ListNook

Frosty_Ingenuity5070 Mar 24, 2026 +2607

I feel like so many of these accidents always boil down to "we just didn't feel like upgrading/fixing something because a couple grand is too much compared to the costs of lives and shutting down a whole lane"

2607

SnepButts Mar 24, 2026 +1327

There needs to be a class of negligence that the people that make decisions leading to easily predictable deaths need to be charged with. These people are dead because some a****** is a c**** piece of shit. They deserve to face justice for that.

1327

dapperdave Mar 24, 2026 +424

That already exists as "constructed knowledge" which is the legal term for "even if you didn't know, you should have" and it's already a part of most common negligence / tort law.

424

dbslurker Mar 24, 2026 +77

So is anyone going to go to jail then? Because someone needs to go to jail. This should be classified as some kind of manslaughter charge… someone decided nah $ > safety.

77

InspectorNoName Mar 24, 2026 +98

I totally get what you're saying and I understand the sentiment behind it. However, most of the people who make these decisions are not saying "we have the money, we're just not going to spend it" and instead are saying "we don't have enough money to make all the necessary fixes (thank you, legislative bodies) so we're going to do our best to hit the most impactful ones first" and then they make decisions, some of which will come back to haunt them as in this case.

98

FireBadger03 Mar 25, 2026 +13

I think you are being too idealistic…. It happens waaaaay too often and over very very very small fixes. I think laziness plays a big role. Why fix X for that price, why not wait and see how long we can get out of it type shit.

13

zakabog Mar 25, 2026 +26

I dunno, I've worked in tech for a long time and they pretty much nailed it. Companies with limited budgets, primarily non profits and government entities, have fixed budgets and do what they can within the constraints. There's no laziness at play, it's just usually "Yeah we SHOULD do that, but if we fix this one minor issue it means we can't fix this other higher priority issue that just popped up, so we'll deal with it later when we have more time and money."

26

JPtheGameMaster Mar 25, 2026 +1

In an ideal world, what you've said would be true. In my experience, what actually happens is "we could just not spend the $, then at the end of the project call it excess funds and give it to ourselves as a bonus". Then someone gets hurt or dies, and nothing happens except promotions and more bonuses for those responsible.

1

gentlecrab Mar 24, 2026 +7

Unlikely this is why regulations exist but even when they do exist regulations need to be enforced otherwise there’s no point in having them. Unfortunately with the current admin regulations have pretty much taken a back seat.

7

Other-MuscleCar-589 Mar 24, 2026 +4

There is no regulation mandating this equipment be installed. It’s a “suggestion”.

4

FireBadger03 Mar 25, 2026 +33

I work as an insurance adjuster handling complex major claims and whenever I get a claim where someone is paralyzed for life because of a shit decision to save money I code the company as a “moral hazard” to make sure they get cancelled and we never write them again. Cool you saved $1k and now the insurer gets to pay out $5 million that the family would trade it all in an instant to have their loved one made whole. F****** happens way more often than people realize. Rich people (specifically second generation trust fund babies) can be real pieces of shit

33

_iridessence_ Mar 25, 2026 +9

Moral hazard is such a succinct way to label certain types of people and businesses.

9

ASDFzxcvTaken Mar 25, 2026 +4

Trump was deemed a moral hazard by US bank and financial institutions in the late 80s. But here we are.

4

Deranged40 Mar 24, 2026 +56

I mean, it seems like this would fall cleanly within "simple negligence" if not "Gross negligence".

56

memberzs Mar 24, 2026 +14

I think it would be hard to say that event. It was one of a Few dozen airports that are test beds for the tracking equipment, so it's possible to find it reasonable not every ground vehicle is outfitted.

14

Jazzicots Mar 24, 2026 +8

What's the difference between simple and gross negligence? I've only ever heard of the latter in law TV shows

8

Kroutoner Mar 24, 2026 +10

Gross negligence generally requires a high degree of disregard for safety of others and/or the risks of your behaviors. It’s reckless behavior as opposed to careless behavior. E.g. simple negligent behavior is failing to assess safety of driving the firetruck onto the runway—they should have been more careful but they were not. An example that might be grossly negligent would be parking the truck in the middle of the runway and leaving—without regard for the fact this could endanger others—because you got a personal call and wanted to take it outside.

10

meh_ok Mar 24, 2026 +3

Simple negligence is what happened. Gross negligence could be if the truck never radioed for clearance as required, and the operator who should have knew and chose not to.

3

jacobpellegren Mar 24, 2026 +10

There are no adults in the room at the moment.

10

Daren_I Mar 24, 2026 +21

But negligence for who? I would love it if this came down to they blame the guy who denied adding the trigger equipment to the truck because it wasn't in the budget, the manager who said they only needed to staff two air traffic controllers when more were available, or even the person who said air traffic controllers should also be tasked with ground traffic control at the same time.

21

ScientificSkepticism Mar 24, 2026 +18

These sorts of questions are literally why we have courts. Courts have untangled many complex cases.

18

SnepButts Mar 24, 2026 +3

It seems like the responsibility in how you stated it would have three separate but culpable people. There is no moral or ethical reason to not work your way down the chain getting everyone responsible. If there is no budget for safety equipment that exists, is available, and you know saves lives, then there is no budget for anything else because that should be paramount. If you decide to underschedule to keep things going when it shouldn't, things should be throttled or stopped, not just a bunch of shrugging and passing the buck. If you are overworked and incapable of doing your job, you need to be aware of that and step out. A lot of people fucked up. A lot of people deserve to pay for their fuckups.

3

FuckChiefs_Raiders Mar 24, 2026 +10

Ehh c**** pos is a lot different than lacks funding. Not sure if we know what exactly which is which here.

10

UBC145 Mar 24, 2026 +25

If the problem is lack of funding, then it just means that the c**** pos is someone higher up. US air travel is supposed to be extremely safe, there cannot be a lack of funding.

25

kurttheflirt Mar 24, 2026 +5

Nah instead they will find one lower level worker and use them as a scapegoat; much easier.

