Near Collision CYXE

[Hurley_Bird]

Near miss reported at Saskatoon airport
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 | 10:35 PM CT CBC News

A small plane nearly collided with a passenger jet Sunday afternoon at the Diefenbaker International Airport in Saskatoon, according to a Transport Canada report about the incident released Monday.

The Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System described the incident as a "near collision" and said the larger plane had to make a turn to stay out of the way of the smaller aircraft.

The small plane, a Cessna, "flew through the departure path of Runway 27" the report said, while the Air Canada Jazz flight was departing.

The Jazz flight was a regularly scheduled departure from Saskatoon to Vancouver. The plane was a CRJ-200, which seats up to 50 passengers.

It was not noted if the flight was fully booked.

The scheduled takeoff time for the flight was 3:20 p.m. CT. That is the same time noted in the Transport Canada incident report.

The Cessna plane was operated by a company called Mitchinson Flying Service Limited, which offers charter flights according to a website associated with the Saskatoon-based company.

The incident report said that an automated sensing system on the Jazz jet alerted the flight crew to the smaller plane.

The incident is being investigated to determine if there was an infraction of Canadian aviation rules.

The report cautioned that the information released is preliminary and may be subject to change.

[mbav8r]

I'd like to know where CBC got their information, I searched the cadors and the only mention of YXE was a jetstream returning with altitude indicator problems. The only reports to do with Jazz were ATC loss of seperation. SO WTF over?

[Lurch]

Cadors Number: 2010C0146
Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern


Occurrence InformationOccurrence Type: Incident
Occurrence Date: 2010-01-15

Occurrence Time: 2120 Z
Day Or Night: day-time

Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYXE
Aerodrome Name: Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl

Occurrence Location: Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl (CYXE)

Province: Saskatchewan
Country: CANADA

World Area: North America

Reported By: NAV CANADA
AOR Number: 115280-V2

TSB Class Of Investigation:
TSB Occurrence No:


Aircraft InformationFlight #:

Aircraft Category: Aeroplane
Country of Registration: CANADA

Make: CESSNA
Model: 172P

Year Built: 1981
Amateur Built: No

Engine Make: AVCO LYCOMING
Engine Model: O-320-D2J

Engine Type: Reciprocating
Gear Type: Land

Phase of Flight: Approach
Damage: No Damage

Owner: MITCHINSON FLYING SERVICE LIMITED
Operator: MITCHINSON FLYING SERVICE LIMITED (286)

Operator Type: Commercial

Flight #: JZA 575

Aircraft Category: Aeroplane
Country of Registration: CANADA

Make: CANADAIR
Model: RJ 200 REGIONAL JET

Year Built:
Amateur Built: No

Engine Make:
Engine Model:

Engine Type: Turbo fan
Gear Type: Land

Phase of Flight: Takeoff
Damage: No Damage

Owner: JAZZ AIR LP - AIR CANADA JAZZ
Operator: JAZZ AIR LP, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER, JAZZ AIR HOLDING GP INC. (5002)

Operator Type: Commercial


Event InformationAlleged Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) infraction
Conflict - near collision (VFR or IFR)
TCAS alert

Detail InformationUser Name: Ridley, Rod

Date: 2010-01-18

Further Action Required: Yes

O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement

Narrative: The pilot of C-GINO, a Mitchinson Flying Service Cessna 172, was cleared to a left downwind for Runway 27 at Saskatoon and the pilot flew through the departure path of Runway 27 while JZA 575, a Jazz CRJ 200, was departing off Runway 27. The flight crew of the RJ received a TCAS advisory and made a turn to avoid C-GINO. Nav Canada is also doing a preliminary internal assessment as a possible ATC Operating Irregularity to determine if there was an ATC component to this conflict.

[mbav8r]

Thanks, I searched upto the 19th, I don't know why it didn't show up. I see that it occured on the 15th maybe the search only goes back a couple days. refined my search and voila, there it was. How does this still happen with a tower controller???

[ybp]

The control tower is only as efective as the pilots flying the planes!!

[linecrew]

The control tower is only as efective as the pilots flying the planes!!

Assuming that controllers never make mistakes of course. I'm not judging controllers, only this person's comment. Mistakes happen because humans are infallible and that means that neither pilots nor controllers are immune.

[kenco]

Maybe the pilot doesn't know his left from right. Left downwind is correct if the plane was returning from the training area...

[mbav8r]

either way, cleared for left downwind does not mean cleared for left downwind cross the departure path of said runway. So without hearing the tapes or being there, one has to assume 2 things. 1) The pilot should've crossed mid field for the left downwind 2) The tower should have noticed the aircraft turned early and given instructions to someone ie; Jazz 1234 abort take off. I say again how does this happen with tower CONTROLLER in place?

[r22captain]

I say again how does this happen with tower CONTROLLER in place?

so just because you have a controller, are you not responsible for keeping your eyes outside?

