van

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...on_runway.html

OTTAWA—A driverless van rolled across an active runway at Pearson International Airport Monday night, prompting an air traffic controller to warn the pilots of an incoming jet to abort their landing.

Now officials are probing how the van was left unattended and why the pilots of the arriving flight ignored the order from air traffic control to abandon their landing.

Dorian

Really....thought the go around was for someone else?
This is just bizarre. Either ATC called out the wrong flight number or we have some newly demoted AC pilots....

yvr76

Luckily the Lufthansa pilot here did not do the same!
http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/06/a...t-jfk-airport/

DoctorDoug

The call sign of the Air Canada flight was clipped and didn't come through on the radio transmission. The controller used non-standard radio transmissions. Often the first syllable is clipped. The controller should have said "Air Canada 178 go around". Instead he just said "178 go around". The cockpit is a noisy environment. The approach phase is a very busy time for the pilots. There are lots of verbal calls between them, checks and cross checks. The pilots never heard the number 178, they just heard go-around. They thought a flight landing on another runway was being told to go around. The Air Canada flight had already been cleared to land and had a clear runway ahead of it. No reason to think the go-around command was for them. The Air Canada pilots saw that their runway was clear and landed.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

TimMinYYZ

http://avherald.com/h?article=45f30c80&opt=0

fin 645

Wishful thinking.

(This discussion had already started at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...thread-90.html)

RooFlyer

I hear what you are saying DoctorDoug, and on your account (I have no reason to doubt it), the controller appears to have some explaining to do.

But not withstanding the cockpit is a noisy environment, and the pilots are 'busy', one would hope that part of that busy-ness is listening to ATC. The words 'go around' should have sparked some curiosity as they were on final approach. Even with no flight number, or airline name, it could ONLY have been applying to two or 5 aircraft, including them! ESPECIALLY with no flight number etc they might think it could well apply to them!

I wouldn't appreciate a pilot of an aircraft I'm in thinking "OK, I've got landing clearence, that's all I need to know .... in we go."

And I don't think seeing a clear runway isn't nearly enough! What about a plane or vehicle coming in on a cross runway? What about debris on the runway?

briantoronto

Here is some fodder for everyone's armchair TSB'ing fun:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cy...2013-0330Z.mp3

Around minute 6.

KenHamer

In the same philosophy as every landing is an about to be aborted landing until it absolutely is not to be aborted, unless the pilot(s) were absolutely certain the instruction was not for them it should have been considered potentially for them, until they determined with certainty that it was not for them.

Apparently casual "events" like this make up the biggest part of the cause of most disasters.

Similar "logic" to that above was once used at Tenerife.

CanadianConnection33

There is a lot to see here! The fault may not be with the pilots. If the controller should have been saying "Air Canada 178 go around" why didn't he? If I am on a plane about to impact something on the runway I would prefer the controller communicate a proper warning to the flight crew.

Dorian

Bingo.

It isn't like there are 50 planes being handled by approach control...this plane is one of maybe a dozen.

One month suspension without pay.

tcook052

I'll close this thread and please continue the discussion in that thread.

tcook052
Air Canada Forum Moderator