[ceejayoz]

> for the next, say, 30 seconds or so

But this is a hand-wave.

This is a situation where both vehicles got explicit permission from someone who's supposed to know what they're doing. These sorts of runway crossings aren't unusual - and this one was responding to an emergency - and at a place like LGA there's always gonna be a plane on approach.

The difference between "hold short at runway 22" and being on runway 22 is much less than 30 seconds in some cases.

[aeternum]

A clearance from ATC means you can land not that you must land nor that it is safe to land. PIC still has the ultimate choice. It's common practice in the US to issue landing clearances even when another plane is on the runway or there are two landing planes ahead of it also with landing clearances, if that wasn't done you would be waiting far longer at the airport.

It's obviously the right choice to give the PIC the information via avionics in a graphically concise way that highlights this potential runway contention because it is real and pilots are expected to adjust their speed to maintain the right sequence.

When it isn't possible, which does happen, IE a plane ahead is slow to clear the runway or to takeoff, pilots are expected+required to execute a go-around.

[fc417fc802]

If ATC says you're clear to cross the runway and then you glance down and the screen shows a plane projected to cross directly in front of you in 10 seconds you'd probably think twice, right? This hypothetical cheap appliance has GPS and a compass and probably even a camera feed facing forward. It isn't a difficult technical problem to calculate the time offset at which the object traveling along the crosscutting path will pass in front of you.

> The difference between "hold short at runway 22" and being on runway 22 is much less than 30 seconds in some cases.

What is the typical minimum temporal separation? I would have expected at least 45 or 60 seconds given the cost of a plane and the imminent threat to life.

[ceejayoz]

So, it does appear I was correct here - it's a difficult thing to solve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigators-search-an...

> Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said at a news conference Tuesday that the airport uses a safety system called ASDE-X to track surface movements of aircraft and vehicles.

> "ASDE-X did not generate an alert due to the close proximity of vehicles merging and unmerging near the runway, resulting in the inability to create a track of high confidence,” Homendy read from an analysis of the system’s performance.

[throw0101d]

I think the most generous interpretation of using 'all' ADS-B data (including things on the ground) would be to have VR and have boxes for all objects, à la the F-35 helmet:

* https://www.radiantvisionsystems.com/blog/worlds-most-advanc...

Not sure if you can do something on a 'simple' HUD that many planes have, so you could see objects in your flight path.

[fc417fc802]

The entire point is that there's no need for someone driving a ground vehicle to see all the ADS-B data. They only need to know if and when a plane is projected to cross the direction in which they're facing. It might also be useful to know the projected speed as well as how far in front of your vehicle it will pass (but you can presumably figure the latter out on your own because, y'know, the runway).