Air Canada has a lot to answer to over the past year. There are at least 8 instances that I can recall off hand where their pilots are instructed for one or another reason to "go around" and they ignore the instruction and land anyway, often in very insecure circumstances, and loss separation from the AC plane and the other vehicle. 3 in SFO...
i am proud of Embraer, from Brazil,my country ! we see Embraer aircrafts all over the world ! even Air Canada buys Embraer ! the best are Boeing,Airbus,Embraer and Bombardier
@@isac.2h i am in Brazil,i live in Rio ! i usualy go to Ottawa,i just love Canada and i have friends there,unfortunately,because the covid,i can t travel to Canada now,it s forbidden !!! i am so sad !!!
As soon as I heard Air Canada I assumed the van was in the right and the aircraft was not cleared to land, was at the wrong airport, and the pilots were asleep.
@Milaad Rohi There's also the fact that the van rolled onto the threshold of the runway and therefore was never really in any danger of being struck by a landing plane.
@Milaad Rohi I agree. They knew it was safe and going around at that point would've been a waste of time and money. They may still receive a warning for technically violating the rules. But I don't think they need to be sanctioned or fired since it was never actually dangerous.
+TrixtaTV Actually she should of said "RUNWAY 2-4 RIGHT". Because the R stands for RIGHT. The ATC or pilots would never say runway 2-4R they have to say runway 2-4 RIGHT. They usually do that when there is two runways next to eachother on the same heading, one is called LEFT and the other RIGHT. There is airports that have three runways next to eachother on same heading so the runway in the middle would be for example 24C which is called 2-4 CENTER and the others 2-4 LEFT and 2-4 RIGHT.
At least they didn't show a 747 in the animation like most news networks would haha. Just another runway incursion that Transport Canada is going to have to investigate.
SMACK68 Medias have to be correct if they want to be credible. It's a bit like talking about a horse but showing a donkey. Close enough is not enough...
STFU...it's not like that at all. They're both PLANES! - and VERY similar ones at that! And trying to land a DONKEY would have been EXTREMELY challenging!
Sounds like they are milking the investigation expenses budget! The driver forgot the handbrake and the pilot knew he could make the landing easy! What’s to investigate?
pilot should be in trouble for ignoring air traffic control but maintenance worker should be fired for breaching safety measures and not applying parking brake
Probably the pilot saw the van and deemed the landing was still doable without issues, so he just turned a deaf ear for a few seconds, time to go over the van and finish his landing. He didn't want to deal with a go back
The term seems a little stupid indeed if you read "near" as "nearly". It's correct nonetheless. It's an English idiom that originated in artillery, where a miss that was still *near* the target was called a "near miss", as opposed to a miss very far off target.
How many people mentioned "@St. Maarten they come lower"? Like the problem was the elevation?! @ St.Maarten people are on the other side of the fence that keeps them away from the runaway. How many times have you seen maintenance vans rolling with no driver on St.Maarten's runway?!
the close call involved an aircraft just like this one an E 190 what she doesnt say is that the plane doing the butter oin camera is an embrear 170 the shorter original verson of the embrear family the E190 was made after this jet as a stretched version of the e170/175
would like to the ATC / pilot recording, but if the van was at the threshold and plane was still 50'above ....seems more uneventful than a near disaster...... must have been a slow news night.....
I didn't know what the "lol" was for until I read the replies to your comment. We're not all interested in aviation so I would have also read it as "twenty-four R." I only now found out it's two-four-right.
How did the Tower know that a van was going to roll across the runway ? unless they were psychic how could they have warned the aircraft to go around twice ? Unless and until , 5 seconds before touchdown the tower says "go around, go around " and consider that as asking to go around twice..
50 ft a near miss? Next time you are on the freeway look around and try to asses if the "pilot" in the lane next to you is likely to need 50ft of clearance for you to be safe...
Seems Air Canada has issues obeying tower instructions. Case in point.... two very similar instances in San Francisco in 2017 and 2018. One where the plane tried to land on a taxiway in spite of being told multiple times to go around.
Were they told to go around during the taxiway instance? My recollection was that the chatter on frequency was, at best, unclear. Obviously, I'm not downplaying the severity of the situation.
