Two RTO's on the same runway - at the same time

[pelmet]

https://avherald.com/h?article=4d4a7b67&opt=0

Air Canada E190 and Air Canada B773 at Toronto on Mar 7th 2020, both aircraft accelerated on same runway at same time, both aircraft rejected takeoff

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Mar 18th 2020 21:43Z, last updated Wednesday, Mar 18th 2020 21:43Z

An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FMZW performing flight AC-1037 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Denver,CO (USA) with 87 people on board, was cleared for takeoff from Toronto's runway 06L under visual departure procedures.

Immediately when the E190 began their takeoff roll, Tower cleared the Air Canada Boeing 777-300, registration C-FJZS performing flight AC-606 from Toronto,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada) with 359 people on board, to taxi into position and hold on runway 06L.

While the E190 was still in their takeoff roll, tower cleared the Boeing 777-300 for takeoff.

Shortly afterwards the E190 received a bird strike, the crew decided to reject takeoff at 135 KIAS. The crew radioed tower that they were rejecting takeoff exactly at the same time when the B773 acknowledged their takeoff clearance and commenced takeoff.

When the B773 accelerated through 110 KIAS they noticed the E190 was still on the runway and rejected takeoff and managed to stop clear of the E190.

Both aircraft were able to vacate the runway, the E190 returned to the apron. The Boeing 777-300 waited on a taxiway for 45 minutes to cool their brakes, then returned to the apron.

The Canadian TSB reported there were no injuries and no damage to either aircraft. There was a risk of collision, the TSB opened a Class 3 investigation into the occurrence.

[genetic jack hammer]

We were taking position onto the 6L right after the 777. We saw and heard it all unravel. If you have the chance to take a look, you can still see the 777 tire marks, around C1. We stayed in position until a complete runway inspection was done. The falcon was found in three pieces. The Emb said that they may have hit a falcon and weren't sure if it went through the engine. Seeing a 777 reject like that was surreal. The 777 taxied off of 6L and moved onto C or D (can't remember exactly which one). That's where they stayed for a while until returning back to the gate. We took off after being on 6L for 10mins, max.

[dialdriver]

.

[pelmet]

We were taking position onto the 6L right after the 777. We saw and heard it all unravel. If you have the chance to take a look, you can still see the 777 tire marks, around C1. We stayed in position until a complete runway inspection was done. The falcon was found in three pieces. The Emb said that they may have hit a falcon and weren't sure if it went through the engine. Seeing a 777 reject like that was surreal. The 777 taxied off of 6L and moved onto C or D (can't remember exactly which one). That's where they stayed for a while until returning back to the gate. We took off after being on 6L for 10mins, max.

Thanks for the eyewitness account.

I know a lot of pilots like to take a quick look down the runway just prior to adding power for takeoff. Who knows what you might see. Maybe a flock of birds or other animal, vehicle, another aircraft landing in the opposite direction at an uncontrolled airport, the previous aircraft that rejected the takeoff, etc. Looking to see that the previous aircraft got airborne is another thing. One can use TCAS as well in low vis(or even in good conditions). Could prevent a disaster.

[genetic jack hammer]

I'm hoping to find a Live ATC feed from that morning. My captain and i are still sure that we did NOT hear the EMB call "reject". By the time they had slowed down enough, they exited at the end of 6L. This could have had a much different ending has the runway been contaminated, or even just wet. Next time you're taking off 6L, keep an eye out around C1, the 777 tire marks go from the centre of the runway, slowly veering to the right.

Most of do take a glance around before taking off. Coyotes and rabbits have often been seen in the grass, as well as a flock of birds, ready to take flight....and yes, i did say coyotes instead of cougars, because, as you know, this topic would have wandered down a bad road, had i said cougars.

[FL410]

Found it: https://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyyz ... -1430Z.mp3

Starts ~17:45. The reject call came across on here. At least tower mentioned to keep the EMB in sight twice, might have helped?

[Daniel Cooper]

My captain and i are still sure that we did NOT hear the EMB call "reject".

Apparently they made the call at the same time as another radio call and it got blocked. A major safety issue with ATC communications.

[genetic jack hammer]

My captain and i are still sure that we did NOT hear the EMB call "reject".

Apparently they made the call at the same time as another radio call and it got blocked. A major safety issue with ATC communications.

Hmmmm...i wonder if it was me calling "taking position and holding on runway 06L."

[pelmet]

Found it: https://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyyz ... -1430Z.mp3

Starts ~17:45. The reject call came across on here. At least tower mentioned to keep the EMB in sight twice, might have helped?

