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 3rd Jan 2024, 08:55
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 60
Posts: 923
Received 16 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by EastofKoksy
The aircraft being on different frequencies should not be a problem...
Except this prevents the two aircraft from being aware of each other. Clearly this accident was due to a gross loss of situational awareness, being on different frequencies was definitely contributing.
andrasz is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 08:57
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Perth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't see if anyone has discussed this yet, but do the JAL A350s have a tail camera and/or nosewheel camera? And if so, does anyone know if those feeds are recorded in the black box?
skiguy84 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 08:58
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can anyone tell me how high off the ground floor level is on an A350? E.g. the door sill height?

It seems an incredible structural performance to keep the -8s tailplane out of the A350's cockpit.

Also seems notable that the wings didn't burn. CFRP clearly burns once exposed to enough heat but seems to have a decent level of fire resistance too.
medod is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:05
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I really don’t understand why SMR didn’t issue an alarm for MA772 standing on the RW with landing traffic being on short final. MA772 was standing there for almost a minute. It would have been a different situation if he was just lining up.
EDML is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:07
  #345 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,742
Received 23 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by andrasz
Except this prevents the two aircraft from being aware of each other. Clearly this accident was due to a gross loss of situational awareness, being on different frequencies was definitely contributing.
Except if the 2 frequencies were coupled together in the TWR . Lots of frequencies published in the IAC, probably not all manned individually at the same time . But did the Dash contacted TWR at the holding point ? Still a few missing puzzle parts.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:09
  #346 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,742
Received 23 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by EDML
I really don’t understand why SMR didn’t issue an alarm for MA772 standing on the RW with landing traffic being on short final. MA772 was standing there for almost a minute. It would have been a different situation if he was just lining up.
Indeed but do we know for sure HND has a SMR and if yes was it operational that day ?
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:09
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mode S Transponder with ADS-B (1090 MHz)

Today,

Most modern jetliners carry a so-called Mode-S 1090 ES Transponder (ES = Extended Squitter). This is all in one box (one Transponder) and the 1090 ES hints at ADS-B.
So, they are all transmitting data in parallel on Mode-S and ADS-B (1090 Mhz). The broadcast frequency is 1090 MHz and 1030 MHz is the interrogation (coordination) frequency (i.e. for TCAS RA coordination).
This is now the standard Transponder for almost all IFR aircraft (i.e. those needing Mode-S Enhanced)....

Thanks Chris




Dear ATC Watcher,
good that you corrected your earlier comment on ADS-B and Transponders. Still you are wrong about the “separate box” as a generality. A modern general aviation transponder (as the one I fly with) has ADS-B (Out and/or IN) integrated since a few years……… And further, the ADS-B information IS transmitted on the 1090 MHz transponderfrequency…….
Cheers[/QUOTE]








Olindaguy is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:15
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by medod
Can anyone tell me how high off the ground floor level is on an A350? E.g. the door sill height?

It seems an incredible structural performance to keep the -8s tailplane out of the A350's cockpit.

Also seems notable that the wings didn't burn. CFRP clearly burns once exposed to enough heat but seems to have a decent level of fire resistance too.
A video shot from the adjoining taxiway appears to show the A350 not fully de-rotated when the explosion occurs. Given the aircraft's length, that could place the flight deck several metres higher than when the NLG is on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what saved not only the flight deck crew but the whole complement.
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:16
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrasz
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.
The only important question remaining is why did the approach controller not notice that 34R was occupied ? Even if MA722 was not where it was supposed to be, surely HND has SMR, there should have been both visual and aural warnings as a measure of last resort.
Very good summary.
I was listening to Australian news and as per their info, the DH8 was not supposed to on the runway, but at the holding point. Maybe the pilot overlooked the line as the lightning was INOP and instead of taxiing off the runway, knowing that they were number 1, they decided to stay where they were and did not tell the controlled either. Coast Guard info said that they were taxiing for 50min. If this would have been the case, we can only speculate right now, maybe they were just impatient in the cockpit, which probably could have contributed to the runway incursion.

