Toronto City Airport (CYTZ)
Throughout our world tour of challenging airports, we have frequently found ourselves visiting tourism hot spots featuring stunning scenery and formidable terrain. It is often difficult to squeeze an airfield into some of the unique geography near popular destinations – Lukla and Courchevel are classic examples of carving a landing strip out of a barely adequate space. There also exist airports that serve a more utilitarian purpose – those that are convenient to city centres and provide measurable savings for those who value time as a commodity.
In the past we have visited a few of these locations: Washington DC (KDCA), London City (EGLC) and some older sim pilots may fondly remember Chicago’s Meigs Field (KCGX) and Hong Kong’s Kai Tak (VHHX). These types of airports create jobs and revenue for the cities they serve but over time they must battle noise complaints, encroaching residential areas and the ironic reality that the financial windfall they bring also raises the value of the prime real estate they occupy. In this issue, we take a look at another popular near-city airfield that serves the bustling Canadian metropolis of Toronto: the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
Brief history
Toronto City Airport occupies a significant portion of Centre Island in Lake Ontario, separated from mainland waterfront Toronto by the 390ft wide Western Channel, the dredging of which in 1958 contributed to adding more acreage to the island. The history of the airport is a bit soap-operatic with the most recent events being the eviction of Air Canada Jazz in 2006 and the founding of Porter Airlines as the replacement tenant. The airport dates back to 1939 and served as a training base for World War Two pilots before resuming civilian operations in the post-war era. Through the 1950s and 60s, the airport was continuously improved with a new runway added, airfield lighting, air traffic control facilities and an improved ferry service.
As early as 1967 the Toronto Harbour Commission (THC) was exploring the possibility of expanding the airport via land reclamation to allow for a more expansive airport that could serve large passenger jet aircraft of the era such as the DC-8. These plans would ultimately be shelved in the early 70s as the push towards expanding and improving what would eventually become Toronto Pearson International Airport (CYYZ) took precedence over expanding Toronto City Airport. It was also during this period that the ferry service was improved and the construction of a bridge was proposed and rejected. The bridge idea would pop up several times in subsequent decades. Passengers can reach the airport now via a 90-second ferry ride or a short walk on an 853ft long pedestrian tunnel equipped with moving sidewalks that opened in 2015; the tunnel walk takes about six minutes.
To duplicate this flight
Flights to Toronto City Airport can be flown in FSX, Prepar3D, X-Plane or Microsoft Flight Simulator (MFS) with varying levels of realism. Freeware and payware scenery packages exist for all of the popular simulators but MFS has the best representation of the terrain and city skyline surrounding the airport without modifications required. Aircraft suitable to operate to the airfield in a realistic manner include the Dash 8 Q400, Dash 7 and other turboprop and piston aircraft. Approach plates are available from Canada Air Pilot, though a subscription is required.
Traditional operators
The development of an airline service to Toronto City Airport reads like an epic battle between opponents, proponents, visionaries, conservationists and governmental agencies as the hot potato issue of how to manage the development of the airport inflamed debate from all corners. In 1981, the Toronto City Council walked a tightrope by supporting development of the airport but setting conditions such as banning jet traffic, runway expansions, prohibiting construction of bridges or tunnels to the airport and regulating flight patterns and the number of operations at the airport.
During this period, outfits such as Antonabee Airways and Voyageur Airways started operating scheduled routes from the island to Montreal, North Bay and Sudbury using Saunders ST-27 twin turboprops (essentially heavily modified de Havilland Herons). By 1981, the airport was seeing traffic counts approaching a quarter of a million. Soon, Dash 7 and Dash 8 aircraft were plying routes from the island.
Runways
The airport has evolved over the decades with the current configuration consisting of two runways forming an acute angle with a third runway, 15/33 decommissioned in 2016. The primary runway is Runway 08/26 with a length of 3,988ft and a width of 150ft. The full length of the runway is available for landings with no displaced thresholds. Takeoff distance available for 08/26 is 4,388ft due to the stopways at the ends of the runway. The shorter Runway 06/24 is 2,460ft x 100ft. Runway 08/26 has runway lights and steeper-than-standard Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights with a 4.8° slope for Runway 26 and a 4.0° slope for Runway 08.
