Yeah, as happens so often, I don’t get the fuss. I choose a window seat for three reasons:
It’s not a middle seat
Unlike the aisle, people won’t need to get in and out past me
I like having something to lean on in case I’m able to grab a little nap
Sure, I like looking out the window, but it’s down the list of why I picked that seat. Way down. The rare occasions where I get a window seat without a window, it’s not even an item of note for me.
And if I’m ponying up for anything more than the basic economy seat, it’s for (again) three reasons:
More legroom
Closer to the front
Priority boarding
Again, looking out the window is way down the list.
From my days of taking commuter trains it was easy to put one’s head against the window & doze off; I did it more than once. However, there were some people who also did that but they put ‘product’ in their hair. Not only would I not want to lean my head against that but sometimes it was so nasty I couldn’t even see out the window for the vertical oil slick. They would need to wipe it off after every flight & what happens when that monitor doesn’t work, to say nothing of where are they sticking that camera. Don’t forget, it’s a change so probably needs to be certified, which will cost a lot more than the physical equipement. It also needs to be a bit of a fisheye lens but not distort everything at the margins, which ain’t so easy to do.
That’s why they make vanilla & chocolate as high on the list for me is the view. The scenery doesn’t much change in aisle or middle seats, & unlike aisle seats, no one is going to bump me while going past.
Air Canada plane collides with ground vehicle at New York’s LaGuardia airport, halting all flights
The regulator has issued a ground stop for all planes and New York’s emergency management authority warned people to expect cancellations and delays
The New York police department confirmed the collision but could not immediately offer further information. A spokesperson for the New York City Fire Department said firefighters responded to reports of a plane that crashed into a vehicle on the runway at 11:38pm.
Wow, this is a lot more serious than it sounded from “plane collides with ground vehicle” which usually means the plane got a dent somewhere. The plane was landing and ran into the firetruck at high speed; both captain and FO were killed, there were dozens of injuries, and the plane was totalled.
ATC audio indicated the truck being given clearance to cross the runway, then seconds later urgently told to stop after it was too late. Sounds like somebody just lost their job, at the very least.
Somewhat off topic, but because I am a nerd - not an aircraft nerd, though - I located the best possible seats to view the take-off, sky and landing for my children’s first flight on a commercial jet based on the airline’s terrible seat booking system (and booked well ahead.)
Not their first ever flight, their first was a small Cessna of some sort, just a joy-ride with a pilot working to increase his flight hours to move on to more lucrative jobs. That obviously has no “best seats”.*
But that view, up above the clouds… it is a fond memory of my first flight. (I think my mother might have engineered the seating arrangements)
I wanted to share the wonder that those of who do not fly regularly get, despite the cramped seats and fellow passengers.
* although I was front left, which from movies like Airplane, make me think I might have been in the captain’s seat. Of course I am pretty ignoramt of cockpits.
Indeed. When I first beheld the wonder that is Google Earth (circa 2007?), my first thought was, “well, thus ends the intense pleasure I get from ‘exploring’ by looking out the window during airplane flights.”
Well, there’s still the beauty of clouds. (And, it’s still fun to look down, and notice things about geology, land use, vegetation, the built environment, the history of land ownership, how human economies and cultures are visible in the landscape…and what the hell is that?).
Apparently - the AC plane at LGA was still in its landing phase (140 mph) - not yet taxiing. This speed would have caused the expected damage. At least 40 of the 70+ passengers and crew were taken to hospital. Would unfastened seat belts have caused most of these injuries?
I believe that is incorrect, sort of. The plane had just turned off the runway to the high-speed (angled) taxiway, similar to an expressway off-ramp. It was going faster than a normal taxiing, but slower than when it was still on the runway seconds before. I’d guess it was going maybe 30-40 knots at that point (the absolute max for such a taxiway is 60 knots, but I doubt this little jet was doing that).
So, yes, hence the considerable damage – but the damage would have been much worse, had it still been on the runway itself, going 100 knots or whatever.
(And, from my experience, all passengers would have still had their seat belts on at that point. Though there is always that one guy…)
At that point in the process I’d say seat belt compliance was probably close to 100%. Even at LGA.
This article has a decent overhead picture pic of LGA with the flight path overlaid.
It’s unclear from that location whether the airplane was exiting the runway at a so-called “high speed exit” i.e. diagonal off ramp or whether they were still rolling straight down the runway until some combo of swerve and collision pushed them off the right side coincidentally right where that taxiway sits.
It is not unusual for RJs to be down to near tax-speed by there. Like 30-40 knots, not like 100+. That the airplane is as intact as it is also suggests to me speeds more like 30-40 than 100+.
