Hacker News

Seems like everyone, everywhere is overworked, underpaid, and under supported. How much longer can we frogs survive the boiling?

No that is not the issue. Runway incursions have always been a problem and many deaths have occurred.

There have been many attempts to change phraseology, teach pilots and controllers to always readback runways, etc. but nothing that actually prevents the issue from occurring entirely via automation.

Why do so many jobs have this failure mode? Thinking about this should illuminate for you that funding is not the whole story.

Can’t this whole thing being automated and let only special/unexpected situations being handled by humans ?

This isn’t hypothetical, this system just exists in other countries. Digital systems can confirm flight instruction from ATC with zero radio communication.

> more than 1 plane every minute

Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

No one said it was simple. You're tilting at windmills.

Hehehehe, grounded.

On the flipside, look at the success of TCAS. It doesn't have a perfect operational history. It hasn't completely eliminated midairs, either. But it took a relatively rare event and further reduced the frequency by about a factor of 5.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out that there's some kind of relatively easy technological double check that could greatly reduce incidents. The fact that we've not gotten there despite years of effort to reduce runway incursions doesn't mean that it's not possible.

> You can't just throw software at this

Ok, let's not try improving systems, how's that working out?

Emergency vehicles almost always can override/ignore warning devices (think firetrucks running red lights) which can cause "fun" for some value of "death/dismemberment/vehicle loss".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Xf7aU5Udo

The Runway Status Light system already does this via automated monitoring of traffic from multiple systems: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl

I'm sure the NTSB report will cover why this didn't stop the accident. Presumably either the system wasn't working as-expected, or the fire truck proceeded despite the warning lights since they had clearance from the controller.

The system is only advisory at present, so if the truck did see a warning light and proceeded anyway, they were technically permitted to do so.

>In the end the air traffic system is a highly complex but also a highly reliable system, especially when you compare accident rates.

1700 incursions a year, and other articles mentioning multiple near misses a week at a single airport [1]. It is safe in practice, likely largely due to the pilots here also being heavily trained and looking for mistakes, but it seems a lot like rolling the dice for a bad day.

>I am sure the working conditions of ATC staff might be improved - but being both a pilot and a programmer, I know that there is no easy digitalization magic wand for aviation.

I didn't say it'd be free. Just hard to believe radio voice communication is the best way to go.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/21/business/airl...

> While that sounds like a nice idea in theory it's the same as "digitizing" road traffic.

Traffic lights instead of mad max intersections are better.

Then there's subway Automatic Train Control.

I don't know that Air Traffic Control staff don't have computer systems for establishing which plane owns what airspace. They at least did do it manually already following specific processes, so it can be at least augmented and a computer can check for conflicts automatically (if it isn't already). And, sure, ATC could still use radio, but there could be a digital standard for ensuring everybody has access to all local airspace data. Or maybe that wouldn't help.

Your ground vehicle wanting to cross a runway could have the driver punch "cross runway 5" button (cross-referenced with GPS) and try to grab an immediate 30 second mutex on it. The computer can check that the runway is not allocated in that time (i.e. it could be allocated 2 minutes in the future, and that would be fine).

But, as pointed out elsewhere, obviously some of this is already present: stop lights are supposed to be present at this intersection.

It's already digitized, he's clueless. The ATC knows where vehicle was and where the plane is going, it looks as simple case of mistake or maybe not watertight enough procedures

I'm sure they've started all of this a few times over the past decade. The problem is in the US if you can't start and finish a project like that in less than 2 years then it's effectively dead in the water. The last time we "modernized" ATC was closer to the 90's than today, when there was still some general political will to make our government agencies modern instead of tearing them to pieces.

Listening to some recent close call ATC tapes, yes, it seems absolutely insane to manage current traffic levels with the existing number of controllers over voice.

I don't doubt that it's a very safe system with enough slack allowing for intentional redundancy. But as it is, some of these controllers seem to be limited by their ability to pronounce instructions, leaving absolutely no margin for error and presumably very little room for conscious thought.

Voice communication has the advantage is that it can be used without taking off hands and attention off controls. Digital solution would require using device.

HN has recently banned AI written / edited comments. Be better.

A "runway incursion" is a very broad term that includes everything from this accident to a single engine Cessna moving past the hold short line prematurely at a quiet airport.

FAA defines it as "Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft." [0]

Many runway incursions run no risk of any accident, but are still flagged as issues, investigated, and punished if appropriate.

[0] https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_...

The point is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the total they are, it's that 1 is too high without adequate explanation (the Gimli Glider caused vehicles to be guilty of a runway incursion by turning an abandoned runway into an active one, for example).

And the cost of investigating 1,700 should be within the budget.

My very fuzzy back of the envelope says easily 10s of thousands per day.

Which, as a non informed person but someone who needs to travel by plane, sounds absolutely insane. Was it always possible to staff that with a single person or is that a result of understaffing?

