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, 16:38
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: switzerland
Posts: 50
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:



Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:





The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?

So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?

IB

Last edited by Ivor_Bigunn; 3rd Jan 2024 at 10:36. Reason: Deleted Apparently Incorrect Taxiway Numbers
Ivor_Bigunn is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 16:41
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,179
Received 115 Likes on 57 Posts
Originally Posted by Compton3fox
BBC News - Japan Airlines plane in flames on the runway at Tokyo's Haneda Airport
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011
https://x.com/FlightEmergency/status...A3H9D5LpQ&s=09
RIP to five crew of the JCG Dash 8 and hope the surviving crew member who managed to escape is ok

Just received Airbus official statement Airbus statement on Flight JAL516, 02 January 2024

@Airbus

Toulouse, 02 January 2024 - Airbus regrets to confirm that an A350-900 operated by Japan Airlines was involved in an accident during flight JAL516 from Sapporo New Chitose Airport to Haneda International Airport shortly after 17:47 (local time) on 02 January 2024. All 367 passengers and 12 crew members on-board evacuated the aircraft.

The A350 collided with a DHC-8 aircraft at landing in Haneda. The Japanese authorities have since confirmed that sadly five of the six people on board the DHC-8 did not survive. The exact circumstances of the event are still unknown.

The aircraft involved in the accident, registered under the number JA13XJ, was MSN 538, delivered to Japan Airlines from the production line on 10 November 2021. It was powered by Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines.

In line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 recommendations, Airbus will provide technical assistance to the Bureau díEnquÍtes et díAnalyses (BEA) of France and to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) in charge of the investigation. For this purpose, Airbus is presently dispatching a team of specialists to assist the Authorities.

Further updates will be provided as soon as consolidated information is available and Airbus is authorised to release them.

Our concerns and sympathy go to the families, friends and loved ones affected by the accident.



Airbus newsroomAirbus statement on Flight JAL516, 02 January 2024

@Airbus

Toulouse, 02 January 2024 - Airbus regrets to confirm that an A350-900 operated by Japan Airlines was involved in an accident during flight JAL516 from Sapporo New Chitose Airport to Haneda International Airport shortly after 17:47 (local time) on 02 January 2024. All 367 passengers and 12 crew members on-board evacuated the aircraft.

The A350 collided with a DHC-8 aircraft at landing in Haneda. The Japanese authorities have since confirmed that sadly five of the six people on board the DHC-8 did not survive. The exact circumstances of the event are still unknown.

The aircraft involved in the accident, registered under the number JA13XJ, was MSN 538, delivered to Japan Airlines from the production line on 10 November 2021. It was powered by Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines.

In line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 recommendations, Airbus will provide technical assistance to the Bureau díEnquÍtes et díAnalyses (BEA) of France and to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) in charge of the investigation. For this purpose, Airbus is presently dispatching a team of specialists to assist the Authorities.

Further updates will be provided as soon as consolidated information is available and Airbus is authorised to release them.

Our concerns and sympathy go to the families, friends and loved ones affected by the accident.
Miracle the pax and crew manage to escape the burning A350...




chopper2004 is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 16:41
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lisbon
Age: 62
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The underside of the A350 was in shreds, from the front gear bay to almost the tail. It "ran over" the DHC-8. I'd venture that the nose cone broke the vertical stabilizer of the coast guard plane, and then everything went under.
JHPaulo is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 16:42
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Usually on top
Posts: 176
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Assuming 180t landing mass and 122kts touchdown/impact speed for the A350 and 18t takeoff mass for the -8 at 0 speed, a fully elastic collision would decrease the speed of the A350 by about 20kts only. Of course this was not an elastic collision and most of the energy went into deforming parts of both aircraft, so it would decelerate the A350 substantially less than 20kts.

As others have stated, we don't see the -8 in ADS-B data because it doesn't have an ADS-B capable transponder and thus will only be shown on flight tracking sites where MLAT data can be generated. RJTT doesn't have good enough ground coverage by multiple receivers, hence no MLAT position shown.

TCAS is inhibited from providing RAs below 900ft GND. So even if the -8 had an ADS-B transponder, I don't think the A350 crew would have received any warnings. Runway incursion warning systems AFAIK operate only on the ATC side.
physicus is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 16:52
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ivor_Bigunn
Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:



Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:




The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?

So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?

IB
Your chart is wrong. C5 is much closer to the threshold.




Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 16:59
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Long Haul
In my opinion the HUD makes it much harder to see aircraft or vehicles on the runway. I brief this as a threat and ask the pilot on the observer seat (if there is a pilot on the observer seat) to pay special attention to this.
Iím with you longhaul. The 350ís I flew had dual HUDs. SOP required their use for all takeoffs and landings. At night, I couldnít get the dimness low enough for my liking and found it quite distracting at airports with busy ground lighting/traffic. Dash 8ís arenít well illuminated from behind either, so if they were lined up would be hard to see through the HUD. Iím assuming of course the JAL birds had HUDs.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:01
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SRMman
My take on the impact, just from the photos and videos, is how surprisingly little damage there is to the A350. The nosecone is very light structure, yet only has a dent, and both engines appear to have light damage to their intakes.
Therefore one must assume that most of the A350 impact was taken on the lower front hull and nose landing gear.

Obviously we donít yet known the 2 aircraftís configuration at impact but itís still difficult to see how the bigger aircraft got away with such little obvious damage, particularly to the wing structure.
This X-thread gives a good comparison in aircraft size

AGeeknologist/status/1742210072682369284?t=2Fsl58VGYSxmqsvUKSgMgQ&s=19

(not allowed to post full urls yet)
Winterapfel is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:01
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C-5



Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:03
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I was looking at the TBS video, three takes from that:

Left side aft door - steeps slide ... at 0129 the first person out is visible at the bottom of the slide, at 0130 the second, one of the first walks around to grab a bag, then others come down, on top a crew member with a flashlight is constantly visible in the door opening, this person goes down the slide at 0341 with (probably) two other crew including (probably) on of the pilots... they then run to the nose section and (probably) meet the other crew members there... so 2min12 sec from first person down to last out...

in the middle of the (long, 5hrs) video you see a plane pass right to left hand at high speed past a sign which stands just right of an intersection, ... the sign says ... [ 16L - 34R ][ C5 ] ... not possible to read the registration number (which is some indication of speed) ...

Just like one of the posters above I never got an answer to questions about various effects of fires on large commercial composites fuselages, this video gives some indication of the burn through sequence, pity that the video contains a lot of repeats so you dont have a continuous timeline...

A0283 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:06
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 269
Received 63 Likes on 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Ivor_Bigunn
Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:

Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:
IB
Thanks Ivor_Bigunn . I assume this picture shows the impact, not the burning remains of the Cost Guard aircraft.
With the correction of Lost in Saigon that all makes sense.
waito is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:07
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I was looking at the TBS video, three takes from that:

Left side aft door - steeps slide ... at 0129 the first person out is visible at the bottom of the slide, at 0130 the second, one of the first walks around to grab a bag, then others come down, on top a crew member with a flashlight is constantly visible in the door opening, this person goes down the slide at 0341 with (probably) two other crew including (probably) on of the pilots... they then run to the nose section and (probably) meet the other crew members there... so 2min12 sec from first person down to last out...

in the middle of the (long, 5hrs) video you see a plane pass right to left hand at high speed past a sign which stands just right of an intersection, ... immediately after the flash of (probably) the impact .... the sign says ... [ 16L - 34R ][ C5 ] ... not possible to read the registration number (which is some indication of speed) ...

Just like one of the posters above I never got an answer to questions about various effects of fires on large commercial composites fuselages, this video gives some indication of the burn through sequence, pity that the video contains a lot of repeats so you dont have a continuous timeline...



A0283 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:13
  #232 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,713
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by physicus

As others have stated, we don't see the -8 in ADS-B data because it doesn't have an ADS-B capable transponder and thus will only be shown on flight tracking sites where MLAT data can be generated. RJTT doesn't have good enough ground coverage by multiple receivers, hence no MLAT position shown.. TCAS is inhibited from providing RAs below 900ft GND. So even if the -8 had an ADS-B transponder, I don't think the A350 crew would have received any warnings. Runway incursion warning systems AFAIK operate only on the ATC side.
Please stick to what you know and stop mentioning ADS-B transponders and TCAS . For your info there is no such thing as ADS-B Transponders, just Mode S ones and I would be extremely surprised if a Dash8 would not carry one..
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:16
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,561
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
The Air Canada Gimli Glider 767 lost its nose gear resulting in the rear slides hanging straight down. A number of passengers who took the rear slides were permanently disabled with spinal injuries.

In this case it seems the left rear slide reached the ground at a bit less than vertical and those coming down there were able to walk away, but may have suffered injuries.
​​​​
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:21
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 342
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
ATC Watcher,

Heís quite correct that A/C fitted with ADSB OUT are visible on flight radar while on the ground if the transponder is on.

