Accident at LaGuardia
Discussion
Awful situation at LaGuardia this morning. An Air Canada passenger plane has crashed into a fire engine on the runway at LaGuardia airport in New York. 
https://news.sky.com/story/laguardia-crash-latest-...
Clearly it’s too early to say how this one came about but there is a pattern. How many more airfield accidents are we going to have to see before the administration properly funds air traffic control?
https://news.sky.com/story/laguardia-crash-latest-...
Clearly it’s too early to say how this one came about but there is a pattern. How many more airfield accidents are we going to have to see before the administration properly funds air traffic control?
Edited by colin79666 on Monday 23 March 07:49
colin79666 said:
Clearly lists too early to say how this one came about but there is a pattern. How many more airfield accidents are we going to have to see before the administration properly funds air traffic control?
If a family member of Trump dies or a billionaire then they might do something…….Really sad news. My thoughts are with all those involved.
After the last ATC screw up at D.C. there was a lot of reports stating that it was only a matter of time before there were more incidents in the US due to the poor standard of ATC. There were lots of statements from Pilots saying ATC in the US is amongst the poorest standards in the world!
After the last ATC screw up at D.C. there was a lot of reports stating that it was only a matter of time before there were more incidents in the US due to the poor standard of ATC. There were lots of statements from Pilots saying ATC in the US is amongst the poorest standards in the world!
Edited by UK_Scat_Pack on Monday 23 March 08:33
JoshSm said:
Be interesting to hear why someone thought they could drive a firetruck across a live runway and how they didn't notice the very brightly lit aircraft coming along it.
That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Exactly, it’s up to all vehicles to conduct a visual check despite clearance by ATC.That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
UK_Scat_Pack said:
JoshSm said:
Be interesting to hear why someone thought they could drive a firetruck across a live runway and how they didn't notice the very brightly lit aircraft coming along it.
That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Exactly, it s up to all vehicles to conduct a visual check despite clearance by ATC.That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Both pilots confirmed dead, massive shame, doubt there was anything they could have done.
I would be amazed if the ARFF guys walk away too - the damage is significant to their truck.
NYC is a scary place for ATC, it always seems so congested and busy and the controllers always sound stressed out and moody (JFK!). I guess it can happen anywhere, human factors, but any of the NY, LA and SF airports are always pucker factor for me.
I would be amazed if the ARFF guys walk away too - the damage is significant to their truck.
NYC is a scary place for ATC, it always seems so congested and busy and the controllers always sound stressed out and moody (JFK!). I guess it can happen anywhere, human factors, but any of the NY, LA and SF airports are always pucker factor for me.
UK_Scat_Pack said:
JoshSm said:
Be interesting to hear why someone thought they could drive a firetruck across a live runway and how they didn't notice the very brightly lit aircraft coming along it.
That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Exactly, it s up to all vehicles to conduct a visual check despite clearance by ATC.That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Not the first time its happened.
Gary C said:
UK_Scat_Pack said:
JoshSm said:
Be interesting to hear why someone thought they could drive a firetruck across a live runway and how they didn't notice the very brightly lit aircraft coming along it.
That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Exactly, it s up to all vehicles to conduct a visual check despite clearance by ATC.That's slightly beyond just an ATC failure.
Not the first time its happened.
Aircraft had landed on R04 and the firetruck was crossing at the D intersection, so no, the aircraft didn't land on a taxiway. The aircraft came to rest at the next taxiway intersection, E/F.
My condolences to the pilots families. Absolutely nothing they could have done to avoid it; you simply cannot sweve a landing aircraft around a moving object. They had no chance, much less so against something large and heavy such as a fire engine.
Onus is on ATC to do their job properly, using standard phraseology to conduct safe operations, standard phraseology sadly lacking in the US as for some reason they deem "their" standard to be superior to the rest of the world, despite it being absolutely shocking.
Onus is also on anybody cleared to cross an active runway, regardless of whether they are on foot or in an A380, to check both ways before entering a runway. If the conditions are dark/poor vis, then extra time and care should be taken to check for aircraft approaching, never rely on someone sat in a warm cosy tower who isn't there on the ground.
ATC audio is up now. Truck was given permission to cross the active runway, including a readback.
ELT firing off gave me the shivers. Nasty stuff.
The controller did his best to correct the error - but it was too late. He then carried on with controlling the other aircraft and ground movements which is commendable.
I expect this will be his last day in a tower.
ELT firing off gave me the shivers. Nasty stuff.
The controller did his best to correct the error - but it was too late. He then carried on with controlling the other aircraft and ground movements which is commendable.
I expect this will be his last day in a tower.
Muddle238 said:
Onus is on ATC to do their job properly, using standard phraseology to conduct safe operations, standard phraseology sadly lacking in the US as for some reason they deem "their" standard to be superior to the rest of the world, despite it being absolutely shocking.
