JAL incident at Haneda Airport

[Compton3fox]

BBC News - Japan Airlines plane in flames on the runway at Tokyo's Haneda Airport
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011
https://x.com/FlightEmergency/status/1742112892684480644?t=kz8jhaKBfH44gA3H9D5LpQ&s=09

[jolihokistix]

Landed. Runway C. Now being reported to have hit a coastguard plane…(?)

[Less Hair]

It looks like it landed without the front gear after having hit something before.

[Jonty]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011

hope everyone is ok.

[IronRoad]

Rumours of a collision with a coast guard aircraft on the ground.

[Compton3fox]

https://x.com/aeroroutes/status/1742111768808472742?t=XdwdQytbDHPoWp3c6gbrkQ&s=09

Fuselage looks mostly intact..

[sportzbar]

Being reported on Japanese TV that the A350 collided with a coast guard aircraft whilst landing....

[jolihokistix]

A350. Total loss. Cabin in flames internally, burning through roof.

400 all safe, early report.

[Thommo_au]

Hi, video of this incident here, aircraft is a total loss:
Tokyo aircraft fire

[Icarus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011

hope everyone is ok.

looks nasty if this is a true representation in the news report.

https://x.com/miyawai3/status/1742109863944257582?s=46&t=8GGlNU2imaAMlUnqbkU0BQ

https://news.sky.com/story/plane-in-flames-on-runway-of-tokyo-airport-13040799

some talk of it possibly hitting another aircraft on the runway (a Japanese Coast Guard aircraft).

[Jonty]

Got this one too.

Tokyo aircraft fire (https://twitter.com/aeroroutes/status/1742111768808472742?t=XdwdQytbDHPoWp3c6gbrkQ&s=09)

[thousandsuns]

Latest news, crew and passengers of the JAL flight were evacuated from the aircraft.

[SteveGilpin]

Live feed via webcam at _www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/realtime/

[Kraftstoffvondesibel]

Got this one too.

Where the fire has breached the cabin, but according to the timestamp shown is taken nearly 20 minutes after the incident. Looks better than first feared if it hit another aircraft on landing!

[Kabobble]

Got this one too.

https://twitter.com/aeroroutes/status/1742111768808472742?t=XdwdQytbDHPoWp3c6gbrkQ&s=09
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1340x756/screenshot_2024_01_02_093806_de0de0c6d7e5e7b10c3571f1ef09146 402f0bbe6.png
Completely on fire

[jolihokistix]

379 cabin crew + pax all safe.

[Old Carthusian]

Japanese TV news is reporting that all passengers were evacuated safely.

[Jonty]

367 people all safe.

Any news on the aircraft they hit?

[PC767]

The screen shots are 27 minutes apart. Despite fire service attendance, the fire has taken hold of the entire aircraft. Good news if all are safe.

[Auxtank]

Live stream from Sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id41V7c5O04

[milhouse999]

There doesn't appear to be much firefighting going on, from the Skynews live feed.
Great that all are safe as reported elsewhere.

https://imgur.com/a/horgTOP

[PC767]

NDTV on sky have live footage of aircraft burning on runway.

[Sook]

There's definitely some damage on the upper part of the left intake which doesn't look like it would have been caused by the engine contacting the runway. ASN also stating it was a collision:

ASN 2 January 2024 - Airbus A350-941 accident (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349536)

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

There doesn't appear to be much firefighting going on, from the Skynews live feed.

https://imgur.com/a/horgTOP

That was my observation, too 🙄

[ORAC]

Thankfully it was intact as it slid down the runway before evacuation.

No updates on the Coastguard aircrfat and crew reportedly involved.

https://x.com/ospsf/status/1742117107666657309?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

[PC767]

There doesn't appear to be much firefighting going on, from the Skynews live feed.

https://imgur.com/a/horgTOP

One fire truck visible and no foam. They seem to be letting it burn.

[surely not]

According to TV reports in Japan it struck a Coastguard plane whilst landing, which explains the separate fire where it 'touched down'. Again on the TV, it is saying 367 passengers and 12 crew on board.

