Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Message
Author
pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#51 Post by pelmet » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:56 pm

Rockie wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:39 pm
Can you cite an investigation that shows that as the reason these events happened? And while you’re at it maybe you can show us definitive proof that runway and taxiway markings are ineffective at informing crews about what’s ahead of them.
Actually, the markings are effective in YYZ if you pay attention and don't do unnecessary things at critical times. Of course there will be no TSB report for these incursions(although you might post the internal AC report for us and SFO ones as well, for safety reasons of course), but.....

As a general investigation not directly related to but similar to YYZ events....pretty much the top recommendation is...

"Recommendations
The SCRI recommends that:

Transport Canada focus on developing preventive strategies for runway incursions that result from pilot deviations. Immediate action should be taken to disseminate, on a recurring basis, information to pilots about human performance vulnerability to error due to workload, and potential distractions associated with the performance of cockpit tasks."


https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... u-1947.htm
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#52 Post by Rockie » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:12 pm

Distractions happen Pelmet, you may just be the very last person to realize that. The challenge is negating those distractions, and procedures are only one of the methods of doing that. Since no operator to my knowledge encourages crews to ignore ATC instructions, and yet these incidents still happen, other methods of keeping crews cognizant of hold short requirements need to also be employed. You even acknowledged that before embarking on this mission to expose AC’s imaginary deficient procedures.

Anyway, as stated before have a good Christmas. We’ll continue the pointless arguments in the new year.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#53 Post by pelmet » Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:50 pm

You are a strange man Rockie. I have been creating this thread to try do my very small part to prevent a major disaster.

I have mentioned that distractions are a big part of the problem and have given some detailed thoughts on what someone can do to prevent this sort of situation from happening.

Concerning distractions, you asked me
Rockie wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:39 pm
Can you cite an investigation that shows that as the reason these events happened?
I post a link to major investigation showing that distractions are a major problem and you seem to only be able to write condescending remarks in reply.
Rockie wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:12 pm
Distractions happen Pelmet, you may just be the very last person to realize that.
You seem to be quite a distasteful character. If you can't add to the safety ideas of preventing future accidents(and I don't remember any useful advice that you have given so far that wasn't a repeat of what I already said) then please refrain from posting.

Due to your tenacious defence of AC's procedures, I will assume that you are correct and hope that you and your insults disappear with that acknowledgement in hand.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#54 Post by altiplano » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:02 pm

Pot calling the kettle black?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#55 Post by pelmet » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:07 pm

altiplano wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:02 pm
Pot calling the kettle black?
Once again....after having made several suggestions myself on how to prevent a disaster tomorrow based on the current markings, I challenge you to show me one useful suggestion that you have made on this thread for the pilot landing in YYZ, or SFO, or LAX tomorrow to prevent the same.
Or better yet, try making a first safety suggestion tonight.

That would be appreciated as potshots don't save lives
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#56 Post by altiplano » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:20 pm

Have you?

In fact you made assumptions about one airline's SOP that you admittedly know nothing about... and are wrong about. That leads to a pissing match that solves nothing.

Put the hold line in a standard position. That's my suggestion. I'm speculating that guys are so far back from the runaway they think the line is further up. Cossack said the incursions are less than an aircraft length and at slow speed.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#57 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:27 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:20 pm
Put the hold line in a standard position. That's my suggestion. I'm speculating that guys are so far back from the runaway they think the line is further up. Cossack said the incursions are less than an aircraft length and at slow speed.
Once again, your suggestion for the pilot flying to Toronto tomorrow is completely useless for the pilot on the line and it is likely that the people in charge of moving makings are not on this forum.

A check of Google earth shows that the hold short line is fairly close to the runway. But lets assume that the markings are further than they should be.

So once again, as an experienced pilot, do you have any suggestions for pilots flying into Toronto on what they can to prevent this from happening, regardless of where the hold short markings are as I have been doing? We have to deal with what we've got and there is little doubt that we as pilots will encounter some differences in markings at various airports.

You keep saying that the incursion is less than an aircraft length as if it is not significant and that the incursion is at slow speed suggesting that it is not significant, yet plenty of slow taxiing aircraft have no doubt improperly entered runways over the years. The fact that the incursion distances supposedly ended as they did would be expected when, according to others on this thread, there is an alarm, an ATC watcher and an alerted controller yelling at the crew to stop.

