Pilot manoeuvre averted disaster at Pearson

[Gulfstreamaviator]

no one gets hurt......ask PAN AM v KLM....wtf

[RealWing]

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada and American Airlines are investigating a near-collision on a Pearson International Airport runway that forced an Air Canada pilot into manoeuvres to avoid disaster.
Air traffic controllers ordered an American Eagle commuter plane (http://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/eagleOverview.jsp)to “stop, stop, stop” as it meandered onto a runway where the Air Canada Airbus was taking off on Nov. 18.

The 50-seat American Eagle Embraer EMB-145 (http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main? id=198)commuter plane had just landed on a flight from Chicago at 11:27 p.m. on runway 24L, the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Report (http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/CADORS-SCREAQ/m.aspx? lang=eng) said.
Air traffic controllers told the pilots to move off the runway at the Delta 4 exit and stay off the runway, the report said.
“The flight crew read back the instruction correctly,” report author John Donaldson said.
A 120-seat Air Canada Airbus 319 (http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/a319-100xm.html)headed for Halifax was moving down runway 24R. An air traffic controller saw the American Eagle “passing the hold line and stop bars” and ordered, “Stop. Stop. Stop.”
The commuter plane kept going and stopped partially on the runway, the report said. The flight crew contacted the tower with the words, “Say again.”
The Air Canada pilot “rotated around taxiway Delta 2 and overflew” the commuter plane in its way, the report said.
Toronto News: Pilot manoeuvre averted disaster at Pearson - thestar.com (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1092646--pilot-maneuver-averted-disaster-at-pearson?bn=1)

[eastern wiseguy]

Basil ....agreed......were both aircraft on the same frequency or was a GMC frequency being employed?







should be post 14 after Basil:ugh:

[bubbers44]

Kind of sounds like another nonevent since he only infringed on the runway and was probably over 50 ft when he got to where the commuter plane was. and could have banked a bit if he thought it would be a problem. It is kind of like driving a car down a highway. Sometimes drivers don't do the right thing but it doesn't mean you are going to die if you react properly.

[BobnSpike]

Yeah. No big deal. Nobody ever gets hurt in runway incursions because collisions are so easy to avoid. Just pull up and turn. Works every time.

[jackieofalltrades]

Yeah. No big deal. Nobody ever gets hurt in runway incursions because collisions are so easy to avoid. Just pull up and turn. Works every time.

Winner of this year's Most Idiotic Comment

[yokebearer]

Jackieofalltrades obviously understanding sarcasm isn't one of your trades...?

[grounded27]

Seems to be something missing here. Another aspect, once an aircraft enters a runway (non commanded) would not the logical command from tower be to expidite position and clear RWY?

[BusyB]

"Winner of this year's Most Idiotic Comment"

I think it came second:ugh:

[India Four Two]

grounded27,

Re "missing", see the original post. The Stop command was issued when ATC saw the Embraer cross the hold and stop bars.

[FlexibleResponse]

Air traffic controllers told the pilots to move off the runway at the Delta 4 exit and stay off the runway, the report said.

Hmmm...that's sounds bit ambiguous and probably just newspaper interpretation?

I would like to think that ATC said something like, "Vacate runway (24L) at Delta 4 and hold short of runway 24R".

[J.O.]

The Eagle crew read back an instruction to hold short of 24R. What I want to know is if ATC were using the red stop bars. They've always been in use in the past year or two so it will be interesting to learn if they were lit at the time. I crossed a stop bar during a simulator LOFT session recently. If I'd have been the instructor, I'd have smacked me on the back of the head. :ouch: Glad I got to learn that lesson in the sim. :O

P.S. What's going on with this board? Postings are all over the place and completely out of order??? Looks like it's a clocking problem. I posted this 8 hours after it says I did ...

[Skittles]

Whilst no doubt it was very confusing, it's the kind of thing that you'll rarely condition out of someone.

I.e. Whilst you could train a pilot to react to both engines falling off with a calm 'Captain, it seems both of our engines have fallen off,' the likelihood is that no matter how hard you ingrain it in them you'd still hear a 'BLOODY BUGGERY THE POWER WHATSITS HAVE GONE'

[Basil]

“Stop. Stop. Stop.”
Bally heck! I hope that's not what ATC transmitted to a taxying a/c as another was on the roll.

[jackieofalltrades]

Jackieofalltrades obviously understanding sarcasm isn't one of your trades...?

No, never did get sarcasm. Isn't it the lowest form of wit?

[lomapaseo]

No, never did get sarcasm. Isn't it the lowest form of wit?

yup, but still one step above negative personal replies :)

[BobnSpike]

The International Sarcasm Society: Like we really need your support.

Highest functions of brain produce lowest form of wit | Science | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/23/psychology.science)

[RAT 5]

If both were on same freq', and the airbus heard "stop stop stop" I wonder how close they were to an RTO?

[Northbeach]

The toughest part of the job is getting to the jet, then into the left seat and the jet off the gate and to the departure runway. The second toughest part of the job is getting the jet off the runway after landing and back to the gate.

