices heard?
Of greatest concern to me is that the Official Community Plan (OCP) is to be updated and re-written during the next term. This will totally determine the vision for Sidney in the years to come.
Do we want to have nothing but 5-6 storey (or even higher??) unappealing “monster” block buildings in our downtown? Do we want to drive around looking for non-existent parking? Do we want many mature trees to be cut down to pave way for dense construction? Do we want to be disrespected and disregarded and our voices unheard? If your answer is no to these questions then please vote for change, respect, regard and consideration. Careful planning and gradual implementation with constituents’ input is what I am hearing Sidney residents want.
Of the new candidates, the ones who I believe will care about their constituents, truly listen, and are extremely concerned about the future of Sidney are Sara Duncan, Scott Garnett, Terri O’Keeffe and Chad Rintoul. You will see Sara, Terri and Chad’s signs throughout our community.
- Sara Duncan, a mother of two, is well-informed, caring and passionate about us, and our town, its environment and its assured future for our children. I believe that, similar to our beloved Erin Bremner-Mitchell, who did not seek re-election, she will grow into the position of councillor very well.
- Scott Garnett has decided to run a “green” campaign: no signs, no accepting of donations. He is very caring, very well informed and well-spoken. He attended council meetings regularly over the past three years and has spoken passionately at many Council meetings and Public Hearings on behalf of the residents. He was reprimanded several times by Mayor Price for speaking out.
- Terri O’Keeffe and Chad Rintoul bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. Both are excellent communicators and very concerned about the state of affairs in our lovely town.
The two councillors who must be re-elected and are absolutely needed in town hall are Barbara Fallot and Peter Wainwright. They have experience and knowledge that will be invaluable during the next term. As already demonstrated they listen to what the residents have to say.
As for our new mayor, let’s hold the vision and see him sitting in council chambers: Cliff McNeil-Smith. He is the owner of Tanner’s books, a well-spoken, intelligent, considerate, caring, respectful,

​

VERSION 1-  UPDATED!

​

Dear Neighbours, Friends, concerned Residents,

 

It is time for CHANGE! Let’s reclaim our beloved town!

Please make your voice heard in the municipal election! We need to see a new mayor at the helm who listens to his constituents and respects their input and voices. It is high time for disrespect, disregard and bullying to be gone from council chambers. Furthermore, there needs to be a more gradual change and slower pace for new developments. Residents and the environment need to be given consideration.

 

After careful reflection and doing my due diligence in researching the nominated candidates, I would like to let you know my thoughts and opinions. Some of the candidates I already knew and some I have now spoken to.

 

As for the new candidates, Sara Duncan and Scott Garnett were extremely helpful with the Ardwell-Resthaven zoning change issue. Totally supportive as well were councillors Barbara Fallot and Peter Wainwright who voted against it.

 

The past council term was dominated by three councillors with the mayor casting his deciding vote resulting in a 4:3 outcome on most issues despite the residents’ wishes.

Mayor Price even had the audacity to claim that he is speaking for the silent majority. How would he know what so many of us think since he disregards all of us who make our voices heard?

 

Of greatest concern to me is that the Official Community Plan (OCP) is to be updated and re-written during the next term. This will totally determine the vision for Sidney in the years to come.

Do we want to have nothing but 5-6 storey (or even higher??) unappealing “monster” block buildings in our downtown? Do we want to drive around looking for non-existent parking? Do we want many mature trees to be cut down to pave way for dense construction? Do we want to be disrespected and disregarded and our voices unheard? If your answer is no to these questions then please vote for change, respect, regard and consideration. Careful planning and gradual implementation with constituents’ input is what I am hearing Sidney residents want.

 

Of the new candidates, the ones who I believe will care about their constituents, truly listen, and are extremely concerned about the future of Sidney are Sara Duncan, Scott Garnett, Terri O’Keeffe and Chad Rintoul. You will see Sara, Terri and Chad’s signs throughout our community.