5

ScientificSkepticism Mar 24, 2026 +7

>There needs to be a class of negligence that the people that make decisions leading to easily predictable deaths need to be charged with. Make it a law that corporate decisions made with reckless disregard for the consequences create criminal responsibility that falls on those in the corporation that made the decision. That you can charge a corporation with a crime, and that if the corporation is guilty then the people responsible take the criminal penalties and the criminal conviction. We have the most ridiculous things nowadays, like corporations convicted of manslaughter yet no one goes to jail because apparently the decisions were made by a legal fiction that exists on paper and not real people. Then if this was a reasonable cost-cutting measure taken with proper evaluation of the risk, then this won't be a crime, if this was a dumbass decision made because a manager demanded that numbers go down and didn't want more spending, that gets taken into account. Right now all that happens is someone pays some amount of money and killing people becomes a cost of doing business.

7

SnepButts Mar 24, 2026 +3

You're right that it is just a cost of doing business and it absolutely shouldn't be. In no universe should killing someone be only a matter of paying a weregild and washing your hands of it. Stuff like this needs to end up with individuals charged, convicted, and brought to justice.

3

Septopuss7 Mar 24, 2026 +5

>Weregild (or wergild, wergeld) is the historically mandated "man price" or compensation paid by a wrongdoer to a victim’s family to settle blood feuds in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon law. Computed by social rank, this payment prevented retaliatory violence for murder or injury. Synonyms include blood money, compensation, restitution, or man-price Very cool word, TIL

5

TheWalrus_15 Mar 24, 2026 +2

This is pretty much exactly how it works no? Someone’s negligence can constitute a tort.

2

Total-Tonight1245 Mar 24, 2026 +1

You just described how negligence works.

1

GuyCrazy Mar 24, 2026 +1

It’s the same with EVERYTHING. Data breaches usually come down to lack of cyber security. Everything is a cost driven choice.

1

upvoteoverflow Mar 25, 2026 +1

Not that I’m a fan of the death penalty, but China gave the death penalty to the CEO of a baby formula company that knowingly sold tainted baby formula that led to infant deaths. They created the formula to cut costs

1

zerothreeonethree Mar 25, 2026 +1

Yes, take a lesson from China. Its government executes billionaires, Corporate executives, government officials for corruption, bribery, poor manufacturing oversight, operating Ponzi schemes, soliciting hits on rivals, blackmail, etc.

1

cutetys Mar 24, 2026 +65

As someone who watches a lot of Mayday, there’s at least one episode per season where they go “yeah the airport/aircraft was set to be installed with *insert equipment that would have prevented accident* but they delayed it” Edit: 2001 Linate Airport runway collision is a prime example of an accident like that.

65

Septopuss7 Mar 24, 2026 +31

United States Chemical Safety Board (USCSB) has an *incredible* YouTube channel with insane animations and every single episode will leave your jaw on the floor and make your blood boil. They just pay a fine and don't look back when they kill a bunch of people/blow up a city block.

31

yuccasinbloom Mar 24, 2026 +7

I discovered that show after maybe the last aviation disaster in the last year. It seems like a lot of the accidents they cover have to do with spatial disorientation, as well.

7

Theytookmyarcher Mar 24, 2026 +3

Go ahead and take a look at how many airports have functional runway status lighting systems (RWSL). Preeeeetty sketchy.

3

maxintosh1 Mar 24, 2026 +4

If you like air crash investigations, also highly recommend Mentour Pilot, Green Dot, and Disaster Breakdown. They're more in depth and less dramatized than Mayday but are very entertaining all the same

4

digidave1 Mar 24, 2026 +15

Every airport is short staffed. Have been for years. DOGE preventing new hires made this infinitely worse. It takes years to certify trainees.

15

reddit_ending_soon Mar 25, 2026 +5

> DOGE preventing new hires made this infinitely worse. Fire fighters not getting essential equipment is usually because the Port Authority got greedy. Doge is shit but I dont think they caused this. Its been going on for decades: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/08/new-york-airport-fines/2063399/

5

New_Home_4519 Mar 24, 2026 +4

Sir. Those kinds of decisions require money

4

IEC21 Mar 24, 2026 +3

They fired a lot of staff because Trump wanted to get rid of anyone who isn't white.

3

drmctesticles Mar 24, 2026 +23

Who did? Laguardia is run by the PANYNJ which is a bi-state agency dually controlled by New York and New Jersey.

23

Other-MuscleCar-589 Mar 24, 2026 +2

No air traffic controllers were fired during the DOGE days. Not even unqualified trainees. ATC was specifically exempt.

2

nightmurder01 Mar 24, 2026 +1

If they won't pay attention to the radio, what makes you think they will pay attention to a alert system.

1

ranchspidey Mar 24, 2026 +1

Yeah, anytime I read an NTSB report (or watch a documentary that cites it), money and time is usually the culprit. Regulations are written in blood, and all that.

1

i_am_voldemort Mar 25, 2026 +1

Also "it hasn't happened after all this time you've been saying we need it, do we really need it?"

1

RedditReader4031 Mar 25, 2026 +1

The article notes that the system isn’t required. It doesn’t say anything about any efforts by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, operator of Newark, to implement them. Is it common to retrofit equipment or to add it to new equipment as it is phased in? Has this tech been widely adopted? That isn’t touched on here.

1

HDthoreauaweigh712 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Story of NASA’s life

1

NotThatHandsomePete Mar 25, 2026 +1

Hence the phrase "FAA rules are written in blood."

1

Effective_Quail_3946 Mar 25, 2026 +1

So avoidable!

1

SnooRabbits5754 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Yep if you’ve ever worked anywhere where ppe or safety protocol for grave bodily injury or death is required you’ll find this out so fast. Everyone acts like it’s so difficult and expensive to follow procedure. Or suddenly they forgot that they needed to maintain that piece of equipment or that you actually need different (better) ppe. I’ve always considered myself in charge of researching safety on my own and demanding my own ppe because your workplace will not do it for you and they count on you not knowing and not standing up for yourself. I’ve worked in woodshops where every man I worked with acted like their lifelong injuries were badges of honor, and I was weak for not wanting to permanently injure myself to look strong at a job that paid just above minimum wage. And ofc the pencil pushers that argued about the “cost” always worked in the office and never stepped foot in the shop.

