Air Japan/ANA incident at NRT

[EXLEFTSEAT]

Japanese TV reports extremely hard landing of an Air Japan/ANA aircraft today at NRT. Incident was caught by airport security camera. Could not make out type, but looked eerily reminiscent of FedEx tragedy some years ago. Seemed like a steep descent, flared at last moment, touched down hard on main gear, lifted again, nose gear came down hard first before main gear again. Fuselage buckled as could be seen on close up. Glad, this time all ended without loss of life. We just went through a pretty severe typhoon, but conditions were not bad today. Sorry, can't find a link to the video. Assume it wil be all over the news tomorrow.

[misd-agin]

Variable winds. Hourly report had 18 kts gusting to 29 kts at the highest. Depending upon wind direction at touchdown there might have been some decent crosswinds.

[TAC inop.]

Á´Æü¶õµ¡¡¢³êÁöÏ©¤Ë¶¯¤¯¹ß¤ê¤¿¾×·â¤Çµ¡ÂξåÉô¤¬ÊÑ·Á(¥Õ¥¸¥Æ¥ì¥Ó· Ï¡ÊFNN¡Ë) - Yahoo!¥Ë¥å¡¼¥¹ (http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videonews/fnn?a=20120620-00000845-fnn-soci)

Here's the Yahoo Japan link to the video.

[Fratemate]

Maybe not so good (http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00225845.html)

I couldn't get Mr Tac Inop's link to work (something about an advert for a Silverlink player), so thought I'd post the link above. I don't know if it works or not but I'll check it once I've posted this and leave it if it does.

The conditions were not bad today and certainly did not necessitate the 'snatch' seen on the video. There was a bit of windshear but only +/- 10 kts and the turbulence was nowhere near NRT's normal standard. I have no idea if this was a mainline or an AJX flight but I'm sure we'll know tomorrow. If it's AJX we'll have to all undergo extra training and flights to make sure we do things properly. If it's mainline, maybe no need ;)

[The Dominican]

NH956 PEK-NRT, is a flight operated by ANA, not AJX.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pXjQ16f5c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Road_Hog]

The bit that the Youtube video misses, is the final approach just before landing. The other videos (although hard to watch because of buggy software) show that the aircraft actually came in with the nose slightly down, before pulling up at the last minute (just before the Youtube video starts).

[High-higher]

Blimey, major stress damage on the fuselage, looks like a 767.

[akerosid]

It's interesting to watch the sequence of events from the close-up footage (from around 0.23 on that Youtube video). Some time ago, particularly in relation to some MD11 accidents, such as NRT and RUH and the A320 incident at LIS, we had discussions about where the damage is caused in bounced landings, i.e. whether it was the initial impact or subsequent bounces.

Here, it seems that although the initial touchdown cause some damage (0.25), it was the first (0.26) and particularly the second (0.28) nosegear impacts which exacerbated the fuselage damage; note also that the nosegear comes down before the left MLG. It will be interesting to see what G-forces were experienced during these impacts.

[Standby Scum]

I remember this remark:- http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/320023-serious-damage-air-algerie-738-landing.html#post4006742

[Huck]

Must have been a hell of a knock in first class.....

[B-HKD]

Aircraft involved is JA610A (delivered 2003) 9 years old. I assume it will be repaired and returned to service.

Boeing have done plenty of these repairs on the 763.

Here are a few.

1997 at KEWR: Alitalia I-DEIL. Aircraft was only a month old :ugh:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/8/2/0002281.jpg

The most recent one before today's. Royal Air Maroc CN-RNT 2009 at KJFK

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/3/7/1538735.jpg

Date, location and airline unknown. (boeing edited the titles out for their AERO article. Thanks Flying Torquewrench!)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_18/images/touchdowns_fig1.jpg



Others include: LAB in 2004 at SLVI. And the Skyservice in 2005 at MDPC (5G landing IIRC :ouch:)

All the above went back into service.

[Mungo Man]

And don't forget recent First Choice 767 at Bristol last year. Boeing had to come and build a hangar to fix it on site which took months.

See report here,
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20767-324%20G-OOBK%2005-12.pdf

Pictures on page 15.

Problem seems not to be the initial heavy main gear touchdown but the abnormally rapid derotatioanand subsequent heavy nose gear touchdown.

[Germanflyer]

Wasn't as simple as that. Landed at NRT around the same time. Probably just before the aircraft concerned.
Winds observed at 1000 ft agl were 240/58-72 kts, dropping down to 230/48 kts steady at 500 ft. And then there was a +/- 15 kts WS reported. On my observation it was more like +/- 20 kts windshear!
And the turbulence was huge. Moderate to moderate/severe turbulence REPORTED by 4 airplane before me from 500 ft to touchdown. I observed Moderate/Severe all the way down from 500 ft to touchdown.
And BTW the winds reported on ground were 220 to 250 at 28 gusting 44 kts. That's a direct crosswind for the runway in use-16R.
And the winds were spot on!
Airport should have been temporarily closed.
I'm not surprised this happened. Odds were that something like this was inevitably going to happen today.
Only the best pilots made it to terra firma today before 9 or 10 am local time.
After that the wind speed, windshear and turbulence were mildly acceptable.
Applause to all who landed at NRT before noon today.....:D

[sky jet]

Perhaps "the best pilots" elected to divert to a more suitable airport.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Sky Jet is spot on.

This is a case of Press-On-itis. Come on folks, how many CRM refreshers have we sat through to know that it's our responsibility to speak up and do the sensible thing. If ATC haven't temporarily closed the airport and you get down to 500ft with winds and turbulence like that then surely a go-around is a reasonable course of action. :ugh:

By that point you've looked at your fuel status....you know how much fat you've got to hold overhead before buggering off up the road to you Alternate.

This just seems a classic example of all the holes lineing up resulting in a bent airframe and about 300 personal injury claims!

2W2R :ok:

[filejw]

Hey guys it's not up to ATC to close the airport , the guy in the left seat has the final say to shoot the approach or not. Some a/c may have 30KT xwind limit some may have a 40kt limit.

[Flying Torquewrench]

Offtopic,

B-HKD, the last photo is not an KLM aircraft. Yes, the colourscheme looks very similar but KLM does not have numbers that big on the nosegear doors. Neither has KLM got any widebodies (in 'new' livery) with no L2 (main entry door) before the wing.

