Etobicoke Creek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etobicoke Creek (pronounced [əˈtoʊbəˌkoʊ] listen (help·info)) is one of the many creeks running through Toronto, Ontario and the Toronto Area into Lake Ontario, often characterised by their winding paths through deep ravines and distinctive shale banks.

Etobicoke Creek flows from Caledon, and runs in Brampton and west of the Toronto Pearson International Airport and the industrial area. Its southern section forms a city and county-level boundary, separating Toronto on the east from Mississauga, part of the Regional Municipality of Peel, on the west. Previously the eastern side was part of Etobicoke, which was part of Metropolitan Toronto.

The creek ends in a large recreational area, Marie Curtis Park. It is surrounded by big cliffs and the bottom is solid stone, often covered with smaller rocks. It is full of little fish and crayfish, a sign of purity of water.

[edit] Aircraft accidents

A section of Etobicoke Creek runs close to Toronto's Pearson International Airport, leaving a rugged ravine very close to the west ends of runways 24L and 24R. There have been two major runway overshoot incidents which have resulted aircraft crashing in the ravine.

On 26 June 1978, an Air Canada Douglas DC-9-32, Flight 189, with 107 people on board, overshot runway 24R and crashed into the ravine, destroying the aircraft and killing two of the passengers.

On August 2 2005, an Air France Airbus A340-300, Flight 358, with 309 people on board, skidded off runway 24L into the ravine, and burst into flames. All people on board escaped safely but dozens were injured. One passenger, Roel Bramar, later commented, "We had a hell of a roller-coaster going down the ravine" [1].

The position of the ravine so close to the airport's overrun area has raised some safety concerns among the general public [2]. If the ravine in the path of the runway had been filled in with a culvert and passive safety equipment (such as a level, sand-filled arrestor bed), it is likely that both accidents would have been relatively uneventful, with minimal injury and damage to property. However, such work would probably be very expensive and might face opposition from environmentalists. It remains to be seen whether any landscaping changes will be made following the 2005 accident.