• Sara Duncan, a mother of two, is well-informed, caring and passionate about us, and our town, its environment and its assured future for our children. I believe that, similar to our beloved Erin Bremner-Mitchell, who did not seek re-election, she will grow into the position of councillor very well.

• Scott Garnett has decided to run a “green” campaign: no signs, no accepting of donations. He is very caring, very well informed and well-spoken. He attended council meetings regularly over the past three years and has spoken passionately at many Council meetings and Public Hearings on behalf of the residents. He was reprimanded several times by Mayor Price for speaking out.

• Terri O’Keeffe and Chad Rintoul bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. Both are excellent communicators and very concerned about the state of affairs in our lovely town.

 

The two councillors who must be re-elected and are absolutely needed in town hall are Barbara Fallot and Peter Wainwright. They have experience and knowledge that will be invaluable during the next term. As already demonstrated they listen to what the residents have to say.

 

As for our new mayor, let’s hold the vision and see him sitting in council chambers: Cliff McNeil-Smith. He is the owner of Tanner’s books, a well-spoken, intelligent, considerate, caring, respectful, trustworthy man. As mayor he will listen and do his best to earn our trust back. The current dissension in our beloved town has to stop!

 

All of the before mentioned candidates encourage community involvement and once elected will listen and hear!

 

Personally, I feel that the following candidates will NOT be an asset to us residents and the town as they seem to run their own agenda:

 

• Current Mayor Steve Price; will over-develop Sidney and kill its charm and character with the support of developers. In my opinion, he will continue to disregard and disrespect residents in favour of his own ideas of what is right for Our town.

 

• Councillor Cam McLennan; pro-development, a voice for Price who consistently votes in tandem with him. Also, condescending to residents who hold a different opinion than him.

 

• Jordan Templeman, a 23year old political student living with his parents, who dabbled in provincial politics and has no real-life experience yet. He sits on the Advisory Planning Commission (APC), voted in favour of the old firehall proposal and is pro-development.

 

• Melissa Hailey; apparently has a poor track record as previous councillor. Was late or did not show to council meetings or contribute like the others. She also had trouble as a North Cowichan councillor and was unseated. Gave wishy-washy answers at the Candidates events and wasn’t well informed.

 

• Stephen Weller; first wanted to run for North Saanich mayor where he lives. During the New candidates meeting he was self-important, loud, rude and disrespectful. Also, pro-development.

 

As for Greg Lynn, he did not show up to the New Candidates meeting and little is known about him. He seemed vague at the All Candidates meeting and has a sparse Facebook page.

 

For general information on all candidates visit the Town’s website at: http://www.sidney.ca/Town_Hall/Elections/Candidates.htm

There you will also find each candidate’s Facebook and/or Website address.

 

Now that you have read my personal assessment, please make up your own mind and compare. The following places/sites will help you:

 

Sidney Community Association (SCA): https://sidneycommunityassociation.ca/

 

If you want to listen to the recordings of the New Candidates Meeting by SOS and the All Candidates Meeting by the SCA, please go to www.radiosidney.ca or click on the following link and choose Podcast (on the left) and then Election Central: https://radiosidney.airtime.pro/#

 

If you want to watch the All Candidates meeting recorded by the Peninsula News Review (PNR) on Facebook visit:

https://www.facebook.com/PeninsulaNewsReview/videos/276728869613397/

 

Visit Noel Currie’s excellent website at:

https://mysidney2018.wixsite.com/mysite

 

 

In summary, I implore you to go and cast your vote. This is the most important election for Sidney’s future! It is in your hands!  Please encourage your family members, friends, neighbours and acquaintances to vote as well! Thank you.

 

Advance voting is available at the Town Hall (2440 Sidney Avenue) on Wednesday October 10 and Wednesday October 17 from 8am-8pm.

Official Voting Day is October 20 at the Mary Winspear Centre (2432 Beacon Avenue), 8am-8pm.

