PDA

View Full Version : Pearson airport (CYYZ) suffers another close call on a runway


a330pilotcanada
2nd Sep 2017, 01:05
Good Evening All:

Just read this in a old Toronto Star Article and it seems U.S.Regional Crews have the greatest number of incidents.

Is this a training issue, competency or lack of experience in the regional's?

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/15/pearson-airport-suffers-another-close-call-on-a-runway.html

Safety officials are assessing yet another runway incursion at Pearson, similar to a rash of incidents which has already spurred a review of operations at the busy airport.


By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH Ottawa Bureau
Tues., Aug. 15, 2017

OTTAWA—A U.S. regional jet, same runways at Pearson — and a quick radio warning from an air traffic controller to prevent a close call.

Safety officials are probing yet another runway incursion that happened Monday at Canada’s busiest airport, a virtual carbon copy of past incidents that have spurred a review of runway operations by the Transportation Safety Board.

“Again, very similar to the other incursions,” Ewan Tasker, the safety board’s regional manager for air investigations, said Tuesday.

In Monday’s incident, an Embraer 175 regional jet operated by Republic Airline, had landed on runway 24 left about 6:35 p.m. after a flight from Newark, N.J. The jet exited on to a taxiway at the end of the runway and a tower controller gave the pilots instructions to hold short of a parallel runway.

An Air Canada Boeing 787 bound for Zurich was cleared for departure on that parallel runway and began its take-off roll.

But as has happened many times before, the controller, concerned that the jet was going a “little fast” and wasn’t going to stop as instructed, issued fresh instructions, Tasker said.

“Brickyard 3553, please stop there,” the controller said, using the airline’s call sign, according to a recording on the website liveatc.net.

The jet stopped but just past the hold short line that marks the boundary to the protected runway environment. At the time, the Air Canada jet was halfway down the parallel runway, accelerating quickly for take-off, Tasker said.

Even if the regional jet entered the parallel runway, the Air Canada flight was safely airborne by that point, he said.

But Tasker said this latest event drives home the concerns around a recent rash of incursions involving the two parallel runways on the airport’s south side that has prompted the safety board to launch a special review of operations.

During busy periods, aircraft land on the outer runway and then taxi across the inner runway to reach the terminal buildings. But in almost two dozen occasions in recent years, aircraft have failed to stop as instructed on a taxiway.

“The direct risk of collision on this individual event again, not extremely high, but change the circumstances a bit and that severity changes significantly,” Tasker said.

The review is looking at a host of factors — pilot and controller procedures, human factors, airport design — to find ways to minimize the high rate of incursions.

One common factor — underscored by Monday’s incident — is that U.S. regional airlines are overwhelmingly involved in the majority of the incursions.

“That’s definitely something we need to analyze. Why is that? What are the U.S. crews used to? Are they used to something different?” Tasker said.

The fact prompted the head of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to write to regional airlines several years ago to alert them to the problem. The airport also made changes to lighting and pavement markings. “We need to look at how much of an effect that did have. That’s part of the ongoing work,” Tasker said.

In a statement Tuesday, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which operates Pearson, said it was taking additional steps to address the potential risks.

“We are stepping up our efforts with all parties in an attempt to address this situation as quickly as possible,” the statement said.

That includes reaching out to air carriers “to address the role they play in reducing incursions.”

The authority also wants a meeting “as soon as possible” with Nav Canada, to discuss their processes and “ways to heighten awareness with pilots crews in order to reduce incursions,” the authority said in a statement to the Star.

Transport Canada is aware of the incident that prompted the Transportation Safety Board to deploy a team of investigators to Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The department is supporting and cooperating with the Transportation Safety Board in their assessment of the incident and have appointed a minister’s observer who will obtain factual information from the ongoing assessment, identify any issues relevant to the Minister of Transport’s responsibilities, and coordinate the required support during the assessment.

Tasker said it’s certain that the quick intervention of controllers has prevented other runway incursions from happening.

Peter Duffey, president of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, which represents controllers, said such incidents underscore why controllers remain vigilant to ensure pilots are obeying instructions, especially in the fast-paced environment at Pearson.

“The controllers are banging stuff off and yet as that guy rolled off the runway, he saw what was happening when he passed the stop line,” Duffey told the Star.

