Runway Incursions - How To Fix?


Recommended Posts

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+bound+Jazz+regional+aborts+landing+when+snowplow+enters/9745792/story.html

Fairly well-written and objective article. Go figure...

A few years ago, taxiway markings were enhanced to highlight "hotspots" - a welcome addition to the Yellow Brick Roads we all follow to get from A to B at our many airports.

Ground surveillance radar is a great tool for controllers, where it exists. What do we as pilots, and other non-flightcrew operators at Canadian airports need to help prevent these types of occurrences?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read somwhere recently that aside from the obvious nav improvements, ADS-B is supposed to reduce the potential for ground vehicle incursions. How is that going to work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic to me as an airport operator.

My personal feeling is that we`ve taken the process as far as we can with respect to vehicle incursions and the next place to look to drive meaningful reductions in the numbers is technology.

I could be wrong but I think it unlikely in this case that additional or enhanced paint markings would have helped. This was more likely a case of the operating thinking they were okay to proceed on to the runway rather than missing the hold marking and the threshold markings.

While the aircraft technological solutions are expensive, the vehicle ones don't have to be. Why can't we throw an iPad in each vehicle running some sort of software that places virtual fences around the areas where operators are cleared to be? Heck, we could even use similar software to give the ground controller real-time GPS locations of all airport vehicles, with no need to rely on ADSE. I'm running a free app on my iPhone called Glympse that does this.

Technology can solve this problem at controlled airports for vehicle related incursions. It's sad to say, but there needs to be a catalyst to drive the required change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would stay away from putting technology, (iPads etc) in trucks or other vehicles. ( think about drivers not fully conversant with the technology or being " heads down" when they should be "heads-up".....we have enough trouble with people texting in moving vehicles now...then there is "loss of the gear, dead batteries etc"

I would try to keep the fix very simple.........For example...entrance lights,(cleared to enter with lites AND verbal clearance from GRN control), that can only be seen from the ground level and should immediate evacuation of the runway be required, all that particular runway lights flashing.

The only way to guarantee no incursions is to have gates at every entry point on a runway/taxiway and we all know that 'ain't' going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

YYCAP is banning AME from taxiing or towing aircraft because of this issue.

I guess that will have a major impact on WestJet to / from their hanger and then on aircraft that have been moved to apron stands which then need to be towed to the bridges. Is that all AMEs or ????
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still lots of airside improvements that could take place before we need to get too complicated.

1. Change the angles of the wig-wags to actually be visible before the pilot is at the stop line and the light is at the edge of his peripheral vision. In YYZ, these are aimed within a few degrees of the yellow stop line and do absolutely nothing to identify a safety zone; a 45 degree angle would be much better... easier to notice and more time to stop before violating the line.
2. Replace incandescent wigwag bulbs with LEDs so that they don't pulse, but FLASH. Much more noticeable.
3. Make the red embedded stop bar FLASH.
4. Add on-tarmac red RWY AHEAD plus red runway ID markings approaching the runway to all airports as in LHR and CDG, LAX and many others. Taxiing pilots look more at the ground in front of them than any other place.

Amazing to me how administrators think that an almost invisible little red circle on a Jepp chart is the right answer to fixing runway incursions. Until they try to fix this with simple, effective fixes, spending millions on ADS-B airport surveillance and warning equipment doesn't make any sense.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that will have a major impact on WestJet to / from their hanger and then on aircraft that have been moved to apron stands which then need to be towed to the bridges. Is that all AMEs or ????

ALL AME's, until they obtain a special D-AME-AVOP. But it doesn't affect Pilots yet so the grey area is the AME's who also have a pilots licence are good to go.

p.s. Westjert has negotiated a let to allow specific personnel to taxi for a grace period of 6 months (or so I heard)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

ALL AME's, until they obtain a special D-AME-AVOP. But it doesn't affect Pilots yet so the grey area is the AME's who also have a pilots licence are good to go.

p.s. Westjert has negotiated a let to allow specific personnel to taxi for a grace period of 6 months (or so I heard)

Interesting, has YYC an inordinate number of runway incursions by towed or AME taxied aircraft that warranted this action or is it an kneejerk reaction to the following?