 

 

As I mentioned to some of you, I wanted to place an ad in the PNR. Yet the hoops to jump through as a private citizen were too many. Thus, I will put my advertising idea, reflecting my personal beliefs, below and ask all of you to distribute and circulate this letter to as many as possible. Thank you!

 

**********************************************************************************

The time for CHANGE has arrived! Let’s take back our beloved town!

We want our voices to be heard, our opinions to matter and to be valued again!

Make your vote count in this most important municipal election!

VOTE for a considerate, caring, attentive, respectful, trustworthy Mayor and Council:

__________________________________________________________________________________

• Cliff McNeil-Smith for Mayor.

• Sara Duncan, Barbara Fallot, Scott Garnett, Terri O’Keeffe, Chad Rintoul and Peter Wainwright for Council.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your consideration.

Christine Kollofrath, concerned Sidney Resident,

saveardrest@gmail.com

**********************************************************************************

 

Please note that you do not have to vote for six (6) councillors. You can vote for fewer. However, it is best to vote for six as it’s the best way to ensure that somebody you do not want on council gets elected. Choice is yours.

 

Please forward my letter and circulate it as much as possible to your family members, friends, neighbours and acquaintances and encourage them to VOTE for CHANGE. Thank you!

 

Best greetings,

Christine

saveardrest@gmail.com

​

​

Letter 2 -  from me to Council - Nov 2016

​

TO :        Mayor and Council                                                                                                                        18 Nov, 2016

                Town of Sidney, BC

RE :         Community Safety Building   -   Legitimate Safety Concerns

​

I would have liked to have made the attached Powerpoint presentation to Sidney Council (14 Nov), but it was not permitted. My verbal presentation, in Public Participation time, was cut off at 3 minutes, with only the first few points having been made. Sidney Council’s loss, nobody’s gain!

Sidney Council has recently garnered a well deserved reputation for ‘not listening to their constituents’ and the easiest way to perpetuate this is to not allow dissent to be heard, and/or to just ignore it.

My presentation raises significant concerns and issues with respect to “whether it REALLY IS SAFE to build the CSB on the VAA lands” (between 8th Ave and Hwy-17). I question the manner in which the Town of Sidney has ‘pushed’ this location for the CSB, disregarding information presented to them which shows conclusively that the new CSB building will undoubtedly increase BOTH the ‘probability of an aircraft involved accident’ (just because it is ‘there’, immediately under the flightpath, as opposed to the existing ‘bare land’ scenario), and the ‘severity of expected consequences’ in terms of potential loss of life, injury and damage to property (because ‘things just get much worse when an airplane already in trouble hits solid objects before it stops’)!

Even without supporting evidence from numerous credible scientific studies, it is intuitively obvious to even a 5thGrader that you are much more likely to be hit by a falling object if you stand underneath it than if you watch from across the street! It is also intuitively obvious in the case of the CSB location that ‘bare land’ MUST BE ‘SAFER’ than ‘land with solid structures’ because the ‘severity of consequences’ as the result of an accident will be significantly lower for ‘bare land’.

If we are going to spend somewhere between $5M and $10M (according to Council) to build a new CSB, let’s build it in the right place. Where is that? I don’t know, but I do know it should NOT be built where the current Sidney Council is pushing to put it! Revisit the SD63 option? Rebuild the existing firehall?

Successive Sidney Councils have had the need to ‘fix or replace’ the Firehall on their agenda for YEARS! Their collective failure to actually do something concrete about it until the 11th hour is THEIR fault, NOT that of their constituents. Council, through the mis-information published on the Town website, uses fear tactics that ‘an earthquake will destroy the Firehall’ to justify the need to rush their current CSB project through on a tight schedule, but refuse to acknowledge the equally evident possibility that an aircraft could quite likely take out the new CSB in the next 20 years. Until the required Risk Assessment is done properly neither Council nor the PUBLIC have the data needed to make a well informed decision!

