Open Letter from Island Yacht Club to City Councillor McConnell Endorses NoJetsTO
October 12, 2013
- As the Commodore of the Island Yacht Club (IYC), one of the closest neighbours of the Island Airport, I write to you to strongly express our opposition to the expansion of the Island Airport
and our Support for No Jets TO.
We also wish to bring to your attention some of the ongoing abuses that Porter Airlines continues to inflict on our otherwise tranquil, recreational location.
The Island Yacht Club has been a Tenant of the City of Toronto since 1951
As our representative on City Council, you are well aware that IYC has been a tenant of the City of Toronto for more than 62years. As such it is entitled by Section 29 (1) of our Current Lease (dated April 1, 2005) and by law, to both Quiet Enjoyment
and Reasonable Access
to the Leasehold Property.
Our Rights as a Leasehold Tenant of the City of Toronto: Quiet Enjoyment and Reasonable Access
The Island Yacht Club has been a recreational tenant of the City since 1951 -- LONG before Porter
-- and is entitled to Quiet Enjoyment of the leasehold property.
As you can see below, Porter Airlines, on a random but regular basis, that includes every day of the week (including Sundays) and at all hours from 7:30 AM to 11:00 PM, notwithstanding our numerous complaints, has routinely and periodically tested the engines of its aircraft that have been refitted or repaired, in an area adjacent to the Southeast corner of the airport perimeter, that is by direct measurement 536 metres from the leasehold premises of Island Yacht Club (see aerial view below).
These runs-ups, involve operating the engines for up to 10-15 minutes at a time at full, wide-open throttle that generates up to 110 dB of noise at a distance 530 metres away
from the Island Yacht Club. This noise seriously interferes with the Quiet Enjoyment to which IYC is entitled and, anywhere else in the City, would constitute a Public Nuisance.
It is our understanding that Porter's use of the Island Airport is governed by the Tripartite Agreement (with the City and others), that would prohibit it from conducting their activities or operations in any manner that would cause disturbance to, or that would interfere with the users or occupants of any neighbouring property. Since we are not privy to the precise terms of the Tripartite Agreement, we would be obliged if you could refer this matter directly to the City Solicitor for his opinion.
Porter needs to cease and desist from this activity,
or if it is allowed to continue to test its engines after refit or repair in this manner, as it has done in the past, it should by that Tripartite Agreement be obligated to build a noise barrier to block off the noise to neighbouring properties to the East of the airport in a similar manner that they have erected noise barriers to the North.
As a tenant of the City, we are also entitled to Reasonable Access to the Leasehold Property
which for more than 50 years has been a short tender ride across the harbour of 15-20 minutes duration or less. This may change in practice if the runways are extended allowing jets to land and take off should the Transport Safety Board subsequently deem it appropriate to extend the Keep Out Area
at the end of the runways. No approval should be given to runway extensions until the Transport Safety Board has ruled on the maximum location of the Keep Out Buoys.
Reject Porter's Application for Monopoly Exemption
I also understand that the Porter Airlines has applied for a singular exemption from the "No Jets" policy of the Tripartite Agreement. To grant this exemption would be a patently unfair use of a Public Asset, and other airlines or business or corporate jets would undoubtedly seek to use the facility. In that case there would be a NEED for overall regulatory control of the TOTAL Volume of flights from ALL users of the Airport to avoid the total unfairness of giving Porter a monopoly of the air space for its jets. If Porter is allowed to fly jets, all aircraft with equivalent performance characteristics should in fairness be allowed similar access and the total volume of air traffic at the Island Airport regulated and shared.
What has happened to our Rehabilitated, People-Oriented, Waterfront?
The City of Toronto is spending tens of millions of dollars on rehabilitating and reconstructing our waterfront and making it more people friendly. Does no one at City Hall see the fallacy of turning our "quiet and peaceful waterfront" into a noisy flightpath. The citizens of Toronto come to the shore line of the harbour and to the Toronto Islands because of their quiet and tranquil beauty. The Docks Tavern and Restaurant at the East end of the harbour was silenced several years ago and we do not allow noisy jet skis to disturb the peace in the Harbour. Why would we allow noisy airplanes of any description to overfly this natural heritage?
Various levels of government are also spending a lot of money to connect Pearson Airport to convenient city transit. With the constriction of Malton Airport in the 1930's, the Toronto airport was moved to the outskirts for a reason. It is lunacy to bring it back for crass commercial reasons of one user of the our Public Property and airspace.
The Location of the Engine Testing Facility and the Island Yacht Clubwhere the noise readings have been recorded at 110dB.
According to the Table below 110 dB
is equivalent to a Steel mill, at 1 meter,
Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft, or a Jet take-off (at 305 meters),
or a Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile
(6080 ft) before landing (106 dB) or a jet flyover at 1000 feet
(103 dB) or a Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft
|Jet take-off (at 25 meters)
|Aircraft carrier deck
|Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).
|Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB).
||Painful. 32 times as loud as 70 dB.
|Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).
||Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.
|Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB).
||8 times as loud as 70 dB. Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure
|Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). Newspaper press (97 dB).
||4 times as loud as 70 dB. Likely damage 8 hr exp
With thanks in advance for your consideration and support, I remain
E. Marshall Pollock, Q.C.
Commodore, Island Yacht Club
Muggs Island, Toronto, Ontario
Tel: 416 391-3901
Fax: 416 319-1400
Mobile: 416 938-3467