Runway Scare: Driverless Van Crosses Path Of Passenger Jet At Toronto Airport

 

Canadian officials are investigating an incident in which a driverless van traveled across the runway at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, at the same time an Air Canada flight was landing late Monday night. After the plane's pilots reportedly ignored commands to pull up, the jet "narrowly missed" the van, investigators say.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/15/174424548/runway-scare-driverless-van-crosses-path-of-passenger-jet-at-toronto-airport?ft=1&f=1001

http://avherald.com/h?article=45f30c80&opt=0

http://avherald.com/h?article=45f30c80&opt=0

+1

I'd be more worried about why the pilots weren't on guard to go around than the truck on the runway, missing it once is bad enough, but twice is just not on, some serious re-training needed on their part.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Totally unrelated to this serious incident, but nevertheless still cause for alarm, did not see, in here, a report published on the BBC of a Air New Zealand 777 captain falling asleep on a flight between London and LA. Wish I had posted the link below but thought some others would have been quicker than I to the punch.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21628746

Totally unrelated to this serious incident, but nevertheless still cause for alarm, did not see, in here, a report published on the BBC of a Air New Zealand 777 captain falling asleepon a flight between London and LA. Wish I had posted the link below but thought some others would have been quicker than I to the punch.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21628746

Serious enough, though probably not preventable, but safety was not compromised, and I'd bet the FO was probably aware of how tired the Captain was feeling and was on the look out for him in particular. Fair play to Air New Zealand for not punishing the Captain, it can happen the best of us.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Fair play to Air New Zealand for not punishing the Captain

Fully concur with you, Ro. And they do have a good safety record. Only wish their cricket team would make a fist of it with England in the current 2nd Test!

It's a rhetorical question I suppose, but precisely how many "Air Canada 178's" did the crew think were landing at that airport at the same time?

 

"We heard them but thought they were for somebody else" is a totally rediculous response!

 

AFAIC, if the tower instructs a "go around" there is bound to be a damn good reason!

It's a rhetorical question I suppose, but precisely how many "Air Canada 178's" did the crew think were landing at that airport at the same time?

 

"We heard them but thought they were for somebody else" is a totally rediculous response!

 

From what I've heard since, the problem on the night from what I've heard was that the controller didn't use the full call sign "AIR CANADA 178", instead only referred to them as "178".

 

Personally speaking this is a very clear violation, it's excusable if they were already talking with each other, but to out of nowhere call out "178 go around" wouldn't at all alert the pilots.

 

Over the years we master our selective hearing, on initial contact you really do need to use the company call sign. If I were ever on final approach say to JFK and heard the controller say "10 Echo go around" I'd very easily miss it, we drown out most of the transmissions, to us it'd register as some other airline being instructed as the pilots above state. Indeed we'd be on guard, we'd be wondering what made the other aircraft go around, we'd be watching out to see if we could spot the other aircraft, but it likely wouldn't click with us that we were the one's being told to go around if all we heard was 10E Go Around". We need to here that "SHAMROCK" part being said at the start to make sure we're listening to the the instruction being given, particularly when there's busy airspace and it's very dense and filled with transmissions, it's just not possible to safely fly a plane and listen to the transmissions without selectively hearing ones you think are relevant, you'd just get over loaded otherwise and miss safety critical items.

 

If indeed it is true that the callsign was left out, then I have a lot of sympathy for the Air Canada crew.

 

Regards,

Ró.

If all I had heard was "...go around" while I was on short final, I think I would have at least asked who that was for over the radio. Who knows, it could have been for me over a vehicle on the runway that I haven't seen.

From what I've heard since, the problem on the night from what I've heard was that the controller didn't use the full call sign "AIR CANADA 178", instead only referred to them as "178".

If that is indeed the actual case, then the tower is at least at partial fault for not using the complete call sign.  On the other hand, presumably they'd just received landing clearance moments before, so it's not all all uncommon for a controller to use only the numbers. Lord knows I've certainly heard that often enough over the years.

 

I also do fully understand the "selective hearing" part as well, given that at times I've had to monitor as many as five frequencies at once while working in the dispatch office for emergency services.

Ro, thanks for the update on the story with the improper communication, it gives a different perspective on things. Things happen quick and these guys weren't clear on the radio call.

 

 

A little side story....I remember going to Flight School back there in Toronto at an airport called Buttonville. I remember one guy used to fly in from the Southern USA in a twin Baron. Don't recall his full registration but it ended in 9SB. So he used to call himself Niner-Sugar-Baker over the radio. The guys in the tower used to get a kick out of him. They would be like OK Sugar-Baker, Your cleared to land runway three three. :rolleyes:

 

He was good for a few laughs. :lol:

regarding the topic of pilots sleeping in the flight deck, i'm in favor of it being done in a controlled way. "taking a look at the overhead panel" for about 10 to 15 minutes during cruise can help a lot refreshing one's attention and increase productivity for the final phase of the flight. it is even allowed on some airlines. there are rumors that pilots practice controlled napping even in airlines where it is forbidden.

 

there has been a NASA study some years ago indicating that short naps result in better crew performance:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/09/chernoff.napping.pilots.cnn

Uh Oh.... I dont think that worker will be driving that car for much longer