The Last Word with Anthony D. Parfitt: How Ci Global is shifting UAE fire safety to prevention

Anthony D. Parfitt, Chairman & Founder of Ci Global, discusses how Ci Safe’s AI-driven system embeds electrical fire prevention into the UAE’s smart buildings

Now that Ci Global has established a presence in the UAE, how do you plan to integrate Ci Safe with existing building and safety infrastructures?

The UAE already operates within a sophisticated safety environment, with Civil Defence regulation, fire-detection systems and advanced building-management platforms in place.

Our integration plan is to embed prevention into that existing model.

Ci Safe is embedded within the building’s electrical infrastructure, where it continuously monitors thermal behaviour and can isolate power automatically if dangerous heat build-up is detected.

At building level, the system communicates through a secure gateway, allowing relevant safety data to interface with building-management systems and national fire-safety platforms, while also incorporating selected third-party sensors where required.

It is designed to operate alongside detection, suppression and smoke-control systems – adding a prevention layer beneath them so detection becomes the safety net, rather than the first line of defence.

What long-term goals does the company have for its UAE presence?

The UAE has prioritised smart city development, resilient urban growth and modern fire-safety standards.

That makes it a serious market for prevention-first fire protection.

Our long-term objective is to see electrical fire prevention embedded as standard across residential towers, villas and major developments – not as an upgrade or feature, but as baseline infrastructure.

We see the UAE as a strategic launch point for the GCC – a market where prevention can be demonstrated at scale and adopted across fast-growing urban environments.

Ci Safe is designed to prevent electrical fires at the source. Can you explain how its AI-driven and autonomous features work in practice, especially in environments where connectivity may be limited?

Ci Safe uses AI in two places – within the device and in the cloud.

At device level, AI continuously monitors electrical load and thermal behaviour in real time and identifies dangerous heat escalation before ignition.

If risk is detected, intelligent autonomy isolates power immediately at source.

That decision is made locally, so protection continues even without internet connectivity or cloud access.

In parallel, cloud-based AI analyses safety data across buildings, identifying recurring fault patterns and strengthening prediction over time.

Ci Safe monitors other safety risks. How do you see this system evolving to address a wider spectrum of building-safety challenges in the UAE and the region?

Electrical fire prevention is the foundation.

From there, the system expands into monitoring gas and water leaks with automatic shut-off, and environmental conditions that can lead to mould.

It can also recognise unsafe sounds, such as glass breaking, which may indicate a break-in or wider risk.

The longer-term evolution is about distributed intelligence across the building.

In high-rise environments, this can extend to real-time digital building mapping and drone visual support, giving emergency responders clearer visibility of emerging risk within complex structures.

That level of situational awareness can materially improve decision-making during an incident.

Buildings should not be passive structures that simply trigger alarms.

They should actively help protect the people inside them.

That is the direction this technology is moving.

This was originally published in the March 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Siemens launches cloud-connected fire detectors for autonomous building operations

Siemens fire detector launch in Zug

Siemens has unveiled its Sinteso Nova and Cerberus Nova fire detector portfolio in Zug on 27 March 2026, introducing a cloud-connected fire safety system designed for continuous monitoring.

The company said the detectors use IoT connectivity to support 24/7 self-checks, real-time monitoring, remote diagnostics and predictive maintenance across building environments.

The portfolio is designed for sectors including healthcare, higher education, data centres and commercial real estate.

It is also compatible with cloud-based applications such as Siemens’ Building X Fire Apps.

Siemens outlines detection technology and applications

Siemens said healthcare facilities can use the detectors for continuous supervision, with Disturbance-Free Testing (DFT) carrying out automated self-checks to reduce system downtime.

Smoke Entry Supervision (SES) monitors smoke entry points in real time, enabling earlier intervention when risks develop.

ASAplus combines multi-wavelength optical sensing with dual thermal detection to reduce false alarms and limit unnecessary evacuations.

In data centres, the detectors are intended to support operational continuity where overheating and electrical faults present fire risks.

For higher education and commercial real estate, the systems are designed to support centralised management across multiple sites through continuous monitoring and maintenance planning.

Upgrade approach and Siemens statement

Siemens said the detectors support stepwise upgrades in both new and existing buildings, with compatibility retained for existing fire panels.

The company said plug-and-play integration includes automatic transfer of configured settings, reducing installation time and associated risk.

Peter Nebiker, Head of Fire Safety at Siemens Smart Infrastructure Buildings, said: “The launch of our Sinteso Nova and Cerberus Nova fire detection portfolio is a game-changer in ensuring all alarms are accurate as best as possible.

“By moving from periodic checks to continuous, data-driven, self-supervising systems, we’re laying the foundation for truly human-centric, autonomous buildings.

“By automating testing, delivering real-time insights, and enabling remote action, these solutions protect people while freeing up staff to focus on strategic priorities.

