AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

[rxl]

Stuff it Complex.

Sometimes accidents and the resultant TSB report and recommendations fundamentally change the way we do business in this industry. I think YHZ is going to be one of those times so getting it right is critically important.

Maybe the change has already started. At Air Canada's request, all CPA carriers have adopted approach ban criteria for non-precision and CAT I ILS approaches that are more restrictive than the CARs.

[av8ts]

Have they adopted them?? Not all were following them before, why would they follow more restrictive ones?

[rxl]

Have they adopted them?? Not all were following them before, why would they follow more restrictive ones?

Jazz has adopted them. The request from Air Canada applies to all CPA carriers.

[cossack]

Trying to bring this thread back towards topic.

Back on page 2 I suggested that there was probably a good reason that the configuration of the airport was 15R/15L. In the thread on PPRuNe someone posted this:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA ... /CYHZ/CYYZ

It clearly shows weather to the west which probably precluded arrivals from the west and departures to the west, so any configuration using the east-west runways was unavailable. The only CATIII runways are 05 and 06L.

The area to the south of the airport is very noise sensitive so the preferential landing runway after midnight would be 15L. Due volume of traffic still arriving, two runways were probably still authorized for use by the GTAA, so 15R is the arrival runway and 15L the departure runway. Using them in the opposite way brings about its own challenges on the ground, so is avoided unless we're in snow/de-icing.

The usual upper winds with a weather system like this are usually from the SW, making approaches to the 33s not only over a noise sensitive area but with a tail wind too.

[Bede]

Cossack,
Thanks for the good feedback re pilot contributions to speed things up.

FICU,
Here's something about different grooving types I ripped off another forum re difference in grooving between YVQ and MIA.

Let's approach the issue of dry, wet and damp runway conditions from the pavement engineering perspective. Dry runway means that the dry weather friction can be expected (which is usually good). Damp runway means that the wet weather friction can be expected (which can range from fair to poor; it is not usually poor and would only be so on greasy or polished stone surfaces which are very rare on runways). Wet runway means that the wet weather friction can be expected plus there can be standing water (friction can range from fair to very poor; it can easily be poor or very poor because standing water can lead to aquaplaning).

Now the normal runway micro surface (that is the surface seen from very close-up) should be a little bit rough, just as it should be on any road. ICAO requires a minimum texture for a new surface of 1mm. In fact, as I tell my students of pavement engineering, if you fall off your bicycle, you should skin your knee. This means that the surface has some texture. The texture enables the stones imbedded in the surface to stick up above any water, and small rain showers or very thin sheets of standing water can dissipate between the stones as the tyre rolls over them, and this ensures that no aquaplaning occurs unless there is lots of standing water.

Most [black coloured] runways are surfaced with asphalt (asphaltic concrete for the Americans and bituminous concrete for the British). This typically has a very smooth surface, and the ungrooved texture is low/poor. I measured a pretty smooth asphalt surfaced carpark the other day to test a new texture measuring machine, and got 0.4mm. Normal asphalt texture varies but an average could be 0.6mm. If you fall off your bicycle, you won't skin your knee. Small rain showers or very thin sheets of standing water cannot dissipate between the stones because the surface is so smooth that it doesn't have any stones sticking up. Asphalt needs grooving.
The few runways that are "sealed" or "chip sealed" are also black and have a rough texture (typically 1.5mm) and you will skin your knee if you fall off your bicycle. Sometimes the airport will put a chip seal (aka surface dressing) on top of the asphalt to get the same effect.

Grooving is an artificial way of restoring texture to asphalt, and it is a Good Thing. It gives the gaps that the water can dissipate into as the tyre rolls over the asphalt. A grooved runway is restored to being equivalent in surface texture to a surface that is a little bit rough. The ICAO groove spacings of 3mm x 3mm @ 25mm centres adds 0.4mm to the asphalt texture of say 0.6mm, which gives 1.0mm. The "big tropical" grooves of 6mm x 6mm @ 31mm centres add 1.1mm texture, giving typically 1.1+0.6=1.7mm. An asphalt runway that is not grooved is a) a lot cheaper to build, and b) plain dangerous. You'll sometimes see a few around the place, disappearing rapidly under your wing as you frantically try and stop in the wet. The other treatment you may see, which is equivalent in terms of restoring texture to grooving, is "porous", and it is also a Good Thing.

For example, look at Perth, Australia - the 06/24 and 03/21 runways are respectively porous and grooved (well done Torb). This simply means that they are now up to normal surfacing standards in terms of texture. Look at Cairns, Australia - the 12/30 and 15/33 runways are respectively sealed and grooved. This means that 12/30 is already at normal texture surfacing standards, and 15/33 is up to normal surfacing standards (well done Andy).

Grooving won't cope with standing water due to ruts and birdbaths in the runway (common in worn-out runways). Grooving won't cope with deep standing water due to heavy rainstorms (hint: equatorial). Grooving won't cope with standing water due to all the grooves and texture being filled up with rubber (hint: Bangkok).

If you can see standing water (puddles or sheets of water glistening) as you line up, then you should be concerned regardless of whether the book says the runway has been grooved or not.

In conclusion, grooved asphalt should be treated as a normal runway surface, and normal limits applied (wet/dry etc) without further regard to whether it is grooved or not. Ungrooved asphalt or "not porous" asphalt should be considered as sub-standard and treated with caution. By the way, the groves give no grip at all in themselves, and I cannot see why any crosswind limitations should be changed on grooved runways.

[JasonE]

In reference to runway grooving: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 8-1724.htm

[GyvAir]

FICU,
Here's something about different grooving types I ripped off another forum re difference in grooving between YVQ and MIA.