The Sidney Town website has carried numerous ‘CSB related Q & A’ articles purporting to answer public concerns about the CSB. Most contained gross inaccuracies and absolutely UNTRUE STATEMENTS on the ‘safety’ issues. My presentation highlights only a few of them! But even just one dishonest statement is one too many! Despite Council having been told (more than once) that specific statements are not correct, these ‘gems of mis-information’ continued to be published on the website. Why?

Sidney Council also has a DUTY OF CARE to make considered decisions that foster the “well being and safety” of their citizens. Under the LAWS of BC, the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulations require that municipal Councils conduct a proper RISK ASSESSMENT, and state very specifically that this process includes determining both the ‘probabilities of occurrence’ of various disaster scenarios, and their likely ‘impacts on people and property’.

Sidney Council has failed to meet either their ‘civic duty of care’ or the expected performance standard required of them as set out in the Emergency Management Regulations. Council must re-consider! THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT ‘CONFORMING TO MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS’, IT IS ABOUT ENSURING THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL OF SAFETY FOR SIDNEY’s CITIZENS, EMERGENCY SERVICES EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS (including Hwy-17 travelers, Airport staff and passengers).

If you make the WRONG decision and ‘the worst case comes to pass’, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH IT, but OTHERS MIGHT NOT BE SO LUCKY!

 

 

Noel Currie

9995 Third St. Sidney, V8L 3B1    Ph: 250-656-7119

cc: Gary Holman, MLA; Elizabeth May, MP

Attachments : PPT presentation

​

Letter 2 -  from me to the Minister of Transport - Sept 2016

 

The Honourable Marc Garneau ,  Minister of Transport

Transport Canada       services@tc.gc.ca 

                                                                          16 Sept., 2016

Re : Poor practices with respect to Airport Safety at YYJ Victoria

​

I am writing to express my concern as to the clearly apparent divergence between ‘safe operating practices’ observed by the Victoria Airport Authority (VAA) at YYJ Victoria and those followed at other comparable Canadian airports.

The VAA tells the public of Sidney and North Saanich that YYJ airport 'meets Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR)  standards’, but fails to tell them that these are ABSOLUTE MINIMUM LEGAL requirements rather than the ‘best practices’ which comparable major Canadian airports seem to have adopted. (Reference :  “For the planning and design of airport infrastructure or level of service change TP 312 Edition 5 establishes the minimum level of compliance required.”)

The attached spreadsheet provides 'rough estimate empirical data' in support of these concerns, giving  comparable ‘clearance distances’ from airport runways to various types of ‘infrastructure’ at a number of major airports, and showing that the ‘already poor situation’ at YYJ Victoria is going to get even WORSE when already publicised runway extensions take place in the next few years

Against overwhelming and vocal public dissent, the VAA insist on pushing ahead with concurrent plans for development of a ‘non-air-transportation-related’ shopping mall and office complex (with a DAYCARE!) which is to be situated on airport land a scant 180M from the centreline of the YYJ main runway and literally only 20M outside the OLS footprint of the Approach and Takeoff surfaces! This SHOULD be recognized as a totally unnecessary risk to both the local public and all aircraft operators and passengers, and one which the VAA should be defending against rather than being the proponent.

The VAA Articles of Incorporation (1996), as shown on the VAA website, clearly state that they are only permitted to “undertake and promote the development of the Airport lands … for uses compatible with air transportation activities”. While a liberal interpretation of the word ‘compatible’ may be held to allow  the VAA to have this authority with respect to their ‘Gateway’ development, I would suggest that THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the Incorporation Objectives was to limit private development of previously ‘Federal airport lands’, and to only allow for truly ‘air transport related activities’ on these lands.

Very recently, on 13th Sept, 2016, the VAA had their Provincial Company Registration CANCELLED by BC Registry Services due to ‘failure to file’ required documents (Copy attached). I suggest that this glaring example of ‘inattention’ to their primary mandate of ‘safe operation of the airport’ is an indication that VAA staff and executives are so focused on their ‘private development’ activities that they are neglecting to do their REAL jobs properly.

