blues deville Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 AC mainline goes around after Sky Regional busts one of YYZ's more serious runway incursion hot spots. https://www.aeroinside.com/item/8074/sky-regional-e175-at-toronto-on-jul-28th-2016-runway-incursion?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=20160816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Is it AC's intent to keep that outfit going, or will the CS purchase spell the end for SR?. I don't know that I've ever heard a story concerning them that isn't negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 An ACA E190 did the same thing July 27, 2016 And an ACA B767 did it on August 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Typically we only hear negative occurrences from the media. I'm sure there are plenty of positive examples of the operation, none that we will ever hear about. I'm not defending them, but this sort of thing does happen - even to the best of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 If there are taxiway intersections which have repeated incursions, highlighting the hot spots on a Jepp 10-9 chart is not a foolproof solution. New airport signage or surface painted markings need to be developed before the result is more serious than a go-around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 hours ago, hollywud said: Typically we only hear negative occurrences from the media. I'm sure there are plenty of positive examples of the operation, none that we will ever hear about. I'm not defending them, but this sort of thing does happen - even to the best of us. Absolutely true, hollywud. Thankfully, my first and last one was at Logan ~1995. I caught myself just crossing the hold-short line on 15R. A few years earlier, we lined up on what we thought was the intersection of 06L @ CYUL during a blizzard. In fact, we lined up on 10, with a clearance to takeoff. The error was caught and the takeoff not attempted. Tower was advised and nobody lost an eye. A HEADING CHECK PRIOR TO THROTTLE UP SHOULD BE A MENTAL CHECK BY EVERY PILOT ON EVERY TAKEOFF!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Moon The Loon said: Absolutely true, hollywud. Thankfully, my first and last one was at Logan ~1995. I caught myself just crossing the hold-short line on 15R. A few years earlier, we lined up on what we thought was the intersection of 06L @ CYUL during a blizzard. In fact, we lined up on 10, with a clearance to takeoff. The error was caught and the takeoff not attempted. Tower was advised and nobody lost an eye. A HEADING CHECK PRIOR TO THROTTLE UP SHOULD BE A MENTAL CHECK BY EVERY PILOT ON EVERY TAKEOFF!!!!! I believe map/runway/heading check is now part of all Boeing SOP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canoehead Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Not to defend their lack of attention to detail, but taxiing outbound for departure of YYZ 23 is normally A and H. It's possible that the non-standard taxi routing may have played a role in my mind. "A" ends at "H". "B" crosses it, and also crosses 05-23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Moon The Loon said: Absolutely true, hollywud. Thankfully, my first and last one was at Logan ~1995. I caught myself just crossing the hold-short line on 15R. A few years earlier, we lined up on what we thought was the intersection of 06L @ CYUL during a blizzard. In fact, we lined up on 10, with a clearance to takeoff. The error was caught and the takeoff not attempted. Tower was advised and nobody lost an eye. A HEADING CHECK PRIOR TO THROTTLE UP SHOULD BE A MENTAL CHECK BY EVERY PILOT ON EVERY TAKEOFF!!!!! Runway 10 at YYZ? You sure your surname isn't Wright, or Bleriot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 I think Moon is referring to YUL's 06L and 10 intersection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 51 minutes ago, Canoehead said: Not to defend their lack of attention to detail, but taxiing outbound for departure of YYZ 23 is normally A and H. It's possible that the non-standard taxi routing may have played a role in my mind. "A" ends at "H". "B" crosses it, and also crosses 05-23. It's very possible Canoehead. I think "B" is normally a southbound taxi route when landing 05/23. The odd time I've had to use 15L due to performance, we've taxiied north on "A" to "H" and made the left turn to"B" to cross 05/23. That zig-zag helps reduce the potential error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alt* Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Cheating a little, I Just look at my OANS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 OANS or EFB map displays are a great tool for airport ground navigation. There is still the man/machine connection which results in today's human error incidents. OANS: http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/on-board-airport-navigation-system-oans-debuts-on-a320-and-a330-families-of-aircraft/ EFB: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_23/EFB.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 Yet another one at one of Toronto's south end hot spots. Is the problem fatigued commuter/connector pilots or YYZ itself? https://www.aeroinside.com/item/8125/expressjet-crj9-at-toronto-on-aug-16th-2016-runway-incursion?