“This shift isn’t just about innovation – it’s about smarter, safer, and more efficient operations,”

Siemens said the detectors carry its EcoTech environmental product performance label, use recycled plastics and form part of the Siemens Xcelerator portfolio developed and produced in Switzerland.

The Built List reveals 20 fire safety influencers shaping construction in 2026

The Built List 2026 spotlights leading voices in fire and building safety

A group of 20 professionals shaping fire and building safety across the built environment has been named as part of The Built List 2026, a new initiative recognising influential voices across construction and related sectors.

The Built List, developed by construction PR consultancy Liz Male Consulting (LMC), identifies 100 individuals driving change across five priority areas: fire and building safety, digitalisation, sustainability, diversity and inclusion, and skills, recruitment and retention.

The fire and building safety category brings together engineers, campaigners, housing professionals, consultants and technical specialists working across policy, practice and public engagement.

The selected individuals have been identified through a six-month research process assessing engagement, media presence and industry visibility, rather than follower counts alone.

Dan Gerrella, Managing Director at LMC, said: “We want to shine a spotlight on the campaigners, activists, changemakers and thought leaders who are turning important conversations into action, shaping policy and public understanding, and building the profile of our sector.

“This is an opportunity to recognise a wider community of individuals who are influencing how the industry approaches safety, risk and accountability, while also helping organisations connect with trusted voices on the issues that matter most.”

The list is not ranked and is designed to reflect breadth of influence rather than competition.

LMC said the intention is to highlight different ways individuals are contributing to industry progress, from technical expertise and regulatory insight to communication and advocacy.

Fire and building safety: 20 selected influencers

The following individuals have been named within the fire and building safety category of The Built List 2026:

Colin Bailey

President and Principal, Queen Mary University of London and Executive Leader

An internationally recognised engineer and executive leader, Colin Bailey has built a career spanning structural safety, fire engineering and higher education leadership. His work focuses on helping the industry better understand risk and improve building design, alongside championing social mobility within engineering.

Kwajo Tweneboa

Social Housing Activist, Author and Campaigner

Kwajo Tweneboa is a prominent voice in housing safety, known for exposing unsafe living conditions and advocating for reform. His work centres on amplifying residents’ experiences and driving accountability among landlords and housing providers.

Steph Brady

Director, Innovation Fire Engineering

Steph Brady leads strategic planning and operations at Innovation Fire Engineering, with a focus on how fire engineers operate within communities. Her work explores the relationship between regulation, risk management and the built environment.

Hannah Mansell

Principal Technical Consultant and Facilitator of the UK Fire Door Think Tank, Adoorability

Hannah Mansell has played a central role in advancing competence and standards in fire safety, particularly around fire doors. Her work includes leading national campaigns and translating regulatory requirements into practical approaches for the industry.

Kizzy Augustin

Partner (Health and Safety, Environmental and Fire), Mischon de Reya

Kizzy Augustin specialises in legal cases involving fire, health and safety, including corporate manslaughter. Her work addresses accountability, compliance and directors’ duties, alongside advocacy for equality within the legal and construction sectors.

Peter Apps

Contributing Editor, Inside Housing and Freelance Journalist

Peter Apps is a journalist focused on housing and fire safety, with extensive reporting on the Grenfell Tower fire and its wider implications. His work examines systemic risk, policy and accountability across the built environment.

Glenn Horton

Director, Horton and Horton Fire

Glenn Horton leads fire engineering design work on large-scale mixed-use developments globally. His focus includes building regulations, fire safety engineering and risk management in complex construction projects.

Arnold Tarling

Director, Beta Surveyors

Arnold Tarling is a chartered surveyor and fire safety expert known for his media work on building risk and fire hazards. He has contributed to public understanding of safety issues in residential buildings, particularly following Grenfell.

Benjamin Ralph

Director and Head of Building Safety and Fire, Hollis

With more than 16 years’ experience, Benjamin Ralph focuses on risk-based design and interdisciplinary approaches to building safety. His work addresses façade risks, fire engineering challenges and improving standards across the sector.

Andrea White

Managing Director, A W Fire

Andrea White is an independent fire engineer and accredited fire risk assessor. She also founded Women Talking Fire, supporting professional networks within the sector, while focusing on compliance, risk and representation in construction.

Helen Hewitt

Chief Executive, British Woodworking Federation

Helen Hewitt leads the British Woodworking Federation, representing a large membership across manufacturing and construction. Her work highlights the role of fire doors and competence across the supply chain in improving building safety outcomes.

Mike Kelly

Building Safety Manager, Livv Housing Group

Mike Kelly works across compliance, fire and building safety within social housing. His focus includes risk assessment, cladding remediation and strengthening accountability in building management.

