Two aircraft on same runway in Toronto

[YRP]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d4a7b67 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d4a7b67&opt=0)

I wonder how close they got. Sounds like a not great situation, eventually caught by one of the crews.

[Jet Jockey A4]

I really don't get it.

First, rejecting for a bird strike at 135kts? Surely they must have been past V1 at that speed.

Second, don't you all look out ahead of you when cleared onto a runway especially when another aircraft was cleared for takeoff prior to you? Don't you visually check that the runway is clear of all traffic before you increase the power?

[ottorot8]

At busy airports, it's quite common ( and perfectly legal ) to have one aircraft well down the runway when takeoff clearance is given to a second aircraft on the same runway. Sounds like maybe the abort call from the first jet might have been blocked by the second jet acknowledging their takeoff clearance.

[ATC Watcher]

Yes , Go-arounds and rejected take offs can mess up a well oiled departure sequence ..nothing new. add a crossed transmission and here you go. An investigation yes, dangerous , no.
Again confusing VMC with VFR, also nothing new, but did not expect it from the AvHerald

[the_stranger]

An investigation yes, dangerous , no.

Well, this whole system, or at least this instance all depends on the second aircraft to actually are what the first one is doing.
It's the last hole in the swiss cheese. I can imagine a day with fine weather but a wet runway from earlier rain, with the preceeding aircraft blowing all the water behind him, creating a local mist. That might obscure the RTO Just long enough so the second aircraft can't stop in time.
A heavy 777 needs way more runway to stop than an e190.

I'm not saying it is dangerous, but not saying it should be normal, but hopefully the Investigation will look into this.

[VariablePitchP]

Yes , Go-arounds and rejected take offs can mess up a well oiled departure sequence ..nothing new. add a crossed transmission and here you go. An investigation yes, dangerous , no.
Again confusing VMC with VFR, also nothing new, but did not expect it from the AvHerald

Have you read it, that seems ridiculously dangerous! An embraer will stop from 135kts a fair quicker than a 777 will stop from 110kts...

The second aircraft should only be cleared as the controller sees the first get airborne, this is pretty basic I would have thought!

Does show how useful AI can be though, go around alarms exist, as do FOD radars etc. Would be easy you’d think to install RTO sensors to give the controller a heads up.

[tigerinthenight]

An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FMZW performing flight AC-1037 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Denver,CO (USA) with 87 people on board, was cleared for takeoff from Toronto's runway 06L under visual flight rules.

Unlikely, I should think.

[ATC Watcher]

variable pitchP : The second aircraft should only be cleared as the controller sees the first get airborne, this is pretty basic is think
Yes in Europe but not in the US where the 6000 ft rule applies ( you can clear an a/c to take off provided the preceding has passed the 6000 ft mark)
Most of the Canadian ATC rules are based on US ones , although I am not sure in this particular case it they are exactly the same .Someone from Canada can confirm or infirm that.

[Austrian Simon]

Yes , Go-arounds and rejected take offs can mess up a well oiled departure sequence ..nothing new. add a crossed transmission and here you go. An investigation yes, dangerous , no.
Again confusing VMC with VFR, also nothing new, but did not expect it from the AvHerald

Thanks for your comment, when I saw it, I was convinced I had correctly replicated the statement of the TSB, but looked it up again and found, I obviously had not read beyond the "visual" and assumed the rest. TSB had written "visual departure procedures" ... Corrected by now. Entirely my error indeed.

Servus, Simon

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks Simon , always very professional as usual :ok: do not worry you are not the first one that writes VFR instead of VMC and will not be the last one ...;)

[VariablePitchP]

variable pitchP :
Yes in Europe but not in the US where the 6000 ft rule applies ( you can clear an a/c to take off provided the preceding has passed the 6000 ft mark)
Most of the Canadian ATC rules are based on US ones , although I am not sure in this particular case it they are exactly the same .Someone from Canada can confirm or infirm that.

Wow. If I was sat 6,001ft down the runway, stopped, its legal to let a 777 get airborne over me. Please tell me I’m not the only one that finds that utterly bonkers?

[Check Airman]

The second aircraft should only be cleared as the controller sees the first get airborne, this is pretty basic is think.


While that makes perfect sense, it’d slow operation to a crawl at most large US airports.

[Dave Gittins]

As a British PPL I am used to only ever being clear to land or take-off from a completely clear runway that is "mine". It does un-nerve me occasionally, because I do fly a bit in the USA, that I can be cleared to use a runway that somebody else is already occupying. "Cleared" has a number of definitions.

[ATC Watcher]

As a British PPL I am used to only ever being clear to land or take-off from a completely clear runway that is "mine". It does un-nerve me occasionally, because I do fly a bit in the USA, that I can be cleared to use a runway that somebody else is already occupying. "Cleared" has a number of definitions.
Well it is because in the USA the runway is not " yours", it generally belong to the airport, ad they want to make max use of it .:)
I also fly regularly in the States and , yes it is different , but it works extremely well and better than in most other countries, especially VFR. If you want to see not 2 but 3 aircraft landing on the same runway come to Oshkosh ..

