JAL incident at Haneda Airport

[FlyingRoland]

Originally Posted by Jasonbay

Just curious about the purported precision in the 0.4s, 0.6s and 1s estimates. Not that it matters significantly, but FlyingRoland -- if we were going to attempt such precision here, I'd ask if you might be able to determine the height of the upper and lower edge of the engine inlet cowls at +3, -1 and -5.5 deg pitch attitude. Then we can corroborate against the images of the damaged engines to back out the A350's attitude. There are just so many forces and moments (net collision reaction force, CG, thrust, elevator), acting about the MLG (treating that as the fulcrum)...

Hi Jasonbay, I was not standing there in Haneda seeing it happen, so the numbers I mention are all estimates and speculation based on what has been posted in this forum.
I agree with you that there are many factors that need to be taken into account; and let's leave the rest to the official investigation team...

[PeteMonty]

Originally Posted by JP7000

toyokeizai.net/articles/-/725704?page=4

Multiple web sites have taken photographs of this transcript (which implies that reporters are very interested to preserve proof of what the Ministry said).

Have they? All I can find on all the media outlets is the SAME photo (actually all bar one but that one is clearly a printout of a picture of the image but without the thumb so is maybe not the same but is also not the original). So this was not an official press-release that multiple independent media reporters were shown. This is a single photo that all media outlets have propagated, Very different! They all state it is official (that may be lost in translation though) but have any of them actually stated the source? Maybe it does (I can't read Japanese!) but surely if that came from an official department it would be on official headed paper from that department? This looks well put together but it doesn't look like an official government doc? Or is it?

[Old Carthusian]

Originally Posted by PeteMonty

The other point is that in the time period we are talking about, there were transmissions that JA722A could have miss-heard as clearances for them. They may have even read those clearances back and these readbacks were stepped on or missed by ATC. The captain of JA722A is adamant he was cleared. He didn't deliberately decide to take matters into his own hands and line up without clearance as some are suggesting. He had a lot more experience than me, that tells me I could also make the same mistake! This is why I am so keen to understand the mistake that was made, so I can analyze my own actions and make sure I am not so complacent that I think it could never happen to me. So, I am convinced that JA722A had heard something that meant they thought THEY were cleared. What I can make out of the taxi clearance from tower to them that we do hear leads me to believe that was not as clear-cut as some are saying. And we don't hear the readback so cannot hear what might have changed in the understanding of the crew from command to readback.

There's a lot in what you say but a study of the Tenerife accident is pretty useful in understanding the possible scenario. One also needs to consider that the Coastguard captain is in it up to his neck at the moment. He has every incentive to lie (which is a frequent reaction to a crisis in Japan and is done very convincingly - see the Meat Hope incident). However, even if he didn't lie his memory and the interpretation of the conversation isn't necessarily what actually happened.

[sirAlex]

Cultures with propensity to lie

#933

In your post, you make the blunt observation that, if in the wrong, it is in the interest of the coastguard pilot to lie.

Despite the obvious visceral distress such a comment might give the person involved, family and friends, I can hardly disagree.

You then assert that Japanese culture/ society is prone to this; excessively so you seem to say. No doubt if I am wrong you will correct me.

Having never been there I cannot comment directly.

As a non aviation Brit, however, which I suspect from your user name that you are too, I can only say that there has been an awful lot of it about locally throughout my long life. An awful, awful, awful, awful lot.

Less than Japan? Less than some/many/ most other countries?

If you are not merely an old Carthusian you will get the drift of my answer to my own question as a quotation, post 13th March 2013 [by someone of ostensibly quite unimpeachable authority; though from a country with a somewhat chequered record in the veracity stakes]:

'Who am I to judge?'

Edited: to add final observation in square brackets

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by Old Carthusian

There's a lot in what you say but a study of the Tenerife accident is pretty useful in understanding the possible scenario. One also needs to consider that the Coastguard captain is in it up to his neck at the moment. He has every incentive to lie .

I was involved in the Tenerife post report analysis in 1978 .. On the CVR Van Zanten ( the KLM captain) was absolutely convinced he was cleared for take off , he advanced the throttles before any transmission , and when the FE questioned it he replied : Jawell " which roughly means "Oh yes or "sure" " .And if he had survived would most certainly have confirmed he thought he received a take off clearance but what he got was a pre departure clearance ( the route etc..) So he would not necessarily be lying , but was having a brain trick induced by the stress and the pressure to get out of there before running out of hours. ..The main contributing factor there was that the Controller telling him to wait and the Pan Am telling both he was still on the runway were crossed transmissions partially resulting in a squeal for the KLM.
All this was only revealed listening to the KLM CVR,and here too, only the Dash CVR will clear that up.

