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 development on a replacement known as 12-30. This is separate from the main runway at Muskoka Airport called 18-36. But after delays and large 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 before council recommending halting work on the runway.
Since 2021 the Airport Board has recommended to council that the runway project should not go forward. The estimated costs for constructing the runway have increased to around $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 safety implications of not having a grass runway, no incidents in which a grass runway was needed in the four years of operation at Muskoka Airport without 09-27. And that there are no regulations which say that the airport must have a grass runway. O’Connor stated that there is no business case for the 12-30 runway.
O’Connor also said that yearly maintenance on 12-30 if it were completed, would cost $20,000 to $30,000 a year. There is also evidence that the runway is not needed at Muskoka Airport. Between 2009 and 2018 09-27 accounted for 1.37% of activity at the airport. This equals roughly 176 “movements” a year, while the main runway sees around 15,000 “movements” a year according to O’Connor.
“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 potential development of a grass runway in the future. This provision split council between two groups. The first was those that wanted to keep the space protected to ensure that if in the future a grass runway was required then there was space for it. And the second group which advocated opening the space up to allow further commercial development.
Councillor Peter Kelley spoke in favour of keeping this provision.
“To the extent that circumstances change. And suddenly 12-30 is deemed to be relevant again, or less expensive to construct. And 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 breakeven and get on with it,” Burry said.
Despite a long debate between members of council, most councilors expressed support for cutting off the development.
Don MacKay, Chair of the Muskoka District Airport stated that the reason 12-30 was still being discussed was due to support of council, not because the Muskoka Airport Board of Directors supports the runway development. Mackay went further to say that Council was ignoring the recommendations of the Airport board.
“It is not needed. Now, if you believe it’s needed, for safety reasons, then you’re taking counsel from the people you asked to give you the advice. 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.
Several councilors highlighted the support given by pilots for maintaining a grass runway at the Muskoka airport. Councillor Robert Lacroix stated that he understood from testimony how important the grass runway was for pilots. However, he did not believe the runway was on the table due to poor management of the runway by the Muskoka Airport authorities and rising costs.
After debating the intent of council and reasons for leaving the potential runway space protected, Council voted to remove the development protection provision.
This vote was followed by another amendment which directed staff to once again examine costs of environmental implications of repairing the grass runway on 09-27. This amendment also generated strong opinions from councilors 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 District council. Councillor Scott Morrison spoke out against any efforts put towards development of 09-27. He also stated that the Muskoka Airport Board should be empowered to make these decisions.
“I’d like to see a motion where it’s these guys’ decision. We trust them. We hire them to be on this board. I don’t want to put a 12 month or 18 month delay on it. I’d like to move forward with the motion as that guy brought forward and not even entertain the idea of bringing back studies on 09-27,”
Following the second amendment vote council voted to approve the recommendation from the Airport Board which ends development of a grass runway at the Muskoka Airport.
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 three times per week!
Click here to support local news
These included a lack of safety implications of not having a grass runway
Below is a description from the pilot involved of another accident that has occurred as a result of the grass runway closure.
Airport management falsely claims there have been no issues.
The accident description was presented to council along with the others and ignored.
As an engineer, the thing about serious, fatal accidents is they don’t usually happen out of the blue.
A number of warnings from less serious accidents usually occurs first.
Accidents are not usually due to a single cause but due to a series of errors.
Like closing a runway most often into the wind, for example.
Reversing any one of the errors would have prevented the accident.
If the warnings about safety are ignored then fatal accidents will eventually occur that could/should have been prevented.
The Westray mining disaster is a classic example of that.
Ignoring safety warnings now result in personal repercussions. Insurance won’t protect you.
Accident description:
“There was significant cost due to a mandated engine teardown and overhaul due to prop striking ground. Total insurance repair approx 17000 and total bill over 30 k. Crosswinds a big factor and runway condition a factor along with other issues. If 27 were available that day it would have been my choice. I feel like a captive at my own airport as I may not use the grass strip which is 100 percent serviceable to my aircraft on tundra tires. It is a big issue that it is closed with no stated reason.”
“It is a tragedy that they don’t simply put a notam that says its bumpy grass. We have landed at the grass strips north of Huntsville and they are all much rockier and rougher than Muskoka’s runway 27.”