Most of my exposure to really "bad stuff" takes place during those two events. It's frightening how fast things can go from benign and routine to career and life threatening in this field.


Take care out there as you move the metal; as "it is always a test"
It will be interesting to know how long the RJ crew had been on duty

Respectfully,

Northbeach

[Espada III]

Rather surprised at the use of the runways. Given the staggered arrangement, would have assumed that landings would be on 24R and takeoffs on 24L. Such an arrangement works in MAN.

Had they used this arrangement, perhaps incident may have been avoided? There is not such a difference in length to make one more favourable over the other for T/O. Anyone know why they they do the opposite?

[cossack]

This is so full of newspaper inaccuracies.

Yes the stop bars were in use and the red bar was illuminated.
The EGF exited at D4 and correctly readback the hold short instruction.
The ACA flight on 24R was rolling at the time.
EGF crossed the hold line/stopbar and tower prefixed the "stop,stop stop" transmission with it's callsign.
EGF stopped and asked "say again"
ACA was airborne just before EGF entered 24R and overflew him by at least 200 feet.
No avoiding action was requested of or performed by ACA.

Landings are on the outboard runway because crossing at the threshold, aircraft would pass in front of the ILS GP aerial on their way to the outboard runway.

The stagger in Toronto is very small at the 24 end and non-existant at the 06 end. Manchester's stagger is a mile. I have worked at both airports.

[bubbers44]

If he overflew the the plane over the hold line by over 200 ft wouldn't you call that a non event not worthy of a news report?

[cossack]

I don't know the exact timing of:
a)when the departure rotated and;
b)when EGF crossed the hold line,
but I'm fairly sure a) preceded b).

It was a runway incursion which could have had a much different outcome had a heavier aircraft been departing and the timing been a fraction different.

Is a runway incursion in general newsworthy? Not my call, but anything that brings safety to the forefront is good, unless it is sensationalized and devoid of facts so as not to be believable.

[bubbers44]

Runway incursions should not happen but they ocasionally do. Pilots watch for them and react accordingly so even if it happens they take appropriate actions to prevent a problem. We had a Lear Jet landing where crossing runway traffic was instructed to go around and didn't. We ended up cockeyed on the runway using max braking when I yelled at my buddy stop this MF now and he did and held short. A Lear Jet can stop in 2,500ft by the way.
Pilots can usually figure a way to get out of a bad situation so give them some credit when things are going to hell. If there is a way out they will find it if they know what they are doing.

If you just go by the rules hoping everybody else is doing what they should and not protecting yourself, you are in trouble.

[cossack]

If you're going 100kt+ 2/3 of the way down the runway and someone tries to cross in front, your options are limited. Too fast to stop, too slow to fly.

We have safety procedures (stop bars, read backs) and personnel (monitoring controller) in place to mitigate as many of the risks as possible, but sometimes someone just messes up. We protect ourself and our users as best we can.

[TurningFinals]

People DO die in runway incursions... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/27/newsid_2531000/2531063.stm)

[cossack]

I'm splitting hairs here but the definition of runway incursion I'm used to:

"Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft."

In Tenerife both aircraft were correctly authorised to be on the runway at the time. The accident occurred when the Captain of the KLM flight decided they would take off even though they didn't have a clearance while PanAm was still trying to find the exit in the fog.

A horrible accident indeed but not by this definition, a runway incursion.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion)

[BobnSpike]

http://www.airlinesafety.com/temp/7.jpgMilan, 2001

[TurboTomato]

Sadly, a friend of mine was on that SAS plane at Linate.

[Johnny767]

At least everyone on the Frequency, were speaking ONE Language.

The International Language of Aviation

A case for "Situational Awareness!"

[bubbers44]

Tenerife was a horrible event. Somehow KLM thought they were cleared for take off but the runway was not cleared because of the poor visibility. It shouldn't have happened and it probably will never happen again.

In Seattle one day with about 100 ft visibility we ferried a 737 out of Seattle and had to do a very slow taxi using compass across the ramp to backtrack on the active runway. A 747 in position turned his landing lights on as we neared him at the end to see him and turn around for take off. The tower was calling out distances to him for us also. My last airline wouldn't allow us to do that even empty.

[iceman50]

Bubbers44

In Seattle one day with about 100 ft visibility we ferried a 737 out of Seattle

So which cowboy outfit was that?

My last airline wouldn't allow us to do that even empty.

A very sensible airline!

I suppose someone getting lost and encroaching on your runway would not have been a big deal then either.:ugh:

[Say Again, Over!]

Johnny767,

With respect: what a load of baloney! Yeah, it's a good thing the EGF crew were english speakers. They really were aware, weren't they? <= Sarcasm

And what are you implying? That if the ACA crew had been french speaking or spanish or whatever they wouldn't have seen EGF and would have come closer to hitting them?

Some people seem to think that accidents (or incidents) wouldn't happen if everyone spoke the same language. This event in YYZ just goes to show how lame this debate is. The EGF crew heard and read-back the instruction to hold-short (thereby misleading the ACA crew who obviously understood that transmission) and they must also have heard the ACA crew get take-off clearance and yet...

