Runway incursions—when an aircraft, vehicle, or person enters an active runway without authorization—create some of aviation's most dangerous situations. When two aircraft collide on the ground or a taking-off jet strikes another plane crossing its path, the results can be catastrophic. These accidents involve failures by pilots, air traffic controllers, and airport operators that are almost always preventable through proper procedures and attention.
The deadliest accident in aviation history was a runway collision at Tenerife in 1977 that killed 583 people when two Boeing 747s collided on a fog-shrouded runway. Decades of safety improvements have reduced runway incursion accidents, but near-misses continue to occur at alarming rates, and when collisions happen, they often produce mass casualties.
Understanding Runway Incursion Risks
The FAA defines a runway incursion as any occurrence at an airport involving incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft. Incursions range from minor errors with no safety impact to imminent collision scenarios requiring emergency action.
Pilot deviations account for the majority of runway incursions. Pilots who cross hold short lines without clearance, who land on occupied runways, or who taxi onto wrong runways create immediate dangers. Confusion about taxi instructions causes many incursions, particularly at unfamiliar airports with complex runway and taxiway configurations.
Controller errors include issuing conflicting clearances, forgetting about aircraft on runways, or failing to observe incursions in progress. Busy traffic periods, shift changes, and distractions in the tower environment contribute to control errors. When controllers clear one aircraft to land while another occupies the runway, catastrophic collision becomes possible.
Vehicle and pedestrian incursions occur when ground crews, construction workers, or airport vehicles enter active runway areas. Airports must maintain strict procedures controlling access to movement areas, but lapses in these procedures regularly place people and vehicles in the path of operating aircraft.
How Ground Collisions Occur
Takeoff collisions happen when aircraft accelerating for departure strike objects on the runway—other aircraft, vehicles, wildlife, or debris. At takeoff speeds exceeding 150 knots, pilots have virtually no time to recognize obstacles and react. The accelerating aircraft's kinetic energy makes these collisions devastating.
Landing collisions occur when arriving aircraft touch down on runways occupied by other aircraft, vehicles, or obstacles. Pilots focused on the landing task may not see crossing traffic until too late. Low visibility conditions dramatically increase landing collision risks because pilots cannot visually verify runway clearance.
Taxiway collisions involve aircraft or vehicles colliding during ground movement. While ground speeds are lower, wingtip-to-wingtip distances on parallel taxiways leave little margin for error. Night operations and poor lighting contribute to taxiway collision risks.
Controlled collision describes the scenario where air traffic control clears two aircraft into conflict. A controller who clears one aircraft for takeoff while another crosses the runway has set up a controlled collision scenario. The controller's error, not the pilots' execution, causes these accidents.
Liability in Runway Incursion Accidents
Pilots who commit incursions by crossing active runways without clearance, misunderstanding taxi instructions, or becoming disoriented bear obvious responsibility. However, the pilots who commit incursions are often also injured or killed in resulting collisions. Claims may proceed against pilots' estates, their employers, or their insurers.
Airlines face vicarious liability for pilot errors during flights operated under their certificates. Corporate flight departments, charter operators, and flight schools similarly bear responsibility for their pilots' actions. Airlines may also face direct liability for inadequate training on taxi procedures or unfamiliar airport operations.
Air traffic control errors implicate the federal government because ATC in the United States is a government function. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for negligent government employee actions, but the discretionary function exception protects some ATC decisions. Routine operational errors like issuing conflicting clearances generally do not fall within the discretionary protection.
Airport operators bear responsibility for safe airport design, adequate marking and lighting, and proper procedures controlling access to movement areas. Airports that permit vehicles onto active runways without coordination, that fail to maintain runway markings, or that design confusing taxiway configurations may bear liability for resulting accidents.
Airport Design and Safety Systems
Hot spot identification marks locations where incursions commonly occur due to confusing geometry, complex intersections, or visibility limitations. The FAA requires airports to identify hot spots and brief pilots about them. Accidents at known hot spots suggest inadequate mitigation measures that airport operators should have implemented.
Runway status lights (RWSL) provide automated visual warnings when runways are occupied or unsafe for entry. Airports equipped with RWSL should have lower incursion rates because pilots receive direct warnings regardless of controller workload or communication errors. Airports lacking this technology in high-traffic environments may be negligent in their safety equipment investments.
Airport surface detection equipment (ASDE-X) provides controllers with radar displays showing aircraft and vehicle positions on the airport surface. This technology helps controllers track traffic they cannot see visually and provides automated conflict alerts. Airports without adequate surface surveillance create elevated incursion risks that modern technology could address.
Taxiway and runway lighting must clearly distinguish surfaces and indicate hold positions. Faded markings, inoperative lights, and ambiguous geometry contribute to pilot confusion that leads to incursions. Airports that fail to maintain clear visual guidance may bear liability when disoriented pilots enter active runways.
Investigating Ground Collision Accidents
Air traffic control recordings document the instructions controllers gave and acknowledgments pilots provided. Discrepancies between issued clearances and pilot readbacks, or failures to challenge incorrect readbacks, appear in these recordings. ATC tapes often reveal exactly where communication broke down.
Cockpit voice recordings capture pilot discussions about taxi routes, their interpretation of clearances, and any confusion they experienced. Pilots sometimes discuss uncertainty about their position or clearance status before committing incursions. Flight data recorders show aircraft speeds and positions during ground operations.
Airport surveillance data from ASDE-X systems, security cameras, and radar provide objective records of where aircraft and vehicles were positioned throughout the accident sequence. This data can establish whether conflicts were recognizable in time for intervention and whether safety systems functioned properly.
Witness statements from tower controllers, ground crews, and crews of other aircraft help reconstruct what happened and why. Survivors may provide crucial information about visibility conditions, lighting, and what they observed before impact.
Damages in Ground Collision Cases
Ground collision accidents often produce mass casualties comparable to mid-air collisions. Multiple families pursue claims arising from single events, creating complex litigation involving numerous plaintiffs and defendants. Coordinating among victims' families helps maximize recovery and avoid duplicative proceedings.
Wrongful death claims follow the same patterns as other aviation accidents, with damages dependent on applicable law. Domestic accidents apply state wrongful death statutes; international flights invoke the Montreal Convention. Federal employees injured in the course of their duties may face workers' compensation limitations.
Survivors of ground collisions may suffer severe burn injuries, trauma, and psychological harm. Witnessing a collision and fire, experiencing evacuation, or losing family members in the accident creates lasting psychological damage that deserves compensation alongside physical injuries.
Pursuing Your Claim
Ground collision cases require expertise in ATC procedures, airport operations, and the regulatory framework governing surface movement safety. Understanding how incursions develop and how they should be prevented helps identify all parties whose failures contributed to accidents.
The involvement of the federal government as a potential defendant adds procedural complexity. The Federal Tort Claims Act requires administrative claims before lawsuits and imposes different procedural rules than private litigation. Missing FTCA deadlines can bar recovery against the government entirely.
If you lost a family member in a runway incursion or ground collision accident, recognizing that these accidents are never acceptable helps frame your expectations for accountability. Modern airports have tools to prevent these accidents—when they occur, someone failed to use available safeguards effectively.