Jazz CRJ crash at LaGuardia

[rudder]

plane was on the ground 8 seconds before, standard I have control at 6 seconds, heavy brakes at 4 seconds

A CA taking control from the landing FO 2 seconds after touchdown is the furthest thing from ‘standard’.

Perhaps more will be derived from the intercom portion of the CVR, but it would appear that the CA saw something either at or immediately after touchdown and took control to input maximum braking and a possible change in rollout lateral path. Given the de-rotation characteristics of the CRJ900 (long body), ability to input braking normally is not recommended prior to nose wheel touchdown which has the potential to delay braking after main wheel touchdown. Thrust reverse selection normally immediately follows main wheel touchdown.

100kts was speed at the collision. Touchdown speed would have been closer to 130kts. The aircraft was covering 200-250 feet per second on the runway after touchdown and the distance from the touchdown zone to the taxiway D intersection would only have been 1000-1300 feet. There would have been virtually no opportunity after touchdown and thrust reverse deployment to alter the aircraft trajectory.

There has been a discourse on pprune about what the pilots may have seen or heard before landing. The pilots are not here to answer those questions and the CVR may be the only clue to their perspective. It appears the actual runway intrusion by the ARFF vehicle did not happen until the aircraft was either in the flare or on the runway.

Likely more factual information today if there is an NTSB briefing.

[khedrei]

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

Actual NTSB report.

1min 26 seconds / 1000 foot EGPWS call
54 seconds / 500 feet stable call by crew
40 seconds / LGA tower asks Which vehicle needs to cross runway 04
28 seconds / truck 1 requests to cross
26 seconds / LGA tower acknowledges truck request
25 seconds / truck 1 requests to cross again rwy 04 at delta
20 seconds / LGA Tower Clears Truck 1 and Company to cross 04 at delta
19 seconds / '100' call in cockpit
17 seconds / Truck 1 reads back crossing runway 04 at delta.
14 seconds / 50 call out EGPWS
12 seconds / 30 call out EGPWS
11 seconds / 20 call out EGPWS
10 seconds / 10 call out EGPWS
9 seconds / Tower instructs Truck to STOP
8 seconds / Landing Sound Gear Touching Runway
6 seconds / pilot transfer of control
4 seconds / Tower tells truck 1 to stop
0 seconds / recording ended.

It is known PF was FO, and the control transfer was to the captain.

So contrary to all the speculation, the "cleared to cross" transmission did not occur after Jazz had touched down.

Something doesn't add up from 25 seconds before the accident. You're in command of an airplane that is greater than 100 feet above the ground, with a truck being cleared to cross the runway you've been cleared to land on. What's the basis to continue the approach at that point instead of a go around?

Is there a scenario where the CVR picks up the radio transmissions, but the pilots didn't hear it? Fatigue? Leg 3 of 3 type 4 day pairing at Jazz?

This may not be the heroic narrative on the pilots part that has taken shape the last 24 hours. Is inexperience finally catching up to us?

I hope I'm seriously missing something. In any case, very sad, and condolences. Hope we learn something once the final report is materialized.

Once again, condolences to anyone affected. This is super sad.

Im shocked to see this is where you go. Suggesting it was pilots inexperience and that they should have gone around. Basically that its there fault. Shame on you.

We don't even know if they heard the transmission yet. And even if they did, this joke of a process of clearing multiple people to use the same runway is normal and likely wouldnt have raised any flags with most pilots. They were also busy focusing on the approach. It can take what... 5 seconds for a truck to cross a runway. I doubt they had time to even think about or piece together where Delta was relative to their touchdown point or if the truck was even a threat. Again, IF they even heard the transmission.

The claims I have seen in the past from controllers justifying this practice are about time on frequency and that they can simply take away clearance if they have to. They dont hold water now. Case in point. It took a while, but it finally happened. None of them are coming in here trying to justify it now.

Perhaps we need another controller thats just gives landing clearances. At busy airports after the FAF you tune another frequency for clearance. Plenty of airports have a dedicated position that just watches the localized on parallels. Maybe we need another that watches the runways and does nothing else. Among other things like xponders on all ground vehicles and new procedures for how the ground vehicles operate. Stop and look, etc. If they are too busy to wait to give a clearance until the runway is actually clear, we definitely need more people.

It appears from the video that the truck might have called for clearance on the move, quite a ways back and never even slowed down. Perhaps the controller thought that he was at the holding point and needed less time to cross?