Do you have any prevention ideas for the average pilot out there.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#58 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:49 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:20 pm
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:07 pm
Once again....after having made several suggestions myself on how to prevent a disaster tomorrow based on the current markings, I challenge you to show me one useful suggestion that you have made on this thread for the pilot landing in YYZ, or SFO, or LAX tomorrow to prevent the same.
Have you?
It surprises me that you seem unaware of that I have....repeatedly and I will repeat them here including an example of why an incursion happened and a willingness to put safety above the secrecy of an operations manual to actually prove that there is something written to try to prevent incursions. And finally after having seen your cohort somehow believe and insist that only an investigation can reveal answers as to why incursions are happening, I have provided a study proving that cockpit distractions are a major cause, only to be insulted directly by that unprofessional for that.

And once again, after a review of this thread, I haven't seen one useful post on what you feel one of us can do in the cockpit to prevent an incident like this. I now realize that neither of you two are likely to assist in providing any direct preventative advice for pilots and that your only goal is to insist without evidence that your company has the proper procedures in place. So thanks for your participation and hopefully someone else can help.

I must say that it is odd at best that this is the reaction of professional pilots to a huge safety issue being discussed but it is what it is...disappointing. However, I will continue to try to come up with information, hopefully in a collaborative manner with others on various aspects of flying to improve safety.
pelmet wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:29 pm
One should mention during the approach briefing to hold short of the parallel and it can quickly be stated after a runway change if that is the case.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:45 am
Is there a written procedure at your company stating that the after landing flow/checklist can only be done such as after receiving a clearance to taxi in from ground? This is how it is done where I work. I hope you answer this question in the name of safety as this could be a cause factor worth looking into.
Even if you decide not to let us know, I suggest to everyone that this procedure be applied. It may not be 100% effective but it is designed to keep pilots looking outside at potentially critical moments.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:42 am
Keeping the lights on, flaps and speed brakes extended, and both pilots looking outside the cockpit window seems likely to reduce the chances of accidentally crossing a hold short line and passing by/over hold short lights.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:35 pm
Like most companies, we have an ops manual. As well, there are memos on certain procedures the company wants us to follow. Part of the statement on vacating runways in the manual states..."No switch or lever shall be repositioned after landing until clear of the active runway unless necessary for the safe control of the aircraft." After a incident similar to what has been posted on this thread involving close parallel runways with a hold short clearance which was caused by the captain becoming distracted by the copilot operating the landing lights, a memo was produced about including close parallel runways being included in this practice. Therefore in my experience we always have a taxi clearance prior to the after landing flow. It is just the way it always works out.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#59 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:04 am

Re: Have you?

Again all you are doing is making guesses that people are being careless... and then demanding proof about one operation's procedure...

Do you know that is not being done? Vigilance is always important.

I think the reason the incursions are slow and of a short amount is because guys don't have the right picture being so far back. It's a familiarity thing too.

They cross the line at slow speed because they are so far back from the other runway they think it's not the right line to stop at and they are moving forward with the expectation of holding short at a line further ahead, you know, where the line would usually be another half a football field ahead...

FWIW I always brief hotspots and crossing runways - always. Delay after landing flows until either clear or brake set and waiting. Pretty sure that's all SOP too.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by altiplano on Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#60 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:40 am

altiplano wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:04 am
Re: Have you?

Again all you are doing is making guesses that people are being careless.

Do you know that is not being done?
As frustrating as it is to have to repeatedly say the same thing, please look at the study that I provided a link to on the last page and go to the conclusions area.

I admit that this can feel like talking to a brick wall and while it is tempting for me to give up when you refuse to believe anything I say despite it being obviously correct, in the name of safety and saving lives, I will continue....

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36244/dis ... report.pdf

"In a subsequent study, Monan (1992) examined 140 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports to determine the causes of runway incursions. The examination revealed that 23 incidents involved a breakdown of attention management by the pilot due to distraction. Often the distraction was caused by a flight attendant entering the cockpit or a head-down task associated with programming the Flight Management System (FMS). The sources of distraction were ranked in order of most to least distracting as follows:
1. Checklists 2. Passenger announcements 3. Company radio calls 4. Miscellaneous (system malfunction, putting away manuals, etc) 5. Flight attendant entering the cockpit 6. Conversation 7. FMS programming.


A specific example was given...