Transportation Safety Board to investigate ‘runway incursion’ at YYC

Calgary, AB, Canada / News Talk 770 (CHQR)

April 01, 2014 04:07 pm

The Transportation Safety Board will be at the Calgary Airport this week (Wednesday or Thursday) to investigate what they call a runway incursion that happened late Saturday night.

Officials say maintenance was being done on an Air Georgian plane around midnight when they went down down a runway that was active.

Investigators will collect data and ask questions to find out why this happened.

The Class 3 investigation will end with a public report being issued.

No one was hurt and no equipment was damaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still lots of airside improvements that could take place before we need to get too complicated.

1. Change the angles of the wig-wags to actually be visible before the pilot is at the stop line and the light is at the edge of his peripheral vision. In YYZ, these are aimed within a few degrees of the yellow stop line and do absolutely nothing to identify a safety zone; a 45 degree angle would be much better... easier to notice and more time to stop before violating the line.

2. Replace incandescent wigwag bulbs with LEDs so that they don't pulse, but FLASH. Much more noticeable.

3. Make the red embedded stop bar FLASH.

4. Add on-tarmac red RWY AHEAD plus red runway ID markings approaching the runway to all airports as in LHR and CDG, LAX and many others. Taxiing pilots look more at the ground in front of them than any other place.

Amazing to me how administrators think that an almost invisible little red circle on a Jepp chart is the right answer to fixing runway incursions. Until they try to fix this with simple, effective fixes, spending millions on ADS-B airport surveillance and warning equipment doesn't make any sense.

In the case of vehicle incursions, many vehicle operators actually believe they are permitted on the runway though so I'm not sure these measures would entirely fix the problem.

Also, to your point about the aim of runway guard lights. TC offers the following guidance for installation: The lights should be aimed towards the aircraft on the centreline marking at a distance of approximately 60 to 90m from the RGL lighting. Here's the guidance material: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/302-005.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of vehicle incursions, many vehicle operators actually believe they are permitted on the runway though so I'm not sure these measures would entirely fix the problem.

Also, to your point about the aim of runway guard lights. TC offers the following guidance for installation: The lights should be aimed towards the aircraft on the centreline marking at a distance of approximately 60 to 90m from the RGL lighting. Here's the guidance material: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/302-005.pdf

Not much can be done about people who drive a vehicle at an airport and think they can simply drive anywhere they want.

If you look a bit farther in the document elevated RGLs are supposed to be aimed at a point 45-60 m from the hold short line. The 60-90m warning area is for in-pavement RGLs. As far as I can recall the runway guard lights at the button of 06L certainly are not aimed anywhere near either point that, unless someone took some interpretive license and were trying to aim the lights toward the opposite lead-in line for some reason. The RGLs on other runways are just as poorly oriented, as I recall, except for the entry to Q, which seem to be aimed properly.

Bottom line... the YYZ RGLs are aimed poorly and, as pulsing incandescents, they are not as noticeable as they would be if they were flashing high intensity LED's. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures of them...and won't be able to for at least a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much can be done about people who drive a vehicle at an airport and think they can simply drive anywhere they want.

If you look a bit farther in the document elevated RGLs are supposed to be aimed at a point 45-60 m from the hold short line. The 60-90m warning area is for in-pavement RGLs. As far as I can recall the runway guard lights at the button of 06L certainly are not aimed anywhere near either point that, unless someone took some interpretive license and were trying to aim the lights toward the opposite lead-in line for some reason. The RGLs on other runways are just as poorly oriented, as I recall, except for the entry to Q, which seem to be aimed properly.

Bottom line... the YYZ RGLs are aimed poorly and, as pulsing incandescents, they are not as noticeable as they would be if they were flashing high intensity LED's. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures of them...and won't be able to for at least a month.

Thanks for pointing out the correction with respect to aiming. I can't speak for YYZ since I'm at a different airport. I can't think of a reason to deviate from the installation guidelines unless there was a reason to do so. Perhaps a conventional installation led to confusion? It's likely they were installed before that AC was published and the guidance from before was unclear.

I certainly wouldn't hesitate to send them feedback. I'm sure they'd be receptive to feedback.http://www.torontopearson.com/en/contactus/#

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.