|
Air Canada A321 landed despite go-around order
Air Canada A321 landed despite go-around order
Canadian investigators have disclosed that an Air Canada Airbus A321 proceeded to land at Toronto despite being instructed to execute a go-around. The aircraft had been operating flight AC150 from Calgary on 18 August, states the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. It had been approaching runway 06L, on short final, when air traffic control ordered it to conduct a go-around owing to a preceding aircraft not having vacated the runway. “The go-around transmission was not acknowledged by the flight crew of [the A321] and the aircraft proceeded with the landing,” says the safety board. It landed and exited the runway without further incident, with no injuries among the 196 occupants. At the time of the incident, given as 21:50, the approach would have been conducted in darkness |
Let me guess, the CVR tape was not available. ;)
|
Crossed transmittion?
|
I believe Air Canada also did this at SFO last year, yes?
Edit: Yes: October 2017. Go-around issued because traffic had not cleared runway. |
Originally Posted by Longtimer
(Post 10237606)
Air Canada A321 landed despite go-around order
Canadian investigators have disclosed that an Air Canada Airbus A321 proceeded to land at Toronto despite being instructed to execute a go-around. The aircraft had been operating flight AC150 from Calgary on 18 August, states the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. It had been approaching runway 06L, on short final, when air traffic control ordered it to conduct a go-around owing to a preceding aircraft not having vacated the runway. “The go-around transmission was not acknowledged by the flight crew of [the A321] and the aircraft proceeded with the landing,” says the safety board. It landed and exited the runway without further incident, with no injuries among the 196 occupants. At the time of the incident, given as 21:50, the approach would have been conducted in darkness |
Originally Posted by jack11111
(Post 10237685)
I believe Air Canada also did this at SFO last year, yes?
Edit: Yes: October 2017. Go-around issued because traffic had not cleared runway. |
Quote:
"I the SFO incident was a landing AC jet lining up to land on the parallel taxiway and did a GA narrowly missing some of the aircraft lined up on the taxiway for the runway." Yes, that also happened. |
Here's Air Canada 781 landing at SFO on October 22, 2017 after the tower repeatedly called a go around:
Air Canada, Oct. 22, 2017 Air Canada flight 781 was cleared to land on Runway 28R about six miles from the airport, which the crew acknowledged, but then radio contact ended with the tower. The air traffic controller, worried another plane had not cleared that runway, ordered the Air Canada plane to abort its landing six times with no response from the flight crew. The tower went as far as shining a light into the cockpit of the approaching plane in an unsuccessful attempt to get the flight crew’s attention. The other plane had cleared the runway by the time the Air Canada jet touched down and landed safely. The FAA concluded after speaking to the flight crew and probing other data that the “crew inadvertently switched from the SFO tower frequency to the SFO ground frequency after receiving their landing clearance.” “The FAA deemed this event to be an isolated occurrence and not reflective of any systematic deficiencies at Air Canada,” according to a FAA spokesman. Aimer said pilots often pre-set their radio channels, knowing that once they land they will switch to the ground frequency to get instructions on where to taxi, but this was too soon. “The pilot should be wondering, ‘How come we don’t hear the tower any more? Why is there complete silence? Why are we hearing ground traffic?’ ” Aimer said. “I can’t understand how experienced pilots didn’t catch that. We’ve all done stupid things, but that’s why you have two people in the cockpit.” The incident prompted the FAA’s Flight Standards Service executive director to meet with his Canadian equivalent, according to the FAA, which led to an immediate safety review of the air carrier’s entire operations, including increased pilot training and a closer look at the airline’s arrivals and departures at SFO. |
Originally Posted by jack11111
(Post 10237819)
Quote:
"I the SFO incident was a landing AC jet lining up to land on the parallel taxiway and did a GA narrowly missing some of the aircraft lined up on the taxiway for the runway." Yes, that also happened. |
The go-around transmission was not acknowledged by the flight crew ” says the safety board. Good that is is investigated, no so good that such things are thrown up in public before the incident is investigated and explained. |
I think the title should be amended to “Air Canada A321 landed despite go-around REQUEST”. ATC can’t order you to do anything once airbourne . They can request and you better have a very good reason to refuse, but refuse you can. |
I have listened to the audio at LiveATC and I don't hear the go around "request." Could that be because they are recording two frequencies?
|
Interesting incident, fortunately without any injuries. I must wonder if where the problem lies; with the crew or with the system? In Europe and elsewhere a landing clearance is only given when the preceding aircraft has vacated the runway and the runway is ready to accept the next landing aircraft. The policy of giving the landing clearance concurrently to multiple aircraft clearly invites this kind of incident, be it due to stepped on transmissions, radio failure, or, as in this case operator error. Implementing a safer system seems sensible!
|
Originally Posted by Can't Hover
(Post 10238143)
Interesting incident, fortunately without any injuries. I must wonder if where the problem lies; with the crew or with the system? In Europe and elsewhere a landing clearance is only given when the preceding aircraft has vacated the runway and the runway is ready to accept the next landing aircraft. The policy of giving the landing clearance concurrently to multiple aircraft clearly invites this kind of incident, be it due to stepped on transmissions, radio failure, or, as in this case operator error. Implementing a safer system seems sensible!
|
.
Longtimer - It seems that your source neglected to include.......the punch line: Canada's TSB rated the occurrence an incident reportable involving the risk of a collision, however, did not open an investigation. Incident: Canada A321 at Toronto on Aug 18th 2018, continued landing despite go around instruction . |
Originally Posted by Can't Hover
(Post 10238143)
Interesting incident, fortunately without any injuries. I must wonder if where the problem lies; with the crew or with the system? In Europe and elsewhere a landing clearance is only given when the preceding aircraft has vacated the runway and the runway is ready to accept the next landing aircraft. The policy of giving the landing clearance concurrently to multiple aircraft clearly invites this kind of incident, be it due to stepped on transmissions, radio failure, or, as in this case operator error. Implementing a safer system seems sensible!
|
Originally Posted by gwillie
(Post 10238245)
Longtimer -
It seems that your source neglected to include.......the punch line: Canada's TSB rated the occurrence an incident reportable involving the risk of a collision, however, did not open an investigation.
Incident: Canada A321 at Toronto on Aug 18th 2018, continued landing despite go around instruction So the fact that the 18th August event isn't (yet?) listed doesn't necessarily mean there won't be an investigation, notwithstanding Avherald's jumping to conclusions. |
It can get very tight at places like LHR with a stream of landing aircraft at 90 second intervals.
It only takes one to miss the intended exit to mess things up, if the following aircraft has to go around it has to be squeezed back into the stream somehow causing knockon delays. Sometimes "please expedite" is not enough to clear the runway. |
Was it dark at the time? There seems to be some confusion. In Europe (I know, different continent), "land after" could not be given at night; only during the day. Apologies if this has been changed; retirement was a long time ago.
|
Land after, etc. is not the issue. What is, is the possibility of someone switching comms to ground frequency while still on approach. Maybe I've lost the plot over the years, but that takes some effort to mess up. Methinks someone was in a bit of a hurry.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.