What kind of grooving do they have in Miami, Ottawa and Norman Wells? Would at least Ottawa and Miami not have been done to ICAO standards?

[pelmet]

Occurrence No.: A17O0043 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type: RUNWAY EXCURSION (v)
Date: 2017-03-15 Time: 05:10:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
ONTARIO
Location: CYOW - MacDonald-Cartier Intl - Ottawa
Country: CANADA Province: ONTARIO
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FGYL Operator: AIR CANADA
Manufacturer: AIRBUS Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model: A320-200 CARS Sub Part: 705 - AIRLINER
Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 130
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
C-FGYL, an Airbus 320-200 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA470 from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl, ON (CYYZ) to Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Intl, ON (CYOW). During the landing sequence on Runway 32 at CYOW, the aircraft drifted to the left and, upon touchdown on the hard surface, the left main landing gear was laterally within a few feet from the runway edge

[Canoehead]

Just being the devil's advocate for a minute, but if the left main gear didn't leave the runway, how can this be a 'runway excursion'?

[GyvAir]

In the CADORS, they called it "Abnormal runway contact"

[pelmet]

Report is out....

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 7o0025.pdf

Why not use the Autoland or have procedures implemented to allow one

Was riding as a passenger in the back of a company aircraft today. I did notice that it was fairly dark on approach on the right side. A rainshower was encountered on short final and we did a nice go-around. Came back around for another approach and I figured that they would do an Autoland this time they di(you can feel the difference by the way it flares more aggressively). It was raining about the same and we had a successful landing. Then it really started raining soon after.

All crew went to the hotel together and as I suspected, the first approach was manual and the visibility became very blurred at 200 feet with depth perception lost although the runway was still in sight. So why not just plan an Autoland in advance under such situation if it is available. Then we would have got in the first time. We had another aircraft a few years ago that hit the runway edge lights trying to land off an ILS in a rain shower and the winds drifted them.

Amended to note that Air Canada unfortunately has not implemented Airbus required procedures at their home base to allow their Airbus aircraft to perform an autoland on CAT I runways(although the TSB does not mention this in their Autoland discussion). This airline has all the automatics provided for them but are not using them. The result was a runway excursion.

[Victory]

If CAT1 procedures are in effect I don't think you can continue an approach without the required CAT1 visual reference below minimums.

[pelmet]

If CAT1 procedures are in effect I don't think you can continue an approach without the required CAT1 visual reference below minimums.

According to the report, they had the required visual references at minimums.

[groundpilot]

Not on the Airbus anymore but believe you can't do Autolands without Reduced Visibility Operations in effect due to the protected ILS area. It can get quite wonky on an autoland with a funky localizer and/or glideslope

[cossack]

If Cat1 approaches are advertised, then Cat1 spacing and flow rates are in effect. You will likely encounter an ILS deviation as spacing and ground protection will be insufficient for autoland. You can certainly ask for an autoland but you may get delayed.

15R is Cat1 only so in this case another runway (05 or 06L) are the only choices and would not be accommodated due to traffic.

There wasn't much wind close to the ground and all was good until a hefty manual input at 26' took them off to the side with insufficient time to recover.

[Rockie]

Aircraft are not certified to auto land except on CATII/III runways with low visibility airport procedures in effect. Specific aircraft equipment must be serviceable, specific crew procedures must be briefed and executed, the aircraft may not be above max landing weight, and the wind must within certain limits. If all these conditions are met, the crew is of course still responsible and must be hands on ready to initiate a go-around at any point if necessary.

Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways but must be treated with heavy suspicion as neither the runway, ILS installation or aircraft are certified for it, and none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.

[Eric Janson]

An autoland and a Cat2/3 approach are 2 different things.

As Rockie correctly states an autoland can be made on any runway with an ILS. However there is no guarantee it will be successful for any number of reasons.

Normally an Airline will publish a list of autoland approved runways.

Mine doesn't - so I don't do autolands except on Cat2/3 certified runways. I'm not a Test Pilot.

If low visibility procedures are not in effect it is important to inform ATC that you are making an autoland so they can keep vehicles and aircraft out of the ILS protected areas.

[pelmet]

Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways but must be treated with heavy suspicion as neither the runway, ILS installation or aircraft are certified for it, and none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.

From the FAA...." Air Traffic Control (ATC) protects the ILS critical areas when arriving aircraft are inside the outer marker/final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach, and the reported ceiling is less than 800 feet or visibility is less than 2 miles."

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviatio ... O12007.pdf

[Rockie]

I see you’ve made it your life’s work to dispute everything I say Pelmet...very well.

CAT I runways do not have the same ILS critical area isolation criteria or procedures CAT II/III runways have to enable auto lands. That’s just one of the reasons they aren’t certified on CAT I runways, or on CAT II/III runways when those criteria are not met. Have you noticed CAT II/III hold lines don’t exist on CAT I runways?

So no Pelmet, none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.

[pelmet]

I see you’ve made it your life’s work to dispute everything I say Pelmet...very well.

So no Pelmet, none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.

I just dispute incorrect information whether it is from you or anyone else. It has nothing to do with personal opinion about a poster. Too bad this crew didn't advise ATC about doing an Autoland. This incident would not have happened. Does AC have a restriction on autolands on CAT I runways?

Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways ………………… none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.

none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.

"From the FAA...." Air Traffic Control (ATC) protects the ILS critical areas when arriving aircraft are inside the outer marker/final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach, and the reported ceiling is less than 800 feet or visibility is less than 2 miles."