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.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10238294)
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.
The AVH never jumps to conclusions - opposite to you, who repeatedly sell your conclusions as fact even though they are verifyably completely wrong, and you even started to campaign against AVH with your "facts". |
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad
(Post 10238344)
I dunno.. I've seen it happen. Check in with tower and set ground on stby and force of habit changing a fx then pressing swap over. Just saying it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
|
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad
(Post 10238344)
I dunno.. I've seen it happen. Check in with tower and set ground on stby and force of habit changing a fx then pressing swap over. Just saying it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
|
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 10238394)
I heard that happen just today: aircraft on final found on the ground frequency and subsequently cleared to land by the ground controller (after an apology from the crew) |
Originally Posted by Austrian Simon
(Post 10238380)
The TSB has already stated the occurrence class: Class 5. No investigation. I recommend you check what occurrence investigation class 5 means at the TSB.
Class 5 does not preclude an investigation, though it's obviously not used for events that involve damage, injury, etc and require significant resources such as deploying a go-team. Nor indeed does it preclude subsequently upgrading the event to a higher classification should that be deemed appropriate. Given the media attention that the event has attracted, I suggest we watch this space. FlightGlobal: Air Canada A321 landed despite go-around order |
Why didn't the controller try to call them up on guard frequency? Don't most commercial aircraft have one radio dedicated to listen in on 121.5? And the controller probably have a touch key on his screen to enable him to transmit on guard easily .
|
Why didn't the controller try to call them up on guard frequency? Don't most commercial aircraft have one radio dedicated to listen in on 121.5? And the controller probably have a touch key on his screen to enable him to transmit on guard easily. |
Originally Posted by Rabski
(Post 10238392)
Not beyond possibility for sure. But staying on the right freq for where you are is pretty fundamantal really. Why in hell would you change comms while still on approach?
|
Originally Posted by F-16GUY
(Post 10238468)
Why didn't the controller try to call them up on guard frequency? Don't most commercial aircraft have one radio dedicated to listen in on 121.5? And the controller probably have a touch key on his screen to enable him to transmit on guard easily .
|
At my Airlines, it is SOP to switch off guard below 10K, so one is not disturbed by the kiddies making animal noises during climbout and landing. Part of the sterile flight deck procedure. |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10238616)
It’s a mistake, you don’t do it on purpose. Ive seen someone change to Tower when they were supposed to be on Approach. It’s caused by your brain running in auto mode and doing things without conscious thought. There are some things we all (well I do) remember from our very first lessons. The basics, which keep you safe. |
Well, as I say, I’ve been sitting next to someone who has done the very same thing. Normally a very good operator, but his brain just did something automatically without thought. The most dangerous thought a pilot can have is that there is a category of errors so fundamentally basic that he could never make one. I have had an FO select flap to zero instead of the gear up. He never thought it would be an error he could possibly make, and yet he made it. |
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 10238810)
At my Airlines, it is SOP to switch off guard below 10K, so one is not disturbed by the kiddies making animal noises during climbout and landing. Part of the sterile flight deck procedure. |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
Not unheard of to hear a tower or approach controller needing to use guard to give someone instructions.
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10238951)
Does ATC have the capability to transit on 121.5? RAC/OPS above says no (apart from a handheld) and ATC in my neck of the woods cannot TX on 121.5.
In the case of a late go around instruction, there would not be time to configure either. We do occasionally inquire on guard for aircraft no longer listening. Sometimes find them there too. |
Regarding ATC (tower/ground) on 121,5... A few weeks ago at Munich airport, a Air Canada (hopefully a coincidence) A330 was holding for 08L with ground and tower trying to reach them with no luck. Ground or tower even tried on 121,5 so at least in Munich they can :ok: . We were holding behind the Air Canada and eventually got cleared to taxi around them. I tried to wave and tap my headset as a signal to check comms, don't know if it they even saw, but shortly after they did check-in with tower. It might have also been the fact that some pesky regional jet got to cut in front of them that made them wonder what was up, or just sheer coincidence.
|
In my active ATC days (unfortunately many years past now) grabbing the Guard (121.5/243.0) handset and transmitting to aircraft on the ground or in the circuit was a regular, but infrequent occurrence which usually "saved the day", if not the occasional life. As a result, those towers for which I have raised Operational requirements and technical specs in the past 15 years as a consultant, have easily accessible guard TX/Rx facilities.
Not my spec, but even Bonriki AFIS can by one touch on the screen TX on 121.5 and the RX monitor is always on and when the vendor finally gets around to the installation, Cassidy will have the same capability, MJG |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10238894)
Well, as I say, I’ve been sitting next to someone who has done the very same thing. Normally a very good operator, but his brain just did something automatically without thought. The most dangerous thought a pilot can have is that there is a category of errors so fundamentally basic that he could never make one. I have had an FO select flap to zero instead of the gear up. He never thought it would be an error he could possibly make, and yet he made it. |
Yeah. The guy who swapped the radios with me was the Capt and he wasn't happy with himself.
We actually had a company policy at the time to have both radios tuned to the appropriate frequency when in the terminal area (starting with Approach or Ground). En route we'd have the second one on 121.5 or company if required. So he managed to switch both radios automatically without thinking about it. |
The Airbus radio panel is far more capable than the Boeing panel. It’s also far easier to screw up! |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.