A safety incursion is if both are touching on the active rwy at the same time. If the van had cleared before the AC touchdown then the Aircraft had done nothing wrong. The focus should be on the ground vehicle crossing before being cleared to xrs. The Van By saying brake failure! Is an admission to guilt, albeit a mechanical malfunction! §91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
@@Bungle2010 §91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
@@Bungle2010 It's not always that black & white that's why i put the regulation we are all adhere to. The greatest problem here is why was a vehicle crossing an "Active Runway" ? The vehicle operater said his brakes went out!
am i the only person to realize that the reporter first indicated that it was a driverless van @00;33 that went on the runway and then states @00:54 that a maintenance worker was driving the van. she's got her head up her ass, didn't even pronounce the runways name correctly. And people buy into mass media. This story seems out of place with no true indication of the event. either there was a person in the van or not!!
Here let me explain it to you in plain English. Worker drives van to gate H16. gets out of van. Does maintenance work on sunwing plane. During that time van starts to roll and goes across the runway. Replay the video a couple times.. I'm sure you'll get it.... eventually
Months to complete? What more is there to say? Death was giving them a freebie that day and decided to let things slide. That was indeed a close call though.
“Investigation could take months”, “cannot comment because there is an investigation “. Jeez. Seriously. Was the ground vehicle operating under the direction of ground control? Did the aircraft fail to comply with an ATC command? There. Forward me 4 weeks consulting fees and you’re good to go.
“We are unable to comment because an investigation is underway”. I’m sorry but this is not a criminal court case or police investigation. They are perfectly capable of commenting.
Wow a lot of comments, and misrepresented facts. The incursion did occur but not as it was reported here. As i recall > the truck crossed the runway at/by Q taxiway, behind and under the landing aircraft. pilots had no view of the truck. With 5 active runways and normal busy traffic, pilots concluded the pulled up was for another aircraft. The controllers were not precise in the direct as to whom to abort landing. Also distance, and angle of view of controllers is something to take into consideration. The Mechanic, left his truck as he pulled up on the apron beside a Sunwing aircraft, which called in a mechanical issued just before its departure. In his haste, he left the truck in reverse, Not park, with the engine running. the truck backed uncommanded, clipped an engine cowling and proceeded across the apron, taxiway, crossed the runway and into a ditch. a serious situation. fortunately little damage done and no one got hurt. He lost his job.
I thought Person than Pearson haha. I think that if the animation shows what exactly the situation was then the plane is landing, and as long as it operates normally then the priority is the plane landing than a ban. so ban should stop and wait till finish landing. Why did he enter??? I do not understand why...
Air Canada has a lot to answer to over the past year. There are at least 8 instances that I can recall off hand where their pilots are instructed for one or another reason to "go around" and they ignore the instruction and land anyway, often in very insecure circumstances, and loss separation from the AC plane and the other vehicle. 3 in SFO...
“An Embraer 190”
**shows Embraer 175**
i am proud of Embraer, from Brazil,my country ! we see Embraer aircrafts all over the world ! even Air Canada buys Embraer ! the best are Boeing,Airbus,Embraer and Bombardier
I know Air Canada had E190s, I’ve flown on them like 20 times and they still have the E175s
@@mariajosebedran3652 🔫 you're going to brazil.
@@isac.2h i am in Brazil,i live in Rio ! i usualy go to Ottawa,i just love Canada and i have friends there,unfortunately,because the covid,i can t travel to Canada now,it s forbidden !!! i am so sad !!!
Well REALLY, - I for one won't catch one wink of sleep tonight now. Probably forever.
I know I'm a bad person, but I LOL'd at when she pronounced 24R.
Twentyfour R
Airshowlover100 ikr! i cant watch the segment without smirking :)
24 r is the name of the runway. What’s so funny about it?
Jennifer Singh it’s pronounced “two four right”
Jennifer and others...Filip is indeed correct...it's pronounced 24Right.
Hey global news, i see you have a vacancy for an animator. hit me up.
What were you expecting? This is the news, not Star Wars.
will you work for minimum wage?
starwarsrebel2006 🤣🤣🤣🤣 that Star Wars comment!!! Funny af. Thanks for that friend
@Jackeen D22 : typical racist comment for you TH-cam
Stfu
That was a big van, no wonder they were concerned.