For the rest the 2 accidents are very different . For the younger generation here ,here are part of the Conclusions from the Spanish final report ( there are 3 reports !) Translated from Google.

Main cause is that the Captain of KLM 4805, as soon as he heard ATC's clearance, decided to take off.

The root cause of this accident was the fact that the KLM: captain

1. Took off without authorization
2. He did not obey the 'standby for take-off...' of the Tower
3. He did not interrupt takeoff by saying PANAM was still on the runway.
4. When asked by the Flight Engineer if the PANAM had already left the runway, he replied with a resounding affirmation.

Now, how is it possible that a Pilot of the technical ability and experience of the this captain whose state of mind during the stopover in Tenerife seemed absolutely normal and correct, can make a basic mistake minutes later despite the warnings that are repeatedly addressed to him? One explanation can be found in a number of factors that possibly contributed to the accident.

1. Mood of increasing tension as problems accumulate for the Captain He knows that if he does not take off in a relatively short period of time he may have to interrupt the line with the consequent disruption for his company and inconvenience for the passenger, because in Holland the application of the rules regarding the limitation on flight time hours is very strict. On the other hand, the weather conditions of the Airport is rapidly worsening, which means that it either has to take off below its minimums or wait for conditions to improve, which can exceed the aforementioned hours limits.
2. The peculiar weather of Tenerife must be considered a factor in itself. What often hinders adequate visibility there is not fog itself, whose density and therefore vision that allows it to be measured quite accurately, but layers of clouds stuck to the ground and blown by the wind that cause sudden and radical changes in visibility. This can be at certain times zero meters to change to 500 meters or one kilometer in short spaces of time and become practically null again moments later. This condition undoubtedly makes it more difficult for a pilot to decide whether or not to carry out take-off or landing operations.
3. Two transmissions are made at the same time. The 'standby for take-off... TWR, 'I will call you', coincided with PANAM's 'we are still on the runway', which meant that the transmission did not arrive with all the clarity that would have been desired. The whistling sound that interfered with communication lasted about three seconds.

[waito]

I was irritated from the current critics of the Radio Transmission Transcript, Authorities Covering up etc. So I took a look on myself. Which was quite difficult.

From two sources, Youtube and the realATC forum (a mp3 file) I picked up this one transmission TWR to the Dash-8 and heard it repeatetly, also on 0.75 and 0.5 speed. I try to spell what I understand from both sources:

(?)72(?)alpha Tokyo Tower good evening number one taxi to holding (a?) (point?) charlie five

To be honest, I'm really unsure about the holding (a?) (point?) charlie part. Some mention it was "holding abeam ...". Re-Listening, I can't confirm nor rule out the word abeam. And maybe it was so unclear, that different listeners (me, you, the Dash-8 crew, the ministry publishing the transcript) heard one or the other.

The Transcript listed it as (Tokyo Tower): "JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5"

Some other transmissions that appear both in RealATC and the Transcript, they seem as accurate as I can tell. The mp3 file contains the "cleared to land" conversation between JAL516 and Tower. I don't type it here because I focused too much on the above statement.


Closing Notes:

As also mentioned:
1. The Transcript from ministry does only contain transmissions relevant for that (runway?). It's not complete, it might also interpret some difficult transmissions different that the other actors did, and the complete version must be expected in the accident investigation report. This will hopefully also highlight, if critical transmissions were hard to interpret due to announciation, speed, static clicks etc.
2. It's even less trustworthy to pick up files or Youtube Videos that claim to provide original RealATC recordings.
3. RealATC does and can not cover all transmissions due to different problems. And here we are missing the Dash-8 transmissions.
4. while some compilations cover one frequency, other combine frequencies. Neither the sources I mentioned nor the Minitry paper states what was the channel - right?

And: I understood, the Japanese Prime Minister at the end of the first briefing he received commanded among others, that true details must be made available (immediately?) to the public.

[Easy Street]

Westerners (such as myself) need to be much more self aware before casting cultural aspersions around. In recent memory we have the Shoreham display accident pilot who relied on an exceptionally dubious medical argument to persuade a lay jury that reasonable doubt existed as to whether he was criminally liable for the resulting deaths. Outside of aviation, clear evidence of a "face saving at all costs" culture (stereotypically ascribed to East Asia) is present in the Post Office scandal currently unfolding in the UK, extending even into the conduct of recent litigation. I very much hope the latter will see criminal charges brought, but there's the rub. The prospect of criminal liability changes things and it is unreasonable to infer that westerners are somehow more culturally disposed to being frank and open, or (alternatively) less susceptible to self-deception, in such circumstances.

