![](https://bac-lac.wayback.archive-it.org/web/20061122081252im_/http://www.gov.mb.ca/images1/spacer.gif) |
Report of the Provincial Airports Safety Working Group
1. Introduction
The Minister of Transportation Government Services struck a
Working Group in December 1997 to review safety at the twenty-two
provincially operated airports. The Working Group was composed of
representatives of First Nations, air carriers, Transport Canada,
Northern Affairs and Transportation & Government Services. The Working
Group Report (Released in Oct. 1998) documented safety-related issues and prioritize
improvements that could be considered to enhance the safe operation
of provincial airports in northern Manitoba.
2. Background
Manitoba owns and operates twenty-two airports
located throughout northern Manitoba (Refer to Attachments 1 &
2). These airports primarily serve First Nations communities and are
often the only means of year round transport. As well as supporting
economic development, these airports are the vital lifelines for the
communities for medical and social services. During the last fifteen
years, $15.0 million worth of capital has been expended for facility
and equipment maintenance, replacements and upgrades.
Construction and upgrading of the provincial
airports over the years has been undertaken through a number of
programs. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the Province
undertook the construction of small airports at many remote
communities. These were constructed to accommodate aircraft such as
the Twin Otter and Aztec. With the exception of Island Lake and
Norway House, the Province provided the funding for these initial
capital projects. At these two sites, Transport Canada provided
capital funding on a 50:50 basis. Through the Northlands Agreement
(1976-1982) and the Northern Development Agreement (1982-1989), the
Federal Government contributed 60% for upgrading and construction of
new airports. Airports upgraded under these programs included
Brochet, Lac Brochet and St. Theresa Point. The last major project
under this program was the construction of the Tadoule Lake airport
in 1987. In 1990, the Province acquired the God's River airport from
the local lodge owner. Manitoba Transportation & Government Services
continues to upgrade airports, as funds are available. In fact, the
Department has identified over $50.0 million of capital projects to
improve both the safety and operation of the provincial airports
(see Attachment 3.).
Today the airports serve larger turbo-prop and jet
aircraft that offer communities superior air services. These
aircraft are now the basis of air carrier fleets; examples include
the HS748, the Metro II, the Beech 1900 and the Citation II.
The upgrading of the northern airports is beyond
provincial resources. The Province pays the full costs for the
operation of these airports with only marginal direct cost recovery.
The Province currently spends almost $6 million annually to operate,
maintain and improve the twenty-two community airports. The
availability of capital funds is limited to major maintenance. The
Province of Manitoba simply cannot afford the $50.0 million required
to bring the airports up to a higher standard. Federal financial
involvement is required. Federal funding is justified by:
- the federal obligations to First Nations peoples;
- the history of federal/provincial involvement in northern airport development; and
- the air mode falls within the federal government’s jurisdiction.
top
3. Working Group
3.1 Working Group Members
Membership on the Working Group consists of the following:
- John R. Hosang (Chairman) Manitoba Transportation & Government Services
- Chief Raymond Keeper Little Grand Rapids First Nation
- Chief Jerry Knott Wasagamack First Nation
- Chief Gladys Powderhorn Sayisi Dene
- Chief Ken Wood St. Theresa Point First Nation
- Allan Nimmo Perimeter Aviation
- Lynn Peters Skyward Aviation
- Ron Lapp Transport Canada
- Yvan Bineau Transport Canada
- Rick Kosmick Manitoba Northern Affairs
- Roland Savoie Manitoba Transportation & Government Services
- David O. Selby Manitoba Transportation & Government Services
3.2 Working Group Meetings
The Working Group has had four meetings. These took
place on February 17, March 16, May 26 & 27, as well as August
20,1998. The May meeting was held in Thompson to facilitate
attendance by northern representatives. In response to a request by
the SouthEast Resource Development Corporation, the Working Group traveled
to Little Grand Rapids in August to discuss their
concerns. The Working Group also used the opportunity to review the
draft report.
The Working Group reviewed submissions (Appendix A)
that were given during the December 17, 1997 meeting with the
Minister of Transportation & Government Services. At the meeting in Thompson
on May 26 and 27, 1998, the Working Group also received submissions
to identify needs and issues. Grand Chief Francis Flett presented on
behalf of the 26 First Nations making up the Manitoba Keewatinowi
Okimakanak (MKO). As well, eight additional presentations were made.
