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, 13:55
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 102 Likes on 74 Posts
Originally Posted by OldLurker
From the discussion so far, it’s not clear to me whether we know (yet) exactly how the Dash-8 entered the runway. Did the crew use C-5, or might they have - apparently believing that they had takeoff clearance - cut the corner and used C-6 for a faster entry?
Most likely entered via C5. Practically ruled out meanwhile entering via C6 or later. C1 to C4 not completely impossible.

See one of my later posts why.
waito is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 13:56
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: just off the M27
Age: 48
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the controller's use of No.1 to the outbound, it suggested the mental plan was there, land the inbound, squeeze the departure, then late landing clearance to come for the next.

I can't help wondering though if adding "No.1" to the outbound aircraft's taxi clearance might have set positive expectation bias in the Coastguard crew that they'd be the first movement (in or out) once they reached c5.

Sad outcome, but kudos to the JAL crew.
stu_h is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 13:56
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
I assume that the ICAO phraseology will be changed after this accident. Hold short (stop on taxi way), position and hold (stop on the runway but no take off clearance), holding position (stop on the taxi way) are too ambiguous and can be mixed with clutter on the frequency or wishful thinking of a tired crew.
I can't agree with that at all. ICAO phraseology occasionally changes in ways that don't intuitively make sense to old timers - but being instructed to hold at Charlie 5 is wildly different from "line up and wait". If you are told to hold at Charlie 5, this means keep the nose behind the markings! The fact that the tower told the inbound aircraft there were departures SHOULD have caused them to question or seek clarification. I'm afraid this seems to be a case (and forgive me there is a lot here to read, I listened to the audio and skimmed other comments) of a failure to follow instructions and/ or a failure to check if something doesn't seem right. But most of all, there were a lot of eyeballs who seemed to be focusing inside the cockpit of the respective aircraft instead of "keeping a good lookout". It's tragic but no knee jerk required - these are rare events indeed.
ShropshirePilot is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 13:57
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
So all clear now:
* both aircraft on same TWR frequency
* 516 landing clearance given, some 10 sec. before 722A came up on TWR freq
* TWR instruction "taxi to holding point C5" given and fully read back by 722A
I clarifies the runway 05 questions earlier too ;-)

Not yet all answers covered - I still want to hear what the guys in the Dash 8 were thinking when they overran the hold C5 and entered the runway. I assume that the PM was discussing with PF of what to do next, assuming that being No1 the had time for discussion and if it was a mistaken runway incursion, goes back to my other theory, strobe was off at that time as they might not had planned to end up on the runway. A350 had no chance to see a strobe on runway. CVR of the DH3 will give a clue on this.

MartinM is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:01
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 102 Likes on 74 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
So all clear now:
* both aircraft on same TWR frequency
* 516 landing clearance given, some 10 sec. before 722A came up on TWR freq
* TWR instruction "taxi to holding point C5" given and fully read back by 722A
Thank you.

Anybody able to pick up the original trustworthy transscript and paste it into a post? Just the last 5 Minutes and the 2 relevant a/c marked bold?
waito is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:04
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


Last edited by bobstay; 3rd Jan 2024 at 14:45. Reason: Found higher resolution version
bobstay is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:06
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by waito
Thank you.

Anybody able to pick up the original trustworthy transscript and paste it into a post? Just the last 5 Minutes and the 2 relevant a/c marked bold?
But the context is also relevant. JL166 is informed of a departure. Which aircraft? The DHC8 or Delta, which is waiting for departure at C1? In other words, is ATC assuming that the DHC8 has already departed?

EDIT: obviously the transcript makes clear that JL516 was cleared to land before JA722A was instructed to taxi to the C5 holding point.

Last edited by Iron Duck; 3rd Jan 2024 at 14:20.
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:08
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Also the Dash is a multipilot aircraft, so curious if both pilots misunderstood… or does the cultural command gradient thing rear its ugly head again?
605carsten is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:10
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 11 Posts
Just to clear any potential misunderstanding, JAL166 is NOT the landing aircraft involved in the accident (which is JAL516) but is the next aircraft in the approach sequence. It can be assumed that it flew a missed approach.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:18
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 28
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
JAL166 went after MA to Narita.
51bravo is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:22
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 11 Posts
For any pilot familiar with Haneda, are the statements "spot 18" and "spot 21" referring to parking pre-allocated spots? Is there a requirement to state the parking spot in the first message sent to the tower?
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:27
  #432 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the provenance of the paper transcript pictured?

I don't understand why it is page 1 of 1

aox is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:28
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,121
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Iron Duck
But the context is also relevant. JL166 is informed of a departure. Which aircraft? The DHC8 or Delta, which is waiting for departure at C1? In other words, is ATC assuming that the DHC8 has already departed?
516 accident a/c also given a continue due departure. Highly likely to be the DH8 (for both 516 and 166) due to 722’s task prioritisation, and departure wake vortex considerations.

Possibility below:

Atco mental plan anticipated coastguard 722 to get out ahead of 516.
722 isn’t on frequency as hoped.
Mental plan changes 516 given clearance to land.
722 now on freq instructed no1 and to hold at C5 holding point.

Plan now of 722 going in gap between 516 and 166 hence min approach speed instruction to 166, and notice of traffic to depart ahead.

Note from time stamps 722 may not have heard 516 landing clearance, but will have heard ‘slow down’ instruction due departure ahead to 166.

