Weather and Staffing delays at YYZ Aug 12, 2017

[gator]

So things get slower and slower at CYYZ. 

The other day, we were waiting for takeoff on 24R (landing on 24R, 24L not in use, apparently because of shortages) and tower wouldn't clear us to to position with traffic more than 4 miles on final. I asked (not in a sarcastic voice) "What do you need between arrivals to get us out?" . The tower controller said that he needed the departure airborne when the following arrival was at 2 miles. or  he would have to go around and they had had 4 recent go-arounds. Of course, nobody apparently told the approach controller they needed more than 4.7 miles between arrivals. 

Somehow, CYYZ ATC has decided that it's safer to have two aircraft in the sky within 3 miles of each other than one on the ground and one in the sky. 

Listen for my question and the tower's response at 22:45 of this exchange.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyyz/CYYZ-Twr-Aug-13-2017-2100Z.mp3

They just keep impressing me. It's like they are still in a non-radar environment. The Americans would have been laughing at this in 1985.

[Guest]

And now it's the baggage system.

Glitch in baggage system causes delays at Pearson's Terminal 3

The system is only working intermittently, causing problems for staff loading baggage on planes

CBC NewsPosted: Aug 15, 2017 11:24 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 16, 2017 1:04 AM ET

Baggage piled up at Pearson International Airport's Terminal 3 Tuesday night after glitch in the baggage induction system. (Mehrdad Nazarahari/CBC News)

 

Passengers flying out of Pearson International Airport's Terminal 3 are experiencing delays due to technical problems with the baggage induction system, according to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA).

"As a result, check-in for passengers is impacted. We have 15 additional staff helping load bags," Robin Smith of the GTAA told CBC Toronto Tuesday night.  

"Other service staff are also helping and we have staff on hand communicating with passengers about the issue. Staff are also handing out water to affected passengers," he said.

Many passengers were forced to wait several hours to board their flights as the luggage piled up waiting to be loaded. Some vented their frustration on social media. 

The GTAA says it doesn't know the exact number of flights that have been delayed, but it does say the induction system is working only intermittently, and staff are manually handling bags as it stops working.

Smith said it's a technical issue and has nothing to do with the ongoing labour dispute with baggage handlers employed by Swissport.

The GTAA says it doesn't know how many flights have been delayed. (Mehrdad Nazarahari/CBC News)

There's no timeline on when the issue will be resolved. The GTAA has called in a team to try to fix the problem.

[Vsplat]

gator, I recently saw one of our 320's go around on 23, the issue was a loss of situational awareness in the tower controller. 

The 320 came on frequency at the FAF, the controller immediately told them back to final approach speed, he was going to launch one ahead of them.  He then cleared an asian carrier widebody to position, so full length.  The widebody started moving past the hold line maybe 30 seconds later, with the crew querying if they were, in fact, cleared for takeoff.  Needing the full length is not surprising for a fully loaded widebody, but it should not be surprising that taxi is very slow for aircraft needing that extra length.   the controller called the go around and in the same transmission issued a new missed approach clearance based on heading and a new missed approach altitude.

I wish there was more opportunity to have ATC in the flight deck to witness what a controller does to crew communications when they issue a customised missed approach clearance while the crew is trying to hear each other's calls and get the configuration done.   It is several kinds of ugly.  The crew ends up having to override the very automation that was designed to make the maneuver as safe as possible, so opens up the threat of an altitude bust, tracking error,  flap or gear overspeed, or all of the above.

I will say, it looks to me like the controllers are being pressured to shoehorn as many aircraft as they can fit into the pattern, leave no excess space or holes, but they don't have the right tools to do it smoothly.  It ends up coming down to the gut of the controller.  If they have the right picture, it is all good.  Shave it too tight and you have a go around, which starts a domino of an unplanned aircraft now needing to get fit in to the approach stream, or on the other end, aircraft in the flare while an aircraft is rotating off the far end.  This second case is more of a concern than the first.

Mark my words, One of these days, we are going to have a lander and departure on the same runway at the same time.

Vs

 

 

[gator]

5 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

but they don't have the right tools to do it smoothly.

... tools and RULES.