1

SnideFarter Mar 25, 2026 +1

Welcome to capitalism.

1

Human_Road_6245 Mar 25, 2026 +1

My roommate has this philosophy about his American Bulldog. She is super sweet, until she isn’t. She’s bit 3/4 of us and attacks the other dogs without provocation. I told him that she’s gonna get out and cause damage to someone or their pet and he is going to be sued. He needs to take her to the trainer. He said it’s too expensive. I ask him if he can afford to be sued. He’s not listening.

1

Dwilliamson5002 Mar 25, 2026 +1

We don’t fix or do preventative anything until something bad happens and it’s a five alarm emergency.

1

blacksystembbq Mar 24, 2026 +440

“While the NTSB hasn’t recommended that vehicles on airport grounds have transponders, they should, Homendy said.” So even the NTSB hasn’t recommended it, so why would the truck have it? Looks like they’ll probably start recommending them now

440

aaronhayes26 Mar 24, 2026 +235

The NTSB only makes recommendations as a result of their own investigations. They don’t just sit around making hypothetical recommendations all day. “The NTSB never recommended XYZ” is a huge cop out.

235

i_am_voldemort Mar 25, 2026 +24

NTSB recommendations are typically written in blood

24

blacksystembbq Mar 24, 2026 +26

You just proved my point. They don’t sit around making hypotheticals and something like this has never happened so that’s why they didn’t recommend them before. But after this incident, they’ll likely recommend them.

26

PlumLion Mar 24, 2026 +7

> They don’t just sit around making hypothetical recommendations all day. This is f****** wild to me. Nobody is performing FMEAs on aviation practices?

7

redlegsfan21 Mar 24, 2026 +33

I would expect that to be up the FAA's alley instead of the NTSB. I would be shocked if there are zero [ASAP](https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/asap) reports about this type of incident.

33

__2M1 Mar 24, 2026 +25

Mostly not the NTSB. That should be part of the FAAs tasks I think. Although the ntsb has a Safety management systems program: https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/mwl/Pages/mwl-3.aspx

25

Aquur Mar 25, 2026 +11

So part of the problem is getting the ground vehicle transponder units. We have been waiting years to get more units and at the moment only two companies are approved by FAA and one by NAV Canada. So they can’t make it mandatory until there’s enough supply.

11

GundalfTheCamo Mar 25, 2026 +2

I work in nuclear, not aviation. The operator of the airport should be responsible for safe operation of the airport, not the regulator. In nuclear is a complete non starter to try to shift responsibility for safety upgrades to any kind of government body.

2

Hiddencamper Mar 25, 2026 +2

After Fukushima the industry went out and developed their own response plan (SAFER/FLEX). If they waited for the NRC to decide something it likely would have been a ton of regulatory uncertainty and cost. Same with the Byron open phase event. The industry came up with solutions before the nrc was even ready to talk about it, and this was a “never seen before” safety significant event and it’s now dealt with in every plant.

2

JesterMarcus Mar 25, 2026 +1

I'm curious how these even work. Would it have even prevented this or is everyone knee jerking into a reaction?

1

Kryptocasian Mar 25, 2026 +1

Recommendations dont cost money... Requirements do.

1

hukep Mar 24, 2026 +496

I know the driver didn’t see the plane, but I can’t imagine driving around this airport, without constantly triple-checking, that a huge airplane isn’t about to hit me.

496

lucky_ducker Mar 24, 2026 +161

The trucks were crossing runway 4 at taxiway Delta, which is about a 135 degree oblique angle. The plane wasn't just approaching from the truck's right, it was approaching from *over the right shoulder* of the truck's occupants, i.e. not visible to the driver. The passenger in the truck (if there even was one) might have had a chance to see the approaching aircraft, but only if he was looking over *his* shoulder.

161

BigWhiteDog Mar 25, 2026 +39

Retired firefighter here that has done some airport time. In situations like this, even in normal fire apparatus driving, it falls upon the person in the right hand seat, usually a Captain , to "clear the intersection" ie: look to their right or to the right rear in this case to make sure it's "clear right" to proceed. That should have been done in this case but it appears to me from all the photos and videos that due to conditions, including an incredible amount of light pollution, they and the pilots might not have been able to tell what was where.

39

jetsetninjacat Mar 24, 2026 +79

When im riding right seat and running radios while taxing planes from the gates to the hangar and vice versa I am constantly scanning left straight and right when approaching cross taxi ways and going over active runways. We even open the windows and look if we dont have clear sight to ensure its safe. I wont assign blame for this but think it was a smorgasbord of errors that finally lumped together and caused the tragedy to unfold. We are constantly verifying verbally with the driver and vice versa when crossing. Clear right, clear left. The only people 100% no fault in this accident so far are the flight crew at this point. Edit: wanted to add over 15 years in the industry. Ive driven everything on the taxiways from small tugs to large deicing trucks eith only windshield and front side windows in my old job. Ive worked at small airports that had like 5 regional flights a day to massive hubs. I have a feeling a lot of training for the non movement area is going to change after this and it should. Ive even had to tow planes like 777s to reposition them many times from gates to maintenance aprons or hardstand many times across these.

79

Cheelss Mar 24, 2026 +19

i feel like if I’m the passenger I’m always looking over the right side to make sure it’s clear even if we get clearance

19

Maro1947 Mar 24, 2026 +10

It kind of shows the flaw in having a junction where the driver can't see airplanes landing correctly

10

lucky_ducker Mar 24, 2026 +16

That's mainly because taxiways are designed for the needs of aircraft, not ground vehicles - despite the fact that often, as is the case here, the fire station at LaGuardia is positioned in such a place as to require their units to cross runway 4/22 to get to the terminal tarmac.

