CADOR - controller error or pilot error?

[GottaFly]

Detail Information
User Name: Samson, Donna
Date: 2008/08/01
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative: The Cessna C152, VFR Langley (CYNJ) to CYNJ, landed on Runway 25 while a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) was in effect closing the runway. No activity was occurring on the runway. There was no operational impact.


What do you guys think of this one? One of our instructors requested a full stop landing on RWY25 @ CYNJ. Their was a NOTAM issued that day closing the RWY. Who's at fault? The Controller for clearing an aircraft to land on a closed RWY, or the Pilot asking to land on the closed RWY? (The ATIS did not specify that RWY 07/25 was in fact closed).

[The Fish]

If the Notam was in effect it's pretty obvious who is at fault.

ever request a cat one approach when the rvr was 900, ATC will happly give you the rope to hang your self.

Buck stops with the pic.

Good luck with the proceedings

fish

[AuxBatOn]

Was the NOTAM issued before the pilot took off?

[patter]

Was an X placed on both ends?

[Right Seat Captain]

I think NOTAM closed runways fall into a gray area of the CARs... Some years ago we had closed a runway by NOTAM due to runways conditions (ice) and the fact that there were operations in effect to remove the ice. Some smart guy in his Cherokee was adviced over the ATF that the runway was in fact closed and a NOTAM had been issued to that effect. He decided to land anyways when the ice clearing operation was not on the runway. He later took off as well.

After speaking to some people at TC, it was discovered that no action could be taken since NOTAMs are not legally binding. In this case it was up to the pilot to judge, however we did discover that if something should have happened on the runway while he was landing or taking off, his insurance would have been void for attempting to land on a closed runway.

[Wilbur]

They're probably both wrong, but as long as nobody was at risk the issue will be between the airport manager, ATC, pilot, and school (if a student/rental).

[NJ]

That Cadors quote didn't say whether the controller cleared them to land on 25, the controller could have said that since it's closed landing will be at your discretion.

Our MANOPS says that new or amended Notams only need to be on the atis for 12 hours at domestic, 24 for international airports. This is so that anyone who took off after the notam was issued or did their pre-flight checks before the notam was issued can get the information. The ATIS isn't meant to tell everyone what's going on everywhere, including the lunch buffet downstairs. Now if the atis had 25 as an active runway then that's a different story. Things will be inspected from a Nav Canada end at the tower. Every transmission including the ATIS is recorded.

PS. I couldn't find a copy of this in CADORS. Do you have the CADOR number?

[CD]

CADORS Number: 2008P1347

[NJ]

Got it thanks. If the aircraft was cleared to land on that runway then the controller is in some serious doodoo, and that's an ATS OI (operational irregularity).

[Spokes]

What was the wind direction/speed?

[GottaFly]

yes the aircraft was cleared to land. The controller told us that he visually inspected the runway with the binoculars prior to clearing the aircraft to land. Some local background knowledge, due to construction on the northwest side of the airport, they close the rwy during work hours and open it after 6PM local. It is a notam that gets refreshed every day, so theoretically it should have been on the ATIS. Winds were calm. It was not an active RWY. The controller assumed the runway was to be reopened at 6 like it had been every day prior to that. Neither the pilot nor the controller carefully read the NOTAM, nor do we know if it had been amended while he was in flight. That is still TBD.

This CADOR has apparently launched NavCanada into an internal investigation on the controller procedures in the Langley Tower. They are taking this very seriously.

The controller was working alone in the tower, i'm surprised he actually reported this.....

[Bank Angle]

I think both are at fault but not because of each other, and each one will have to come up with their own defence. Like The Fish said, the controller will clear a pilot to takeoff or land based on whether the runway is clear regardless of whether the weather is below minimums. However, I think they are not supposed to clear you to takeoff or land on a closed and therefore unsafe runway. And the pilot is responsible for being familiar with all the information pertinent to his flight before takeoff, which includes notams. So unless the notam came out after he was airborne and shortly before the incident, he should not have accepted the clearance, just like if the weather was below takeoff or approach ban limits.

