JAL incident at Haneda Airport
FlyingRoland, there is another possibility. As the A350 nosewheel (or lower front hull) 'ran over' the Dash fuselage and centre section the wings may have been levered upwards, pivoting about the main LG legs, such that they had a greater dihedral as the A350 nacelles drove into them.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Poole
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been retired a long time, but I used to operate into Narita where the ATC was good.
From the transcript I can imagine it happening. JAL516 comes on frequency, hears DAL 276 taxiing full length for T/O, and then he’s Cleared to Land. In my day that meant, great, runway is all mine (except in USA where it meant, ‘I expect the runway to be clear when you get there’).
The J722A comes onto Tower and cleared to C5, you’re number 1 (for departure, not for the runway, unclear). That JAL179 comes on, and is no 3, (so that DAL ahead must be no 2, and I'm no 1).
He arrives at C5, the red bar has been turned off already (didn't read the notam), he’s number one, so what does he do?
I know I’d have stopped and asked for verbal confirmation, and I’d have read it back loud and clear.
But he has heard nobody on approach, there are lights at 5 or 6 km, for 34L at a guess, he’s number 1, and 2 and 3 are taxying to C1 so the Coastguard crosses the line and lines up, waiting. JAL166 is told to slow down, for a departure (that must be me! gives me time) and still he waits, 166 is told ‘min app speed, (gives me more time) and then the world caves in.
JAL516 was convinced cleared meant runway is all mine and this happens. This flight has not been mentioned since Coastguard came on frequency.
I think in that situation (when stop-bars are u/s) they should erect a row of red lights across the holding point and all aircraft must use C1.
From the transcript I can imagine it happening. JAL516 comes on frequency, hears DAL 276 taxiing full length for T/O, and then he’s Cleared to Land. In my day that meant, great, runway is all mine (except in USA where it meant, ‘I expect the runway to be clear when you get there’).
The J722A comes onto Tower and cleared to C5, you’re number 1 (for departure, not for the runway, unclear). That JAL179 comes on, and is no 3, (so that DAL ahead must be no 2, and I'm no 1).
He arrives at C5, the red bar has been turned off already (didn't read the notam), he’s number one, so what does he do?
I know I’d have stopped and asked for verbal confirmation, and I’d have read it back loud and clear.
But he has heard nobody on approach, there are lights at 5 or 6 km, for 34L at a guess, he’s number 1, and 2 and 3 are taxying to C1 so the Coastguard crosses the line and lines up, waiting. JAL166 is told to slow down, for a departure (that must be me! gives me time) and still he waits, 166 is told ‘min app speed, (gives me more time) and then the world caves in.
JAL516 was convinced cleared meant runway is all mine and this happens. This flight has not been mentioned since Coastguard came on frequency.
I think in that situation (when stop-bars are u/s) they should erect a row of red lights across the holding point and all aircraft must use C1.
I KNOW that no1 means for departure, but it does increase the expectation of no delay to take off, particularly when this runway has only been used for departure up to now.
Different point: The reason for using separate frequencies for take-off and landing is because the airport is too busy to use just one.
Band boxing would totally defeat the reason for two frequencies!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been covered or posted already.
Has anyone managed to find a copy/link to the live stream ANNnewsCH were running of the incident, in particular impact and following approx 2 hours? I watched live but couldn't record/download it before it was scrubbed after 12 hours. It makes for a fantastic ARFF training aid watching the spread and development of the fire. I've found a few clips here and there but they're largely all over the place with cuts and interviews and opinions.
Thanks
Has anyone managed to find a copy/link to the live stream ANNnewsCH were running of the incident, in particular impact and following approx 2 hours? I watched live but couldn't record/download it before it was scrubbed after 12 hours. It makes for a fantastic ARFF training aid watching the spread and development of the fire. I've found a few clips here and there but they're largely all over the place with cuts and interviews and opinions.