[Germanflyer]

Sky Jet,
Almost ALL suitable alternates around NRT has similar weather and winds at that point in time. The typhoon was supposed to last out only until 2300z initially but carried on for a couple of hours more than expected. That sometimes spoils the plan for you!
Of course a go around is always an option. But where to my friend. It was a wide spread typhoon that out lived its expectancy.
Just a bad day I guess..
With a decent ending.
:)

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

filejw - exactly right. There does come a point where I personally think airport's should be closed but the ultimate responsibility remains, quite rightly, with the folks in the air.

Gestapo - so commercial pressure then.....if weather at the destination and destination alternates was all crap why did they get airborne in the first place and paint themselves into a tight spot?

Of course I'm sat here commenting from the comfort of my Marriott bed down route.......I guess well done for not killing anyone guys, but christ you weren't far off were you!

Night all,

2W2R :ok:

[Nervous SLF]

Sorry to intrude but how do you experts think a 787 would fare in the same conditions?

[Germanflyer]

2 White 2 Read,
Try and read a post sometimes before you so foolishly type!
"Outlived its expectancy"....
Ever heard of that....?!
Happens on long haul flights when TAFs change during the course of a 14 odd hour flight.
My advice.....stay in bed. Cause that's where you should be!
And try not to get airborne. Cause I don't think you ever will. If god forbid your destination predicts rain showers at your destination....!!
Cosy.

[J.O.]

:ok: How nice it is to be able pass judgement from the comfort of your easy chair.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Bit of an OTT reaction there Gestapo.

The odd rain shower isn't what we're talking about. A typhoon...IS!

Lets review your previously posted info:

Clue number 1

+/- 20kts windshear

Clue number 2

And the turbulence was huge. Moderate to moderate/severe turbulence REPORTED by 4 airplane before me from 500 ft to touchdown. I observed Moderate/Severe all the way down from 500 ft to touchdown

Clue number 3

And BTW the winds reported on ground were 220 to 250 at 28 gusting 44 kts. That's a direct crosswind for the runway in use-16R.
And the winds were spot on![QUOTE]

Well that's more than sporting and, given the gust, I'd hand that to the left seat to do if he/she hadn't already taken it off me. But not necessarily a show stopper.

Clue number 4

[QUOTE]Airport should have been temporarily closed.
I'm not surprised this happened. Odds were that something like this was inevitably going to happen today.

And the Grand Finale

[QUOTE]Only the best pilots made it to terra firma today before 9 or 10 am local time.[QUOTE]

I won't be dragging this down to a scrap in the mud. But clearly you didn't fly a stable approach...and neither did this chap. We've all wrestled the thing to the ground on gusty rainy days (or in my case, nights). That doesn't take "the best pilots to get down to Terra Firma". :yuk:

The best pilot's would have been hitting the GA buttons when they saw the ASI going up and down by 20 kts at 500ft!

[Hotel Tango]

The aircraft refered to as KLM by B-HKD was in fact an ASIANA B767, HL7264.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 767-38E HL7264 Cheju Airport (CJU) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920116-0)

[A380 driver]

Just heard the ANA 767 had damaged his nose wheel strut too besides twisting and cracking the fuselage. Landing was beyond 5g's.
And great job there Gestapo. I tip my hat to you and the likes..:ok::ok:
Was around at the time and yes, the weather conditions were anything but flyable. With not too many alternates available at the time of approach, one has to exercise his command authority and justify an approach.
Of course one always has the option to discontinue if the approach gets nasty.
Good job to all those who made it safely and I feel sorry for the ANA crew.
Looked like quite an unstable approach from what I saw on youtube.
Let's see the full extent of the damage once the report is out.
Off now.

[The Dominican]

All of you claiming that because of the turbulence during decend and the gusts at altitude would have chosen to divert, you are a bunch of hypocrites, the numbers that you are interested in are the gust factors bellow a couple of hundred feet, it was reported at +/-15KTS. You are telling me that every time you get a 15 KTS gust report you divert? Give me a break! :rolleyes:

[gtseraf]

Could we change the thread name, remove "Air Japan" from it. The flight was an ANA flight operated by Japanese ANA pilots. Air Japan is a seperate operation, mostly foreign contract crews. Air Japan does do a lot of 767 flying for ANA but not this particular one.

In my experience, a landing into Narita on 16R when the winds are blowing like they were on this day can be one of the more difficult and unpredictable I have experienced. If I remember correctly CX badly damaged (wrote off?) an L1011 years ago.

The turbulence and windshear caused by the gusty winds from that direction make for a very interesting and challenging approach.

I'm not surprised this doesn't happen more often. The Fedex MD11 accident was on 34L in similar conditions.

Narita really needs a runway 04/22 to allow operations when the winds are like this.

Let's be thankful we only saw a bent aircraft and no loss of life.

[Fratemate]

I think Gestapo may have hit a bad spot in the weather early on, because it certainly was not the end of the World when I landed (before noon). NH956 normally arrives around 1300 and by then it was pretty much a standard NRT day and one the crew will be used to.

I know the aircraft has Air Japan written on it but I agree with GT, can the title be amended to absolve the fine, upstanding pilots of AJX from doing anything naughty yesterday :ok:

[Offcut]

I'm sure that every airline is different but where I work, below stable approach gate (1000' AGL in widebody) Go-around is MANDATORY for the following, -5kt/+10kt TTS, automatic windshear callout, more than one dot high/low. Also, you cannot even contemplate an approach if the crosswind exceeds the aircraft max. (777 = 38kts dry runway). It seems to me that according to Gestapo, several of these conditions would have been met, and known about prior to commencing the approach.

[RobertS975]

This landing did remind me of the more unfortunate landing of the Fedex MD11 at NRT several years ago:

Fedex Plane crash at Tokyo Narita Airport captured Live - Fedex Plane crash in Tokyo captured Live - YouTube

[gettinbumped]

I don't know what the rules are in Germany or Japan, Gestapo, but I'm guessing that there is a restriction against flying into known Severe Turbulence as there is in the United States.

So by (publicly) boasting about your superior airmanship while landing behind 5 consecutive reports of Severe, I'm guessing that diversion or holding wasn't an option due to the Typhoon? I'm assuming you declared an emergency before commencing the approach? If you decide to land with those reports in the US, that would be the only legal way to do it.