I am very saddened by this and although I felt a sense of relief when I found out I didn't know the pilots, that was quickly followed by a gut wrenching feeling that many others are in mourning for their loss. My condolences to all affected.

[7ECA]

This may not be the heroic narrative on the pilots part that has taken shape the last 24 hours. Is inexperience finally catching up to us?

Give your head a shake man!

The kind of hubris is takes to make a comment like this, so soon after a catastrophic accident is mind boggling.

[digits_]

Something doesn't add up from 25 seconds before the accident. You're in command of an airplane that is greater than 100 feet above the ground, with a truck being cleared to cross the runway you've been cleared to land on. What's the basis to continue the approach at that point instead of a go around?

Is there a scenario where the CVR picks up the radio transmissions, but the pilots didn't hear it? Fatigue? Leg 3 of 3 type 4 day pairing at Jazz?

Standard phraseology was specifically designed to make sure you don't miss important information. When you're on final for runway 4 you'll be much more likely to catch a transmission that includes "truck 1, cross runway zero four at delta" vs "truck 1 cross 4 at delta". A huge difference.

This may not be the heroic narrative on the pilots part that has taken shape the last 24 hours. Is inexperience finally catching up to us?

Really? A controller clears a fire truck to cross an occupied runway but it's the alleged inexperience of the flight crew that you question? Please...

[DanWEC]

And simulations proved that Sully could have landed if he had precognition and turned instantly.
But somehow the ditching wasn't labelled his fault... oh yeah, because of the acceptance of human factors and decision making processes.

To suggest that these pilots could actually carry blame, for having not avoided tragedy by performing a one in a million split-second observation, decision and manouver -in darkness- is both ridiculous and also insulting to our ongoing culture of understanding the roles of human factors in safety.

[StrayPilot]

Very easy to speculate from the warmth of our chairs. Those of us who have actually handled an emergency and survived know how easily and cleanly your head wipes out all procedures you learnt and goes into survival mode. Since the captain took control and veered the airplane (if what reports say are accurate) that was the last and only thing that had any chance of working. It's also possible that the truck continued moving in the same direction they veered the airplane. I agree the issue boils down to FAA thinking it's okay to clear airplanes to land before the runway is actually clear. This would also create a false sense of security in pilots' minds that "cleared to land" doesn't really mean runway is clear, rather that the tower will make sure the runway is clear before you touch down.

[flieslikeachicken]

We all need to take accountability for our own actions. The pilots had the opportunity to hear the crossing clearance, process it, and then make a decision based on it.

That said, I don't blame them for missing it. It was possible that they could have taken action to prevent this, but it would have required them paying attention to the radio at the same time that they were short final and focusing on landing the plane. We all recognize that the controller and the ARF driver play significantly more important roles in the sequence of events and that there is not much that the pilots could have done, but pretending that the pilots have zero responsibility is irresponsible.

Remember, responsibility is different from blame. Pilots have the responsibility to keep their passengers, crew, and aircraft safe, and to do that by staying vigilant and not becoming complacent. We will find out when further information comes out if the frequencies were tied together, if the aircraft picked up the crossing clearance, and if the pilots responded to the crossing clearance. We know that they transferred control on the ground, but at that point there was likely no good option beside throwing the reversers in full reverse and pushing the brake pedals through the floor.

[tsgarp]

We all need to take accountability for our own actions. The pilots had the opportunity to hear the crossing clearance, process it, and then make a decision based on it.

That said, I don't blame them for missing it. It was possible that they could have taken action to prevent this, but it would have required them paying attention to the radio at the same time that they were short final and focusing on landing the plane. We all recognize that the controller and the ARF driver play significantly more important roles in the sequence of events and that there is not much that the pilots could have done, but pretending that the pilots have zero responsibility is irresponsible.

Remember, responsibility is different from blame. Pilots have the responsibility to keep their passengers, crew, and aircraft safe, and to do that by staying vigilant and not becoming complacent. We will find out when further information comes out if the frequencies were tied together, if the aircraft picked up the crossing clearance, and if the pilots responded to the crossing clearance. We know that they transferred control on the ground, but at that point there was likely no good option beside throwing the reversers in full reverse and pushing the brake pedals through the floor.

Please shut up.

[khedrei]

We all need to take accountability for our own actions. The pilots had the opportunity to hear the crossing clearance, process it, and then make a decision based on it.

