By Thomas Goyer
After years of debate and planning, Muskoka District Council voted to discontinue work on the grass runway at the Muskoka Airport.
The grass runway or crosswind runway, has been a cause of discussion for several years. In March 2022, District council voted to close the grass runway, called 09-27, and begin working on a replacement known as 12-30. This is separate from the main runway at Muskoka Airport called 18-36. But after delays and significant cost increases the Board of Directors for the Muskoka Airport recommended halting all work on runway 12-30. The board recommended focussing on commercial development at the airport rather than continued work on developing a grass runway.
Muskoka Airport Chief Executive Officer Len O’Connor spoke to council at its May 15 meeting about halting work on the runway.
Since 2021 the Airport Board has also recommended to council that the runway project not go forward. The estimated costs for constructing the runway have increased to about $2 million dollars, around $1 million dollars over the approved budget for the project. O’Connor highlighted several other non-financial reasons for not moving forward with the project. These included a lack of evidence regarding the safety implications of not having a grass runway and no incidents in which a grass runway was needed in the four years of operation at Muskoka Airport without 09-27. He also said that there are no regulations that say that the airport must have a grass runway. O’Connor also added that there is no business case for the 12-30 runway.
He said that yearly maintenance on 12-30, if it were completed, would cost $20,000 to $30,000. O’Connor said there is evidence that the runway is not needed at the Muskoka Airport. Between 2009 and 2018, 09-27 accounted for 1.37 per cent of activity at the airport. This, he said, equals to roughly 176 movements a year, while the main runway sees around 15,000 movements a year.
“What I’m asking is for the council to make a decision. For the Board’s sake and for my sake, we need direction on this. The Board’s recommendation is not to build 12-30,” O’Connor said.
A key element of the proposal debated by council was a motion in the report which stated the proposed location would be reserved for the potential development of a grass runway in the future. This provision split council between two groups. Between those that wanted to keep the space protected to ensure that if in the future a grass runway is required, there is space for it. And between those who advocated opening the space up to allow further commercial development.
Councillor Peter Kelley spoke in favour of reserving the lands for a future grass runway.
“To the extent that circumstances change and suddenly 12-30 is deemed to be relevant again, or less expensive to construct… I don’t know why we wouldn’t want to preserve that right?” Kelley said.
Councillor Guy Burry spoke in favour of opening the space to development to wean the airport off municipal subsidies.
“We have to put these guys on a plan that says you’re going to wean yourself from the subsidy by bringing in four or five or six different revenue streams. Which is what you need to do to have a municipal airport break even and get on with it,” Burry said.
Despite a long debate between members of council, most councillors expressed support for discontinuing the development.
Don MacKay, Chair of the Board for Muskoka District Airport, stated that the reason 12-30 was still being discussed was due to the support of council, not because the Board supports the runway. Mackay went further to say that council was ignoring the recommendations of the Board.
“Your board is very definite–crosswind runways are not required at Muskoka Airport. If they were required at Owen Sound, they’d be required at North Bay or Parry Sound. They would all require them. They’re not required for safety. A good pilot does not require a crosswind runway,” MacKay said.
In the end, the majority of council voted to remove the development protection provision.
The vote was followed by another proposed amendment which directed staff to once again examine the costs of environmental implications of repairing the grass runway on 09-27. This amendment also generated strong opinions from councillors and was voted down.
O’Connor stated that the environmental assessments alone would take well over a year to complete before the results could be brought back before council. Councillor Scott Morrison spoke out against any efforts put towards the development of 09-27. He also stated that the Muskoka Airport Board should be empowered to make these decisions.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
In fact 12-30 was dead in the water as of July last year.
It doesn’t matter what the cost is/was.
Why was airport management still talking about the cost in May this year when 12-30 was dead last year?
Proper airport development has been delayed for years.
If airport management had simply told council the new hangar should go beside the existing grass runway, not on top, it would have been completed years ago.
That was the recommendation from the latest and earlier consultants as well as local pilots.
All ignored.
In July 2022 council was told airport neighbours won’t allow their trees to be cut down for 12-30 so that project was dead.