Hahahaha ! Indeed. XD
As soon as I heard Air Canada I assumed the van was in the right and the aircraft was not cleared to land, was at the wrong airport, and the pilots were asleep.
1:15 I never knew they made vans almost as big as commercial planes!
0:55 that is the most realistic approach ever 😂 🤦♂️
Dont worry the captain watned to do a steep approach
if the maintenance guy forgets to put the handbrake on his van, i sure hope he wasn't the guy fixing planes....
Tire chocks are supposed to be one of the first safety steps for any kind of maintenance...
@Milaad Rohi There's also the fact that the van rolled onto the threshold of the runway and therefore was never really in any danger of being struck by a landing plane.
@Milaad Rohi Yeah, that's the point I was making lol. The plane was never in danger of coming anywhere near the van, nevermind landing on top of it.
@Milaad Rohi I agree. They knew it was safe and going around at that point would've been a waste of time and money. They may still receive a warning for technically violating the rules. But I don't think they need to be sanctioned or fired since it was never actually dangerous.
@Milaad Rohi No worries! I appreciate it.
At 0:47 that's an Embraer 170. Seriously. Cmon that's so easy the e190 is long.
And she said 24R instead of 2-4R
+TrixtaTV
Actually she should of said "RUNWAY 2-4 RIGHT". Because the R stands for RIGHT. The ATC or pilots would never say runway 2-4R they have to say runway 2-4 RIGHT. They usually do that when there is two runways next to eachother on the same heading, one is called LEFT and the other RIGHT. There is airports that have three runways next to eachother on same heading so the runway in the middle would be for example 24C which is called 2-4 CENTER and the others 2-4 LEFT and 2-4 RIGHT.
No. The Embraer 170s say EXPRESS on them. THe 190s don't. Get your facts right before spewing bullshit.
Ziggmaster it's a 170 I swear that it is. E190s say express too by the way.
PilotStudios Here's the 190 www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/embraer-190.html
Seen them a lot closer than 50' at St. Maarten
+Michael Clark Yes but those clearances are normal and expected by pilots and traffic at St Maarten - not at Pearson.
You say that the aircraft involved was an Embraer (ERJ)190 and at the same time you show a picture of an Embraer 175... Do your research properly!
At least they didn't show a 747 in the animation like most news networks would haha. Just another runway incursion that Transport Canada is going to have to investigate.
They said "like this one".. and it's close enough dude
SMACK68 Medias have to be correct if they want to be credible. It's a bit like talking about a horse but showing a donkey. Close enough is not enough...
STFU...it's not like that at all. They're both PLANES! - and VERY similar ones at that! And trying to land a DONKEY would have been EXTREMELY challenging!
SMACK68 You don't understand my point...
Sounds like they are milking the investigation expenses budget! The driver forgot the handbrake and the pilot knew he could make the landing easy! What’s to investigate?
1:37 They have been instructed only twice to go around ? Some Air Canada pilots ignore it even 6 times.
Always Sunwing. Fucking disaster of an airline.
kolar amen to that
Sunwing's president seems to be high while been interviewed...
pilot should be in trouble for ignoring air traffic control but maintenance worker should be fired for breaching safety measures and not applying parking brake
He was if I recall correctly
"Twenty Four R" just didn't sit right
Like at SFO...instructed 6 times to go around....never answered the tower and landed anyway. Pilot training changes needed!!
Probably the pilot saw the van and deemed the landing was still doable without issues, so he just turned a deaf ear for a few seconds, time to go over the van and finish his landing. He didn't want to deal with a go back
how thick can the person who is driving the van be please
I just noticed the amount of similar airport close call videos on you tube , that's very comforting eh ?
its not a near miss. its a near hit..they almost hit, not almost miss
The term seems a little stupid indeed if you read "near" as "nearly". It's correct nonetheless. It's an English idiom that originated in artillery, where a miss that was still *near* the target was called a "near miss", as opposed to a miss very far off target.
Near means close. Nearly means almost.
Good one. It is time to get rid of that near miss quote. If you nearly miss something doesn't that mean you actually hit it?
Glad They Are OK
How many people mentioned "@St. Maarten they come lower"? Like the problem was the elevation?!
@ St.Maarten people are on the other side of the fence that keeps them away from the runaway. How many times have you seen maintenance vans rolling with no driver on St.Maarten's runway?!
lol at the animation.
