Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Schließen
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Schließen
Back to Squawk list
  • 70

2 Air Canada planes have a near miss

Übermittelt
 
Although this occurred on March 8,2020 it just goes to show you that reducing the number of aircraft flying doesn't reduce some dangers. Also makes you wonder what's going to happen at thousands of airports that now have almost no activity. It's nesting season, and birds will be very happy to have all this new airspace. The rule of unexpected consequences applies. (simpleflying.com) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jptq63
jptq63 15
Kudos for pointing out how one must always be careful and paying attention no matter how “UN” busy the airspace may be at any moment in time. After reading the article and limiting my typing: note the incident was on “Take-off” not a “Landing” incident and that “Visual departure procedures were in place”. Relative info from article indicate the two aircraft were an E-190 and a 777-300, where the 777 was physically the plane behind / following the E190 on the taxi & take-off, and that the E190 aborted its take-off while “wheels were still on the runway”.

So the issue / item I wonder about was why were the folks in control of 777 not, apparently, upon moving to the runway, not looking in front of the plane down the runway and observing the prior plane was still on the ground, regardless of what any tower controller said?

The article does discuss other relative thoughts (hey, nice to see an article so well written with facts vs. BS for a change) and does note the 777 did stay clear of E190 (how much, I did not see it say), so maybe the E190 initially still appeared moving forward to the 777 as it powered up, and it took the necessary time for the 777 to react and come to a stop. I.e. I have been told to take a runway (and often cleared for take-off) while I could still see a prior aircraft on the runway.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
"So the issue / item I wonder about was why were the folks in control of 777 not, apparently, upon moving to the runway, not looking in front of the plane down the runway and observing the prior plane was still on the ground, regardless of what any tower controller said?" My thots exactly..when immediately cleared to do a rollout onto the runway, then a "cleared for take-off", why would they not remain put and ask tower where the previous craft was since they could not, obviously, see it airborne yet, when it should have been.
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
should never have been cleared for takeoff
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
ATC cleared for takeoff within the 6000' rule. It is also up to the P.I.C. to pay attention to surroundings and when something isn't right, take notice and inform. While I agree that Embraer was not airborne yet, when cleared, 606's Captain should have noticed and taken action, telling ATC they did not see it airborne and to confirm NOT a "Roger AC-606 cleared for takeoff" and then start the takeoff roll.
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
again...as an old tower controller I would NEVER have cleared the succeeding aircraft for takeoff until I was SURE the previous departing aircraft was 6000 ft+ and AIRBORNE... pilot wasn't watching...controller wasn't watching...
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I'm showing my ignorance here, but, how in all that's holy, could a controller issue the okay to take off while not watching?
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
I don't know...but there was a bog screwup on both parties
JayBell
Jason Bell 3
Did the YYZ Tower controller really clear the B777 for takeoff or did the crew just go?

NavCanada doesn't clear multiple aircraft for takeoff unless VFR, like air shows, and only clears the lead plane with the rest following the leader.

This article sounds very odd. NavCanada Tower ATC launch IFR aircraft into the hands of departure radar, with their knowledge and consent, who establish radar contact to provide safe separation, then hand over to centre radar. This all sounds like a snafu by the 777. Could be the Tower messed up, but highly unlikely with supervisors and any 777 knowing that's it's at least 90 second wait time for standard staggered departure.
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
90 sec wait time? never heard of it... there may be a 90 sec wait after a "heavy jet" takeoff... but not after a 190

I would never issue a takeoff clearance until previous departure 6000 feet and airborne ... controller and pilot foulup
JayBell
Jason Bell 1
Here's the CADORS report. Sure happened. https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?occdtefrom%3d%26occdteto%3d2020-03-28%26srchfldcd%3d6%26txt%3dAir%2bCanada%2b777%2bCYYZ%26srchtype%3d3%26rt%3dWS%26hypl%3dy%26cnum%3d2020O0472

The Tower shouldn't issue those clearances and the 777 should be questioning the tower's decision.
lecompte2
lecompte2 8
The problems facing safety have crept up in aviation in the last 30 years or so and are getting worse, 1. pilots do not look out the window anymore, 2. pilots do not hand fly airplanes anymore, 3. pilots do what they are told by a multitude of people from management to air traffic control and everyone else. The system gives them responsibility only when there is a problem.
ronbaird1942
ron baird 1
Amen, Brother Ben!
d0ugparker
Doug Parker 0
   ATC: "Cleared for takeoff,"

versus

   ATC: "Cleared for takeoff following preceding wheels-up visual."
N7128N
Bill Olsen 4
So if the aircraft never actually hit each other, then in fact they missed each other. They didn't nearly miss or "near miss". It was in fact a "near hit" and should be noted as such.
I know the FAA calls it this but just because they don't use English correctly, why should we tolerate the miss use of this term. My near hit reports over the years have always used the correct term and sometimes those FSDO folks query the term "near hit". We are supposed to far miss all other aircraft. But when we are too close for comfort, we nearly hit the other aircraft. A near miss means you hit them but nearly missed them.
atanudey
Atanu Dey 4
Bill Olsen, you beat me to it. My first impulse every time I read "near-miss" I say, "hey, that's a near hit, not a near miss."

