Was curious if ground vehicles at airports also use transponders to communicate position to the radio tower, and it turns out the FAA put out a report last year on potential solutions to avoid this exact situation:<p><a href="https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/certalerts/part_139_certalert_25_01" rel="nofollow">https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/certalerts/part_...</a>
Many airports have ADS-B transponders in their ground vehicles. You can see them on flightradar or adsbexchange.
> <i>Was curious if ground vehicles at airports also use transponders to communicate position</i> […]<p>They do at CYYZ (Toronto Pearson):<p>* <a href="https://www.flightradar24.com/43.68,-79.63/13" rel="nofollow">https://www.flightradar24.com/43.68,-79.63/13</a> (zoomed in)<p>* <a href="https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/yyz" rel="nofollow">https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/yyz</a><p>Also at CYUL (Montreal Trudeau) and CYVR (Vancouver International).
Ground vehicles with transponders: <a href="https://adsb.exposed/?dataset=Planes&zoom=7&lat=42.1262&lng=-75.3113&query=e3a3aa4319a0810103a4cd9555cc4625" rel="nofollow">https://adsb.exposed/?dataset=Planes&zoom=7&lat=42.1262&lng=...</a>
Or just do like the rest of the world. No anticipated clearences to land, you only ever get a clerance when the runway is empty and yours.
LaGuardia has that system, it still failed to prevent this
<a href="https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e" rel="nofollow">https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e</a><p>> Captain and first officer are reported to have died in the accident, two fire fighters on board of the truck received serious injuries, 13 passengers received injuries.
That's a huge amount of damage even at 24mph. It's crazy how that could happen though. Will be interesting to see the full report.
The fire truck was flipped and moved to the side of the runway, this was not 24mph. 24mph is the final groundspeed recorded after the aircraft skidded off of the runway.<p>Per the ADSBx track the plane was at 101kts (115 mph / 185kph) just before crossing taxiway D, which would be where it hit the firetruck. It still had enough energy afterwards to reach taxiway E, 600ft away.
Okay that makes far more sense the article didn’t really make that clear to me.
The results seem on the high end but they check out at first glance.<p>A plane is basically a flimsy tube. A firetruck is a solid brick comparatively. The plane out weighs the fire truck by a lot and out speeds it by a lot. So yeah, destroying the whole front of the plane to punt the truck it sounds about right for a 25 on 5 or 35 on 10/15 type rear ending to me. Flipping doesn't really sound that unreasonable considering that the plane made contact with the top of the truck (just by virtue of comparative height) and contact may not have been straight on. Even if it left the pavement on it's wheels airport firefighters aren't exactly who I'd bet on (they're middle of the pack) to keep the truck on it's wheels if they got surprise kicked off the road especially if there's an embankment involved.
A CRJ 9000 is 70000 lbs empty, 84500 lbs MTOW.<p>An Oshkosh 1500 4x4 is 62000 lbs GVWR (wiki says kerb weight but it’s incorrect).<p>The plane was landing and the truck was heading to an intervention, so they were likely close to empty and to GVWR respectively.<p>And again, 25mph is the final ground speed, after the plane punted the truck and kept on going for 600ft.
Pause the video at 13 sec. That firetruck is awfully intact for something that allegedly got hit at high speed. Basically just a bunch of top side sheetmetal damage (concentrated to the rear, obviously). In any case it didn't even get sent hard enough to screw up the cab exterior. And on the flip side, if you keep cranking the speed up you start getting to where the plane starts looking too suspiciously intact. There's just not much room to work backwards from the apparent results and get a high difference in speed or get very high initial speeds (100 onto 75 or whatever). If the plane was going fast the truck had to be going fast too or there'd be more carnage. But if they were both going fast you'd expect more damage from the after the fact barrel roll and the plane and truck to be a little farther apart in distance.
> <i>That's a huge amount of damage even at 24mph.</i><p>The speed was much higher per sibling comment, but also remember that <i>kinetic energy</i> also involves mass (planes are heavy) and the <i>square</i> of the velocity.<p>* <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy</a><p>The latter is why (e.g.) going 100 units/hour has <i>twice the KE</i> of going 70 units/hour in a car.
It looks like that is based on the last recorded speed from flightradar24[1] which was 21kts(24mph). The previous data points were 11kts, and 58 kts(the last point before the track deviates off the runway). I do think it is likely that the collision occurred at a speed faster than 24mph.<p>edit: Looking into this a bit more it looks like the plane came to a stop around crossing E while the emergency vehicle was crossing at D(based on ATC recordings). Using the following map as reference[2], the 58kts point was around E, while the previous recorded point which was just before D was 114kts.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ac8646#3ede6c39" rel="nofollow">https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ac8646#3ede6c39</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/LGA/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/LGA/APD/AIRPOR...</a>
Very unlikely it was 24mph…The entire cockpit is gone.<p>(Though some of the major damage may have happened while deplaning the passengers)
Speed doesn't cause damage. Momentum causes damage. We understand speed, we do not understand momentum. It makes sense given our evolution.<p>People into boats need to understand this. Even a boat that travels no more than 4mph can crush you easily. This is why you never get on to moving boat from the front. Many people have made a mistake because speed is not high.
Tugboats bump other boats all day. Hundred thousand pound pieces of machinery bury themselves into the dirt. All this as part of normal operation. It's not that simple.<p>Speed, kinetic energy and acceleration are all interrelated and at the end of the day it's all forces (to some extent) and no amount of hand wringing commentary is going to replace genuine understanding of them.
