LGA accident

[MikeD]

You might never hear it. Canadian carrier, Canadian aircraft, the Canadians may take the lead. If run under TSB rules, you won’t even see a transcript.

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

I’m going to go ahead and call “AI” marketing for what it really is, a “Language Learning Model”.

When you are able to learn how it actually works, it’s not necessarily “intelligent”, just really good at word association and probability from proximity of term usage — which is why it’s really good at creating sourced, incredibly convincing but profoundly incorrect results.

I’ve been trying to use Claude to correct some software coding, but every query brings up a different result, neither of them work properly, but man, it looks good!

I ran it on some basic A350 questions and referenced actual source materials and OpenAI basically created entire systems and procedures which don’t even exist and said so with great confidence. I’m still trying to figure out what a ‘red warning button’ on the ‘autopilot’ is (it’s an “AFSCP”) for a minor “auththrottle anomaly”.

A. “Autothrust”
B. Minor “autothrottle anomaly”
C. Red warning button?
D. No, my guy, Reddit and AvWeb shouldn’t be referenced because we have actual source material

LLM’s are not our savior but they will hasten the demise of domain expertise.

Acknowledging cheerfully that I'm a Luddite, I firmly believe that AI and Robotics will herald our demise, o day or another.

 

[ppragman]

I’m going to go ahead and call “AI” marketing for what it really is, a “Language Learning Model”.

When you are able to learn how it actually works, it’s not necessarily “intelligent”, just really good at word association and probability from proximity of term usage — which is why it’s really good at creating sourced, incredibly convincing but profoundly incorrect results.

I’ve been trying to use Claude to correct some software coding, but every query brings up a different result, neither of them work properly, but man, it looks good!

I ran it on some basic A350 questions and referenced actual source materials and OpenAI basically created entire systems and procedures which don’t even exist and said so with great confidence. I’m still trying to figure out what a ‘red warning button’ on the ‘autopilot’ is (it’s an “AFSCP”) for a minor “auththrottle anomaly”.

A. “Autothrust”
B. Minor “autothrottle anomaly”
C. Red warning button?
D. No, my guy, Reddit and AvWeb shouldn’t be referenced because we have actual source material

LLM’s are not our savior but they will hasten the demise of domain expertise.

did you provide it with the source material you were referencing? And are you using a paid model?

The new models are pretty good for this sort of thing even when you try to trip it up by suggesting that there's only "one" limitation.

to be clear, you have to further prompt it to get a page reference, which is kind of annoying, but yeah... this is all correct albeit with caveats.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

Yeah I was going to say. There’s almost a zero percent chance this gets handed over to the TSB. Party member/participation, sure. But this will be a NTSB investigation.

 

[Roger Roger]

Not to mention they have the worst attitude in all of the system. I understand they have a tough job, but LGA controllers specifically go out of their way to be dicks.



AI isn't ready yet, obviously, but the FAA does need an overhaul to their tech stack.

But yes, we can go much further with existing tech. Machine learning/whatever stuff could do a lot of the TMU sequencing type stuff to build the lineups out over Ohio, it’s literally what this kind of tech is best at. There is soooo much more that multi sensor fusion can do to prevent exactly this kind of accident. Between IR and visual spectrum cameras, ADS-B in/out, etc there’s no reason we couldn’t, with today’s tech, have ground vehicles and air traffic projected on helmet displays in the cockpit and in the fire truck, full-windscreen HUD, or at least a PFD with synthetic vision and audible warning callouts. But, Elon might have to sell off part of his sex compound and that would be communism.

Shoot man, make the windows of the tower cab a monster HUD with sensor fusion to point highlight ground and air traffic, anticipate/cleared flight or taxi path, use speech recognition to highlight the guy you’re talking to while you deliver a clearance… but we won’t pay to keep 1980s tech alive so the Star Trek future seems unreachable

 

[ppragman]

But yes, we can go much further with existing tech. Machine learning/whatever stuff could do a lot of the TMU sequencing type stuff to build the lineups out over Ohio, it’s literally what this kind of tech is best at. There is soooo much more that multi sensor fusion can do to prevent exactly this kind of accident. Between IR and visual spectrum cameras, ADS-B in/out, etc there’s no reason we couldn’t, with today’s tech, have ground vehicles and air traffic projected on helmet displays in the cockpit and in the fire truck, full-windscreen HUD, or at least a PFD with synthetic vision and audible warning callouts. But, Elon might have to sell off part of his sex compound and that would be communism.

