LaGuardia firefighter heard ‘stop’ before crash but didn’t know who it was for, report says ⁠0%

By Associated Press⁠60%

4/23/2026, 8:11:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Anchoring Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 12.5% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 419 faulty-reasoning hits from 640 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (21,173 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

A firefighter whose truck collided with an Air Canada jet last month on a runway at New York’s LaGuardia airport, killing both pilots, heard an air traffic controller warn “stop, stop, stop” but didn’t know who it was for, federal investigators said Thursday. 
The National Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report on the 22 March collision that a crash prevention system for air traffic controllers didn’t generate an audio or visual alert, and lights on the runway that act as a stop light for crossing traffic were on until about three seconds before the collision. 
After the air traffic controller’s initial stop warning, the fire truck’s turret operator heard the controller say, “Truck 1, stop, stop, stop”, and realized the warning was for the truck to halt, the report said. 
By that time, the truck was already on the runway as Air Canada Express Flight 8646 was landing and speeding toward it. 
The turret operator, one of two crew members in the fire truck, recalled that as the vehicle turned left, he saw the airplane’s lights on the runway, the report said, summarizing an interview investigators conducted with the crew member. 
The Air Canada plane slammed into the fire truck while landing, killing pilots Antoine Forest and Mackenzie Gunther. 
An air traffic controller had cleared the truck to cross the runway just 12 seconds before the plane touched down, federal investigators said. 
The flight, a CRJ900 regional jet from Montreal, had more than 70 people on board. 
About 40 people, including the two people in the fire truck, were taken to hospitals. 
A flight attendant still strapped in her seat survived after being thrown onto the tarmac. 
The fire truck was leading a convoy of six vehicles, including four fire trucks, a stair truck, and a police vehicle, responding to an emergency involving a strong odor reported in the cabin of an outbound United Airlines jet. 
The tower at LaGuardia was busier than usual the night of the crash because flight delays pushed the number of arrivals and departures after 10pm to more than double of what was scheduled, according to data from aviation analytics firm Cirium. 
Planes were landing every few minutes, with a dozen flights arriving between 11pm and when the crash happened less than 40 minutes later. 
At the same time, the tower was coordinating the emergency response to the unusual odor that was making flight attendants feel ill. 
LaGuardia is one of 35 major US airports with an advanced surface surveillance system to help eliminate dangerous runway incursions and prevent crashes. 
Controllers at these airports have a display in the tower that’s supposed to show the location of every plane and vehicle. 
The system, known as ASDE-X, didn’t work as intended at the time because the fire truck wasn’t outfitted with a transponder, investigators said. 
There were also emergency vehicles behind the truck, and the proximity of the vehicles merging kept the system from triggering an alarm, investigators said. 
According to air traffic control transmissions, the plane was cleared to land on runway 4 at 11.35pm. 
About two minutes later – and 25 seconds before the crash – the fire crew asked to cross the same runway, which was between the airport’s fire station and where the United Airlines jet had parked. 
Five seconds later, with the Air Canada flight approaching the runway a little more than 100ft (30 meters) above the ground, an air traffic controller cleared the fire truck to cross the runway. 
Then, just nine seconds before the crash, the controller frantically told the fire crew: “Stop. 
Stop. 
Stop. 
Stop. 
Truck 1. 
Stop. 
Stop. 
Stop. 
Stop.” 
A second later, the plane’s landing gear touched down. 
It was the first deadly crash at LaGuardia in 34 years. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias5.6%This article: 2.3%Associated Press: 3.1%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic2.3%This article: 1.7%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 7.2%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Associated Press: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Associated Press: 2.1%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.5%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Associated Press: 8.8%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.4%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Associated Press: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Associated Press: 2.7%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 4.7%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.4%Associated Press: 2.3%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.5%Associated Press: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote12.5%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 9.5%Associated Press: 3.0%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice9.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

640 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.4%attributed speech586writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageNational Transportation Safety Board • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words100% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%National Transportation Safety Board: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%National Transportation Safety Board: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%National Transportation Safety Board: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.