GTAA Roundtable – TANG Summary Submission – August 2015

June Letter to Minister Raitt re Her Air Noise Announcements and the CENAC Actions

Please see link to technical report describing current Pearson International Airport arrivals routes – noise and fuel burn issues, and recommendations for improvements by Captain David Inch.

Inch report

Key Elements of Our Interactions with Airport Noise Authorities, 2012-21015

Health impacts
T.A.N.G. – Air Traffic Noise and Human Health

Political letters of support
Carolyn Bennett – M.P. St. Paul’s
Chrystia Freeland – M.P. Toronto Centre
Peggy Nash – M.P. Parkdale-High Park
Kathleen Wynne, M.P.P. Don Valley West
Eric Hoskins, M.P.P. St. Paul’s
Jon Burnside – Councillor Coalition letter
Councillor Perks-Minister Raitt letter
Councillor Jeff Knoll – Ward 5 – Oakville

Ratepayer Associations – letters of support
LPOA letter to Minister Raitt – 17 Feb 2015
SERRA letter to Min Raitt – 24 Feb 2015
South Forest Hill Homeowners’ Association – 27 Feb 2015

10 thoughts on “INCH REPORT

  1. I live in Oakville which is now being impacted by aircraft noise & pollution, many days non-stop for hours. Nav Canada talks about “not in my backyard” complaints, well then Nav Canada reps., have it in your own backyards and see how it is! It seems like I’m right at the airport with the amount of frequency and noise of aircraft here and what used to be a quiet Oakville is no more, thanks to Nav Canada’s new implementation.

    1. Make sure you contact Terrance Young our MP. Tell him how you feel and that he won’t get your vote this coming election!

      I have been on the town’s behind and Terrance Young’s behind to get this rectified! I am so frustrated with this.

  2. Thank you Captain Inch for the report. It’s a shame that we have to do Nav Canada’s work for them. Proper design of anything should take all stakeholders into consideration. This was not done with the flight path changes introduced in Feb 2012. Prior to that date there was an influential element of Lawrence Park NIMBY going on, which helped land (pardon the pun) the flight paths in other backyards.

    NIMBY is a justified argument. Flights should not be over residential backyards located far from the airport, where people have paid to be. Nav Canada, find a citizen friendly solution because you are constantly disturbing the peace – at ground level that’s a bylaw isn’t it?

    Thank you TANG for all your work,


  3. whose backyard do you want the noise transferred too, this is what your group is looking at.simply NIMBY.
    Charles Gonsalves

    1. It is people like you, Charles Gonsalves, that give no support to people that have made a valid argument to the “Government” (all of us) and these same people provided solutions that would make increased air traffic fair to all affected. You choose to make sure that the affected people have continued decline of quality of life while you enjoy your life. I hope, in your lifetime, you don’t need support for an issue that affects your quality of life because Karma will not be very nice to you.

    2. It is, perhaps, understandable that some may react to TANG’s concerns as being simply nimby-ism. There seems to be a lot of that around.

      However, the impact of the 2012 changes has been on a swath of homes cutting across the breadth of Toronto. The changes diminished significantly the peaceful enjoyment of those homes without notice, without consultation and now with staunch resistance to the expressed reasonable concerns of not just the residents but also elected representatives as well as airline professionals.

      Hardly “nimby-ism”.

    3. Did you , Charles Gonzales, even read the report before making such a stupid comment? Before 2012 the airplanes didn’t bother anybody. They were put in our backyard without even being asked!

    4. If you read the Inch Report you will learn that phase one is a technical amendment that doesn’t alter the flight path route. It asks for higher altitudes and increased speed for arriving aircraft. The STAR location is unchanged. Phase two recommends the more efficient use of a vertical profile that the GTAA currently uses and the airlines prefer for time and fuel savings. As the Brampton resident rep on CENAC you will benefit from hearing Captain Inch’s presentation in person at an upcoming CENAC meeting. At that time you can address your concerns with him directly.

      Thank you for reaching out and allowing us the opportunity to address your comments.

      Toronto Aviation Noise Group (T.A.N.G.)

  4. It’s a very good report. I’ll send a message to Ms Raitt to show my support to the report I look forward to hearing the review from Transportation Canada. My question is whether this proposed solution can be used to entire GTA area, instead of only target areas. I live in Thornhill area and have experienced very loud aircrafts noises. Thanks, Kai

    1. Kai,

      The proposals in the Inch Report have far reaching improvements for most approach paths within Toronto Pearson airspace, namely fuel burn reduction, noise reduction, and actually makes Toronto Pearson airport more competitive by reducing time (in the air) and money (fuel costs) for the airlines while reducing noise for numerous residents in the GTA living under these arrival paths for a good part of the path. In addition, less fuel consumed means less GHGs.

      The report focus was for the approach path affecting mid-town Toronto, but the same methodology could be applied for other runway approaches.

      Greg Russell
      T.A.N.G. technical liaison

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s