16

Maro1947 Mar 25, 2026 +3

Yeah. It's one of those "in retrospect...." things

3

BigJellyfish1906 Mar 25, 2026 +3

That’s no excuse. Anyone driving on an airport knows that you need to positively visually clear the approach path before you enter a runway. If there’s something preventing them from being able to visually see it, then they need to stop and account for that. Not just barrel forward just because ATC cleared them.

3

Preston_02 Mar 24, 2026 +215

In any situation it's easy to get compliant. You shut the iron off 999 times out of 1000. That one time you forget you burn your hand.

215

Uphoria Mar 24, 2026 +69

This is why, 1000 times out of 1000 you don't touch the iron by anything but the handle. A truck driving through an active runway system in poor light shouldn't be "assuming the iron isn't hot" ever - Heck You're not even supposed to blow through a road intersection without knowing its clear before passing as an emergency vehicle, its wild to think that on the airport tarmac they would drive into a runway at a low-visibility angle without *knowing* the runway was clear. apparently earlier in the radio logs the fire truck wasn't listening to the radio well and the tower had to repeat commands. right before impact of of those missed commands was to stop. Driver wasn't complacent, he was negligent, IMO.

69

markpb Mar 24, 2026 +61

How do you know for sure that the driver didn’t check the runway? The front profile of a plane moving at more than 100kts, from the view of the driver, on a wet dark night set against all the lights of the airport and city would not have been as obvious as people think.

61

Nerezza_Floof_Seeker Mar 24, 2026 +50

For what it is worth, the runway status lights of the runway the truck was crossing were shown to be on in the video we have of the accident (these indicate a runway is not safe to cross EDIT: to be clear, youre not supposed to cross even with clearance if these are illuminated unless you double check with ATC about it)

50

Uphoria Mar 24, 2026 +36

First - landing lights are so bright they can blind you if viewed from up close. it's not easy to mistake those lights for background light when they're aimed at you. Second - listen to the radio. The tower calls for the truck to stop for several seconds before he crosses the threshold of the runway without slowing to check. there was 11 seconds from his first command to stop before impact, with 5 seconds if tower just repeating "stop truck 1 stop" If he had slowed, or listened to his radio, dead people might be alive.

36

markpb Mar 24, 2026 +24

The ATC said: Stop (other aircraft) stop, stop, stop, stop, truck 1, stop, stop, stop. It’s not clear until half way through the broadcast who it’s aimed at so it’s not surprising that they didn’t react in time. And of course, big heavy trucks don’t stop or turn on a dime.

24

Uphoria Mar 24, 2026 +45

We could debate stopping distance, and radio clarity but another thing worth considering - Laguardia has RWSL systems - aka lights that span down a runway on the outsides of it that turn on to warn vehicles traveling that there is an airplane coming. They were created for this exact scenario, and it likely will be a big part of the NTSB investigation - why did, in the face of red lights, the Fire Truck driver blast past the safety line at speed? If he got clearance from Tower, but then was confronted by a "Do not enter, airplane is on runway" string of lights, and his radio was just the word "STOP STOP STOP" why did he not put 2 and 2 together? We'll hopefully have an answer at some point.

45

oictyvm Mar 25, 2026 +5

I fully agree with you analysis - the driver of the truck is absolutely at fault here.

5

SwissChzMcGeez Mar 24, 2026 +45

Risk normalization. Do you still feel as cautious as the first week you learned to drive a car?

45

Skyrick Mar 24, 2026 +21

The plane was going 154 feet per second, or a football field every 2 seconds. then there are multiple different runways to be paying attention to, so even if you see it, the plane could be going somewhere unrelated to where you are going. All of this while they were responding to a noxious fumes emergency that could have been a disaster. Lot of stuff to be tracking at once.

21

thatkidanthony Mar 25, 2026 +6

Easier said than done in my humble opinion. When somethings moving 100mph (faster on touchdown for an airplane), it’s covering so much ground so quickly. It’s entirely possible the driver looked down the runway, saw nothing, got permission to cross, still saw nothing, hit the gas, and planes on the ground covering massive runway quicker than the driver could react. I see motorcycle accidents happen all the time with the same principal issue - moving way faster than drivers have time to react to. Keep in mind they were responding to a call, and so much firefighter training amounts to “don’t get tunnel vision” but it’s hard when you’re driving to a real call not to. Finally if ATC says you’re good, and you’re in a real big hurry to get to an emergency, it makes a lot of sense that they believed they were good.

6

JesterMarcus Mar 25, 2026 +11

Too many people here have no clue what they are talking about. Everyone keeps saying "just look for the lights on the aircraft". As if everything on the damn airport doesn't have a light on it.

11

thatkidanthony Mar 25, 2026 +3

Exactly! Having driven many fire trucks, I’ve seen a driver strike another, lit up fire truck responding to a call, because they weren’t anticipating the truck from that direction and assumed the lights and noise from the other truck, was coming from their truck. That happened on the ground at low speed. Now add in anything going 100+ mph.

3

jawshoeaw Mar 25, 2026 +3

as someone who has been around airports at night and flown small planes, I can assure you a jet 2-3 seconds away is clearly visible with very bright lights. and you are not supposed to be driving on runways without education and training. the “ never drive here lights“ were also on , a huge red flag. You don’t cross runways even with clearance when those lights come on unless you are staring directly at the potential flight path of incoming aircraft and are 100% sure nothing is coming. and even then you pause to be sure

3

[deleted] Mar 24, 2026 +7

[removed]

7

Justanotherturdle Mar 24, 2026 +3

Thank you for your service

3

goldengodz Mar 25, 2026 +1

One of the lessons in airport ground ops training is how disorientating an airport at night is. Lots of lights in a sea of black, throw some plane lights that might not even be visible from the vehicle cab when you do your final checks and bam.

1

BigWhiteDog Mar 25, 2026 +1

Problem is the work environment there. It's one of the busiest, most congested airports in the country with dozens of planes coming and going, dozens more taxiing, light pollution like you can't believe exacerbated by drizzle that made everything reflective and glary so it's quite likely that neither the pilots nor the fire crew had any idea who was where.

