cnz3 From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 130 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17080 times:
A strange incident is said to have occured at YYZ Monday night, as per the Star.
Apparently a WG employee left their company van in gear after exiting the vehicle to inspect their plane. The van then hit the engine cowling of the '37, then went on and eventually crossed an active runway. ATC noticed it and instructed an AC flight from YEG to go around, twice, but were ignored.
The plane landed safely; the AC crew later said they thought the go around was for someone else.
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16922 times:
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 1): Wow... Would love to hear a recording of the ATC command!
As would I.
I'm sure it'll be up on LiveATC eventually. It's not under their "Interesting Recordings" list yet, which is strange, since this happened a few days ago. The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
FDH From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16749 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 2): The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
You are right, there are quite a few possibilities, however the article says it happened just before midnight, so it was probably flight 178 scheduled to arrive in YYZ at 23:41.
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16667 times:
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 4): The paper says it happened monday night, with an AC flight arriving from YEG. Shouldn't be that difficult to find.
The unsaid part of my post is that I am procrastinating on a project right now and didn't feel guilty about checking A.net quickly but did feel guilty about trying to figure out the proper time, even if it only took a few minutes.
But, now that I'm a bit farther ahead on the project, time for another couple minutes of procrastination and a check of LiveATC.
Quoting FDH (Reply 3): You are right, there are quite a few possibilities, however the article says it happened just before midnight, so it was probably flight 178 scheduled to arrive in YYZ at 23:41.
Ah, okay. I didn't see the midnight part when I scanned the article, so I assumed it was any time after sun-down. Thanks for the info.
Plus, I am still a neophyte with flight-tracking stuff. I saw an all-gray, unmarked large jet landing at SCE yesterday morning as I was leaving State College and I, for the life of me, cannot figure out how to pull up flight data on flights that occurred before the current calendar date. I've checked FlightStats, FlightTracker, etc. and can only seem to get current-day info. I know there are ways to see past information, but I am new to this stuff, so I don't know how to do it.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16310 times:
Wow what a strange event. Some van driver is going to be reading the help-wanted section tomorrow....
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 2): I'm sure it'll be up on LiveATC eventually. It's not under their "Interesting Recordings" list yet, which is strange, since this happened a few days ago. The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
Holy crap I agree if anyone finds this on LiveATC or anywhere post it here!
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16232 times:
Quoting cnz3 (Thread starter): A strange incident is said to have occured at YYZ Monday night, as per the Star.
So, a loose vehicle crossing an active runway, a 737 engine cowling damaged by that vehicle, and a crew ignoring a Go Around instruction twice.... this kind of comedy of errors is always funny until someone dies.... I hope the Canadian authorities punish severely this behavior, specially the guy who was driving that van. He was driving in a major airport, not in supermarket parking....
And that crew in the E190 should have a retraining to learn how to memorize the flight number they have.
I don't know a lot about air traffic talk, but my uneducated ears tell my brain, "How do you think that call was for someone else? Or was that just an excuse that you weren't paying attention at all?"
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15749 times:
Sounds like the controller just said "178" without including AC in the callsign...while I think they would have gotten the message if the controller said AC in his callsign to that flight, since they were the only 178 landing at that time I would think they would've heard it too.
jerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15310 times:
Listening to the recording, frankly the 2nd call you can't count it is mumbled and incoherent listening to it several times not knowing what it was sounded like "Flight 78 pullup brown". First one they just must have not been paying close attention..
fca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14833 times:
the atc said it very softly and added too many other words. It would have been better if there was a danger to say "Air Canada! 178 GO AROUND GO AROUND"
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13652 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 10): "How do you think that call was for someone else? Or was that just an excuse that you weren't paying attention at all?"
