This is so full of newspaper inaccuracies.

Yes the stop bars were in use and the red bar was illuminated.
The EGF exited at D4 and correctly readback the hold short instruction.
The ACA flight on 24R was rolling at the time.
EGF crossed the hold line/stopbar and tower prefixed the "stop,stop stop" transmission with it's callsign.
EGF stopped and asked "say again"
ACA was airborne just before EGF entered 24R and overflew him by at least 200 feet.
No avoiding action was requested of or performed by ACA.

Landings are on the outboard runway because crossing at the threshold, aircraft would pass in front of the ILS GP aerial on their way to the outboard runway.

The stagger in Toronto is very small at the 24 end and non-existant at the 06 end. Manchester's stagger is a mile. I have worked at both airports.

If he overflew the the plane over the hold line by over 200 ft wouldn't you call that a non event not worthy of a news report?

I don't know the exact timing of:
a)when the departure rotated and;
b)when EGF crossed the hold line,
but I'm fairly sure a) preceded b).

It was a runway incursion which could have had a much different outcome had a heavier aircraft been departing and the timing been a fraction different.

Is a runway incursion in general newsworthy? Not my call, but anything that brings safety to the forefront is good, unless it is sensationalized and devoid of facts so as not to be believable.

Runway incursions should not happen but they ocasionally do. Pilots watch for them and react accordingly so even if it happens they take appropriate actions to prevent a problem. We had a Lear Jet landing where crossing runway traffic was instructed to go around and didn't. We ended up cockeyed on the runway using max braking when I yelled at my buddy stop this MF now and he did and held short. A Lear Jet can stop in 2,500ft by the way.
Pilots can usually figure a way to get out of a bad situation so give them some credit when things are going to hell. If there is a way out they will find it if they know what they are doing.

If you just go by the rules hoping everybody else is doing what they should and not protecting yourself, you are in trouble.

If you're going 100kt+ 2/3 of the way down the runway and someone tries to cross in front, your options are limited. Too fast to stop, too slow to fly.

We have safety procedures (stop bars, read backs) and personnel (monitoring controller) in place to mitigate as many of the risks as possible, but sometimes someone just messes up. We protect ourself and our users as best we can.

I'm splitting hairs here but the definition of runway incursion I'm used to:

"Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft."

In Tenerife both aircraft were correctly authorised to be on the runway at the time. The accident occurred when the Captain of the KLM flight decided they would take off even though they didn't have a clearance while PanAm was still trying to find the exit in the fog.

A horrible accident indeed but not by this definition, a runway incursion.

Wikipedia

http://www.airlinesafety.com/temp/7.jpgMilan, 2001

Sadly, a friend of mine was on that SAS plane at Linate.

At least everyone on the Frequency, were speaking ONE Language.

The International Language of Aviation

A case for "Situational Awareness!"

Tenerife was a horrible event. Somehow KLM thought they were cleared for take off but the runway was not cleared because of the poor visibility. It shouldn't have happened and it probably will never happen again.

In Seattle one day with about 100 ft visibility we ferried a 737 out of Seattle and had to do a very slow taxi using compass across the ramp to backtrack on the active runway. A 747 in position turned his landing lights on as we neared him at the end to see him and turn around for take off. The tower was calling out distances to him for us also. My last airline wouldn't allow us to do that even empty.

Bubbers44

So which cowboy outfit was that?

A very sensible airline!

I suppose someone getting lost and encroaching on your runway would not have been a big deal then either.:ugh:

Johnny767,

With respect: what a load of baloney! Yeah, it's a good thing the EGF crew were english speakers. They really were aware, weren't they? <= Sarcasm

And what are you implying? That if the ACA crew had been french speaking or spanish or whatever they wouldn't have seen EGF and would have come closer to hitting them?

Some people seem to think that accidents (or incidents) wouldn't happen if everyone spoke the same language. This event in YYZ just goes to show how lame this debate is. The EGF crew heard and read-back the instruction to hold-short (thereby misleading the ACA crew who obviously understood that transmission) and they must also have heard the ACA crew get take-off clearance and yet...

Nope, language had nothing to do with saving this. Vigilance by ATC and by the ACA crew was the key.

SAO

There's a surprise, it is a load of baloney - to someone from "la belle province."

As I am on the take-off roll, at 100 kts, and I hear the tower transmitting to an aircraft to "stop."

Guess what - I am getting the drift that something is UP.

But hey, brought to you by the same group that sue Airlines if they can't get their coffee served in French.

You're assuming the aircraft involved would be on the same frequency at all times. More often than not, an aircraft crossing an active runway would be on ground freq. Are you saying that for the sake of situational awareness all YYZ traffic should be on one frequency?

And I think that while you obviously put a lot pride in your situational awareness and that it must indeed be a pleasure to work with pilots like you (no sarcasm here) since you do try to get the big picture, the majority, like the EGF crew, aren't aware enough of their surroundings to get an added value to having only one language on the freq.

I apologize for the confrontational tone of my original post. As I do work in a bilingual environment, it's something I'm intimate with and I see so much lack of SA from aircrew that, to me, the one language thing is but a drop in the bucket of flight safety.

Cheers,

Felix T

I've never been to Montreal tower, so can't comment on procedures there, but in the UK, whenever an aircraft is to cross an active runway it is always transferred to the frequency of the Air Controller for that runway. Even if it is just for that brief journey from the holding point one side of the runway to vacating the opposite side. It is then transferred to the appropriate Ground Controller.

Having all traffic on one frequency would be nonsensical at a busy airport such as CYYZ. However, having aircraft due to cross, and hence potentially infringe an active runway, it does make sense to be on the same frequency.

That's a good point jackieofalltrades and I do believe it was tried, or is done in CYYZ. The purpose is not, however, to effect safety by having crews on the same frequency but rather by removing the element of coordination between the ground and tower controllers.

Felix T

Traffic landing on 06R/24L is retained on tower frequency until crossed over 06L/24R. Those who change of their own volition in between the runways are sent back to tower.

Elsewhere on the airport, aircraft and vehicles are retained on ground frequencies and active runway crossings are coordinated.

I was wondering about 24L/R(06R/L) at CYYZ. Does the same controller oversee both runways, or is there a separate frequency for Left and Right?

Same controller for both runways with a "monitor" controller plugged in as well. The runways are very close - 1000 feet centreline to centreline, with not much taxiway space in between.

05/23 has a separate controller.