JAL incident at Haneda Airport
Radio calls are the basis of what went fundamentally wrong. HUD should not stop pilots being able to see a runway day or night, that includes any vehicle or aircraft on it.
Last edited by KABOY; 3rd Jan 2024 at 06:09.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting aspect revealed via The Aviation Herald:
"According to ATC recordings the A359 as well as a number of other aircraft departing runway 34R were handed off to Tower Frequency 118.725MHz, however, the Coast Guard DH8C was handed off to tower at 124.350MHz. JL-516, upon being handed off to tower by approach, was told by tower to "continue approach", about 90 seconds later tower cleared the aircraft to land."
Source: https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0
"According to ATC recordings the A359 as well as a number of other aircraft departing runway 34R were handed off to Tower Frequency 118.725MHz, however, the Coast Guard DH8C was handed off to tower at 124.350MHz. JL-516, upon being handed off to tower by approach, was told by tower to "continue approach", about 90 seconds later tower cleared the aircraft to land."
Source: https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 76
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evacuation videos show people mostly strolling away from the airplane. There was no catastrophic fire until they had all de-planed.
As far as I could understand, ONE ATCO working on two runways , at busy airport, mixing language and one aircraft that is not at all with him on the same freq( dash 8).
There is no techical device or softver that could substitute rule:
one runway, one language, one frequency.
...
There is no techical device or softver that could substitute rule:
one runway, one language, one frequency.
...
An interesting aspect revealed via The Aviation Herald:
"According to ATC recordings the A359 as well as a number of other aircraft departing runway 34R were handed off to Tower Frequency 118.725MHz, however, the Coast Guard DH8C was handed off to tower at 124.350MHz. JL-516, upon being handed off to tower by approach, was told by tower to "continue approach", about 90 seconds later tower cleared the aircraft to land."
Source: https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0
"According to ATC recordings the A359 as well as a number of other aircraft departing runway 34R were handed off to Tower Frequency 118.725MHz, however, the Coast Guard DH8C was handed off to tower at 124.350MHz. JL-516, upon being handed off to tower by approach, was told by tower to "continue approach", about 90 seconds later tower cleared the aircraft to land."
Source: https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0
Quite a number of swiss cheese layers, isn't it?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: on root
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Haneda have LED runway lights? I find LED runway lights far too bright and piercing. Sometimes after takeoff I have a centreline burned on my vision for a minute or two.
Any aircraft's position lights are no match for a full set of LED runway TDZ lights. For the 350 crew to spot an aircraft in the TDZ, especially after having had their night vision degraded by the approach lights, would have been very difficult.
Any aircraft's position lights are no match for a full set of LED runway TDZ lights. For the 350 crew to spot an aircraft in the TDZ, especially after having had their night vision degraded by the approach lights, would have been very difficult.
Does Haneda have LED runway lights? I find LED runway lights far too bright and piercing. Sometimes after takeoff I have a centreline burned on my vision for a minute or two.
Any aircraft's position lights are no match for a full set of LED runway TDZ lights. For the 350 crew to spot an aircraft in the TDZ, especially after having had their night vision degraded by the approach lights, would have been very difficult.
Any aircraft's position lights are no match for a full set of LED runway TDZ lights. For the 350 crew to spot an aircraft in the TDZ, especially after having had their night vision degraded by the approach lights, would have been very difficult.
RIP to those poor souls.
Last edited by maggotdriver; 3rd Jan 2024 at 07:12. Reason: Addition
This extended CCTV footage appears to show the full sequence of events. You can just about make out that the Dash 8 has lined up (notice the landing light coming into view as it turns onto the runway) and is sat on the runway for about 45 seconds prior to the collision. It looks like it was completely lined up on the runway, with the Airbus going straight into the back of it.
https://youtu.be/6NbVdIoJsHY?si=8uIRD7x8fFAaIzG9
https://youtu.be/6NbVdIoJsHY?si=8uIRD7x8fFAaIzG9
Now that we know where to look and context of all those pinpoints of lights out there, the Dash 8 can clearly be seen lining up and sitting there for what seems an eternity.
If the aircraft wasn't meant to line up, what an earth was the Tower controller doing for almost a minute while they were sitting there? There may have been other traffic but it certainly feels there was sufficient gap for the aircraft to depart well ahead of the A350. Perhaps the CG pilot did have a good lookout as he entered the runway. At that point the A350 must have still been at about 3 miles from touch.
Pegase Driver
Indeed 2 large ones already ( assuming Av Herald is correct) , the NOTAM and the frequencies. But the read back of the Dash is still missing as eventual additional R/T exchanges later.
If the video posted by Defruiter ( #294) is timed correctly it shows the Dash lining up and waiting for 45 seconds , that would indicate he either was cleared or assumed he was cleared to line up and wait. But regardless of this why was this not detected by the TWR is still the main question for me.
