MUSKOKA SHOULD PAVE GRASS RUNWAY AT AIRPORT, NOT CLOSE IT

LETTER TO EDITOR:

Ed. note: A report going to district council Tuesday calls for the east-west grass runway at the Muskoka Airport in Gravenhurst to be closed and replaced a little north as part of a plan for more buildings. Local pilots like Garth Elliot — who has flown for 60 years — think there are better options. He offers some in his letter, which is part of a presentation he will make to councillors.

Why is Muskoka Airport left to wither and slowly die while other airports flourish?

This past year a consultant’s report tried to justify closing the best runway at Muskoka Airport. It was not the first time this sort of report has been provided — each at very substantial cost to taxpayers.

Any good “consultation” offers opinion, but in my view if written to justify a pre-determined conclusion, it becomes just a sales pitch.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Several past consultants’ reports tried to justify closing that east-west runway. Shown to be erroneous, they all failed.

This latest document is a massive 360 page ‘Long Term Airport Plan,’ but in my opinion it presents more like an “agenda” rather than a consultation.

It brought back for consideration past items the district’s Airport Advisory Committee wouldn’t approve.

In 2011 district council supported that committee by mandating that any construction, which might negatively impact the east-west runway was forbidden. A very wise and praise-worthy decision.

Some people in authority might reference statistics to say the runway is not used enough — but they strangely neglect to note maintenance of that runway has been steadily deteriorating over a period of many years.

It provided good service for many decades but now it is (strangely) unfit.

However, homeowners know if you don’t mow the lawn, roll it, remove upward migrating rocks and aerate it — it might not become very pleasant at all.

In the case of a runway, parts of it might become a threat to life, limb, property and the pursuit of happiness via a good business environment.

If our hard-working and dedicated councillors are not provided with complete, impartial and accurate information, how are they supposed to make wise choices?

Bracebridge pilot Garth Elliot has been flying for 60 years and disagrees with a consultant’s report calling for the east-west prevailing wind “09-27” grass runway to be closed and replaced further north to make room for more buildings on the old runway.

Airport pilots and tenants are not the enemies of district council.

They want to see the airport functioning in an appropriate way. They have more than enough hard-won lifetime aviation experience to quickly understand when some consultants’ reports are not providing accurate, appropriate and impartial opinion.

If Muskoka was building a new first-time airport on the present site, and if the airport could only have one runway, it follows that the east-west runway (directed into the prevailing wind) would be the one to have.

No question about it.

But the present intention is to close it to enable less expensive building construction (no need to remove rocks or trees).

This is a very bad trade-off.

My opinion is the district’s apparent and insular focus is on direct revenue to the district government.

Obvious and constant consideration of the benefits the airport can deliver throughout the entire district appears to be lacking. Not just on the part of many councilors, but also on the part of some airport authorities.

The only real way to make Muskoka Airport competitive and more beneficial is to extend the east-west “09-27” grass runway and properly pave it for jet aircraft.

We absolutely must have two paved runways. Properly enhanced our airport will definitely out-perform others.

District and its entities have not integrated Muskoka Airport into their plans; and this airport is the key to wonderful advantage for all of Muskoka.

Nearby and competing Lake Simcoe Regional, Parry Sound, and Orillia Lake St. John airports are wisely modifying their airports to accept bigger airplanes and jets. Nevertheless, Muskoka Airport is under threat of being left to wither and die.

Presumably those other municipalities understand some obvious things ignored at Muskoka district.

The airport’s new long-term plan talks of building a new grass runway, but the proposed runway could not be sufficiently lengthened to handle large passenger-carrying aircraft, including jets.

If the present east-west runway is developed, it will become the runway of choice for all aircraft -including jets.

No question about it.

And, with two good paved runways the airport will do wonders for Muskoka.

Tourism and seasonal residents are great drivers of the Muskoka economy.

With both runways fully functional, it is not unreasonable to anticipate the arrival of charted jet airliners carrying tourists from afar to spend one or two weeks (even more) vacationing in Muskoka.

No other airport could compete.

Muskoka has location, location and location.

With vision the airport would become a darling of many businesses in the district.

Spin-off results would be substantial and include employment, jobs and even more tourism related businesses throughout the entire District.

A perplexing matter is the new and expensive 360-page report — produced by highly qualified “experts” — does not reference the need to integrate the airport into any tourism and economic plans whatsoever.

How could experts produce a long term airport plan while ignoring integration in an area where tourism is so very important?

In my view the heart and soul of this plan is singular — to justify the closing of the absolutely vital east-west runway.

In summary we have an agenda, a mountain of paper, wasted taxpayer money and serious threat to Muskoka’s economic future.

As a taxpayer I am offended.

As a citizen of Muskoka I am thoroughly embarrassed.

The matter is to come before district council Feb. 16 at 9 a.m.

Anyone wishing to pursue information should contact their local councilor well in advance of the meeting to express their opinion.

Garth Elliot

Bracebridge

Garth Elliot owned this 1935 Taylor E-2 Cub. It had been dismantled and in storage since 1939 and the Second World War before he restored it over six years. He says eventually the National Aviation Museum approached him and that is where the airplane is now part of its permanent collection. He says “this is a perfect aircraft — probably the best and most original example in existence anywhere.” Forty horsepower, no brakes, just a tailskid. He says when it was first produced it had a special custom paint job — faithfully reproduced during the restoration. Later, the Cubs became Piper Cubs. But this, he says modestly, is the first model built.