That said, I don't blame them for missing it. It was possible that they could have taken action to prevent this, but it would have required them paying attention to the radio at the same time that they were short final and focusing on landing the plane. We all recognize that the controller and the ARF driver play significantly more important roles in the sequence of events and that there is not much that the pilots could have done, but pretending that the pilots have zero responsibility is irresponsible.

Remember, responsibility is different from blame. Pilots have the responsibility to keep their passengers, crew, and aircraft safe, and to do that by staying vigilant and not becoming complacent. We will find out when further information comes out if the frequencies were tied together, if the aircraft picked up the crossing clearance, and if the pilots responded to the crossing clearance. We know that they transferred control on the ground, but at that point there was likely no good option beside throwing the reversers in full reverse and pushing the brake pedals through the floor.

Ill be the first to say that this is a rediculous notion. If the truck came out without a clearance and the pilots could have stomped on the left rudder to go behind it bringing he plane onto the taxiway and damaging all the lights and dragging the gear through the mud, but saving everyone on board, do they have a responsibility to do that?

Totally insane.

The system had a responsibility to make sure the runway was clear when they were told it was. The system failed.

I would go so far as to say the fire truck had a responsibility to listen to the radio and had plenty of time to stop.

The pilots had a responsibility to land the plane and the supposedly clear runway.

[altiplano]

We all need to take accountability for our own actions. The pilots had the opportunity to hear the crossing clearance, process it, and then make a decision based on it.

That said, I don't blame them for missing it. It was possible that they could have taken action to prevent this, but it would have required them paying attention to the radio at the same time that they were short final and focusing on landing the plane. We all recognize that the controller and the ARF driver play significantly more important roles in the sequence of events and that there is not much that the pilots could have done, but pretending that the pilots have zero responsibility is irresponsible.

Remember, responsibility is different from blame. Pilots have the responsibility to keep their passengers, crew, and aircraft safe, and to do that by staying vigilant and not becoming complacent. We will find out when further information comes out if the frequencies were tied together, if the aircraft picked up the crossing clearance, and if the pilots responded to the crossing clearance. We know that they transferred control on the ground, but at that point there was likely no good option beside throwing the reversers in full reverse and pushing the brake pedals through the floor.

That's absolute bullshit. There's no way they could have known there was an impending incursion, they don't have any responsibility in this accident and were doing everything they should have been doing.

Based on the timeline from the CVR they were on the ground and committed to the landing about the time the first stop call came from ATC. There's not even a little bit of responsibility for this accident in these guys.

This driver that sounds like he has marbles in his mouth on the radio and whoever his uncle at Port Authority is that got him the job is the problem AFAIC. Can barely talk, can't listen, and can't see - a genuine Helen Keller for fucksake.

[Daniel Cooper]

This accident reminds me of the Asiana accident in SFO where the firefighters ran over and killed a teenage girl that miraculously survived the crash. Firefighters need to adopt a 'do no harm' oath like doctors do. They got themselves so worked up about an odour in the United cabin that they (likely) raced across red stop bars and killed two people. It's actually amazing the driver didn't kill everyone onboard.

The deceased aviators that held the brakes hard even though they probably knew they were done for are heroes in my eyes.

[Ycflyer]

take a breath. The way you’re talking about the truck driver right now is pure emotion, not facts.

From what we actually know so far, I don’t think the crew had much they could do but we still need to wait for more information. That’s how this works. And honestly, I don’t think we should be blaming anyone at this point.

And let’s be clear we’re not here to break down the crew’s background or experience. If that’s all it takes to explain this, then we already “have the answer,” right? But it’s never that simple.

But let’s be real people are allowed to talk about the experience issue in our industry, because it’s true. A lot of people are getting hired through pathways, networking, and yeah—connections, uncles, whatever you want to call it. It’s reality.

And if we’re being honest, pilots benefit from that system just as much if not more than ground ops. So attacking a ground driver and acting like that side is the problem is just hypocritical.

At the end of the day, this is a tragic situation. This could happen to any of us, experienced or not.

Show some respect for the people involved.

[rudder]

@1:14 mark on video provides a picture of ARFF vehicle upright on its wheels prior to removal from the runway. Seems to indicate quite clearly the impact consequence on the truck (viewed from the non-impact side of the vehicle).

Pilots are coming home via a dignified transfer from EWR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf84SUSIaPQ

[co-joe]

take a breath. The way you’re talking about the truck driver right now is pure emotion, not facts.

From what we actually know so far, I don’t think the crew had much they could do but we still need to wait for more information. That’s how this works. And honestly, I don’t think we should be blaming anyone at this point.

And let’s be clear we’re not here to break down the crew’s background or experience. If that’s all it takes to explain this, then we already “have the answer,” right? But it’s never that simple.

But let’s be real people are allowed to talk about the experience issue in our industry, because it’s true. A lot of people are getting hired through pathways, networking, and yeah—connections, uncles, whatever you want to call it. It’s reality.

And if we’re being honest, pilots benefit from that system just as much if not more than ground ops. So attacking a ground driver and acting like that side is the problem is just hypocritical.

At the end of the day, this is a tragic situation. This could happen to any of us, experienced or not.

Show some respect for the people involved.

This.

Only two factors stand out to me. 2 controllers doing to work of 4 which is normal in LGA apparently (also normal in YVR btw). And the truck didn't have a transponder. Beyond those details the rest will come up in the investigation.

[flieslikeachicken]

Ill be the first to say that this is a rediculous notion. If the truck came out without a clearance and the pilots could have stomped on the left rudder to go behind it bringing he plane onto the taxiway and damaging all the lights and dragging the gear through the mud, but saving everyone on board, do they have a responsibility to do that?

Totally insane.

The system had a responsibility to make sure the runway was clear when they were told it was. The system failed.

I would go so far as to say the fire truck had a responsibility to listen to the radio and had plenty of time to stop.

The pilots had a responsibility to land the plane and the supposedly clear runway.

The pilots did not have the responsibility to veer off of the runway, no.

We all as pilots do have the responsibility to keep our situational awareness. If they had heard the truck get cleared to cross, they could have prevented this.

This is not blame. It's quite obvious that the pilot's actions were correct and reasonable. The responsibility part is in regards to what we can and are expected to do. Let's take emotion out of the picture and look at everything the way an investigator would. Had the pilots heard and understood the crossing clearance, they would have had an opportunity to go around.

To be clear (since many of you are still emotional regarding the crash), here is an excerpt on the difference between responsibility and blame.

Responsibility is a proactive, empowered approach focused on owning outcomes and finding solutions, whereas blame is reactive, hostile, and focused on fault. Responsibility fosters growth, maturity, and future-focused action, while blame creates defensiveness, shame, and keeps individuals stuck in a victim mindset.

[digits_]

We all as pilots do have the responsibility to keep our situational awareness. If they had heard the truck get cleared to cross, they could have prevented this.

Yup. And if ATC and the trucks would have been using standard phraseology with the keyword 'runway' in their transmissions, they might even have picked up on it.

We also have the responsibility to follow SOPs, checklist and procedures. Short final is generally quite a busy time. A vague 'keep your situational awareness' advice helps nobody. Tell us how they should have done that, what they should have done differently and you might have a point.

At the moment your mesasge is too vague to be useful. It's akin to saying 'they shouldn't have hit the firetruck!'. Well yeah, obviously, but what/how could the crew have prevented this?

[MX-5]

Is it safe to assume at this point (based on the ATC audio we've all heard) that the plane and the firetruck were on two different frequencies (i.e. Tower and Ground) and therefore the pilots had no knowledge of the firetruck about to cross 04? Is this what happened?

[airway]

Is it safe to assume at this point (based on the ATC audio we've all heard) that the plane and the firetruck were on two different frequencies (i.e. Tower and Ground) and therefore the pilots had no knowledge of the firetruck about to cross 04? Is this what happened?

Truck 1 and Company (a line of several trucks behind Truck 1) requested and were cleared to cross RWY 04 on TWR frequency, not Ground. Truck 1 was probably on the Ground freq. initially, as they were on the taxiways and was probably told to contact tower holding short of RWY 04 and that's what they did.

Jazz was at about 150 ft AGL (according to VASAviation) when the trucks were cleared across. Very little time to make a decision to go around. They likely would have had to touch down anyway before reversing the decent and who knows if they could still clear the truck 1500 ft beyond the touchdown point.

.

Screenshot 2026-03-26 151453.jpg (191.7 KiB) Viewed 877 times

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XniNV73Gc2E&t=324s



.

[flieslikeachicken]

Yup. And if ATC and the trucks would have been using standard phraseology with the keyword 'runway' in their transmissions, they might even have picked up on it.

We also have the responsibility to follow SOPs, checklist and procedures. Short final is generally quite a busy time. A vague 'keep your situational awareness' advice helps nobody. Tell us how they should have done that, what they should have done differently and you might have a point.