What would a person rather be -- nearly downed or nearly saved? :) I would rather be near-drowned than near-saved!!
crhollisjr
Chuck Hollis -1
Misses have degrees. A near miss means when you do not hit the object but are close. Didn’t hit the broadside of a barn is when Joe Biden shoots an “AR-14”.
PDLanum
Philip Lanum 0
A near miss is when you hit the target but just a little. Since there is no such thing as a AR-14 the barn is safe.

It should be reported as a near collision, the word hit is pretty wimpy sounding. (That is a AR-15)
crhollisjr
Chuck Hollis 2
Partially correct in part one of your response. Which is why I put AR-14 in quotes. I wanted to quote the former VP accurately.
d0ugparker
Doug Parker 2
Heterodyne. It contributed to the Tenerife airport disaster, March 27, 1977.
dicky11
dicky11 1
Doug, that was exactly my first thought when I read the report. We need to get Marconi back and fix this issue???
scanware
Gene McAvoy 2
Cooled the brakes for 45 min....would loved to have seen those skid marks!
lecompte2
lecompte2 2
Something sort of like this happened to me a long time ago on a short icy runway, and after my boss was asking me how much reverse I was using when I got very close to the end, the answer was don't know except there was a lot of noisy popping and banging. LOL
baingm
Gary Bain 1
Doubt there were any skid marks if the anti-skid was working.
JedFR
JedFR 3
6000ft AND airborne is the separation in that scenario. Tower was probably anticipating the airborne part like they had 1000s of times before until this time...
bahalana
Keith Brown 1
"And airborne", exactly what I was going to say. It's been decades since I was a tower controller, and "anticipated separation" is a real thing, however, I don't remember it being an exception to the "and airborne" part. I had an almost 11,000 foot runway and one day the local aero club had an open house and I was (literally) landing and departing 3 airplanes at a time (think Oshkosh). It was tons of fun, perfectly safe and impressed a lot of folks, but very much within the rules. Light aircraft only need 3,000 feet of separation on the runway. At first, reading this article I thought it was a bit hyperbolic, but then realized this could have ended badly.
someguy
someguy 0
Exactly, 6000 and airborne (which as the article notes is an FAA standard, so I'm not sure why it's relevant unless the Canadians do it the same way—I don't know).

The way I was taught, if the second airplane is holding short of the runway you can anticipate separation (again, 6000 AND airborne) and issue takeoff clearance. But if the second guy is holding in position and you issue the clearance before 6000 and airborne, boom, loss of separation right there: the second plane has "begun takeoff roll" and you didn't have it.
bahalana
Keith Brown 1
Yes I think you're right. Obviously I could go to the 7110.65 and figure it out, but it's much more fun to debate it on the Internet while we can't fiy or control. As for Canada vs. USA, not sure, but when I retired in 2013 it was pretty standard ICAO.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
used to be an air controller...seemed most of our incidents occurred when there was little going on... controller and pilots let their guard down and...bingo!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Since many dislike the term near miss, which I concur it was not, let's just call it like it was...a "near catastrophe"
mmc7090
mmc7090 1
Even in the controlled environment the pilot in command has final authority in this case exercising poor judgment not observing liftoff? An excellent example of neophyte aviation skills.
treesor
Ted Reesor 1
Question from a non-aviation expert: Let's say the 777 Capt (through experience) wants to delay their T/O roll until they feel its sufficiently clear ahead. How long could they sit until the ATC starts barking at them? Are we talking 5 seconds? Consequences of doing so other than upsetting ATC?
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 4
Captain calls the shot and is in the right to do so (especially in visual situation). ATC may question and ask for reason. Based on answer, indicate planned action (ex: move to exit ramp B and hold). Both groups are professionals, 99% of the time an agreement as to following actions made.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
If tower barked, or even before given that chance, all AC-606 had to do.."Tower, AC-606, are you positive that craft ahead of us has departed the runway? We have not seen any indication of being airborne" Tower would have/should have then noticed and AC-606 would have been told to hold.