MartinM is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:17
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 60
Posts: 923
Received 16 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
@andrasz. Probably they saw it in the last few seconds, but they had not enough energy to avoid impact. The CVR will tell.
No need to wait for the CVR, investigators should already know, the crew is there to tell. My wager is still that they did not see anything till impact. With the HUD up, the focused vision will be on the display, with only peripheral vision recording the approaching runway lights. The impact was a few seconds after touchdown, one set of eyeballs would have been looking away monitoring reverse selection, and the nose was still high (otherwise that dent would have been much bigger). The way the human brain processes vision is looking for patterns or movement. For the first, expectancy is a huge factor, one generally notices things one is looking for, and there was no reason to expect anything but a clear runway. With the DH3 standing still very close to the TD point, there was practically no perceivable parallax motion from the approach angle. I'm sure the final report will have a multi-page analysis of this, probably involving several real-life visibility tests like it was done after the LAX accident.

Last edited by andrasz; 3rd Jan 2024 at 09:30.
andrasz is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:18
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 659
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by andrasz
Except this prevents the two aircraft from being aware of each other. Clearly this accident was due to a gross loss of situational awareness, being on different frequencies was definitely contributing.

Please reread what East of Koksy said. ATC can cross couple two or more frequencies so that any transmission on one is received and then (almost) instantaneously retransmitted on the other.
if the frequencies were cross coupled in this manner than they were effectively on the same frequency.
Del Prado is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:19
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 659
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
Anyone who still thinks the JAL was in the flare then check the video further back. It’s on the ground, level m and in the roll out as it passed that camera a second before the explosion.
Del Prado is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:23
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Indeed but do we know for sure HND has a SMR and if yes was it operational that day ?
According to this ICAO document: https://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/...asid/cns4a.pdf (page 14) they have SMR.
EDML is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:26
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 256
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by JG1
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.<br />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.
I agree. It makes the HUD pretty much useless below about 200ft unless you whack the brightness up to "eyeball-searing", which I won't do because of the green flare as the auto brightness adjusts as you cross the threshold. But HUD or not, I find it difficult to spot aircraft on the runway even with strobes on, and if they're stationary it's close to impossible.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:33
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iron Duck
A video shot from the adjoining taxiway appears to show the A350 not fully de-rotated when the explosion occurs. Given the aircraft's length, that could place the flight deck several metres higher than when the NLG is on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what saved not only the flight deck crew but the whole complement.
The radome of the A350 was smashed so it clearly went through something, and that thing can only be the -8s tailfin, which is 7.5m tall. Hence my interest in the deck height of A350.
medod is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:38
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: I would tell you, but my GPS keeps getting jammed
Posts: 162
Received 51 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
I agree. It makes the HUD pretty much useless below about 200ft unless you whack the brightness up to "eyeball-searing", which I won't do because of the green flare as the auto brightness adjusts as you cross the threshold. But HUD or not, I find it difficult to spot aircraft on the runway even with strobes on, and if they're stationary it's close to impossible.
Here are two GoPro screenshots of an A350 HUD at both 300ft and 30ft AGL in a low-light setting. I think it's pretty clear to see how the A350 crew could have missed the Dash 8 with the HUD.

300ft AGL


30ft AGL


(Pictures from:
)
VHOED191006 is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:43
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 108 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by Del Prado
Anyone who still thinks the JAL was in the flare then check the video further back. It’s on the ground, level m and in the roll out as it passed that camera a second before the explosion.
I do not agree. See the 3 pix in one of my recent posts. Thr A350 seems to be pitched up slightly, so derotation not completed
waito is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:49
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 31
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by medod
The radome of the A350 was smashed so it clearly went through something, and that thing can only be the -8s tailfin, which is 7.5m tall. Hence my interest in the deck height of A350.
here, page 37
Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
5,04 meters for the floor (door step)
5,82 meters for the bottom of the cockpit windshield
51bravo is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:51
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 6 Posts
What is the SOP on the use of HGS on the JAL 350?

Is it compulsorily down and switched on, or is its use in non-low vis ops up to the crew to decide? As has been mentioned earlier, the HGS can be a powerful tool, but it can also (maybe paradoxically) decrease situational awareness in some situations.
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 09:54
  #360 (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 MartinM
Very good summary.
I was listening to Australian news and as per their info, the DH8 was not supposed to on the runway, but at the holding point. Maybe the pilot overlooked the line as the lightning was INOP and instead of taxiing off the runway, knowing that they were number 1, they decided to stay where they were and did not tell the controlled either. Coast Guard info said that they were taxiing for 50min. If this would have been the case, we can only speculate right now, maybe they were just impatient in the cockpit, which probably could have contributed to the runway incursion.
They might have been taxiing for so long. The hangar for the coast guard is on the other end of the airport. As a matter of fact, it's sister Dash 8 (JA723A) is parked very close to the hangar I marked on the NW side of the airport on the google maps satelite view.


Tetsuo 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.