24left

Incident: Canada B789 at Vancouver and Newark on Aug 26th 2018, left is where the right thumb is

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 19:36Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 19:36Z

An Air Canada Boeing 787-900, registration C-FGEO performing flight AC-548 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to Newark,NJ (USA) with 292 passengers and 10 crew, had been dispatched with the left thrust reverser inoperative under minimum equipment list requirements. The aircraft departed and performed an uneventful flight until touch down in Newark. Following touchdown on Newark's runway 22L the crew selected the right hand reverser, the right reverser however failed to deploy. The aircraft slowed safely nonetheless and taxied to the apron.

The Canadian TSB reported maintenance found the right reverser isolation control valve deactivated. The valve was re-activated and an engine run performed without any further anomaly.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...555Z/CYVR/KEWR

24left

Incident: Canada A321 at Toronto on Aug 18th 2018, continued landing despite go around instruction

Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 19:48Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 19:48Z

An Air Canada Airbus A321-200, registration C-GITU performing flight AC-150 from Calgary,AB to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 196 people on board, was on short final to Toronto's runway 06L, when the preceeding arrival could not vacate the runway in time. Tower instructed AC-150 to go around, the crew however did not acknowledge the call and continued for landing. The aircraft rolled out and vacated the runway without further incident.

Canada's TSB rated the occurrence an incident reportable involving the risk of a collision, however, did not open an investigation.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...225Z/CYYC/CYYZ

24left

Incident: Canada B773 over Pacific on Aug 24th 2018, engine oil leak

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Aug 24th 2018 19:34Z, last updated Friday, Aug 24th 2018 19:46Z

An Air Canada Boeing 777-300, registration C-FIVS performing flight AC-1 (dep Aug 23rd) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Tokyo Haneda (Japan) with 365 passengers and 15 crew, was enroute over the Pacific Ocean about 1200nm northeast of Tokyo when the crew noticed a decreasing oil quantity on the right hand engine (GE90). The crew increased monitoring of the right hand engine. While already in Tokyo Airspace the crew decided to shut the engine down, declared Mayday, and continued for a safe landing on Haneda's runway 23 about 35 minutes after the engine was shut down. The aircraft was inspected on the runway and subsequently taxied to the gate.

The Canadian TSB reported the oil pressure line from the fuel/oil heat exchanger to the #4 bearing was leaking. The line was replaced.

The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Tokyo about 11 hours after landing.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...750Z/CYYZ/RJTT

Stranger

Bit more detail here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-order-451527/

Seems they may not have heard. Might they have switched a bit too early to ground frequency?

tcook052

Didn't hear ATC instructions? Not good and shades of the SFO incident.

Stranger

A bit too early to prejudge? Timing will be crucial. They did not acknowledge the instruction; at what point were they in the landing process when the instruction came? To me this sounds like it will be between ATC and crew, but hard to tell.

Question remaining: why is the TSB not investigating? What do they know which we don't?

CZAMFlyer

You're absolutely correct. I need to ingest more gingko - that aids memory, right?

CZAMFlyer

The linked article states the aircraft was "on short final", which means they were airborne and thus should have been monitoring the Tower frequency until the switch to Ground frequency only after having vacated the runway. We don't know if the crew heard the instruction, and the possibility exists that they did so, but decided they were past the point of a safe missed approach?

My understanding of the TSB's rationale for attending/investigating incidents is that they decide based upon injuries/fatalities (actual or potential), type of incident, etc. Perhaps they decided the risk of collision was low and classified this as a simple error rather than something with greater likelihood of an accident. Whatever the reason, this event didn't meet their threshold for a formal investigation.

tcook052

Never too early to prejudge using the information at hand. I'm nowhere near as well versed in aviation matters as others here but as a layman it's concerning.

Bohemian1

As another layman, it's interesting (although possibly coincidental) that this was at night as well.

Long days for these pilots perhaps?

After Burner

Unlike the SFO occurrence in which they did inadvertently switch the active frequency to GND while on final, that doesn't appear to be the case here. Tower only transmitted "go around" once and it was just seconds prior to the transmission giving runway exit instructions (as well as the question "didn't you hear me say go around?"), so it was very short final. The crew said they only heard the call sign, nothing else. That seems plausible to me.

The article got the date wrong. This happened on August 19.

tracon

Leave 6 hours late, then return to sender.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ROU1951

yyznomad

Any remarks? EF?

(Side note: I wish KIX was ML!)

YYT82

yyznomad

Thanks!

(I've been through a couple of Typhoons in the KIX area, but nothing like this thankfully)

For others, some links:

https://japantoday.com/category/nati...-western-Japan

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/o...access-bridge/