News
Firefighters Likely Had Limited View of Approaching Plane in LaGuardia Crash
The rapidly approaching plane that collided with a fire truck at New York’s LaGuardia Airport last month was most likely hard for the firefighters to see, a New York Times analysis has found.
They were navigating in the rain on a taxiway that was angled away from the oncoming plane. Because the plane had just touched down, the pilots and the firefighters were left with very little time to react.
The collision killed both pilots and was the first deadly crash at the airport in over three decades. The two firefighters, who were rushing to another emergency, survived with injuries.
The Times built a 3-D model, interviewed aviation experts and analyzed flight data, video footage of the crash and air traffic control audio — all to answer a critical question: What could the firefighters see?
The truck’s dispatch
The two firefighters were driving on Taxiway D in the lead vehicle of a convoy that had been dispatched to assist with an emergency on the other side of the airport from the fire station.
Their fire truck, a type that can weigh upward of 60,000 pounds when fully loaded, is designed with the driver’s seat in the center, in part to offer better visibility. The other firefighter typically sits to the right of the driver.
The air traffic control tower had cleared an Air Canada Express jet to land on Runway 4. About two minutes later, the tower cleared the truck to cross the same runway using Taxiway D. Eleven seconds later, the tower called back with an urgent warning to stop, but the truck kept moving. It is unclear if the firefighters in the truck heard the warnings.
Each firefighter had a disadvantage
Even in an optimal scenario in which the driver was looking directly toward the oncoming plane in the moments before collision, it’s likely that his view of the approaching plane would have been obstructed by the second firefighter.
If the driver had leaned forward slightly with his head turned about 90 degrees to the right before looking straight again, the plane would have most likely been obstructed:
The second firefighter would have had a better view, but for him, the plane would most likely not have stood out as a moving object until it grew closer to the truck. Even as the plane was approaching, it would have stayed in roughly the same position in his field of view — making the plane more difficult to track than if it had been moving across his line of sight.
This is a familiar phenomenon documented in aviation and maritime navigation, in which an object approaching on a collision course can appear to be stationary until the last moment, when it seems to suddenly grow in size.
Here is what the view for the second firefighter could have been if he had been leaning forward slightly with his head turned about 90 degrees to the right and looking toward the plane:
Crash footage shows that there was one vehicle in the convoy initially traveling alongside the fire truck, and it may also have blocked the firefighters’ view of the runway before it came to a stop about seven seconds before the crash.
Based on the available evidence, there is no way to know with certainty where the firefighters were looking in the seconds before the crash. The runway where the crash occurred is bidirectional, meaning planes can approach one at a time for landing in both directions. As a result, the firefighters would not necessarily have been able to assume the direction of oncoming planes.
The two firefighters, Sgt. Michael Orsillo and Officer Adrian Baez, who were hospitalized along with about 40 others, did not respond to requests for comment. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs LaGuardia Airport and its fire rescue unit, declined to comment.
The taxiway was angled away from the oncoming plane
The lead fire truck had been driving along a taxiway that was angled away from the direction of the oncoming plane. This means that the plane was approaching off the right rear section of the truck — where it would have been difficult for the firefighters to see — instead of its direct right-hand side.
As a result of the angle, the driver would have had a difficult time spotting the plane, regardless of where he was looking. If he had turned to the right, toward the plane, his view might have also been obstructed by the firefighter beside him:
The plane would have appeared in the right corner of the second firefighter’s field of view, but only if he had leaned forward slightly, turned his head to the right and looked in the plane’s direction. Here is what he might have seen right before the truck entered the runway about two seconds before collision:
The analysis of the crash footage also shows that the truck turned slightly toward the left as it entered the runway. It is unclear whether it turned because the firefighters saw the plane, but the change in direction angled the firefighters farther away from the approaching plane, making it even harder to see.
Airports use these slanted taxiways because they allow planes to exit the runway more quickly, instead of having to make a sharp 90-degree turn at a slower speed.
That said, the Federal Aviation Administration urges airports to use intersections configured at 90-degree angles because they give pilots and drivers the best visual perspectives to see other aircraft and vehicles, said Michael O’Donnell, a retired F.A.A. official and a former airport firefighter.