Partly because the controller didn't say the callsign, just the flight number. It's very easy to blank out a call if you don't perceive it as being for you, and many pilots, especially if they're focusing on something else, will switch on when it comes to the radio once they hear their company's callsign and it's easy to miss the call if you don't hear what you expect to hear. Not excusing them, but this is why in the rest of the world, we use the ICAO guidelines for go-around instructions - "Air Canada 178, GO AROUND, I say again, GO AROUND, acknowledge".
zkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13310 times:
People seem quick to blame the pilots saying they should be fired. From what I heard it was muffled and not clear. The controller should have been more clear and concise with his directions.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13204 times:
This sounds like many errors on the part of the ground personnel, the pilots, and the controller. The ground guy may not be fired if it turns out to have been a mechanical malfunction. I worked at a place that the shifter on the van did not indicate the correct position of the shifter...you had to count to find the right slot. Both the pilots and controller will most likely face some form of retraining.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13092 times:
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 16): The ground guy may not be fired if it turns out to have been a mechanical malfunction
Sorry, but there is no excuse. I work daily with heavy equipment for mining and explosive material. We have a procedure to follow before leaving a vehicle alone : * Panel Check ( lights, signals, gear position ). Parking Brake. Engine Off. Energy off (switch the energy from batteries off ). Lock Out.* . One could expect that, in a major airport, people driving trucks and vans around planes filled with potentially hundreds of souls on board, must follow AT LEAST the basic "Parking Brake - Engine Off" sequence. Is not that hard.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 14): Not excusing them, but this is why in the rest of the world, we use the ICAO guidelines for go-around instructions - "Air Canada 178, GO AROUND, I say again, GO AROUND, acknowledge".
You're right, the ATC guy didn't help too much either with his calls. A clear and firm call would probably be much more useful in this case.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11352 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18): Nah - they'll be hung, drawn and quartered in accordance with the demands of a.netters.
thank the gods that the real world does not have to live up to our standards.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 17): Sorry, but there is no excuse. I work daily with heavy equipment for mining and explosive material. We have a procedure to follow before leaving a vehicle alone : * Panel Check ( lights, signals, gear position ). Parking Brake. Engine Off. Energy off (switch the energy from batteries off ). Lock Out.* . One could expect that, in a major airport, people driving trucks and vans around planes filled with potentially hundreds of souls on board, must follow AT LEAST the basic "Parking Brake - Engine Off" sequence. Is not that hard.
An individual drove the van in question and hit a Citation X forward of the door, he was not fired because of the faulty indicator.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10743 times:
Thank heavens that van hadn't left any kind of debris on the runway.
When in doubt, overshoot. Far better to be wondering what happened during the missed, then on the ground wondering why your braking action is poor as you skid across the threshold.
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 22, posted (3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10626 times:
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 20): An individual drove the van in question and hit a Citation X forward of the door, he was not fired because of the faulty indicator.
Did his van also roll across the active with an aircraft on final?
Though, if the van was faulty, I hope Sunwing gets a massive fine from the TSB.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 23, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9959 times:
As is common with "Human factors" incidents, blaming one person usually does not solve the problem, allowing it to happen again. One could say ... "yup, pilot error or ATC error ... next", but then the issue WILL happen again.
What actually happened was:
AC178 was switched over later than usual from Approach to Tower. This was because Approach was aware of the issue (but didn't tell the pilots) and they weren't sure from where the Go-Around command would come. It is easier for ATC if Approach issues the Go-Around, as they retain control.
When switched over to Tower and checking in, a very rushed go-around command was heard. They thought they had cut off another transmission to another aircraft, as there was no call sign and it was being said as soon as they released the mic PTT. One would be loath to transmit again, as then you might block the call again (to the other aircraft). It is not uncommon for one Tower frequency to be controlling three runways.
The next call was garbled and hard to understand. Because of the late handover, by this time, they were on the ground.
In my opinion, two things could have solved this issue, (other than setting the parking brake on the truck)...
Approach should have warned AC178 that there was a possibility of a Go-Around due to runway issues. They usually do when things arise. Normally its being too close to the aircraft ahead.
When switched to Tower, the first transmission from Tower should have been, after a deep breath and pause ... "AIR CANADA 178, Go-Around, Go-Around". Calm, no panic, firm.