1

FunkyCredo Mar 25, 2026 +1

There was also another visual check they failed to do. If runway entrance lights are red you do not enter, even if tower gave clearance. On the video we can clearly see those red lights

1

lunchbox15 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Maybe they didn't see the plane, but the red lights from the [Runway Status Light system](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl) should have been a huge redflag that something was coming at them and to not proceed.

1

Raspberries-Are-Evil Mar 24, 2026 +517

We have $200 billion to spend on a pointless war but these f****** assholes won't fund Air Traffic modernization.

517

RicksterA2 Mar 24, 2026 +190

Don't forget the $221 million for Noem's publicity film... that was no bid and given to a friend of hers.

190

BrofessorFarnsworth Mar 24, 2026 +40

Didn't they try to assign Doge to go fix ATC at one point?

40

euph_22 Mar 24, 2026 +44

Yeah, the reality tv contestant currently running DOT said Elon was going to "plug into" the air traffic control system.

44

Politicsboringagain Mar 24, 2026 +29

Trump reversed Biden's plans to hire more ATCs and called it DEI. Now we we have the second deadly airplane accident in 1 year and months. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ends-dei-madness-and-restores-excellence-and-safety-within-the-federal-aviation-administration/ Nothing trump doesis about merit and making things better for Americans.

29

Bizarrebazaars Mar 25, 2026 +11

Doge sent out emails to federal workers, including ATC, encouraging them to quit with a lump sum pay-out. Otherwise tell them five things they did during the past week. Then they blamed anything and everything possible in the FAA on DEI. In case there are dumbasses out there who agree, literally every controller goes through the exact same intensely rigorous trainings. Many “wash out” aka fail. No matter who someone is if they make it far enough to get to trainings at their locations, they’re just as valid of a controller as anyone else. Maybe they should be scrutinizing military ATC transition to civilian ATC because they think they know everything already when they don’t know barely shit about working commercial flights.

11

BigJellyfish1906 Mar 25, 2026 +7

The entire budget for ATC salaries is about $2.5 billion a year. Imagine how many more controllers we could hire if we raised the budget for salaries. Instead we paid a French energy company $1 billion to NOT build a wind farm here.

7

FoxKamp7785 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Anything to keep the files hidden :)

1

techman710 Mar 24, 2026 +41

Nothing gets upgraded until there is a major accident. Look at the history of OSHA or MSHA, every change in policy or improvement in safety was preceeded by a major accident with casualties. We are not a proactive society when it comes to worker safety, we have always been reactive. No one will spend money until after they pay out huge sums after an incident.

41

FoxKamp7785 Mar 25, 2026 +8

There's a reason oligarchs spend billions to fight unions/unionizing

8

AcidaliaPlanitia Mar 24, 2026 +82

Isn't this a bit of a red herring though? The controller *knew* where the fire truck was and very quickly realized he screwed up when he cleared them (because it seems he forgot about the airplane he cleared to land), but then he couldn't get through to the truck to get them to stop. Even if an alarm went off in the tower as soon as the fire truck started moving across the runway, it's not like the controller would have been able to do anything else to stop the accident.

82

TheDrMonocle Mar 24, 2026 +83

Controller absolutely made a mistake. This is just an additional "hole" in the Swiss cheese model that could have prevented the accident that needs to be looked into. I'm a controller myself but work in a radar facility. I have a few tools that help prevent mid-air loss of separation, a 20 min conflict probe, a 2 minute conflict alerts, my eyes, then when all else fails, the aircraft have TCAS collision avoidance. If any one of those fail, it increases the risk of a loss of separation. Even though the main issue is likely the controller, this is absolutely a contributing factor, as will the truck crews scan while driving. > but then he couldn't get through to the truck to get them to stop. This one is *really* unfortunate. Immediately after clearning the truck to cross he said (and I've forgottenthe callsign) "Aircraft 2, just stop right there for me.. stop, stop stop stop Firetruck 1 Stop stop stop!" He didnt use the firetruck callsign again until halfway through the stops. So the driver was probably unaware the stops were directed at them. Meaning their reaction was just that much more delayed.

83

AcidaliaPlanitia Mar 24, 2026 +23

Oh yeah that's a great point, I didn't think about the truck's callsign not being used at first.

23

UBC145 Mar 24, 2026 +13

If I heard someone saying “stop stop stop” as I was about to cross a runway, I’d hit the brakes. The same way I’d stop if I was pulling out of a parking spot and hear a horn. I think for whatever reason the driver of the truck didn’t hear this. IIRC it wasn’t the first time in the radio chatter that he didn’t respond immediately.

13

donkeyrocket Mar 25, 2026 +5

Stopping when you’re not supposed to could also result in an incident. If everyone who heard “stop” just assumed it was them it’d be massively problematic. They’re very likely trained to not disobey TC unless they have an actual reason to (like seeing the plane bearing down on them). Training overriding instinct. When you’re cleared to cross an active runway, you clear that runway.

5

jawshoeaw Mar 25, 2026 +3

you are actually not supposed to cross runways even with permission when the they light up indicating an incoming aircraft. not without turning to look and be extra sure.

3

alliusis Mar 24, 2026 +18

I cannot bring myself to listen to it, but I've heard some people say in the ATC recording, there was an initial "Firetruck 1" right before he started yelling stop, but it was garbled and therefore not properly audible/easily missed due to talking to the other aircraft. Super sad. I feel crushed for everyone involved. I hope the ATC officer is getting some good support.

18

STUPIDNEWCOMMENTS Mar 24, 2026 +8

He said stop stop stop and then The sort of garbled truck 1 is what I heard

8

Froggn_Bullfish Mar 25, 2026 +3

It wasn’t garbled, he clearly said “Truck 1” “Stop stop stop Truck 1 stop stop Truck 1 stop stop”

3

rememberall Mar 24, 2026 +44

I don't think you can put this solely on the ATC... The question of why didn't the fire truck respond to the stop orders and why did the system fail to alarm Most definitely need to be answered

44

AcidaliaPlanitia Mar 24, 2026 +19

Oh absolutely, and if the truck had the tracking system *and* was capable of receiving a warning as well, this could have been avoided. I guess I'm just saying that a warning in the tower would have been useless here. The truck not receiving the call is probably as simple as them being on another radio/frequency by that point. Once they had their clearance they probably just switched over to whatever else they were dealing with, never thinking it could be rescinded.