The truck did not slow down or stop before entering the runway
The Times analysis of the crash footage indicates that the truck did not stop or slow down before entering the runway and that it was traveling at a relatively steady speed of about 30 miles per hour from the moment the air traffic controller first gave the warning to stop until the collision.
Slowing down or stopping entirely may have given the firefighters more time to look and assess any oncoming traffic on the runway.
Seconds after the controller first warned the truck to stop, about seven seconds before the crash, the convoy of vehicles that was following the lead truck slowed down and stopped while the lead truck continued.
Once the tower clears an emergency response vehicle to cross a runway, the vehicle’s drivers are not expected to obey the stop marks on the pavement, Mr. O’Donnell said. But they are expected to look for aircraft before crossing and proceed with caution, he said.
Other distractions
It’s also likely that there were other visual distractions. The airport runway and taxiways are lined with lights. The night of the crash was rainy and misty, and the rain-slicked surface of the runway could have given it the appearance of a glaring light show.
“At night, it’s basically like driving through a lit-up Christmas tree,” said Bobby Egbert, a spokesman for the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, the officer’s union. “You have so many lights and the crew has to know exactly what those lights mean.”
What the firefighters could have seen or not seen “with that equipment, at that time of night, with that illumination,” is one of the many components of the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation, said Peter Knudson, a spokesman for the board, who said the preliminary report would be released later this month. He declined to answer questions about the crash, citing the ongoing investigation.
According to safety board officials, the airport’s runway status lights, set in the pavement at taxiways and runway crossings to warn of planes on or approaching the runway, were functional that night. Video analysis of the crash shows that the truck may have entered the runway around the same time as the lights went from red to dark, which they are designed to do a couple seconds before a plane passes.
What the jet’s pilots may have seen
For the pilots, Captain Antoine Forest and First Officer Mackenzie Gunther, the truck was most likely in their field of vision from the cockpit, if they were looking down the runway:
About the same time that the fire truck entered the runway, the Air Canada jet dropped its speed sharply below what is typical after touchdown, according to a Times analysis that compared the jet’s flight data with hundreds of other landings on Runway 4 by the same aircraft model. The plane reduced its speed to about 100 miles per hour from about 140 miles per hour in about three seconds.
The firefighters’ limited visibility is only one factor among many that the authorities are investigating as possibly contributing to the crash. They are also looking into any potential problems with air traffic controller staffing, radio miscommunications and vehicle tracking technology.
How we analyzed the crash footage
The Times estimated the position and speed of the lead fire truck by analyzing video of the crash, flight path data from Flightradar24, satellite imagery and the manufacturer’s dimensions of the vehicle.
First, we geolocated the camera in the crash video by matching landmarks in the footage (buildings, runway markings and lights) to their real-world positions in satellite imagery. From that fixed vantage point, we measured the span of the truck in each video frame. Those measurements — combined with the truck’s physical dimensions, its path along the taxiway and its position relative to the runway lights — allowed us to estimate its position frame by frame. From those positions and the video’s timestamps, we then calculated the truck’s speed. Our estimates of the truck’s position are within three feet, and its speed is within five miles per hour.
We placed the positional data of the truck into a georeferenced 3-D model of the airport, where we programmatically animated the vehicles along their paths. We tested our analysis by overlaying the video frames on the 3-D model rendered from the camera’s position, as seen in the video below.
The Times also obtained flight data showing landings at LaGuardia Airport from several hundred aircraft — the same model as the Air Canada Express jet. The data helped us understand how the plane’s speed on the runway compared with that of other planes slowing down after a typical touchdown.
News
Waymo called the cops on teen riders, raising privacy concerns
A Waymo robotaxi drives in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood this week.
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
Police in San Mateo, Calif., posted Monday on social media that they had apprehended a pair of teenagers from a Waymo driverless robotaxi after the company alerted authorities to suspected criminal activity. It’s the latest incident involving video surveillance of passengers and others by autonomous vehicles — raising questions about the limits of privacy in such vehicles.