Then the final holes line up, (full reasons to be determined), including, confirmation bias’s and in particular, unserviceable stop bar protecting the active runway.

edit to improve sequence above

Last edited by jumpseater; 3rd Jan 2024 at 14:44.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:42
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by aox
What is the provenance of the paper transcript pictured?

I don't understand why it is page 1 of 1
Source is this bloomberg article. I believe it's the transcript mentioned earlier today by Reuters, that has been released specially by the Japanese transport ministry in relation to this accident, hence only the short excerpt.
bobstay is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 14:57
  #435 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bobstay
Source is this bloomberg article. I believe it's the transcript mentioned earlier today by Reuters, that has been released specially by the Japanese transport ministry in relation to this accident, hence only the short excerpt.
Yes, I've searched a bit and found it is pictured in the Bloomberg article, though I can't read it myself

Another article I could read also says it has been released by the Japanese transport ministry

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/01/...-tokyo-runway/

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but to me the inclusion of some following comments on the transcript would rule a better line under it than this slightly open ended look.

But I don't know the exact time of the collision, so maybe it is complete enough, and I needn't be asking. Apologies if my question looks dim to some readers
aox is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 15:21
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 102 Likes on 74 Posts
I OCR converted into text, rearranged and marked bold the passages of the two accident aircraft. Please somebody crosschecked for OCR errors
The last line is MY comment, that's the impact time. It coincides with the CCTV timestamp, I hope that's accurate

17:43:02

(JAL516): Tokyo TOWER JAL516 spot18.

(Tokyo TOWER): JAL516 Tokyo TOWER good evening RUNWAY 34R continue approach wind 320/7, we have departure



17:43:12

(JAL516): JAL516 continue approach 34R.



17:43:26

(DAL276): Tokyo TOWER DAL276 with you on C, proceeding to holding point 34R

(Tokyo TOWER): DAL276 Tokyo TOWER good evening. taxi to holding point C1.

(DAL276): Holding point C1, DAL276



17:44:56

(Tokyo Tower): JAL516 RUNWAY 34R cleared to land wind 310/8



17:45:01

(JAL516): Cleared to land RUNWAY 34R JAL516.



17:45:11

(JA722A): TOWER JA722A C.

(Tokyo Tower): JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5



17:45:19

(JA722A): Taxi to holding point C5 JA722A No.1, Thank you.



17:45:40

(JAL179): Tokyo TOWER JAL179 taxi to holding point C1.

(Tokyo Tower):JAL179 Tokyo TOWER good evening, No.3, taxi to holding point C1

(JAL179): Taxi to holding point C1, we are ready JAL179.



17:45:56

(JAL166): Tokyo TOWER JAL166 spot 21.

(Tokyo Tower):JAL166 Tokyo TOWER good evening, No.2, RUNWAY 34R continue approach wind 320/8, we have departure, reduce speed to 160 knots.



17:46:06

(JAL166): Reduce 160 knots RUNWAY 34R continue approach, JAL166 good evening



17:47:23

(Tokyo Tower):JAL166, reduce minimum approach speed

(JAL166): JAL166



17:47:27

(comment by waito: Impact Landing JAL516 A350 into waiting JA722A Dash-8)

Last edited by waito; 3rd Jan 2024 at 15:43.
waito is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 15:24
  #437 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,974
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by aox
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but to me the inclusion of some following comments on the transcript would rule a better line under it than this slightly open ended look.
I think that the last transcript entry (for 17:47:27) is along the lines of "3 seconds of silence" (assuming that Japanese uses these characters similarly to Chinese). There are then 5 lines of footnotes identifying the aircraft - JAL516 is the first arrival, JA722A is the first departure, JAL166 second arrival, DAL276 second departure, JAL179 third departure - all of which is already known to anyone who's been following the story, but it all makes the page look complete to me.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 15:39
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 102 Likes on 74 Posts
Originally Posted by waito

17:43:02

(JAL516): Tokyo TOWER JAL516 spot18.

(Tokyo TOWER): JAL516 Tokyo TOWER good evening RUNWAY 34R continue approach wind 320/7, we have departure
This is 4m25s before impact. So like 12NM out or more




17:44:56

(Tokyo Tower): JAL516 RUNWAY 34R cleared to land wind 310/8
This is 2m31s before impact.


17:45:11

(JA722A): TOWER JA722A C.

(Tokyo Tower): JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5
2m16s from impact.The landing A350 should be 5-6 miles from TDZ?


17:45:19

(JA722A): Taxi to holding point C5 JA722A No.1, Thank you.
We don't know the position of the Dash-8. 2m08s time left, during witch they taxied, entered via C5, lined up and waited - for 45 seconds? Is that confirmed?
Assuming it takes 7-10 seconds from Holding Point C5 to come to the assumed stop-position and assuming 45s for waiting at that position
then at passing the HP C5, the approaching A350 was 2.5NM out.




​​​​​​​
waito is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 16:07
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Crazy that the RHS didnt clear the area visually with a 350 all lit up on 2.5nm final… I would assume the Coast Guard operates into strange places so used to keeping eyes outside….
605carsten is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2024, 16:14
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: oakland
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In Europe, "Clear to Land" by ATC means the runway is clear and will remain clear until after you land, whereas in the US, it's still "buyer beware", and there may well be approved aircraft movements on and across the runway,, before you land.

What is it in Japan?
hitchens97 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.