[phearnot]

Not arguing with the regulations, just pointing out that based on airport diagram[1], since the truck was crossing rwy on taxiway D, the CRJ was on the right approaching from behind. I have never been inside an airport firetruck, but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case.

[1]https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e

[inaros]

That is a good point but it seems instructions for ground vehicles seem to really stress this. For example this one: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/1003.pdf

Says at pag 9:

"While driving on an aerodrome : Clear left, ahead, above and right

Scan the full length of the runway and the approaches for possible landing aircraft before entering or crossing any runway, even if you have received a clearance."

[cucumber3732842]

>but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case.

They have mostly glass cabs for exactly that reason. Only thing that would block your view is a passenger in the right seat.

[userbinator]

...and that passenger should also be actively looking around.

[caminante]

Visibility was bad (night and mist) too.

But if your truck has blind spots and vis is poor, you shouldn't be driving as fast if at all.

[dghlsakjg]

He was stopped until he received instructions to cross the runway from the person whose job it is to sit in a position with good visibility and tell people when they can cross runways. He wasn’t driving fast at all. The whole system is set up so that vehicles with blind spots (every large passenger jet) can safely move.

We can’t say that emergency vehicles should just stay in on dark and stormy nights.

[caminante]

>from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case.

..is what I was responding to.

>We can’t say that emergency vehicles should just stay in on dark and stormy nights.

This conclusion is flawed and doesn't apply to what I said.

If a truck can't see (conditions or not), then they shouldn't be on the same runway as takeoff/landing because...the consequences were severe despite the safeguards you mentioned, e.g. Not driving fast is relative and the "eyes" failed too initially.

[dghlsakjg]

“Vehicles with large blind spots don’t belong on the runway” is a completely untenable proposal.

Almost every airplane is bigger, blinder and slower than that truck. If it had been a plane cleared across the runway, this would have been so much worse.

Even if you want to exempt airplanes, it would require a complete rebuild of most major airports or using completely different emergency equipment. Every airport you have ever flown to commercially has ground vehicles crossing or operating on runways every day. It is simply not possible to operate a commercial airport without ground vehicles in aircraft movement areas, including runways.

The solution is not to spend billions on new trucks or access roads because of a single incident. It is to ensure that controllers, the people directly in charge of coordinating safe ground movement, have the mental bandwidth and tools to do their jobs. The fact that this was a truck and not an airplane is luck, making any discussions about truck cab visibility very much secondary. You have to go upstream of “trucks have blind spots” to truly prevent another of these incidents.

[caminante]

“Vehicles with large blind spots don’t belong on the runway” is a completely untenable proposal.

I never said this. This is very different to what I said.

This reveals you're having a different conversation.

[dghlsakjg]

You said: “If a truck can't see (conditions or not), then they shouldn't be on the same runway as takeoff/landing”

All of my arguments apply to this statement as well as they do to my paraphrase of the statement.