At many airports, especially in the US, as long as the departure and arrival are not on the runway at the same time, it's ok. So the arrival can be, essentially, 0.1 miles from touchdown when the departure lifts off. In YYZ, the  standard, according to the controller I was talking to (above), is 2 MILES.  No wonder they can't move traffic. I'm not saying that they should plan for that type of separation, but in YYZ, if the arrival is at 1.9 miles and the departure is not off the ground yet, they instruct a go around. I can't see how it is safe or efficient to force pilots to carry out a maneuver they rarely do in real life, then throw in different missed approach instructions.

We can safely go around from 1/2 mile prior to landing. That leaves about 45 seconds more than the current Nav Can'tada separation standards. Either the departure rejects and is on the ground or is in the air going away. 

 

[Zan Vetter]

06R not in use today, normal weekday VMC...we got vectored for 10 mins spent $300 in extra fuel and probably busted about two dozen connections. Who pays for this? Not Nav Canada.

[blues deville]

Are these just operational or manning issues or possibly trainees being left alone until it all goes south? I've had a few G/A's at YYZ that were all VMC and usually followed by a voice change on the radio. I've said this before on AEF, they don't know when we have a trainee at the controls. 

[st27]

maybe time to update the ops manual for tower controllers..probably frustrating for them to adhere to standards in vmc that would make US tower controllers gag..

 Nav Canada likes to brag ..one of the safest atc systems in the world [but also, not the most efficient!]

[mo32a]

Wow, quite the little bitxh fest. If you are VMC there is no separation minimum a controller has to adhere to other than both aircraft shouldn't be on the runway at the same time. If you did happen to overshoot with another aircraft just lifting off you would be assigned a diverging heading to fly. Pretty simple. I don't know what is going on in YYZ but all I can say all the newer controllers are much more risk aversive than previous generations.

 

2.1 Separation of an Arriving Aircraft from a Preceding Aircraft

An arriving aircraft shall be separated from a preceding aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists:

(a) the preceding aircraft has landed and taxied off the runway;

(b) the preceding aircraft has landed or is over the landing runway and:

(i) is at a distance from the threshold sufficient to allow the arriving aircraft to complete its landing roll without jeopardizing safety, and

(ii) the arriving aircraft is advised of the preceding aircraft's position and intentions;

(c) the preceding aircraft is airborne and:

(i) is at a sufficient distance from the threshold that the arriving aircraft will not overtake it during the landing roll or conflict with it in the event of a missed approach, or

(ii) has turned to avoid any conflict with the arriving aircraft in the event of a missed approach.

[Vsplat]

mo32a

21 minutes ago, mo32a said:

If you did happen to overshoot with another aircraft just lifting off you would be assigned a diverging heading to fly. Pretty simple.

mo32a, that may seem simple to you, but IMO it is anything but when you are fully configured short final in a high bypass turbofan programmed to fly something different. 

There are a number of things that have to happen in a very specific sequence and short time span.  The aircraft energy state during that initial pitch up has to be watched pretty closely,, even in an Airbus (the 321 is a particular sweetheart for alpha floor events during the go around),  so there is not a lot of capacity for chit-chat.  Getting a go around, then trying to comprehend a new clearance, contrary to what you are expecting,  issued at the very time the crew is trying to talk to one another is just a bad situation. Easy to miss the flaps, gear, mode selection, or the clearance itself,  you name it.  So, not simple.

Apart from the basic aircraft handling, a go around is ridiculously expensive, low level fuel burn, busted connections, , etc, etc. 

With respect to the criteria above, I have been in the flare (so past the threshold) in YYZ with another aircraft lifting off.  That is the low energy regime.  If for whatever reason the aircraft ahead rejects, a low energy go around is no joke and can involve ground contact.

I'm sure the controller did not intend things to get that tight, but stuff happens, the tighter you approach the limit, the more often something will infringe on it.  So, while I understand there is no minimum separation currently in visual conditions, maybe there should be.

Vs

[mo32a]

I understand completely. The simple part was from a "loss of separation" viewpoint, not that the go around was without risks.