I heard that. The 777 guys even read back to "...keep the Embraer in sight...". What is one supposed to do if they lose sight of the aircraft in such a situation. Maybe check the TCAS and if nothing in sight or...ask.

[Daniel Cooper]

My captain and i are still sure that we did NOT hear the EMB call "reject".

Apparently they made the call at the same time as another radio call and it got blocked. A major safety issue with ATC communications.

Hmmmm...i wonder if it was me calling "taking position and holding on runway 06L."

I haven't listened to the audio but according to this website it was the 777 acknowledging it's takeoff clearance.

https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-nea ... collision/

[Heliian]

Brake lights and turn signals should be required on all aircraft. Throw in a horn too for good measure.

Seems like everything ended up as it should, both aircraft stopped in time.

[ant_321]

I’ve been trained a RTO is an automatic mayday call. That usually gets everyone’s attention.

[pelmet]

I’ve been trained a RTO is an automatic mayday call. That usually gets everyone’s attention.

Re-reading the report, it is interesting that the TSB stated that there was no damage to either aircraft. It now seems odd that the first aircraft did a high-speed RTO. I was assuming an engine problem.

[genetic jack hammer]

I’ve been trained a RTO is an automatic mayday call. That usually gets everyone’s attention.

Re-reading the report, it is interesting that the TSB stated that there was no damage to either aircraft. I wonder why the first aircraft did a high-speed RTO. I was assuming an engine problem.

The EMB pilot said they weren't sure if the bird went through the engine. I didn't hear the audio right to the end but that is what she said. Obviously a bird strike on the take-off roll, especially with a falcon, is gonna be very noticeable. On the audio, you can actually hear her calling the reject. Broken in three pieces, maybe part of it did go through the engine or maybe they suspected severe damage to the aircraft. At least now i know that my radio call didn't block the rejecting take-off call.

[Super31]

Has anyone noticed how ATC was running the show for both sides of the airport? Tower clears a plane coming in on 05 for landing right after so maybe if they weren't "short" they would have seen the EMJ not lifting off yet and tell the 777 crew....Just my two cents. Ultimately they acknowledged the "keep the embraer in sight" call but still. Lot of layers lined up here, but gladly something much worse was averted.

Cheers

[Blue42]

Has anyone noticed how ATC was running the show for both sides of the airport? Tower clears a plane coming in on 05 for landing right after so maybe if they weren't "short" they would have seen the EMJ not lifting off yet and tell the 777 crew....Just my two cents. Ultimately they acknowledged the "keep the embraer in sight" call but still. Lot of layers lined up here, but gladly something much worse was averted.

Cheers

I know they do sometimes when traffic is low but were they for sure this time. Does LiveATC pick up frequencies like a scanned? I’m guessing tower didn’t hear the reject call because they had their mic keyed. Same as when someone says there’s a “stuck mic” on frequency, everyone hears you except the one with the stuck mic...

[lownslow]

I’m honestly surprised that a takeoff clearance can be issued with the airplane ahead still on the runway.

[northernpilot2]

I’m honestly surprised that a takeoff clearance can be issued with the airplane ahead still on the runway.

I don't even know why there needs to be such a rush. Yeah yeah fuel is money, but safety first for @#$! sakes . Hopefully this is a lesson learned. Could have been disastrous.

[valleyboy]

I’m honestly surprised that a takeoff clearance can be issued with the airplane ahead still on the runway

I've actually witnessed 3 aircraft on T/O roll on one runway. 1st A/c rotating #2 halfway down the runway and 3rd getting a go. Granted in the good old USA but they were in high volume mode. Works great until it doesn't. As a pilot you were almost forced to take it on because if you refused the clearance you went to the back of the line or the penalty box. Do they still have them in ORD?

I'm thinking that a reject, even one considered low speed should have transponder to emergency squak (it's done anyway with an emergency like a fire). We don't have the luxury of being able to see other aircraft depending on wx and time of day. There is a dependence on ground radar now why not use it for this. The NG A/C it could be added to the software to come on automatically. I once witnessed a DC8 have a cargo door on T/O (ya they got it back on the ground) and the tower was able to stop all aircraft movement in about 10 seconds while the emergency unfolded. Pretty simple if they have the information. Clearly radio calls are not dependable for a busy crew. Just takes a little brain fart or blocked call.

[genetic jack hammer]

I’m honestly surprised that a takeoff clearance can be issued with the airplane ahead still on the runway

I've actually witnessed 3 aircraft on T/O roll on one runway. 1st A/c rotating #2 halfway down the runway and 3rd getting a go.