By the time AC-606 got the callout to roll and lineup, then cleared for takeoff, AC-1037 should have been airborne already.
lecompte2
lecompte2 2
The Captain is in charge of his plane no matter what the controller will tell you. He of course must advise ATC of his decision as soon as he can and they will respond with an alternate action to take.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
A "near miss"? So then they hit?
MikePetro
Mike Petro -2
Near means "close to". Miss means didn't hit. Ergo, they got close but didn't hit.
jmpedlar
Joel Pedlar 3
This reminds me of the George Carlin act about airports. He said "When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss! 'Look, they nearly missed. Yep, but not quite!'"
dkenna
dkenna 2
Carlin was hilarious! Near miss and pre-boarding. How do you pre-board an aircraft?
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Exactly!
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
And "miss" means "not hitting". Put the two together and it's "close to not hitting", ergo, they hit. They came close to not hitting, but they hit.
PDLanum
Philip Lanum 1
Just use "near collision" that will get everyone's attention.
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
would not clear an aircraft for takeoff until I insured prior aircraft 6000 feet down the runway AND airborne or taxied clear of the runway... from an old tower controller...can NEVER assume anything...
cougarblue
Steve Western 1
Air Canada seems to be playing Russian Roulette, it’s one potential disaster after another. I had nightmares for a month after hearing about the Air Canada aircraft that came way too close to landing on a loaded SFO taxiway. Maybe the crews aren’t getting enough rest.
lecompte2
lecompte2 1
Canada has the slackest crew rest regulations in the western world. And every minute of crew rest has had to be fought for by pilots over the years. And the fight goes on for airlines and even bush pilots.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Am I all alone in my dislike of the term "near miss" ?
utahcamera
Tim Smith 1
The ground controller gets used to saying the same phrase over and over until it's not even a thought but a reflex.

You are in control of your aircraft Captian! Double-check that any instructions given by ground or ATC make sense.
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 1
i don't understand aviation jargon, so i needed it explained to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM

i'll meet you on the tarmac.
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling -8
One huge difference is that in Canada, a private company runs their FAA control tower services, and here it's the actual FAA.

When they privatized the service, there was a HUGE increase in near misses, lost planes, etc. It was a real mess. Runway incursions skyrocketed, it was being used as a reason not to privatize the US FAA. They are still, obviously, not up to FAA standards, but it has gotten better.

Putting government functions in private hands does not come without costs.
schtick1964
Ian Reid 13
On the transfer date (1996) most, if not all, of the employees were Transport Canada controllers who just remained in their positions but were now working for Nav Canada. None of the procedures changed. The only thing that changed was the managing entity.
Schooner69A
John Swallow 9
"When they privatized the service, there was a HUGE increase in near misses, lost planes, etc. It was a real mess."

As Col Potter was wont to intone: meadow muffins.

Source, please?

I flew in the system for many years after the switchover and it was seamless. Still professional service as before.

Methinks you put that in for not-so-altruistic reasons...
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Why don't you think before commenting NAVCanada and FAA work together on many aspects and this is 1 of them ''According to FAA rules on separation, takeoff clearance need not be withheld until separation is achieved if the controller anticipates the separation will exist when the following aircraft begins its takeoff roll. In fact, aircraft are allowed to begin their takeoff rolls when the forward plane is at least 6,000 feet down the runway ''
When the triple 7 OIC got the rollout call and clear for takeoff, he/she should have looked down the runway and seen if the Embraer was actually airborne. With a 6000' separation is needed, by the timne the triple 7 rolled onto the runway and began the roll, the Embraer should have been in the air (fully laden E190 is 6890 ft)
RobertSalton
Robert Salton 5
Hi Robert, we don't use 'FAA' control towers, never have. No more than you guys used Transport Canada control towers. True, we now use NAV Canada control towers and they have done a fantastic & seamless transition. I have been flying in Canada since 1980, when the 'transition' took place there was nothing unusual or unsafe occurring, other than your day to day occurrences that even the FAA control towers suffer from. I would say they are on par.
Fastform
Archie Duiker 5
Reminds me of the time when Canada introduced daytime running lights on all new vehicles. Many Americans were blathering on about how it caused a huge increase in accidents due to opposing drivers being blinded in the daytime by the oncoming lights. Others reported Canadian’s headlights were burning out frequently due to constant use. All were unsubstantiated comments by ignorant people.
NORMANPHILIP
NORMANPHILIP 1
SERIOUSLY NOW ???? I was 30 years in aviation and NEVER saw nor heard ANYTHING about the BS you are spouting. Where are your facts ? Surely you have some data to back this up ( you don't because it doesn't exist).
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 0
Hey Robert. Think then speak. That is the preferred order, not the reverse.
corybaumann
Cory Baumann 0
This isn't good if that's the case.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
lol (pardon my mirth) but in what case would it be good?
d0ugparker
Doug Parker 0
All misses are misses.

A *near miss* is the missing of a miss, so a near miss is a hit. As others have said, they had a near hit.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

pjshield
pjshield 10
You think it's necessary to bring politics into an aviation forum? You've just won membership in DickHead of the Month Award.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 2
Your medication is up for renewal. Please head to the pharmacy ASAP

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

andyc852
Get a grip of what?
belzybob
belzybob 1
I can't get a grip of this US thing where aircraft are told "clear to land" when there can be other aircraft ahead in the landing sequence.
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
when I was a controller we were never allowed to issue a clearance until it was CLEAR... "#2 follow...on short final"... "continue approach"... never allowed to "bet on the come"... I don't like the current practice either...seems once you've cleared the second in line to land your attention may drift elsewhere

Anmelden

Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!