The letters and briefs are included at Appendix B. At the Little
Grand Rapids meeting on August 20, 1998, a submission (Appendix C)
was presented to the Working Group by South East Resource Development
Corporation.
top
4. Findings
In general, the projects the Department had
previously identified (see attachment 3),
addressed many of the needs noted by the northern communities and
air carriers during this review.
The areas of consensus about needs included:
- The addition of lighted beacons (or strobes) and approach slope indicators;
- The extension of runways to both improve safety
and to minimize operating restrictions for the aircraft now
using these airports;
- The need for the new airport between Wasagamack and St. Theresa Point; and
- New airport locations for Poplar River and Little
Grand Rapids and the reconstruction of Gods River, together with
runway lights and Non Directional Beacons (NDBs) for Gods River
and Poplar River. There are additional remote communities that
have no airport at all such as Granville Lake and Pauingassi.
The one exception is at York Landing where the Chief
felt that the current airstrip is too close to the settlement. The
balance of the Working Group did not see the location as a safety
issue.
The issue of runway surface type received
conflicting views. Several community presentations called for paved
runways while some air carriers indicated that gravel surfaced
runways, when well maintained, provide better traction in wet or icy
conditions.
Several non-airside facility issues were identified
to the Working Group. While some of these have a safety component,
they are not primarily for air safety. Such projects included
terminals, fire halls, fencing, fuel tanks, water and sewer and
electric heating. These projects are important and should be
factored into an overall airport improvement program.
The Working Group considered the following issues
related to operating concerns:
- Instrument Approaches - Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology now makes it feasible to develop instrument
approaches. The Department will follow-up with NAV Canada as a
result of this Working Group’s Report to identify the
priorities for the Provincial airports. Depending on the
eventual acceptance of GPS, this may improve existing instrument
approach capabilities;
- Radar Coverage – discussions will take place
with NAV Canada regarding radar with a view to improving
advisory services;
- Weather Information – feasibility of enhancing
weather services should be investigated; and
- Co-ordinated Emergency Response Services - these
are already provided but may not be fully understood or
appreciated.
The Department is continuing work with the
appropriate agencies such as NAV Canada, Atmospheric Environment
Services (AES), Manitoba Emergency Management Organization (MEMO)
and Air Carriers to improve services in these areas.
top
5. Analysis
5.1 Risk Management
There is no such thing as a guarantee of safety. In
aviation, as well as other modes of transport and indeed, all fields
of endeavour, the objective is to recognize the risk, assess its
impacts, and take all reasonable actions to minimize the risk.
Transport Canada determines whether an airport is safe or not by
inspecting it to see if it meets standards associated with becoming
certified, such as depicted in attachment 4. However, certification
is also relative to use. One airport may be certified for "air
taxi" operation under daytime and visual flight rules weather
conditions. Such an airport is considered "safe" as long
as those conditions are respected. It may not be certified as
"safe" for night-time operation for use by commuter
carriers, unless it can meet the additional standards required for
night-time operations. Safety is closely related to the idea of
reliability. Under marginal weather conditions, the cancelled
flight, is the safest, but the availability of an instrument
approach improves reliability and accessibility while respecting the
higher safety standards for such operations. Risk is also
cumulative. An airport with the same risk factors but with a greater
volume of traffic has a greater overall risk that needs to be
reflected in setting priorities.
The risk assessment and minimization approach is
widely recognized. It is the approach underlying NAV CANADA’s
Aeronautical Studies in reviewing Air Navigation facilities and
services. It may not be possible to guarantee safety, but risk can
be calculated. Prudent investments can then be made to reduce risk
as much as possible given the technological and fiscal constraints.
5.2 Technical Standards
A.) Under the Canadian Air Regulations (CARs),
Transport Canada sets the standards for the certification of
airports. When designing an airport, the "critical aeroplane"
for that airport, must be identified. The critical aeroplane, is
the aeroplane identified from all those serving, or to serve the
airport in question, that has the most demanding operational
requirements. Based on the critical aeroplane, the runway length
is identified. Finally, the standard requirements (runway width,
markings, lighting etc.) are applied to the runway.
Runway length is not necessarily a safety-related
issue, but rather a level of service issue. For instance, with the
disappearance of the older aircraft for which airports were
designed, higher performance aeroplanes can still use the present
airports. Because some of these runways are relatively short, the
operations are often with penalties. An air carrier may have to
operate with less freight and/or passengers, or with less fuel. Each
of these options penalizes all involved, by higher costs or shorter
routes, therefore, reduced service. So the runway length does not
impact safety, but rather the level of service that can be provided
by the air carriers. To mitigate this situation, the extension of
some runways should be considered.