" In one incident, cognitive distraction contributed to a runway incursion at Sydney airport. According to the investigation report:
During discussions with the crew of the Metro, it became apparent that, after landing, the pilot under training had been concerned with his performance during the practice ILS approach, and had initiated a brief discussion with the training captain at about the time the aircraft had been taxiing along taxiway Juliet. "



I suspect that there are many out there who do not want to hurt feelings by admitting that someone was careless. In this politically correct era, some seem more concerned about preventing hurt feelings than preventing accidents with harsh analysis and therefore blame the personless airport authority for where they located the hold short line(and enhanced taxiway line and the lights across the taxiway, and the flashing wig-wags). But the harsh truth shows the reality. It is not difficult to hold short of a runway at YYZ, but if you are careless, it will happen...to you or to me. Make it a specific point to ignore the distractions that inevitably come up at inopportune times and as well, don't create your own distractions.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#61 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:00 am

While of general interest and a good reminder of the risks caused by distraction, it doesn't specifically address these incursions... rather it talks about the distraction issue across all aspects of flight operations.

You are grasping at one point, making broad assumptions, and making claims guys aren't paying attention - which may be an issue or may not be an issue case to case. You do not know.

I'm not saying guys aren't distracted sometimes, or maybe they didn't brief the hotspot because the approach listed on the ATIS was 23 and they were assigned 24L at 12000' and had to hustle to reprogram and slam a quick briefing together - but you're grasping at a single issue which you do not know is the root of this problem and discounting other factors, you are making assumptions and demanding proof of one company's procedures, yet you really aren't offering anything beyond reminding to increase vigilance and try to avoid distraction - which our procedures/bulletins/briefings certainly cover.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#62 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:08 am

In response to the edit... about blaming the airport...

It's not about assigning blame Pelmet - which is something you seems ripe to do.

Rather it's about all factors that contribute to the problem. That's the way the safety system in our industry is designed...

Crew vigilance/briefings/SOP/charts/communications/ATC/standardized markings/lighting/placement - all those play a factor in keeping it safe.

If the existing infrastructure/safeguards/etc. aren't doing it then we need to recognize that and be adaptable, possibly look at changing it. ie. It's not enough in this circumstance. What more can we do? Additional safeguards?

Clearly the pilot ultimately went over the line... but you are assuming you know why the pilot went over the line... I suggest your assumption isn't always correct. Lots of vigilant people make mistakes. Why? That's the conversation.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by altiplano on Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#63 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:16 am

Further to it... I expect we'll be seeing soon what the TSB says...

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i ... 7o0038.asp
Background
In June 2012, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) completed an investigation into runway incursions on the south complex of CYYZ. It identified 40 occurrences of interest between 2004 and the end of 2011, of which 20 were inner runway incursions (incursions between the two parallel runways). The GTAA implemented a runway incursion plan based on its findings, and completed the changes outlined in the plan at the end of 2013.

From the last incursion recorded in the GTAA investigation in December 2011 to May 2017 there have been another 22 inner runway incursions at the CYYZ south complex: 13 prior to the completion of the GTAA's runway incursion plan in 2013, and 9 since then.

The south complex has characteristics not found at other airports in Canada and elsewhere in the world.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#64 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:19 am

altiplano wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:00 am
I'm not saying guys aren't distracted sometimes, or maybe they didn't brief the hotspot because the approach listed on the ATIS was 23 and they were assigned 24L at 12000' and had to hustle to reprogram and slam a quick briefing together
As I already mentioned on the first page, if there is a runway change, a few seconds can be taken to make a quick mention about the having to hold short of the parallel runway at that time. Of course the sharp guys will have already mentioned this and other basics of a likely alternative approach during the initial briefing about the not uncommon situation of a runway change such as "By the way, if we have to land on 24L, we have to make sure to hold short of 24R. Remind me as I clear the runway". Five simple seconds to say that ten or twenty minutes before the initial descent. I do that going into SFO in case we get 28R instead of the usual 28L(along with a few other things). A runway change is not a valid excuse for an incursion.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#65 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:22 am

You again make assumptions. You mention only one piece in the puzzle...
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#66 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 am

altiplano wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:22 am
You again make assumptions. You mention only one piece in the puzzle...
Thanks for the reply. My assumptions are backed up by studies as a very significant piece of the puzzle. I am still hoping you might give some new advice that hasn't been posted previously. It is always nice to hear what others are doing and are certainly welcome.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2704
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#67 Post by altiplano » Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:17 am

Not going anywhere.