Thanks
I KNOW that no1 means for departure, but it does increase the expectation of no delay to take off, particularly when this runway has only been used for departure up to now.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Beyond ideas of right doing and wrongdoing
Age: 55
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sailplaneflier…..are you sure you’re not Tom Clancy in disguise? I like your style 
I think your suggestion looks good from a distance but if you went close enough to listen to it it would sound like this;
”%%#$@&%$#$&%&%”……”two at once, Delta 494 it will be a late landing clearance” …” Control %-#@#%@+$#$#@%-$@%” …” two at once” “@#%3&#@%$@#$%”…..”Delta 494 Go around”…”Going round Delta 49%#@$%#$%#-#”
I think your suggestion looks good from a distance but if you went close enough to listen to it it would sound like this;
”%%#$@&%$#$&%&%”……”two at once, Delta 494 it will be a late landing clearance” …” Control %-#@#%@+$#$#@%-$@%” …” two at once” “@#%3&#@%$@#$%”…..”Delta 494 Go around”…”Going round Delta 49%#@$%#$%#-#”
FlyingRoland, there is another possibility. As the A350 nosewheel (or lower front hull) 'ran over' the Dash fuselage and centre section the wings may have been levered upwards, pivoting about the main LG legs, such that they had a greater dihedral as the A350 nacelles drove into them.
But one the other hand, no way of knowing what the NLG knife-slicing along/through the fuselage, had as effect on its geometry.
My guess: I doubt much pivoting came into play, given the maybe 0.2-0.3sec. between the NLG and the nacelles hitting the Dash's wing structure. The NLG impacting and fragmenting parts of the airframe, will have had more of an explosive impact shock running through the airframe, rather than forces moving or pivoting large structures.
Has anyone managed to find a copy/link to the live stream ANNnewsCH were running of the incident, in particular impact and following approx 2 hours? I watched live but couldn't record/download it before it was scrubbed after 12 hours. It makes for a fantastic ARFF training aid watching the spread and development of the fire. I've found a few clips here and there but they're largely all over the place with cuts and interviews and opinions.
One of the screencopies, I'll put below, if you have a qualified ARFFS comment available, feel free... I've only followed one day of RFFS training (without the A prefix, but an I as in industrial) and only 2 things I learned was to be even more cautious of any type of fire (needing fighting) and secondly to realize I really don't know anything about real fire fighting...
Talking about ARFFS, let me start with saying that I find they did a great job being on time at 2 crash sites (the Dash one even with an annex hotspot a few hundreds of meters away), they put the fire out on the Dash's fuselage, they doused what needed to be doused near the A350 for the evacuation to go the way it went....
but then.... there were some moments I watched the livestream with utter amazement... one of these, early on, but well after the evacuation, with only limited fire visible inside the A350, they sent 2 brave guys with 'garden hoses' right next to the possibly leaking LH wing with tonnes of fuels inside, an engine with a combustion chamber still scorching hot... if fumes would have ignited they would have been obliviated....
They had a tender with top mounted foam turret available (where these 'garden hoses' came from) and some time after this image, when the fire behind the 3 windows broke though the top, it came in action for a short while to douse this breakthrough.
The guy at the trailing side of the wing, attempted for a while to spray the fire inside, but distance and angle, made these attempts futile.
The tender, if positioned at a similar position, with the height of the roofmounted turret and available flow, would have been much more effective reaching some of the fire behind the three windows. But extinguishing the fire inside the wide cabin and probably the cargo hold below, before exhausting the truck's waterfoam supply, would be doubtful anyway. All the more reason not to put those 2 firefighters so close to the danger....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great, many thanks. I've reached out to the Japanese TV channel that was running the stream asking for footage but I'm not holding my breath.
Re your comments - I'm coming up 9 years experience. While it is easy to watch and comment in hindsight, I think there is a very good chance the aircraft was lost from the start as I think the fire got into the walls/crowned quite quickly on due to the damage under the fuselage. Unless there was a rapid and aggressive interior attack, combined with effective fire attack from on the ground aimed at the same spot, then they MAY have stopped it progressing.
