Air Canada Ignores Go-Around

[AirKevin]

Air Canada 178 ignores two calls by the tower to go around.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/14/jet_ignored_order_to_abort_landing_after_driverless_van_rolled_across_pearson_runway.html

[RonR]

The crew heard the calls to "go around" and thought it was for someone else?  After listening to the audio, there didn't seem to be any other traffic other than the KLM that was exiting the runway.  Maybe it's just me, but if I I'm on short final and I hear the words "go around", that would definitely get my attention.  I don't doubt for a second that the pilots thought the "go around" call was for someone else, I'm just wondering what would make them think that.  Just my observation...

[Fryy/Avocadoflight]

'Jet ignored order to abort landing after driverless van rolled across Pearson runway'

[MikeNYC]

Might have been more effective to issue the Go Around along with "cancel landing clearance, climb and maintain 3000', fly runway heading" etc etc.

[vector4traffic]

ATC: "178 Pull-Up Go Around"

So they thought 178 was someone else?

[LastIChecked]

Missing a less than perfect radio call on short final, where the pilots are occupied by the most critical phase of the flight, after a trans-continental red-eye service, is understandable in my books. Not to mention, on a non-busy night with a perfectly clear runway ahead, getting a goaround instruction just prior to the threshold would be highly unusual.

Using the company prefix before the flight number would have caught the pilot's attention. That is what they're listening for when not expecting an ATC call. Remember, the majority of calls from ATC are at an expected point.

[RonR]

Just from listening to the audio I think you can get a fairly clear picture of the traffic in the area at the time: except for the KLM flight that had just landed, there was none.  I would like to think that the flight crew would be aware of the situation around them and that they would have been aware that no other flight was on short final along with them.  The fact that it was a red-eye flight, that it was midnight and that it was not very busy shouldn't matter at all.  The truth is, they didn't really miss the calls at all; they said they heard them but thought they were for someone else.

In my humble opinion, to say that it's understandable to miss a "go around" call (not once, but twice) suggests that it's OK for pilots to be less than 100% on their game when trying to land a red-eye at midnight at a non-busy time for that airport.  Forgive me if I don't agree with that.  Pilots should always expect the unexpected especially when they are about to land.  It shouldn't matter what time of day or night it happens to be.  And I also don't think that getting a "go around" instruction at that point would be considered unusual - what was unusual was the van crossing the runway without a driver in it...

[LastIChecked]

Just from listening to the audio I think you can get a fairly clear picture of the traffic in the area at the time:

Maybe from an armchair but not from a flightdeck in the most critical phase of the flight. At this time, the flight crew would have been configuring the aircraft and completing the appropriate checklists and callouts. They don't have time to listen to all radio calls unless they hear it's for them.

The fact that the pilots missed the less than perfect radio call isn't great, and they will be held accountable, but it is understandable. What I cannot understand is why they're getting blamed so heavily when they themselves didn't do anything blatantly unsafe or wrong.

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

[davolijj]

Maybe from an armchair but not from a flightdeck in the most critical phase of the flight. At this time, the flight crew would have been configuring the aircraft and completing the appropriate checklists and callouts. They don't have time to listen to all radio calls unless they hear it's for them.

The fact that the pilots missed the less than perfect radio call isn't great, and they will be held accountable, but it is understandable. What I cannot understand is why they're getting blamed so heavily when they themselves didn't do anything blatantly unsafe or wrong.

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

Sorry but LastIChecked, you're wrong.  First of all, how do you know this was a "less than perfect" radio call?  Are you an expert in ICAO ATC phraseology or Canadian air traffic control procedures?  For all you know this was text book phraseology. Personally, I heard it loud and clear and there was no ambiguity in my opinion who it was for.  Twice I heard "Air Canada 178 pull up and go around."

Is it your contention that configuring the aircraft and calling out speeds is more important than landing the aircraft on a clear runway, free of obstructions?

[RonR]

Just from listening to the audio I think you can get a fairly clear picture of the traffic in the area at the time:

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

Yes, LastIChecked I am a pilot

And if you ask me, at that final phase of a flight I would think that the flight crew would be especially vigilant for radio calls just in case they would get one of those "highly unusual" go around calls.  That's one of those calls you simply don't want to miss.  I think they were very fortunate that the van went across the runway and didn't stop in the middle of it.

[Rick108]

Seems like both sides dropped the ball here.  I never heard "Air Canada" on either call - only "178, pull up, go around", and no reason was given for the late call. Something like "Air Canada 178, go around, vehicle on the runway" might have gotten their attention. But the crew should still have been on top of the call - BECAUSE they were in such a critical phase of flight.  On short final in Charleston, WV late one evening, I got "go around, herd of deer crossing the runway" - thankfully the tower controller spotted them before we met mid-field!  You always land primed to go around at any moment...

[RonR]

But the crew should still have been on top of the call - BECAUSE they were in such a critical phase of flight.....You always land primed to go around at any moment...

Yes, I agree 100%

[LastIChecked]

Sorry but LastIChecked, you're wrong. 

ATC strayed from standard MANOPS phraseology.

Seems like both sides dropped the ball here.

Undoubtably, and both sides will be held accountable.

I am a pilot

I would think that the flight crew

A bit conflicting, no?