Heís also correct that TCAS is inhibited below 900ish ft but thatís not really relevant. We sometimes get a TCAS target with the orange (TA) symbol from a/c on the ground visible on the ND but never a TA or RA.
Locked door is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:24
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Up Narf
Posts: 452
Received 171 Likes on 95 Posts
Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon
Your chart is wrong. C5 is much closer to the threshold.



Aircraft do not land at the threshold. Try a 1/4 of the way down of the runway or further. I happen to have an office on an airport and have never seen a B73, A320, B77, B78, turboprops etc land anywhere near a threshold. Always way down the runway.
Diff Tail Shim is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:33
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 558
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Ivor_Bigunn
Re: Location of Impact
The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.
And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?
So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?
Prior to seeing your input, I came to a similar conclusion



Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim
Aircraft do not land at the threshold.
Indeed, you see part of the 'aiming point' in the top right corner of my picture.

Last edited by DIBO; 2nd Jan 2024 at 17:38. Reason: Added reply to DTS
DIBO is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:55
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Usually on top
Posts: 176
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Sequence of events based on ADS-B data from FlyRealTraffic.com / ADS-B Exchange data.

Times in UTC.
GS = GNSS derived ground speed
RSSI = received signal strength. Values > -20 dBFS are strong and reliable transmissions.
Baro altitudes are uncorrected (reference to 1013.2 hPa)
MCP alt sel: The altitude selected on the mode control panel
VS = baro derived vertical speed

QNH at time of incident: 1016.4 hPa at 8C temperature. You should therefore add 96ft to the reported barometric altitudes to obtain corrected altitudes.

Time: 08:47:18
Lat/Lon: 35.541982 139.803538
GS: 124 kts
Baro alt: 0 ft (96ft corrected)
MCP alt sel: 3008 ft
VS: -576 fpm
RSSI: -9 dBFS

Comment:
This is the last position data received. This position is 64m prior to the piano keys on RWY 34R and 2m right of centerline.
There are no ADS-B messages received over the next 4 seconds. At 124 kts that puts the aircraft 252m further down the runway, or just past the first set of touchdown indicators.
This indicates that something disabled the position data in the ADS-B source in those 4 seconds.
The collision therefore likely occurred at the C2/C3 intersection position along RWY 34R.

Time: 08:47:26
Lat/Lon: No data
GS: No data
Baro alt: -100ft (4ft/on ground corrected)
MCP alt sel: No data
RSSI: -7 dBFS
VS: No data

Comment:
This is the next ADS-B message that was received from the aircraft. Still with good signal strength, but now missing a host of data likely due to disabled sensor inputs.

Time: 08:47:28
Lat/Lon: No data
GS: No data
Baro alt: -175ft
MCP alt sel: No data
RSSI: -7 dBFS
VS: No data

Comment:
Only baro altitude and RSSI updates from this point forward. Baro alt fluctuating between -50 to -75 ft with RSSIs between -4 and -13, so still good signal.

The last message received is at 08:48:04.

physicus is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 17:55
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 51
Posts: 28
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As an ATCO I am surprised that Haneda does not have any form of RIMCAS (Runway Incursion Monitoring and Collision Avoidance System) to alert controllers of hazardous conditions. At least it seems so according to this document describing Hanedas Runway safety Program

ICAO presentation

PointMergeArrival is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 18:03
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 269
Received 63 Likes on 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Ivor_Bigunn
Re: Location of Impact

The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

IB
Originally Posted by DIBO
Prior to seeing your input, I came to a similar conclusion
Yes, with me 3 people now agree, where the collision took place.

I gave it a bit more fuzziness, red lines mark roughly the collision zone.


waito is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2024, 18:15
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 269
Received 63 Likes on 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Tetsuo
Watching the video on Post #9 it seems that A350 was at landing roll at the moment prior to impact.

Carefully watching it on slow motion on youtube, there is a stationary probe light blinking at least two times (around sec 4 and sec 5 of the video), visible just above the tail of the plane with Star Wars livery. (Crop from screenshot marked which looks like the probe light below.)

Looking at this, it appears that the Dash 8 was stationary inside the runway and was hit by A350 during the landing roll.

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy4RIvRcwUo&t=5s
Thank you for this detail, Tetsuo!

In fact this appears as an Anti Collision Light, and there was no motion.

It's impossible to see the orientation of the Coast Guard Plane.
It's impossible for me to see the nose up angle of the A350 right before impact.
We can assume the impact speed was not too far from landing speed, so like in the 120KN region
waito 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.