VariablePitchP : Wow. If I was sat 6,001ft down the runway, stopped, No you would be well above 100 Kts by then ...are you a pilot ?

[cossack]

I was not involved but:

No 6000 foot rule in Canada;
Departures were IFR using pilot applied visual departure separation;
It is the norm to start issuing the subsequent take off clearance before the preceding is airborne timing the "cleared for take off" as the nose wheel lifts. In this case the timing was a little off and the B77W (very light going the 45 minutes to Montreal) was quickly out of the blocks and the E190 rejected from a high speed;
I doubt both aircraft "accelerated... at same time."
.
Not trying to shift blame but why did it take so long for the B77W to realize that the E190 that they were visual with wasn't in the air where it was supposed to be?

[standbykid]

Having watched takeoffs from CYYZ I know they don't waste much time between aircraft, I think this is perfectly plausible.
I may be misremembering, but I'm sure I've seen aircraft B start its roll before aircraft A lifts off.

[YRP]

This is new to me, the rule that allows clearance when the preceding aircraft is still on the runway. I'm surprised: yes it would save much efficiency but what about, choosing a random example :), exactly what happened here?

I would have thought it would up the "pucker" factor for the controllers and they'd be closely watching the departing plane for what happens. It's ok to run a tight one that you have to watch once in a while, but day in day out, I'd think it not so safe.

Anyway, it sounds like that isn't what happened here, if the 6000' rule is US only. Here someone just anticipated the nose wheel off. What surprises me is not snapping to a quick reaction when the E-190 calls reject. Perhaps confirmation bias on the controller, took a moment to clue in.

[tcasblue]

Have you read it, that seems ridiculously dangerous! An embraer will stop from 135kts a fair quicker than a 777 will stop from 110kts...


What evidence do you have to support this?

[VariablePitchP]

What evidence do you have to support this?

There’s a reason 777s don’t fly from London City...

[4runner]

I really don't get it.

First, rejecting for a bird strike at 135kts? Surely they must have been past V1 at that speed.

Second, don't you all look out ahead of you when cleared onto a runway especially when another aircraft was cleared for takeoff prior to you? Don't you visually check that the runway is clear of all traffic before you increase the power?

you’re not a jet pilot and you’re not an airline pilot. Until such time as you are, ask questions instead of statements aimed at disparaging your fellow and more experienced aviation brethren.

[KKoran]

variable pitchP :
Yes in Europe but not in the US where the 6000 ft rule applies ( you can clear an a/c to take off provided the preceding has passed the 6000 ft mark)
Most of the Canadian ATC rules are based on US ones , although I am not sure in this particular case it they are exactly the same .Someone from Canada can confirm or infirm that.
US rules require the preceding aircraft be at least 6,000 ft. and airborne if either aircraft is Category III . Lesser distances for Category I and II aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

you’re not a jet pilot

I think you'll find he is, unless you're suggesting he's lying on his profile.

[prickly]

you’re not a jet pilot and you’re not an airline pilot. Until such time as you are, ask questions instead of statements aimed at disparaging your fellow and more experienced aviation brethren.
Jet A4's points are perfectly reasonable, I didn't see any statements, just QUESTIONS with the appropriate question marks.

But your post points to a deeper problem that we thought had long since disappeared in this age of CRM. Firstly so many assumptions, "you're not a jet pilot", "you're not an airline pilot" and remember "making an ass out of you and me" . Most of all it's the old Chestnut, yield to my superior experience and shut up that makes you dangerous.

And yes, who the hell rejects a take-off at 135 knots for a bird strike.

[Pugilistic Animus]

"And yes, who the hell rejects a take-off at 135 knots for a bird strike."

SSG :}

[tcasblue]

Have you read it, that seems ridiculously dangerous! An embraer will stop from 135kts a fair quicker than a 777 will stop from 110kts...

What evidence do you have to support this?

There’s a reason 777s don’t fly from London City...

I am not sure that I would consider this as convincing evidence of your blanket statement that an Embraer will stop more quickly(ie deceleration rate) than a 777. Taking it to an extreme, does your blanket statement include a fully loaded Embraer versus a lightly loaded 777(which was possibly the case here as the 777 was only on a 2 hour flight).

As well, the 777 has a lot more brakes than an Embraer(12 versus 4). I wonder if both aircraft at max weight would have the same(or almost the same) deceleration rate from 135 knots. Maybe your original statement is correct, but ability to land in London City is not the evidence I was looking for.

[Pugilistic Animus]

H"NS (Canada) with 359 people on board, to taxi into position and hold on runway 06L."

They still say "into position and hold" instead of "line up and wait?"

[Pugilistic Animus]

Doing this is tantamount to LAHSO operations i.e only seems good on paper not real life

[Hot 'n' High]

As a British PPL I am used to only ever being clear to land or take-off from a completely clear runway that is "mine".......

DG, depends where you fly in the UK as I've had "land afters" quite frequently over the years in the UK, including the odd one or two when line flying, and, when instructing, have always made sure my students know what to consider when accepting such clearances and when it may be prudent not to take up the offer. Generally, a very useful tool to keep things moving on a busy day esp at mixed fields.

