Floatplane / seaplane services in Victoria - Harbour Air | Kenmore Air
#81
Posted 31 December 2010 - 09:13 AM
Nice architectural drawings for a McLoughlin Point sewage plant don't disguise the fact that the sewage plant isn't necessary, is expensive, and is environmentally harmful, in that it creates sewage sludge and greenhouse gases. The drawings don't show the pipeline connecting to James Bay, nor the the pipeline connecting to Hartland road landfill.
For more information on the unnecessary sewage treatment plant:
aresst.ca
rstv.ca
sites.google.com/site/sewageplantsvictoria/
#82
Posted 01 January 2011 - 11:33 PM
#83
Posted 02 January 2011 - 07:59 AM
My opposition (as well as for many members of ARESST and RSTV) to the land-based sewage treatment plant is that it will cost so much and yet provide so little environmental benefit.
Infrastructure projects - transit, hospitals, landfills - and even sewage treatment plants are just fine with me, as long as their expense and impact can be justified through evidence. Thats not the case with this additional CRD land-based sewage treatment plant project.
Many of the sewage plant advocates are "perceiving" the need based on their fear of US journalists and tourists "disgust", and on their own peception that somehow, everywhere needs the same type of sewage treatment, whereas we (ARESST, RSTV and other contrarians) are rooting our resistance in the scientific, rational evidence that our current CRD sewage plant infrastructure works well: 2 secondary stage plants where necessary (Sidney, Sooke), septic tanks for most of the rural areas - and our 2 long screened effluent outfalls leading to marine-based treatment for the CRD core area - as well as important source controls and frequent monitoring. CRD researchers admit that the current system works well.
This current sewage plant scheme is being introduced without referendum (1992 referendum rejected), and without a serious environmental-social-economic impact assessment (Campbell government refuses - says the skimpy Municipal Sewage Regs assessment will do, CRD agrees).
Too early in the process for me to say that all or any of the points I raise are valid, but I think that somebody has to try to figure out all the possible critical points and to put them on the table for some consideration. As it happens, Transport Canada is actively considering the safety issues for Victoria Harbour airport, especially since marina opponents have raised floatplane safety issues.
#84
Posted 02 January 2011 - 08:19 AM
As someone that often flys on the floatplanes I can assure you that if the tanks were back tomorrow and you did not alter the landing trajectory of the planes there would not be any accidents.
I agree. The floatplanes are only low over that area when taking off and are usually over the water and not the land. Any facility at McCloughlin Point would likely be built by blasting rock and going down to make the profile more presentable.
The discussion of pros and cons of sewage treatment on this thread seems off topic.
#85
Posted 02 January 2011 - 09:26 AM
#86
Posted 02 January 2011 - 09:34 AM
#87
Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:58 AM
Here's a photo I took from a floatplane as we flew over the tank farm.There is no navigation problem here and a sewage treatment plant would be smaller still so this is truly grasping at straws. There are better arguments against treatment.
I agree - however folks listened to a guy dressed up as a turd rather than the best science arguments, so maybe John is on to something with the specious emotional angle.
#88
Posted 02 January 2011 - 01:03 PM
"Before proceeding with any further developments of any kind in the vicinity of Victoria Inner Harbour and the Victoria Harbour Water Aerodrome the responsible authorities and other interested parties (e.g. City of Victoria and the Province of British Columbia) should consider the need for the operator (Transport Canada) of the Victoria Harbour Water Airport (Certificate No. TADB 5151-P325) to undertake a formal safety case on the complete operation of the current marine and air operations and to extend the consideration 10 years into the future (2020)". (page 5)
#89
Posted 02 January 2011 - 06:26 PM
The design of the present bridge with it's lattice steel work is very visible when raised. I'm not so sure of the visibility of the low profile western end of the new bridge in the raised position, as planes will see it from a side on view when landing.
#90
Posted 02 January 2011 - 07:06 PM
I think the height of the new Johnson Street Bridge in the raised position could be more of a concern than a sewage treatment plant. The span will be longer than the present span and so will stand taller into the flightpath of approaching float planes.