The Facebook post by the San Mateo County Police said: “Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!”
The 15-year-olds were allegedly drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns from the car, according to the police. They said Waymo’s systems detected behavior that then triggered a safety response, after which the company disabled the vehicle and contacted police.
Waymo’s cars, equipped with an array of cameras, microphones and other sensors to monitor passengers and other nearby vehicles, are becoming more common in cities across the United States. Experts say the detention of the two teens in San Mateo highlights a potential — but not inevitable — trade-off between privacy and convenience. It also questions the extent to which companies similar to Waymo are required to hand over private data, including audio and video of passengers, in situations where a crime is suspected.
NPR reached out to Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google, for comment on the details of the San Mateo incident and how the company responded, but did not hear back. But on its website, the company says that as many as 29 cameras in its autonomous cars provide an all-around view and “are designed with high dynamic range and thermal stability, to see in both daylight and low-light conditions, and tackle more complex environments.”
“There already exist laws that govern duty to report or even duty to protect” for carriers such as Waymo, according to Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “The privacy problems arise when and if driverless carrier companies used such laws or ethical obligations as a pretext for blanket, indiscriminate accumulation of identifiable data for unspecified future purposes.”
That includes not just monitoring people inside the cars, but outside too. Take, for example, a hit-and-run investigation last year in Los Angeles. Media reported that the police inquiry was aided by video captured by a Waymo taxi that had a clear view of the crime. Critics suggested at the time that authorities were using the company’s vehicles as a mobile surveillance platform. And during 2025 protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns, demonstrators vandalized Waymos, apparently angry that video recorded by the vehicles could be used by police, although there is no evidence that happened.
In a transparency report, Google says it received nearly 290,000 requests from governments worldwide in the first six months of 2025 for disclosure of user information across all its platforms, including Waymo. The company says that in more than 80% of the requests in those six months, some information was disclosed. “Google carefully reviews each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws. If a request asks for too much information, we try to narrow it, and in some cases we object to producing any information at all,” the company says.
In an email to NPR, San Mateo Police Department spokesperson Jeanine Luna said that detaining the teens in the Waymo on Monday was “wholly appropriate” under the circumstances. “We received the call of a ‘firearm’ being shot from a moving vehicle,” she said. “Furthermore, the occupants were described as being possibly ‘intoxicated.’” she said.
“Being that the vehicle was disabled (the occupants had every right to exit the vehicle before police arrival, but they did not), a high-risk traffic stop was conducted to ensure the safety of all involved,” Luna added. “They were not arrested and were released to their parents, however, potential charges are still pending dependent on what the video from inside the vehicle shows.”
Autonomous taxis represent an ethical gray area
Robotaxis began to roll out across the U.S. in December 2018, when Waymo launched in Phoenix. These services have been used for less than a decade — so the norms surrounding them aren’t settled, experts agree.
The Facebook post may make Waymo passengers wonder what triggers a police intervention, says Irina Raicu, director of the Internet Ethics program at Santa Clara University. She has used Waymo’s driverless taxis and says ethically, the privacy issues surrounding them sit in a gray area. “There’s something about being in a car without another person that makes you think it’s private.”
“With all these recording devices, we don’t see them, [and] they’re not these obvious things being stuck in our faces,” Raicu adds.
That brings up a key issue: informed consent, Acquisti says.
“It is not clear the extent to which passengers … are reminded that when they step into the car, that they are being monitored, and most likely they are not told in its entirety how the data will be used,” he says.
Bruce Schneier, a cybersecurity and privacy expert and professor at the Munk School at the University of Toronto, believes that Waymo does have a compelling interest in protecting its vehicles. He compares monitoring a robotaxi via cameras to a human taxi driver keeping an eye on passengers in the rearview mirror.
“Maybe the driverless car comes back … and it has all of its cushions slashed, and it’s like, ‘Who the hell did that? Let’s go and look at the tape,’” Schneier suggests. “You can’t have sex in the back of a taxi, right? Someone would say, ‘Stop it.’”