[Kabobble]

https://www.youtube.com/live/A0FCKcTuRHo?si=A0o4bIXp36mftdYX at 17:47 and 30 seconds onward, per the video embedded time code.
The aircraft appeared to land with missing or damaged nose gear, and left a chunk of wreckage burning at one of the turnoffs.

[Diff Tail Shim]

One fire truck visible and no foam. They seem to be letting it burn.
Run out of foam.

[ORAC]

Footage of the evacuation.

https://x.com/imtiazmadmood/status/1742119251408761161?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
​​​​​​​

[Sook]

One fire truck visible and no foam. They seem to be letting it burn.

If you look at the end of the video on this post, you can see the fire at the impact point, so maybe they were concentrating on that rather than what seemed to be (at least initially) a small fire in the A350.

X video of airfield

[jolihokistix]

“6 crew on coastguard aircraft, one escaped, 5 missing”

[Auxtank]

379 cabin crew + pax all safe.

Good news to hear. Thanks. Japan Airlines confirming that as well.
What a ghastly spectacle the live feed is at the moment.

[FNQAv]

A350 has completely burned down now, apparently the coast guard aircraft it struck on landing was a Dash 8

[Expatrick]

Y'all be relieved to know that CNN have concluded that the incident with the JAL aircraft was not connected to the earthquake.

[plg101]

According to TV reports in Japan it struck a Coastguard plane whilst landing, which explains the separate fire where it 'touched down'. Again on the TV, it is saying 367 passengers and 12 crew on board.

No mention of the Coastguard crew condition as yet?

[Northern Monkey]

Y'all be relieved to know that CNN have concluded that the incident with the JAL aircraft was not connected to the earthquake.

Be interested to see, if reports are accurate, whether the coast guard crew were familiar with Haneda airport or were operating there for the first time ever/in a while due to recent events.

[milhouse999]

That was my observation, too 🙄
It seems in the last few minutes scores of firefighting assets have turned up and started to fight the fire. An hour after the incident.

Have they really had to await resources from far away for this?

[San Diego kid]

That live stream is crazy, fascinating to watch, knowing everyone got out.
I can’t see a happy ending for the crew of the much smaller coastguard plane however, hope they will find out how this could happen.

[Jonty]

It seems in the last few minutes scores of firefighting assets have turned up and started to fight the fire. An hour after the incident.

Have they really had to await resources from far away for this?

Im really quite shocked in how that aircraft is burning. Then I have to remind myself that the fire service allowed the fire to take hold.

[ORAC]

Reports coming in that the accident happened on runway 34R which was being used for departures.

[San Diego kid]

It seems in the last few minutes scores of firefighting assets have turned up and started to fight the fire. An hour after the incident.

Have they really had to await resources from far away for this?

Everyone was safe out the plane, plane is destroyed anyway, why risk more lives. Let it burn untill you’re sure there won’t be any explosions.

[CAEBr]

Y'all be relieved to know that CNN have concluded that the incident with the JAL aircraft was not connected to the earthquake.

Except that the Coastguard were probably only operating because of the earthquake and its aftermath ........

[Fortissimo]

One fire truck visible and no foam. They seem to be letting it burn.

Correct decision. There was a firefighter killed at DXB in 2016 when the wing of a fully evacuated B777 cooked off and he was hit by a large chunk of wing panel. Needless death.

[Kabobble]

Reports coming in that the accident happened on runway 34R which was being used for departures.
It was 34R for sure. Does Haneda operate mixed mode?

[421dog]

Be interested to see, if reports are accurate, whether the coast guard crew were familiar with Haneda airport or were operating there for the first time ever/in a while due to recent events.
Why would that possibly be pertinent? Those of us who are actually pilots fly in to airports we’ve never visited, and don’t get killed on a fairly frequent basis.

[DaveReidUK]

Then I have to remind myself that the fire service allowed the fire to take hold.

If I'd been involved in an event like that, I'd be grateful that the fire service's first priority is preservation of life.

[physicus]

No ADS-B target visible for the coast guard plane, neither on ground nor in-flight. Approach and landing speeds looking normal.