The spread was likely incredibly rapid inside, looking at the screenshot attached there is discolouration and smoke coming from above as far forward as the L and I in AIRLINE.
Re your comments - I'm coming up 9 years experience. While it is easy to watch and comment in hindsight, I think there is a very good chance the aircraft was lost from the start as I think the fire got into the walls/crowned quite quickly on due to the damage under the fuselage. Unless there was a rapid and aggressive interior attack, combined with effective fire attack from on the ground aimed at the same spot, then they MAY have stopped it progressing.
The spread was likely incredibly rapid inside, looking at the screenshot attached there is discolouration and smoke coming from above as far forward as the L and I in AIRLINE.
Making sure that all aircraft at Haneda actually broadcast their position might be a good start. Unfortunately, that will involve looking at the Coast Guard's aircraft equipment fit, and/or changing procedures. That amounts to an admission of liability and institutional fallibility. Given the conflicts of interest stemming from the Coast Guard, ATC and CAA all being departments within the same government ministry it looks as if the Coast Guard are coming out on top at the moment.
The Aviation Authority, Aviation Safety Authority, Aviation Investigation Authority, Airports Authority, Coastguard and even national airline all usually come under the same ministerial department and nearly always under the same ultimate authority (government)
Well, that's what I said 2 days ago, one cannot use the 'as build' geometry of the Dash, as an established reference for impact analysis.
But one the other hand, no way of knowing what the NLG knife-slicing along/through the fuselage, had as effect on its geometry.
My guess: I doubt much pivoting came into play, given the maybe 0.2-0.3sec. between the NLG and the nacelles hitting the Dash's wing structure. The NLG impacting and fragmenting parts of the airframe, will have had more of an explosive impact shock running through the airframe, rather than forces moving or pivoting large structures.
But one the other hand, no way of knowing what the NLG knife-slicing along/through the fuselage, had as effect on its geometry.
My guess: I doubt much pivoting came into play, given the maybe 0.2-0.3sec. between the NLG and the nacelles hitting the Dash's wing structure. The NLG impacting and fragmenting parts of the airframe, will have had more of an explosive impact shock running through the airframe, rather than forces moving or pivoting large structures.
If the initial impact was as symmetric as we now think then this is a piece of good fortune - an asymmetric impact would risk a completely different outcome for the 350 - collapse of one side MLG, wing drag and puncture, possible tumbling, all sorts.
Actually not really asking any question, more discussing the mechanics of the impact by reference to the limited information we have. For the technically minded it’s interesting to try and visualise what happened, bit like in a slow motion video.
That's why I added
That's good to know. But if all that is installed at Haneda, seems there's not many reasons for the tower to not know that there was a plane on the runway, or that a hold point had been passed.
I presume that the warning system would be upgraded with an audible alert (unless it produces too many false positives, a problem with the Linate Airport disaster), and they have already put in place an attendant position who would be required to watch the screen at all times. That along with much more extensive use of the stopbars.
I don't know if we can find info until we get the investigation report. But in my eyes these are relevant questions in this accident in terms of contributing factors or missed chances to close a cheesehole.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingRoland, there is another possibility. As the A350 nosewheel (or lower front hull) 'ran over' the Dash fuselage and centre section the wings may have been levered upwards, pivoting about the main LG legs, such that they had a greater dihedral as the A350 nacelles drove into them.
ANNewsCH has praiseworthily assembled a number of passenger videos, all in Japanese including extensive transcripts in Japanese. Hopefully the transcripts can be translated.
My observation is that evacuation was delayed some six minutes until firefighters arrived and began spraying foam. Most fortunately the fuselage held up until evacuation was completed. Kudos to Airbus.
My observation is that evacuation was delayed some six minutes until firefighters arrived and began spraying foam. Most fortunately the fuselage held up until evacuation was completed. Kudos to Airbus.