I saw the first post about this on /r/flying and /r/aviation 5 hours ago and legacy media is only started reporting it in the last hour or so
/r/xyz doesnt need to fact check. Sure those are excellent subs but just being watering holes and not legal entities they can move faster. There were some wrong facts on r/aviation although it got viral so people just ploughed in with whatever news outlet they read it on.
I have seen a lot of first posts on social media which have been wrong
Is this a dig on legacy media? Do we expect people to be up all hours of the day reporting the news?
Nope.<p>CNN, CNBC, NYPost, Guardian all had stories up quickly, or within an hour. There are others too.
And so much of the legacy media info is wrong. It’s strange because a lot of the primary sources are public.<p>This is a good overview so far:<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8vokLcNNGCM" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8vokLcNNGCM</a>
Very informative, thanks for the link!<p>ATC audio is <a href="https://archive.liveatc.net/klga/KLGA-Twr-Mar-23-2026-0330Z.mp3" rel="nofollow">https://archive.liveatc.net/klga/KLGA-Twr-Mar-23-2026-0330Z....</a><p>The clearance for AC8646 to land on runway 4 is given in a sequence starting at 4:58. "Vehicle needs to cross the runway" at 6:43. Truck 1 and company asks for clearance to cross 4 at 6:53. Clearance is granted at 7:00. Then ATC asks both a Frontier and Truck 1 to stop, voice is hurried and it's confusing.
> And so much of the legacy media info is wrong. It’s strange because a lot of the primary sources are public.<p>You should provide sources for a claim like that. For example, what in the BBC article is wrong?
If only we could diff the BBC article (it currently says it was posted 21 mins ago which is younger than your comment…). It’s changed multiple times now without any kind of changelog or acknowledgement.<p>> Video footage on social media showed the aircraft, which is operated by Air Canada's regional partner Jazz aviation, coming to a rest with its nose upturned.<p>This just isn’t true. There’s no video of the plane coming to a rest with its nose upturned (which implies motion). The upturned nose happened only after passengers deplaned and the balance shifted.<p>> It had slowed to about 24mph when it collided with a vehicle from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport.<p>This is the next part that will change. Just because some of the last broadcast data said 24mph doesn’t mean that’s the speed it was when it collided with the truck. The truck is on its side and those passengers are in hospital. The pilots are dead. The plane sustained enough structural damage to have the entire nose collapse. If the sentence is based on that broadcast data, SAY THAT instead of printing it as fact.<p>And with all the quotes from social media posts from key groups, link to them instead of just vaguely quoting.
Any of us can help log the changes by submitting revisions of the article to web.archive.org<p>With a fast-changing news story where vague/incomplete/conflicting details emerge in the first few hours it's not unreasonable for the first few revisions to be like that, and eventually gets fixed hours or a day later.
It's hardly worth checking with the legacy media anymore. Really, why bother?
Why bother with the facts when you're already heard all the gossip?
At the very least it’s worth reading to see what most people / the people in power are reading or want others to read.<p>The NYT is biased, but it’s still basically the most official newspaper of the American ruling class.
Because some of them still have standards. They will correct themselves if something was wrong.<p>Everyone can write a comment on Reddit / make a podcast / video / whatever claiming whatever they want. Unless you already know and trust them (which requires you to be able to cross-check their information), it's potentially as useful as a random LLM hallucination. Could be brilliantly spot on, or could be completely nonsense. No way of knowing unless you already know enough. (Because even cross-checking won't necessarily save you, if you cross-check multiple bullshit sources).<p>Media with standards (like the BBC, Guardian, Liberation, etc.) will do their best to report truthfully (even if sometimes with some bias), and will fix their mistakes if they're caught later on or the story evolves. Independent media checking organisations have shown time and time again that there is trustworthy media, you just need to know which it is, and always take a pinch of salt. It's wild to me that people will just dismiss rags such as Fox News and relatively quality media like Guardian in the same breath.
According to other news sources, the pilots lost their lives here, too.
How did it end up like that with the nose up: what is holding it up?
Gravity. The aircraft is heavier at the back, where the engines are. With the nose severely damaged/missing, the centre of gravity has shifted aft, so what’s left of the nose is sticking up in the air.
Front fell off, people deplaned (while still horizontal) which shifted the balance backwards. It’s sitting on the rear bulkhead,
It should be noted that aircraft and all other vehicle and personel movements on an airport are controlled from the airtraffic control tower by air traffic controllers or
directly by individual flaggers, as directed from the tower.
Or at least thats the way it is supposed to work, and of course the operation at a place like LaGuardia is more complex, and will have specialists and multiple zones.
What will put an extra edge on this is the
whole ICE thing, and airport chaos pulling the roof down.
Yet another blow to the confidence of flying in this country.
More accurately, the risk has increased by at least one order of magnitude, but the confidence of the public has largely stayed the same.
This comes to mind how during the Boeing news scandals, commenters would confidently argue "Flying is still ridiculously safe, statistically speaking", "these things happen every day, just underreported", and "you/people are irrational for not flying Boeing". It's a very curious argument to me. Is the ATC infrastructure issue analogous or not, etc.
It is strange. What is importa t is, are things getting better or getting worse? As they say, it’s not the fall that kills, bit the impact. Are we falling?