quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
The FoxNews report says 24 mph.

I'd bet the ground controller is going thru hell about now.

Do vehicles crossing an active runway double check to see that the way is clear? Apparently, the vehicle occupants survived.

We did when in the Navy but, if you took too long to get your ass across an active runway (think more than 15 seconds) you could expect a royal asschewing.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
On the ground in urban areas it can be very difficult to discern what one is seeing. It is a sea of lights, both on the airport and in surrounding areas. At LGA looking towards the landing aircraft from the fire truck would have been that sea of lights. Taxiway, runway, other aircraft on the ground, vehicles, buildings, street lights off airport, etc. The aircraft after landing wouldn't have had as bad a situation seeing a vehicle because they were looking towards the bay. Determining if something is moving directly towards you and/or at what speed is very difficult at night, and further made worse with a backdrop full of other lights.

Indeed, the fire truck driver (engineer?) is only going to be familiar with approaching a scene and where to position the rig. Judging aircraft speed & distance isn't in their skills-kit and then trying to do it all at night with all sorts of lights in the surrounding background only adds to the complexity thus they're reliant on somebody else with supposedly more awareness of the area.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
For the folks who know much more than I, what obligation does the firetruck have to observe incoming equipment before crossing? I'm not trying to blame the firefighters, but I know almost everything around aviation has redundancy.

Everyone at the airport (or in the air) has a responsibility to “See and Avoid”. As Fly-Sig so eloquently stated, sometimes that isn’t so easy to do. With tower and ground on separate frequencies, you never hear all the other frequency traffic*. At an airport that large, you’re never going to get any of it unless you’re monitoring the other frequency on a second radio, and that would likely lead to overload and reduce safety. The pilots likely saw someone moving onto their runway, did everything they could to stop, uttered some choice words and that was about all they could do.

I’ve always believed that pilots are better served by learning to fly at non-towered airports and fully internalizing that they are responsible for their own safety, then adding the required flights at a towered controlled airport later in their training and understanding the tower as an additional thing they have to deal with that doesn’t relieve them of their ultimate responsibility for the safety of their airplane and occupants.

I can’t imagine that people who are trained and licensed to drive in the movement area (firefighters or not) are trained to second guess the instructions that they are given by a controller. Maybe they should be, but I doubt that they are.
The bigger and busier the airport, the faster the ballet and the busier the frequency. Having pilots, who likely have a little understanding of what the controller is trying to do (but still most likely not the whole picture) question or second guess ATC (Air Traffic Control) instructions can cause things to get sporty at times, but is sometimes necessary for safety. Having firemen, fuel truck drivers, etc who probably have less of the picture that the controller is working second guess every clearance would add unwelcome congestion to the frequency and slow things down. In this case it would have saved two pilots lives, a lot of passenger injuries, an airplane, and a firetruck. Maybe the training will change.

*Sometimes, at smaller airports, in times of low staffing tower and ground are combined. One controller is working both frequencies. You know this is going on when you’re on ground frequency and you hear instructions to airplanes in the air, or when you’re on local (tower) frequency and you hear airplanes getting taxi instructions. You only get half the conversation on the other frequency (as the controller is listening and transmitting on both frequencies), but if you pay attention it helps you build the picture of what’s going on.

Long story longer, I would not blame the engineer (fireman driving the truck). He most likely did exactly what he was trained to do to the best of his ability. It might (or might not) have been possible to see the airplane, recognize the potential for a conflict, and query ground control. “Ground, rescue 123, confirm that light isn’t an airplane landing?” Or simply say “Unable.” and wait. I just don’t expect he was trained to do that. I expect he was trained to follow the instructions he was given.

ETA further: To me, this is a clear example of a system failure. Yes, the ground controller screwed up and people died. Yes, that controller is at fault and is going to have to live with that for the rest of their life. That is horrible. However, the controller is human and humans make mistakes. We all do. Any pilot who is honest with themselves has made mistakes. Maybe they caught the mistake themself and fixed it, maybe a controller or another pilot caught it and helped them out, but somehow a whole lot of mistakes happen and the layers of safety built into the system usually prevent the mistake from being catastrophic. That didn’t happen in this case, likely due to drivers not being trained to think like pilots and assume that controllers are fully capable of making mistakes that could kill you (as are you) and that you have to work with them, but always watch out for your own safety.

I was also under the impression the aircraft was taxiing, not landing. The difference in speed between the two (based on this thread) of 100mph makes a huge difference.

I was visualizing an aircraft traveling at 30mph colliding with a fire truck trying to understand how they collided.