Tens of dollars spent in special effects.
Pretty scary, eh?
What were you expecting, exactly? This is the news, not Star Wars.
M
Look at the codes. 2013.
the close call involved an aircraft just like this one an E 190
what she doesnt say is that the plane doing the butter oin camera is an embrear 170 the shorter original verson of the embrear family the E190 was made after this jet as a stretched version of the e170/175
This whole presentation makes me think it's like a fake news programme they put on the TV in a bar in a movie or something
Air Canada has been known for ignoring the control center.
Best animation so far!
Bro that’s not animation that’s real footage bro
@@thepikachuoftexas3871 Fr? Coulda fooled me
would like to the ATC / pilot recording, but if the van was at the threshold and plane was still 50'above ....seems more uneventful than a near disaster...... must have been a slow news night.....
van was not near threshold,, crossed near Q ramp 1/4 way down. (as i recall)
No one needs to be sacked in this situation, just pay attention.
No vans were hurt in the making of this video.
"twenty four R" lol
same
Its so easy to just say two-four Right eh
Tey Treet LOLOOLOPOLOLOOOLOL
I didn't know what the "lol" was for until I read the replies to your comment. We're not all interested in aviation so I would have also read it as "twenty-four R." I only now found out it's two-four-right.
starwarsrebel2006 same
What is with Air Canada crews disregarding ATC instructions? Is it a company directive to disregard go around orders to save fuel.?
How did the Tower know that a van was going to roll across the runway ? unless they were psychic how could they have warned the aircraft to go around twice ? Unless and until , 5 seconds before touchdown the tower says "go around, go around " and consider that as asking to go around twice..
Thanks
0:56 that plane is in a trouble is it in a nosedive it is not a general aviation aircraft to nose dive and that runway is not detailed properly
50 ft a near miss? Next time you are on the freeway look around and try to asses if the "pilot" in the lane next to you is likely to need 50ft of clearance for you to be safe...
yes but 50 ft is still 50 ft...
Seems Air Canada has issues obeying tower instructions. Case in point.... two very similar instances in San Francisco in 2017 and 2018. One where the plane tried to land on a taxiway in spite of being told multiple times to go around.
Were they told to go around during the taxiway instance? My recollection was that the chatter on frequency was, at best, unclear.
Obviously, I'm not downplaying the severity of the situation.
Two-Four RIGHT. NOT Twenty-Four ARR
Standard answer: we are investigating.
A safety incursion is if both are touching on the active rwy at the same time. If the van had cleared before the AC touchdown then the Aircraft had done nothing wrong. The focus should be on the ground vehicle crossing before being cleared to xrs. The Van By saying brake failure! Is an admission to guilt, albeit a mechanical malfunction!
§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
@@Bungle2010
§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
@@Bungle2010
It's not always that black & white that's why i put the regulation we are all adhere to. The greatest problem here is why was a vehicle crossing an "Active Runway" ?
The vehicle operater said his brakes went out!
It wasn't a "near miss", it was a "near hit".
"runway twenty-four-arr." Try runway two four right. Sorry, but I had to point it out.
Little known fact: It's the runway preferred by 9 out of 10 pirates. Runway two-four-ahhrrrrrrrrrr.
am i the only person to realize that the reporter first indicated that it was a driverless van @00;33 that went on the runway and then states @00:54 that a maintenance worker was driving the van. she's got her head up her ass, didn't even pronounce the runways name correctly. And people buy into mass media. This story seems out of place with no true indication of the event. either there was a person in the van or not!!
Here let me explain it to you in plain English. Worker drives van to gate H16. gets out of van. Does maintenance work on sunwing plane. During that time van starts to roll and goes across the runway. Replay the video a couple times.. I'm sure you'll get it.... eventually
Why is it a near miss, it is actually a near hit.
don't fly with Sunwing!!! Worst airline in the world.
Claude Maassen RyanAir is
United is
Air Koryo is
Dawna looked pretty good back 7 years ago.
These kind events are NOT "near misses." They are near HITS!!
Watching 5 Years later...
Sunwing plus Air Canada plus Pearson Airport equals
real life CARTOON show. 😂
And you don't even show the plane landing.
Why the f does it have to take months to get a final report?