Flight appears to be JAL516 from Okinawa, rego JA13XJ hex id 8467d8

[Stu666]

Appears to collide with the other aircraft on runway.

https://x.com/6twenty5/status/1742126071305445642?s=20

[fdr]

Haneda normally has a few coast guard aircraft on the north ramp where we often get parked for medevac ops. Those include a few G-V, F-2000's. They also have Saab 340, Dash 8-300 and Kingairs. Taking a hit from an A350 on landing is going to be a bad day for the coast guard crew.

The video of the fire fighting efforts is disturbing. If they ran out of AFFF or whatever they are using that fast, I would be surprised. It appears they were applying minimum effort with one guy at the rear with a hand held hose, and one from the front. Apparently the fuselage likes burning after all. There is going to be some fall out after this one, while it permitted the first 90 seconds window fine, the whole plane being consumed by fire is going to take some explaining. Vale to the coast guard crew, one apparently escaped.

Looks like the RH engine on the A350 continued to run for some time, the E&E bay would have taken a hit, it appears to be running during the evacuation.

Coast Guard aircraft was apparently one of the Dash-8 300's

[The Hustler]

Reports coming in that the accident happened on runway 34R which was being used for departures.

Reports the Coastguard aircraft was departing to Nagata to deliver aid, so sounds like someone was on the wrong runway 😔

[simfly]

Reports coming in that the accident happened on runway 34R which was being used for departures.

they combine arrivals and departures on both parallel runways at HND

[AeroAmigo]

Complete hull loss, still violently burning now through (somewhat bizarre) Live footage provided by various news outlets. I suppose at least a positive to take from this is that the fire developed slowly, affording those onboard enough time to evacuate safely.

[surely not]

I'm getting reports from a relative who lives in Japan. Latest news is that 5 crew members on the Coastguard aircraft are likely to have perished with only 1 pilot known to have survived at this time

[jolihokistix]

JAL flight 516 was from Shin Chitose in Hokkaido.

[milhouse999]

Everyone was safe out the plane, plane is destroyed anyway, why risk more lives. Let it burn untill you’re sure there won’t be any explosions.

Fires can be fought from considerable distance with the correct equipment, preseveration of evidence is also important.

I completely understand your point however there seemed to be a small response to this initial incident with firefighting assets arriving very late (an hour after the incident). I am sure all of this will come out in the subsequent reports and focus should be on the safe evacuation of pax.

[Ivor_Bigunn]

A screengrab from the video in Post #30:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1061x698/fire_bd977148d0fd00ba641cf76875ebfcff19cdfe14.jpg
Plane is moving rapidly right-left, on a runway.

It does look as if it is nose-down.

I hope everyone really did evacuate safely.

IB

[ORAC]

Fire department statement that the remaining 5 Coastguard crew members have been accounted for.

No comment on their condition.

[rkenyon]

I completely understand your point however there seemed to be a small response to this initial incident with firefighting assets arriving very late (an hour after the incident). I am sure all of this will come out in the subsequent reports and focus should be on the safe evacuation of pax.

The main fire initially was further down the runway where the cost guard plane was hit. The fire services would have attended that first. Once they'd dealt with that, they could move onto the JAL plane.

[Firstpost]

It is quite interesting to see how the carbon-fibre-reinforced polymers in the fuselage hold up against the flames.

[poppiholla]

https://x.com/SpaethFlies/status/1742130217815093541?s=20

photo showing damage to the A350 which gives you an idea of the impact.

[milhouse999]

The main fire initially was further down the runway where the cost guard plane was hit. The fire services would have attended that first. Once they'd dealt with that, they could move onto the JAL plane.

If you scroll to the start of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NLUoAmlm0A the initial firefighting stage shows one firefighter with a single hose (which doesnt appear long enough) trying to fight the left engine on his own.

This is incredibly poor, you can't sugar coat it any other way sadly.

Compare it to this archive footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGrdXGzJZc4 where multiple trucks are fighting the fire with remote equipment.

[PC767]

The video from inside the aircraft has disappeared from the thread.

[Kabobble]

From the videos I've seen, it looks like the coastguard plane was hit around the C3/C4 areas around 34R. The coastguard plane's nose is still intact (you can still see the paint scheme on it). Airport fire department are crawling all over the wreckage.

