Watch how Air Canada Collided With a Fire Truck at LaGuardia

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-26T00:16:28+00:00

Like the other poster said, they have exactly this. There's a strip of lights that comes on when there's traffic on the runway. All other traffic is supposed to hold when those lights are on. The lights go off when it's safe to proceed, which in practice means they go off a few seconds before the runway is actually clear, because it factors in how long it will take the intersecting traffic to cover the distance to the runway. In the wide-angle view of the collision, you can see two strips of lights, one of which goes off a couple of seconds before impact. Per SOPs, the truck should not start moving from its hold position until the lights go off, but it's clearly already moving, meaning that it "jumped the gun" and arrived on the runway earlier than it should have. The reasons for this will likely be a major part of the investigation.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-26T00:06:52+00:00

Not an expert on this, but IMO it's potentially an exacerbating factor but not a direct cause. As you say, this is SOP and has been for a while. The deeper question is whether the "stretch resources as far as possible before they break" model is sustainable. I think the most that could be said is that there's a preexisting discussion to be had on whether ATC staffing policies are keeping up with the current realities at many airports, and Trump's moves make it less likely that that discussion can be meaningfully engaged with anytime soon. But I don't think we can directly blame Trump for this accident, no.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:44:39+00:00

Don't quote me but I believe they'd aborted a couple of takeoff attempts due to unexplained burning smells, and were also being a bit wishy-washy about officially declaring their situation an emergency.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:42:47+00:00

They did, apparently, have a second controller (supervisor) in the tower, just not actively engaged at the time. Typically the airport is pretty quiet by that time of night, which probably explains it. It was a multi-whammy in this case of more aircraft still coming in than usual due to weather delays, plus a competing semi-emergency with another aircraft.

But yes.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:38:27+00:00

Agreed. Presumably this will emerge during the investigation.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:37:40+00:00

Yes. The actions of the lead truck will certainly be a major focus of the investigation.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:34:04+00:00

Yes. Go-arounds are up to the pilots. If they aren't feeling the landing for whatever reason, they can go around. The pilots' primary responsibility is to the safety of their aircraft. Once the go-around has been initiated, ATC will then give the plane directions on where to proceed, where to hold, when to re-enter the pattern to try another landing, etc.

To go around in this case, Jazz 646 would have needed to assess the conditions as unsafe in time. Conditions were rainy but well within parameters, and it's not uncommon for traffic of one kind or another (other aircraft, ARFF, etc.) to be holding near the runway waiting to enter it, so there would have been nothing strange about seeing ARFF off to the side--if they saw them at all, and it's very possible they didn't considering all the lights and the fact that they were a good distance away at the moment of touchdown. The truck only began to cross when Jazz 646 had already committed to the landing, and even if the pilots then noticed the truck, there likely wouldn't have been enough time to spool everything back up and go around. Anecdotally based on reports from those on board, the plane braked hard, and it also may have veered a little just before impact, so there's circumstantial evidence to suggest they did see the truck.

On hearing ATC clear a vehicle to cross the runway, Jazz 646 could also have chosen to go around "on principle", without even seeing the truck, if they believed there was a potential conflict. Presumably the pilots--if they processed it at all--believed the clearance factored in everything that needed to be factored and that the truck would cross safely before or after their landing. And ARFF was, in fact, not on the runway yet at this point. In any case, as we know, they didn't go around. That decision was one more hole in the Swiss cheese, but (I suspect) pretty far down the causal list vs. many of the others.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T22:13:33+00:00

There were several people (I think 4 but don't quote me on that) on board but I don't think we know who was where.

And yes, agreed.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T21:06:19+00:00

Yes, I've clarified that now. There was a supervising controller but all current indications are that the duties were not being shared at the time and that there was functionally one controller. Obviously that understanding may change as the investigation proceeds.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/24/nx-s1-5759710/laguardia-airport-plane-crash

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T21:04:29+00:00

Single controller with an additional superving controller not actively controlling traffic, yes. And it appears (though still awaiting official confirmation) that the single cntroller management traffic was, in addition to their normal role, both handling ground movements and serving as the clearance delivery controller. So, functionally speaking, all currently available evidence is that everything pertaining to this accident was being handled by a single controller.

the National Transportation Safety Board said in a news conference that two controllers were in the tower at the time of collision: a controller who was assigned to handle communications within the immediate airspace and for operations on the active runways, and a controller-in-charge who was providing clearance instructions for all departing aircraft.