Councillors were annoyed at the July council meeting that 12-30 was presented to them in 2020 yet it never was viable.
Years of discussion by councillors was wasted.
Airport management suggested the neighbour’s trees would be cut down without their permission which annoyed councillors even more.
Did councillors forget that exchange last year?
Reopening the grass runway seemed imminent. For the second time last year.
Councillors understood the value of a second runway so if 12-30 was dead reopening the existing grass runway was the next step.
First time was in March when the report council asked for recommended maintaining the existing grass runway and building beside instead of on top of it.
Video of July 2022 is here: https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/784981370/3e538e4e18
Was 12-30 always a ruse to close the existing grass runway?
Or was it just lack of due diligence and incompetence?
Just like there is no reason the existing grass runway is closed right now.
Incompetence.
Transport Canada confirmed airport management misinterpreted their suggestions for grass runways.
Council was told that in 2020 in a delegation as well.
Airport property goes far beyond the grass runway to the east so it makes no sense councillors were told neighbouring trees also have to be cut down for the existing grass runway.
After 80 years of operation the historic grass runway doesn’t need to be crowned either.
Councillors were manipulated into making a very serious mistake with misinformation/incompetence.
All those with aviation competence were ignored.
Anyone with any aviation competence knows 2 runways at 90 degrees makes any airport safer and more usable and protects the airport’s future.
It’s dangerously incompetent to argue otherwise.
In Muskoka the grass runway is the one aligned with the wind most often.
90 degrees crosswind on the paved runway is now very common. Worst direction possible.
3 accidents have already occurred due to the closures at Muskoka.
Accident descriptions directly from the pilots involved were sent to all councillors.
I have been flying to and from the Muskoka Airport for 40 years. Since the District has taken over I have seen a steady decline in the airport. The airport loses money and the rate of loss will increase as time goes on. Strategic mistakes have been made. They are as follows.
Selling land on the airport. No other airport does this.
Not listening to the general aviation community. We feel unwelcome and are treated like a nuisance.
Spending resources to get a scheduled service. We are too close to Toronto to ever make this happen.
Convening a committee that does not represent tenants, owners of buildings or local general aviation pilots.
Hiring consultants to tell you how to run the airport. How about hire competent managers instead. I bet $1M has been spent to date on consultants in 2023 dollars. And ALL of those studies have been thrown in the garbage.
Hiring a CEO for the airport who has done nothing to positively affect the bottom line of the airport. Too much management.
Muskoka has the most expensive fuel. It is easy for pilots to divert to a less expensive alternative.
By all metrics Muskoka fails compared to its competition. There is no reason to fly there. I fly a lot all over North America. I think I am a good judge of how well airports are run. Muskoka is one of the worst.
Plan of Action
Eliminate the CEO position. It contributes nothing and adds to the overhead.
Convene a board that at least 50% contains. Airport building owners, people who have planes on the field, people with heavy construction experience and local pilots. The other half can have other skills.
Open the grass runway. There is nothing wrong with it. A second runway is the only “wild card” the airport holds. A possible paved second runway in the future will attract a flight school which consumes fuel.
Put a restaurant at the airport. Crew of planes coming in want to eat and will divert to other airports based on food.
Find a private management company to run the airport.
Elephant in the Room
Parry Sound Airport is expanding their runway for executive jets. Muskoka is going to lose 60% of their jet traffic. The “cheese” they have been relying on.
They jets will go to Parry Sound because it is closer to Lake Joseph and Rosseau. Also because their crews can get something to eat there.
Parry Sound I understand breaks even. Leaving them free of political interference. Their governance board is comprised totally of the people I mentioned above. Mostly pilots and it works.
Because of this loss of traffic the bad financial situation at Muskoka is going to steadily get worse.
As a pilot I don’t care if Muskoka exists as I have my own airport and other alternatives. As a tax payer I do. I see a jewel being destroyed and millions of dollars being wasted. Under the current governance the airport will completely fail. It is only a matter of time.