Nathan Hooper

Director and Head of Hotels and Residential, Hollis

Nathan Hooper brings experience in construction and real estate, focusing on improving safety standards in buildings. His work links compliance, design and property management in residential and hospitality sectors.

Dan Hollas

Director of Building Safety, Clarion Housing Group

Dan Hollas has more than 25 years’ experience in social housing and building safety. His role includes regulatory engagement and advising on safety frameworks through his involvement with the Building Advisory Committee.

Hannah Carpenter

Associate Director and Building Safety Specialist, LMC

Hannah Carpenter specialises in fire and building safety communications and industry insight. She has worked across legislation-focused projects and leads initiatives such as The Building Safety Wiki.

Adam Sanders

Technical Director, RiskBase

Adam Sanders focuses on digital systems for managing building safety and compliance. His work centres on improving consistency, reporting and visibility through software platforms.

George Edwardes

Technical Director, The Fire Protection Association

George Edwardes has a background in fire testing and consultancy, with expertise in façade safety and material performance. His work examines how design choices and emerging materials influence fire risk.

Alan Elder

Senior Fire Engineer, Horton and Horton Fire

Alan Elder specialises in fire risk assessments, site inspections and design reviews. His work focuses on practical application of fire safety standards and regulatory developments.

Dr Gavin Dunn

Chief Executive, The Fire Protection Association

Dr Gavin Dunn is a Chartered Building Engineer focused on the relationship between sustainability, decarbonisation and fire safety. His work explores how new materials and technologies affect risk across the built environment.

Gill Kernick

Transformation Director, Arup, Committee Member, BSI, Author and Speaker

Gill Kernick works on systemic safety reform and cultural change in construction. Drawing on personal experience and professional work, she contributes to discussions on accountability, risk and long-term change following major incidents.

Reflecting industry priorities

LMC said the fire and building safety category reflects a shift in how the sector engages with risk, regulation and public accountability, particularly following recent legislative changes and increased scrutiny of building safety practices.

Individuals on the list contribute across a range of areas, including fire engineering design, legal accountability, housing safety, regulatory compliance, fire testing, façade risk, fire doors, and resident engagement.

Many are also active in communicating complex technical issues to wider audiences, including policymakers, residents and industry stakeholders.

Methodology based on impact and visibility

The Built List is drawn from a wider industry influencer database maintained by LMC and used to support communications and collaboration strategies across the built environment.

Three core metrics were used to assess influence:

  • Engagement rate, based on interaction levels across recent social media activity
  • Media coverage, including reach and authority of publications featuring each individual
  • Visibility, measured through participation in conferences, events and wider communications activity.

This approach is intended to capture how individuals contribute to industry conversations and decision-making, rather than focusing solely on audience size.

Supporting industry engagement

LMC said the list is designed to support organisations seeking to engage with credible voices across key areas of change in the built environment.

“The list is deliberately not ranked and it’s not a competition,” Gerrella added.

“If the industry is going to improve outcomes in areas such as safety, sustainability and skills, it needs to engage with a broader range of perspectives and communication channels.”

The Built List 2026 is available to download via LMC’s website.

BESA says construction retention ban marks long-sought reform

Construction retentions move into reform phase

The government has moved forward with plans to ban retentions in construction contracts, with implementation expected to take up to two years following further consultation and legislation when parliamentary time allows.

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) welcomed the decision and said the proposal followed the government’s Late Payments Consultation, which set out a wider package of payment reforms.

The consultation proposed prohibiting the withholding of retentions and also set out a maximum 60-day payment term, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to investigate and penalise poor payment behaviour.

More than 850 formal responses were submitted to the consultation, with a large proportion coming from the construction and engineering services sector.

BESA said it had been lobbying for reform on retentions and late payment practices for many years and took part in shaping the consultation.

Representatives from the Department for Business and Trade attended BESA’s Council meeting in September to hear from members about the effect of retentions and poor payment culture across the industry.

The association also submitted a detailed response to the consultation at the end of last year.

BESA sets out its response to construction reforms

David Frise, Chief Executive of BESA, said: “This is a landmark moment for our industry and a hugely significant step forward for BESA members and the wider engineering services sector.

“We have been campaigning for many years to end the unfair and outdated practice of retentions, which has placed an unacceptable financial burden on specialist contractors.”

“The government has listened to the concerns of our members and the wider industry.

“This decision has the potential to transform cashflow, improve business resilience, and create a fairer, more sustainable supply chain.”

“It is particularly encouraging that policymakers engaged directly with our members during the consultation process.

“That real-world insight has clearly helped shape a more robust and meaningful response.”

BESA said retentions have remained a long-running issue for SMEs in construction, with businesses facing withheld payments, delayed release of funds and, in some cases, the loss of retention money through upstream insolvencies.