In the picture of the wrecked airplane with nose in the air, we can see the aft edge of the forward galley doorway and also the top of the same doorway; that’s the nice clean 90 degree corner at the forward end of the mostly-intact part of the fuselage. Everything forward of there is obliterated. Which explains the dead pilots. Decent bet most of the 9 serious injuries were to the forward FA(s?) and first row or two of first class. Plus the somebody or two who always gets hurt using the evac slides.
Unfortunately, it’s paywalled. I tried searching for an image, and the only thing possibly useful is an overhead view of a crash in 2025. I see what appear to be high-speed exits (they’re not a thing where I flew), but I can’t imagine an aircraft taking them at over 100 kts.
Huh – good catch. That particular bit of taxiway superficially resembles a high-speed off-ramp one, but its shape and length suggest that in fact it is not (I think), so the plane was more likely going just 20 knots or so.
Or, LSL’s other idea is correct: it was indeed in the midst of landing (but almost to off-ramp speed anyway), then swerved (still on the runway) and collided (perhaps on the runway, perhaps on this bit of taxiway, perhaps right where the two meet), ending up where it was. I think this is less likely, but possible.
I’ve already read that one FA was ejected in her seat & that the plane was doing 24mph; all of which has been officially corroborated. I wonder if someone read an ADS-B plot point, in which case was that speed prior to the accident or a snapshot as it was slowing during the collision?
@LSLGuy, how much is the ground stop (currently until 1400) there likely to ripple thru the system? Obviously, any plane there overnight can’t take off & any plane scheduled to go there this morning can’t, which means it can’t start it’s LGA-___ segment. Will they just deadhead those inbound planes to the next destination to keep the rest of their schedule intact? She’s supposed to come home this afternoon from RDU to {not-LGA} so wouldn’t be directly affected
The ground stop will affect different airlines differently. Delta and Delta connection will take it up the ass. The others will be proportionally better off.
You’re certainly right that all the planes and crews there now are trapped. But all the planes and crews that would have gone there between the time of the mishap and the end of the ground stop are freed up to go elsewhere in the interim.
Net, net, any disruption reduces total system throughput since they can’t re-plan as efficiently as they’d originally planned.
This is sorta one of those Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya? moments. She and her flight might sail through unscathed. Or might be flat cancelled as collateral damage.
Did no one listen to the actual audio of the communication between the fire truck and the tower? The truck is very clearly asking for permission to “cross 4 at delta”. “Delta” is a taxiway that runs across runway 4. The truck was given clearance to cross, then almost immediately told “stop, stop, stop!”.
I infer from this that the collision occurred on runway 4 where presumably the AC flight had landed and was still rolling. I don’t know what its speed was but it was certainly fast enough to break off the whole front section of the fuselage and kill both pilots.
No, I had not. And you’ve done us all a real service here. Both with the audio and the cite to the airfield diagram. Thank you!!
That very strongly suggests they collided at Delta. Unless the truck wasn’t where they thought they were. Which has happened in the history of aviation.
But assuming the truck was on Delta where everyone thought they were, the collision happened there.Then the combined momentum carried the wreckage along runway 4 down to the Echo / Foxtrot intersection where it slid off to the right side a bit. For sure the aircraft was not under any sort of active control from the instant the cockpit was smashed in the first milliseconds of the accident. Had the jet tried to steer one way or the other to miss the truck? Sure don’t know yet, but whatever effort may have been tried was in vain. And was probably guaranteed to be so; there’s just not much to be usefully done at that point in the rapidly unfolding accident sequence.
Air Canada parks down at Terminal C or D. Which would typically have them thinking to exit Runway 4 at Quebec, Golf, or Papa. Which also suggests their speed at the point of collision at Delta would be more, say 50-70 knots.
I’ve been playing with some numbers just for fun – can’t guarantee how accurate they are. And of course this is all in the context of preliminary reported information about where everybody was.
The distance from the very edge of runway 4 to Delta is about 2600 ft just based on roughly measuring the runway map in Photoshop. The distance from the actual touchdown zone to Delta would be less, say, 2500 ft. max.
The CRJ 900 requires 5,360 ft of runway to land at maximum landing weight (according to Wikipedia), though according to the CRJ Airport Planning Manual it can be as much as 6,600 ft at an unrealistic max gross weight, all values at sea level. But the absolute minimum runway required when completely empty is about 4,450 ft. So there’s no way it could make it from the runway 04 threshold to Delta without still going at a pretty good clip.
Wow. Okay. To me, this suggests the CRJ 900 is a tough little mother. I would have expected worse damage at such speeds. (Maybe it’s more about the geometry of how the two vehicles encountered each other – e.g., glancing blows vs. direct hits, how tall the truck is compared to the nose gear length, etc.)
I wonder if someone read an ADS-B plot point, in which case was that speed prior to the accident or a snapshot as it was slowing during the collision?
And you’ve done us all a real service here. Both with the audio and the cite to the airfield diagram. Thank you!!