Appreciate the expertise in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
I was visualizing an aircraft traveling at 30mph colliding with a fire truck trying to understand how they collided.

Imagine driving down the road at 75 when a truck pulls across road in front of you. You happen to be on a bridge with nowhere to safely steer. You may only be at 24MPH when you hit them, but that's because you were standing on the brakes.

From the description, sounds like that's what happened here. Minus the bridge, but I suspect a pilot is going to have steering off into dirt at landing speed very far up their list of choices for obvious reasons.

This is an unrelated video, but apparently things can get spicy at LaGuardia before midnight:

I have driven on active airfields a few times. One time we took buses to pick up passengers when an Airbus front landing gear snapped sideways and they couldn't taxi to the gate. It took a little time to organize the buses, and a few of the passengers were annoyed. I get to the runway and stop like I'm instructed from the tower on the radio. While we are waiting an annoyed passenger yells out from the back, "what are we waiting for, let's go!" Just as he said it, out of the dark we saw plane
landing lights and it came down the runway 100mph 8 feet off the ground right in front of us. Angry passenger shut up real quick.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
ETA further: To me, this is a clear example of a system failure. Yes, the ground controller screwed up and people died. Yes, that controller is at fault and is going to have to live with that for the rest of their life. That is horrible. However, the controller is human and humans make mistakes. We all do...

Can blame really be assigned to the ground controller at this point?

System failure like you said, which is why I'm trying to understand what the system is. My understanding based on the thread so far is, the ground controller controls everything on the ground not on the runway and the fire truck was in contact with the ground controller to gain permission to cross the runway. How does the ground controller know the runway is clear to be crossed? Does he ask someone? Is it on a screen? Is the fire truck driver supposed to switch frequencies and ask the tower?

My memory from working at a small airport the summer before college 40 years ago and driving the fuel truck around a few times is that I used a handheld radio, called the tower, told them who I was, where I was, where I wanted to go, they told me what to do, and I did that. That and trying to sound like I knew what I was doing on the radio.

From the first page, someone mentioned that the controller used the work 'cross'?

Reminds me, on a significantly smaller scale, Tenerife & verbiage causing confusion on who was clear to do what.

quote:

The FoxNews report says 24 mph.

+++ looks a tad faster to me
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BrAUL1DJo/

By Simon Hradecky, created Mar 23rd 2026 08:16Z,
last updated Mar 23rd 2026 13:16Z
A Jazz Canadair CRJ-900, registration C-GNJZ performing flight AC-8646 from Montreal,QC (Canada) to New York La Guardia,NY (USA) with 72 passengers and 4 crew, was cleared to land on runway 04.
Another incident, an approaching United aircraft having declared emergency due to an odour on board, required the attention of emergency services, fire truck #1 requested to cross runway 04 at taxiway D and was cleared to cross, a few seconds later tower shouted “Stop! Stop! #1 Stop! Fire #1 Stop!”, but could not avoid the collision between the CRJ9 rolling out and the fire truck at 23:36L (03:36Z Mar 23rd). The aircraft skidded onto high speed turn off F/turn off E, about 130 meters/430 feet further down the runway, before coming to a stop on turn off E.
The captain and first officer died in the accident, two fire fighters on board of the truck received serious injuries, 9 passengers received serious injuries, 32 passengers received minor injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Can blame really be assigned to the ground controller at this point?

System failure like you said, which is why I'm trying to understand what the system is. My understanding based on the thread so far is, the ground controller controls everything on the ground not on the runway and the fire truck was in contact with the ground controller to gain permission to cross the runway. How does the ground controller know the runway is clear to be crossed? Does he ask someone? Is it on a screen? Is the fire truck driver supposed to switch frequencies and ask the tower?

Yes. In this case, one controller was working both ground and local. He had responsibility of the entire airport. Typically there will be at least 2 controllers. One working ground control (taxiways) and one working local (airspace and runways). When ground needs to cross a runway, they coordinate with their local controller. In most towers, you remain with ground control but different airports have different procedures. Airports and towers should have a letter of agreement on how they want to handle emergencies.

That’s what makes the job stressful, 1 wrong transmission, 1 missed part of a scan can be deadly.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I read an earlier report that the plane was teaseling at 24 MPH when it hit the truck. Maybe that info was wrong.

Take this truck, with these tires, (36x12-18) but configured as a Dually, GVW at 55-60 thousand pounds, moving 24 MPH on dry pavement and try stopping where only the rear dual's have braking.

150 to 250 feet at night with the reaction time of a panic stop, the amount of lighted objects to distinguish, at a point where any ABS may or may not function (many aircraft the anti-skid is auto disables below 17 kts/20 MPH).