Debbie Petford, Legal and Commercial Director at BESA, added: “We have been waiting a long time for meaningful reform backed by legislation, and the proposed ban on retentions is a critical part of that.

“Too many businesses have struggled or failed because they have been denied the lifeblood of healthy cashflow.”

“This consultation was a once in a generation opportunity to address poor payment practices, and it is extremely positive to see the government taking decisive action.

“The collapse of major firms in recent years has only reinforced how vulnerable smaller contractors are within the supply chain.”

“While there is still work to do on implementation, this is a major step towards creating a business environment where firms can thrive, not just survive.”

Construction consultation will continue on implementation

The government has indicated that further consultation will cover transition periods and a clear definition of retentions to stop their return in other forms.

BESA is encouraging members and the wider industry to continue engaging with the process as the final framework is developed.

ICC publishes Building Code fire provisions in Spanish

Building code provisions published in Spanish

The International Code Council (ICC) has published Spanish language fire safety provisions drawn from the International Building Code (IBC), creating a route for jurisdictions to move toward future use of the full code.

The International Trade Administration (ITA) said the document, titled Aspectos Esenciales de Seguridad Contra Incendios, was developed to reduce barriers to IBC adoption in Latin America.

The publication extracts fire safety design provisions from the IBC and adds expert commentary in Spanish.

It is intended for countries and jurisdictions that may lack the resources or capacity to implement the full IBC and have prioritised fire and life safety in buildings.

Jurisdictions that adopt the language in the document can transition to the full IBC in future.

Building Code market figures and wider interest

ITA said the work was a key deliverable of ICC’s Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP), which it supported for five years.

The fire and life safety provisions can be paired with structural or material design standards published by U.S.-domiciled international standards developers including the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).

According to the source material, adoption of the fire safety provisions alone would increase the likelihood of U.S. sales to the $3B Latin America market for fire safety products such as sprinkler systems.

Adoption of the full IBC would open access to a $584B Latin American market for the wider range of building products.

The source material also states that officials in Brazil, Syria and several Southeast Asian countries have expressed interest in future editions in Portuguese, Arabic and other languages.

For Southeast Asia, the market for fire safety products is listed at $34B, with the broader market for all building materials put at $539B.

Magirus advises Inspection of older firefighting vehicle headlight switches

Inspection recommendation follows technical review

Magirus has recommended precautionary inspection measures for older firefighting vehicles built on Iveco Euro series chassis from model years 1992 to 2002.

The company announced that current findings from its technical review mean a connection to a chassis mounted headlight switch for side and dipped beam functions cannot be ruled out.

The recommendation follows Magirus’s 18 December 2025 announcement that it had launched investigations into fire events and near miss incidents involving older firefighting vehicles built on Iveco EuroCargo and EuroFire chassis.

Those reports had previously been highlighted in media coverage, online forums and in a communication issued by the German Institute for Loss Prevention and Loss Research (IFS) in Kiel, Germany.

Magirus said the indications relate to vehicles built on Iveco Euro series chassis, specifically EuroCargo, EuroFire, EuroTech and EuroTrakker models from 1992 to 2002.

Inspection measures for affected vehicle operators

Operators of firefighting vehicles built on those chassis are being advised to present their vehicle to an authorised Iveco workshop.

Magirus said some vehicles may have first been registered after 2002 and in individual cases up to 2005.

The chassis mounted headlight switch should be replaced there as a precaution.

The vehicle’s electrical installation should also be thoroughly inspected, especially where electrical retrofits have been carried out over the years.

The company described the measures as precautionary and part of a preventive technical inspection intended to identify and minimise potential risks at an early stage.

Findings centre on age and wear related switch changes

In inspected cases, headlight switches showed age and wear related internal changes after more than 20 years of vehicle operation.

Magirus said those changes were not always reliably detectable from the outside.

To support identification, a photograph of the relevant headlight switch design is provided in the technical documentation.

No comparable indications are currently available for other switch designs.

Magirus said it will continue to monitor developments and remain in dialogue with the IFS as new findings become available.

Attabotics launches fire safety bin for warehouse automation systems

Fire safety features in new Attabiotics bin design

Attabotics has announced the launch of the Guardian bin, a formed metal bin designed to help mitigate fire risks in automated storage and retrieval systems (ASRS).

The Calgary-based company announced the product on 17 March 2026 and said the bin replaces combustible plastics with inert galvanised steel.

The bin is designed to contain leaked liquid to limit spills and to support the distribution of fire suppression fluid through high-density racking.

When fire suppression systems are activated, the bin collects water and allows it to pool briefly before overflowing downward to adjacent storage locations.

Attabotics said the metal construction provides predictable behaviour and maintains structural integrity at elevated temperatures, supporting wider system-level fire safety strategies.

The company also said it is working with commercial insurance providers toward fire safety certification of the bin for use in ASRS environments.