ATCs weren't exactly forced to work: they aren't slaves and are free to quit any time. But if they didn't show up for assigned shifts even though they weren't getting paid then they were subject to disciplinary action including termination. Some of them called in sick, or took on temporary second jobs to bring in some cash (obviously a bad thing from a fatigue management standpoint). After the government shutdown they were paid in arrears for all of the hours they worked. It's crazy that Congress plays political games with essential services like ATC.

The US has had trouble keeping enough controllers. It's a skilled but extremely stressful job, and so retention would always be difficult but the US also works hard to make it suck more than it should, and of course the over-work from not having enough people makes that even worse.

But no, AIUI only things that were somehow deemed part of "Homeland Security" are frozen, the TSA are part of Homeland Security but the ATC are under the FAA. So this particular partial government funding lapse wasn't causal, at least directly.

In the USA at controlled airports, aircraft also need explicit landing clearance.

"Jazz 646, number 2, cleared to land 4."

https://youtu.be/Pbm-QJAAzNY?si=h3VEuVNLMf9Z8D1c&t=126

They did have a very explicit clearance.

The controller said “truck 1 stop” that is not ambiguous.

In Europe is illegal to capture and publish ATC. I wonder why. Anyway I do not know what are you comparing.

From pilot friends, in best case I would say a big “depends” in some countries are very unprofessional, in others very professional (anyway total unfair generalization). There were already accidents because of that, for example because the twr communicated with locals in non english, so not everybody was at the same page.

United aircraft did a high speed abort (80+ knots) and afterwards, fumes from hot brakes were entering the back of the cabin. (Not uncommon.)

Source: Mentour Pilot. https://www.youtube.com/live/Bb4CcoK0KLM

Unrelated United aborted takeoff, as well as reported some odors in the cabin from the flight attendants.

Reports are there were fog and rain at La Guardia at the time of the incident. They were on a short final, and it’s entirely possible they were not visible to the fire truck’s crew.

At night with multiple runways it can be very hard to see a plane on final.

Still, I'm always hesitant to cross an active runway.

Yes ARFF should still look before crossing, but the weather wasn’t great with limited visibility and thus even if they looked it’s possible they didn’t see anything.

I mean, isn't it obvious that they didn't?

I think this is a good idea.

The only negative I can think of is that it will generally involve accepting and responding to clearances on short final. I think adding more tasks to that critical stage of flight probably increases danger a little. Especially for low time student pilots like myself. That's particularly relevant in the U.S. because we have a higher percentage of student and private pilots than most of the world.

Overall, though, I'm fully convinced this would be safer.

Even without anticipated clearance to land you have to define what "the runway is empty and yours" means.

Yeah that gut wrenched ATC had to stay on point and ensure the next plane to land did a go around. Scary stuff.

Us lot have more people doing SRE ensuring p99 10ms for something frankly way less important. It is a nuts world.

Transponder doesn't alter the laws of physics for the landing plane you just cut off. I guess it gives ATC a ~5sec jump on telling some other flight to go around.

I'd bet a lot of money that however the system is implemented the police and fire get special treatment when it comes to process (i.e. asking permission before they go somewhere planes might be) and that is part of what lead to this.

Another option: they shouldn't be government employees at all. It would be much better for them to work for the actual airports themselves and be certified by the government or a private testing organization instead.

"Government"? Let's call it what it is. ITYM "Republicans".

Still, the runway could be reserved for landing aircrafts only, still preventing access to all other types of vehicles.

I guess there is more weight in the relatively small section of the front that came off than I expected

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.

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.

On other hand planes are really not designed to be crashed into things. Only for limited impacts. So we might not have right comparison for relatively thin and aimed to be light structure being impacted by bulkier object.

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.

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.

You can view the actual data and control for your own recency bias one way or the other. I see data from 2005 - 2024 trivially accessible.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx

Maybe US media, hardly an unbiased news source about US events, especially when hundreds of billions are flying around about incompetent massive employer and lobbyist.

Nowhere else in the world you would hear such statements. Boeings simply disappeared from Europe, those few that were here before. I am sure they are still used somewhere but I haven't flown any in past 7-8 years. Heck, I haven't seen any in South east Asia neither (but that may be due to luck).

I check this with all bookings, no way I am flying that piece of shit if I can anyhow avoid that, not alone and quadruple that with family.

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?

Not the crash, but the aftermath. Passengers will be showing up for flights today, nervous with the crash on their minds, and many will then encounter untrained goons cosplaying as airport security.

This incident caused delays and cancellations that ripple throughout an already understaffed network of TSA checkpoints. ICE presence will make airport security somehow an even worse experience for brown people.

I got a NYT alert about this around 3:30am EDT.

Yes. Yes, we do. I expect a competent news agency to have a night desk.

Very informative, thanks for the link!

ATC audio is https://archive.liveatc.net/klga/KLGA-Twr-Mar-23-2026-0330Z....

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.

You should provide sources for a claim like that. For example, what in the BBC article is wrong?

Typically most primary sources are public.

It's hardly worth checking with the legacy media anymore. Really, why bother?

And yet you chose to respond! Indeed I stand corrected on the onsite firehouse, LaGuardia does have one but many airports do not.