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

Letter to Marc Garneau

Minister of Transport Marc Garneau – response to Mayor John Tory – NAV CANADA flight path changes over Toronto

Video – Pearson airport jet plane noise over Toronto

Mayor John Tory – Letter to Minister Garneau Feb 2016
Cheri DiNovo – MPP – High Park
Dr. Eric Hoskins – letter of support – February 26 2016
Councillor Coalition to Minister Garneau – January 2016
Rob Oliphant – Jan27 2016 – letter of support

Health impacts
T.A.N.G. – Air Traffic Noise and Human Health
Hyena report – Saliva Cortisol and Exposure to Aircraft Noise in Six European Countries

NAV CANADA impacts across Canada
Calgary impacts – new runway
Montreal impacts – NAV CANADA 2012 changes
Surrey impacts – 2007/2008 – NAV CANADA

Other international organisations
NextGen Noise citizen group

History / 2015 submissions
GTAA Roundtable – TANG Summary Submission – August 2015

June 2015 – Letter to Minister Raitt re Her Air Noise Announcements and the CENAC Actions

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

30 thoughts on “INCH REPORT

    1. Thank you Jeffrey for posting T.A.N.G.’s Inch Report. We plan to reciprocate and show a link to your site – excellent highlights of
      NextGen noise in so many airports. What a national and international problem this industry is causing to so many people on the ground.

      Greg Russell
      Technical advisor
      T.A.N.G. (Toronto Aviation Noise Group)

    2. Does anyone know why these planes cannot do part of their turn over the lake where no people live then fly up the Don Valley corridor to turn again towards Pearson? This would greatly decrease the number of people who are affected by noise. Does the island airport airspace prevent this from happening? If so we have one wrong compounding another.

    3. Looks like Garneau’s response is just passing the buck. Useless. It’s a government problem. Not local. I’ve already tried locally. It’s a joke. Get on this Garneau…..or you’ll wind up like your predecessor. Out of that job. Enough is enough. Have the balls to fight the greedy so people can retain their sanity. If you lived at Keele/Sheppard you’d understand what I’m saying a LOT better.

      What I personally think is the solution is being activist about it, organizing and protesting at the airport. Interrupt some of Pearson’s business. Maybe stop some flights for a day…..for starters.

  1. Shouldn’t flight paths be chosen over areas with the least dense population in order to minimize noise, safety and health issues? The busiest flight paths now seem to be over the most dense neighborhoods in the city. One can only imagine what is being spued from these aircrafts and heavan help us if one of thes aircrafts should fall from the sky.

  2. When Pearson was first privatized in the 1990s’, they published a prospectus for their bond issues that stated the objective of the GTAA was to to have flight operations 24-7 at the rate of one flight a minute.
    The Boards of NAV Canada and the GTAA do not care a fig for the impact their operations have on people living anywhere near Pearson. By the way, they regard twenty miles out from Pearson as their operating area. That piece of information came from Lou Turpin the first GTAA CEO. They drove us out of our home after 22 years of living near a Government controlled airport. Good luck as the situation will get a lot worse in the future.
    A. Cole
    Old Airport Expansion Opponent.

    1. Good comments Anthony from an old Etobicoke ally. I lived in Oakville from 2002 to 2012 without any problems. Now NAV Canada to save a dime has once again “attacked”. As we learned in the past, there is presently nothing to balance NAV Canada’s claim that they are so economically important, nothing else matters. Best regards to the “old airport opponent” and his wife Linda.

      Ed Kurak
      Another Battle Scarred Veteran

    2. A. Cole,

      So giving up is your M.O.? Its not mine. If hammering, pounding and lobbying is required I’m in.

      Our MP in Oakville was told that if he and the Transport Minister did not have the political will to get this fixed then out with them and bring in the next government. Now the hammering and pounding and lobbying will start on the next “desperate to get another term” Liberal government. NAV Canada must be destroyed. We cannot have people who do not have “skin in the game” be allowed to make decisions for the affected population. This new government must be forced to destroy NAV Canada if they want to be re-elected.