Mark Dickinson, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Attabotics, said: “Firefighters respond to nearly four warehouse fires each day in the U.S.

“On an annual basis, that adds up to more than 1,500 fires and over $300 million in direct property damage.

“For supply chains running on tight timelines and low margins, those statistics represent a critical threat.

“Our goal with the Guardian bin is to support our customers’ strategies to operate safely and efficiently.”

Product details and trade show plans

Attabotics said the bin includes a purpose-built plastic base that maintains low noise levels on high-speed conveyor systems and interfaces with robotic handling equipment to help prevent damage and support service life.

The flat-pack design enables shipments of up to 2,800 bins in a single container, which the company said is nearly 10 times the amount possible with conventional bin designs.

The company said the metal construction also supports cleaning after spills involving beverages, industrial fluids, personal care products or other liquids.

Wang Fuk Court fire: Residents recount chaos as Tai Po fire probe continues

Tai Po fire hearing details system failures, oversight gaps and resident testimony

Overview of the incident

The South China Morning Post has reported that an independent committee investigating the Tai Po fire tragedy continued its third day of hearings with testimony from residents and submissions from government and sector representatives.

The fire at Wang Fuk Court in Hong Kong killed 168 people and spread across seven residential blocks during a 43-hour incident in November 2025, making it the deadliest fire in the city in decades.

The inquiry is examining the causes of the blaze, the condition and management of fire safety systems, and the roles played by contractors, regulators and building management.

Key failures identified in earlier evidence

In earlier sessions, the committee’s legal team outlined six contributing factors linked to the fire’s severity and spread.

These included the use of combustible scaffolding mesh, the deactivation of fire alarm systems, removal of fire-resistant windows from emergency staircases and fire hose systems being rendered inoperative.

Additional concerns involved the use of polyfoam boards during renovation works and ongoing smoking activity on site despite repeated complaints from residents.

The fire was described as likely having been ignited by cigarettes interacting with flammable materials within a light well.

The hearing also raised concerns about possible bid-rigging and corruption in the construction sector, with residents potentially misled into selecting a high-cost contractor for renovation works.

Government position and proposed reforms

Government counsel told the committee that authorities aim to assist in establishing a full account of the incident and acknowledged that deficiencies exist within current regulatory frameworks.

Officials indicated that reforms are under consideration across policymaking, inspection regimes, enforcement and emergency response coordination.

Under the existing minor works system, contractors are not required to submit architectural plans before commencing certain renovation works, including large-scale façade projects.

Proposed changes include requiring independent building professionals to oversee complex works, mandating plan submissions and strengthening site supervision and inspection processes.

Disputes around inspection and oversight

The hearing revisited claims that inspectors may have alerted contractors ahead of site visits, allowing time to conceal the use of non-compliant materials.

Government representatives rejected these claims and questioned whether contractors would have had sufficient time to replace materials across large structures.

Officials also stated that inspectors may not have been able to detect the full extent of combustible materials during site visits, particularly where inspections were limited to accessible areas.

Concerns were also raised regarding earlier complaints from residents about polyfoam boards, with questions over whether these were adequately followed up.

Fire services response and scale of mobilisation

The Fire Services Department response to the incident was described as significantly larger than standard operations.

By the evening of the fire, 174 fire engines, 47 ambulances and approximately 989 firefighters had been deployed.

This level of mobilisation was reported as around nine times that required for a typical major fire incident, reflecting the scale and complexity of the emergency.

Evidence of fire safety system shutdowns

Testimony presented during the hearing indicated that fire pumps and alarm systems had been shut down during maintenance works and not restored.

Main switches controlling both systems were reportedly turned off months before the fire.

Evidence suggested that contractors and maintenance staff were aware of the shutdown, with questions raised about whether proper assessments were carried out and whether systems should have been reactivated.

The hearing also examined whether fire safety contractors identified or acted upon the issue after noticing the systems were inactive.

Gaps in responsibility across authorities

The inquiry heard that several government bodies did not consider themselves responsible for ensuring that construction materials met fire resistance standards.

These included the Labour Department, the Fire Services Department and the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit.

The division between responsibilities for active systems, such as alarms and hosepipes, and passive measures, such as materials and structural protection, was identified as a key issue.

This lack of clear accountability was highlighted as a contributing factor to the failure of fire safety measures at the estate.

Competition concerns in the construction sector

The Competition Commission described anti-competitive practices in the building maintenance sector as widespread and systemic.

Examples cited included bid-rigging, price-fixing and suppression of tenders.

The commission proposed reforms including lowering the burden of proof in competition cases, introducing criminal penalties for certain offences and applying presumptions in legal proceedings to support enforcement.

Resident testimony on alarm failure and evacuation

Residents who gave evidence consistently stated that they did not hear any fire alarm when the blaze began.

