Your runway meets the standard. It still won't work in winter.

16 April 2026

Your charter flight to get workers to your mine site is scheduled to land at 11 AM. Seventy workers are packed and ready to fly home. Seventy more are en route, expecting to land on time and start their rotation. But the snow started falling early this morning, and by the time your ground crew gets out on the strip, there’s a solid 15 centimetres on your 5,000-foot gravel runway. The grader starts working the length of the strip. The problem: your runway is 100 feet wide, and there’s nowhere to push the snow. The grader can’t just blade it to the side and leave banks sitting inside the runway edge lights. Regulations set maximum snowbank heights within the light line, and anything over that puts your runway out of service.

So the crew brings in the blower. The grader pushes, the front loader works the apron and runway ends, and the blower clears the banks the grader leaves behind. Minimum four hours with a two-person crew — one grader operator, one front loader operator. Your 11 AM charter? It’s now a 3 PM charter. Your outgoing crew is burning overtime. Your incoming crew is sitting at the departure airport, waiting. And this will happen again the next time it snows. Which, up here, is often.

The frustrating part? Your runway passed every requirement. It was designed to standard.

It just wasn’t designed for winter.

The standard is correct. It’s also not enough.

Transport Canada’s TP 312 (5th Edition) lays out the design criteria for Canadian airports and aerodromes. For runway width, the standard is based on the Aircraft Group Number, which ties runway dimensions to the physical characteristics of the aircraft using the strip. For the type of aircraft commonly used in FIFO operations, the minimum runway width is 30 metres, or about 100 feet.

That number is technically sound. It accounts for the aircraft’s main gear track width plus appropriate safety margins. It gives crews adequate visual reference to the edge lighting during approach and landing. Against TP 312 as a design reference, 100 feet is the right answer.

But TP 312 is a design standard. It gives engineers the minimum dimensions to get a private aerodrome registered or a public airport approved. It does not tell you what it takes to keep that aerodrome running through five months of subarctic winter with daily flight operations.

The answer doesn’t come from a table in a regulation. It comes from the field.

What actually happens when it snows on a 100-foot strip

When snow falls on your runway, you need to clear the full declared width before you can accept traffic. There are a few reasons for this, and none of them are optional.

First, the edge lighting. Pilots on approach need to see the runway edge lights to maintain visual reference. Regulations specify maximum snowbank heights within the light line. If banks from your clearing operation exceed those limits, the runway is out of service until they’re removed.

Second, the width itself. A 100-foot runway is already the minimum for standard operations. Some operators can land on narrower surfaces, as little as 70 feet, but that’s classified as a narrow runway operation. It requires specific crew training and certification. Not all crews are trained to conduct such operations, nor do all airlines have these provisions in their Standard Operating Procedures. At your remote strip, that means no one is landing until the full 100 feet are cleared and the banks are dealt with.

Here’s the problem with a 100-foot strip: there’s no room on either side. Your grader blades the snow off the runway surface, but it has to push it somewhere. On a strip built to exactly the minimum width, those banks end up sitting inside the runway edge lights. Now you need the blower to come in and remove them entirely before you can reopen.

A full clearing operation on a 5,000-foot by 100-foot runway, with a grader operator and a front loader operator working together, takes a minimum of four hours. That’s pushing the snow, clearing the apron and runway ends with the front loader, and blowing the banks clear of the light line.

Four hours. Every significant snowfall. Before you can accept a single flight.

The math that changes the conversation

Let’s put numbers to this. The figures below are illustrative, based on a real northern runway design, and simplified to make the math clean. The actual economics vary by project, but the pattern holds.

Say your project requires a 5,000-foot gravel runway. You have two options on the table:

A 150-foot-wide strip costs approximately $20 million to build. That covers the earthwork, topsoil clearing, and aggregate production for the gravel surface. This number is based on real design cost estimates.

A 100-foot-wide strip costs less. For this example, we’ll estimate $13 million, roughly a third less. In reality, the savings aren’t perfectly linear since much of the cost is in earthwork and aggregate sourcing regardless of width. The actual savings would likely be less than 33%. But let’s give the budget argument its best case.

The capex difference: $7 million.

Now, the cost of every snow delay:

• $46,200 per event. That’s 70 outgoing workers at $100/hour overtime for 4 hours ($28,000), plus 70 incoming workers waiting at $65/hour for 4 hours ($18,200).

That’s just the salary cost of people not working. It doesn’t account for supply chain disruptions, lost production time, contractor standby charges, or the morale hit of telling your workforce, again, that their flight is four hours late because of snow on the runway. These costs are real, they compound, and they’re hard to recover.

At $46,200 per delay, it takes 152 delayed flights to reach $7 million. That’s the entire capex difference, gone.

Is 152 delays a lot? In southern Canada, maybe. But when your winter season runs from late October through April, five to six months of snow, wind, and blowing conditions, and you’re operating one to three flights per day, it adds up faster than most project teams expect.

With 40 to 60 snow events per winter season, you could hit 152 delayed flights in roughly two to three years of operations. After that, every additional delay is pure loss, money you could have avoided with a wider strip.

The wider strip changes the operation

Here’s what a 150-foot runway gives you in winter. When snow falls, your grader operator clears the center 100 feet first. Clearing 100 feet is the industry minimum to land safely. You can land with snowbanks within the runway lights as long as the lights are still visible and the banks respect maximum height limits. With the extra width, the grader pushes snow to the shoulders on each side, well outside the light line. One operator, roughly two hours.

Your 11 AM charter lands on time. Workers deplane, the outgoing crew boards, the flight departs. Then your ground crew finishes clearing the remaining shoulders before the next flight.

• No four-hour hold.
• No overtime.
• No 70 workers sitting idle at either end of the route.

You’re still clearing the same runway. You’re just not holding your entire operation hostage while you do it.

The operators who’ve figured this out

This isn’t a theoretical argument. The mining companies and operators who have built and run northern aerodromes for years have already landed on wider runways. Not because a regulation told them to, but because operations taught them to.

Look at what’s actually on the ground across the Canadian North:

Agnico Eagle operates two private aerodromes for their mining operations: Meadowbank (CMB2) in Nunavut at 130 feet wide, and Hope Bay (CHB3), also at 130 feet. Baffinland’s Mary River iron ore mine (CMR2) on Baffin Island, one of the most northern mines in the world, has a 150-foot-wide strip. B2Gold’s Goose Lake aerodrome (CGS2), supporting their gold mine in the Kitikmeot region, was built at 130 feet wide. Hydro-Québec’s network of northern aerodromes serving the La Grande complex — CYHH, CYAD, CYAH, and CTU2 — are all 150 feet wide. Even Cambridge Bay (CYCB), a certified airport operated by the Government of Nunavut, runs a 150-foot-wide runway.

Every single one of these operators went wider than the TP 312 minimum. Not by accident, and not because they had budget to burn. They did it because they’ve operated through enough northern winters to know that 100 feet isn’t enough when you need to keep flights moving through snow season.

When every major northern mine operator independently lands on the same number — 130 to 150 feet — you don’t need to guess why. They all operated through enough winters to learn the same lesson.

The takeaway

You can build a runway that satisfies every Transport Canada requirement and still end up with infrastructure that fights you every winter. The $7 million you save on construction can disappear in roughly two to three years of snow delays, paid out at $46,200 a pop in overtime and idle workers.

Transport Canada’s standards are correct. They were never designed to replace operational judgment. A 100-foot strip will meet TC standards. Whether it keeps your flights moving through five months of subarctic winter is a different test — and one that shows up on the schedule, not on the drawings.

To learn more about how CIRRUS Intelligence can help your business, contact us!