Approaches
The primary runway, 08/26, has an ILS published to both ends of the runway. Adherence to the instrument approaches requires care and consideration since the buildings of downtown Toronto, including the 1,815ft high CN Tower, are only a bit more than 4,000ft north of the runway. With minimums for the ILS approach down to 311ft AGL and RVR 5,000ft, the buildings will lurk in the clouds while you are in close proximity. The localizer to Runway 26 is offset by 3.0° to provide a bit more clearance from the city and is a restricted procedure for operators that have obtained the training for that specific approach since the glidepath is a non-standard 4.8°. Additional notes for the ILS 26 include requirements that lighting systems must be operational (PAPI, touchdown limit lights and yellow edge lights on the last third of the runway). For those wishing to really test their mettle, an NDB/DME circle to land procedure approaches the airport and city from a right angle. The most important component of the NDB approach is adherence to the 2.5 DME missed approach fix since flying any further north at low altitude will risk collision with downtown buildings. The lowest approach published is another restricted procedure for the RNAV RWY 08 with an LPV decision altitude of just 250ft. This procedure is restricted to Bombardier Q400 aircraft only and has associated restrictions. The implication is that only Porter Airlines Q400 pilots are likely to be trained for this approach.
All instrument procedures feature a turn towards the south, climbing and turning over Lake Ontario to holding points over the lake. This kind of missed approach can be a trap for inexperienced pilots (and occasionally experienced pilots) –a climbing, accelerating, banking turn over a featureless lake or in the dark with an obscured horizon line is a recipe for spatial disorientation. It is quite easy to develop vertigo and distrust the instruments and at such a low altitude, the results can be disastrous. Avionics that provide automatic lateral guidance during the missed approach are valuable so that you don’t have to constantly tilt your head down to read an approach chart. Even better, a Heads-Up Display (HUD) is fantastic for maintaining situational awareness during a dark of night, over-water missed approach procedure.
Confluence of factors
The instrument approach procedures are not particularly complex or difficult but the slight difference in sight picture and aircraft performance when flying steeper than normal approach procedures adds some risk. At steeper angles, the runway or runway lights will not seem ‘right’ and the feeling of being high can be disconcerting. As well, the flare and energy dissipation during the landing manoeuvre will be slightly different than the termination of a normal 3.0° approach. The types of aircraft that operate to Toronto City Airport are particularly well suited to steep approaches with flaps and propellers that can induce extremely high drag, allowing airspeed to remain in check. Many jet aircraft would struggle to maintain the profile without building up excess speed and energy.
At 3,988ft, the primary runway is not exactly short but neither is it long. At the end of the steep approach, inexperienced pilots may find themselves carrying extra speed and/or extra altitude from misjudging the more abrupt flare manoeuvre. Any mistakes during the final few hundred feet of the close-in approach can rapidly add up to excessive runway use. Throw in gusty wind conditions and contaminated runway conditions with rain, snow or ice and there is a demand for precision flying and getting the aircraft on the runway at the proper spot and with the right amount of energy. Two pairs of inset white lights at 1,099ft beyond the threshold markings indicate the end of the touchdown zone. Any landing conducted beyond those lights means you have already consumed excessive runway and a decision to go around might be considered. Remember, nothing exists beyond the ends of the runways except the cold waters of Lake Ontario.
No jets!
The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) has made it clear that they do not want jet traffic at Toronto City Airport. In 2013, Porter Airlines proposed to base Bombardier CS100 jets at the airport if the city would add extensions to the ends of the runway. The not-so-subtle pressure of passing the TPA the slippery political football of making an order for up to 30 Canadian manufactured aircraft contingent on the TPA deciding in favour of lengthening the runway must have led to some interesting discussions. At that point in time, Bombardier certainly could have used the lifeline but the moment passed and the TPA rejected the proposal.
Fortunately, our PC flight simulators have no such limitations, so it is an interesting exercise to take our regional jets into Toronto City Airport in even the worst conditions. You may want to make that walk down the tunnel to the mainland instead of taking the ferry to steady your shaking legs.