At the moment your mesasge is too vague to be useful. It's akin to saying 'they shouldn't have hit the firetruck!'. Well yeah, obviously, but what/how could the crew have prevented this?

That's not what I said and you know it. Are you arguing just because you're upset with the situation and you're looking for someone with a slightly different opinion to get your frustration out on?

[digits_]

Yup. And if ATC and the trucks would have been using standard phraseology with the keyword 'runway' in their transmissions, they might even have picked up on it.

We also have the responsibility to follow SOPs, checklist and procedures. Short final is generally quite a busy time. A vague 'keep your situational awareness' advice helps nobody. Tell us how they should have done that, what they should have done differently and you might have a point.

At the moment your mesasge is too vague to be useful. It's akin to saying 'they shouldn't have hit the firetruck!'. Well yeah, obviously, but what/how could the crew have prevented this?

That's not what I said and you know it. Are you arguing just because you're upset with the situation and you're looking for someone with a slightly different opinion to get your frustration out on?

Not at all.

As I wrote, your message to 'be responsible for situational awareness' sounds great from a distance but when you try to apply it, it loses a lot of its meaning because it's too vague. It's a relatively empty statement.

Note that I asked you for specifics on how to implement it. You ignored that part and instead went personal. Not really the hallmark of a strong argument.

Your message might not have blamed the pilots, but it inferred that they could have handled the situation better and possibly avoided it. While technically correct, I find that too unrealistic given the chain of events and the timing and contents of the radio calls.

[Me262]

Is it safe to assume at this point (based on the ATC audio we've all heard) that the plane and the firetruck were on two different frequencies (i.e. Tower and Ground) and therefore the pilots had no knowledge of the firetruck about to cross 04? Is this what happened?

Which is the most retarded situation ever when there is only one guy handling both tower and ground. If you have only one controller, then they should use only 1 frequency.

[flieslikeachicken]

Not at all.

As I wrote, your message to 'be responsible for situational awareness' sounds great from a distance but when you try to apply it, it loses a lot of its meaning because it's too vague. It's a relatively empty statement.

Note that I asked you for specifics on how to implement it. You ignored that part and instead went personal. Not really the hallmark of a strong argument.

Your message might not have blamed the pilots, but it inferred that they could have handled the situation better and possibly avoided it. While technically correct, I find that too unrealistic given the chain of events and the timing and contents of the radio calls.

My argument was that we as pilots, including the two involved in this accident, are responsible for maintaining situational awareness during flight. There was time, had they heard the crossing clearance, to process that the fire truck was cleared to cross the runway that they were about to land on, and conduct a normal go around.

That is far from vague and you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I get it, you're upset that this accident was preventable and that the crew did not have much opportunity to do anything but suffered the ultimate consequence nonetheless. Regardless of the fact that they are victims and did everything as any other pilot would do, there were a few moments where they could have done just a bit more and that is something that we can take away as a reminder to keep listening to the radio.

Of course my entire argument hinges on the tower and ground frequencies being tied, but we'll have to wait for the prelim report to find out whether that was the case or not.

To dumb it down: the pilots are victims and did as they were trained. We can take away from the crash that we all can improve our situational awareness by listening into the radio, even during high workload periods.

[digits_]

My argument was that we as pilots, including the two involved in this accident, are responsible for maintaining situational awareness during flight. There was time, had they heard the crossing clearance, to process that the fire truck was cleared to cross the runway that they were about to land on, and conduct a normal go around.

That is far from vague

It's vague because you can't just tell someone 'don't miss radio calls'. Nobody intentionally misses radio calls.

there were a few moments where they could have done just a bit more

Right. They should have put some effort into it and listened harder.

and that is something that we can take away as a reminder to keep listening to the radio.

Thank you for reminding us to listen to the radio and to not miss any radio calls. Any pilot reading this is now aware and shall never miss any radio calls going forward.

[flieslikeachicken]

It's vague because you can't just tell someone 'don't miss forget to look before crossing a runway'. Nobody intentionally forgets to look before crossing a runway.

Right. They should have put some effort into it and looked harder.

Thank you for reminding us to look before crossing a runway and to not cross without verifying it's clear. Any pilot reading this is now aware and shall never forget to clear their path going forward.

If the argument is made against the ARFF driver, it sounds stupid and condescending, eh?

[digits_]

If the argument is made against the ARFF driver, it sounds stupid and condescending, eh?

Yes, that's why I never made those arguments so don't produce fake quotes.