Even without an advance warning, there would have been no doubt and no question.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9879 times:
I did think I heard a "go around" call early in that clip, but it was really hard to understand. Thanks for pointing that out, longhauler.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
25 YTZ: longhauler. If you are in a low-energy state on the approach and you get an overshoot instruction. How challenging is it to overshoot? Would this have
26 Gonzalo: Longhauler, sorry for this ( maybe dumb? ) question, but, according to the sequence of transmissions you are providing, then they landed without clea
27 sprout5199: As a student pilot i'll put my 2 cents in. If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story. Doesn't matter if the
28 YTZ: Here's the thing though. If you are in a transport category aircraft and are in a low-energy state, it can be hazardous to go around: http://www.tc.g
29 twincessna340a: What if that occurred at an airport that had intersecting runways? The other a/c gets the GA instruction, which you then do just b/c you heard GA and
30 longhauler: A low engergy Go-Around although harder than a normal go-around is practised in the simulator at least once every cycle, which is approximately 16 mo
31 A346Dude: I find it incredible that this incident happened. A runaway vehicle is moving across the apron, tower is aware of it, but they wait way too long to in
32 tribird1011: Generally true, however you should be able to go around at any point during the approach up to and including touchdown (it has been widely discussed
33 longhauler: All transport aircraft use the same parameters as you note from the Transport Canada website. Procedures are slightly different from a normal Go-Arou
34 A346Dude: You do realize that aircraft are allowed to go around at any point if they determine the approach has become unstable? There would never be two aircr
35 longhauler: Not spoilers, just reverse. Spoilers retract and auto-brake is cancelled as soon as TOGA thrust is commanded.
36 StarAC17: I have found that a lot of drivers whether its a personal vehicle or a commercial one do not use the parking brake it is an automatic. They may have
37 A346Dude: Can approach issue a landing clearance? Because according to longhauler as soon as they switched to tower frequency the go around instruction was iss
38 longhauler: Only if you are on different runways. As you accurately note, go-around is always an option, even if more than one runway is being used. But ... as I
39 bueb0g: Potentially a dangerous situation. What if the GA instruction was because someone bigger than you was cutting you up from behind, so you decide to GA
40 thenoflyzone: Very rare but can happen, and certainly not at 10 miles final. In YYZ, the approach controller usually instructs the aircraft to contact tower at the
41 RDH3E: Given that they landed safely and the pilots apparently didn't see the Van, I'd bet the Van was off the runway for quite some time, >30 seconds, be
42 sprout5199: If someone bigger than me is catching up, the tower would not issue a go-around, but a course change or climb, as the tower would not know if I need
43 A346Dude: OK thanks. So that means almost certainly the Embraer landed without a clearance after hearing the words "go around" on short final.
44 bueb0g: You don't know that. As if that matters if you actually had a collision. Well it should, or your situational awareness is lacking. You are indeed mis
45 A346Dude: Can we please stop suggesting going around is dangerous? This whole discussion reminds me of Joe on Ice Pilots berating his crew for going around whe
46 Maverick623: Incorrect. Local control can (and has and will continue to) issue go-around instructions to whatever aircraft they want. Or are you suggesting that y
47 JAGflyer: It is possible to as a fluke of nature accidentally put the shifter in a position between P and R as I have done it before (however I was in the vehi
48 Maverick623: That's fine if you're on a level road and the transmission actually locks. I personally think it's a bad idea to use the transmission as a "kickstand
49 Sean-SAN-: This is one annoying thing as an American pilot who flies quite often to YYZ and YUL.. the approach controllers often switch you very late to tower an
50 Viscount724: Excerpt from Transport Canada occurrence report on the date of the incident. The Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100-IGW aircraft (operating as flight ACA1
51 bueb0g: Don't twist what I said. I never said going around was dangerous. I said that if a go around call is made and it isn't for you (and this crew thought
52 warden145: I'm honestly surprised that the guy didn't set the parking brake. I'm a commercial driver, and I've been out on the ramps at more than one airport...