“That is literally a split second decision and it is because they’re constantly going up and down the runways scanning for that exact sort of thing. It’s just part of what we do,” he said.

FIRESYSOK
2nd Sep 2017, 02:16
Low pay, low morale, weak experience levels.. this could apply to any of the regionals.

Add to that the best and brightest being snapped up by bigger airlines, you have a weakened experience base.

I've seen poor threat-and-error management in regional flight decks mostly because they simply do not know where, and what threats may be laying in wait. Regionals would do well to teach these threats instead of throwing around the term.

YYZ has a distinct difference in parallel runway layout in that there is no parallel taxiway separating 24L/R. LAX has a similar trap. Neither airport may be frequented by regional crews, and again, the threat may not be obvious unless you know it's a threat!

ATC Watcher
2nd Sep 2017, 05:43
Basic old rules, if different people make the same mistake , the problem is not the people. and will not be solved issuing procedures. Change the design.

msbbarratt
2nd Sep 2017, 06:17
That doesn't wash; with most crews other than US regionals having no difficulty, clearly the design is adequate.

DaveReidUK
2nd Sep 2017, 06:50
Even the most poorly-designed systems are likely to be negotiated successfully by a proportion, or even a majority, of pilots.

That doesn't necessarily mean they are well-designed or safe.

KelvinD
2nd Sep 2017, 07:08
Airports everywhere have lots of multi-coloured lights all over the place. Can the runway/taxiway intersection not have a set of traffic lights fitted?

framer
2nd Sep 2017, 08:48
Does it not have stop bars lights?
Pretty hard to cross a row of red lights spanning the width of the taxiway.

Hotel Tango
2nd Sep 2017, 09:00
At a busy airport that will require extra staff which in turn will cost extra $$$. These days managers are more interested in reducing costs as opposed to adding to safety. They have risk assessment meetings. Risk Assessment is yuckspeak for What Can We Get Away With!

cossack
2nd Sep 2017, 16:50
Does it not have stop bars lights?
Pretty hard to cross a row of red lights spanning the width of the taxiway.
You'd think wouldn't you? Lights are on maximum brightness during the day and bright at night.
Hold lines for the inboard runway are apparently further from that runway than at similar US airports and come up quickly. Very tight arrival spacing, high speeds into the exits and very sharp stops all contribute.
We operate this configuration when we have the staff for it and never without.

underfire
2nd Sep 2017, 17:25
In reading the article, I was far more suprised that Air Canada has a 787!

Okay, aside from that, YYZ has been a source of encursions for quite some time, always appearing to make improvements to operations, rather than fix the underlying issues with taxiways.

Hold lines for the inboard runway are apparently further from that runway than at similar US airports and come up quickly. Very tight arrival spacing, high speeds into the exits and very sharp stops all contribute.

Exactly. Operating with the minimum standards, even though meet criteria, do not meet operations or general human factors. Considering human factors, the number of incursions means the prescriptive design does not work.
In runway/taxiway design, it would be best practice to run the design through airline stakeholders, or if nothing else, learn from the issues, and use it.

Much the same as roadway design, it may work on paper and be approved, but the public driving habits will show you how minimums work.

We operate this configuration when we have the staff for it and never without.

Why does the design or system require extra staffing to operate?

To lighten this up, "Please stop" is a yield sign..."Stop" is a stop sign!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pearson-runway-incursions-1.4249097

Basil
2nd Sep 2017, 17:56
"Follow the greens to . . . "
and, in a previous life: "Radar to PAR for . . . "
Aahh when there were lots of lovely people to look after us :ok:

ATC Watcher
2nd Sep 2017, 18:56
msbbarrat : That doesn't wash; with most crews other than US regionals having no difficulty, clearly the design is adequate.

That is not was the TSB report says and no it does not mean the design is adequate, quite the opposite in fact.
The reported incursions are only the top of the iceberg.