[Vsplat]

Roger that.  The Loss of separation part happens when the crew decides to concentrate on the go around procedure and climb on runway track until it's done, which is the default guidance in my aircraft. 

I've often wondered why there is not a 'visual approach' page for airports like YYZ.  Have the folks in the head shed figure out a standard missed approach heading (so for 23, maybe a 290 heading or so) and keep the published altitude.  Once we are cleared the visual, then we know that a missed approach will be on that heading, which some aircraft can preset.

While no panacea, that would cut down the chatter considerably and we all part friends...

Vs

[gator]

17 hours ago, mo32a said:

If you are VMC there is no separation minimum a controller has to adhere to other than both aircraft shouldn't be on the runway at the same time. If you did happen to overshoot with another aircraft just lifting off you would be assigned a diverging heading to fly. Pretty simple.

Might seem simple to you and the written words are pretty clear, but the weather was well above CAVOK they day that I was waiting short and watching an empty runway for minutes at a time. If you listen to the LiveATC feed I linked to above, you can hear for yourself that controllers have been told to apply some other criteria and "somebody" has decided that the passage you quote is not good enough. 

[mo32a]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:08 AM, gator said:

Might seem simple to you and the written words are pretty clear, but the weather was well above CAVOK they day that I was waiting short and watching an empty runway for minutes at a time. If you listen to the LiveATC feed I linked to above, you can hear for yourself that controllers have been told to apply some other criteria and "somebody" has decided that the passage you quote is not good enough. 

Well I can't help you there, you should contact NC and ask for clarification.

[gator]

And so yesterday I landed on 23 and the flight departing prior to our arrival was not airborne until we were about 1.5 miles final and they didn't tell us to go around. Sometimes I wonder what Nav Canada is doing. No... more than sometimes....

[Zan Vetter]

I landed on 24L today. Huzzah!

[blues deville]

22 minutes ago, Zan Vetter said:

I landed on 24L today. Huzzah!

Least favorite YYZ runway. 

[st27]

Maybe an apology for the crappy service and delays:

 

Nav Canada To Refund $60 Millio

 

By Mary Grady

While the aviation industry in the U.S. is fighting hard to oppose proposals to privatize the air traffic system, Nav Canada, the private not-for-profit company that runs Canada’s ATC, said recently it will refund $60 million in fees to its customers this year. “Higher than expected traffic growth this year has put us in a position to be able to refund [these fees] to our customers,” said CEO Neil Wilson, in a news release on Aug. 11. “In the past, Nav Canada has spread the return of previous years’ surpluses, when applicable, by temporarily reducing rates for the coming year. With the unusually high traffic growth, we decided to implement a refund, which will enable our customers to fully benefit sooner.” Fees are also going down, effective Sept. 1, with a 3.5 percent average reduction to base rates and a 0.4 percent one-time rate reduction. Nav Canada was established in 1996 to provide air traffic control, airport advisory services, weather briefings and aeronautical information services for Canada’s domestic and international airspace. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association recently told AOPA they should stop citing Canada’s system as an example of failure. COPA President Bernard Gervais said his 17,000 members “are largely satisfied” with the service they receive from Nav Canada, although COPA has had some issues with Nav Canada's restriction of VFR access to some of Canada's major airports in recent months. General aviation advocacy groups in the U.S. are united in opposition to efforts to privatize the U.S. system. The groups warn that the proposed new corporation would be dominated by the airlines and GA needs would be secondary.

[PAHTDC]

On August 15, 2017 at 9:14 PM, gator said:

The other day, we were waiting for takeoff on 24R (landing on 24R, 24L not in use, apparently because of shortages) and tower wouldn't clear us to to position with traffic more than 4 miles on final. I asked (not in a sarcastic voice) "What do you need between arrivals to get us out?" . The tower controller said that he needed the departure airborne when the following arrival was at 2 miles. or  he would have to go around and they had had 4 recent go-arounds. Of course, nobody apparently told the approach controller they needed more than 4.7 miles between arrivals. 

Somehow, CYYZ ATC has decided that it's safer to have two aircraft in the sky within 3 miles of each other than one on the ground and one in the sky. 

Listen for my question and the tower's response at 22:45 of this exchange.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyyz/CYYZ-Twr-Aug-13-2017-2100Z.mp3.