[NJ]

We had runway construction up here this summer, and we'd get the all-clear from the construction crew on the radio when they went in. We'll find out what happens I guess. As for the controller reporting it, it's what we're required to do. Everything is recorded. It would be a lot worse to cover it up.

Isn't that a grass strip? maybe a wrench was below the grass or something. Too many variables.

[Invertago]

Anyone who has ever written a TC exam knows that if it isn't answer "C" it is always "The Pilot in Command's fault" for the correct answer.

[bbb]

Here's another good one for anyone who read the CADORs regularily and sees some of the really small insignificant stuff that gets CADOR'd, a lot of it by NAVCAN-
An American-registered Mig jet comes VFR from YYZ to YKF and lines up on 07 instead of 25 (the active runway). Tower has several aircraft in the circuit for 25 ranging from C150 to C421. A C150 has been cleared to land and is short final for 25 (also happens to be on a first solo flight). The Mig calls twr to confirm landing clearance on a fairly close in final (approx 1.5 miles, well inside the FAF). Silence for a moment or two, then "Negative, pull up and go around, you're lined up for the wrong runway!" A bit more direction about turn left NOW join the right downwind for 25...... A few more calls to clear the immediate aircraft landing, and 1 to 2 minutes later a new voice on the frequency.
So, obviously pilot error lining up for the wrong runway. But, controller error as well for losing situational awareness. YKF is a VFR tower. Over the last 6 years its getting worse and worse, it seems like they don't look outside anymore. NAVCAN says radar coverage is "weak" in some areas, but it really seems like the controllers depend on it, instead of using it as part of the big picture.
Was there a CADOR for this incident? no. should there have been? yes. old days would have resulted in the tower boss talking to the controller, and the pilot getting the message when getting his taxi clearance to "please call the tower at xxx-xxxx when you shut down". There was a CADOR either that day or the next for a C172 who had a bit of a hiccup while on the take-off roll, taxi-d clear of the runway, didn't interfere with any other traffic, and it got CADOR'd. Just seems like if a NAVCAN error, or interesting/expensive airplane, didn't get the same treatment.

[square]

I think some responsibility should be put on the controller, since it's the only airport he has to know anything about it's not asking too much for him be looking out for this. Plus he's a trained professional, unlike many many people who are coming into Langley (SPPs, PPLs, recs, etc). It just seems safer for him to be responsible for it. A guy who's on a trip from Kelowna to Penticton who diverts to Langley due to wx, scudding it, in rain, close to dark, probably won't have picked up all the NOTAMs off the FIC on his way there. I agree he should, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd bet 4 to 1 odds on him not doing so. Safety's more important than blame.

[Doc]

This is a classic example of when a "fireside" chat would be way better than pointing fingers. It is obvious to all but complete morons that both parties are to blame here. Talk about it over coffee. And, grow up.

['effin hippie]

From my limited viewpoint I have to say I think that Nav Canada is becoming increasingly difficult to work with.

The number of bulls*** CADOR's make me think that an increasing number of controllers/FSS out there think that they work for enforcement; an impression no doubt re-enforced by the fact that they far more insulated from taking individual responsibility for minor errors than the pilots they can so dutifully turn in. And also an impression TC has no wish to reign in, since now they can get paid to do even less.

I have recently been treated to hearing a couple of northern FSS personnel saying no to simple requests for assistance during off-peak times with the reason: 'Not my job'. These were requests to forward arrival times by telephone when the A/C were unable to reach the parties for whatever reason. Once it was to confirm an ambulance.

I'll throw in the usual caveat, that most Nav Canada people are great, it's only a small minority being difficult, blah, blah, blah; but the fact is, that small minority seems to growing, and for an organization i have to work hand in hand with every day, that concerns me. A functional relationship needs to have some flex in it, the 'fireside chats', as it were; and unfortunately, what I see is less and less 'Flight Service' and more and more CADOR's.

I would be happy to be proven wrong on this...

ef

[NJ]

Do you think it has much to do with the lack of face-to-face contact that exists between pilots and their local FSS now that flight planning and briefing is centralized or online?

['effin hippie]

Excellent point.

On reflection, I would think the lack of face time has a great deal to do with it.

ef