The design of the present bridge with it's lattice steel work is very visible when raised. I'm not so sure of the visibility of the low profile western end of the new bridge in the raised position, as planes will see it from a side on view when landing.
Won't every single float-plane pilot flying into the harbour know there is a bridge there, and how to view it up or down?
#91
Posted 02 January 2011 - 07:45 PM
The pilots that fly these planes are quite capable pilots.
Let's keep this topic on track please.
#92
Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:06 PM
If you are trying to work for a cause, the "Float planes might fly into it!!!!" argument does your cause no good.
Let's keep this topic on track please.
Exactly the point I was trying to make 8 posts ago.
#93
Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:30 PM
Those days are long gone and all pilots flying into the harbour know all there is to know about hazards and where not to go. Self-preservation is a remarkably strong motivator when it comes to safe flying.
Pilots didn't seem to have any trouble with the world's biggest totem pole that was there in the early nineties.
I am willing to bet more Victorians have been killed while waiting for a bus than have died in harbour aviation incidents.
#94
Posted 03 January 2011 - 01:20 AM
#95
Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:58 AM
New regulations, new technology and new development change fundamentals for a safe operating environment. WAM marina, sewage plant and longer bridge span may not by themselves, in isolation, significantly change the safety of YWH for floatplanes and other marine or land traffic, but could be significant change cumulatively and with new operating regulations. Even though NAV Canada stats suggest slight reduction in YWH air traffic, 2005-2009, doesn't mean that a new safety case isn't vital. As Qualatech report notes, one issue is that Transport Canada is both the YWH operator and certificator.
Another Qualatech report quote:
Prior to any further changes taking place in the infrastructure and operations of the Victoria Harbour, there should be a new Hazard and Risk Assessment followed by the preparation of a Safety Case, taking into account the very latest national and international standards and recommended practices. In particular, it should be noted what actions and recommendations in the original two reports have been implemented and what changes have taken place in the harbour infrastructure and its operations since the original reports were first prepared in 1999/2002. (page 5)
Table 2-2
Total aircraft movements by class of operation — NAV CANADA flight service stations
Victoria Harbour
Total Itinerant Local
Rank Movements Rank Movements Rank Movements
2009 7 38,644 2 38,608 52 36
2008 6 43,182 2 43,121 52 61
2007 3 44,271 2 44,185 49 86
2006 4 42,941 2 42,887 53 54
2005 6 42,148 2 42,046 52 102
http://www.statcan.g...01/t001-eng.htm
#96
Posted 03 January 2011 - 08:28 AM
I see nothing in here that refers directly to buildings on the harbour's shore.Prior to any further changes taking place in the infrastructure and operations of the Victoria Harbour, there should be a new Hazard and Risk Assessment followed by the preparation of a Safety Case, taking into account the very latest national and international standards and recommended practices.
You're doing your case no favours by pursuing this angle.
#97
Posted 03 January 2011 - 10:42 AM
As renthefinn notes, "any straw to grasp at to stop the boondoggle that is sewage treatment for Victoria is worth it", and those who agree may wish to contact ARESST and RSTV.
Returning to the Qualtech report, it says there is a need for a new safety case, and while doing an individual safety case for every new building within a block of the harbour might not be productive, having a safety case update now is clearly a prudent action. Given that in 2009, YWH ranked second in Canada for itinerant movements (flights from one airport to another), updating the YWH safety case makes sense.
If an update results in a critical decision point - lose YWH or lose the sewage plant - I know which way I'd vote.
#98
Posted 03 January 2011 - 11:20 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#99
Posted 03 January 2011 - 12:17 PM
Let's keep this topic on track please.
I don't think your message got through. Isn't there another thread for sewage treatment issues?
#100
Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:06 PM
Given that in 2009, YWH ranked second in Canada for itinerant movements (flights from one airport to another), updating the YWH safety case makes sense.
.
Don't want to take any air out of your balloon, as I agree with your cause, however your traffic stats for YWH need a little clarification. They came second for locations with Flight Service Stations, not Control Towers.
For reference - Vancouver Harbour, which has a Tower, had over 54k movements vs 38k for YWH. YYJ had 93k.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users