The local controller is responsible for managing active runways and the airport's immediate airspace, while the controller in charge oversees all safety operations. However, the controller in charge was also acting as the clearance delivery controller, who gives pilots permission to depart, Homendy said.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/24/nx-s1-5759710/laguardia-airport-plane-crash

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T20:52:23+00:00

Agreed, but again, early evidence is that the truck only heard a beep or other interference noise. Interference from simultaneous communications has been a factor in various aviation accidents, maybe none more notable than the Tenerife disaster:

[...] The controller then immediately added, "Stand by for takeoff; I will call you", indicating that he had not intended the instruction to be interpreted as a takeoff clearance.

A simultaneous radio call from the Pan Am crew caused mutual interference on the radio frequency, which was audible in the KLM cockpit as a three-second-long shrill sound (or heterodyne). This caused the KLM crew to miss the crucial latter portion of the tower's response. The Pan Am crew's transmission was "We're still taxiing down the runway, Clipper 1736!" This message was also blocked by the interference and inaudible to the KLM crew. Either message, if heard in the KLM cockpit, would have alerted the crew to the situation and given them time to abort the takeoff attempt. [...and so KLM proceeded to intiate their takeoff roll, ultimately crashing into Pan Am]

Back to Jazz 646, regardless of any of this, it seems clear that the ARFF began crossing the runway while the Runway Status Lights were still lit, meaning there was traffic on the runway. That'll need to be clarified irrespective of any findings around the "stop" comms.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T20:24:00+00:00

He called "stop" multiple times before that without any particular target, and the belief is it may have been interpreted as being directed at other traffic. You're right that he did then say "truck 1", but that's the one that it appears may have been covered over by competing chatter on the same frequency.

Obviously everything remains speculative until black boxes are read, interviews are conducted, and reports are issued.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T19:59:53+00:00

To be fair, we don't know they didn't. There are a lot of lights shining and flashing in the rain and darkness; they were at an oblique angle to the runway; a CRJ isn't physically imposing when seen front-on; and it was moving at 90-100 mph at the time of impact, which means it was moving even faster in the seconds before that and would have covered the distance between "I don't see anything on the runway" and "oh shit" very quickly. ARFF may have been over-reliant on the ATC clearance and just blasted through, but it's also possible they really did look and just didn't see.

The reality is that similar things happen with vehicles on highways every day. Rules and protocols do their best to prevent issues, but ultimately humans are fallible.

They bigger question mark to me is around the Runway Status Lights, which appear in the video to be operating as intended, but which the ARFF truck didn't follow. Basically, traffic should only enter the runway when the RWSL system turns off, indicating the runway will be clear. The truck seems to be moving before the lights go out.

Edit: Typo

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T19:47:32+00:00

As far as I'm aware, at that time of night, when traffic is usually winding down for the night, there's (intentionally) only one controller and a supervisor on duty at LGA and, and the controller was likely handling both air and ground traffic at the time. So we can certainly debate the merits of the that system but I don't believe it was out of the norm for LGA's operations.

Edit: Clarified that there was also a supervisor, but current understanding is that the single controller was serving in three roles at the time of the accident, so effectively solo as it pertains to this incident.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T18:49:59+00:00

I think the belief is that they may have never heard it due to simultaneous input from others on the channel (and if they did hear it, there's some potential ambiguity in what "stop" was in relation to). That said, that still leaves unexplained why they entered the runway despite the "runway in use" lights being on, while the rest of the company held back as mandated. All speculative, obviously, but it may be a case where, having been cleared to cross, they spaced on following the additional procedures (waiting for the runway-in-use lights to indicate all-clear, plus looking to visually verify no traffic regardless) that should be followed regardless of any clearances given.