B.) The CARs also govern air carrier operations. New
restrictions that are presently being implemented will, by the
year 2010, restrict operations of certain aeroplanes utilizing
present day airports. Aeroplanes are classified by the number of
passengers they carry: an "air taxi" has nine or less
passengers, a "commuter" has between 10 and 19, while an
"airline" has 20 or more. By the year 2010, the new CARs
will require some aeroplanes to be operated using performance
criteria not used today. For many of the smaller category of
aircraft, the runway length at most airports may be insufficient
to operate these aircraft at full capacity, even if that is not
the case today. Air carriers will either have to modify their
operations, or some runways will have to be lengthened.
Planning the physical characteristics of these
airports is becoming an increasingly difficult challenge because of
the nature of the standards and the regulatory changes. These issues
are often not necessarily working together. To this problem can be
added the uncertainty of the next generation aircraft.
Determining the runway length is a demanding
challenge for an airport operator. But, also equally affected, is
the airline operator who has to select the appropriate aeroplane
that will be capable of, not only servicing his customers
effectively, but also be efficient using the airports that will be
available.
5.3 Policy Approach
Provincial policy can be developed as the framework
for setting development objectives for community airports. Facility
deficiencies can then be identified and projects can be defined to
overcome these deficiencies. There are three aspects to be
considered in developing a Provincial Airports Policy. The first is
the Level of Service that is to be provided, in other words, what is
the service objective to be achieved. This aspect of the policy can
be used to identify potential airport improvement projects.
Secondly, the policy should provide guidance in how priorities are
to be established amongst the identified projects. Finally, the
policy sets out the funding responsibilities amongst the
stakeholders.
5.3.1 Level of Service
The Working Group proposes to use a level of service
policy approach to identify potential projects. The proposed levels
of service policy objectives are:
- All airports should be certified for both day
and night conditions and for both Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in support of emergency
medical evacuations;
- All airports should serve the aircraft
currently being operated on a regular basis with minimum
practical operating restrictions;
- Non-airside airport development will be
undertaken to meet safety, environmental, efficiency and
economic objectives; and
- Airports should be planned and developed to
accommodate more demanding aircraft requirements as they become
justified.
These policy objective guidelines were combined with
the CARs standards to identify potential airport improvement
projects.
There is one additional level of service objective
that is not dealt with by these guidelines, because they only deal
with the development of the current airports system. That is the
case of determining when an airport should be provided for a
community when no airport currently exists. The new Wasagamack/St.
Theresa Point airport is being located to better serve the two
communities. The Granville Lake and Pauingassi communities have no
airport and receive only float and ski equipped aircraft. It may be
necessary to include a population criterion as a factor in our
deliberation when examining the requirements for the provision of
new airports or for other airport requirements.
5.3.2 Setting Priorities
Competing projects serving the same level of service
policy objective can be prioritized by cost-benefit analysis.
Attachment 5 includes an estimate of annual economic impact benefit
from the 1997 traffic volumes. As an illustration of the approach,
the final column considers the benefit-cost ratio for objective one
projects. The runway extension and lights at Berens River has a
ratio of 3.75:1 versus a ratio of 10.01:1 for the NDB at Bloodvein.
Another example in Attachment 5 shows that, after the installation
of the airport rotating beacon lights which have a benefit-cost
ratio of 86.21:1, the Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) and
emergency power units for all sites would have the highest priority
with benefits exceeding costs by a ratio of 16.73:1. More detailed
analysis will include data on community population, use of Medevacs,
site weather records etc, to establish the priority of the potential
projects within the funding available each year. The Economic Impact
Benefits as listed in Attachment 5, is calculated by establishing a
relative value for each site. In this case, it is equal to dividing
the total of 100 multiplied by the passenger traffic, plus 1000
multiplied by the freight traffic, by 1000. This value is then
utilized to establish a relative Cost-Benefit Ratio. It is equal to
the estimated cost of Policy Objective One, divided by the Economic
Impact Benefit.
Provision of airports involves operating costs and
capital costs. The Province already covers operating costs and minor
maintenance capital projects such as stock piling gravel. Federal
funding is required for the major capital projects. The federal
Airports Capital Assistance Program (ACAP) provides funding for
airport improvement projects which meet specific criteria. ACAP
funds 100% of airside facility and equipment capital projects for
airports with less than 50,000 passenger movements per year. This
would relate to the level of service objectives to meet the needs
for air ambulance service and for the safe operation of aircraft now
using the airport. ACAP also funds 50% of projects for asset
protection or operating improvement, for air terminal buildings and
groundside access. Many of the "level of service objective
three" projects would fall in this category.
