Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

JAL incident at Haneda Airport

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

JAL incident at Haneda Airport

Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:32
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: NL
Posts: 570
Received 265 Likes on 86 Posts
Originally Posted by VR-HFX
The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
Generally yes. However, during peak arrival periods both are used. Seen it for myself on several occasions.
FUMR is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:35
  #182 (permalink)  
2b2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 87
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by VR-HFX
The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
During the 90 minutes before there were 15 - 20 landings on 34R.
2b2 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:36
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 46
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2b2
in the 90 minutes before there were 15 - 20 landings on 34R.
North wind operations explanied below.


Tetsuo is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:39
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SIN
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by VR-HFX
The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
not really an anomaly. Looking at previous flights, the entire last week, JAL516 landed on 34R. And today, it was followed by JAL166 which also aimed for 34R.
Salina Chan is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:45
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My understanding so far:

We understand that the JAL A350 was following instructions/ permissions correctly.

We do not yet appear to have visibility on the instructions to the Dash 8 coastguard.
But appears that any issues revolve around whether they were:
* Faulty Instructions from control
* Correct instructions mis-understood/ not followed by the crew
Less likely could be
Some other technical issue that caused the dash 8 to enter the runway (eg. brake failure etc), though the coastguard captain is on record as stating he thought the aircraft exploded on the runway, so seems far fetched.

It seems odd that air traffic Coms to JAL have been published, but not to the coastguard.

Anything else?
giblets is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:46
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by VR-HFX
The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
FR24 shows loads of a/c landing on 34R just in a couple of hours before JAL516. It shouldn't come as a surprise to a crew waiting for departure that there might be something landing.
AirScotia is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 13:52
  #187 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,711
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Ikijibiki
What about the ATC communications with the Coast Guard plane? Would those be in this audio stream?
No, Taxi instructions are on the GND frequency , different from TWR.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:01
  #188 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,711
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by giblets
Anything else?
Yes there is most likely something else which contributed to that collision . Can someone confirms that HND has both SMR and SMGS ?
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:02
  #189 (permalink)  
2b2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 87
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Yes there is most likely something else which contributed to that collision . Can someone confirms that HND has both SMR and SMGS ?
Stop Bars?

No sign of a "Ready" call anywhere.
Hard to misunderstand an instruction ( or get an incorrect one) if he never calls.
2b2 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:03
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY
Posts: 34
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oxenos
Don't be in too much of a hurry to judge by appearances.
I am 81. I flew 737's for 25years. I still give my full attention to the safety brief, in spite of all the times I did my safety training, and opened an overwing hatch for real. I suspect that I would be more likely to open the hatch in an emergency that a uni-age kid who did not lift his eyes from his computer game during the safety brief.
Please understand, I find age discrimination abhorrent, even more so as it’s the last form of discrimination that many people find perfectly acceptable. That being said, I’ve seen plenty of people in the emergency rows who are not ideal candidates to be there in the event of a true emergency. Generally speaking it should not be a privilege given to the people willing to pay for it.
mryan75 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:06
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY
Posts: 34
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by giblets
My understanding so far:

We understand that the JAL A350 was following instructions/ permissions correctly.

We do not yet appear to have visibility on the instructions to the Dash 8 coastguard.
But appears that any issues revolve around whether they were:
* Faulty Instructions from control
* Correct instructions mis-understood/ not followed by the crew
Less likely could be
Some other technical issue that caused the dash 8 to enter the runway (eg. brake failure etc), though the coastguard captain is on record as stating he thought the aircraft exploded on the runway, so seems far fetched.

It seems odd that air traffic Coms to JAL have been published, but not to the coastguard.

Anything else?
Could be similar to the Austin go-around by the FedEx plane recently where a Southwest 737 holding short was given takeoff clearance and then took 800 years to actually get on the runway and get matriculating.
mryan75 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:14
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,019
Received 161 Likes on 98 Posts
January 2nd. ATC staff on duty. Emergency “push” (as they call
it) for earthquake supplies to roll.

Add pressure from approaching U-turn rush from the shortest holidays in the world.

(By the way they report that they have already re-opened the other three runways, A, B and D.)
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:18
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you're going to be unusually slow in getting onto the runway for departure, might you want to check that the approach is clear before actually moving? Whilst the Dash was on the taxiway the A350 was approaching on the Dash captain's opposite side. I'm not going to suggest that the FO didn't look but I do wonder why an aircraft lit up like a Christmas tree on short finals wasn't spotted.

Or was the Dash already on the runway and lined up, but for some reason had not yet commenced takeoff? What is not clear to me in all the info so far released is in which direction the Dash was facing. Was it pointing across, or down the runway?