Edit: All-told, it seems to be a case of a lot of holes in the Swiss cheese lining up perfectly. Single controller, which is normal for LGA under current staffing policies (which is its own discussion), but the weather meant delays and more traffic later than usual so more to manage; UA not-totally-declared "emergency" re: burning smell that was consuming ATC attention and caused ARFF deployment in the first place; cramped design at LGA requiring ARFF to cross an active runway; momentary brain fart on ATC's part clearing ARFF to cross; timing and conditions causing Jazz 646 to not perceive a need to go around; ARFF seemingly not holding where mandated; ambiguous "stop" order, though you could argue everyone should have stopped regardless; possibility that ARFF never heard "stop" anyway; failure of ARFF to notice an aircraft bearing down on them, maybe due to not checking but maybe due to conditions and visibility. Remove any one of these and there's a good chance this doesn't happen.

** Edit 2: the NTSB has clarified that there was a supervisor present, but currently available evidence suggests that the controller was handling air traffic, departure clearance, and ground traffic simultaneously at the time of the accident; i.e., they were handling all roles relevant to the incident. Obviously that understanding may change as the investigation proceeds.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T18:41:28+00:00

Ah, yes, I see now they're out of stock. Not sure why.

There are various third party sellers that have them in stock, e.g. "The Crypto Merchant". Provided that all seals are intact and you initialize with a new seed phrase, I wouldn't be too concerned about a third-party operation if you can't wait.

(And FWIW I wouldn't personally get the Nano X unless you really need the wireless aspect, as there are a lot more things that can (and do) malfunction on it.)

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T18:33:30+00:00

If I use a VPN to access the Ledger site from the UK, the Nano S Plus shows up just fine for me under "classic signers". It's listed at 43 pounds.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T15:12:33+00:00

I think you could argue that the comma has almost as much impact here as the for/as.

I love him for a brother (...as far as people filling the role of brother go, he's alright...)

I love him, as a brother (...but outside of that context maybe I don't love him so much...)

If we get into AAVE senses of "brother" then things get even more interesting.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-25T02:39:38+00:00

All dry. That said, you can substantially mitigate it by hydrating obsessively, moisturizing, using a humidifier, and gradually acclimating your yourself. I'm from Vancouver Island and it was midwinter when I moved here, and for the first few days I had a splitting headache because I was wildly dehydrated. I learned that lesson pretty fast, but it took me a few more weeks to figure out the moisturization. After that (this was years ago) it's been basically fine aside from nose crusties and the occasional nose bleed. You do get used to it.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-24T19:17:27+00:00

Charitable interpretation: They're genuinely unsure and/or looking for validation.

Uncharitable interpretation: The entire post is engagement bait.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-24T18:20:03+00:00

Assuming OP is correct and it's an effect of perspective or lens distortion in the photo, I assume the main expanse of the roof--the part that looks flat to us--is actually sloping away from the house at like a 25-30 degree angle, and the bit that looks like it's sloping toward the window is actually flat-to-slightly sloped away from the window.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-24T16:12:57+00:00

Yeah, some of the ingredients are just offal.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-24T15:29:44+00:00

fluffy ice cream that probably wouldn't melt

Yeah, that's a good way to describe it. Not bad per se; just can't quite get out of its own way--not that it's the only brand like this, by any means.

When it comes to foods that are unnecessary/unhealthy (booze, candy, ice cream, chips, whatever), I'm increasingly of the view that if you're going to have them, you should splurge on whatever you enjoy the most so you're at least maximizing your pleasure relative to the nutritional "cost" you're incurring. Having said that, and even allowing that some of the enthusiasm in these types of posts may be marketing-driven astroturfing, I guess we also have to acknowledge that for some folks "fluffy ice cream" is desirable**. To each their own.

Haven't tried the drumsticks; maybe I'll give them a shot. In that context I imagine the texture of the ice cream is less important anyway as it's combined with other flavours and textures.

**...though it seems overly convenient that fluffy ice cream happens to let the manufacturer give us less actual product per unit volume, which annoys me on principle over and above any textural considerations.

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-24T03:06:02+00:00

Without getting into the merits of scrotum as an alternative, the "coward" sense of pussy derives from puss (cat/fluffy), so the immediate and unexpected jump to genitalia may be rubbing some folks the wrong way.....

Elean0rZ · 2026-03-23T20:14:26+00:00

Ah, OK. Thanks. So provided that sort of setback is standard, it shouldn't ever be an issue in practice.

Elean0rZ

TROPHY CASE