Investigation and appropriate intervention by the Federal Inspector could possibly ‘put everything back on track’. I urge you to have the Inspector do this.

Noel Currie         9995 Third St., Sidney, BC, V8L 3B1

​

Letter 3 -  from me to the PNR - Aug 2016

​

Sleight of Hand in Sidney?

Or ‘sleight of mind’? How many of us can see the herd of elephants in the back of the Saanich Peninsula room?

Like any good magic act, the on-stage players (VAA, Omicron, Sidney and North Saanich Councils), have us focused on the ‘up front’ minutae of the Gateway and Sandown development proposals, while we miss what is going on under the covers or behind their backs!

Until other more significant issues confronting our region have been properly considered and long-term solutions presented to the PEOPLE affected, both Councils should avoid taking ANY further action or decision which could limit currently available options.

Highway 17: We desperately need a cross-highway interchange! Sidney and North Saanich already have escalating VEHICLE traffic congestion problems both ON and ACROSS the highway, and adding a Sandown or Gateway development (or worse, both) to the traffic mix without having already implemented an integrated foot and vehicle traffic plan for the entire area constitutes ‘official insanity’!

Victoria Airport Authority (VAA): Are they really allowed to do ANYTHING they like just because they are on ‘Federal land’? I think NOT! However, they DO have the responsibility to ‘ENSURE SAFETY in the operation of the Airport’. I just don’t see how building a major commercial centre a few steps from the Sidney end of the main runway helps in ENSURING SAFETY for anybody!!

Municipal Integration, Amalgamation or Cooperation : regardless of the ‘tag’, the topic received SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SUPPORT in the last Municipal elections. What have our ‘Leaders’ done so far? NOTHING!  The ‘hot air contest’ between Mayors Price and Finall amplifies their differences rather than their level of cooperation and highlights the crying need for some ‘cooperative, integrated planning activity’ before we end up with TWO major developments we don’t want or need.

 

Noel Currie, 9995 Third St, Sidney, V8l 3B1

​

Letter 4 -  from me to the PNR - Nov 2016 - NO response!

​

I have recently made two submissions (Powerpoint Presentations) to Sidney Council on the rezoning of lands involving the Gateway Project (Sept 12) and the Sidney Community Safety Building (CSB; Sept 6), dealing specifically with my concerns that both of these projects are being pushed forward without due regard to the degree of 'third party risk' based on the probability (admittedly low) of a major aircraft-involved incident (publicly & politically unacceptable).

 

Both Sidney and the VAA have failed to conduct a proper 'Risk Analysis' that identifies 'probabilities', 'consequences' and 'public acceptability', resulting in the definition of Public Safety Zones limiting specific types of 'people centric' developments. This type of analysis is required by law for major airports in the UK and parts of Europe, and is common practice in many '1st world' jurisdictions. One of the major findings of related studies of accident statistics for 'first world airports' is that the great majority of serious aircraft crashes happen in close proximity to the ends of runways as a result of 'undershoots', overruns' and 'runway excursions'. The 'safety report' submitted to Sidney by Operations Economics is 'a crock', rife with errors, filled with 'pro-Gateway' propaganda and invalid conclusions. The author relies significantly on information provided by the VAA (a proponent of Gateway), without any obvious attempt to verify or corroborate with data from easily available sources.

 

Both the proposed Gateway development and the proposed Sidney CSB are located in extremely close proximity to the Eastern end of the main YYJ runway, with the CSB actually going to be built directly under the YYJ 'approach surface'. While both of these projects BARELY meet the 'minimum legal requirements' imposed by Canada Transport TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, it can NOT be claimed that they are observing 'best practices'.