[stilton]

Yes, what has caused damage to a B767 would probably have been fatal in the Md11 :eek:

[FullWings]

I've just been watching the linked ANA video in slow motion and the initial touchdown doesn't look too bad. It's on the RH gear, which I presume is the upwind one if they were landing on RW16 in 220-250 winds. The aircraft then skips back into the air, maybe due to a gust or excess speed then pitches down *significantly*. I can't make out the elevator position but it does seem like that was a pilot input rather than an effect of turbulence. The rest of it looks like a classic PIO from a bounced landing as it touches down the second time nose-first in wheelbarrow fashion. I reckon that was what did the damage.

[DaveReidUK]

I assume it will be repaired and returned to service.

Boeing have done plenty of these repairs on the 763.

Given the damage, it's interesting to speculate whether we would be saying that had it been a 787.

[FireWorks]

So, it was a human error ?? ....pilot :confused:

[Flightmech]

Yes, what has caused damage to a B767 would probably have been fatal in the Md11

I wondered how long it would be before you arrived on the scene with your inevitable comment:yuk:

[keesje]

Nervous SLF: Sorry to intrude but how do you experts think a 787 would fare in the same conditions?

What Everyone Wants to Know but is Afraid to Ask because usually it ends up with You Just Don't Understand and Boeing has a good safety reputation..

[Wirbelsturm]

Sorry to intrude but how do you experts think a 787 would fare in the same conditions?

Simple answer is that nobody really knows outside of computer modelling.

The problem with woven composite structures is that they are excellent at energy propogation thus leading to stress transfer to just about any point within the bonded structure. Thus an impact at point A will cause energy propogation to point B leading to delamination at point C.

One way to monitor this is to weave small conductive wires into the carbon weave and then use a measured current across the weave. Any change in the return value indicates delamination.

Personally, from my experience, I think the 787 would have fared well in the landing but the investigation for damage would have been long!

:E

[Fratemate]

I don't see how some of you can turn this into a pissing match about different aircraft types and who has got the biggest. Simple matter is if you flare too late, bounce and then chuck the stick forward, the bloody machine is going to bounce on its nosewheel and that's going to hurt it no matter whether it's a Boeing, MD or Airbus. It's also going to cause any aircraft to bend at its most bendy bit and whether it shows up as crinkles or not, the aerial conveyance is going to be buggered.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't think anyone is arguing about the cause and effect. But the point is that a tin aeroplane, having been bent at its most bendy bit, can subsequently be unbent/unbuggered, albeit very expensively, as in the case of those two 767s.

But a 787, on the other hand, subject to the same forces, clearly isn't going to just crinkle prettily - and if we're not talking about replacing frames, stringers and skin panels, what are the implications ?

[Heathrow Harry]

no-one knows ...

until someone does it and then there'll be the mother of all investigations

[Sqwak7700]

But a 787, on the other hand, subject to the same forces, clearly isn't going to just crinkle prettily - and if we're not talking about replacing frames, stringers and skin panels, what are the implications ?

I think we might find that the 787's bendy bit is different than than the 767's bendy bit, but I think the end result will be similar. I'm guessing on the 787 that the landing gear will end up absorbing the impact to the point of either full or partial failure.

Will be interesting to find out. I wonder if the flight control laws have any protection for this, or if they could be written to provide such a protection. :confused:

[AnQrKa]

You guys should all stand back and ponder the fact that a jet NEARLY came a cropper in a manner similar to the purple one, in similar conditions, at the same airport.

You can argue about windshear and sink rates speed excursions until the cows come home but this was a nasty bit of work.

The crew, the airline and indeed the wider industry should feel guilty. People have died many times in accidents in similar conditions because pilots are too scared to divert or too scared to carry extra fuel or too scared of the boss or think they are better than they really are.

There are extenuating circumstances of course, but it is not good enough to argue that the forecast changed and put the crew in a corner. This simply should not occur.

How much fuel did they have? How many options did they have?

If conditions were as per the ATIS, the METAR and several prior actual reports then this approach was conducted in contravention of company SOP’s, manufacturers SOP’s and common sense.


“The typhoon was supposed to last out only until 2300z initially but carried on for a couple of hours more than expected.”

You would have to be a lunatic to fuel plan a flight into a typhoon based on a forecast to within “a couple of hours”.

“Just a bad day I guess..With a decent ending.”

A broken aircraft is a decent ending? No, it was a LUCKY ending.

“You are telling me that every time you get a 15 KTS gust report you divert? Give me a break!”

According to Airbus in case of actual or suspected windshear you must “delay or divert”. Its fair to say that in the above situation, windshear was suspected. And the results proved it to be so. I suspect maybe the Boeing manual indicates something similar.

An jet is badly damaged and maybe written off and the response from some here is that its ok, nothing to see hear.

Crazy.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

AnQrKa.....

Quite right. Although having mentioned something similar last night the 'Gestapo' was after me.

There was no excuse for this.

Lucky outcome but a string of bad decisions leading to a likely unstable approach followed by a terrible landing and a bent airframe as a result. Not to mention, the poor folk down the back that were involved.

As for the 787, only time will tell how the composite airframe handles such stresses IF its unlucky enough to end up in such a pickle.

Has Gestapo gone back to Flight Sim 2004 to try it out perhaps?

[twochai]

Looking carefully at the video, I think you can actually see the fuselage deflecting in bending, perhaps as much as four or five degrees!

[The Dominican]

How much fuel did they have? How many options did they have?

ANA dispatches their flights very conservatively, I wouldn't doubt (as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure) that given the circumstances in terms of WX, they had enough fuel to go back to PEK if they needed to, how about we stop assuming that they were cornered into making the approach, that is just silly, the dispatchers are very proactive in sending us turb & windshear reports constantly, there is no hidden company culture here that would have prevented them to divert if they needed to, stop making ridiculous assumptions without all the facts:=

[dignified]

Not sure if this thought will answer your Q?
The famous Studebaker vehicle is a good example: when hit from different angles particularly front and back if it was metallic, the metal will shrug or show signs of fatigue; if it was fiber glass or composite material, it would break.
Based on the video provided on Japanese T.V it appears to me as if the fuselage would have broken in pieces leaving all passengers exposed to a more dramatic incident. However, the B787 has some strings interconnecting the fuselage parts attached, and it has a damper that makes passengers and crew ignore certain G's in-flight. Would this concept apply on the ground?? I am sure Boeing considered this possibility, they certainly made better landing gears on B747's compared to Airbus A380's, and more so, better and safer aircraft compared to English "aerocraft" manufacturers. :)

[stepwilk]

The famous Studebaker vehicle

The Avanti, I assume you mean? Hardly a "famous Studebaker vehicle," but never mind...