Question:
Some safety minding Countries are publishing taxi hot spots and error prone areas by putting Caution warnings and boxes on their Aerodrome charts.
( example : EHBK from their AIP )
Does Canada do the same ? If yes, is this particular point marked on CYYZ chart ?

cossack
2nd Sep 2017, 18:59
Why does the design or system require extra staffing to operate?
We have an extra controller plugged in monitoring for correct readbacks and adherence. They also operate the stopbars. The two runways have a throughput of about 80/hour.
This runway has been operational for about 15 years so why has it become more of a problem in the last two even after more paint and more awareness?

cossack
2nd Sep 2017, 19:04
Some safety minding Countries are publishing taxi hot spots and error prone areas by putting Caution warnings and boxes on their Aerodrome charts.
( example : EHBK from their AIP )
Does Canada do the same ? If yes, is this particular point marked on CYYZ chart ?
Yes these are marked on the charts as hot spots.
One of the suggestions from the TSB has been the insertion of a parallel taxiway in between these runways. From edge to edge, they are only 800 feet apart so inserting a parallel taxiway in between will be tight and will require a 90 degree turn just after entering the RET. How many will be able to make this turn?
IMHO I believe aircraft will just roll out longer to ensure they are at a slower speed entering the RET and when ATC reduces the arrival rate, the airlines will complain about the delays. Safety is paramount but the airlines don't like the delays that it sometimes costs.
They should have built 05R/23L first and this wouldn't have been an issue as taxiway H will be in between with lots of space.

ATC Watcher
2nd Sep 2017, 20:04
Thank Cossack, understand better now. make sense. Plus ,creating 90 degr turns are not popular anymore, the more so at large airports, because of runway capacity. :hmm:

framer
2nd Sep 2017, 20:13
You'd think wouldn't you? Lights are on maximum brightness during the day and bright at night.
So there are stop bars ( red lights spanning the width of taxiway) and they are operating when these incursions occur?

cossack
2nd Sep 2017, 20:26
Yes sir! And the incursions occur after a correct readback of the "hold short" instruction.

framer
3rd Sep 2017, 02:57
Well I'll be...... thanks for the info. I find that hard to imagine ....guess I better watch myself now that I've said that!

Kewbick
4th Sep 2017, 03:18
Hmm...thinkin' about those hold lights and the preponderance of regional carriers being involved in the runway incursions at CYYZ. Could it possibly be a cockpit height to runway/taxiway surface issue? i.e. regional carriers operate somewhat smaller, thereby lower cockpit/runway height ratio than the larger aircraft types. Just pondering... perhaps over time due to FOD, et al, the reduction in brilliance of the lights would have a greater effect to regional type (smaller/lower) aircraft than larger type aircraft? In other words, "the higher you are, the more you can see"...

Just throwin' it out there so you'all can shoot it down.

Decades ago, as a novice Cessna 185 pilot landing at CYYC, (yes, Calgary), at night for the first time, whilst taxiing on seemingly endless flat land, I was momentarily overwhelmed by the myriad of blue taxiway lights. Mesmerizing, to say the least. I took a brief turn into the grass.. Several years later when I flew right-seat for a now defunct regional carrier on a "huge" Dash-7, I had no trouble with the sea of taxiway lights. Stop bars were not yet invented.

paradoxbox
4th Sep 2017, 09:06
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.

if i had things my way:
Air Canada 1 hold short rwy 22.
(readback)
Commutair 3 taxi via XYZ (hold short rwy 22)
(silence)
(Commutair 3 taxis across the runway obliviously)
Air Canada 1 cleared for takeoff (watch for jetblast from idiotliner 3)

definitely slower but it is safer. runway intersections are a safety hazard, IMO aircraft should never be planning to enter 2 intersecting runways at the same time which means we shouldn't be giving takeoff clearances unless the potential conflict aircraft has been confirmed by ATC as being stopped first.

cossack
4th Sep 2017, 15:19
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.
Like I said earlier, these incursions occur after a correct read back of the hold short instruction. What are these crews doing between reading back a hold short instruction and crossing the hold line? They should both be eyes out looking for the hold line. If they are doing checklists then that is an issue and a dangerous distraction.

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.

Annex14
4th Sep 2017, 16:35
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

cossack
4th Sep 2017, 17:50
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.

J.O.
4th Sep 2017, 23:49
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.

cappt
28th Nov 2017, 16:23
http://avherald.com/h?article=4b17d346&opt=0

Another near miss in Canada.