19

Postom Mar 24, 2026 +10

The fire truck waited something like 7 or 8 seconds to begin it's incursion into the runway, from tower clearance. Why the delay?

10

markpb Mar 24, 2026 +8

Big heavy trucks take time to get moving? And with the proper clearance to cross the runway, what difference does 7 seconds make?

8

Postom Mar 24, 2026 +7

My dad was a heavy equipment mechanic; I grew up around "Big heavy trucks". We're talking haul trucks and front end loaders that weigh multiples of 10s of tonnes empty. I've never seen a haul truck loaded with 40 tonnes of material that couldn't clear that runway in less time then that "emergency" vehicle did. If a fire truck is that slow to "get moving", the power train is underpowered or it desperately needed service. 7 seconds of not moving could very well have transformed an uncomfortable near miss, into a deadly incident. The controller should not have permitted the fire truck to cross, or asked the jet to wait to land. But the delay to progress turned the situation deadly.

7

flamedarkfire Mar 25, 2026 +1

The controller bears responsibility for clearing the truck, but the ultimate responsibility is on the driver for not using the other warning indicators. Plane has the right of way, full stop, no argument. If the lights on tarmac say it’s not safe you don’t go.

1

Kaffe-Mumriken Mar 24, 2026 +47

They have a warning system a jet is headed their way at 100 kts? Sweet.

47

redlegsfan21 Mar 24, 2026 +38

Yes, they are called [runway status lights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_status_lights) https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl https://www.eurocontrol.int/system/runway-status-lights

38

fxgn Mar 24, 2026 +11

Which LaGuardia already has but this ARFF was not equipped with a transponder for whatever reason.

11

Zoomieneumy Mar 24, 2026 +117

I feel like if the truck had been paying proper attention to the radios they would’ve heard the stop command. Early in the comms, the controller had to radio the truck multiple times before getting a response. This is entirely unacceptable at an airport like LGA… also, prior to entering a runway, we make a check of final both directions to ensure we don’t accidentally pull an aircraft out in front of landing traffic. The Jazz was cleared to land and would’ve had their landing lights on full bright, the fire truck should’ve seen that prior to entering the runway. Was the controller clearance causal, yes, but the truck has a significant number of contributory factors outside of the emergency systems installed.

117

Pig_in_a_blanket Mar 24, 2026 +98

I've towed aircraft and ferried fuel trucks across runways in a busy airport. In the best conditions, its super stressful. Generally, you don't have the same ease with the radios that pilots do, you're simply not tuned in to the whole picture. When you get the clearance to get across a runway, you f'n do it post haste. When you're in the cab, all you're probably going to hear is the roar of the drivetrain as you rev up to get across. They are geared very low. You also could be wearing some noise abatement or canceling headphones. You probably have other comms going too, perhaps in this case as to the nature of the emergency for other plane that had the call out across the field. All I'm saying is I've been in that driver seat and even if I saw landing lights in the distance, if the controller told me to move, I would, assuming it would be a bigger problem if I hesitated or questioned him. edit: I never said they don't bear any responsibility. I'm just trying to describe how it feels to be on a busy airport in a vehicle and I understand why they may have not seen or even disregarded the lights while responding to another emergency.

98

Zoomieneumy Mar 24, 2026 +22

All good and valid points. Especially in a place like LGA, the spacing of traffic on takeoff and landing rolls is extremely small. Throw in crossing traffic and I certainly don’t deny that it’s stressful and immediate compliance is necessary. Doesn’t mean they can dismiss their own responsibility though, and anyone driving on a flight light has an equal responsibility for clearing. Unfortunately this is a tragic reminder of that.

22

Orchidinsanity Mar 24, 2026 +16

I interned at an airport, so my experience is brief but anytime I was on the tarmac my head was on a swivel. The amount of people who told me to calm down, just trust ATC, etc was astounding. Stress only made me more aware of my surroundings!

16

AlphSaber Mar 24, 2026 +27

>if the controller told me to move, I would, The controller is supposed to have the big picture view of what's going on. An airport is a controlled environment after all, it's not like vehicles and planes are going to be going wherever they please. If they say the route is clear why should you or any driver question them? Especially if it's a routine thing that has been completed hundreds of times before.

27

Nerezza_Floof_Seeker Mar 24, 2026 +39

It is worth mentioning that the runway status lights were on when the truck tried to cross, which indicate the runway was unsafe to cross. In that situation, youre supposed to contact ATC for clarification even if you were given clearance to cross.

39

rainbowgeoff Mar 24, 2026 +5

Weather was also bad that night. Good chance the fire truck didnt see the plane until the last second and vice versa. The fire truck is also trusting the controller, as you said. Their head isnt on a swivel because they are trusting the controller. Lastly, the comms are the same. Only the controller can hear both the air traffic and the fire truck. The air traffic and the fire truck each can only hear the controller, not each other. Even if they could, radios are inherently flawed by the fact users can talk over each other.

5

illiter-it Mar 24, 2026 +10

Does one need to take special training to drive a firetruck at the airport or is it covered in the general one?

10

Zoomieneumy Mar 24, 2026 +9

I’m an airline pilot, so I can’t speak to their specific training, but I would hope and assume that they get extensive training on this same stuff. Now, they were responding to a different emergency and may have been distracted, but the comms piece is significant in my mind. They were “Truck 1”, which may also mean that they were directing other ground assets in the emergency response and even more dependent on the tower controller to direct their movement. In aviation the expression “trust but verify” is always used heavily… this is the situation we are referring to. These are all questions that will be interesting to see answered in the NTSB report.