[crj705]

According to Airbus in case of actual or suspected windshear you must “delay or divert”. Its fair to say that in the above situation, windshear was suspected. And the results proved it to be so. I suspect maybe the Boeing manual indicates something similar.

Then you might as well shut down aviation in Japan because we have those kind of conditions at least 25% of the time here. Nothing in my Boeing manual says anything near that. A windshear warning, yes, but a simple report of windshear, no.

Lucky outcome but a string of bad decisions leading to a likely unstable approach followed by a terrible landing and a bent airframe as a result. Not to mention, the poor folk down the back that were involved.

That's quite a lofty assumption

If conditions were as per the ATIS, the METAR and several prior actual reports then this approach was conducted in contravention of company SOP’s, manufacturers SOP’s and common sense.

Does your conclusion apply to everyone else who attempted an approach around the same, including the US and European carriers, or just the reckless Asian ones?

[221340]

I seem to recall reading about Boeing's 787 fuselage crash tests. The initial tests were a failure because the composites shattered (rather than crumpling). I think a honeycomb structure had to be added in order to pass the test.
Anyone have any information on this?

[Fratemate]

The crew, the airline and indeed the wider industry should feel guilty. People have died many times in accidents in similar conditions because pilots are too scared to divert or too scared to carry extra fuel or too scared of the boss or think they are better than they really are.

If conditions were as per the ATIS, the METAR and several prior actual reports then this approach was conducted in contravention of company SOP’s, manufacturers SOP’s and common sense.

How about actually reading what someone wrote, i.e. me, about the conditions when they did land, rather than going off half-baked on your crusade to castigate the airline industry and this crew in particular. If people have died in conditions when this flight landed then it was almost certainly not as a result of the weather and your suggestion they should have diverted is so far beyond ridiculous that I wonder if you know the first thing about aviation.

The conditions early in the day were not particularly pleasant, as Gestapo has already said. However, as I have already said, the weather at 1300L (when this flight arrived) was really quite benign. Their crosswind component would have been in the region of 15 knots and the the windshear that you seem to be so concerned about was no more than +10/-5 due to mechanical turbulence, not the well-past typhoon. I KNOW this because I landed only around 1 hour before them and those were the conditions when I landed. The weather only got better after that. The conditions were as per the ATIS and METAR i.e. no concerns whatsoever and there was no contravention of any SOPs. Read what Dominican has written about ANA's dispatch policy and you'll also understand this crew would have not been worried about fuel etc.

I suggest before you accuse all and sundry of breaking rules and flying in unsuitable conditions you do your homework first, rather than relying on the reports of someone who landed hours beforehand.

[oicur12.again]

"The conditions were as per the ATIS and METAR i.e. no concerns whatsoever and there was no contravention of any SOPs."

If the WX was so benign as you state then why was the approach clearly so unstable. It surely rates as one of the most hair raising attempts at landing I have ever seen.

As AnQ stated, this aircraft was badly damaged. If it wasn't the wx, then what on earth is going on there in Japan.

Over to you wise one!!!

[oicur12.again]

And it would be interesting to see some METAR summaries from the arrival time.

[crj705]

Metars:
RJAA 200600Z 22014KT 9999 FEW025 BKN200 27/22 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK 1CU025 7AC200 A2948
RJAA 200530Z 22015G25KT 190V260 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 27/21 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025 A2947 0506Z MOD TURB 500FT ON DEP COURSE RWY16R B787 AND 0514Z MOD TURB 400FT ON DEP COURSE RWY16R B767
RJAA 200500Z 23015G26KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 27/21 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025 A2947
RJAA 200430Z 23016G29KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 28/21 Q0998 WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025A2948
RJAA 200400Z 22014G27KT 170V250 9999 FEW025 BKN180 28/22 Q0998 WS R16R NOSIG RMK 1CU025 5AC180 A2947
RJAA 200333Z 22017G27KT 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0997 RMK 2CU025 4AC180A2947
RJAA 200330Z 22019KT 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0997 TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK2CU025 4AC180 A2946
RJAA 200302Z 22017G27KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 RMK 2CU025 3AC180 A2947
RJAA 200300Z 22018KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 WS R16L TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK 2CU025 3AC180 A2947
RJAA 200230Z 21016G29KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 28/21 Q0997 WS R16L NOSIG RMK 2CU025 A2947
RJAA 200200Z 22017G27KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT170 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 WS R16R NOSIG RMK 2CU025 3AC170 A2948

[fleigle]

Dignified
Your comparison of the Studebaker behavior to that of a Boeing 787 is a tad silly, in my humble opinion.
Fibreglas technology in the early 1960's compared to carbon fibre of now!!!, come on, get a grip!!!!
f

[Fratemate]

If the WX was so benign as you state then why was the approach clearly so unstable. It surely rates as one of the most hair raising attempts at landing I have ever seen.

Who says the approach is unstable? The approach obviously met with ANA's stable approach criteria (which is the same as just about everybody else) or else the crew would have gone around. How is it 'clearly so unstable'? All you see is the landing, so you have no evidence to support your inference. All you've done is assume the weather was bad, which it wasn't and then apply your false assumption to an imagined hypothesis that the approach was unstable.

What you do see in the news report is the short period before the flare where the nose is lower than a 'normal' approach, indicating the aircraft is likely to be flying close to, or at, the max speed of Vref+20. Shortly thereafter you see a very rapidly 'flare' which, in my opinion, is instigated too late, thereby rotating the main wheels onto the runway (very positively, indeed). The aircraft then bounced and, in my opinion, the pilot does the thing that we've been taught NOT to do from day one; he pushes forward on the control column. The rest is pretty obvious.

So, no, it wasn't the weather at the time of this landing that caused the incident but, rather, in my opinion, a late flare and a botched reaction to the bounce.......like you get 'over there' in the USA every now and again i.e. this has got nothing to do with Japan or the general standard of their pilots.

[Capn Bloggs]

Xpl3l7OskFU
Better video of approach prior to flare. First touchdown didn't look too bad to me; bit of an over-flare beforehand (well saved, IMO), causing the bounce. The big mistake was stuffing the nose down too much after the bounce.

[Bearcat]

His nose down pitch attitude at 100ft suggests maybe he was carrying excess speed. The snatch flare and subsequent hard nose over on touch is where the action begins.

Baulked landing on initial heavy touch down comes to mind.