Remarks above concerning the visibility of aircraft on runways at night are pertinent, especially if the Dash had lined up.
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:25
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When the camera zooms in on the life footage, there are no signs of evacuation from 4L slide. At 1:25 evacuation begins and approx. 30 people slide down during one minute, some falling on top of each other. After that one minute later only three cabin crew members abandon plane via 4L. It seems that only 1R and 1L were used for evacuation due to height, but when the fumes breached the cabin, part of the people realized that they will not make it and jumped down from 4L. How likely is that these 30 people were the last ones and all other 350 people managed to leave safely via 1L and 1R?
liider is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:26
  #195 (permalink)  
JG1
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: on root
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps the 350 hit the Dash8 just on, or very shortly before, touchdown, nose high. The 350 radome has impact damage but the flight deck windows do not. If the 350 impacted the Dash from behind, level, the damage on the 350s radome (and flight deck) would probably have been a deep vertical incision. Looks like they are Very lucky 350 pilots. Perhaps just before touchdown as it lost rhs mlg, probably from heavy landing rather than passing debris as the rh engine is still attached. Had the impact occurred 50' before touchdown the 350 would probably not have survived in one piece. Wonderful post impact control of the 350, and admirable execution of evacuation by crew and passengers.
JG1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:31
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 558
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Three sequences from the impact, the same lightsource (wingtip???) being indicated by the arrows.
Difficult to discern the Dash8

DIBO is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:35
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 302
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
About seating... it is unpalatable but those with less mobility should perhaps be placed further away from the exits. It is not nice to think of such people as second-class citizens, but they can and may inhibit speedy egress of the aircraft in an emergency situation, putting more people at risk.

Yet I would be one of those people [if I flew, which I don't, due to other medical issues now] who would be relegated to the possible "death zone" because of mobility. I get it however. The hardest thing would be, however, with family to get them to gtfo...

The whole pay for seating without eligibility is a joke but as ever I doubt regulators so far give sufficiently a stuff... or are used to the posh seats and don't see the problem IRL.
luoto is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:42
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually the fire services had three fires to fight:
- The DHC-8 at the beginning of RW 34R
- The A350 with 379 on board down the RW
- Fiercly burning parts of the DHC-8 (looks like one wing with engine & MLG) have way down the RW
EDML is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 14:43
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Around and about
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Northern Monkey
Be interested to see, if reports are accurate, whether the coast guard crew were familiar with Haneda airport or were operating there for the first time ever/in a while due to recent events.
What difference would that make? Great to see everyone coming to their own conclusions re. the accident investigation as per usual
Chipzilla is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 15:03
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Moved back to enemy territory... Leeds!!
Age: 50
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
No way. There would only have been pieces left at that speed.
The location of the wreckage tells a story.




The configuration of taxiway lights and the E6 marker board show this pic must have been taken from close to E6 looking NNE
The original fixed cam video of the impact looks to me to be on the cargo terminal roof overlooking E8 facing E which fits that location too.


Thus the wreckage of the Dash lies c. 1400 - 1500m beyond the JAL's touchdown markers, ie around exit C7. The relatively light collision damage to JAL's radome and nacelles indicates a lowish speed impact as might be expected from an aircraft that had probably been on the brakes for the best part of 1500m. In any case very considerably less than touchdown speed. Doubtless someone will soon do the calcs from a video and confirm that.
Trouble is, the only credible way the Dash would be expected to gain the runway would be via C5 or earlier, and it's maybe 500m past that. That's not a lot less than a Dash's take-off roll so a long way for one to be astray from its lining-up point.
So unless the Dash was shunted 4-500m along the runway which the videos do not seem to show it's in a very peculiar position indeed. It can't be crossing as there's nowhere to cross to. So one might then assume it was lined up or actually in the process of taking off - which could explain its strange position along the runway remote from any reasonable entry point.
And those symmetrical chops into each side of both nacelles at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions? Same height as a Dash's trailing edge I wonder?
Someone on here has said that ATC transmissions suggested that the Dash had been asked to hold at C5, so that's pretty close to the A359's touchdown point if so. The video doesn't look like an aircraft that's had brakes and reversers on for 1500m to me, but again that's purely subjective. I should point out that the charts I'm looking at have C5 shown as a regular turn off much closer to the to the landing end than the fast turnoff indicated in this post.

Last edited by Frankfurt_Cowboy; 2nd Jan 2024 at 15:07. Reason: Noticed differing airfield charts being used
Frankfurt_Cowboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.