9

junkman21 Mar 24, 2026 +45

Stop. >The controller cleared the truck to cross the runway just **20 seconds** before the collision, when the plane was a little more than 100 feet (30 metres) in the air, the NTSB found. Per another source: >The first warning was delivered **nine seconds** before the crash, and the second was made about five seconds later... Also, here's [video showing the firetruck attempting to stop](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/queens/what-to-know-deadly-collision-jet-fire-truck-laguardia/6480226/) and turn HARD to the left (starts at about 30 seconds in). But, clearly, it was way too late. As someone with 100s of hours behind the wheel of firetrucks, those trucks are big, heavy, and loud. It's not a Toyota Corolla. Emergency braking can take well over 200 feet and 6-7 seconds to stop a fully loaded vehicle with 750 gallons of water. I've never driven an ARFF (heavy airport firetruck involved in this incident), but those things can carry up to 4,500 gallons of water. That's 19 tons in water *alone.* Those vehicles typically weigh in excess of 100,000 lbs. As a result, these things can require roughly 9 to 10 seconds to react to and execute a stop command in emergency scenarios. TL/DR: By the time the driver received and comprehended the abort command, it was way too late. >After the collision, an air traffic controller is heard on the audio saying, **“I messed up.”** This is 100% correct.

45

Zoomieneumy Mar 24, 2026 +6

Awesome reply, and I can appreciate the sentiments for the drivers. The biggest thing I’ve driven besides a commercial plane is a class C RV, and I fully recognize the heavy vehicle dynamics here. My airplane doesn’t weigh any less than that, and has its own sounds and distractions. I fully admit the clearance from the controller was causal. My point is that IN MY OPINION, the truck could have been the layer of awareness that prevented the controller mistake from being what it became. One look at final approach and the bright landing light would’ve been recognized as conflicting landing traffic. I absolutely saw the driver make the hard left to prevent impact, my sentiments are purely that all mistakes made were made prior to that period in the clearing and comm failures.

6

junkman21 Mar 25, 2026 +5

I’m showing my firefighter bias here, clearly… 😝 BUT… I am going to grant the driver some grace. If you are a pilot, then you can appreciate how many lights there are on the ground. When you aren’t expecting an aircraft to be low and landing on the right, I can see how that could be easily confused with a construction light or work light. I was driving home from a visit with the in-laws one night. It was the last 10 minutes of a 2 1/2 hour drive and probably around 11:00-11:30 PM. I’m headed northbound on an interstate highway. I see the tractor trailer that was directly in front of me swerve and I’m suddenly blinded by lights. I squint, trying to figure out what they are, and the truck headed the wrong way in the northbound lane is almost past me before I process “holy c***! That’s a car! I need to swerve!” I got VERY lucky. The van two cars behind me did not. When I say I had “no time to react,” I’m telling you that I literally didn’t have time for my eyes to adjust and to process what I was seeing. This was a good 12 years ago and I STILL remember how everything happened in slow motion. Even the explosion of glass in the rear view mirror when it hit the van behind me was in slow motion. As a first responder, I stopped and checked on the driver of the truck. I could smell the alcohol on him but he was alert. I checked on the van, now facing in the wrong direction, and when I tried to get an alert response from the driver, all I heard was gibberish. Fortunately, that’s because the driver was Brazilian and speaking Portuguese! 😆 But he and his partner - on their way to do some commercial cleaning contract - were both okay and able to walk to the ambulance when it arrived. Anyway, point is, they didn’t have any more time to react than I did, even though they theoretically had two extra car lengths to “see” the truck coming. Scary stuff.

5

Coffee-FlavoredSweat Mar 25, 2026 +2

And what about the fire engine operator ignoring the Runway Status Lights? Even if the controller clears you to enter the runway, if the lights are red, you don’t move and tell the ATC.

2

bikari Mar 24, 2026 +7

Very appropriate username, Displeased_Canadian.

7

Marisarah Mar 24, 2026 +6

I drive across an airport taxiway multiple times a week, best believe I check 10x every time I pass with my car

6

kobie1012 Mar 25, 2026 +7

Every rule, law, and safety protocol is paved with blood and death.

7

deGrominator2019 Mar 25, 2026 +8

Yup, because up until that point, the bean counters cannot justify the cost

8

kobie1012 Mar 25, 2026 +4

Cheers to you random internet person. Thanks for understanding. Things will just keep getting worse though. These bean counters only care about what next quarters numbers look like and how happy shareholders, aka gross rich people, are. I fully expect to watch the labor movements and safety standards crumble during my life time. But hey, no on wants to work anymore anyways, so who cares /s

4

rnilf Mar 24, 2026 +38

> “I would caution against pointing fingers at controllers and saying distraction was involved. This is a heavy workload environment,” she said. Republicans shutdown the government last year and asked them to work completely unpaid while understaffed in an understandably "heavy workload environment". It's entirely unsurprising that these avoidable tragedies continue to occur as Republicans mismanage their control of all three branches of our government.

38

sabre_dance Mar 25, 2026 +4

Why itt is acceptable to operate airside ground vehicles without ADS-B transponders is absolutely wild to me. Safety equipment is cheaper than lives.

4

CritiCallyCandid Mar 24, 2026 +13

Richest country in the world btw 🙄

13

FS_Slacker Mar 24, 2026 +4

Given the location of their station and how they needed to cross an active runway…they absolutely needed to be dialed in on every safety measure. If the driver was on the left hand side, the person on the right seat should have been focused down the flight path. No way they should have missed a plane coming at them.

4

Snakend Mar 25, 2026 +4

Absolutely wild shit in this story "While the NTSB hasn’t recommended that vehicles on airport grounds have transponders, they should, Homendy said." It's not even recommended....wtf. Why isn't it REQUIRED?

4

FlickerOfBean Mar 24, 2026 +3

The FAA lacks enough air traffic controllers.

3

deGrominator2019 Mar 25, 2026 +4

And as much as I’d love to put the blame all on the orange stain, he’s only part of the problem because this started with Reagan. The damage that piece of shit did to this country…

4

Other-MuscleCar-589 Mar 24, 2026 +2

The FAA hasn’t mandated this equipment and it’s expensive per vehicle….and it’s a case study in organizations paying lip service to “safety is job #1”.

