Two aircraft on same runway in Toronto

[YRP]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d4a7b67

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 do not worry you are not the first one that writes VFR instead of VMC and will not be the last one ...

[VariablePitchP]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

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]

Originally Posted by VariablePitchP

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by VariablePitchP

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]

Originally Posted by tcasblue

What evidence do you have to support this?

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

[4runner]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.