this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
111 points (99.1% liked)

News

37408 readers
2833 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The National Transportation Safety Board has published its preliminary report on last month's deadly crash involving an Air Canada jet and a fire truck at New York's LaGuardia airport, concluding communication failures and a lack of transponders in the truck played roles in the collision.

The report, released Thursday, said the truck's driver heard instructions to "stop, stop, stop" over the radio, but did not realize the message was intended for them.

After the initial warning, the fire truck's turret operator heard the controller say, “Truck 1, stop, stop, stop,” and realized the warning was for his crew. By then, the report said, the truck was already on Runway 4 as Air Canada Express Flight 8646 was landing.

The jet and the truck collided seconds after the plane touched down. Pilots Mackenzie Gunther and Antoine Forest were killed, and 33 people were injured, including six who had serious injuries.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I wonder if we could do some sort of virtual ADSB on the ground where it tracks anything on the field and squawks its location?

This would alert about incursions even if the object didn’t have a transponder.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Another factor in the crash was the fact that emergency vehicles at LaGuardia were not outfitted with a transponder as part of the airport's surface surveillance system, known as ASDE-X. The system is designed to prevent runway collisions by creating a display air traffic controllers can use to track the movement of every plane and vehicle in real time.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Right, but I’m saying if there was a computer vision system monitoring the runway cameras and transmitting ADSB signals the truck wouldn’t need a transponder. Another system would be broadcasting its position.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cameras won’t work in bad weather when visibility is poor. The answer is to force every ground vehicle that shares any space with aircraft should have a transponder and the airfield should have a working ASDE system. Surely it’s a necessity at an airport of that size?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I love how adding safety with a passive system built on old technology gets interpreted as “we should replace ADSB and transponders are unnecessary”

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But there is a system and it sounds like it works. It just wasn't in place. The problem is not a technical one.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What's the rate of failure on your CV system? How often is it going to decide a bird flying around is a car on the runway? How much will it cost to develop and implement when adsb already exists and works and is cheap? How much effort will it take to implement that could instead be spent making sure transponders are installed on ground vehicles?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m sure people had the same arguments against ADSB

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

That's not an argument in favour of your plan, nor an answer to any of the questions.

I conclude the plan is dumb.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like a great idea, and also would be fairly easy to implement

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Hell, a fairly rudimentary system could be built pretty quickly with the airports’ existing surveillance cameras, though I’d want LiDAR and some higher res cameras or even IR as well for low visibility conditions

[–] forrgott@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's... not free either. And even lidar will never be as accurate as a radio antenna letting the moving pieces tell you exactly their location and motion.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again: Complimentjng not replacing.

Say a plane loses a landing gear on takeoff and it’s on the runway. Who’s gonna go strap a transponder to it?

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone -1 points 1 week ago

Planes already have transponders.