Best one tho was a very pragmatic French ATCO who gave me a "land over [the one which had slithered to a halt after shedding a MLG tyre on touchdown]" clearance! With a vast length of runway after the crippled aircraft, the fact the voiture de pompiers was already at the scene, the 6 or so pax were all clearly gathered beside the wreck on the runway and vis was perfect down the runway just in case someone else was driving out to take a look-see, a quick sidestep so as not to fly directly over the scene before regaining the C/L at very short "displaced" final made life so much easier all round! :ok:

Cheers, H 'n' H

[Check Airman]

Doing this is tantamount to LAHSO operations i.e only seems good on paper not real life

What’s wrong with LAHSO?

[Pugilistic Animus]

What’s wrong with LAHSO?
It just always seemed like a bad idea...it just takes a moment's lapse in concentration in order to cause a huge accident...I was never comfortable with it.
It's not about safety it's only about keeping the RWYs hot

[misd-agin]

There’s a reason 777s don’t fly from London City...
Get them light enough and you'd be impressed. Full power takeoff the other day, in a light w/b, and the acceleration was very impressive. My PR is a 757 and 27 degrees of pitch, and accelerating, at V2+ a bunch. Or a 767-300 doing 6000+ FPM out of 10,000'. Light w/b's are impressive at full power. With full derates that we use on light flights we're only using approx. 66% of our thrust. It's much different when we use 100%!!!

[arem]

Try taking a 747-400 at very light weight LHR-LGW - yeehaw as the Americans might say!!

[Check Airman]

At my home airport, it usually goes something like this. Plane A is cleared for takeoff and reads it back. Plane B is then told to line up. The hold bar is a bit further back than usual. At about the time plane B is just shy of the runway edge line, B is given the takeoff clearance. As B is reading it back, plane A is just getting off the ground. Once B reads back the takeoff clearance, C is told to line up, and so on.

re the LAHSO, I guess it depends on what you’re used to. Many US pilots are uncomfortable with “line up and wait behind...”. Just like “line up and wait”, it greatly increases efficiency. Last time I did it, it was kinda neat seeing an A380 roll through the intersection that I’d held short of. Looks neat on the approach too. Only eclipsed by the parallel approaches into SFO and SYD (I think).

[tcasblue]

What is the typical V1 for an E190. The report says the RTO was initiated at 135 knots for a bird strike yet there was no damage. Is it possible to have a bird go on the engine, create a compressor stall leading to an RTO and then find no damage.

[Pugilistic Animus]

"At my home airport, it usually goes something like this. Plane A is cleared for takeoff and reads it back. Plane B is then told to line up. The hold bar is a bit further back than usual. At about the time plane B is just shy of the runway edge line, B is given the takeoff clearance. As B is reading it back, plane A is just getting off the ground. Once B reads back the takeoff clearance, C is told to line up, and so on."

Check Airman:
​​​​​​I must've misunderstood something what you describe sounds perfectly routine and normal.
though I can imagine that if most of the planes served are heavies and supers then there would a delay for wake turbulence. Although my mind's made up as far as LAHSO operations
​​​​​

[ATC Watcher]

It appears LAHSO can be confounding to pilots
Not only to pilots , to Controllers as well . We can open once more another thread on LAHSO , (or SIRO its Canadian sibling ) but one thing is often forgotten is that LAHSO is not a required ATC procedure , it is a Runway enhancement system aimed at increasing airport capacity ( read bring more money) and accepting it is completely left to the pilot . Many Airlines ( BA for instance , unless this has changed recently) have instructed their crews not to accept LAHSO or SIRO.
The first time I saw one being done was in Canada, landing on the jump seat of a Dash 8 seeing a MD11 landing and crossing our path at the midfield intersection .
As a controller my first reaction was,: what about if both of you had decided to go around ?... trying a visual separation right behind and in the wake of an MD11 at this speed and altitude ?
I know the chances of this occurring are very low, but in my days procedures did not include luck as a mitigating factor .

[Check Airman]

"At my home airport, it usually goes something like this. Plane A is cleared for takeoff and reads it back. Plane B is then told to line up. The hold bar is a bit further back than usual. At about the time plane B is just shy of the runway edge line, B is given the takeoff clearance. As B is reading it back, plane A is just getting off the ground. Once B reads back the takeoff clearance, C is told to line up, and so on."

Check Airman:
​​​​​​I must've misunderstood something what you describe sounds perfectly routine and normal.
though I can imagine that if most of the planes served are heavies and supers then there would a delay for wake turbulence. Although my mind's made up as far as LAHSO operations
​​​​​

May point was that my home airport has a decidedly easy pace, and we often find 2 planes on the runway at once. At busier airports (eg ORD, ATL, JFK), it’s not uncommon to have the clearance and be lined up, waiting to see the preceding aircraft’s nose leave the ground, before setting thrust.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I now understand what you mean Check Airman...Thanks for the clarification.