[mbav8r]

Yes and no, In this job there is alot of trust given out. We trust that the rampies loaded what they said when we set the trim. We trust the dispatcher planned with enough fuel, for the conditions. The AME's didn't leave a wrench somewhere it could jam something up. At 160 knots after rotation, climbing about 3500 fpm, retracting flaps at 1000ft, setting climb trust, contacting departure before you have to level off at around 3000(about 25 secs) It's quite busy so yah I trust that the tower controller doesn't clear you for take off into the path of conflicting traffic.
The TCAS has saved the day many times over, one of the best inventions for aviation, in my opinion.

[Dust Devil]

Yes and no, In this job there is alot of trust given out. We trust that the rampies loaded what they said when we set the trim. We trust the dispatcher planned with enough fuel, for the conditions. The AME's didn't leave a wrench somewhere it could jam something up. At 160 knots after rotation, climbing about 3500 fpm, retracting flaps at 1000ft, setting climb trust, contacting departure before you have to level off at around 3000(about 25 secs) It's quite busy so yah I trust that the tower controller doesn't clear you for take off into the path of conflicting traffic.
The TCAS has saved the day many times over, one of the best inventions for aviation, in my opinion.

Actually I don't trust a number of things you just listed but then that's just me.

[Doc]

I say again how does this happen with tower CONTROLLER in place?

so just because you have a controller, are you not responsible for keeping your eyes outside?

True. But if the Cessna had been cleared to a left downwind, he would assume it was "from" his present position? A tower controller "controls" using visual contact with the plane, therefore should have been aware of the Cessna's path of flight. If he'd intended for the Cessna to cross mid-field, he would have instructed the pilot to do so. Or, held the RJ until the Cessna was clear?
Which brings us to r22 captain's point. Keep your eyes outside when VFR. Trust nobody! I've seen poor controlling. I've seen poor piloting. It's a two way street there folks. Pay attention.

[FlaplessDork]

Don't always believe the CADORs, they have been known to be completely wrong. Once we had our comany listed in a CADOR which listed the wrong date, wrong aircraft, & wrong events. Turns out it wasn't us and it didnt even happen.

[Dust Devil]

Don't always believe the CADORs, they have been known to be completely wrong. Once we had our comany listed in a CADOR which listed the wrong date, wrong aircraft, & wrong events. Turns out it wasn't us and it didnt even happen.

I had the same thing happen last year too.

[C-FABH]

Don't always believe the CADORs, they have been known to be completely wrong. Once we had our comany listed in a CADOR which listed the wrong date, wrong aircraft, & wrong events. Turns out it wasn't us and it didnt even happen.

Reported By: NAV CANADA
AOR Number: 115280-V2

The events in CADORS are only as accurate as NavCanada reports them. Mind you, by the time it reaches the data entry person at TC, it's been passed through a dozen people (at least). More or less a game of broken telephone.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It is dangerous to comment on the basis of only a preliminary report but I think this is a good reminder that controllers are human too, and everyone has the responsibility to maintain situational awareness, including in this case the Cessna pilot and the RJ crew. TCAS is the final layer of safety and a near miss in VFR conditions that was avoided on the basis of TCAS alert (as appears to be the case here) should be a wakeup for everyone involved.

[cyxe]

I say again how does this happen with tower CONTROLLER in place?

How does any incident or accident in aviation happen?

[dashx]

an automated sensing system on the Jazz jet

TCAS is great when it works.......

"near collision"

I like "near miss" better.....

the information released is preliminary

Oh that's good to know.....

And on a serious note what was the actual separation (or is that gong to come out in the "investigation")?

[Hurley_Bird]

the information released is preliminary
Oh that's good to know.....

And on a serious note what was the actual separation (or is that gong to come out in the "investigation")?

All the nitty gritty details will come out once the OSI is completed.

[Doc]

I've always taken issue with the term "near miss". Would a "near miss" not be a "hit"?
As in..."We nearly missed....."?

[MrWings]

I had an issue with that too. I always thought it should be a "near hit".

But, the thinking goes that if you are not making contact with anything then you are always missing something. Usually you are missing by a wide margin and it is planned and controlled.

When you nearly hit you are missing in near proximity.

Maybe they should call it what it is. "That was ****ing close."

[Sidebar]

And on a serious note what was the actual separation

TSB reported the 172 was cleared to join on RIGHT downwind, and that the separation was 1.7 nm and 400'. From CADORS update today:

User Name: Ridley, Rod

Date: 2010-01-22

Further Action Required: No

O.P.I.: System Safety

Narrative: UPDATE TSB reported that the Cessna 172P, C-GINO operated by Mitchinson Flying Service, was inbound to Saskatoon from Biggar on a student solo cross-country flight. The student pilot was cleared by Saskatoon Tower to join the circuit for Runway 27 on right downwind. Three minutes later, a Canadair CL-600-2B19, operated by Jazz Air as flight JZA 575, was cleared for takeoff on Runway 27 and was advised of the position of C-GINO. During their departure climb, the crew of JZA 575 received a TCAS traffic alert. The crew could not visually identify the traffic, and turned right 40 degrees to avoid the traffic. The aircraft passed with about 1.7 NM horizontal and 400 feet vertical separation.

[dashx]

You're right.

I should have said:

dear Niss....