53 A346Dude: I can't think of a better example than this incident itself to demonstrate why that thinking is wrong. Obviously if you know the call isn't for you t
54 A346Dude: You are correct, for some reason I thought LAHSO could not be issued to 2 landing aircraft.
55 bueb0g: I agree entirely. There's no question about that. This line of discussion started when someone posted "If I am on short final and hear a call of go-a
56 threepoint: I wonder what words you considered superfluous? "178 pull up and go around sir" is not a rambling instruction, although I admit the controller convey
57 m1m2: warden145 "I'm honestly surprised that the guy didn't set the parking brake." Setting the parking brake is definitely a good policy, but here in Canad
58 cyeg66: Wrong. Been to YYC lately? I've seen the old dual go-around a time or two. One unexpected go around (some years ago) involved 2 departures and 1 miss
59 pnwtraveler: I listen to ATC often at YYZ and have never heard an aircraft pass "to the Tower late." The aircraft always calls the Tower at the beacon. Now clearan
60 sprout5199: Well IIRC if I'm on final, cleared to land it is MY runway, everybody else has to wait. Now I have been ASKED to do a 360 so an airliner can land on
61 Maverick623: I don't know why you keep saying this, because it is simply not true. At a towered airport, the runway is under the control of the tower, NOT you. If
62 Gonzalo: Oh sure, you can push the things all you want, I mean, if you decide to refuse the instructions, there is no practical actions that the ATC guy or th
63 sprout5199: Well, considering that the AC crew that did not go-around, which is it? Yes, if the tower tells me to go-around I will, but if it so a "faster aircra
64 PassedV1: Just a couple of thoughts... 1. AC is cleared to land at the very begginning of the clip. 2. A Go-Around is not a dangerous maneuver in and of itself,
65 longhauler: In my opinion, this is the main focus of the investigation from the airplane point of view. What was going on in the cockpit? As you correctly state,
66 bueb0g: That is *precisely* my point. That if the a/c behind you was told to go around and despite everything else being totally fine you go "he said go arou
67 thenoflyzone: poor ole' KLM ! I saw a good airshow like that a while back at YUL. a 744 was on short final for 24R, while a 77W was late to begin its takeoff roll
68 yyz757fan: Getting back to the root cause of this incident. All of this would have been prevented in the driver of the Sunwing van had followed simple GTAA polic
69 sprout5199: Ok, I believe there is some disconnect between what I am trying to say and what gets across here on the board.My Fault. First, I would like to clarif
70 PassedV1: 1st, that was a cessna flying into a poe-dunk field, who was very low on approach. This film was discussed ad-nauseum in another thread. 2nd, had tha
71 Gonzalo: That's the part I found puzzling....regardless the controller didn't use the best wording and emphasis, the "178 Go Around" is there, no doubt. How i
72 longhauler: No, what you said was this ... That has nothing to do with whether a go-around is necessary as a result of an unsafe landing. You simply stated if yo
73 sprout5199: Just what is a proper aiming point for a Cessna? at the 1000' mark? I always land before the "touchdown zone" on a runway that is painted. Anything a
74 PassedV1: The basic premise of your statement relies on the fact that the crew at least partially comprehended what was said. When the FO said (i'm presuming t
75 Gonzalo: Yes, I know.... that's probably not entirely fair, since I didn't heard the LiveAtc record, and like others said before, that record is only a fracti
76 longhauler: I find that is the best things about these forums, they make you think. Even if what is said is wrong, you pause and think about it. And quite often
77 ytz: The most concerning part of this incident is that the crew didn't pick up on their callsign. And this was at a time when the airport wasn't all that b
78 threepoint: Often, when approaching a large airport with bright approach lights and a sea of other illuminated objects in front of you, it's quite difficult to d
79 sprout5199: FYI, I was not flying this week, so people please don't blame this on me: Reducing Speed By Banking Aircraft (by daviation Mar 19 2013 in Tech Ops) Ju
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 130 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 302 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