Hi Gator,

I believe you may have misunderstood/misheard the controller's explanation in the clip you linked to above.

 

"I need to have the first arrival off the runway and you rolling before the second arrival comes inside two miles final or I lose it....." (my transcription of most relevant controller statement) 

Key difference being the controller needs the departing aircraft moving when the arrival is at two miles final (with expectation that the departure will be airborne by the time the  arrival reaches the threshold) vs having  the departure actually airborne when the arrival is at two miles final.

 

Hence, on your Monday experience, no need for go around as that departure was likely rolling before you were two miles final.

 

In any event, the two mile final is most likely a local practice/guideline/procedure, and is not a formal separation standard.   My best understanding is there is no difference in standards canada/us on this point: no simultaneous runway occupancy (eg as mo32a quoted above).  If they get the departure rolling when arrival is two miles back, then things work out, if not, then you get the go arounds the controller mentioned.  

PAHTDC

[gator]

I see what you're saying but there was lots of time if good communication procedures were used.

In every other busy airport around the world, the clearance goes like this when the landing traffic is at about 100 ft .... "Behind the landing A320, line up behind". Or, 'behind departing B777, line up behind'.

Sometimes they say "Be ready immediate". They even say the last part occasionally in YYZ. And sometimes they ask if we are ready immediate. And even, sometimes, the first part. Sometimes it's 'contact departure airborne'. sometimes it's 'stay with me', sometimes nothing.

Notice the words "occasionally" and "sometimes". 

I know that "conditional" clearances were not allowed in Canada some time ago; not sure if that is still the case, but if they aren't, hiding behind an archaic MANOPS is not a good excuse. There's stuff in there that prescribes localizer and glideslope intercept criteria that was designed for non-radar procedure turns, even when in a radar environment.

There was exactly 2 minutes between the two flights that we were not allowed to fit between and 2:20 between flights where they did fit us in. I know 20 seconds is a lot of time sometimes, but not when the base is 2 minutes. (Of course, none of this deals with the question as to why the arrival controller didn't protect the required spacing through vectors or speed control (for "4 go arounds this afternoon")... or maybe the arrival controller follows MANOPS or maybe radar practice/guidelines/procedures and the tower has their own practice/guidelines/procedures). And why would they force a go around at 2 miles... why not wait until the arrival is a mile back to see how things work themselves out? .... we practice go arounds from 200 ft and can probably do them better from there than from 600 ft. 

If they didn't wait until the lander was past the button (plus some, sometimes), then we could be in position when the previous flight clears the runway and we would be well off the ground in less than 30 seconds from takeoff clearance ... about 1 mile. If they clear us conditionally, then the whole operation could be less than a minute... with a minute to spare. On that particular day, using webtrak, it can be seen that we were airborne when the lander behind us was at 925 ft... about 1.2 miles back. Even a 30 second delay would have had us airborne  before the lander was at 200 ft.

We never know if they're going to hold us or clear us to position. On that day we were rolling our eyes when they didn't clear us. Then, the next arrival wasn't too much farther back on TCAS... we didn't know what was going to happen.... should we be ready? or ready for another disappointment. No heads up from the tower as to what they were planning. But communication is not a big part of Nav Canada or YYZ. They don't give us distance to fly even when they plan to send us 25 miles downwind at 3000 ft, despite it being ICAO standard to do so. We don't get descent speed restrictions until AFTER we start descent, which means we wasted a bunch of fuel in cruise (at $100 per minute) when we could have started down earlier, and now have to use speedbrakes ... no advice about arrival delays until we're on the close-in controller, even when ground holds are in effect.... all part of the same lack of communications. We're told about our expected London hold by Shannon... a completely different country, let alone a different sector.

Maybe they should start following global standards instead of local rules of thumb. In my dealings with Nav Canada managment, they're quick to quote MANOPS, but apparently have a different standard for day to day ops.

If YYZ thinks they're a world class operation, then they should start looking around the world to see what the standard is because it's not happening here. I'd love it if Canada's ATC was the best or even close, but something is stopping them from moving out of the 80's. Introducing RNP approaches is not moving into the future if the rest of the system is still buried in the past.