W. Ron Brent
I cannot overstate the huge negative impact on Muskoka’s economic future, the damage to local airside businesses and to stakeholders, and my extreme disappointment in Council with the decision to close an into wind runway at Muskoka Airport permanently. This is beyond foolish. The CEO and the Board have lost the confidence of so many pilots, businesses and public experts with their persistent pressure to push this very limiting agenda and flawed airport plan.
As I have been stating, for years, it is not about a grass runway. It is about a second runway for large aircraft to meet the 95% usability required to sustain scheduled flights in the future. This is an economic issue. That is it! Runway 09/27 is the only option for this, which has been proven and well documented.
The rest is simply relentless noise and fluff from many that have tried to convince Council to close runway 09/27.
I would like to give Kudos to all the pilots and experts who, for years, have tried your very best to educate and convince Council on the truths in aviation. Some councillors listened and have understood. Kudos to you for your support. Many were confused and then there are the others who actually know nothing of aviation but talk loudly, and a lot, to support the original agenda.
We have all said that a single runway airport, which is not into the prevailing wind, is not an economic driver for the Region. We have discussed safety and increased hazards of crosswind landings and the risks of new building turbulence. Runway 18/36 is a crosswind runway since it is almost perpendicular to the prevailing wind. We have all listened to the endless arguments about other airports with only one runway. All nonsense presented by people not understanding the implications, topology, weather patterns, shore breezes and many other factors, in an effort to convince Council to remove the grass runway.
Well it is done. I hope Council comes to their senses before buildings are placed on this prime asset. This airport is infrastructure but there are councillors who do not see this. Local business development should not dictate how an airport plan is developed. A well developed airport plan should determine where businesses can be placed without impacting aviation futures, growth or safety. Pilots support business development and always have but not at the expense of aviation safety and economic growth.
Public engagement was the expectation of a “skills based” Board. This has not happened. Air shows, special events, a good restaurant to watch airside activities and many other initiatives will draw people to this airport, and generate revenues to the airport and to the Region. Other airports are doing this but Muskoka is not. Now it will be a failing airport, to become a questionable business park at best.
Kudos to all of you who have weighed in with your comments, your experience, your knowledge and your passion for aviation. It is your support and public feedback which will hopefully awaken Council to this error. Keep up the good work. Muskoka deserves a much better conclusion.
Earle Robinson
Muskoka Taxpayer
It should be noted that a core problem is Muskoka District politicians can’t -or more likely don’t want to-recognize that the airport is infrastructure just like roads, streets, railroads etc.
As such it pays its own way by attracting tourists (Tourism is Muskoka’s big economic driver), new industries, etc. To think of it as something that has to pay for itself on site is absolutely nuts.
Build a mile of railroad and you can travel a mile. Build a mile of runway and you can connect (travel) to the entire world.
“[ ]They’re not required for safety. A good pilot does not require a crosswind runway,” MacKay said. That is untrue.
Perhaps he is unaware that aircraft manuals typically include maximum crosswind limitations for safety, and they are not conservative. Maximum crosswind limitations require a high level of skill in the pilot’s part, both for safe landings and takeoffs.
A good pilot simply does not land at an airport with only one runway when the crosswind component exceeds his or her and the aircraft’s safe limit, which may be as high as 30+ knots or as low as 5 knots, depending upon the aircraft and the runway conditions.
During my 35 years as an instructor, bush and airline pilot I and my respected colleagues had a saying: a superior pilot uses his or her superior judgement to stay out of situations that require his or her superior skill.
A good pilot will go elsewhere when conditions require a crosswind runway and none is available, Mr. MacKay. It doesn’t happen often, admittedly, but when it does, your one-runway airport may as well have none.
The loss of 09/27 is very sad.
I have been flying into and out of Muskoka Airport since 1980.
One of my planes is a 1940 Navy N3N bi plane.
For 9 years I only flew my plane off of the grass. It was built for grass operations.
The N3N was a trainer during the war in Pensacola – then a crop duster in California.
My Navy N3N is the actual bi plane you see in the movie North by Northwest.
I bet many of you have seen or heard my big yellow bird flying around.
