Pearson airport (CYYZ) suffers another close call on a runway
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think that takeoff clearances should only be issued when an aircraft requiring a runway crossing is STOPPED.
this kind of incident happens all the time all over the world. the causes are plenty - the crew didn't hear the call, didn't realize it was addressed to them, or maybe they were busy doing after landing checks, etc. etc. none of it is really excusable for unprofessional conduct but we all have to work in the interest of safety to prevent idiots from causing accidents.
this kind of incident happens all the time all over the world. the causes are plenty - the crew didn't hear the call, didn't realize it was addressed to them, or maybe they were busy doing after landing checks, etc. etc. none of it is really excusable for unprofessional conduct but we all have to work in the interest of safety to prevent idiots from causing accidents.
Your suggestion would result in a movement rate less than what could be achieved mixed mode on a single runway.
Eye height is a consideration as many of the incursions were CRJ or ERJ135/145. Recently they are including E175s which are a bit higher.
The runway hold lines have the regular yellow hold lines, enhanced runway proximity markings, wig wags (runway guard lights to give them their correct title) and a brightly illuminated red stop bar. The only thing other than a physical barrier that can stop the aircraft crossing the line is the actions of the crew.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cramped layout
Cossak, allow me as an Dinosauer in ATC and some 20+ years as consultant on my shoulders that, by no means, I do envy you trying to keep the flag flying for ATC. This is indeed a strange story.
However, looking at the map and reading about distances between the two runways and the rwy width, it is very clear that the basic fault was made locating that outer parallel runway too close to the inner one many years ago!!.
It might have worked if the freeway would have been sunk in a tunnel and the gained space used for a more distant installation. Now, the two rwy safety strips - applying ICAO rules - are just separated by 5 meters.
So, no independent ILS approaches or departures!! Very limited possibilities for a stepped separation on final, if ever used with parallel landings.
Excuse me if I am "stirring cold soup", but why not land on the inner and take off on the outer RWY ?? the crossing traffic you will have in both cases.
Finally, how in heaven someone can come with the idea of a central taxiway in that environment blows my mind. Any aircraft on that - projected - central taxiway would have penetrated with its wings the protected space of the RWY safety strips and in addition form a temporary obstacle inside the transitional obstacle clearance sufaces of both runways, especially fuselage and the vertical fin . Consequence ? >> higher DH and DA !!
May be that your assumption of a type relevance is correct, but based on experience I tend more to the picture of an otherwise busy, probably time stressed crew. What I see on the maps and aerial photo confirms that very obvious the standards of marking and signaling are there!!
Jo
However, looking at the map and reading about distances between the two runways and the rwy width, it is very clear that the basic fault was made locating that outer parallel runway too close to the inner one many years ago!!.
It might have worked if the freeway would have been sunk in a tunnel and the gained space used for a more distant installation. Now, the two rwy safety strips - applying ICAO rules - are just separated by 5 meters.
So, no independent ILS approaches or departures!! Very limited possibilities for a stepped separation on final, if ever used with parallel landings.
Excuse me if I am "stirring cold soup", but why not land on the inner and take off on the outer RWY ?? the crossing traffic you will have in both cases.
Finally, how in heaven someone can come with the idea of a central taxiway in that environment blows my mind. Any aircraft on that - projected - central taxiway would have penetrated with its wings the protected space of the RWY safety strips and in addition form a temporary obstacle inside the transitional obstacle clearance sufaces of both runways, especially fuselage and the vertical fin . Consequence ? >> higher DH and DA !!
May be that your assumption of a type relevance is correct, but based on experience I tend more to the picture of an otherwise busy, probably time stressed crew. What I see on the maps and aerial photo confirms that very obvious the standards of marking and signaling are there!!
Jo
Last edited by Annex14; 4th Sep 2017 at 16:42. Reason: missing sentence
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why they decided on building this runway there either. That's before my time here. There are plans to build another one (05R/23L) between taxiways H & N extending south west from N5. Why this wasn't done first, I don't know.
Why weren't there that many incursions in the first 10 years? Don't know that either.
In the last 5 years there have been 25+ incursions. The TSB are the ones considering the parallel taxiway in between the south parallels, but as I said earlier, I don't believe it will help at all.
Sinking the highway into a tunnel would have been a massive undertaking. This section of the 401 is 14 lanes wide and is often at a standstill. Imagine the impact on road traffic if such a tunnel were to be constructed.
Departing from the outer while landing on the inner: I have mused on this one in the past. It can be done but the crossing traffic would pass in front of the glide slope antenna. We could promulgate approaches with no glide slope and/or restrict such ops to above certain weather limits. The outer runway is about 600' shorter than the inner which would cause some crews to request a longer runway. This is already often the case, but it would increase.
I too am a bit of a dinosaur (30 years in) and in the 5 years or so I have left I just hope that this worrying trend doesn't result in an accident.
Why weren't there that many incursions in the first 10 years? Don't know that either.
In the last 5 years there have been 25+ incursions. The TSB are the ones considering the parallel taxiway in between the south parallels, but as I said earlier, I don't believe it will help at all.
Sinking the highway into a tunnel would have been a massive undertaking. This section of the 401 is 14 lanes wide and is often at a standstill. Imagine the impact on road traffic if such a tunnel were to be constructed.
Departing from the outer while landing on the inner: I have mused on this one in the past. It can be done but the crossing traffic would pass in front of the glide slope antenna. We could promulgate approaches with no glide slope and/or restrict such ops to above certain weather limits. The outer runway is about 600' shorter than the inner which would cause some crews to request a longer runway. This is already often the case, but it would increase.
I too am a bit of a dinosaur (30 years in) and in the 5 years or so I have left I just hope that this worrying trend doesn't result in an accident.
I've experienced operating around those runways in everything from a DHC8 to an A330 and the hold lines and stop bars were equally visible from all of them.