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=20160823 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 LHR has a great light system that seems to work. But it would cost money that should really go to waterfalls and art collections. What am I thinking, YYZ get into the 1990's safety systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 10 hours ago, blues deville said: I think Moon is referring to YUL's 06L and 10 intersection. DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Perkins Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 4 hours ago, blues deville said: Yet another one at one of Toronto's south end hot spots. Is the problem fatigued commuter/connector pilots or YYZ itself? https://www.aeroinside.com/item/8125/expressjet-crj9-at-toronto-on-aug-16th-2016-runway-incursion?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=20160823 That configuration has stop bars protecting 24R/06L. The article does not indicate if they were active or not. Pretty much all you can do has been done short of a MAJOR re-design of that south complex such as end-around taxiways (not likely to happen). Perhaps more emphasis on surface operations during recurrent training might be one partial solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert Perkins said: That configuration has stop bars protecting 24R/06L. The article does not indicate if they were active or not. Pretty much all you can do has been done short of a MAJOR re-design of that south complex such as end-around taxiways (not likely to happen). Perhaps more emphasis on surface operations during recurrent training might be one partial solution. Emphasis during recurrent would certainly be a good thing but I've always thought landing on 06R/24L at YYZ and then crossing the parallel was just accident waiting to happen. During night time ops its pretty hard to miss those stop bars. Not sure, as you say, if they were functioning or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The only way to ensure hold short is to have bollards come up and bar the way. If you are unfamiliar with the airport and the lighting scheme and not paying 100% attention you will cause an incursion sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 16 hours ago, mo32a said: The only way to ensure hold short is to have bollards come up and bar the way. If you are unfamiliar with the airport and the lighting scheme and not paying 100% attention you will cause an incursion sooner or later. Maybe YYZ needs to install something like that ASAP. https://www.aeroinside.com/item/8130/canada-a333-at-toronto-on-aug-17th-2016-runway-incursion?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=20160824 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QFE Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 RE: 06R/24L This came up a while back and I suggested land on 24R and takeoff 24L to eliminate the taxi incursion. I think it was Murray who explained why this was not done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 IMO, this is part human factor, part systemic (overloaded freq, equipment, traffic flow). No one goes to work in this business, in any seat, with the intent of being a slacker. No point in casting blame if best efforts are continuing to yield unsafe outcomes. Have a look at YYZ's ground layout, traffic flow and ATC interface. Consider the timing of a lot of critical communications when compared with the timing of onboard calls. In my opinion, ground operations such as YYZ, but certainly not only there, include a constant process where one step opens holes in the Reason layers, requiring the successful execution of a later step to prevent an incursion. There are plenty of cases now where the crew was cleared to do something, then the cancellation of that clearance was blocked. The crew went with the instruction they heard last. That' of course, is not the only cause, it's a web. There are still too many events where the callsign is clipped off the front of the ATC transmission. I was taxiing just a short while ago when there were two aircraft in motion with the last three digits of the flight number the same. Clipped transmission, wrong aircraft took the instruction. Nothing happened in that case because the other crew spoke up and asked, 'was that for us?'. ATC is not doing this on purpose and really is in a tough spot. The individual transmitting can't tell if their transmission is clipped or blocked and the flight crew may be dealing with all sorts of noise, cabin secure call, company frequency (should not be active but often is), auto callouts caused by pre takeoff checklists such as config tests (aircraft dependent) or 'approaching runway' (again aircraft dependent) A number of US airports are installing runway safety aids in recognition of just how tough a nut this is to crack. To the poster's points above, unless we deal with the overall event environment and change the infrastructure itself, you can swap any airline's name into these incident reports. It's not if, it's when. All just my opinion Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.