1. Northern Airports Operational Update and ACAP Funding Discussion Panel April 25, 2017

2. Panel: Delia Chesworth (GNWT Airports) Mark Ritchie (Yukon Airports) John Hawkins (NU Airports) Art Stewart (NU Airports) Norm Richard (EIA)

3. 1. How do we prioritize Pan Territorial aviation infrastructure projects? 2.How can identified projects get adequate funding in a reasonable time frame? 3.Safety Management Systems- Useful system or just another paper chase? 4.NOTAMs Runway Condition Reports and Aircraft types- what is on the horizon with airport and aircraft performance requirements? 5.Land use planning- Navcanada notification for AIM 6.How to better support Territorial gateway Airports
How do we prioritize Pan Territorial aviation infrastructure projects?
How can identified projects get adequate funding in a reasonable time frame?
Safety Management Systems- Useful system or just another paper chase?
NOTAMs Runway Condition Reports and Aircraft types- what is on the horizon with airport and aircraft performance requirements?
NATA Resolution Regarding Airport Certification versus Registration or something specifically to northern environments that recognizes comparable levels of safety to enable scheduled service?
Land use planning- Navcanada notification for AIM
How to better support Territorial gateway Airports

4. Update- 2016 NATA Resolutions
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
GPS Approvals
Northern Air Carrier Economic Issues
Funding for Northern Airports
Runway Certification versus Registration
Alternate Runway Surface
Whereas the Emerson Report on the Canadian Transportation System identified that: “The federal government should ensure that its regulations are reasonable for northern circumstances and should compensate the territories for mandated safety and security measures. “ and What is needed is a program to foster the improvement of these northern and remote locations, not limit them to an outdated status quo.”
At the end of the day this response seems to be at least a partial victory for us in terms of Resolution #1.
The resolution was looking to secure a blanket approval for GPS operations for all approaches other than the ‘Authorization Required’ ones.
The response indicates that they are no longer making specific references to the types of GPS equipment that is approved.  I can confirm that this is actually happening.  I had to make some changes to our AOC a few weeks ago and the response from our TTL when he sent me the updated AOC included, “I have also, on HQ direction, removed the reference to the FMS equipment in PBN special authorizations.  They are no longer required.”  As a result, there is now no longer any reference to the specific equipment that is covered under any of our various GPS Special Authorizations.  In my opinion, that addresses the real meaty part of the resolution.  (The equipment references were removed from both my GPS approach SA and my RNAV 1/RNAV 2 SA.)
The response from TC indicates that they are still going to require individual SA for the various types of GPS approaches LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LP, LPV and RNP(AR).  I think that we were hoping for a blanket approval for all but the RNP(AR).  Their position is that the performance standards for the others are specific enough that they still need to do individual SA for each.  That being said, they have also removed the reference to the specific equipment so, my understanding is that once you have one of those SA you can then use it with ANY type of GPS equipment (assuming that it meets the operational requirements).
I would suggest that their position isn’t all that unreasonable.  If an Air Operator wants to add an LPV approach authority for the first time they will make them jump through some hoops to get the SA but it won’t be tied to a specific type of equipment so no further approvals would be required.  In my case, I already have the LPV SA on our fleet of ATR42 aircraft so, if I added a different GPS to those aircraft (or bought some with different units) I wouldn’t have to apply for any new approvals, I’d just keep using my current SA.
I only have approval for LNAV and LNAV/VNAV on my fleet of B737.  If I upgraded to a new system that only did LNAV and LNAV/VNAV I wouldn’t have to do anything to my AOC.  If I wanted to add LPV then I would but that would be for a new level of authority for approaches and it wouldn’t be tied to the type of equipment.
Personally, I think that he need to differentiate between LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LP and LPV is kind of dumb but we likely won’t get TC off of their position about the need to deal with each one as their own SA.
I believe that our main issue was the approvals type to specific equipment.  That issue is gone based on the letter (and by the directive that has been issues by TC).  I’m not sure that we’ll make much more progress on the resolution than we have now.  In the case of most operators, we have likely solved their problems too since most will already have the various GPS approach SA.  The only folks who still have to jump through any hoops are those who change equipment to gain MORE capabilities and need to add an additional level of GPS approach SA.  Even then, that hoop is tied to the additional approach approval and NOT the equipment used.
Resolution Number
Northern Air Carrier Economic Issues
Whereas Northern Air Carriers are an integral component in the northern economy, accounting for a substantial proportion of territorial gross domestic product and of private sector territorial employment, and;
Whereas Northern Air Carriers provide important investment and career opportunities for Aboriginal people, and;
Whereas all of the aforementioned attributes of Northern Air Carriers are consistent with the established mandates of public sector northern stakeholders including the Territorial Departments of Economic Development and Tourism, the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AANDC), the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor), and Transport Canada, and;
Whereas Federal and Territorial travel represents a significant proportion of northern route network traffic and thus could be used effectively to support the established mandates of the aforementioned public sector northern stakeholders by providing Northern Air Carriers with valuable core revenues.
Therefore be it resolved that:
Transport Canada work with NATA to review the Emerson report on the Canadian Transportation System and CTA Review to develop policy that recognizes and supports the role of Northern Air Carriers in the northern economy and in Canada’s air transportation network, and;
Resolution Number
Funding for Northern Airports
Whereas, the 2015 Emerson Report on the Canadian Transportation System states:
“Government should establish a new fund dedicated to addressing the specific needs of northern and remote airports, namely extreme climate and the limited number of asphalt runways. ” Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Submission to the CTA Review, December 2014
Whereas the Territorial governments operating airports in the Northern regions of Canada have a distinct lack of revenue base compared to the Provinces, and;
Whereas many of the airports in the North have shorter gravel runways designed for older generation aircraft and are not suitable for modern fuel efficient aircraft, and;
Whereas many Northern airports face a significant potential of runway degradation due to climate change, and;
Whereas regulation changes and new regulations imposed post devolution of the airports from the Federal Government are resulting in financial hardship for the airport operators to comply with, and;
Whereas many of the terminal facilities at the airports no longer properly serve the need of the communities, and;
Whereas many of these requirements fall outside the eligibility requirements of the existing Federal Airport Capital Assistance Program (ACAP), and;
Whereas many of these Northern airports serve remote communities with no other year-round means of transportation and are the lifeline to the community and are key elements to both Northern Sovereignty and the search and rescue infrastructure;
Therefore, be it resolved:
That the Federal Government create a Northern Airport Capital Assistance Program (NACAP) with a broader eligibility criteria and additional funding to the existing ACAP to ensure the updating and long term viability of this essential Northern infrastructure.