 

Over and above TP312, there is a legal requirement that both of these developments also meet the restrictions imposed by Transport Canada Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR), which date back well before the current TP312, with distances and measures still quoted in 'feet' rather than 'metres'. Despite this, they still are part of the LAW governing construction of 'obstacles' within the area of the defined 'approach surfaces' and 'transition surfaces', and come into play if the AZR restrictions are more stringent than those of TP312. I believe that this IS the case in the current situation! The Victoria International Airport Zoning Regulation (C.R.C., c. 121) defines an 'approach surface' considerably wider that that required by TP312, and it clearly overlaps the area rezoned for Gateway.

 

I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these issues with you and to provide you with relevant documents, presentation materials and URL-references, as well as my own critiques and comments on information provided so far by 'the authorities'.

 

Noel Currie

9995 Third St., Sidney, V8L 3B1

​

​

Letter 3 -  from me to the PNR - Mar 2018

​

The Editor: Peninsula News Review                                                                   28 March, 2018

​

The March 23, 2018, PNR article on the expectation of new regulations governing ‘runway end safety areas’ might well have some Sidney residents anticipating a significant improvement In ‘safety compliance’ at Victoria International Airport, but the reality will be an ‘undershoot’!

Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) can’t “prevent aircraft from overshooting the prescribed landing areas”, as stated in the article.  Simply put, RESAs are just empty spaces at the ends of runways, so that, if there’s a problem, your plane doesn’t immediately crash into something solid, increasing the severity of damage and potential for loss of life and limb. 

Our YYJ main runway RESAs are currently only 60 meters long.  While it is expected that the new Transport Canada regulations will increase the RESA to 150m, that’s only half the ‘minimum 300m’ standard set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the US-FAA, numerous pilot and aircraft operator associations, and, most importantly, as recommended for the past 12 years by our own Canada Transportation Safety Board (TSB) after their investigation of the 2005 Air France 358 ‘overshoot, crash and burn’ accident in Toronto.

It turns out that the TSB is just a toothless ‘advisory’ body, while Transport Canada makes the actual call on changes to the regulations. Sadly, it seems that Transport Canada doesn’t really see public safety as a #1 priority.  And YYJ?  There’s actually nothing stopping the VAA from implementing the recommended 300m RESA, other than cost and the possibility that it might frustrate their future plans to extend the YYJ runway by 264m.  So I guess concern for ‘our safety’ rates pretty low there too?

 

Noel Currie

9995 Third St, Sidney, BC, V8L 3B1

​

​

The following letter is the one that did NOT get published because it was 'too long'!

​

To the the PNR re YYJ RESA and Safety Regulations article

(March 23,2018)                                                                          

 

The front page article in the PNR  on Airport Safety Regulations  and the RESA (Runway End Safety Area) requirements at YYJ  is 'fake news' that contains numerous of errors of fact and interpretation, and spouts a bunch of acronyms, numbers and assertions which make it LOOK like the VAA are super-safety conscious, when all they are doing is barely meeting the MINIMUM PRESCRIBED REQUIREMENT of 60m rather than the recommendations of a 300m RESA minimum by the ICAO, FAA,  Pilot Associations, Aircraft Operator Associations, and, most importantly, our own Canada Transportation Safety Board (TSB).

Firstly, what IS a RESA? Transport Canada defines a RESA as “An area … intended to reduce the severity of damage to an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway”. The PNR article defines it as “extra space at the ends of … runways  … designed to prevent aircraft from overshooting the prescribed landing area”. There is a significant difference of both fact and interpretation..  The RESA can NOT in any way ‘prevent’ an aircraft overrun (or undershoot) situation. The intent of the RESA regulations is to attempt to ‘limit damage’ in the event of an already happening ‘runway excursion’ by requiring that a specific area of ground beyond the end of the designated runway be free of solid obstacles and/or variations in terrain which could increase the severity of physical damage and raise the risk of injury and death for crew, passengers, airport personnel and members of the public.  Intuitively, the longer, flatter and obstacle-free this area is, the better, which will be difficult to achieve at YYJ.