Nope, language had nothing to do with saving this. Vigilance by ATC and by the ACA crew was the key.

SAO

[Johnny767]

There's a surprise, it is a load of baloney - to someone from "la belle province."

As I am on the take-off roll, at 100 kts, and I hear the tower transmitting to an aircraft to "stop."

Guess what - I am getting the drift that something is UP.

But hey, brought to you by the same group that sue Airlines if they can't get their coffee served in French.

[Say Again, Over!]

As I am on the take-off roll, at 100 kts, and I hear the tower transmitting to an aircraft to "stop."

You're assuming the aircraft involved would be on the same frequency at all times. More often than not, an aircraft crossing an active runway would be on ground freq. Are you saying that for the sake of situational awareness all YYZ traffic should be on one frequency?

And I think that while you obviously put a lot pride in your situational awareness and that it must indeed be a pleasure to work with pilots like you (no sarcasm here) since you do try to get the big picture, the majority, like the EGF crew, aren't aware enough of their surroundings to get an added value to having only one language on the freq.

I apologize for the confrontational tone of my original post. As I do work in a bilingual environment, it's something I'm intimate with and I see so much lack of SA from aircrew that, to me, the one language thing is but a drop in the bucket of flight safety.

Cheers,

Felix T

[jackieofalltrades]

More often than not, an aircraft crossing an active runway would be on ground freq. Are you saying that for the sake of situational awareness all YYZ traffic should be on one frequency?

I've never been to Montreal tower, so can't comment on procedures there, but in the UK, whenever an aircraft is to cross an active runway it is always transferred to the frequency of the Air Controller for that runway. Even if it is just for that brief journey from the holding point one side of the runway to vacating the opposite side. It is then transferred to the appropriate Ground Controller.

Having all traffic on one frequency would be nonsensical at a busy airport such as CYYZ. However, having aircraft due to cross, and hence potentially infringe an active runway, it does make sense to be on the same frequency.

[Say Again, Over!]

That's a good point jackieofalltrades and I do believe it was tried, or is done in CYYZ. The purpose is not, however, to effect safety by having crews on the same frequency but rather by removing the element of coordination between the ground and tower controllers.

Felix T

[cossack]

Traffic landing on 06R/24L is retained on tower frequency until crossed over 06L/24R. Those who change of their own volition in between the runways are sent back to tower.

Elsewhere on the airport, aircraft and vehicles are retained on ground frequencies and active runway crossings are coordinated.

[jackieofalltrades]

I was wondering about 24L/R(06R/L) at CYYZ. Does the same controller oversee both runways, or is there a separate frequency for Left and Right?

[cossack]

Same controller for both runways with a "monitor" controller plugged in as well. The runways are very close - 1000 feet centreline to centreline, with not much taxiway space in between.

05/23 has a separate controller.

[jacek_flying]

Aircraft using 06(L/R) or 24 (L/R) are together on one TWR freq which I believe is 118.350 could be mistaken and aircraft using 05/23 are on another freq which I believe is 118.700

[thermostat]

Interesting to know that they now keep aircraft on the tower freq until it has crossed 24R. Some years ago that was NOT the case. I remember being kept on the "ground" freq when taxiing from the hangar southwest of 24 trying to cross 24 to get to the terminal. It was so stupid. You would be waiting on a landing AC to cross in front of you so you could continue to cross the active and taxi to the gate. But because the landing AC was on "tower" freq and we were on "ground" freq it took a while for the tower man to OK the crossing with the "ground" man. By that time another AC would be on short final and the wait would continue. I never understood this as at other airports you would be kept on "tower" until clear of any active runway.
24L is 9000 ft or 9500 ft. It's the one that Air France had the overrun on some years ago. 24R is longer.

[jackieofalltrades]

24L is 9,040 ft, 24R is 9,500 ft in length. It was off 24L that the Air France A340 skidded into the ravine and crashed.

[cossack]

Interesting to know that they now keep aircraft on the tower freq until it has crossed 24R. Some years ago that was NOT the case. I remember being kept on the "ground" freq when taxiing from the hangar southwest of 24 trying to cross 24 to get to the terminal. It was so stupid. You would be waiting on a landing AC to cross in front of you so you could continue to cross the active and taxi to the gate.
By some years ago, I think you mean more than 10 years ago, before the present 06R/24L was built. As I said earlier, all active runway crossings are still done on the ground frequency EXCEPT after landing 06R/24L you will be kept on the tower frequency until across 06L/24R.
But because the landing AC was on "tower" freq and we were on "ground" freq it took a while for the tower man to OK the crossing with the "ground" man. By that time another AC would be on short final and the wait would continue. I never understood this as at other airports you would be kept on "tower" until clear of any active runway.
The reason you didn't get a crossing clearance isn't because you were on different frequencies its because there either wasn't enough space between the arrivals or there were other higher priority tasks going.

If ground doesn't give you the cross, why would you think tower would be any different? Its his call.

As an aside, AFR landed on 24L because it was the only runway available that hadn't had its ILS knocked out by lightning from the 3 hour+ thunderstorm. The length of the runway would have been more than sufficient had the aircraft landed in the touchdown zone.