Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Runway incursion at YYZ (driverless van)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Runway incursion at YYZ (driverless van)

Old 14th Mar 2013, 23:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: CANADA
Age: 71
Posts: 8
Runway incursion at YYZ (driverless van)

Whoops!

Jet ignored order to abort landing after driverless van rolled across Pearson runway | Toronto Star
no expert is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2013, 13:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: EPWA
Posts: 13
Info from AVHERALD: Incident: Air Canada E190 at Toronto on Mar 11th 2013, did not follow two instructions to go around
konradeck is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 08:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Proper phraseology anyone?
criss is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 10:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austria
Age: 81
Posts: 289
Full callsign, landing clearance cancelled, I say again landing clearance cancelled, (follow standard missed approach)
dash7fan is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 12:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Flight number with no operator prefix? Dear God, what standards have Nav Canada sunk to? Its not uncomon in North American airspace to have more than one flight with the same flight numbers, thats why SOPs are firm on using the operator prefix, time for some re -training methinks.Maybe if Nav Canada cut out the endless drivel such as " taxi on the ramp is at your own discression" folks might pay more attention to what ATC are saying, fourteen transmissions from ground in CYOW last week just to get to the runway, we were the ONLY aircraft moving! This stuff along with some "Chuck Yeager wanabees" who seem to think that VHF is just another phone system to chatter on are becoming a major problem in North America, they need to spend some time at LHR to see and hear how to do it. {with the exception of snow removal that is!}
clunckdriver is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 16:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 962
The LiveATC recording is not the full audio - the scanner software often clips the first second of a transmission. ATC tapes are in the hands of the TSB and it's already been stated that the controller did say "Air Canada" both times.
J.O. is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 20:35
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
So J.O. are we to understand that CYYZ Tower controler let go of the transmit button {or foot key, if CYYZ tower has such things installed}}between the two "go around" calls, thus causing the "Air Canada" prefix to be dropped twice by ATC Net? If so it again is in conflict with SOPs, reminds me of an RCAF incident way back when after a ground collision between a fighter and a comercial aircraft, all five tower tapes busted at the same time,{wink wink} ah well, they all make for good stories over a beer.

Last edited by clunckdriver; 16th Mar 2013 at 20:36.
clunckdriver is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 20:56
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
If call sign is not used as tapes seem to show pilots did not need to go around unless they saw a conflict in my opinion.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2013, 22:51
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: CANADA
Age: 71
Posts: 8
Transportation Safety Board is launching a formal investigation.

“The aircraft and the vehicle were very close, abnormally close,” said Ewan Tasker, a regional senior investigator with the board. “We see a lot of runway incursions where perhaps they were several thousand feet apart or one was further down the runway.“This one, you have an aircraft that is possibly as close 50 feet (about 15 metres), maybe even a little closer,” Tasker told the Star Friday. “It’s quite serious.”

Safety board launches probe of Pearson near-miss | Toronto Star
no expert is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 00:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 192
clunckdriver, from the AvHerald article

"178, go around" without response and repeated "178, go around", again without response.

This would suggest two separate transmissions from the tower controller. Given the way that web sites collect their audio (i.e. from scanners) it is very likely the first syllable of the transmissions could be clipped.

Last edited by ex-EGLL; 17th Mar 2013 at 00:03.
ex-EGLL is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 03:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 962
So J.O. are we to understand that CYYZ Tower controler let go of the transmit button {or foot key, if CYYZ tower has such things installed}}between the two "go around" calls, thus causing the "Air Canada" prefix to be dropped twice by ATC Net? If so it again is in conflict with SOPs ...
There is a short break between the two go-around calls on ATC Net. This is not unexpected given that it's pretty natural for a controller to assume that a crew is going to hear and follow the go-around instruction the first time.

If call sign is not used as tapes seem to show pilots did not need to go around unless they saw a conflict in my opinion.
The ATC tapes do not show that, they show the controller using the full call sign. Only a second hand scanner recording shows that, but that recording is not official evidence in an investigation.

Last edited by J.O.; 17th Mar 2013 at 03:17.
J.O. is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 09:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,140
ATC tapes are in the hands of the TSB and it's already been stated that the controller did say "Air Canada" both times.
Where, and by whom ? Do you have a link ?