I remember posting in the DC thread about the standard of US ATC - which is generally appallingly bad. However, I have noticed a change since then in the phraseology and some of the controllers are making more of an effort with foreign voices to stick to standard. That s just my own feelings, though.
That being said, they re still doing unsafe procedures. They d packed us so tight on the simultaneous visual approaches into San Francisco the other day that we got caught in the wake of a 777. It just wouldn t happen elsewhere. Oh, and the other day I got told to hurry up ,
- again, I can t imagine being told that anywhere else.
What a sad event again. Condolences to the families.
Aviation - rightly - dwells on systemic failures over individual blame. The emotion in that controller's voice after the collision is quite harrowing.
Those of us who follow these things (and of course the pros who experience it directly) unfortunately won't be too shocked by this because the state of US ATC has meant this was coming for some time.
One controller at a busy international metropolitan airport, running Tower and Ground frequencies. American controllers seem to be compelled (either by the pressures of their job and system or misplaced professional 'pride') to 'push tin' as fast as possible. Speed, phraseology and clarity are often dreadful.
One thing I never understood is why the US insists on retaining its (unique?) practice where 'cleared to land [or takeoff]' doesn't mean 'the runway is clear for your use' but means 'permission'. American ATC can clear multiple aircraft in an approach to land in a numerical sequence, sometimes while aircraft or vehicles on the ground are crossing the same runway. And US operations seem to be much more casual with granting crossings of active runways than they are elsewhere.
There are some other regional operational quirks which seem odd but make sense when explained - like how most Australian domestic flights don't plan an alternate destination. Because the suitable alternate is either so close that it will be socked in by exactly the same weather that might affect your destination or is several hours of flight time and tens of tons of fuel away, possibly in a different country. So instead they carry optional fuel to hold at their destination, and unlike elsewhere can be legally required to plan an alternate if the destination weather falls below certain minimums.
Long-winded, but the point is that rings as dangerous to European sensibilities but has a sound logic to it. I have never ever seen anyone offer a sensible reason why the USA can tell a plane they are 'cleared to land' while there are two aircraft on final, one rolling out and one planning to cross the active just behind. Especially when one controller is running multiple frequencies.
Those of us who follow these things (and of course the pros who experience it directly) unfortunately won't be too shocked by this because the state of US ATC has meant this was coming for some time.
One controller at a busy international metropolitan airport, running Tower and Ground frequencies. American controllers seem to be compelled (either by the pressures of their job and system or misplaced professional 'pride') to 'push tin' as fast as possible. Speed, phraseology and clarity are often dreadful.
One thing I never understood is why the US insists on retaining its (unique?) practice where 'cleared to land [or takeoff]' doesn't mean 'the runway is clear for your use' but means 'permission'. American ATC can clear multiple aircraft in an approach to land in a numerical sequence, sometimes while aircraft or vehicles on the ground are crossing the same runway. And US operations seem to be much more casual with granting crossings of active runways than they are elsewhere.
There are some other regional operational quirks which seem odd but make sense when explained - like how most Australian domestic flights don't plan an alternate destination. Because the suitable alternate is either so close that it will be socked in by exactly the same weather that might affect your destination or is several hours of flight time and tens of tons of fuel away, possibly in a different country. So instead they carry optional fuel to hold at their destination, and unlike elsewhere can be legally required to plan an alternate if the destination weather falls below certain minimums.
Long-winded, but the point is that rings as dangerous to European sensibilities but has a sound logic to it. I have never ever seen anyone offer a sensible reason why the USA can tell a plane they are 'cleared to land' while there are two aircraft on final, one rolling out and one planning to cross the active just behind. Especially when one controller is running multiple frequencies.
normalbloke said:
I can t wait for the mango turd bumping his gums on social media to spin it in his favour
Are you really that obsessed with him?What exactly does your post add to the conversation?
anyway, looks like a terrible (avoidable) accident, I've experienced a near miss as a passenger landing at McCarren Air base years ago when it became very tight with plane not getting off the runway as we were on the last stages of final approach, I didn't realise a 737 could climb so quickly until that day.
Jazoli said:
normalbloke said:
I can t wait for the mango turd bumping his gums on social media to spin it in his favour
Are you really that obsessed with him?What exactly does your post add to the conversation?
anyway, looks like a terrible (avoidable) accident, I've experienced a near miss as a passenger landing at McCarren Air base years ago when it became very tight with plane not getting off the runway as we were on the last stages of final approach, I didn't realise a 737 could climb so quickly until that day.
Obsessed no, increasingly amazed at the depths he’ll stoop, maybe. Perhaps I was too subtle, and I’m doing him a dis service.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff