March 11 2013 Air Canada Incident YYZ Embraer and a Van

[bizjets101]

CADORS 2013O0564 'Incident'

The Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100-IGW aircraft (operating as flight ACA178) was concluding a scheduled IFR flight from Edmonton International Airport (CYEG) to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The Sunwing Airlines Inc. Boeing 737-8K5 aircraft (C-FTLK) was parked at Gate H16 being serviced. NAV CANADA staff at Toronto Tower reported that ACA178 was on a 3/4NM final for runway 24R when an airside surface detection equipment (ASDE) target was observed on the threshold of runway 24R. The ACA178 flight crew was instructed twice (2x) to pull up and go around.

However, the aircraft continued and landed on runway 24R without incident. The ASDE target was then observed proceeding onto taxiway DELTA7 and into the grass on the east side. The ACA178 flight crew was queried about receiving the pull up instructions and the observed target and their response was that they thought the instruction was for someone else.

The flight crew did not report seeing anything. The Tower Controller requested an inspection and an unoccupied Sunwing Airlines Inc. van was found with the engine running, engaged in gear, south of the threshold of runway 24R and just east of taxiway DELTA7. Greater Toronto Airport Authority (G.T.A.A.) staff advised that the operator of the unoccupied van was servicing a Sunwing Airlines Inc. aircraft at Gate H16.

The driver had came out of the aircraft to discover that the van was missing. The unoccupied van caused minor damage to the Boeing 737-8K5 aircraft's #1 engine cowling.

[crazy_aviator]

D for drive P for park and N for numbnuts ?

[Siddley Hawker]

Probably a foreign driver unused to Canadian traffic regs.

[Colonel Sanders]

Monty Python's in Toronto! When are their
scheduled performances? I will make a trip
to the Big Cesspool to see them!!

[xsbank]

What's the point of all this technology and runway incursion stuff if the crew in the aircraft it was all designed to protect ignored the warnings? If they had been cleared to land and somebody was getting go-around instructions, wouldn't they be wondering where the traffic was? Hello!

[flatface]

Deleted

[Prospect]

It looks like ATC did not use proper RT. They ommited Air Canada prefix in both instructions to go around. Big mistake by ATC. The prefix is used to draw the pilots attention they the transmission is for and Air Canada airplane. Otherwise it gets past the filter.



Incident: Air Canada E190 at Toronto on Mar 11th 2013, did not follow two instructions to go around
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 22:30Z, last updated Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 23:13Z

An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FLWH performing flight AC-178 from Edmonton,AB to Toronto,ON (Canada), was on final approach to Toronto's runway 24R cleared to land when the tower controller instructed "178, go around" without response and repeated "178, go around", again without response. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 24R, after landing tower inquired "Air Canada 178, did you hear my calls?" with the crew responding "We heard them but thought they were for somebody else", tower continued "Did you see anything on the threshold?" with the crew reporting "not a thing". The aircraft was subsequently instructed to vacate the runway and taxied to the apron.

NAV Canada reported that a Sunwing Boeing 737-800 parked at Gate H16 had needed maintenance, a mechanics had driven a van to the aircraft and had entered the aircraft. The vehicle started to move without a driver on board and rolled towards runway 24R when AC-178 was about 0.75nm out and crossed the runway coming to a stop on soft ground on the other side of the runway. A subsequent inspection found the vehicle with the engine running and gear engaged. Based on the ground radar target moving across the runway tower had instructed AC-178 twice to go-around however without reply, the landing was continued. When the mechanics later came out of the aircraft he found the van missing. The Sunwing 737 received damage by the unmanned moving vehicle.

The Canadian TSB reported that the vehicle departed gate H16 southeast bound without a driver on board heading towards the threshold of runway 24R, tower instructed AC-178 on short final to go around, the aircraft however continued, passed directly over the vehicle and landed safely. The vehicle was located shortly after southeast of taxiway D7. The TSB is currently assessing whether an investigation into the occurrence will be opened.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA1 ... /CYEG/CYYZ

[Inverted2]

Some vehicles can drive themselves. Replace the Firebird with a Ford cube van and the the Hoff with some guy named Harvinder

[PT6-114A]

Weather or not i herd my full call if I was sort final and someone was calling out go-around I think its hit TOGA could have been a bigger picture that they may not know about just because the touch down area was clear. Easier to ask why did we get sent around after than a worse out-come.

[PT6-114A]

Duble post

[DeuceEng]

It looks like ATC did not use proper RT. They ommited Air Canada prefix in both instructions to go around. Big mistake by ATC. The prefix is used to draw the pilots attention they the transmission is for and Air Canada airplane. Otherwise it gets past the filter.



Incident: Air Canada E190 at Toronto on Mar 11th 2013, did not follow two instructions to go around
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 22:30Z, last updated Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 23:13Z

An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FLWH performing flight AC-178 from Edmonton,AB to Toronto,ON (Canada), was on final approach to Toronto's runway 24R cleared to land when the tower controller instructed "178, go around" without response and repeated "178, go around", again without response. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 24R, after landing tower inquired "Air Canada 178, did you hear my calls?" with the crew responding "We heard them but thought they were for somebody else", tower continued "Did you see anything on the threshold?" with the crew reporting "not a thing". The aircraft was subsequently instructed to vacate the runway and taxied to the apron.

That's a bold claim to make against the ATC without hearing the official recordings from NavCanada or the cockpit recorder.

[Clodhopper]

That's a bold claim to make against the ATC without hearing the official recordings from NavCanada or the cockpit recorder.

I tend to agree that we should see what the official recordings say, however; curiosity gets the better of me, so I listened to the LiveATC archive as well:

Sounds like tower said, twice: "178, go around, sir"

Both times no response, then shortly after landing he says "178 you still with me" or something to that effect. (Sounded like he omittted "Air Canada" again)

To which they reply that they are indeed listening and receiving. So...on final approach, they ignore a vague "178" call, yet once on the runway, they answer a vague "178" call.

Either way, not a good situation, but definitely one that could have turned out much worse for all parties.

[CanadianEh]

The thing that pisses me off the most in the inaccurate/sensationalist news coverage of the story. Why are they shitting on the pilots and not the guy who let a van roll onto the threshold of an active runway?? Given the less than perfect call by ATC and the fact that the crew were likely occupied by the busiest phase of flight after 4 odd hours in the air and almost midnight, it's not unlikely to think that a human can miss it. Based on the recording, it all happened within a matter of about 10 seconds. I always find the most effective go around call is "Air Canada XXX, PULL UP and GO AROUND"... if it's something urgent, then maybe "Air Canada XXX, PULL UP and GO AROUND, I repeat, PULL UP and GO AROUND Air Canada XXX"

ALSO,

Why is this making front page news and Gilles Hudicourt can't get the light of day from the media for something that, in my opinion, is a much greater concern to the flying public??

[Strega]

Who cares? The rwy ahead was clear.. they landed... end of story....

[dashx]

Damn those foreign drivers! Now they are even driving Sunwing vans.

I hope they czech their permits.

[BTyyj]

Although the phraseology was less than perfect, how much of a mistake was this on the part of the pilots? Seems many media outlets are placing a lot of the blame their way.

[Go Guns]

Isn't that liveATC feed a scanner of multiple frequencies? Would explain the start of a call getting cut off on that recording.

[MRP]

Weather or not i herd my full call if I was sort final and someone was calling out go-around I think its hit TOGA could have been a bigger picture that they may not know about just because the touch down area was clear. Easier to ask why did we get sent around after than a worse out-come.

I would be carefull with that. Be clear that it is you that is asked to goaround when multiple runways are in use. Once on the River Visual 19 DCA the aircraft behind us was getting too close so they were recleared to land 15 behind us. Shortly after they were instructed to pull up and go around, right around the time we were 400ft on final. They passed right over us as we landed. If we had mistakenly gone "TOGA" there would have been a midair over DCA.

[teacher]

Have to agree with some of you. Busy phase of flight in busy airspace with lots of radio chatter makes it easy to miss an incomplete call IF that is what happened. I can imagine if you're tired and busy and you don't hear your company name in the transmission you assume it's not for you, tune out and refocus on the task at hand. It's possible, lord knows I've done it.

[Shadowfax]

Why is the media focusing on the actions of the crew? Simple!

Rampie = minimum wage nobody.

Pilot = highly trained professional in which we trust our lives.

Questions?

PS - I'm more concerned about the ATC instructions. Was it super busy? Was the freq so congested adding "Air Canada" was both impractical or impossible? I'm also left wondering if the van lights were on, rotating beacon etc and how close the plane and van were.....

[CanadianEh]

Why is the media focusing on the actions of the crew? Simple!

Rampie = minimum wage nobody.

Pilot = highly trained professional in which we trust our lives.

Questions?

PS - I'm more concerned about the ATC instructions. Was it super busy? Was the freq so congested adding "Air Canada" was both impractical or impossible? I'm also left wondering if the van lights were on, rotating beacon etc and how close the plane and van were.....

It was an EMJ190, so the rampy could have been earning more than the F/O

[Go Guns]

Again, you're listing to a scanner broadcast on the internet, not the actual recording. I wouldn't be so quick to assume the controller didn't say Air Canada in the call sign.

[unregistered]

Why is the media focusing on the actions of the crew? Simple!

Rampie = minimum wage nobody.

Pilot = highly trained professional in which we trust our lives.

Questions?

PS - I'm more concerned about the ATC instructions. Was it super busy? Was the freq so congested adding "Air Canada" was both impractical or impossible? I'm also left wondering if the van lights were on, rotating beacon etc and how close the plane and van were.....

It was an EMJ190, so the rampy could have been earning more than the F/O

Actually it was an E190.

[CanadianEh]

Actually it was an E190.

There's no difference between an E190 and an EMJ190...

[linecrew]

Actually it was an E190.

There's no difference between an E190 and an EMJ190...

Is EMJ a mash-up of EMB (Embraer) and ERJ (Embraer Regional Jet)? Never heard it called that before.