After Air France 358 ‘overshot the runway, crashed and burned’ in Toronto (Aug 2005), the major recommendation coming out of the Transportation Safety Board (TSB)  investigation was  “to  increase the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) TO 300m” for runways exceeding 1,200m in length. Note that the PNR article actually says 'to increase the RESA BY 300m', which is totally incorrect! The AF358 incident is particularly relevant to YYJ in that there is an uncanny similarity between the Toronto and Sidney runway configurations, with both having cross-roads in close proximity to the runway ends, followed by sudden, steep drops in the terrain. 

 

The current RESA requirement for ‘major airports’ is set by TC at an abysmally low 60m!

TC's NEW RESA requirement is expected to be only 150m, NOT the ‘300m or more’ recommended by the TSB and others! 

 

What has Transport Canada done about the long-standing ‘300m RESA’ TSB recommendation? Very  little, despite the TSB raising the issue repeatedly in their annual ‘outstanding recommendations status review’ for the past 12 years.  In practice, it should be understood that the TSB has ‘zero authority to implement change'! The TSB investigates accidents/incidents and 'makes recommendations' to Transport Canada (TC), which is the actual regulatory body with the authority to ‘make changes to the rules’. However it does appear that TC is finally getting around to addressing the issue, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the results! If it actually delivers new regulations in 2018, it will still have taken TC over 12 years to set a new RESA requirement that is only HALF  what the TSB advised in 2005. It does NOT appear that OUR SAFETY is a major priority at TC.

The PNR article also said “Victoria International Airport … is waiting for new safety regulations later this year, expected to force airports to extend their runways”.  This is patently FALSE AND MISLEADING! An egregious example of the ‘misinformation’ which is so often fed to the Sidney public, this assertion can only tend to establish an invalid public perception that any proposed extension of the existing YYJ main runway has been legitimized because it has been ‘forced on the VAA by the highest levels of Government for SAFETY reasons’.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Paradoxically, in the case of the YYJ main runway, complying with a regulated ‘minimum 300M RESA’ would probably force the VAA to have to ABANDON their already proposed future runway extension because there just would not be enough clear space left for the RESA.

The articled highlighted a comment by Ken Gallant, VAA, that ‘We are waiting to see what the legislation will be’. I think that “We will continue to do nothing unless forced to take action as a result of unwelcome legislation” would be much closer to the truth! For the past 12 years there’s actually been nothing stopping the VAA from implementing the TSB recommended 300m RESA, other than intransigence, costs and the possibility that it might frustrate their future plans to extend the YYJ main runway yet again.

 

However, if the VAA’s  proposed 264m YYJ main runway extension project does go ahead, things could get a little more interesting, as even the minimum 150m RESA limit would now be FRIGHTENINGLY close to the Stirling Way boundary (which is probably why the extension was set at ‘264m’ rather than ‘300m’ or longer!), and there would certainly be NO WAY that YYJ could conform to an increase to a 300m RESA in the future. There might even be problems with the ‘264m’ extension itself when the degree of slope down from the end of the runway to the boundary steepens as a consequence of the extension. From a ‘general safety’ point of view, the combined effect of a ‘shorter than TSB recommended RESA’ and the steeper slope of the new RESA terrain will just add to the problems of an ‘aircraft already in trouble’ being able to stop before it hits something solid (like airport boundary fences, Hwy-17 and sundry vehicles, Gateway or the ‘unsafely located’ Community Safety Building). It is also highly likely that the change to a minimum 150m RESA will cost a lot more than the VAA originally estimated when planning their runway extension, as it is possible that it will need some form of engineered restraint system over and above a simple ‘obstacle free area’ due to the unavoidable limitations of the terrain.

 

If the PNR wishes to maintain a reputation for fair and balanced reporting, there needs to be a far more evident ‘criticism and questioning’ of ‘so-called news’ materials provided to them by parties which clearly have vested interests.  Before publishing, it is incumbent on the PNR to represent the interests of their public by ensuring that incorrect facts are corrected and biased interpretations are rooted out!  Asking local residents (NOT just Sidney Council and Staff) for input might also work wonders!

​

 

 

​