5. Examples of why a northern aviation infrastructure funding plan is needed
New aircraft cannot be certified for gravel operations, forcing companies to use older less efficient aircraft. Boeing
Grise Fiord, Pangnirtung and Cambridge Bay examples of airports that need federal support.

6. Good News and Innovative Funding Solutions
Iqaluit Air Terminal Building is a P3 project, with a 50 year life span.
NAVCANADA installation program of Airport Cameras and AWOS 2 going very well. Colville Airport
Cambridge Bay is home to Canada’s High Arctic Research Centre- this seems a logical choice to be a materials test location
Air North landing Dawson City Airport – scheduled for paving this summer

7. Alternate Hard Surface Materials Test Project- February15- Ottawa/Alma April 26-Yellowknife

8. NWT Airport System and Top Ten Infrastructure Projects

9. Ageing infrastructure, technology
Airport
Project Name
Estimate
Rationale 1
YZF
16-34Airfield Lighting
3,600,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology 2
10-28Airfield Lighting
2,200,000 3
Crash Truck
1,100,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology, regulatory 4
10-28 runway Overlay
17,000,000
Ageing infrastructure, climate change, friction, drainage 5
Apron Overlay
5,000,000
Ageing infrastructure, climate change, drainage 6
YVQ
Sweeper
400,000
Ageing fleet, repairs 7
Grooving
500,000
Ageing, crack repairs, restoration 8
YSM
Airfield Lighting
2,500,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology, repairs 9
Runway overlay
7,000,000 10
NWT Funding Requests
YZF
16-34 Airfield Lighting
3,600,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology
10-28 Airfield Lighting
2,200,000
Crash Truck
1,100,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology, regulatory
10-28 Runway Overlay
17,000,000
Ageing infrastructure, climate change, friction, drainage
Apron Overlay
5,000,000
Ageing infrastructure, climate change, drainage
YVQ
Sweeper
400,000
Ageing fleet, repairs
Grooving
500,000
Ageing, crack repairs, restoration
YSM
Airfield Lighting Replacement
2,500,000
Ageing infrastructure, technology, repairs
Runway Overlay
7,000,000
YHY
Runway Reconstruction
20,000,000
Permafrost Degradation, Climate Change, Friction, Drainage
Lighting Replacement
Ageing infrastructure, breaks, technology
Plow Truck
275,000
Ageing infrastructure, repairs
YEV
8,000,000
Climate change, drainage, ageing infrastructure, friction
Loader
Ageing fleet, repairs, technology
YFS
Various
Granular Overlay
500,000/runway
Ageing infrastructure
PAPIs
TBD
Safety Improvement

10. Yukon Airports

11. Sample of Needed GN System Safety Improvements
1. Iqaluit Airport Approach Lighting (SSALR) ACAP application submitted 2016 Estimated cost $12 M Design complete/NIRB Environmental Impact Assessment underway 2. Hall Beach Airside Surfaces Rehabilitation and Lighting Upgrade Design Complete- Estimated Cost $10.7 M ACAP stated approval is unlikely 3. Kimmirut Airfield Lighting Upgrade Estimated Cost $1.27 M in 2011 Application ready for resubmission April relocation to be discussed before applying

12. Northern Aviation Transportation Infrastructure is a Federal Responsibility
ACAP funding for Northern aviation infrastructure should be expanded as per Emerson recommendations for airport improvements as part of a pan territorial plan
Any airport rent paid to the federal government should be used for aviation infrastructure programs
Airport improvement fees and projects should require greater oversight by a stakeholder /air carrier committee.
The regulator needs to be informed and that requires participating in industry events to better understanding the industry’s risk management in northern and remote environments- fatigue management- TDGR-accessibility issues for instance
Airport Improvement Fees (departure tax)
There is no doubt that AIFs achieve the objective of significantly increasing an airport’s cash flow and, on the surface at least, appear to be a “no-brainer” for airport operators. Digging a little deeper however, there is at least the potential for unintended consequences. The following are some examples:
6% “commission” paid to airlines
.2% administration fee paid to ATAC.
GST PST and/or HST costs.
Up to 12% paid in Federal Rent (at NAS airports).
Airlines will only commit to remitting AIFs for 95% of passengers (effectively an additional 5% cost).
Annual auditing costs and the occasional need to hire “forensic” auditor or legal services to get paid
Bottomless pit of ever-increasing fees