Have a good one.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#68 Post by pelmet » Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:29 am

altiplano wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:17 am
pelmet wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 am
I am still hoping you might give some new advice that hasn't been posted previously. It is always nice to hear what others are doing and are certainly welcome.
Not going anywhere.

Have a good one.
Hmmm....no advice from either, no surprise.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#69 Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:35 am

All the things you’re harping about Pelmet crews already do...you didn’t invent them. Any procedure you come up with is already being done or already been tried. Stop looking for the silver bullet procedure or trying to find a systemic procedural deficiency because you won’t find it.

Despite all the precautions in taxiing airplanes and briefings and whatnot these events still happen so what to do about it. You mentioned one regarding lights and I agreed with you. Does that not satisfy you? Why do you still need to find some deficiency in AC’s procedures when this type of thing clearly happens to everybody?

It’s like you’re on a mission to discredit AC or something and will not be deterred by anything.
---------- ADS -----------
  

hamstandard
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#70 Post by hamstandard » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:57 pm

pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:50 pm
Due to your tenacious defence of AC's procedures, I will assume that you are correct
Rockie wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:35 am
Why do you still need to find some deficiency in AC’s procedures when this type of thing clearly happens to everybody?

It’s like you’re on a mission to discredit AC or something and will not be deterred by anything.

Jesus C_____ Rockie, the guy already said that he accepts your point of view on AC's procedures. Reading through you responses, I was understanding of your point of view on that particular subject but now you are starting to sound like a wingnut ready for the rubber room.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#71 Post by pelmet » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:45 am

As stated, I already gave Rockie the benefit if the doubt on his company's procedures as the important thing is to do our best as pilots to prevent a disaster. I suppose some might like to say that everything has been tried and there is nothing else we should do with the inevitable result of the status quo where the incursions continue, but I suggest that if the incursions continue, there is a deficiency in certain procedural areas in at least isolated cases. The deficiency may be as simple as pilots not following SOP but there is a deficiency for something that is really fairly basic.

Therefore, I request that Rockie, in the same way as I requested to Altiplano(or anyone else) with their extensive flying experience to to spend some time to consider(or re-consider) what could be added to my suggestions on how to prevent future incidents and possibly a disaster. It is more important than any back and forth arguing over small items. While I haven't gotten i direct response yet, I remain hopeful.

Thanks for your consideration.

pelmet wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:29 pm
One should mention during the approach briefing to hold short of the parallel and it can quickly be stated after a runway change if that is the case.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:45 am
Is there a written procedure at your company stating that the after landing flow/checklist can only be done such as after receiving a clearance to taxi in from ground? This is how it is done where I work. I hope you answer this question in the name of safety as this could be a cause factor worth looking into.
Even if you decide not to let us know, I suggest to everyone that this procedure be applied. It may not be 100% effective but it is designed to keep pilots looking outside at potentially critical moments.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:42 am
Keeping the lights on, flaps and speed brakes extended, and both pilots looking outside the cockpit window seems likely to reduce the chances of accidentally crossing a hold short line and passing by/over hold short lights.
pelmet wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:35 pm
Like most companies, we have an ops manual. As well, there are memos on certain procedures the company wants us to follow. Part of the statement on vacating runways in the manual states..."No switch or lever shall be repositioned after landing until clear of the active runway unless necessary for the safe control of the aircraft." After a incident similar to what has been posted on this thread involving close parallel runways with a hold short clearance which was caused by the captain becoming distracted by the copilot operating the landing lights, a memo was produced about including close parallel runways being included in this practice. Therefore in my experience we always have a taxi clearance prior to the after landing flow. It is just the way it always works out.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#72 Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:57 pm

pelmet wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:45 am
Therefore, I request that Rockie, in the same way as I requested to Altiplano(or anyone else) with their extensive flying experience to to spend some time to consider(or re-consider) what could be added to my suggestions on how to prevent future incidents and possibly a disaster. It is more important than any back and forth arguing over small items. While I haven't gotten i direct response yet, I remain hopeful.
You're not listening Pelmet, but I'll give it one more try before giving up. Your suggestion about a line of red lights (two parallel lines like are on the runway would be better) leading into the highspeed corner up to the red stop bars are the best suggestion I've heard and would be very effective in my opinion in breaking through whatever distractions are preventing crews from adhering to hold short instructions.