[mo32a]

Well you can help out as well, when you are waiting for departure, "we are able an immediate" can help, when you're landing you can inform the tower you are planning for high speed exit "xx" so he/she knows you are not going to lollygag on the runway and he can get traffic out into position. It's all a matter of trust and experience.

 

Perhaps 10 minutes ago the controller got burned with some a/c slowly exiting the runway and the next a/c not quite spooling up in time and they wound up with a go around, they will be a little more circumspect for the rest of the shift. I am not apologizing for anyone, there are more talented controllers and pilots and less talented controllers and pilots, sometimes the best and the best come together and it is a beautiful thing, other times not so much.

[gator]

I agree with you, mo, and I often do that. I always call runway in sight when i can to help with high/low separation and often do tell the controller if we need a bit more runway for landing when we're heavy in a no wind condition. Not usually an issue with 6 miles of separation behind me, but most airports can get 2 departures out in six miles. YYZ can't get one out in 4.7. That's a lot of expensive concrete sitting there empty and gas being burned and connections being missed for some local rule.

A couple of times when I've had the FO tell him "ready immediate" I've been disappointed. And YYZ is set up as a "monitor" when holding short, not a "contact". The signs even say it. Then the ground controller says it. So calling is something that we're not spring loaded to do.

Pilots operating in YYZ have been lulled into a condition where they don't expect anything to happen fast. It's a completely different mindset than in ORD, LGA, LAX, or LHR. We rise to the occasion in other places and we can do it in YYZ, but we're mentally not set up for it because there's no need 99% of the time. Anytime we have less than 3 miles behind the previous lander we're briefing go around procedures again because we know that we might get one just because there is some archaic, apparently local, rule that will trigger it. In LGA or ORD, it's just normal. There was a time a few years ago where things started getting better, where we would be at 200 ft with the previous departure rotating, but they've gone downhill again. The irony is that it doesn't make it any safer. Pilots who are paying attention because they know things are happening quick are a lot safer than those who are lulled into complacency.

 I'm not saying it's the individual controllers' faults. It's the system. I can only assume that someone has been reprimanded because there has been a technical (but still safe) loss of paper separation when they've tried to be efficient, so everybody spreads stuff out just make sure that it doesn't happen to them. The rules should be there for planning and shouldn't be considered absolute for reprimand or even external reporting if a 3 mile rule is busted by a couple hundred yards.  It might be our Canadian attitude of rule compliance that creates this environment. I'm not saying to disregard them, just that they should be a bit elastic in operation vs planning.

I can certainly see needing 3 mile separation for 2 aircraft pointed at each other, but 2 aircraft pointed at 45 degrees to intercept a localizer? If one doesn't hit the LOC button at YYZ and flies through, the pilots and the controller have 50 seconds to correct it before it's a "noise" event and then only in the 1 in 50 situation where they are perfectly abeam each other. There's a dedicated controller to make sure nobody crosses the hold short line when clearing from 24L, but no dedicated controller assigned to improve the arrival efficiency and safety by watching aircraft intercept the localizer. 

I've dealt with management at NC and they circle the wagons at any suggestion that their procedures are anything less than perfect, and they're not. The only other major airports in the world that design their STARs like YYZ are Guangzhou and Beijing, yet NC management says they're world class. And, because they think their procedures are perfect, any non-compliance, even minor or inconsequential, is probably met with reprimand. If you're a quarterback and the coach pulls you out of the game every time you throw an incomplete pass, you just start running the ball...

[Guest]

YYZ is back in the news....

Pilots urged to 'remain vigilant' at Pearson after close calls on runways

Pilots' association issued safety bulletin earlier this week as TSB investigates operations at airport

By Andrea Janus, CBC NewsPosted: Sep 01, 2017 2:30 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 01, 2017 3:37 PM ET

In a 'safety bulletin' issued Wednesday, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations notes the risk of runway incursions at Pearson International Airport, where 'several' have occurred since March. (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Pilots are being urged to "remain vigilant at all times" when taxiing at Toronto's Pearson International Airport in the wake of several runway incursions that one pilot says could be avoided with precautions like better lighting and signage on the ground.