2

Additional_Teacher45 Mar 24, 2026 +2

Equipment doesn't trump operator stupidity. People choose not to buckle their seat belts every day. And yet regulatory agencies insist that manufacturers should install more safety devices in modern vehicles. There was a reason the second truck chose not to drive out onto the runway. The first truck simply decided to ignore that reason.

2

Effective_Quail_3946 Mar 25, 2026 +2

Tragic. Pingers need to always light up fire/rescue equip... Change P&P

2

GravitationalConstnt Mar 24, 2026 +5

I hate all of these garbage headlines. All they’re doing is distracting from a super basic point - before crossing ANY runway, in particular one that’s active at one of America’s busiest airports, YOU CLEAR LEFT AND RIGHT BEFORE CROSSING. I don’t care if there’s an emergency in progress, turn your f****** head two times before proceeding.

5

samsaruhhh Mar 24, 2026 +7

The plane was just a few seconds away and already on the ground, isn't it standard procedure to turn your head and look both ways like how everyone who drives a car looks at stop signs/intersections???? The plane is massive and noisy with big f****** lights. The truck could have stopped and paused 4 seconds and the plane would be fully past

7

Fuzzy-Mud-197 Mar 24, 2026 +14

You would be surprised, the entire airport is noisy and they are sitting in a noisy firetruck. What is worse is that when its dark a plane that sits pretty low like the crj can basically blend into the runway. Even with the lights

14

samsaruhhh Mar 24, 2026 +3

Damn that's scary.. might be cool if planes had special ground lights that are really unique so when a plane is on the runway they activate and it looks like an exotic discoball or techno light show is headed towards you so there's no mistaking it or lack of visibility

3

Fuzzy-Mud-197 Mar 24, 2026 +3

Way back in the day in the 90s, there was a near similar incident, one plane was on the runway while another was landing. The landing plane simply could not see the plane on the runway because even with the lights on it blended in with the runway lights. Since then whenever a plane enters an active runway they need to turn on their strobe (bright blinking) lights and the landing lights to be visible. Even if they are just crossing. This was usair flight 1493

3

Bwalts1 Mar 24, 2026 +4

Also the road crossed the runway at an angle, where the driver is the on far side from the plane, and moving ‘away’. Plus they have their own emergency lights flashing, and the truck engine is going to be just as loud comparatively. The most unfortunate thing was the controller didn’t clearly address the firetruck until halfway through the panicked stop calls. Would easily be assumed the controller was still talking to the Frontier plane they had most recently called out

4

samsaruhhh Mar 24, 2026 +3

It seems a simple system could have some big HALT red lights or something at these intersections when the system automatically detects an active runway despite what ATC might say, at which point the ground crews will be forced to stop until reaffirming with ATC ("the automatic system here is telling me it's not safe please advise me i don't see anything from down here") They do it all over the US for train crossings, this should be pretty simple I'd think with how few airports there are comparatively..

3

DimeloFaze Mar 24, 2026 +4

I tow planes from the hangar to the gate every f****** day. I have no answer to why the fire truck did not see a damn plane coming.

4

Stratocruise Mar 25, 2026 +3

Task fixation…? Sounds like there may be a significant *human factors* component to this. Additional system safety features may have helped but we need to see the final NTSB investigation report.

3

b_m_hart Mar 24, 2026 +3

Events like this are why we have SO MANY regulations, and it becomes "burdensome" to manage them all. We have them because people have DIED. If we can't do something without people dying, maybe we shouldn't be doing them at all, unless there are ways to protect against those deaths, yeah? So the next time you hear someone say "this isn't business friendly, we need to deregulate", what they are saying is that they think safety precautions shouldn't be taken, so that people can continue to die for completely preventable reasons. Also, how about we pay to staff an airport as busy as LAGUARDIA with more than one freaking guy in the tower?

3

DaRusty_Shackleford Mar 24, 2026 +2

Not to sound insensitive but couldn’t the firefighter just look both ways before crossing a runway?

2

Liesthroughisteeth Mar 25, 2026 +2

I'm more interested in what happened to the radio link the emergency vehicle just had with the tower moments prior to the crash.

2

dave_890 Mar 24, 2026 +3

"Equipment" should have been someone in the passenger seat of the truck whose sole job is to make sure there are no planes on the runway.

3

LightBeerOnIce Mar 24, 2026 +2

So, not the traffic controllers fault. Airport fault.

2

Fuzzy-Mud-197 Mar 24, 2026 +18

In situations like this its always a combination of multiple things. At the end of the day the controller cleared both the plane and the firetruck but in an ideal scenario one mistake from a controller should not result in fatalities

18

aaronhayes26 Mar 24, 2026 +2

Technically this is ultimately the controller’s fault but discussion of why the safety systems failed is important and valid.

2

[deleted] Mar 24, 2026 +1

[deleted]

1

OsterizerGalaxieTen Mar 24, 2026 +1

It was landing

1

Chilitime Mar 24, 2026 +1

You’d think the fire truck would have been looking and seen the plane.

1

GeekFurious Mar 25, 2026 +1

There are reports that there were multiple emergency vehicles responding. The other(s) stopped. Also, reports that the red lights on the runway that indicate it is being used were also on.

1

Positive_Method3022 Mar 25, 2026 +1

I really can't believe the fire truck drivers did not see the RED lights in the pavement. Somehow they trusted the controller's call and totally forgot the lights

1

melancholy_dood Mar 25, 2026 +1

>Fire truck in deadly LaGuardia crash lacked equipment needed to trigger warning system, NTSB says Does this situation exist at other airports around the world?

1

HowlingWolven Mar 25, 2026 +1

Yeah, not every airport puts a full ADSB system in their truck fleet.

1

Fire truck in deadly LaGuardia crash lacked equipment needed to trigger warning system, NTSB says

💬 Send a Message

175 Comments