It looks like the nose of a Saab 340 to me.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1075x741/screenshot_2024_01_02_103337_06440f70b4e41dd157cb17d3dba85ca 55e10755a.png
Nose is pointing to the left of frame and is banked over about 80º to its left. One of the firemen is standing in the right side of the cockpit window.

[EDLB]

They had to fight two fires at the same time. One from a most likely full fuel Dash-8 on the runway and one from the A350 with my estimate a least 1 hour worth of fuel. We might see in the next days what (little) is left from the Dash-8. Regardless two plane on one runway is one too many. Will be interesting who screwed up here, as there are several holes in the cheese needed for this outcome. At least at some point the tower must have seen that there is a problem. Visibility was not bad, so even the A350 should have seen some lights from the Dash.
If you have none person missing in the A350 and 5 missing in the Dash it is clear where the priorities for firefighting and rescue operations are.

[PC767]

photo showing damage to the A350 which gives you an idea of the impact.
This photo suggests that impact was on the nose. Had the second aircraft lined up on the centre line? My initial thought was either an aircraft crossing the runway or stopped too close.

[ViceSergal]

Yoshinori Yanagishima, Japanese Coast Guard Spokesman, has apparently said it's rego MA722, which is a Dash 8.

[shonandai]

The JAL plane was being heavily foamed just after the crash.

[konradeck]

The videos show, that they were already on ground during rollout phase when the planes colided.

[Bahrd]

What made this airplane's on-deck stuff look so flammable?

[Xhi]

Fuselage looks mostly intact..

Visible dent in left engine cowling

[AirportPlanner1]

Playback on FR24 shows the JAL to have been the first in a sequence of arrivals onto that runway. No arrivals for some time before that. It definitely appears to be heading for the correct runway as it was arriving simultaneously with a Solaseed Air 738.

[10002level]

It can be very difficult to see aircraft on the ground at night, especially when their strobes are not switched on.

“Another matter investigated by the NTSB was why the pilots of the two planes did not see each other in time to avoid the collision. Although the Metroliner didn’t have a cockpit voice recorder, rendering it impossible to say what the pilots were doing, it was hard to imagine that they could have seen a plane which was directly behind them. The USAir pilots, however, should have had an opportunity to spot the Metroliner. After all, it was a perfectly clear night, with at least 25 miles of visibility. But in his testimony before the Board, First Officer Kelly, the only surviving pilot from either plane, stated that the runway appeared perfectly clear — it was like the Metroliner wasn’t even there.

To understand why, investigators waited until a night with similar weather conditions, then positioned an identical Metroliner at intersection 45 on runway 24L at LAX. The investigators then flew several simulated approaches to runway 24L in a helicopter while the pilots of the Metroliner tested different lighting configurations. What they found was that if all of the Metroliner’s lights were turned on, it was possible to discern the aircraft, but in most configurations, it would blend almost perfectly into the runway lighting.

The Metroliner was equipped with an anti-collision beacon on the tail, navigation lights on the wingtips and tail, a taxi light on the nose, strobe lights on the tail and wingtips, and landing/recognition lights on the wings. However, normal Metroliner procedures called for the strobes, taxi light, and landing/recognition lights to be turned on only after receiving takeoff clearance. That left only the anti-collision lights and the navigation lights. An examination of the light bulbs confirmed that only these lights were illuminated at the time of the crash.

Testing showed that if these were the only lights on the Metroliner, it would have been very difficult to see. The navigation light on the tail blended perfectly with the runway centerline lighting, and the red anti-collision beacon was surprisingly dim. It was possible to spot the Metroliner if one knew it was there, but if one didn’t, it would have been a challenge. The findings therefore confirmed that it was unlikely that the pilots of USAir flight 1493 could have avoided the accident by seeing the Metroliner.”

source: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/cleared-to-collide-the-crash-of-usair-flight-1493-and-skywest-flight-5569-or-the-los-angeles-5d24ab5fec46

[Kabobble]

Rumours that the coastguard plane was Dash-8 JA722A.
This tallies with https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ja722a

[Diesel_10]

Correct decision. There was a firefighter killed at DXB in 2016 when the wing of a fully evacuated B777 cooked off and he was hit by a large chunk of wing panel. Needless death.
Quite right too - these plastic aircraft full of Lithium ion Batteries and various pressurized accumulators should, once all pax and crew off, be cordoned off and left to burn. Also, there is residual fuel in the empty aux/tail tanks and probably 20% fuel in the main tanks.

