Toronto Star

Multiple factors caused near-miss at Pearson

Report says close call in 2016 resulted from ambiguous instructio­ns, crew mistake

- BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA— An air traffic controller’s ambiguous instructio­n and a flight crew’s mistake contribute­d to a close call at Pearson Internatio­nal Airport involving two Air Canada jets.

The nighttime incident in 2016 unfolded when the crew of a departing Air Canada Embraer 190 misunderst­ood a controller’s instructio­n and taxied onto a runway for takeoff — into the path of another Air Canada jet that was just 30 seconds from landing on the same runway. The arriving jet, an Airbus A320, was less than 100 metres above the ground when its pilots spotted the aircraft on the runway and aborted the landing.

In a report released Wednesday, the Transporta­tion Safety Board of Canada lays out several factors it says contribute­d to what it deemed to be a risk of collision between the two passenger jets.

The ground controller, responsibl­e for directing movements on the apron and taxiways, had told the pilots of the Embraer jet to “go to the right side.” The ground controller meant the right side of a holding bay near the runway, but the pilots misinterpr­eted this as clearance to taxi directly onto Runway 24 Right.

The report says the pilots were mentally primed to receive a takeoff clearance and therefore didn’t request clarificat­ion.

The fact that the perceived instructio­n to enter the runway came from the ground controller, not the tower controller, who typically issues such clearances, wasn’t enough to prompt the crew to question their understand­ing of the situation, the investigat­ion found.

Indeed, safety investigat­ors say the pilots overlooked several clues that would have alerted them to the mistake, including the sight of the arriving aircraft less than a kilometre away that they believed was landing on a parallel runway.

“The expectatio­ns of both flight crew members, combined with ambiguous phraseolog­y employed by the ground controller, likely contribute­d to the flight crew’s misunderst­anding of the taxi instructio­ns,” the report found. “Although there were available cues that could have alerted the flight crew to the misunderst­anding, the cues were either not sufficient­ly compelling or were considered and explained away.”

The safety board investigat­ion found that controller­s at Pearson use differing phrases to direct aircraft to the holding bays located by the runways, increasing the risk of miscommuni­cation and further runway incursions. An automated system meant to detect runway incursions did provide an alert, but the controller, focused on the arriving aircraft, did not notice.

The system could have provided an earlier warning, but, because it’s used only in low-visibility operations, it wasn’t operating on the night in question, as the weather was good.

None of the controller­s were aware of the circumstan­ces until the pilots of the arriving jet radioed that they had aborted their landing because of the other aircraft on the runway.

The danger of such runway incursions is on the safety board’s watchlist of most serious threats to aviation safety.

There were 416 runway incursions at Canadian airports in 2015 and the board has warned that serious incidents will continue to occur unless better precaution­s are put in place.

In the wake of the incident, Nav Canada, the agency that operates the air traffic control system, says it has taken steps to optimize the automated alert system, to provide alerts sooner.

“This will increase the . . . warning time to the air traffic controller when a departing aircraft enters the area without authorizat­ion,” spokespers­on Jonathan Bagg said in an email. He said the agency is also reviewing communicat­ions procedures to “ensure language is explicit and effectivel­y supports that common understand­ing.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada