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 18th Jan 2024, 18:16
  #1121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,121
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by JapanHanuma
I believe the FAA recently does actually allow for vehicles assigned to a runway to not require to obtain clearance everytime to enter or cross the runway it is on. Though I agree that generally everyone must obtain clearance.

My point was that stopbars alone would not stop an incident where the pilot genuinely believed he had a special exception to enter the runway. A negligent pilot could easily overlook a stopbar.

I agree that what I wrote was poorly written. I apologize.

Just to expand on my point:
https://pointsixtyfive.com/xenforo/t...rossings.2316/
My understanding is that there are certain cases where a vehicle can cross a runway without ATC approval in FAA land (not inherently Japan).
The important thing to realise is this didn’t happen in FAA land, therefore what they do is irrelevant in this accident. The US way of operating their ATC and airport operations are significantly different to ICAO, and undoubtedly have been logged within SARPS with ICAO.

Within ICAO standards which as far as I know Japan adheres to, anything on a runway needs specific authorisation from the specific runway controller to be there.

Again you mention a “special exception”. They do not exist.

Your reading of the .65 thread is incorrect. They are referring to a vehicle on a runway (with permission) crossing an intersecting runway.




jumpseater is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 13:31
  #1122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 104
Received 76 Likes on 33 Posts
For F sake, ICAO, FAA CAA, CASA, Who gives a f@ck? It should all be the same rules! This is LUNACY! The Jap Coastguard crew F'ED UP. END OF STORY!
MalcolmReynolds is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 13:47
  #1123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by MalcolmReynolds
For F sake, ICAO, FAA CAA, CASA, Who gives a f@ck? It should all be the same rules! This is LUNACY! The Jap Coastguard crew F'ED UP. END OF STORY!
Amen - however I admit, the blame lays on the epaulettes of both aircraft commanders.

The coastguard shouldn't have done the incursion.
The JAL crew should have seen the blocked runway.
LOWI is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 14:00
  #1124 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LOWI
Amen - however I admit, the blame lays on the epaulettes of both aircraft commanders.

The coastguard shouldn't have done the incursion.
The JAL crew should have seen the blocked runway.
On the last point, a retired airline captain friend pointed out that the strobe (or maybe it was a beacon, maybe I'm not sure) on the back of the Dash 8 was reported as central, and this might be harder to notice in amongst the centreline runway lights.

Last edited by aox; 19th Jan 2024 at 15:05.
aox is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 14:09
  #1125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by aox
On the last point, a retired airline captain friend pointed out that the strobe on the back of the Dash 8 was reported as central, and this might be harder to notice in amongst the centreline runway lights.
Sir, what about the red and green nav lights on the Dash 8 wing tips? And the red beacon light on the tail? Do they also blend in with runway centreline lights?
LOWI is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 15:00
  #1126 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LOWI
Sir, what about the red and green nav lights on the Dash 8 wing tips? And the red beacon light on the tail? Do they also blend in with runway centreline lights?
Are they brighter than the strobe(s) and runway lights, and visible from further away?

I'm not a commercial pilot, and have only sat in the back at night a few times, not seeing other aircraft very much. But I live near an airport, and they pass over. There aren't as many Dash 8 Q400s as there used to be.

The diagrams I can see online illustrating standard nav lights have 110 or 120 degree field of view for the red and green wingtips, from straight ahead round to just behind the wing. White nav light on the back with 140 degree, symmetrical rearward. That agrees with what I thought I remembered. If so, the red and green wingtips are unlikely to be visible from behind

Some discussion can be found that some Q400s have white rather than red beacons, or two white and one red, red on top, white underneath and on tail. I can't remember whether previous posts here have specified the exact case for this aircraft. If there is one, is the red fuselage top one easily visible from the rear past the tailplane?

Last edited by aox; 19th Jan 2024 at 15:11.
aox is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 15:55
  #1127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 562
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
A Q300 at night out of Toronto.
Put this right in the middle of the TDZ lights, centerline lights... except for the flashing aspect, no so easy to spot, if you ask me.

Last edited by DIBO; 19th Jan 2024 at 16:21. Reason: removed "TWY lights" from text
DIBO is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 16:23
  #1128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 906
Received 39 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by MalcolmReynolds
For F sake, ICAO, FAA CAA, CASA, Who gives a f@ck? It should all be the same rules! This is LUNACY! The Jap Coastguard crew F'ED UP. END OF STORY!
It would be interesting whether you could find even a single former SecGen of ICAO, or ICAO Council President, who would endorse the idea of "sameness" over "standardization" - as you might know, the "S" in SARPs is for Standards. I'm certain neither official currently in those roles would endorse "same rules" over Standardization.
And with just slightly less vehemence, the "end of story" occurs at the end of the Annex 13 process.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 16:35
  #1129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
A Q300 at night out of Toronto.
Put this right in the middle of the TDZ lights, centerline lights... except for the flashing aspect, no so easy to spot, if you ask me.
This is from a different angle though?
JAL was looking down on the aircraft and as the aircraft was on the runway, dependent of course on SOPs, the landing lights must have been on.
LOWI is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 16:51
  #1130 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 228
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LOWI
This is from a different angle though?
JAL was looking down on the aircraft and as the aircraft was on the runway, dependent of course on SOPs, the landing lights must have been on.
I'm assuming that picture is seen from behind, with no wingtip nav lights, and the landing lights reflecting off the back of the propellers.

It's unlikely to be coming towards you with a taxying light on the nose.
aox is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 17:36
  #1131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 562
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by LOWI
This is from a different angle though?JAL was looking down on the aircraft
Relative to the fuselage, you're looking from "above", down onto the aircraft, albeit with a greater angle than the 3° JAL would have been on.
Also offset to the right on this picture, and even then not much RH wingtip lighting to be seen.


There is not much point in discussing to death the conspicuousness of the Dash 8, nevertheless one last pic for the "JAL should have seen" camp:
(I know, incomparable perspective, angle, background, etc, etc, but also a much 'darker' runway)

Where is the Dash 8 on the runway?

21st Jan 2024: Added the answer; the strobe flash (and only that) giving away the aircraft's position


Last edited by DIBO; 21st Jan 2024 at 11:46.
DIBO is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2024, 20:50
  #1132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,140
Received 538 Likes on 151 Posts
I can easily imagine how the JAL crew didn’t see the Dash.
When considering this it is worth thinking about
A) the level of expectation that the runway was clear ( thousands of landings and on every one the runway has been clear)
B) The brightness level of the touch down zone lights compared to the Dash lights
C) The shape that the lights of the Dash would make when mixed in with the TDZ lights….. would it be the outline of an aircraft?
D) The % of time the JAL crew are looking outside of the flight deck compared to the % they are scanning instruments and glancing at other areas inside the flight deck like landing gear indicators etc.
Either way the crew obviously didn’t perceive the Dash ( even if they saw it) so we must expect in the future that other equally qualified crew will sometimes fail to perceive an aircraft, in the TDZ, at night and concentrate the majority of our efforts on preventing and alerting runway incursions.
( opinion of someone who has never conducted an investigation).
framer is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2024, 03:39
  #1133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,346
Received 387 Likes on 150 Posts
Originally Posted by framer
I can easily imagine how the JAL crew didn’t see the Dash.
When considering this it is worth thinking about
A) the level of expectation that the runway was clear ( thousands of landings and on every one the runway has been clear)
B) The brightness level of the touch down zone lights compared to the Dash lights
C) The shape that the lights of the Dash would make when mixed in with the TDZ lights….. would it be the outline of an aircraft?
D) The % of time the JAL crew are looking outside of the flight deck compared to the % they are scanning instruments and glancing at other areas inside the flight deck like landing gear indicators etc.
Either way the crew obviously didn’t perceive the Dash ( even if they saw it) so we must expect in the future that other equally qualified crew will sometimes fail to perceive an aircraft, in the TDZ, at night and concentrate the majority of our efforts on preventing and alerting runway incursions.
( opinion of someone who has never conducted an investigation).
An expectation that if an aircraft were to be on the runway then it would be at the threshold not necessarily at C5. Just raising the eyes that little bit further might have gleaned recognition of something on the runway but if you expect nothing then the eyes see nothing.

Imagine for a second if JAL had been given "Continue approach, Dash 8 departing shortly". I hazard to guess that even then the Dash 8 might not have been seen by a crew looking for it until quite late final.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2024, 19:11
  #1134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upminster UK.
Posts: 92
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
516 or 166 ?