(Taking the reverse argument I would also note that the Western passengers aboard the Alaskan Max 9 appear to have been remarkably calm and stoic in the face of loss of a fuselage panel and deployment of the rubber jungle!)

[pilotmike]

Originally Posted by JP7000

Both Sankei and Yomiuri newspapers report that "more than 3" (Yomiuri) and "all six" (Sankei) crewmembers on the Dash-8 had their headsets on as part of routine procedure and were listening in on the communications with Tokyo Tower. The surviving captain insists that all crewmembers agreed that they had been given permission for take off.

My bold.

Convention is that take off (indeed any) clearances are given by ATC, and are not deemed by majority votes amongst passengers. It works out safer that way. If there is ANY doubt, how difficult is it to ask for a repeat or confirmation of any clearance?

The quoted comment doesn't pass even the most basic 'sniff test'. Which Captain ever solicits the opinion of passengers who happen to wear headsets to settle any ambiguity, and then goes with the majority vote? They have been called 'crew members', presumably to give them more gravitas, however they were presumably CoastGuard qualified, NOT holding flying or RT licences. If there is any truth in the story of seeking passenger opinion, it reveals there was doubt, making it essential to check with ATC, as I stated above..

[fdr]

Originally Posted by pilotmike

My bold.

Convention is that take off (indeed any) clearances are given by ATC, and are not deemed by majority votes amongst passengers. It works out safer that way. If there is ANY doubt, how difficult is it to ask for a repeat or confirmation of any clearance?

The quoted comment doesn't pass even the most basic 'sniff test'. Which Captain ever solicits the opinion of passengers who happen to wear headsets to settle any ambiguity, and then goes with the majority vote? They have been called 'crew members', presumably to give them more gravitas, however they were presumably CoastGuard qualified, NOT holding flying or RT licences. If there is any truth in the story of seeking passenger opinion, it reveals there was doubt, making it essential to check with ATC, as I stated above..

PM... this is a JCG aircraft, it is a tactical crew, and they would certainly be on the radio. With the P3, we could have a dozen people listening out, and they would be looking out as well. I would think that there is a chance, it may be small, that the CVR will support the PICs position that they did think that they had been given clearance to enter or depart. Their R/T doesn't sit happily with that assumption, but that is not so uncommon. The CVR will give an insight into the last few minutes of their lives. For the Tom Clancy "scenario" that precedes your post, there is no evidence to support the assumption that the crew were pressured by their task, it is quite possible, it is not evident in the RT, but could be intimated by the outcome, with as much validity as the crew interpreted an RT transmission incorrectly and made a tragic error.

[Pluto7777]

I agree about the visual bit, but at airports without ground radar (or not working gr.radar) , it is not logical that this most important RWY zone (threshold and before) is still not supervised any better then 30 yrs ago...Just as stated that controllers are kilometers away and cannot see visual, but nowadays, technologies do exist for this job: for ex: cameras with A.I. or buried ground loop antenna's (metal-)detecting if the zone is clear of acft, or not , these technologies could clear out doubtful situations.

[EnglishMartyn]

It has been mentioned multiple times that there were three crew in the cockpit of JAL516.

The JAL crew stated
- they did not know their aircraft was on fire
- they "felt something" as they landed

Given the presence of the extra crew member, could it not have been an option for the PIC to ask the extra crew member to poke their head out the door? "Eh Jim, do us a favour and have a quick look at what's going on out back?" That would surely have immediately established that they were indeed on fire.

Glad that all managed to get out safely; condolences to the five JCG crew that did not make it out.

[wiggy]

"could it not have been an option for the PIC to ask the extra crew member to poke their head out the door? "Eh Jim, do us a favour and have a quick look at what's going on out back?"

As a FWIW That was exactly what was done on the BA T7 Vegas accident and evac a while back, but in that case the operating pilots did have some obvious indications on the flight deck that all was not well down the back.

[jaytee54]

from waito :-To be honest, I'm really unsure about the holding (a?) (point?) charlie part. Some mention it was "holding abeam ...". Re-Listening, I can't confirm nor rule out the word abeam. And maybe it was so unclear, that different listeners (me, you, the Dash-8 crew, the ministry publishing the transcript) heard one or the other.

The Transcript listed it as (Tokyo Tower): "JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5"

Maybe they played the tape and asked the controller, "What was that you said there?"

