The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB OPS10IA003 · Final report

An amateur-built aircraft incident near Detroit, Michigan, December 4, 2009

On December 4, 2009 at about 3:21 pm local time, a an amateur-built aircraft was involved in an incident during takeoff near Detroit, Michigan (Detroit Wayne County airport). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). No one was hurt; 52 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The ground controller did not monitor the progress of the fire truck to ensure that the driver followed the expected route. A contributing factor was the ground controller's misunderstanding of the fire truck driver's requested destination on the airport.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
December 4, 2009 · about 3:21 pm local time
Place
Detroit, Michigan · Detroit Wayne County · map
Type
Incident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 52 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
An amateur-built aircraft
Registration
not recorded
Damage
Not recorded
Flight
Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The Ground Control East (GCE) controller cleared Fire 2, an airport ground vehicle, to cross runway 21R at taxiway F in front of Pinnacle Airlines (FLG) flight 3720, a departing regional jet. According to crew statements, FLG3720 rotated normally and was about 150 feet above ground level when it passed the intersection of the runway and taxiway F. There was no damage to either the aircraft or the fire truck, and no reported injuries. The Local Control East (LCE) controller cleared FLG3720 into position to hold on runway 21R at 1019:33, and was cleared for takeoff about a minute later. At 1020:29, Fire 2 contacted the GCE controller with a request, but the GCE controller could not understand the transmission and asked Fire 2 to repeat his request. Fire 2 responded, "I’m at Station 100 like [taxiway] Fox[trot] over to the [runway] 3L deice pad." The GCE controller replied, "Approved as requested." At 1021:35, Fire 2 reported clear of runway 3L. At 1021:43, GCE transmitted, "…you said the [runway] 22R deice pad." Fire 2 replied, "No, I said the [runway] 3L, sir." DTW airport was equipped with an ASDE-X ground movement radar system that provided aircraft and vehicle tracking capabilities as well as conflict detection. According to recorded data, the system detected a conflict between Fire 2 and FLG3720 at 1021:25, just before Fire 2 entered the runway. Fire 2 completed crossing the runway and exited at taxiway F at 1021:32. FLG3720 passed taxiway F at 1021:37. The ground controller was still in training, and was still in the process of being certified on all control positions in the tower. The day before the incident, he had been certified on the two east ground control positions by a supervisor. His certification occurred on the evening shift and took about an hour. The ground controller acknowledged that during his training he had received various comments from his instructors about scanning the airport surface, but he stated that generally they were "hit and miss" issues and did not reflect consistent deficiencies. The supervisor said that there were no unusual conditions to help explain what had occurred. There was no construction in progress, no weather affecting the airport, no rain, and no distractions. Some aircraft had controlled departure times that needed to be assigned. However, this did not affect the operation of the time. Since the incursion, the instructor provided some advice to the ground controller about control techniques that might help prevent him from encountering a similar problem in the future, in particular, discontinuing use of the phraseology, "proceed as requested." Issuance of specific instructions to a pilot or vehicle operator may result in a correction or other feedback from the operator. However, the instructor further noted that requiring controllers to always read back the entire request from a vehicle operator or pilot may result in lengthy, but unnecessary exchanges on the radio.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Runway incursion veh/AC/person during takeoff defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Communication (personnel) › Accuracy of communication › ATC personnel
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › ATC personnel

The aircraft

  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Operator: Pinnacle Airlines INC

The flight

  • Departed from: DTW Detroit MI
  • Destination: AVP Wilkes-Barre PA
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 21R, 8,501 ft by 200 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 240° at 17 knots, gusting 21
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: a few clouds at 3,000 ft
  • Temperature: 30°F (-1°C), dew point 19°F (-7°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.12 inHg
  • Observation at 2:53 pm from DTW

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Cabi2
Flight crew2
Passengers48

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.