[EXLEFTSEAT]

gtseraf wrote : "Could we change the thread name, remove "Air Japan" from it. The flight was an ANA flight operated by Japanese ANA pilots. Air Japan is a seperate operation, mostly foreign contract crews. Air Japan does do a lot of 767 flying for ANA but not this particular one."

Why? This aircraft is clearly marked with both the "Air Japan" and the "ANA" logos. I have not seen any indication as to the nationality of the flight deck crew.

[Fratemate]

EXLEFTSEAT,

NH956 is a mainline flight and not AJX (Air Japan). The crew were Japanese. The aircraft has Air Japan & ANA written on it because we (AJX) fly ANA's aircraft. The flight in question was an ANA mainline ticketed and crewed flight and not Air Japan.

[armchairpilot94116]

9 year old 767 ? I'm betting its a write off.

[crj705]

Why? This aircraft is clearly marked with both the "Air Japan" and the "ANA" logos. I have not seen any indication as to the nationality of the flight deck crew.

Except for the fact that you have 4 to 5 employees who actually work at Air Japan telling you that we don't operate NH 954. It is solely operated by ANA mainline.

All of ANA's 767-300ERs are marked with "Air Japan". Sometimes they have J's flying them, sometimes not.

[fizz57]

Bloggs's video shows a definite nose down pitch change (at 0:13) just before the flare. Is this significant? And why would a pilot do this at this stage of the approach?

[AndoniP]

Could we change the thread name, remove "Air Japan" from it. The flight was an ANA flight operated by Japanese ANA pilots."

Great. More criticism of the locals.

[Capn Bloggs]

a definite nose down pitch change (at 0:13) just before the flare. Is this significant? And why would a pilot do this at this stage of the approach?
Perhaps they got "smacked" in the face by a strong gust and the reaction was to counter by pushing forward; I would probably do the same (not to the same extent though, hopefully). A big gust at that stage, causing a jump in speed which if left uncorrected could result in a big balloon and long/hard "drop it on" landing.

His nose down pitch attitude at 100ft suggests maybe he was carrying excess speed.
I don't fly the 767, but my little Boeing requires all of the gust to be added to Vref. That would be Vref + 13 in this case (from that METAR). That would flatten out the deck angle. If the earlier description of the (atrocious) conditions is correct, they may have been carrying maximum additives.

[Fratemate]

Great. More criticism of the locals.

So, Andoni, how does a statement of fact constitute criticism? Nobody is criticising anybody based on their country of birth. What is being said is the title of the thread is misleading because it is not an Air Japan flight. It is an ANA flight, operated by ANA pilots, who are Japanese. No implications, no sideswipes, just a truthful fact and one that answers the question of the OP who was asking why he should change the thread title i.e. because he's wrong.

[King on a Wing]

Any pilot worth his wings would tell you that a windy day is not a diversionary necessity. Or for that matter a requirement. UNLESS of course it clearly exceeds either the company's limits or those of the manufacturer for a sustained period of time. And that too at the time of expected approach or landing.
Neither is reported turbulence along the approach path OR reported wind shear. All these obviously warrant a go around if experienced either in isolation or together.
However, a pilot's willingness to even ATTEMPT an approach in these conditions, shows his loyalty for the company he works for and his or her professionalism.
How difficult is it to just say no and divert. But to do otherwise, and attempt an approach and then conduct a safe landing is a sure sign of a thorough professional and a good one at that(if all goes well).
With regards to gestapo's post, I regard him and the likes of him in very high esteem. He/she is obviously a captain and one who attempted the approach and decided to share his experience with us on this network.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again. If it were upto me personally, I would probably have done the same and wet my knickers in the process...!!
But I'm man enough to admit it. But I sure as hell wouldn't put a good man down just because I was not man enough myself.
Please, let us try and understand the logistics involved in an unwarranted diversion. Not factoring the cost at all it still is a mammoth task for all the agencies involved. I wouldn't even want to start naming them.
But like someone said earlier....of course it IS an option. And it's good to know that.
Good job to all the crews who landed safely that day. And I feel very sorry for the ANA crew. Could happen to anyone of us. I sure hope they get off lightly, with only a few sim sessions.

[AndoniP]

then all you have to mention is the fact that it is an ANA crew, not an air japan crew. mentioning the nationality of the pilots is unnecessary.

as is always the case with prangs and crashes, loads of people on pprune are quick to mention the nationality of the pilots if they're not westerners. and no, i'm not being politically correct or anything like that, just making an observation.

[The Dominican]

then all you have to mention is the fact that it is an ANA crew, not an air japan crew. mentioning the nationality of the pilots is unnecessary.

as is always the case with prangs and crashes, loads of people on pprune are quick to mention the nationality of the pilots if they're not westerners. and no, i'm not being politically correct or anything like that, just making an observation.


Here is another observation, if your English reading comprehension was any good you would notice that in this thread you have westerners actually defending this crew:= One of the best things of working at AJX is that we have very little issues with expats vs. locals as you see in other jobs abroad, I understand that maybe the fact that we came in defense of ANA and their dispatch practices bothers you and maybe this is why you bring this comment, I don't know.

[armchairpilot94116]

IF I was running an airline, Id actually prefer pilots who are a bit chicken instead of super gung ho. Its not doing anyone a favor taking a chance. Id prefer they divert if conditions warrant. Its going to cost some dimes but its going to save a lot of dollars (and lives) in the long run. Because if you are betting? Then you could lose. And then we all lost one. I dont want a bet.

I wouldn't have dispatched SQ6 with the storm right on the door step in Taipei. Nor the Mandarin Md11 into Chep Lap Kok in the face of yet another storm.

Id give storms a wide wide berth. Divert flights , etc.

Its professionalism in the military to go where danger lurks, its not when it involves a civilian flight to go where conditions even suggest a increased danger to proceed to a landing.

A proper professional in such a case is one who diverts when conditions suggest a probable danger instead of just a possible .

I want each landing and take off to be a sure thing, not just a safe bet.

Decreasing , not increasing the danger of an accident is the proper methodology in my humble view.

[zlin77]

Just as an insight for the pilots who don't operate into NARITA (RJAA), this airport experiences very unusual shear/gust conditions which would not be evident at most airports with the same wind conditions, even with winds of 15 Kts. some very unusual things can happen sometimes, a place where a "normal" approach can turn nasty very quickly...

[mat777]

Donning my flamesuit here somewhat as I realise I am but an amateur in a field of people with way more experience than myself, however here is my 2 cents worth..

Firstly, speaking as a student aircraft designer/engineer, having just completed a major project on stiffened skin structures, I'm amazed that damage is economic to repair on any aircraft let alone a 9 year old one. To get skin creases like that will involve buckling on quite a few stringers, and possibly damage to the radial hoop frames as well - the skin and hoops are a local item but the stringers run a fair way down the aircraft so that must be a hell of a job to drill out all the fixings and replace them (having had to strip out a correspondingly large part of the interior to get to them).

Secondly, as regards the 787 in a similar situation... composites are somewhat of an unknown quantity when damaged because its impossible to tell the extent of delamination inside. Having seen the results of a CF monocoque wing bend tested to destruction, I would say that the greater strength and flexibility of carbon would have either absorbed the impact without plastic deformation, or if the force was great enough then it would have delaminated and cracked open and be a total writeoff

[Machaca]

I want each landing and take off to be a sure thing, not a safe bet. :ugh:


Aviation is nothing but calculated risk, and the safest bet in transportation!

[armchairpilot94116]

Yes just like going out of your door each morning, but I wouldn't want "hero" pilots running risks that are disproportionate to gain.

I wouldn't want it to be a "maybe , I will land safely" thats all. I want it to be a yes definitely we will land safely (barring something failing dramatically and suddenly on touchdown).

I was in a DC9 on approach in Madrid some years back. EVERYONE else had diverted to Barcelona, but my "hero" pilot wanted to make an attempt. We diverted after one try. It was pretty dramatic turbulence. I say , if everyone has diverted, its not necessary to even try. But thats just me.

[Flightmech]

but my "hero" pilot wanted to make an attempt. We diverted after one try. It was pretty dramatic turbulence

So what was the problem there? He made one attempt, didn't like it then diverted?

[armchairpilot94116]

It was reported to be one of the worst thunderstorms to hit Madrid in 30 years (as I found out later). An attempt shouldn't even have been attempted given the conditions.

Get-there-itis should be avoided. We want heros who perform acts of heroism when called upon, not those who seek to create situations where they can be heros. There is a difference.

[KBPsen]

Armchairpillo...

Stick to things you know something about, which appears to be flogging stuff, rather than pontificate about things you do not.

[pakeha-boy]

Quote Armchairpilot...."IF I was running an airline, Id actually prefer pilots who are a bit chicken instead of super gung ho.


....yeah mate,thats why your not running or going to run an Airline......

[SpaceNeedle]

Hey guys, armchairpilot94116 is entitled to his opinion. Don't be too OTT with your replies. You are only adding to the disdain other non flying aviation professional have for pilots.

[EXLEFTSEAT]

gtseraf+Fratemate : I have read your explaination und have tried to change the thread title. Seems it only changes in my initial post and not in the main list.

[Christodoulidesd]

Ouch!

LiveLeak.com - Boeing 767 damaged after 'hard landing'

[misd-agin]

Since only one airplane can occupy the same airspace at the same time, and thunderstorms rarely stay constant, the weather your flight experienced probably was, to some unknown degree, different than the airplane directly ahead of or behind you flight into Madrid.

Since you're not giving us any additional information (what did the crew know and when did they know it?) your story lacks context. There's always a first, and last, flight when an airport closes.

I've been the first guy to go around, been the first guy to refuse takeoff, last guy to land, and have landed when other flights have diverted/gone around. It just depends on the situation that I'm dealing with, and not what the guy ahead of, or behind me, is experiencing.

[The Dominican]

Since only one airplane can occupy the same airspace at the same time, and thunderstorms rarely stay constant, the weather your flight experienced probably was, to some unknown degree, different than the airplane directly ahead of or behind you flight into Madrid.

Since you're not giving us any additional information (what did the crew know and when did they know it?) your story lacks context. There's always a first, and last, flight when an airport closes.

I've been the first guy to go around, been the first guy to refuse takeoff, last guy to land, and have landed when other flights have diverted/gone around. It just depends on the situation that I'm dealing with, and not what the guy ahead of, or behind me, is experiencing.


No, that just cannot be, the answer has to be that we are all irresponsible thrill seekers with a death wish suffering from get thereitis, that don't mind risking the lives of a couple hundred people just to demonstrate the we are the heroes that didn't divert that day, yes, that is it:ugh:

[BobnSpike]

The nom de plume speaks volumes.

[clipstone1]

that should be perfectly repairable on a 9 year old B763, depending upon any damage to the landgear.

The "First Choice" one mentioned earlier was 15 years old at the time of similar damage and was repaired and back in service in 2 months including a temporary hangar being build to effect the repair.

[armchairpilot94116]

Alright. I suppose I can expand on my thoughts , purely for entertainment purposes as what I say is not of any importance nor holds any weight of course. Allow me to indulge myself a bit. Some of you when asked to consider caution and not to be too gung ho in the face of an increased danger in proceeding further, are apparently personally offended.


I remember a certain Korean Airlines 747 landing in Kimpo in fog. If memory serves me they were advised that all other flights had diverted and a landing would be ill advised at that time. But they went ahead anyway. Killed about a dozen people in the ensuing crash and fire. The flight crew were uninjured and took responsibility by refusing to leave the aircraft. I tip my hat to them because that is certainly bravery of the highest order. To perish willfully as a way of taking full responsibility. Not something I could do. OF course they felt confident that they would be able to land safely. But confidence does not reduce any present danger. I just wonder, how much better it would be for all if a stricter guideline would be adhered to regarding when NOT to proceed with one's approach and abandon the landing attempt.

quote from wiki: Gimpo International Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimpo_International_Airport)

In 1980, a Korean Air Lines 747 landed short of the runway, ripping off all main landing gear, causing the aircraft to skid to a stop on the nose wheel and outer 2 engines starting a fire. 15 of the 226 total occupants were killed, including the First Officer and Captain, who refused to leave the aircraft after the crash.

further info:

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-2B5B HL7445 Seoul-Gimpo (Kimpo) International Airport (SEL) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19801119-1)

In my Madrid landing (was a Swissair Dc9 from Geneva to Madrid) it was late afternoon and I remember circling above Madrid. Dark clouds below while we were still in bright sunshine.

The captain came on and announced that all other flights had elected to divert but we will be making one attempt to see how it was. He warned of strong turbulence. And down we went through the clouds. It got so dark it was pitch black and at a few points lightning was striking close to the aircraft.

The turbulence was indeed as he said, very strong. There was a few down drafts as well as updrafts. I wasn't enjoying this and neither was anyone else I am sure. Finally , thank goodness a particularly strong updraft shot us straight up right back into the sunshine. The captain came on to say that conditions were too rough and we would be diverting to Barcelona.

Upon arrival at Barcelona I could see that the airport was literally swamped with aircraft. Almost all were just sitting there unserviced. We had our doors open. There was no ground service of any kind. We would not be going into the terminal. Two, almost three hours went by and finally we headed back to Madrid. The captain came on to reassure us that the weather was clear all the way, and it was. Very smooth flying as the storm had passed.

I actually had asked him while on the ground in Barcelona why he had made that attempt when everyone else had diverted. He didn't answer me (probably thought me a fool ) . I suppose he wanted to avoid just such a situation. A much longer workday, stranded at Barcelona without ground service. He felt the danger at Madrid to be manageable , at least for one attempt.

I felt that , given everyone else had diverted , and he knew that as he had said so in his announcement. That he should have diverted as well. No need to make an attempt.

We may have gotten over the piano keys even and then over-ran or any number of other unhappy possibilities given the atrocious weather. It was atrocious. A truly large thunderstorm right over the airport.

How many of you , honestly , would make such an attempt and how many of you would not. I want to fly with the would nots if I may, thank you.

[before landing check list]

I actually had asked him while on the ground in Barcelona why he had made that attempt when everyone else had diverted. He didn't answer me (probably thought me a fool ) . I suppose he wanted to avoid just such a situation. A much longer workday, stranded at Barcelona without ground service. He felt the danger at Madrid to be manageable , at least for one attempt.

Conditions change rapidly. I always said that it does not hurt to "take a look" as long as you always leave an escape and alternate plan. Staying within regs of course.

[Flightmech]

Armchairpilot certainly watches a lot of Nat Geo!

[before landing check list]

Sure looks that way.

[Teddy Robinson]

Before departure, is the destination (and alternate) within forecast weather limits at the proposed time of arrival ? answer yes .. despatch.

Answer no ? when are the conditions forecast to improve .. consider delay.

Destination out of limits, alternate (and now a second alternate) OK, depart and check weather en route for destination, still below limits continue to alternate no approach.

Destination within limits before final approach fix WITH NO APPARENT SEVERE WEATHER HAZARD OBSERVED, an approach may be made initially to FAF, if still within limits, continue (maybe) to minima.. land/go around as appropriate to the conditions, if go-around, check fuel/scare factor and divert.

The critical factor is "extra" fuel, that is your thinking time.
Something else worth considering is planning to your "1st alternate" and making the original destination an alternate.

Had an experience where destination was forecast to be unusable due high winds, checked the weather en-route and it was as forecast, decided to divert at top of descent, 1st alternate not available due lack of ramp space (all the other diversions) second alternate likewise !!... third alternate was fine though.

food for thought at least.

[777300ER]

I wish people had to prove that they have a pilots licence before they could post on this forum. The amount of absolute rubbish spewed by "armchair pilots" is nauseating.. :yuk:

[etrang]

the answer has to be that we are all irresponsible thrill seekers with a death wish suffering from get thereitis, that don't mind risking the lives of a couple hundred people just to demonstrate the we are the heroes that didn't divert that day,

Well, no actually that isn't the answer at all.

[The Dominican]

The PPrune community never seizes to amaze me, I would have never imagined that I had to explain that I was being sarcastic on that post:eek:

[Fratemate]

Being told how to do our jobs by a guy who's not even a pilot and then trying to explain to those too stupid to understand satire, irony or sarcasm are good reasons for us not to venture into the lair of R&N, where the basic premise of 'professional' and 'pilot' seems absent. I'm sure some people comment here just to increase their post count because they certainly have nothing to add to the discussion.

EXLEFTSEAT,

I appreciate your attempts to edit the original title and understand it is a limitation of the forum software. Thanks.

[Al Murdoch]

Anyway, back to the ANA 767...

[armchairpilot94116]

What to do to help prevent this type of incident becoming what Narita becomes known for?

[before landing check list]

incident becoming what Narita becomes known for?

This is weird. I think there should be a forum non-pilots....maybe Jetblast?

[AndoniP]

What to do to help prevent this type of incident becoming what Narita becomes known for?

Narita airport should be moved to somewhere where there is no wind. Or build huge walls around the airport so that no wind blows across the runway.

:cool:

[AndoniP]

Here is another observation, if your English reading comprehension was any good you would notice zzzz blah blah

yeah, you've not really understood what i'm getting at either.

i was responding to (i think) fratemate who thought they'd add the nationality of the pilots when it was unnecessary, that's all, regardless of whether you came to their 'defense' or not.

[misd-agin]

Simple solution for Narita's crosswinds - put the entire airport on a rotating table and pivot the runway's into the wind for each takeoff and landing.

Viola, no crosswinds.

Now if we could just get guys to resist pushing forward on the yoke during bounces. :sad:

[TopBunk]

Simple solution for Narita's crosswinds

even simpler solution .... complete the originally planned NE-SW runway .... stopped by the protestors / land sale those decades ago.

[Tailwind2100]

A 3000m perfect circle of asphalt would also work.

Someone else can figure out how to light it, drain it, plow it and route the taxiways.

And only 39x more asphalt to lay if I pi-r-squared it correctly.

[JW411]

The Americans carried out experiments on a circular runway back in the late 1940s. They used a circular automobile test track which, I think, was somewhere near Detroit. DC-3s flew from it and also a DC-4 I believe.

Of course, this solved all sorts of problems but generated just as many others.

I have a vague recollection that the final stopper was the high side loads operating on the undercarriage.

[Germanflyer]

Whoa.....talk about thread drift. Get back to the topic at hand shall we. Anyone with any ideas as to what the Dfdr says wrt the 767 landing.
Taken it was hard ..:cool:

[Koan]

我々日本人 (We Japanese) pilots are the safest in the world. We are まじめ、(honest and diligent). You 外人 (foreign) pilots are all cowboys. Wearing white deerskin gloves is very important, maybe as much as as is our ANA procedure. This incident is Boeing's fault :=.