He concludes that some supervision makes sense. In an Uber rideshare, he notes, “most of the time there’s a camera recording the back seat.” (Uber says on its website that it allows drivers to install such cameras for the purpose of “fulfilling transportation services.”)

Waymo robotaxis, while a fairly common sight in the San Francisco Bay Area, are still a novelty in much of the country. And many people are hesitant to ride in one, according to a Pew Research Center poll published this month. The survey found that only 5% of Americans had ever ridden in a driverless car. Meanwhile, 71% of those polled said they would feel uncomfortable in one, with only 7% saying they would be “extremely or very comfortable” riding in one.
For that reason, experts who spoke with NPR said they were optimistic that it’s not too late to shift gears on privacy norms and policies surrounding these vehicles.
Acquisti doesn’t see why privacy measures can’t be built into driverless vehicles.
“I would immediately challenge the notion that people have to be monitored,” he says, noting that privacy-preserving technologies exist and can be installed.
“Driverless cars are coming, but they don’t have to come in this particular incarnation,” Raicu says. “They’re still being designed and redesigned. It’s early days.”
News
Trump fires last members of election commission, inciting fears of midterm ‘chaos’
Donald Trump has terminated the remaining members of the independent, federal commission that assists election administration officials nationwide just a few months before the midterm elections, multiple outlets reported Thursday.
The remaining three commissioners of the four-member bipartisan commission were forced out on Thursday in different ways. The one Republican appointee resigned and the other two, Democratic appointees were notified of their terminations via email from the White House presidential personnel office.
“On behalf of President Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” the email, seen by Reuters, said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Election Assistance Commission serves as a “national clearinghouse of information on election administration”, accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, and maintains the national mail-voter registration form developed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, according to the commission’s website. The terminations follow Trump and top administration officials’ advocacy to change vote-by-mail requirements and investigations into the 2020 election outcome, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
“It is irresponsible and dangerous that this Administration remains dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country,” Arizona secretary of state Adrian Fontes said in a Thursday statement. “This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration.”
The 2002 law that established the commission, the Help America Vote Act, states the president can appoint replacements to the commission.
It is unclear how Trump will move ahead with the commission.
Reuters contributed reporting
News
Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges
Former U.S. Olympian David Hearn (left) walks with his attorney Norman Eisen to speak to reporters and protesters gathered after his arraignment at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.
Finn Gomez/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Finn Gomez/Getty Images
Former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn pleaded not guilty to damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in D.C. Superior Court Thursday morning.
Federal prosecutors charged Hearn with a single count of destruction of property causing more than $1,000 in damage to the pool.

Hearn has previously claimed, which his attorneys repeated during a short press conference outside the court, that he simply touched the water in the pool out of curiosity.
The Trump administration had just completed a $14 million renovation of the pool.
But shortly after the work finished, peeling paint and algae gathered in the water. The remodel has been largely criticized as a massive failure and waste of taxpayer dollars.

Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean released Hearn on his own recognizance. His next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5.
Norm Eisen, one of Hearn’s attorneys, spoke to reporters outside of court following the hearing. He said the administration is using Hearn as a “scapegoat … for their own failures.”
“It is not a crime to touch the reflecting pool, to touch water in the United States of America,” he said.
Prosecutors say there is a host of evidence against Hearn.
This is a developing story.
-
Lifestyle9 minutes ago‘The Invite’ is a marriage comedy with sex and heart
-
Technology21 minutes agoI spent a week using the Trump phone — it sucks
-
World24 minutes agoWith US unleashing attacks, Iranian official threatens that the Islamic Republic will deliver a ‘hard slap’
-
Politics29 minutes agoWATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices
-
Health36 minutes agoCoffee may have powerful effect on liver health, major study suggests
-
Sports39 minutes agoOba Femi vs Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam is a ‘generational matchup,’ WWE legend JBL says
-
Business51 minutes agoBillionaire exodus? California drew 10 times more venture capital than any other state this year
-
Entertainment54 minutes agoDisney Channel maximalism to pop-star glam: What fans wore to Hilary Duff’s L.A. show