That's pretty much happened on this day. We were given the position and hold on 6L, as the triple was given it's take-off clearance, with the EMB on the RTO. Crisis was averted, could have been a much worse outcome if the runway was wet, even just damp.

[digits_]

I’m honestly surprised that a takeoff clearance can be issued with the airplane ahead still on the runway

I've actually witnessed 3 aircraft on T/O roll on one runway. 1st A/c rotating #2 halfway down the runway and 3rd getting a go. Granted in the good old USA but they were in high volume mode. Works great until it doesn't. As a pilot you were almost forced to take it on because if you refused the clearance you went to the back of the line or the penalty box. Do they still have them in ORD?

I'm thinking that a reject, even one considered low speed should have transponder to emergency squak (it's done anyway with an emergency like a fire). We don't have the luxury of being able to see other aircraft depending on wx and time of day. There is a dependence on ground radar now why not use it for this. The NG A/C it could be added to the software to come on automatically. I once witnessed a DC8 have a cargo door on T/O (ya they got it back on the ground) and the tower was able to stop all aircraft movement in about 10 seconds while the emergency unfolded. Pretty simple if they have the information. Clearly radio calls are not dependable for a busy crew. Just takes a little brain fart or blocked call.

Why not change the system in such a way that a take off clearance is only given when the runway is actually clear of all other traffic? Isn't that the whole point of a take off clearance to begin with? How much time does anyone really save with giving take off clearances (and in a way landing clearances) while the runway is still occupied?

[valleyboy]

Why not change the system in such a way that a take off clearance is only given when the runway is actually clear of all other traffic? Isn't that the whole point of a take off clearance to begin with? How much time does anyone really save with giving take off clearances (and in a way landing clearances) while the runway is still occupied?

Traffic Volume, to do that you would need to cut back on flights per day and would you ever think the government would do that. Not a bad idea really, better for the environment and shrink an industry that is almost out of control but Canadian law change would have no impact on the rest of the world except divert international flights to close airports south of the border.

It's ironic that the present situation was magnified to world wide pandemic in such a short time by the ability of most people to travel the world on a whim.

[Super31]

It was a Saturday, not much traffic volume, and the weather was SKC like today. Had it been wet or contaminated sure it would have been worse but I highly doubt tower would be running a one-man-show under such conditions. It only happens during days like today for example, Saturday with beautiful skies. A hard set rule that should be followed is Mayday 3x for a rejected takeoff regardless of which country you're in and I'm sure someone will get it. Although it's hectic moment and who knows if the person will remember the 3x Mayday call with all that could be going on.

[pelmet]

I know a lot of pilots like to take a quick look down the runway just prior to adding power for takeoff. Who knows what you might see. Maybe a flock of birds or other animal, vehicle, another aircraft landing in the opposite direction at an uncontrolled airport, etc. Looking to see that the previous aircraft got airborne is another thing. Could prevent a disaster.

Here is a good example on a fairly short runway...

"C-GTYI, a Cessna 152 operated by SkyQuest Aviation Ltd., was conducting flight training at
Langley Airport (CYNJ), BC and was asked by the Langley Tower to line up (backtrack) and wait
for a Runway 19 departure. At the same time, another aircraft (Cessna 172, C-GAMN) had just
landed on Runway 19 and was instructed to exit at Taxiway Alpha. C-GTYI was observed
beginning the take-off roll. The tower issued instructions to C-GTYI to stop as C-GAMN was still on
the runway. C-GTYI responded with the aircraft identification and continued the take-off which was
completed with the second aircraft still on the runway. The pilot of C-GTYI had misinterpreted the
backtrack instruction as cleared for takeoff. No collision occurred and there was no damage."

[doiwannabeapilot]

Why not change the system in such a way that a take off clearance is only given when the runway is actually clear of all other traffic? Isn't that the whole point of a take off clearance to begin with? How much time does anyone really save with giving take off clearances (and in a way landing clearances) while the runway is still occupied?

Traffic Volume, to do that you would need to cut back on flights per day and would you ever think the government would do that. Not a bad idea really, better for the environment and shrink an industry that is almost out of control but Canadian law change would have no impact on the rest of the world except divert international flights to close airports south of the border.

It's ironic that the present situation was magnified to world wide pandemic in such a short time by the ability of most people to travel the world on a whim.

Not sure the situation meets the definition of irony.

Consolidating shipments (i.e. Amazon) to once per month only (delaying that shipment of a small item because you just have to have it in 2 days),
walking to the grocery store
using Facebook less
those are great things to do at the altar of climate change.