We have to be willing to dream of a better future - not merely to own our own sex compounds.

 

[tcco94]

Is this to be believed?


View attachment 88964






UA guys on the 737, what’s your policy on aborts for a yellow master caution light?


Our shop once you’re above 80 kts we don’t stop for a yellow master caution light.


Similar question to anyone at Delta and AA on the 737.

Only curious.

Before 80 yes
above 80 no

FOM here not airplane specific

 

[pwttogfk]

Not to mention they have the worst attitude in all of the system. I understand they have a tough job, but LGA controllers specifically go out of their way to be dicks.



AI isn't ready yet, obviously, but the FAA does need an overhaul to their tech stack.

I’m doing my best to be nice, but yeah. Only one place has harassed me over “not wanting to get my plane wet.”

New York controllers are New Yorkers first, controllers second. And that’s all I have to say about that.

 

[tcco94]

Before 80 yes
above 80 no

FOM here not airplane specific

Sorry I’m wrong it’s a fleet manual specific maneuver not FOM* so I can’t speak to 737, but my 2 types the master caution/warning was the same

 

[GolfChuck]

I’m doing my best to be nice, but yeah. Only one place has harassed me over “not wanting to get my plane wet.”

New York controllers are New Yorkers first, controllers second. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Do you fly for legacy AA? Because they definitely have a reputation about being the first to deviate for weather.

On the other hand TAM has a reputation for doing stupid crap and disregarding weather and advice.

 

[CFI A&P]

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

It would be great if TSB took the lead. It is hard to imagine our current political climate wont impact the investigation.

 

[ArcherII]

If the ARFF was in the middle of an emergency aid, it would be interesting to see how the rights of way rules play in this kind of situations...

 

[jhugz]

100kts is the threshold for the high speed regime on the bus at UA. Assume it’s the same for the 737

We use 100 knots on the 73 at UA also. Not really sure why, probably to keep it standard across the company, but in my previous Boeings (74 and 76) at the old shop it was 80.

My brief is above 100 knots we will only reject for:

-Any fire
-Engine Failure
-Aircraft Unsafe of Unable to Fly
-Windshear
-Tower calls the reject

 

[Boots2Wings]

Isn't there an airframe limitation prohibiting go-arounds once the TRs have deployed?

That's really splitting hairs over timing over who saw what, and when, but if the thrust reversers are out (not Dee Howards, but Safran/ Ontic) the math on the go around gets a little more complicated.

On le bus at my shop, reversers out = “decision to land”…Airbus is pretty explicit, once you pop the buckets, you commit.

I would be hard pressed after TR deployment to Go-Around…but in this case, with the runway layout at LGA…once the mains hit; theres no options.

Rip

 

[MikeD]

If the ARFF was in the middle of an emergency aid, it would be interesting to see how the rights of way rules play in this kind of situations...

ATC does everything they can to accommodate ARFF when they are responding to an emergency, but just like with airborne emergencies, things don’t instantly come to a halt. ARFF still needs clearance to cross active runways, and in the case here, with the RJ on short final, it’s reasonable to have let the RJ land, pass the intersection on rollout, then clear the ARFF trucks to cross the runway. Why the controller initially cleared the trucks to cross in front of the landing RJ is yet to be determined, but it’s obvious that he caught his error quickly, but his instructions to the lead ARFF truck to stop, didn’t take effect. Again, for reasons yet to be determined.

Once ground makes the general announcement of an emergency in progress, and for airplanes to give way to all responding emergency vehicles, this again isn’t carte blanche for emergency vehicles to throw all caution and prudence to the wind, they still have to make their response in a safe manner, giving wide berth to any aircraft they are passing, keeping a reasonable speed, and always anticipating that there may be an aircraft that doesn’t see them and might not be able to stop when the flight crew does see them. Getting into an accident when responding to an emergency, doesn’t help anyone.

 

[MikeD]

I couldn’t bear to listen to the audio, was truck 1 the one doing radio comms? Typically I hear a group like that as calling “ops/fire/airport 1 and company” with presumably the lead vehicle handling comms.