Originally Posted by FullWings
Add into that one of the things they heard after making contact with the tower was an instruction for an aircraft on approach to slow down as there was a departure, but they didn’t know that it was the one behind the A350. No.1 and traffic being slowed, lots of room for confirmation bias...
This might be particularly significant when there was only one digit difference between the two JAL callsigns.
Several posters in this thread have confused JAL516 with JAL166.
kit344 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2024, 23:14
  #1135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Home
Posts: 134
Received 44 Likes on 12 Posts
Just curious...but does anyone know what's going on with the investigation? I've been looking for a Preliminary Report (due by now if adhering to Annex 13) and can find nothing. JTSB website appears to have very little information, even in Japanese.
Equivocal is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2024, 07:15
  #1136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: TOKYO
Age: 29
Posts: 25
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Equivocal
Just curious...but does anyone know what's going on with the investigation? I've been looking for a Preliminary Report (due by now if adhering to Annex 13) and can find nothing. JTSB website appears to have very little information, even in Japanese.
There are two parallel investigations by the safety board and the police. The police obtain the black boxed and handed them to the safety board.

The first meeting of the aviation countermeasures committee was held on January 19th.

Furthermore it was also found that the fire had originated from the "left engine" and all firefighting efforts were focused on this engine at the start. Later on firefighters wre focusing on moving the passengers into a suitable area.

The JCG captain was interviewed on January 25th, and apparently he had thought that the "Number 1" instruction by ATC gave him clearance to enter the runway (though this is a third hand account I'm reading from).

The US, UK, France, Canada and Germany are all invited to the investigation because the safety board wants to obtain as much information as possible considering that the entire plane was destroyed and possibly a lot of new information can be learnt from the incident even if it isn't related to the reasons behind the crash.

But no news on the investigation report itself.

And all information is based on third hand reports.


JapanHanuma is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2024, 11:18
  #1137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 62
Posts: 461
Received 31 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
An expectation that if an aircraft were to be on the runway then it would be at the threshold not necessarily at C5. Just raising the eyes that little bit further might have gleaned recognition of something on the runway but if you expect nothing then the eyes see nothing.

Imagine for a second if JAL had been given "Continue approach, Dash 8 departing shortly". I hazard to guess that even then the Dash 8 might not have been seen by a crew looking for it until quite late final.
HUDs make it even more difficult to see the rear view of an airplane sitting on a runway at night.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2024, 11:56
  #1138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 58 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by JapanHanuma
The US, UK, France, Canada and Germany are all invited to the investigation because the safety board wants to obtain as much information as possible considering that the entire plane was destroyed and possibly a lot of new information can be learnt from the incident even if it isn't related to the reasons behind the crash.
The invitations are per the arrangements in ICAO Annex 13: the State of Occurrence leads with nominated Accredited Representatives (AccReps) from the State of Registration, State of Manufacture, State of the Operator, and State of the Design. France and Canada are states of design and manufacture (A350 and Dash-8); UK and US because of engine design and manufacture. And obviously Japan has the lead as State of Occurrence.

Countries whose citizens have been lost in an accident can also send 'Experts' (state investigators) who will deal with any national interests, liaise with families and the like.
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2024, 14:45
  #1139 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,739
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
The JCG captain was interviewed on January 25th, and apparently he had thought that the "Number 1" instruction by ATC gave him clearance to enter the runway
Interesting statement that needs a lot of further explanations to be credible and understood , specially re. his earlier statement that he obtained confirmation that this was correct by the rest of the crew. The CVR will clear that up I guess.
I read another account ( also third hand) that fatigue is investigated and may have played a role.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2024, 18:16
  #1140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: TOKYO
Age: 29
Posts: 25
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
Originally Posted by JapanHanuma
The US, UK, France, Canada and Germany are all invited to the investigation because the safety board wants to obtain as much information as possible considering that the entire plane was destroyed and possibly a lot of new information can be learnt from the incident even if it isn't related to the reasons behind the crash.
The invitations are per the arrangements in ICAO Annex 13: the State of Occurrence leads with nominated Accredited Representatives (AccReps) from the State of Registration, State of Manufacture, State of the Operator, and State of the Design. France and Canada are states of design and manufacture (A350 and Dash-8); UK and US because of engine design and manufacture. And obviously Japan has the lead as State of Occurrence.

Countries whose citizens have been lost in an accident can also send 'Experts' (state investigators) who will deal with any national interests, liaise with families and the like.
I am aware of that but thanks for writing. I think what was originally trying to be conveyed was that the safety board was hoping/excited that more countries would attend because they were intrigued by what findings they could gleam from the destruction of an entire aircraft.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Interesting statement that needs a lot of further explanations to be credible and understood , specially re. his earlier statement that he obtained confirmation that this was correct by the rest of the crew. The CVR will clear that up I guess.
I read another account ( also third hand) that fatigue is investigated and may have played a role.
Do you want further explanations from me or the pilot?
JapanHanuma 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.