ACAP is only intended for existing airports that
currently receive passenger service. It has not been determined
whether relocating airports would qualify within the ACAP framework.
ACAP would not apply to communities where there is no existing
airport. The current Provincial Government/Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada cost sharing agreement in place for the
roads and airport to serve Wasagamack and St. Theresa, may serve as
a model in these cases.
Another issue could be with the ACAP funding
envelope, which is currently limited to $35.0 million a year for all
of Canada. ACAP was intended as a fund for major capital projects at
existing airports. It did not contemplate a major upgrading program
of a whole system of airports, such as has been identified by the
Working Group on Safety. While ACAP could provide a framework for
administration of federal contributions, it may be necessary to
negotiate a federal-provincial upgrading program that would provide
additional funding over and above the regular ACAP funding envelope.
5.4 Airport Improvement Projects
Level of Service Objective One
The first policy objective includes several
dimensions: certification, night operation, IFR operation, and
runway requirements for the critical aircraft that provides medical
evacuation service.
Certification: Fundamentally, safety requires that
an airport must meet the standards of the regulator, Transport
Canada, to be certified. Three of the provincial airports are not
yet certified because they do not meet dimension standards.
Pukatawagan is in the process of being certified; Gods River
requires strip widening and the possible relocation of the MTS
communications tower; Poplar River cannot be certified in its
current location because it cannot meet Transport Canada Standards.
Night Operation: An airport certified for day VFR
operations must meet additional standards to be certified for night
operation. A lighted beacon (rotating or strobe type) is one of the
requirements for night certification. The Province is working with
Transport Canada to prepare an omnibus ACAP application for the
provision of beacons at all eligible airports. Transport Canada
TP312 (Standards and Recommended Practices), Clause 5.3.6 states
that a visual approach slope indicator (such as a PAPI) should be
provided if the pilot of any type of aircraft may have difficulty in
judging the approach due to:
inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced
during an approach over water or featureless terrain by day or
in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach
area by night ….
Since power outages tend to coincide with other
emergencies, Emergency power is required at all sites to support
this objective.
IFR Operation: Only three airports have published
approaches for IFR operations; Island Lake, Norway House and St.
Theresa Point. A further fourteen airports have NDBs. Air carriers
regularly using these airports have "company approved"
approaches for IFR operation. Five airports do not have an
electronic navigational aid on which to develop an instrument
approach. Airport instrument approaches are now being developed
based on GPS instead of ground based aids. Depending on the eventual
acceptance of GPS, the priority for development of GPS approaches
would be: those without an IFR approach, those with non-published
approaches, then those with a current published approach. Current
NDBs would be maintained to the end of their useful lives to provide
back-up and redundancy to GPS approaches.
Runway Length: Sufficient runway length is needed to
accommodate the type of aircraft used as the air ambulance. The
critical aircraft would usually be the Manitoba Air Services
Citation II which requires 3000 ft. Several airports are less than
3000 ft. They include Berens River, Little Grand Rapids, Pikwitonei,
Poplar River, Pukatawagan, South Indian Lake, Thicket Portage and
York Landing.
Attachment 5 details the airport deficiencies to
meet the first level of service objective and other needs to provide
a good surface of sufficient length equipped for night and IFR
operation. For preliminary costing purposes, the subsequent analysis
assumes that most airports will be extended to at least 3000 ft and
assumes an average unit cost of $1000 per lineal foot to extend
runways. More detailed analysis will be required to determine the
precise runway length to be provided at each site to meet the air
ambulance policy objective.
Objective One Conclusion:
The estimated cost to meet the first level of
service policy objective, to provide each community a certified
airport for the operation of air ambulance, is $25.2 million.
This includes four new airports (Little Grand Rapids, Poplar River,
Pauingassi and Granville Lake), at an estimated cost of $5 million
each.
Level of Service Objective Two
The second level of service policy objective
provides facilities to safely accommodate the aircraft currently
using the airport with minimal restrictions on passengers and
freight. This objective will require detailed site by site analyses.