Yes afaik. At least the used “truck 1 and co” in the comms

The comms from Truck 1, the lead truck of the responding vehicles and thus the one doing the comms for all of them, I don’t like the comms used. “Truck 1 and company” is too general, and doesn’t convey specificity to the ground controller. Especially for crossing an active runway. The better way to communicate it, and the way I’ve done it before when in the lead of three vehicles, is to instead use callsign plus number of additional vehicles. So something like “Ground/tower, Crash 5 plus two, holding short of RW 4 at Delta to cross.” That tells the controller specifically how many vehicles there are in your “formation” of vehicles, and lets the local controller plan how big a gap they need to get you crossed. From then on, the formation uses the callsign of the lead vehicle, plus the number of following vehicles. If it’s just a routine crossing, non-emergency, then the controller has time to get a large gap. If it’s an emergency response, he may have to wait for a jet to land and pass the intersection, and may even need to slow the next plane on arrival, or even send it on a go around if needed.

 

[DropTank]

I've seen variations in CRF (Crash Fire Rescue) AKA ARFF (Airport Rescue Fire Fighting)
Some airports are Keystone Capers while most are pretty good, and seen variations within departments.

Saw a great graphic showing the view from the fire truck.
It was crossing left of 90 degrees, possibly opening a blind spot on the left side.
The person in the right seat may not have had sufficient experience to check the approach path or known what to look for.
Even in the right seat, looking 120 degrees right of center is an awkward movement in full equipment while trying to focus on the emergency ahead for both left and right seat.

Not going to attempt a solution, knowing that it will remain status quo in out current society.

I also appreciate that most people posting haven't taken a crap on the ATC guy, instead lamenting the long term neglect the government has allowed over the decades.

I cannot imagine the torment in that man's mind.

 

[MikeD]

Taxiway D is at an angle to the runway...sightlines are compromised.

And if you listen to the recording, it would have been easy to miss the stop command since there was also a stop given to an aircraft (Frontier) right before.

That’s why as the ARFF driver/operator (or driver of any vehicle) you maneuver the truck to a position short of the hold line, where you can see up final and visually clear both runway centerlines. There no requirement to remain aligned with the taxiway line. Truck 1 and even the rest of them, approaching runway 4 on Taxiway Delta, need to maneuver to the right, perpendicular to the runway, far enough for either the right seat person to see up runway 4, or the driver to. This isn’t as much needed if Runway 22 is the active, as the angle of the taxiway works for seeing up the 22 final, not against it like trying to see up the 4 final does.

Either way, regardless of clearance by ATC, a vehicle still has the prudent responsibility to visually double check that there is no conflict. Whether the truck driver/crew did this and missed seeing the RJ for some reason, or whether they didn’t do this and crossed right after acknowledging the crossing instruction, is yet to be determined.

And why the lead fire truck missed the instruction by the controller to stop, which while given rapid fire and under stress still contained the Truck 1 callsign, also is yet to be determined. The firefighters survived, so their testimony will be of interest, as will the testimony of the following ARFF trucks which didn’t begin to proceed on the runway as to what they saw and heard.

 

[MikeD]

I've seen variations in CRF (Crash Fire Rescue) AKA ARFF (Airport Rescue Fire Fighting)

The acronyms CFR and ARFF are interchangeable, CFR being the older school of the two, and ARFF being the “nicer sounding” one, as the word Crash isn’t in it.

Saw a great graphic showing the view from the fire truc

It was crossing left of 90 degrees, possibly opening a blind spot on the left side.
The person in the right seat may not have had sufficient experience to check the approach path or known what to look for.
Even in the right seat, looking 120 degrees right of center is an awkward movement in full equipment while trying to focus on the emergency ahead for both left and right seat.

Not going to attempt a solution, knowing that it will remain status quo in out current society.

I also appreciate that most people posting haven't taken a crap on the ATC guy, instead lamenting the long term neglect the government has allowed over the decades.

I cannot imagine the torment in that man's mind.

See the above response, maneuver the truck to where the final can be seen, there is no requirement to remain aligned with the taxiway line. In the medium/large CFR trucks, the driver sits in the center/left of the cab. If it’s a four person cab, there’s a jumpseat to the left of the driver next to the left door situated slightly aft, another seat directly to the driver’s right; and a jumpseat next to that seat and next to the right door, also situated aft. The two center seat crewmen, driver and other crewman, have the best view all around the truck from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock. Some trucks have a roof hatch with a crewman who stands up through the hatch manning the upper turret and has a 360 view around the vehicle from the top. Either way, there’s ample ability to see what you need to in that 9-3, including the ability to position the truck to account for any blind spots. All airport firefighters know what they should be looking for in terms of threats. Knowing what goes on during emergency responses and having been there myself any number of times, I wouldn’t be surprised if adrenaline and distraction led to either not checking/clearing the final visually, or doing it in a quick manner. Again, this remains to be seen.