But three years ago my wife and I were out flying when returning to the Muskoka Airport we were informed that we could not land on the grass that I had been exclusively been using for the prior 9 years.
I landed poorly on the asphalt. The N3N is not happy on the asphalt.
Respectfully Michael
Mr. Tally and Mr Whitty are both absolutely correct. No question about it. Their views are not new.
Closing the east-west runway will cost Muskoka dearly for decades to come.
District officials should be totally ashamed of themselves.
I can’t claim to be any kind of expert on runways as I do my flying from water however I did train at one time at Muskoka and I did use both the paved and grass runways. The grass is a useful tool for training as handling a plane on grass, especially wet grass, is a skill that all pilots should gain at some point in their career.
As far as I can see, all the points made by Mr. Whitty (and several other pilots over the years) are pretty much valid.
Even if nothing is done with the grass runway, except mow it occasionally, it would still be a valuable emergency option. Building on it renders it useless forever as any option so it would be logical to keep buildings and other infrastructure clear of this runway for the future. We never know what the future will bring but we do know that if we remove the viability of a particular option by erecting buildings on the former runway, then that option will be gone forever.
When the cost of the alternate runway balloons from $600K to $2 million you have to question if the original cost estimate was far too low, to convince council to go for it and close the existing grass runway, or the new cost is far to high to convince council not to proceed with the alternate. Or both.
Simply repairing the existing grass runway for $300K makes the most financial sense.
Instead of building a new grass runway.
That was always the case.
In fact the cost is far less than $300K.
After 80+ years it doesn’t suddenly need crowning, as airport management claims, because it sits on a well drained gravel deposit.
The latest consultant as well as an earlier consultant, SNC Lavalin, showed building beside the grass runway instead of on top of it makes the most sense.
Development doesn’t require closing the existing grass runway.
It never did.
After 3+ years of debate District council has made a massive mistake at the airport.
1. Obviously simply repairing the existing grass runway for $300K makes the most financial sense. Instead of building a new grass runway. That was always the case.
In fact the cost is far less than $300K.
After 80+ years it doesn’t suddenly need crowning, as airport management claims, because it sits on a well drained gravel deposit.
2. The latest consultant verified the new airport development can be put beside instead of on top of the existing grass runway.
This also means the large area for the alternate grass runway can be developed in the future.
The consultant stated this was the best plan going forward and was the result of a study council requested comparing the existing grass runway to a new grass runway.
Development does not require closure or relocation of the existing grass runway.
It never did.
3. There never was a valid reason to close the existing grass runway or that it remains closed.
4. Closure of the existing grass runway has resulted in lost business for Lake Central who have operated at Muskoka airport for 50+ years.
5. Transport Canada verified airport management misinterpreted TC’s suggestions for grass runways resulting in the closure.
6. It is documented Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, Environment Canada, Cessna (small aircraft manufacturer), airline pilots, local pilots and those with aviation competence have all thoroughly debunked the misinformation from the current airport management.
7. Anyone with any aviation competence knows two runways at 90 degrees makes an airport safer and more usable as the max crosswind angle is 45 degrees with two runways. Current airport management argued otherwise and the majority of council bought it. In Muskoka the grass runway is the one most often aligned with the wind.
8. Not only has the grass runway been closed without a valid reason, the grass area beside the main paved runway pilots also use is also closed without a valid reason.
Skiplanes are also banned without a valid reason.
3 accidents have resulted from the closures, so far. Details of the accidents were provided to councillors.
9. At the July 2022 council meeting many councillors were annoyed with the current airport management when the alternate grass runway that had been presented to them in 2020 turns out not to be a viable option.
It never was.
At that meeting many councillors instructed staff to stop all talk of development on top of the existing grass runway and reopening it was brought up again so Muskoka retains a second runway.
In May this year council totally flip flopped. Short memories.
10. It seems the majority of council prefers misinformation from staff over documented facts from everyone else, including the latest consultant. Fiction over facts. Not all councillors, just the majority.
John Whitty
retired P.Eng. and Muskoka pilot