• 25 close calls on Pearson runways in 5 years, says safety board amid investigation

 

In a "safety bulletin" issued Wednesday, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations notes the risk of runway incursions at Pearson, where "several" have occurred since March of this year.

A runway incursion happens when an aircraft is in a position that it's not supposed to be, including crossing a runway when trying to get to a terminal.

The bulletin makes note of the "multiple intersecting and parallel runways supported by a complex set of controlled and uncontrolled taxiways" at Pearson.

"The airport identified 10 hotspots where risks for incursions are high, which are depicted on airport diagram pages," the bulletin says.

The bulletin also notes that airport charts show "numerous notes and cautions" about specific runways.

The bulletin concludes with a recommendation from the pilots' association that "urges all flight crews" passing through Pearson to "carefully review the airport information, remain vigilant at all times, adhere to company policies and procedures when taxiing, and request clarification of (air traffic control) instructions prior to crossing a runway during taxi operations."

TSB investigation ongoing

Last month, the Transportation Safety Board said there have been at least 25 close calls at Pearson in the last five years. The TSB opened an investigation in May into operations at the airport, and it will continue through the fall.

A separate investigation was launched after an incident at the airport on the evening of Aug. 14, when a regional United flight from Newark, N.J., crossed into an inner runway normally used for departures that the crew was told to stay away from. At the same time, an Air Canada flight was departing from that inner runway.

Last month, the GTAA said it is "fully co-operating" with the TSB's review.

In June 2012, the GTAA completed its own probe into runway incursions at the south complex of the airport. It found 40 "occurrences of interest" between 2004 and the end of 2011, and 20 of them were inner runway incursions.

As a result, the GTAA implemented a "runway incursion plan" in 2013 that included lighting, markings and signage improvements, and additional information for flight crews "to support situational awareness," the TSB said last month.Warning to pilots 'unusual'

Jock Williams, a commercial pilot and former flight safety official at Transport Canada, said it is "unusual" for the pilots' association to issue such a bulletin, which he said pilots call a CYA (which stands for cover your ass).

"Obviously enough things have happened that the airline pilots union and the Transportation Safety Board and so on want to be seen to be doing something active," Williams told CBC Radio's Metro Morning on Friday.

But such a warning puts the onus on pilots, he said, when they have a lot to consider when they land at an airport.

"Most pilots fear the taxiing around an airport far more than they ever do a flight," Williams said. "When we're flying we know exactly what to do. But when we land, particularly at an unfamiliar airport, we have no idea where they're going to ask us to go."

Reading NAV Canada's small airport diagrams — which are only a few inches square — particularly for a five-runway airport like Pearson, is difficult for pilots to do to make split-second decisions.

"It's really easy if you're not doing anything else," Williams said. "But if you're trying to steer an airplane and carry out your after-landing checks and getting ready for your arrival at the ramp, you're pretty busy."

Pilots can ask for more thorough instructions from ground controllers, Williams said, which would include exactly where and when to turn in order to get to the gate. But airports must consider changes when there have been numerous safety-related incidents, he said.

'There's still human error'

 

Some airports have installed specific lights that lead planes directly where they need to go, he said. Airports can also improve runway and taxiway signage, and also consider turning off lights entirely in areas where planes shouldn't go to help pilots know which directions to avoid.

While airport lighting is set to a government standard, each airport can make some of those helpful changes, he said.

"Remember with a jet aircraft, when you turn into the wrong place, you can't go into reverse and move your plane out of the way," Williams said. "One airplane sitting in the wrong location can really foul up an airport."

While Pearson is Canada's busiest airport, it is not any more complicated or dangerous than any other in the world, Williams said.

"But it's dangerous if you get a cocky pilot or co-pilot who thinks he can find his way without instruction and tries to read this dinky little map," he said.

Despite the recent incursions at Pearson, airline travel is still the safest mode of transportation, Williams said.

"But it has potential for tremendous danger," he said.

"Everyone is as careful as they can be. Everyone is watching out. But there's still human error and there always will be. What we've got to do is minimize the chance by suitably installing warning lights and things of that sort."