Todos
← Back to Squawk list
‘Improbable’ events set stage for airport near-disaster, report says
An old radar, a driverless van, a 7-watt lightbulb and garbled communications all contributed to a near-collision at Pearson International Airport when a landing Air Canada jet passed just 10 metres over a vehicle that had rolled onto a runway, a safety watchdog says. (www.thestar.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Let's design a system on a forum. Start with voice to text, aircraft and controllers get both. Text persists after the voice disappears. Voice goes to headsets, text goes to screens. I'm done.
Works for me. LOL
I haven't been able to see any of my posts on the FA board or why that is, so not ignoring if don't respond to any comment, should there be any.
I heard the tape several times. The Air Canada pilots, as bad as the negligent tech truck, messed up big time. The pilots' TCAS informs of every call sign in the control zone. They would know they were the only AC aircraft in the CZ. Even if ATC flubbed or garbled AC's call sign an alert pilot would heed the warning and go around out of sensible precaution. The landing lights on these jets can illuminate any moving or still obstacle. Had the pilots been focused on the runway and threshold would've easily sighted the wayward truck.
I've listened to hours of late night Pearson ATC and found AC red eye crews to be hit & miss in adequate ATP professionalism. They seem to be push button/glass cockpit clock punchers.
I heard the tape several times. The Air Canada pilots, as bad as the negligent tech truck, messed up big time. The pilots' TCAS informs of every call sign in the control zone. They would know they were the only AC aircraft in the CZ. Even if ATC flubbed or garbled AC's call sign an alert pilot would heed the warning and go around out of sensible precaution. The landing lights on these jets can illuminate any moving or still obstacle. Had the pilots been focused on the runway and threshold would've easily sighted the wayward truck.
I've listened to hours of late night Pearson ATC and found AC red eye crews to be hit & miss in adequate ATP professionalism. They seem to be push button/glass cockpit clock punchers.
You clearly don't have much experience in the industry. That was made clear with your comment about the landing lights being able to "illuminate any moving or still obstacle." You definitely haven't been in the cockpit of an airplane during a night landing.
And about the TCAS informing them that they are the only ones in the control zone - the TCAS' purpose is not to do that and figuring out how many airplanes are in the control zone or even if you're the only one in the control zone has no merit for a pilot usually.
The AC pilots did not mess up big time.
I fly for a Canadian airline (not Air Canada).
And about the TCAS informing them that they are the only ones in the control zone - the TCAS' purpose is not to do that and figuring out how many airplanes are in the control zone or even if you're the only one in the control zone has no merit for a pilot usually.
The AC pilots did not mess up big time.
I fly for a Canadian airline (not Air Canada).
Night-rated aircraft are mandated to carry adequate external lights to safely discern any terrain, obstacles and ground objects in the approach and landing path, excluding poor visibility /w landing decision subject to captain's (and/or flight crew's) discretion. At 3.9 million lumen per bulb the only way a crew can miss a runaway truck crossing the threshold is if neither crew are looking for ground obstacles. This AC crew wasn't looking or paying attention to the tower's go around order. Of course the AC crew erred.
These aircraft have TCAS and ACAS and blindingly bright landing lights, visible up to 100nm away at sufficient altitude/line of sight and weather conditions. This is not 1903. These jets can see every callsign in the CZ and beyond, the same SSR FlightAware uses. When the only AC in the CZ hears "Air Canada" from Tower, it means them, whether or not Tower muffs the numbers in the urgency of the moment.
Pearson is supposed to be a 1st class international aviation facility. If the Twr can't convey an emergency order to an incoming aircraft to go around, what's the point of having a tower?
These aircraft have TCAS and ACAS and blindingly bright landing lights, visible up to 100nm away at sufficient altitude/line of sight and weather conditions. This is not 1903. These jets can see every callsign in the CZ and beyond, the same SSR FlightAware uses. When the only AC in the CZ hears "Air Canada" from Tower, it means them, whether or not Tower muffs the numbers in the urgency of the moment.
Pearson is supposed to be a 1st class international aviation facility. If the Twr can't convey an emergency order to an incoming aircraft to go around, what's the point of having a tower?
"These aircraft have TCAS and ACAS"
They have both TCAS and ACAS? What's the difference between the two?
They have both TCAS and ACAS? What's the difference between the two?
"Night-rated aircraft are mandated to carry adequate external lights to safely discern any terrain, obstacles and ground objects in the approach and landing path, excluding poor visibility /w landing decision subject to captain's (and/or flight crew's) discretion."
That's a VERY specific requirement that you claim is mandated. Can you reference the rule that states that? Here is the link to the CARs to help you out: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/regulations-sor96-433.htm
Any other official government document stating that is sufficient too.
I'll be waiting :)
That's a VERY specific requirement that you claim is mandated. Can you reference the rule that states that? Here is the link to the CARs to help you out: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/regulations-sor96-433.htm
Any other official government document stating that is sufficient too.
I'll be waiting :)
Oh, no, no, no, no, italy430. That's your task It's in CARs. You can find it.
Maybe with the airline you fly, adequate night vision during landings is shunned on. Perhaps you don a blindfold after spray painting the windshield in Kryon jet black.
Most real pilots don't do that. They want to see an adequately illuminated runway at night time, or as much of it as possible, to avoid what is called collision. Still able to see the said runway with adequate lumens should the runway lighting unexpectedly fail. It's called being a smart pilot.
Maybe with the airline you fly, adequate night vision during landings is shunned on. Perhaps you don a blindfold after spray painting the windshield in Kryon jet black.
Most real pilots don't do that. They want to see an adequately illuminated runway at night time, or as much of it as possible, to avoid what is called collision. Still able to see the said runway with adequate lumens should the runway lighting unexpectedly fail. It's called being a smart pilot.