Attachment 5 shows the type of aircraft currently associated with
the type of operation (air taxi, commuter, and airline) at each
airport. To provide the basis for cost estimates, the following
dimensions are assumed as being required to provide airports to
serve these aircraft on a regular basis with minimum practical
operating restrictions:
- For airports certified for air taxi operations, a runway of 3000 ft x 75 ft.
- For airports certified for commuter operations, a runway of 3500 ft x 75 ft.
- For airports certified for airline operations, a runway of 4000 ft x 100 ft.
Objective 2 Conclusion
Attachment 5 indicates that, after providing runway
extensions or new runways to meet the first objective, there will be
a further 11 airports requiring extensions to bring them to 3500
ft., and three to 4000 ft. This is in addition to the new airport
for Wasagamack/St. Theresa Point. The incremental cost to satisfy
the second level of service objective is estimated at $6.1 million.
Level of Service Objective Three
The third level of service policy objective
covers the non-airside projects. The projects identified to date (as
listed in Attachment 6), include $1.7 million for five terminal
developments and $2.6 million for other projects (fencing, fire
halls, water & sewer, fuel tanks and electric heating
conversions), a total of $4.4 million for objective three
projects.
Level of Service Objective Four
After substantial completion of Level of Service
Objectives One and Two, consideration should be given to enhancing
runway lengths to accommodate aircraft without operating
restrictions. Increased requirements will also be necessary in part,
to meet the more restrictive Canadian Air Regulations requirements
at the Year 2010. The following dimensions are assumed as being
required to provide airports to serve the aircraft currently being
operated on a regular basis without operating restrictions:
- For airports certified for air taxi operations, a runway of 3000 ft x 75 ft.
- For airports certified for commuter operations, a runway of 4000 ft x 100 ft.
- For airports certified for airline operations, a runway of 4500 ft x 100 ft.
An airport that is currently accommodating commuter
operations and has a project identified to extend its runway to 3500
ft, should have the project planned so that, if it is justified, the
runway could be extended to 4000 ft without major modifications.
Longer and possibly wider runways may be justified by unique needs,
such as developing an operating base for the CL 215 water bombers.
It is noted that because of the extension of some runways beyond the
4000-foot limit available for Code 2 runways, side and/or end zoning
may become an issue for review at some sites such as Oxford House
and God's Lake Narrows. At Oxford House for example, because of the
more stringent zoning requirements, if it becomes a Code 3 runway,
it may be necessary to move the terminal and equipment shop further
away from the runway.
Factors to be considered in defining project requirements within this objective include:
- Community/Population projections
- Aircraft requirements and
- Canadian Air Regulation implications. The
estimated cost of meeting the portion of this objective for
providing unrestricted aircraft operations is $8.2 million.
5.5 Airport Operations
Several submissions made suggestions concerning
operations which included improved weather information, airport
traffic advisory service and co-ordination of emergency response
plans. With suitable training, (similar to the Community Aerodrome
Radio Station observer-communicator training program given at Fort
Smith, in addition to the existing airport maintenance and equipment
operation), airport staff may be able to provide additional weather
reporting and airport advisory service; many of the more experienced
airport staff already do some of this on an unofficial basis.
Emergency plans are already established for all
sites as part of the airport certification. Aircraft fire fighting
equipment is also provided at all certified sites and emergency
drills are held each year. They planned so as to incorporate all the
community resources. Further co-ordination will be undertaken to
ensure the local communities are aware of, and involved in, airport
emergency planning.
top
6. Recommendations
The Working Group recommends that:
- The four levels of service policy objectives be
adopted as the framework for developing the Provincial airports
system; (the preliminary list of projects, by priority, is given
in Attachment: Preliminary List of
Projects by Priority
- The Department should immediately undertake
further analysis for the definition of projects and their
priority to overcome the identified deficiencies in the airports
system;
- The ACAP application for Beacon Lights at all
eligible sites should be fast-tracked, (the application is
currently in final draft at a total estimated cost of $363,000);
- Manitoba Transportation & Government Services prepare the supporting ACAP applications for the highest
priority projects;
- The Province should initiate a federal-provincial
consultation for the negotiation of a cost-sharing agreement for
the upgrading of the Provincial airports system as a multi-year
program with funding over and above the ACAP envelope,
particularly for the new airports;
- An Advisory Committee of affected stakeholders
should be established to support the Department in development
and administration of the Provincial Airports Development
Program on an on-going basis. The Advisory Committee work would
include reviewing and advising the Department on the detailed
project prioritization, within the framework of the four levels
of service policy objectives;
- The Department should initiate consultations with NAV Canada to set out the priorities and a schedule of
development for GPS approaches at the airports;
- The Department should look into the feasibility
and means to further enhance the services provided in support of
aviation, in particular, weather reporting and airport advisory
service; a report should be provided to the Advisory Committee
within six months; and
- The Advisory Committee will consult with
Transport Canada, regarding regulatory changes that may impact
on Airport and Airline operations.
