The airport and the skyway

Re: If the need is there, build the bridge, May 6

I read your editorial on the proposal by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario with some interest.

Full disclosure, I was airport manager at Niagara District Airport between 2007 and 2011. During my tenure as airport manager, I was approached by MTO officials for comment and reaction to a then hypothetical project to increase the vehicular capacity across the Welland Canal.

The MTO suggested three options: a tunnel, a twin bridge to the south of the existing one, and a twin to the north.

I ranked the options for them this way: No. 1, the tunnel; No. 2, a twin bridge to the south with structure and vertical attachments to it no higher than the existing bridge; No. 3, a twin to the north with a lower deck and vertical attachments.

I introduced MTO officials to federal legislation protecting airspace above and around the airport from intrusion of solid, man-made objects. Such objects are a hazard to aviation, particularly during poor instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) weather when pilots might be conducting instrument approaches.

My concern was the north twin alternative could violate protected airspace and result in reduced usability of the airport in IMC conditions and increase risk for pilots conducting instrument approaches.

The current bridge is very close to the extended centreline of Runway 06 at the airport. A north twin would be closer.

I made it clear, if a north twin bridge were selected and if the proposed design was non-compliant with the legislation, I would approach the airport commission for authority to ask Transport Canada to enforce legislation that has been in place for decades and about which MTO was now aware.

I’ll be interested in how closely the MTO worked with the airport and how the proposed bridge design complies with airspace restrictions in the vicinity of the Welland Canal.

Kenn Moody

St. Davids