One resident said he attempted to monitor the situation through a home security system and observed others trying to use a fire hose that had no water supply.

Another resident described noticing the loss of television signal and the smell of burning before realising a fire had broken out.

A further witness said she initially mistook smoke entering her flat for dust from renovation work, delaying her response due to the absence of any alarm.

Accounts of rapid fire spread and escape

Witnesses described the fire developing quickly, leaving limited time to evacuate.

Several residents reported escaping within minutes once they recognised the danger, while others described confusion during the early stages of the incident.

Testimony also highlighted the challenges of alerting neighbours, with some residents expressing regret that they were unable to warn others before evacuating.

Emotional impact and perceptions of accountability

Residents described ongoing psychological effects following the incident, including trauma and difficulty adjusting to life after the fire.

Some said they felt as though time had not moved on, while others spoke about feelings of responsibility for not helping more people escape.

Testimony characterised the disaster as avoidable, with residents pointing to failures in communication, coordination and accountability across multiple parties.

Several witnesses described the incident as a “man-made” catastrophe linked to systemic shortcomings rather than isolated errors.

Next steps in the inquiry

The third day of hearings concluded with further witness testimony expected in upcoming sessions.

The committee will continue to examine regulatory frameworks, contractor practices, fire safety system management and the allocation of responsibility across agencies as part of its investigation.

Fatal LaGuardia crash raises fire vehicle safety questions

LaGuardia collision leaves two pilots dead as investigators examine runway movements, staffing and emergency response

A week after a fatal collision at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, investigators are still piecing together how an Air Canada Express regional jet came to strike an airport fire vehicle on the runway shortly after landing.

The crash, which happened late on 22 March 2026 local time and was still dominating coverage through 23 and 24 March, killed the aircraft’s two pilots, injured dozens of other people and forced the closure of one of the United States’ busiest airports for much of the following day.

The aircraft involved was Air Canada Express Flight AC8646, a CRJ-900 operated by Jazz Aviation, arriving at LaGuardia from Montreal.

According to officials, it was carrying 72 passengers and four crew members.

The fire vehicle it hit was a Port Authority Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting unit, known as ARFF, which had been responding to a separate incident involving another aircraft.

In the days since the crash, the focus has shifted from the immediate rescue effort to a wider examination of what was happening across the airfield in the minutes before impact.

Questions have centred on runway clearances, the handling of a separate aircraft emergency, the workload of overnight controllers and the limits of the systems used to track vehicles moving on the ground.

Collision took place after landing

Authorities said the crash took place at about 11:37 pm on Sunday 22 March, shortly after the Air Canada aircraft landed at LaGuardia.

Kathryn Garcia of the Port Authority said the fire vehicle had been dispatched only minutes earlier to assist another plane that had reported an odour issue.

Air traffic control audio reviewed by multiple outlets appeared to capture the final moments before the impact.

In the recording, a controller can be heard warning the vehicle to stop as it crossed the runway.

Seconds later, the Air Canada jet struck it.

Photographs from the scene showed the aircraft badly damaged, with the cockpit area torn apart and the rear section resting low to the ground.

The truck was left overturned and heavily damaged nearby.

The National Transportation Safety Board has since said that both the aircraft and the fire vehicle had been cleared to cross the runway, making runway movement and communication a central part of the investigation.

Chair Jennifer Homendy said the inquiry would include cockpit voice recordings, tower communications, surveillance footage and interviews with the controllers who were on duty that night.

Two pilots killed, dozens injured

The two pilots who died were identified as Antoine Forest and Mackenzie Gunther.

Their deaths became an immediate focus in both the United States and Canada, where the flight had originated.

FAA administrator Bryan Bedford described them as two young men at the start of their careers, while Canadian coverage also highlighted Forest’s background as a French-speaking Quebecer.

The Port Authority said 41 people were taken to hospital after the collision.

Early reports varied slightly on the number later discharged, but authorities consistently said that most of those injured were treated and released, while others remained in hospital with more serious injuries.

The two officers in the ARFF vehicle, Sergeant Michael Orsillo and Officer Adrian Baez, were both injured but were reported to be in stable condition.

Baez was later released from hospital, while Orsillo remained under care.

Accounts from passengers suggest that the force of the collision created confusion inside the cabin, with some travellers unsure at first what had happened.

One passenger told The New York Times that the aircraft landed hard, a loud grinding noise followed and the plane then jolted violently.

Another said passengers quickly realised they needed to get out, even though they had little direction in the immediate aftermath.

One of the flight attendants, Solange Tremblay, was reportedly ejected from the aircraft while still strapped into her seat.

Her daughter told a Quebec broadcaster that she suffered a broken leg and required surgery, but survived.

Separate emergency appears central to timeline

A major strand of the investigation concerns the fact that controllers were already handling another issue before the collision.