[Capn Bloggs]

Whoa.....talk about thread drift. Get back to the topic at hand shall we.
Your Prune name suits! :O

[Germanflyer]

Capt Bloggs,

;)

[Pelican]

People keep assuming the pilots push forward after the bounce. I am not so sure this is the case. I was once on the jumpseat for a very heavy landing into Heraklion (though no airframe damage) and there was a very pronounced nose down moment after the initial touchdown. The handling pilot swore he did not put in a nose down input (not did he flare, but that is another issue) and later we figured it to be the following:

Big bounce on main wheels --> main wheels are behind the CG --> a nose down moment as a result.

Not to say it will happen like that every time, many factors I am sure can influence it, but I would not automatically assume that so many pilots push forward on the yoke after a heavy landing.

[FullWings]

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt but a replay of the video shows more of a 'skip' than a 'bounce'.

I was once on the jumpseat for a very heavy landing into Heraklion (though no airframe damage) and there was a very pronounced nose down moment after the initial touchdown. The handling pilot swore he did not put in a nose down input (nor did he flare, but that is another issue)
If he didn't flare, then the elevator would have been in a fairly neutral position, which would have led to the nose dropping rapidly after T/D. Also, the oleo travel was probably taken up pretty quickly, leading to the undercarriage/airframe combo acting as a rigid object from an inertial point-of-view.

[Ricejet]

Having worked in Japan for several years I can tell you that ANA pilots are the worst. Unable to think outside the box, inflexible, lack of common sense, etc. I avoid Japanese carriers all the time. Too many incidents with ANA lately. The 737 upset, the AJX 767 that flew through the thunderstorm on approach to NRT a couple months ago that was hit by lightening, several tailstrikes, all the ANA planes that land during typhoons while all the other carriers divert, and many more. Must be something in their culture.

[Northbeach]

Nice analysis/contribution. Thank you.

Big bounce on main wheels --> main wheels are behind the CG --> a nose down moment as a result.

[Capn Bloggs]

I agree with Fullwings. The aircraft was airborne again when the nose went down. That didn't happen because of the C of G. Fair enough, if you just smacked it on, that the nose may then also smack on shortly after because of the C of G position, but in this case, the aircraft went flying again before touching down the second time nose-first.

[King on a Wing]

For what its worth, it was an autoland attempt.
The airplane experienced a massive tailwind gust just before minimums and pitched down to pick up profile. The A/P was disconnected below minimums to pitch back up for the flare and was too late. Rest all on video.
Of course this is just what the lil birdie tells me...
;)

[haughtney1]

Zoom Boeing 767 having a hard landing at Manchester airport - YouTube

This is an example of little or no flare followed by the nose gear arriving...very different IMHO to the ANA pilot created creases.

[King on a Wing]

Decent flare there.
High autobrake setting could have contributed to the high rate of derotation after mains touched down resulting in the high(and double!) nosewheel impact.
Just my thoughts here..

[Martin VanNostrum]

Stunning first post Ricejet. You appear to know a lot when you actually know nothing.

[de facto]

High autobrake setting could have contributed to the high rate of derotation after mains touched down resulting in the high(and double!) nosewheel impact.
Just my thoughts here..

Well,did you ever fly an aircraft with autobrakes?

[Ricejet]

"Stunning first post Ricejet. You appear to know a lot when you actually know nothing."

I think 6 years flying at AJX, living in Japan, being Japanese, gives me a fairly good insight. Whats stunning is thinking you can evaluate someone's knowledge, or lack thereof, from a single post.

[misd-agin]

For what its worth, it was an autoland attempt.
The airplane experienced a massive tailwind gust just before minimums and pitched down to pick up profile. The A/P was disconnected below minimums to pitch back up for the flare and was too late. Rest all on video.
Of course this is just what the lil birdie tells me...


That sounds like an over-reliance on automation or late transition to the level of automation appropriate for the conditions.

[BRE]

Ricejet: "Having worked in Japan for several years I can tell you that ANA pilots are the worst. Unable to think outside the box, inflexible, lack of common sense, etc. I avoid Japanese carriers all the time. Too many incidents with ANA lately. The 737 upset, the AJX 767 that flew through the thunderstorm on approach to NRT a couple months ago that was hit by lightening, several tailstrikes, all the ANA planes that land during typhoons while all the other carriers divert, and many more. Must be something in their culture."

I don't agree. I have worked with Japanese high tech companies for more than 10 years, and have spent much time in meeting rooms and labs with my Japanese colleagues. While the outcome in terms of development results and delivery performance has always been admirable in the long run, getting there was hard work and sometimes frustrating. I have experienced many instances where the Japanese team had in our eyes simply forgotten all common sense, where the team would happily stampede into the wrong direction, where things were neglected that a second year engineering student would consider basics, where production and quality control procedures were installed that had no fail-safing (poka yoke) whatsoever and no failure mode analyses were carried out.

Reading about nuclear accident investigations in Japan paints a similar picture of inflexibility, group-think, naivite, over-reliance on automation and the inability to imagine that things sometimes do not go as planned.

If these kind of cultural issues were also prevalent in the airline industry, you'd expect planes to be dropping out of the skies like those of some other Asian airlines in the 80s and 90s. But when you look at statistics, Japanese airlines have been really remarkably safe since the early 70s, and even more so after JAL123 where Boeing and JAL maintenance shared the blame. The picture remains the same when you look at glitches that could have ended a lot worse. Admittedly, there were some maintenance issues at JAL a few years ago, and the ANA 737 upset raised and the recent spate of tail scrapes at JAL and ANA raised some eyebrows, but the overall frequency of such glitches does not appear to be higher than in other airlines that have a strong safety culture and excellent track record (CO, DL, BA, LH to name a few).

I don't know what they do differently than the rest of the technical community in Japan, but I'd sure like to know.

[Ricejet]

My friend, what you just posted describes the exact mentality that I saw while working there. The inability to think outside of the box, or to adapt to changing situations. The thing with flying is that sometimes it can be forgiving when you screw up. I am surprised that more planes are not falling out of the sky. The Japanese rely too much on automation in my opinion. Maybe this is why this accident happened.

But what your post proves is that 2 people can have a serious...respectful debate without name calling.

[Roadrunner]

When the wind at Narita starts blowing out of the SW above 30kts and gusting often to 45+ kts, due to local topography the air feels like it is blowing through a cheese grater.

It is definitely not much fun having to approach in such conditions. Fortunately, Haneda is usually available and an approach to RWY22 is way more into wind and generally very smooth due to the airports Tokyo Bay location.
I agree with the comments of some in this thread. Too many crew in the past have shown too greater desire to push on to destination in adverse conditions, often resulting in bent and burnt a/c and pax.