09/27 is the grass runway.
In fact a Notam (Notice to Airmen) for a rough surface is all that’s needed to reopen the grass strip right now.
The same as it was in 2019.
It doesn’t magically require costly repairs, as airport management falsely claims, but it has been neglected for many years in order to claim it’s not used much so should be closed.
Pilots know grass strips are all “use at your own risk.”
Maintaining runways is part of airport management’s job description.
Muskoka airport management also made a totally false statement about an earlier fatal accident at the north end of Muskoka airport.
Opposite end of the grass runway.
I asked Council that the statement be publicly retracted and removed from the record as the Transportation Safety Board, who investigated the accident, stated they found no evidence that the statement was true.
Response from Council? Crickets.
In fact the TSB found evidence of a prudent pilot, in my opinion, instead.
No cause was determined by the TSB.
It’s infuriating to pilots that someone without any aviation competence would make a totally false statement about an extremely experienced, prudent test pilot in a public record.
Another example of animosity towards pilots and the truth from current airport management.
Totally unacceptable.
Hello everyone
While flying a Citabria 7GCBC with wheel penetration skis I got into some slush on lake Muskoka. Having this happen to me before I knew there was a possibility of the wheels freezing in the skis. My first thought was to go back to CYQA and land 09-27 or between A-B which have done for my whole flying career with no incidents. Landing back on lake Muskoka wasn’t an option. On my way back to the airport I talked myself out of the right course of action because I was afraid of getting written up and in trouble as 09-27 and A-B were closed. Landing in the snow was the safest action to take, land and check to make sure nothing is frozen then carry on. Well I talked myself into landing 18-36. Thankfully the mains were not frozen and landing was uneventful or so I thought. Once stopped and turned plane around to backtrack for fuel I could smell burning rubber. Opening the door looking back I could see black streaks following me. I had to taxi off to the side of the runway and unfreeze the wheels. Both idler wheels on the skis and the tailwheel were frozen and ruin. By not being able to land 09-27 or A-B cost me hundreds of dollars in repairs. As far as I’m concerned I got off lucky. Had the mains been frozen also it could have been a lot worse, maybe even written off the plane.
Just this year coming back from a fishing trip up north on skis I would have used 09-27 without hesitation. When I got to Muskoka the winds were not as predicted. It was a very strong crosswind. Right down 09-27. I had no choice but to land in a strong crosswind when there was no reason to when there was a perfect runway into wind.
I don’t understand why we would even consider building a new runway when there is a perfect one already there. If they are planning on building another runway, why not just use the one we got. The grass needs to be cut anyways.
Steve Hamer
The fact is current airport “management” has delayed development and the resulting jobs for years by presenting council with misinformation.
Development at the airport doesn’t require closure or relocation of the existing grass runway
It never did.
If council was interested in facts, instead of fiction, the new development would have been put beside the existing grass runway instead of on top of it in 2020 and would have been completed and operating ever since.
That was the result of the report council asked for and then ignored. Same result as a previous consultant. Same as pilots have advocated for years.
Council was reminded of this a year ago. Response? Crickets.
Since 2020 councillors understood the value of a second runway and resisted the misinformation from airport management.
Until this week when they finally caved.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
I do not recall in all the time I have known the airport chair that ‘pilot’ is on his resume-how could he make such a blatant misstatement. Why do all major airports have so many different runways and why are some favoured under different weather conditions.
I learned to fly at Muskoka airport and flew in and out in a 150 and 172 for over 25 years and know that the use of the grass strip was not a mark of an ‘incompetent’ pilot but one of a safe responsible pilot.
Some small airports are thriving on small plane activity while Muskoka’s languishes with a delightful museum no one visits because of the lack of other amenities, such as the assurance of a safe runway for landing if the wind changes and convenient snack bar/picnic area.
Unfortunately, like the real estate of Muskoka, only the rich are valued but I have yet to learn of any great increase in commercial or large plane traffic to the benefit of any of the rest of Muskoka.
Sad sad to irretrievably decommission 27- incidentally the #’s refer to the direction of the runway which relates to the wind direction.
Patricia Arney
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
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.