Procedures, reminders and other personal tricks people may have are already effective or we would be having many more incursions than we do now. The problem with them is that they will never be 100% effective, and although rare compared to how many times crews do it properly distractions and errors will still occur. Something more dramatic is called for here, and more obvious red lights are my choice.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#73 Post by pelmet » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:03 pm

Rockie wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:57 pm
pelmet wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:45 am
Therefore, I request that Rockie, in the same way as I requested to Altiplano(or anyone else) with their extensive flying experience to to spend some time to consider(or re-consider) what could be added to my suggestions on how to prevent future incidents and possibly a disaster. It is more important than any back and forth arguing over small items. While I haven't gotten i direct response yet, I remain hopeful.
Your suggestion about a line of red lights (two parallel lines like are on the runway would be better) leading into the highspeed corner up to the red stop bars are the best suggestion I've heard and would be very effective in my opinion in breaking through whatever distractions are preventing crews from adhering to hold short instructions.

Procedures, reminders and other personal tricks people may have are already effective or we would be having many more incursions than we do now. The problem with them is that they will never be 100% effective, and although rare compared to how many times crews do it properly distractions and errors will still occur. Something more dramatic is called for here, and more obvious red lights are my choice.
I have been listening and providing useful information for the whole thread instead of ferociously defending an SOP with no evidence which doesn't further the conversation. But, I will take your word in order to once again try to get back on the conversation of safety.

A red lights idea could be helpful at some point in the future but that of course could take months or years at minimum plus, the suggestion I made was for Runway Status lights which are not always illuminated and have nothing to do with a hold short clearance. I just thought that you(or someone else) might have a suggestion or two in addition to mine about what pilots might do in the interim or at other locations with a similar layout.

And unfortunately, the reality is that it is inevitable that the enhancements such as the red lights idea will not be installed at many locations we fly to such as LAX and SFO(until possibly after a major disaster). And the incursion rate at YYZ(and likely other locations) is unacceptable, even if considered rare.

Thanks.

As seen by the reply below, you didn't really offer anything new as asked but certainly, a briefing is a good start. Unfortunately, you may be finishing at that point as well. Wig-Wags and hold short lights in the taxiway are already completely obvious. The only way to miss them accidentally is to not be paying attention.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:05 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7443
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#74 Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:35 pm

pelmet wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:03 pm
I just thought that you(or someone else) might have a suggestion or two in addition to mine about what pilots might do in the interim or at other locations with a similar layout.
I wish I did. My own technique is specifically briefing that we will stop and in no circumstances cross the other runway until we are cleared to. My default position is to stop and it seems to have worked so far. But distractions are insidious and I repeat that no one does this on purpose. I'm not immune to errors, and what I do to have the right mindset won't work on everybody and may not work on me sometime in the future.

A blinding series of red lights though? That'll break through even my fog...
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3039
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Pilots warned to stay alert for Toronto incursion risks

#75 Post by pelmet » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:52 pm

Rockie wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:05 am
But telling you specifically what our procedures are isn't going to make anything safer. If you really want to know what our procedures are I'll give you an address at flight operations you can write to and ask.
That's strange......you seem awfully willing to immediately quote your FOM when you actually have a written procedure to base your argument upon(as seen on another thread as quoted below).....
Rockie wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:10 am
You really should read the section in the FOM Altifina. It says "advise if possible", not "ask permission".

I don't understand why you're arguing this, it's black and white. The "Any life threatening situation" is what should give you pause ........
PIC advised (if possible) as per FOM policy.

Get over it.
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1024755


......but a total unwillingness to do the same for this thread. Makes one wonder why. I think I know why, but would be delighted to be proven wrong.

And now, a few days later....some details on AC policy concerning evacuations yet nothing to back up what he said on this thread Why? Because he was making up his earlier statements of....
Rockie wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:57 pm
AC's procedures are consistent with other airlines, spelling them out to you will not answer the question why there have been excursions. You'd have to read an investigative report to know that which I haven't. Maybe when you ask our ops to tell you our procedures they'll also tell you what they've found in that regard.

It's not an unwillingness to participate, it's an unwillingness to answer specific questions about our procedures especially when it gains nothing.....
......and that's likely why he won't give further details. Because, there are no procedures like I described earlier.

That's fine. But time to implement some.

We saw the TSB very unhappy with certain procedures at YHZ. Being proactive can be helpful.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”