Only TSB statement I can find is this one:

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Transportation Safety Board of Canada deploys investigator to a runway incursion at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport

which, as you would expect from an investigation that is in its initial stages, only gives a broad outline of the event.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 12:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
I think we have all overlooked the point that a few years back, all ramp equipment not only had to set brakes and all that other good stuff but were required to carry chocks that were mounted on the vehicle and had to be put in place if the driver was not in the cab, such very sound procedures seem to be a thing of the past, this along with outfits such as Sun Wing seem to be a case for going back to such procedures. On listning to other tapes from CYYZ tower the call signs seem to be quite clear, so lets wait for the TSB report, can only hope its not long in coming.
clunckdriver is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 15:04
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: CANADA
Age: 71
Posts: 8
The van was apparently running and in gear (and unattended). We already have laws that make it an offence to leave the keys in the ignition of an unattended vehicle, and presumably in order to remove the keys you need to put the vehicle in "Park".

Of course, if the van had traveled through the perimeter fence it would have been in the City of Toronto, where a bylaw makes it illegal to leave an engine idling even if the driver is inside.
no expert is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 15:07
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 962
Sorry DaveReidUK, my mistake, I thought it was posted here. I saw a posting by a YYZ controller on another (private) forum where he stated that it's been investigated internally and he said that the controller used the full call sign. I observed at one of NavCan's internal investigations several years ago and that's where I learned that the live ATC sites often clip the beginning of a transmission. When I listened to the recordings of this event, I clearly heard something being clipped at the start of his calls - not only the calls for the go-around but also 3 minutes earlier when he issued the landing clearance.
J.O. is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 16:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by J.O. View Post
There is a short break between the two go-around calls on ATC Net. This is not unexpected given that it's pretty natural for a controller to assume that a crew is going to hear and follow the go-around instruction the first time.
Fortunately here in the UK there are ICAO standards and therefore no such assumptions. It would be, all in one breath :

"Air Canada 123 Go Around I SAY AGAIN Air Canada 123 Go Around".
WHBM is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 19:29
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
WHBM, I think you will find that its meant to be said the same way over this side of the pond.
clunckdriver is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 21:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 46
Posts: 321
As I said on avcanada...I cannot believe the amount of people judging this incident AND the controller based on the liveatc recording and NOT the actual tapes themselves. Unbelievable people!!

It is all very well talking about shoddy RT standards..and what NAV Canada do and don't say...and how well they do stuff elsewhere etc etc. NONE of that has any bearing here if the controller issued a go around instruction using the full callsign. As someone who works in YYZ terminal...and hearing about the incident first hand..I would say with 99% confidence that the controller in question used the correct phraseology. The van side of things apart (and there will be a rather uncomfortable driver I think at this point)....we are getting into the rather dangerous territory of pilots either choosing to ignore an ATC instruction...or lacking spacial awareness at a phase of flight in which they couldn't possibly know if the runway is clear or not (just before midnight). People are trying to do the tower guys job for him it seems. Why bother issuing a landing clearance at all?

Maybe if Nav Canada cut out the endless drivel
Perspective of a pilot there Clunck.......ask ATC their opinion on a lot of the stuff pilots say when we are busy and we don't really need to hear it.
Also...it dosen't really matter if the controller didn't use the ICAO standard as the pilot still wouldn't have complied as he thought it wasn't for him....that is the whole point here.
Married a Canadian is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 23:32
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 303
We already have laws that make it an offence to leave the keys in the ignition of an unattended vehicle
That's interesting, I've worked at places where the policy was NOT to remove the keys from an unattended airside vehicle, the theory being that it can be moved in an emergency by anyone without the need to locate the individual with the keys.

in my experience the airport operators we're too busy allowing security/ground ops to shaft people for things like driving without a fastened hi-viz to entertain a reasonable debate about this kind of thing!
HS125 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2013, 00:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
"Married a Canuck," you make some good points, but you and I both know that Nav Can, under presure from way too many legal types is becoming a bloody joke, the main requirments to be a Nav Can manager is to have worked for a certain Nothern Airline, you have many good folks, some of who are good friends of mine, but when we, the nation which taught the world to fly, in two World Wars, and the Cold War,have to sub -contract to second rate ,of shore outfits to print our charts, then we both know we have a problem, CYYZ is, without a doubt, one of the worst tower/ground controll/ ATC facilities in the Western World, {there are many even worse, but Im talking about the Western World} you guys "Babble" so much that the normal human reaction is to either ignore you or try to filter out most of it, Im sorry to be so blunt, but Nav Can cost me $3200 last month in airways fees and you were more of a a bloody handicap to safe flight than a help! {Wow! I feel much better now!}Nothing personel, but the privitisation policy just aint working.

Last edited by clunckdriver; 18th Mar 2013 at 00:37.
clunckdriver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.