0:27 "near miss" :-D More like a near hit.
Nah man that plane was already doomed with that decent rate lmao
They didn't think it was for them...
How many planes do you assign to land on the same runway at once?
Wow I work there and I see things that are life threatening all the time but nothing like this ..
With millions of cameras today, show us actual frickin footage.
my god those eyes
What's with Air Canada pilots and ignoring go-around calls?
AIR CANADA wanted an ONTIME FLIGHT
Months to complete? What more is there to say? Death was giving them a freebie that day and decided to let things slide. That was indeed a close call though.
that animation tho
I once saw a dog run across the runway right as a B767 was landing, just missed it by a few feet!
Send the plane an sms with directions if they don't hear the radio commands.
top tier animation here
Air Canada doesn’t listen to ATC when it comes to go arounds! You’re fired EH!
"a near miss"?... more like a near hit!
“Investigation could take months”, “cannot comment because there is an investigation “. Jeez. Seriously.
Was the ground vehicle operating under the direction of ground control?
Did the aircraft fail to comply with an ATC command?
There. Forward me 4 weeks consulting fees and you’re good to go.
You don't just Punch the gas pedal and speed upwards..on a Plane..ITS IN TOUCHDOWN MODE..PLANE LANDED 1/4 MILE FURTHER DOWN THE RUNWAY
MEH hows this even that big of a deal... Planes land halfway down the runway, its not that big of a deal
funny how the tower saw the van from a mile away, but not the pilots
OMG, not a near miss? Go around go around, its busy on the radio but we are the media, please go around.
What about putting the vehicle in park before you get out? How bout it?
nice story, no video ?
Not everything is recorded
Who saw people in backround at 0:39
Lol 50 feet st maarten planes fly lower regularly.
Wow air Canada ignoring ATC...seems like a requirement for them
“We are unable to comment because an investigation is underway”. I’m sorry but this is not a criminal court case or police investigation. They are perfectly capable of commenting.
Why comment when you don't have all facts?
Why did you ask only 2x? you should have asked 20x
what's tue problem? che plane touch the runway 200 feet later
What about the driver of truck, he obviously didn’t put it in park
Like you will not ask the vehicle to move and will ask plane to go around and abort the landing? Seriously?
What
"Twenty Four R" Wow... it pronounced 2-4 RIGHT... nubs
I just have to 0:54 what is that bank angle.
Same thing almost happened at YYC here in Calgary
Air canada pilots never listen to the tower.
Wrong plane, van wrong and too large.
Why did not the plane use the clakson?
'
what wrong with a van driver is not watching the air plane traffic...
did the van driver used a tint sunglass or not
Wow a lot of comments, and misrepresented facts. The incursion did occur but not as it was reported here.
As i recall > the truck crossed the runway at/by Q taxiway, behind and under the landing aircraft. pilots had no view of the truck. With 5 active runways and normal busy traffic, pilots concluded the pulled up was for another aircraft. The controllers were not precise in the direct as to whom to abort landing. Also distance, and angle of view of controllers is something to take into consideration.
The Mechanic, left his truck as he pulled up on the apron beside a Sunwing aircraft, which called in a mechanical issued just before its departure. In his haste, he left the truck in reverse, Not park, with the engine running. the truck backed uncommanded, clipped an engine cowling and proceeded across the apron, taxiway, crossed the runway and into a ditch.
a serious situation. fortunately little damage done and no one got hurt. He lost his job.
No Windows 95 products were harmed in the making of this report....
0:48 - That's NOT an E190.... that's an E170.... media being.... media!
*it’s an e175 but ok*
Plane takes precedence and that truck driver should have looked before pulling onto a live run way.
These vans giant like a plane are truely a safety risk.
I thought Person than Pearson haha. I think that if the animation shows what exactly the situation was then the plane is landing, and as long as it operates normally then the priority is the plane landing than a ban. so ban should stop and wait till finish landing. Why did he enter??? I do not understand why...
animation was false \. did not depict the events as it occurred/
That looked E70, not 90
It is an E170
That graphic looks kind of fake.
plz come to india, Mumbai and see the height of a doubledecker bus and a landing plane how much is the difference between them
This is typical air Canada . Something is seriously wrong with the pilots there . They don't respond to ATC or sometimes they just plainly ignore