I have seen and responded to many taxi, landing and other incidents of aircraft mishaps on the ground, and when it goes bad, it goes bad fast. And the loss of control is on very thin margins. Once it occurs, the crew simply become passengers in most cases. (shifting moments from inertial forces take some time to realize and compensate)

I'll wait for Juan Brown's assessment and input.
He keeps it straight and level.


Edited:

Just saw the video daffy posted link to.

Yeah, all that I said up there multiply that stopping distance by a factor of 6, and keep some extra digits just in case. Mine was figuring dry conditions, or maybe light dampness for night/light rain. But that's hydroplaning speed, and full braking the anti-skid might give you some edge, but it can also be counter productive in how it cycles the pulsing.

He damn sure was well past "teasling" speed.

Fortunate it did not result in a total loss of life. If it had been a solid centered wing strike.

I've heard the audio where the controller said "Ive messed up".

He called for the truck to "STOP STOP STOP!".

A passenger described the landing as hard and then BANG off the runway and people being thrown around.

There is a flight attendant that was thrown out still in her jump seat that survived.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I read an earlier report that the plane was teaseling at 24 MPH when it hit the truck. Maybe that info was wrong.

Take this truck, with these tires, (36x12-18) but configured as a Dually, GVW at 55-60 thousand pounds, moving 24 MPH on dry pavement and try stopping where only the rear dual's have braking.

150 to 250 feet at night with the reaction time of a panic stop, the amount of lighted objects to distinguish, at a point where any ABS may or may not function (many aircraft the anti-skid is auto disables below 17 kts/20 MPH).

I have seen and responded to many taxi, landing and other incidents of aircraft mishaps on the ground, and when it goes bad, it goes bad fast. And the loss of control is on very thin margins. Once it occurs, the crew simply become passengers in most cases. (shifting moments from inertial forces take some time to realize and compensate)

I'll wait for Juan Brown's assessment and input.
He keeps it straight and level.


Edited:

Just saw the video daffy posted link to.

Yeah, all that I said up there multiply that stopping distance by a factor of 6, and keep some extra digits just in case. Mine was figuring dry conditions, or maybe light dampness for night/light rain. But that's hydroplaning speed, and full braking the anti-skid might give you some edge, but it can also be counter productive in how it cycles the pulsing.

He damn sure was well past "teasling" speed.

Fortunate it did not result in a total loss of life. If it had been a solid centered wing strike.

Yeah, that was supposed to be traveling speed. Pardon my fingers. And I was replying to the post right above mine regarding speed. I was not insinuating that 24 MPH was slow.

Looking at the video in daffy's post, there was nothing the pilots could have done. The firetruck didn't stop. Pure speculation, but I'm thinking the ground controller meant to say stop, not cross.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
I've heard the audio where the controller said "Ive messed up".

He called for the truck to "STOP STOP STOP!".

A passenger described the landing as hard and then BANG off the runway and people being thrown around.

There is a flight attendant that was thrown out still in her jump seat that survived.

I just saw this bullshit edited video show up in my feed. In the full audio you can clearly hear the controller grant him permission dor the firetruck to cross first. THEN he tried to get him to stop but it was too late.

Audio with animations and photos.
https://youtu.be/Pbm-QJAAzNY?si=ECydEsh_IcIBLLdQ

The video I saw earlier had the radar track of the aircraft and fire truck, along with the ATC radio recordings. If the timing was correct, meaning that the position of each was properly synchronized to the radio calls, the fire truck should have easily been able to see the CRJ being close to touchdown. The landing and taxi lights are very bright. There's no mistaking it up above the horizon.

But there will still be a lot of blame to go around. That video also showed the instructions to the fire truck from ATC being broadcast on tower frequency. The flight crew should have heard it and become very concerned that a vehicle was cleared across their runway that they were a handful of seconds away from landing on.

The flight crew also should have been visually scanning the full length of the runway to actively look for (not just glancing at the scene) any traffic on the runway or approaching a crossing point.

The controller did apparently make a serious error. While it will likely be cited as a primary cause, the ultimate responsibility is on the aircraft and vehicle to see and avoid. Visibility was reported as 4 miles with rain, so not awesome but not terrible.

Juan Browne's explanation, 16 minutes.

https://youtu.be/VnSGMPaJ2OM

There's cctv footage out now of the collision. The fire truck had flashing lights on, and it appeared to try at the very last moment to turn left to avoid the collision. The aircraft was moving quickly, with no chance to stop.