If the video posted by Defruiter ( #294) is timed correctly it shows the Dash lining up and waiting for 45 seconds , that would indicate he either was cleared or assumed he was cleared to line up and wait. But regardless of this why was this not detected by the TWR is still the main question for me.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rarely post given the ill-informed drivel that is posted on this forum but at times I do feel the need to. First of all, I think it’s important to recognize that one of the challenges for airport firefighters is the infrequency of incidents of this scale. This will likely be the first and last incident of this nature those firefighters will ever experience. You simply cannot expect them to respond as having experience with an incident like this. Secondly, we have a very small amount of information. Indeed, it is likely that also the first responders were acting on even less information. If you’ve ever been a first responder you will appreciate the confusion and stress. Thirdly, they use foam. They have a storage of foam in their appliances, and then over the longer term they generate foam using water from a hydrant ring main usually drawing on non-airport appliances to establish pump relays. As an ex-firefighter, I’ve been in many ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t’ decision making situations. As it turned out we have seen the best possible outcome with this incident. With everyone rescued from the A350 within minutes there is not much for the firefighters to do other than keep themselves safe. The plane was already a write off. There are sure to be lessons learned, but there is no glaring concern here.
Pegase Driver
the New York times just posted this :
Did we had already this info and was it verified ? Sounds quite strange to me but if true could add another hole on the cheese layers. (e.g. possible technical issue to solve, delays .time pressure, etc.) .
A Coast Guard official said the Coast Guard aircraft had started taxiing to the runway around 4:45 p.m., about an hour before the collision.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HUD,most airlines require it as SOP, not just because it has an accurate but very sensitive wind shear mode..For my 6 years of HUD operations , against SOP,I always folded it away in the climb, and only used it in the descent and landing.I was very much aware that it could obscure the view of small targets..Certainly, if the HUD was in use, and especially if the level of brightness was anything other than at the lowest level, it may well have contributed to the airbus crew not seeing the Dash 8..
Last edited by Yaw String; 3rd Jan 2024 at 08:06.
(hud user here, 787)
I am starting to seriously dislike this hud, or any other gadget that is introduced but does not contribute to anything substantial like lower limits. Useless clutter in my field of vision.
I am starting to seriously dislike this hud, or any other gadget that is introduced but does not contribute to anything substantial like lower limits. Useless clutter in my field of vision.
Amazing to see the core of the No 2 engine continue to idle with the fan totally destroyed (taken out by the ) and the FADECs doing what they are supposed to do. Suspect fuel SOV disabled with fuselage / wing damage. Fire handle pull should have shut it. I bet the crew did all the emergency shutdown procedures.
From what we know so far, a classic case of Swiss cheese that will likely make it into future textbooks. Investigation will take months to years, but I doubt any significant new information will be added other than a more elaborate analysis of the individual holes:
- 34R was T/O only runway previously, JL516 was the first to use it for landing. The MA722 crew may have had a mental picture not to expect any landings on this runway. For same reason, they may not have expected the need to hold short.
- Usage of "Number one" by ATC may have further reinforced the MA722 crew, missing the "abeam C5" or misunderstanding it as hold ON RWY abeam of C5 (which is exactly what they did). While usage of English in all ATC comms in Japan is commendable, in this case it probably just added to the confusion.
- Stop bar and taxiway lighting INOP.
- JL516 and MA722 on different frequencies
- MA722 was sitting aligned on the runway for 45+ seconds. Probably Japanese culture at play, it is impolite to challenge authority or appear impatient, they were likely patiently waiting for ATC to clear them for T/O.
- DL taxied past MA722 a good 20-25 seconds before the collision, it was already out of their view and expectantly on its t/o roll as the A350 was approaching, so no extra set of eyeballs to wave off JL, as it was done in SFO.
- The combination of HUD and LED lighting probably prevented the JL crew from seeing MA722 even at close range, I'd wager they never saw what they hit.
- Visibility of a DH3 from the rear in the dark is practically nil. The only visible tail light is white, probably flooded out by runway lights, and the flashing orange upper ACL is obscured by the high tail from the approach angle. The otherwise fully warranted SOP of not using strobes until the beginning of T/O roll did not help in this case.
Last edited by andrasz; 3rd Jan 2024 at 08:45.
So the holes in the cheese are lining up. Runway stop light US. Both aircraft for the same runway on different TWR frequencies.
@hunbet. With all A350 people safe out of the airplane and still 5 missing on an aircraft on fire where would you concentrate your rescue efforts?
@hunbet. With all A350 people safe out of the airplane and still 5 missing on an aircraft on fire where would you concentrate your rescue efforts?
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft being on different frequencies should not be a problem as most ATC units can cross-couple frequencies with a transmission received on one frequency almost instantaneously broadcast on the other.
Last edited by EastofKoksy; 3rd Jan 2024 at 09:00.
IMHO the biggest hole in the cheese is, that the MA722 was given a different TWR frequency. If you hear a landing clearance for the same runway you are staying on position and hold, you speak up, regardless if you are right to be there or not.
@andrasz. Probably they saw it in the last few seconds, but they had not enough energy to avoid impact. The CVR will tell.
@andrasz. Probably they saw it in the last few seconds, but they had not enough energy to avoid impact. The CVR will tell.