[jaytee54]

On another point I'm not sure of. Does Haneda have taxiway green centre-line "lead in lights" like those I remember from LHR, where following the C/L greens led you to the red stop-bar, and when clear to enter, the red bar disappeared and the green lights led onto the runway?

[jaytee54]

Originally Posted by 6 DOF

Until the voice recorder is analyzed, we don't know if the Co-pilot was maybe screaming at the captain to stop entering the runway.

My point was that at the time the copilot looked up the runway there was no obvious conflicting traffic, the A350 being at 3-4 nm on final, and he probably assumed it was landing on 34L, having heard nothing about it on Tower frq.
He should have been asking firmly "Are we clear to enter? I don't think so!" but as you say we'll need the CVR to find out.

[waito]

Originally Posted by jaytee54;11570391

[i

The Transcript listed it as (Tokyo Tower): "JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5"[/i]

Maybe they played the tape and asked the controller, "What was that you said there?"

And this highlights another problem.

I heard from a mp3 file, originating from a receiver of unknown quality "somewhere". Did I hear an "Audio Truth"?

The people working on the transcript heard it - from a tape or the likes? mp3 compressed? fed directly from the tower audio equipment in best quality possible? Did they hear the "truth"?

What did the crew in the dash-8 hear through their equipment and headset? If we search for the most relevant truth, that's the most relevant one, regarding the instructions meant for them!

So stop thinking we including the moderators already know better than the ministry experts, realATC fans or Chuck Norris.

The best possible truth will hopefully be included in the investigation report, will it?

[aox]

Originally Posted by PeteMonty

My point being, by using the 'official transcript' we are missing a lot of this detail that builds a bigger picture. This is why I would argue for more discussion around what we can hear in the audio (the posts that keep getting removed) and less sticking to the line that the transcript that is out there is official and without error.

I don't think you've seen all the posts that were removed. Quite likely only the moderators have (and possibly still can).

Not all of those posts fit your description there, so it isn't a discussion about some nuance of interpretation of just a muffled syllable or so in an audio the post author had actually listened to.

Some had words in a different order, with spurious extra words introduced, creating non-standard phrases, clearly either fictionalised or via a process possibly something like two or more translations with a paraphrase or two in the middle.

For instance, if a non aviation journalist in another language wishes to add an explanation to non aviation readers in that other language that a holding point is a place adjacent to the runway, this should not lead to some misunderstandings or allegations, either in that language or if translated back to English, that the pilot was actually told to go to the runway.

And someone who reads what I have just written in the above paragraph should not then quote from only part of it, and deduce something different themselves or claim that I had asserted something else.

Some countries may have a party game, in which a whispered message is passed from person to person, and you might find out it has changed quite a lot by the time it gets all the way round the circle. It's not appropriate here.

Let's also not end up with daft conspiracy thinking that if obviously false versions of a conversation are removed, that this supposed cover up constitutes proof the removed material is correct. No, it was because it is garbage.

[Iron Duck]

The largest hole

It seems to me that the key point is that for Haneda, JA722A was a non-standard aircraft either with a non-standard ADS-B transponder or being operated in a non-standard way. DaveReidUK has pointed out that according to FR24 data, all that transponder ever did was announce that it was turned on and its altitude was 0'. No position information at all. Had it been operating in the same way as the Boeings and Airbuses surrounding it, any number of eyes could have spotted JA722A's position on the runway and queried or warned about it.

This creates a difficult situation because the transponder's spec. or its SOP will have been decided by civil servants and management, not JA722A's Captain. JA722A's CVR is going to embarrass someone and reveal institutional fallibility. Bureaucrats hate that.

[waito]

Originally Posted by Iron Duck

It seems to me that the key point is that for Haneda, JA722A was a non-standard aircraft either with a non-standard ADS-B transponder or being operated in a non-standard way. DaveReidUK has pointed out that according to FR24 data, all that transponder ever did was announce that it was turned on and its altitude was 0'. No position information at all. Had it been operating in the same way as the Boeings and Airbuses surrounding it, any number of eyes could have spotted JA722A's position on the runway and queried or warned about it.

I share the same opinion without knowing technical details (I asked in a yersterdays post, was there more answers by now?).
This was likely a big contributing factor.

[waito]

NEWS (EDIT: mistyped date eff. now corrected. JAN 6 is correct)

• New Position in ATC center for permanently monitor aircraft to avoid collisions. But without Staff Increasing. Effective JAN 6th 2024
  
• CVR recovered from A350 (I think the FDR was already found)
  
• Interviews with ATC controllers involved for 34R will be/are conducted

from DOT Japan, picked up by me at AVHERALD, see there for details or another trustworthy source