Pearson airport (CYYZ) suffers another close call on a runway
Thread Starter
Pearson airport (CYYZ) suffers another close call on a runway
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/...-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.
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/...-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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by FIRESYSOK; 2nd Sep 2017 at 02:36.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are well-designed or safe.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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/toront...ions-1.4249097
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.
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.
To lighten this up, "Please stop" is a yield sign..."Stop" is a stop sign!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ions-1.4249097
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
msbbarrat :
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 ?
That doesn't wash; with most crews other than US regionals having no difficulty, clearly the design is adequate.
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 ?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
You'd think wouldn't you? Lights are on maximum brightness during the day and bright at night.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: A small city with a University
Age: 68
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Kewbick; 4th Sep 2017 at 04:12.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
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.
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.
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.