According to officials and air traffic audio, a United Airlines aircraft had aborted a take-off after reporting an unusual odour in the cabin.

Flight attendants on that aircraft were said to be feeling ill, prompting an emergency response.

The fire truck involved in the LaGuardia collision was being sent to that separate aircraft when it crossed the path of the arriving Air Canada flight.

Audio suggests controllers were continuing to relay messages about the United aircraft while also directing ground movements elsewhere on the airfield.

That overlap has intensified scrutiny of the workload inside the tower at the time.

The NTSB confirmed that two controllers were in the cab during the midnight shift.

One was handling local control duties for take-offs and landings, while the other, described as the controller in charge, also held supervisory responsibilities.

Investigators said they were still establishing exactly who had responsibility for aircraft and vehicle movements on the ground at the moment of the crash.

Staffing and combined positions under scrutiny

CNN’s reporting focused heavily on long-running concerns about staffing shortages in US air traffic control.

Former controllers and aviation analysts told the network that combining positions late at night is common when traffic levels fall, but becomes far more problematic when demand rises unexpectedly or an emergency develops.

That appears relevant to LaGuardia, where late-night traffic may have been heavier than usual because of earlier weather disruption and delays.

Homendy said there is a broader systemic concern when roles are combined because of short staffing, especially in a high-workload environment.

She also said controllers themselves have raised such concerns for years.

The issue is familiar to federal investigators.

Coverage pointed to earlier findings from the January 2025 collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, where investigators said an overloaded controller managing combined positions was among the contributing factors.

A 2024 independent FAA panel had also warned that combined positions can reduce safety margins, particularly during busy periods, overnight shifts or emergencies.

At the same time, some current and former aviation officials have urged caution about drawing conclusions too early.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said LaGuardia was generally well staffed overall, with 33 of 37 controller positions filled and seven more trainees in the pipeline.

Others noted that reduced staffing overnight can be standard practice when traffic is expected to be lighter.

Technology and surface tracking also in focus

Homendy also drew attention to the technical side of the accident.

She said a ground radar system that might have provided an alert before the collision did not do so.

She added that the fire truck did not have a transponder, which would have helped the system detect it more effectively.

That has fed into broader criticism of the age of US air traffic control infrastructure.

Homendy described the system as old and said controllers need better tools to monitor ground movements involving both aircraft and vehicles.

CNN’s coverage tied those comments to wider federal efforts to modernise the system, including a long-term plan announced by the Department of Transportation and concerns that controllers are still working with outdated technology in critical areas.

The New York Times also noted that the FAA has spent several years trying to reduce runway incursions after a series of close calls in 2023.

Those efforts included safety reviews, grants to airports and work on alerting systems designed to warn crews about aircraft or vehicles in the wrong place.

Even so, the LaGuardia collision has shown how vulnerable the system remains when multiple defences fail at once.

Airport disruption and operational impact

The crash closed LaGuardia for much of Monday 23 March, with flights resuming on a limited basis at 2 pm More than 500 flights were cancelled by Monday morning, and some reports later put the total disruption above 600 flights as the backlog continued.

Incoming services were diverted to John F.

Kennedy and Newark Liberty airports, while road closures and traffic delays affected access around LaGuardia itself.

As a major airport focused on regional and domestic routes, LaGuardia’s closure quickly spread disruption across the eastern United States and nearby Canadian cities.

Delta, the airport’s largest carrier, was among the airlines forced to cancel or rebook large numbers of passengers.

The shutdown also collided with wider transport strain linked to a partial federal government shutdown in the United States.

The New York Times reported that long Transportation Security Administration lines delayed the arrival of NTSB specialists, slowing the first full day of on-site investigation.

Canadian response and Air Canada controversy

In Canada, the crash prompted both official support for the investigation and political controversy around Air Canada’s response.

Canadian authorities said they were working closely with US investigators, and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada sent a team to assist.

At the same time, Air Canada chief executive Michael Rousseau came under criticism after issuing a condolence message only in English, despite the deaths of two Canadian pilots and the fact that one of them, Antoine Forest, was from Quebec.

Rousseau later apologised for his inability to speak French adequately, but the issue escalated in Quebec, where lawmakers passed a motion calling for his resignation.

That debate sat alongside broader Canadian concern about the safety issues raised by the crash, particularly the condition of the US air traffic control system.

Investigation continues

One week on, the main facts are clear, but the cause is not.

A landed passenger jet struck an airport fire vehicle that was responding to another emergency.

Two pilots died, dozens of others were injured and LaGuardia’s operations were badly disrupted.

What remains unresolved is how the runway came to be occupied by both the aircraft and the truck at the same time.

Investigators are now examining not just the decisions made in the tower that night, but the wider operating environment around them: staffing, fatigue, late-night procedures, communications, vehicle visibility and the resilience of the airport surface safety system.