top
7. Conclusion
Manitoba Transportation & Government Services strives to
operate the Provincial airports as safely as is possible. However,
due to advances in aircraft technology, concurrent with public
sector fiscal constraint, the facilities as they exist today at some
of the provincial airports are less than desirable to support safe
and efficient air transport services in the late 1990s. This Report
has developed an approach to identify and prioritize the needs to
develop a modern and capable airports system in support of the
health and development of Manitoba’s remote communities. The
upgrading of the airports system will require the participation and
partnership of the federal and provincial governments, together with
the communities and the aviation industry.
top
Attachment: Department Capital Program
The Department has identified more than $50.0 million of capital projects. These include:
- $40.0 million for new construction, including the
funds already identified for the new airport and roads between
Wasagamack and St. Theresa Point (replacing that airport), two
runway relocations, (Little Grand Rapids and Poplar River), one
airport reconstruction, (God's River) and two new airports (Pauingassi
and Grandville Lake);
- $2.8 million for runway extensions at eight sites,
( Red Sucker Lake, Berens River, Oxford House, Cross Lake, South
Indian Lake, God's Lake Narrows, Pikwitonei, and Thicket Portage);
- $800,000 for gravel crushing at four sites, (God's
River, Oxford House, Pikwitonei and Thicket Portage);
- $165,000 for runway lights at four sites, (God’s
River, Berens River, Cross Lake and Little Grand Rapids);
- $363,000 for rotating or strobe beacons at all 22
sites;
- $1.1 million for abbreviated PAPIs (Precision
Approach Path Indicators) at all 22 sites;
- $770,000 for emergency power units at all 22 sites;
- $1.7 million for terminals at five sites (Island
Lake, Lac Brochet, God's River, Oxford House and Thicket Portage);
- and a further $2.5 million for fire halls, fencing,
water and sewage, fuel tanks, electric heating conversion and
other upgrades.
top
Attachment: Preliminary List of Projects by Priority
Objective One: to provide a certified airport for day
and night, and for VFR or IFR operations in support of medical
evacuations.
- Beacon Lights: all airports ($363,000);
- Certification: Pukatawagan, Gods River;
- Runway Edge Lights: Gods River ($45,000);
- IFR Approaches: consult with NAV Canada to develop
GPS approaches for all airports (non-capital);
- Approach Lights and Emergency power: all airports
($770,000);
- Runway Extensions: six sites require extensions to
meet 3000 ft length ($2.4 M);
- Construct four new airports: Poplar River, Little
Grand Rapids, Pauingassi and Granville Lake ($20.0 M);
Objective Two: to provide an airport system to support
aircraft currently being operated so as to minimize operating
restrictions.
Runway Extensions: 14 sites (in addition to the
three new airports) may require further runway extensions to
accommodate air commuter or airline operations standards, ($6.1
M).
Objective Three: non-airside development to meet
safety, environmental, efficiency and economic objectives. This
includes:
- Terminals at five sites: Island Lake, Lac Brochet,
God's River, Oxford House and Thicket Portage, ($1.7 M);
- Fire halls at three sites: God's River, Pukatawagan
and Red Sucker Lake, ($180,000);
- Water & Sewer at six sites: Island Lake, Lac
Brochet, Pikwitonei, Red Sucker Lake, South Indian Lake and
Thicket Portage, ($180,000);
- Fencing at 19 sites, ($1.46 M);
- Enviro Fuel Tanks at 16 sites, ($324,000);
- Electric Heating Conversions at six sites,
($155,000);
- Runway Lights Upgrade at three sites, Berens River,
Cross Lake and Little Grand Rapids, ($120,000);
- Equipment Shop at God's Lake Narrows, ($85,000);
and
- Equipment Shop Upgrade at Island Lake, ($130,000).
Objective Four: to develop airports to meet
higher-level certification standards as needs or regulatory changes
require. The estimated cost of meeting the portion of this objective
for providing unrestricted aircraft operations is $8.2 Million.
top
|
![](https://bac-lac.wayback.archive-it.org/web/20061122081252im_/http://www.gov.mb.ca/images1/spacer.gif) |