      Keep pounding on your MPs and especially our new Transport Minister Marc Garneau!

      Never give up!

      1. Believe me Anthony is no quitter. For almost 10 years he was active in Etobicoke with Etobicoke Residents and Ratepayers. However like myself, after seeing no progress on the issue of aircraft noise and in fact it got worse, we moved – one to Vaughan, one to Oakville. We did try but got nowhere. I will make my last stand here in Oakville recognizing the almost impossible task of mitigating the impacts of Nav Canada. Bloodied but not giving up. I support your thought that NAV Canada needs to be restructured.

      2. My apologies to Anthony then.

        This issue has me so fired up that I don’t want any negative energy encouraging us to give up! We have momentum now that a new government is in place, although I did not vote for them if they prove to me that they are for the people they will get my vote next time around!

      3. No problem. When I joined the fight, Anthony was an excellent resource. Hope you are correct on a change in Ottawa benefiting us. NAV Canada needs to be restructured. Have you heard of RANGO, the Oakville group banding together on the issue?

      4. Thank you for the link. I am very pleased that other Oakville residents are taking this issue seriously.

        I engaged Councillor Tom Adams in August of 2014 on this issue. At that time I wanted to publish a website and try to get direct mail awareness via the town’s regular mailings (property taxes etc). Tom wanted me to hold off as he felt that a group effort would have more impact.

        Is this effort in conjunction with the Town of Oakville?

      5. No RANGO is not associated with Town of Oakville. The Mayor’s Advisory Group Aircraft Noise has not been too active lately. Councilor Jeff Knolls chairs and Tom Adams is a member

      6. Someone got tired of waiting for MAG and went to work on their own in fighting the good fight!

        I am well aware of the “Mayor’s Advisory Group Aircraft Noise” as I was initially considered to be a candidate for the group but I did not make the cut. The group has certainly been quiet. I will make the call to Tom and see what’s been going on. I thought once MP Pam Damoff (previous Town Councillor) was in should would be on the inside putting pressure on for the Oakville Residents. Maybe MP John Oliver will join that fight too? Let’s hope this is a start of something meaningful!

  3. Wow today was extremly loud ,every 35 seconds , they could save so much fuel if they just hooked them up to a rope 100 yards apart ! Cant believe that no one else cares about this . Praying for ice storm maybe get some sleep

  4. We have planes flying over from about 5 am every 45 seconds , sometimes all day, over 75 db , would like some guiet here in emery

  5. 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. NAV Canada / GTAA Reps stated to me in 2000 that I lived too close to the airport when I lived in Etobicoke. From 1983 – 1997 I did not experience any aircraft noise – 14 years I was not impacted. It was obvious that NAV Canada extended their boundary of operations. I moved to Oakville in 2002 and did not experience any aircraft noise until say 2013. Once again NAV Canada extended the boundaries of their operations to enhance profits for the airlines. Our Federal Politicians must place more controls on NAV Canada

  6. Jesus! I moved into a suburban(almost rural) at Weston and major Mackenzie in hope of staying away from noises from big metropolitan. Wait I was totally wrong! the noise I received from planes flying low directly over my house and into nights are much worse than my former residence close to CN railway!!

    Pearson, are you frucking kidding me? do you have to re-route EVERY plane coming from west to swoop over rural side of Vaughan for every minute?! I paied 1.4 million for my home and all I got is counting the serial numbers on plane bodies flying over my head! It’s not Mississauga or north york that you would expect planes overhead! it’s a surburbia, almost to King’s city, yet I received far more plane noise than any GTA members.

  7. 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,


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

    1. 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.)

    2. 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!

      1. BINGO! That’s exactly correct. Nav Canada has been given too much power from Trasport Canada – something’s behind all this super deal, $$$? Our politicians are selling us out right, left and centre.

    3. 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”.

    4. 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.

  9. 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s