The findings are likely to matter far beyond LaGuardia.

Sources: BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times

Passing the baton: 1st Attendance challenges compliance culture

Paul Dennett, Owner and Managing Director of 1st Attendance, examines workplace fire training, compliance gaps, and how organisations prepare staff for real incident

Fire safety training is mandatory in UK workplaces, yet many sessions are designed mainly to demonstrate compliance.

Staff can still feel uncertain about spotting early warning signs, making decisions under pressure or using equipment in complex buildings such as universities, retail estates and large commercial sites.

This creates a gap between legal compliance and real preparedness when a fire develops.

1st Attendance delivers practical, instructor-led training in real working environments, using demonstrations and scenario-based discussion to improve risk recognition, evacuation behaviour and confidence.

The company works primarily with public-facing and multi-occupancy organisations across higher education, retail, care and commercial sectors.

Paul Dennett, Owner and Managing Director of 1st Attendance, started as a fire extinguisher engineer and now leads business focused on realism and decision-making.

IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey sat down with Paul Dennett to discuss how effective fire safety education should work today for staff in complex sites across sectors.

How would you describe 1st Attendance’s work and the organisations you mainly support today?

At its core, 1st Attendance delivers practical, face-to-face fire safety training that’s designed to work in the real world, not just on paper.

That includes fire warden training, fire extinguisher training, evacuation training and we also give wider compliance support.

We mainly work with commercial and public-facing organisations — higher education, retail, care environments, offices, and large multi-occupancy sites.

Many of our clients manage complex buildings or have large numbers of staff.

Where do you see the biggest gaps between compliance driven training and real preparedness?

The biggest gap is that compliance doesn’t automatically equal competence.

A lot of training meets the legal requirement but doesn’t change behaviour.

People sit through a presentation, tick the box, and then often forget about it because it isn’t relatable or delivered in an engaging way.

 In a real incident, if the training is not practical or relatable, it simply won’t surface when it’s needed.

Real preparedness comes from: Understanding why risks exist, recognising early warning signs, and knowing how to make decisions, not just follow instructions

How does your training help staff recognise early fire risks and make better decisions?

We focus heavily on risk awareness and decision-making, not just fire theory.

Our training uses real workplace examples, visual demonstrations and scenario-based discussion.

We encourage people to think about what fire risk actually looks like in their environment — poor housekeeping, misuse of equipment etc.

When staff understand risk in context, they’re far more likely to spot problems early and act appropriately.

We also talk openly about human behaviour under stress, so people aren’t surprised by how they and other people might react in a real situation.

Do fire risks and training needs differ across higher education retail and large commercial sites?

Yes — significantly.

While the core principles of fire safety stay the same, the risks, layouts, occupancy types, and behaviours vary a lot between sectors.

A university, for example, has very different challenges to a retail store or a standard office.

That’s why we don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.

Training needs to reflect: the type of building, the people using it and how it operates day to day

When training feels relevant, engagement and retention improve dramatically.

Do employers face challenges keeping staff engaged with fire safety training and its lasting value?

Yes, engagement is one of the biggest challenges employers face.

A big part of the problem is perception.

Many people don’t feel that fire is something that will affect them personally — it’s always going to be someone else, somewhere down the road.

Because of that, fire safety can feel theoretical rather than real.

Modern life adds another layer.

My own social media feeds show me fires almost every day because of how algorithms work and the sector I’m in.

Most people’s feeds are very different, so they simply don’t realise how frequently fires actually occur in the UK.

If people don’t believe the risk is real or relevant, it’s difficult to keep them engaged.

That’s why training has to close that gap by showing how often incidents happen, how quickly situations develop, and how easily everyday risks can escalate.

Lasting value comes from: keeping sessions interactive, making the content relatable and linking training to real responsibilities

We also encourage employers to see fire safety training as part of a wider safety culture, not a once-a-year exercise.

When it’s treated that way, the learning sticks and people are far more likely to act appropriately when it matters.

Are there any areas of the training offer you are looking to develop or refine?

Yes — we’re actively developing our blended learning approach, combining high-quality face-to-face training with digital support tools.

The aim isn’t to replace practical training, but to reinforce it — refresher content, reminders, and ongoing awareness so learning doesn’t fade after the session ends.

We’re also refining how we support organisations with repeat training cycles, so knowledge stays current as staff change and sites evolve.

What should organisations prioritise so fire safety training improves outcomes in real incidents meaningfully?

The biggest priority is quality over convenience.

Organisations should ask: Does this training actually prepare people for real situations? Would staff know what to do under pressure? Is the training specific to our environment?

Fire safety training should build confidence, awareness, and decision-making ability — not just satisfy a requirement.

When organisations get that right, compliance takes care of itself, and outcomes improve when it matters most.

This was originally published in the March 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.