Foam does not prevent Lion Batteries self sustaining....

[Paul Fisher]

I’m no expert other than an Aeronautical Eng degree but one thing I would say is to pay tribute to how well the cabin crew appear to have done in evacuating the A350. It’s a large aircraft and looks like some exits were not useable. I’m sure the facts will become clear soon enough but it seems people have lost their lives here and my thoughts to them and their families. Anyway shout out to the professionalism of all cabin crew. I wish some passengers would remember they are there primarily for their safety.

[jolihokistix]

Just read that the pilot of the coastguard plane made it out, and they have found the other five but there is no word on their condition. This usually means in Japan that they are sadly awaiting a doctor to make an officially legal pronouncement.

[luoto]

379 cabin crew + pax all safe.
A good testament to cabin crew professional with evac, and hopefully overall pax compliance with not taking onboard small wardrobes (or fiddling about trying to get them to disembark, sigh].

And hopefully this news event will encourage the bone-headed pax on other flights who ignore safety briefings as they "know it all" to at least give a minute or two's damn attention, even if just as a mental refresher, as whilst one hopes it will never be needed in life, it might be the best minute or so's reflection you make.

The post-report evaluation will be interesting reading I dare say on many levels.

My heart sank when I saw the news flash on our local [country] news sites and saw the first image.

[Diesel_10]

If you have none person missing in the A350 and 5 missing in the Dash it is clear where the priorities for firefighting and rescue operations are.[/QUOTE]
Meaning what exactly? I doubt if a fully loaded A350 hits a 20 ton Dash 8 with its NLG at speed, there was anything left of it to conduct a rescue.

[flt001]

All arrivals at the time were using 34L. This was the only aircraft to land on 34R which was operating departures.

[rkenyon]

Meaning what exactly? I doubt if a fully loaded A350 hits a 20 ton Dash 8 with its NLG at speed, there was anything left of it to conduct a rescue.

They saved one person from the Dash-8, and all made it out of the A350.

[freshgasflow]

They had to fight two fires at the same time. One from a most likely full fuel Dash-8 on the runway and one from the A350 with my estimate a least 1 hour worth of fuel. We might see in the next days what (little) is left from the Dash-8. Regardless two plane on one runway is one too many. Will be interesting who screwed up here, as there are several holes in the cheese needed for this outcome. At least at some point the tower must have seen that there is a problem. Visibility was not bad, so even the A350 should have seen some lights from the Dash.
If you have no person missing in the A350 and 5 missing in the Dash it is clear where the priorities for firefighting and rescue operations are.

How do you know the state of the Coast Guard crew? A basic premise of emergency care is triage, which is to focus on those who you can save quickly and have some realistic hope of survival, not those who are in a hopeless situation.

[Innaflap]

I'm quite alarmed by the amount of energy that was in that fire and the capabilities of the fire crew to defeat it unless it was allowed to burn out

2 fires to deal with - and I wonder if some equipment was out dealing with the fallout of the earthquake

Horrendous

But an absolutely amazing evacuation

[NWSRG]

I haven't see all the footage yet, but it strikes me as remarkable that almost 400 people safely emerged from this...and that is credit to the design of the modern airliner. Not to mention the JAL cabin crew. Something to be celebrated.

The horror is that the Coast Guard crew seem to have perished.

Root causes will emerge later, but for now, something which could have been much, much worse has been avoided.

[freshgasflow]

if all souls were accounted for, perhaps it was not worth fighting this fire, and more prudent to just let it burn itself out.

[Dct_Mopas]

All arrivals at the time were using 34L. This was the only aircraft to land on 34R which was operating departures.

They’d just restarted parallel approaches, this accident aircraft was the first in a stream of arrivals for 34R.

[jolihokistix]

Coastguard MA722 fixed-wing aircraft.

[TimmyTee]

The crew of DL276 must have seen it up close

[Jonty]

There’s YouTube footage of the A350 landing where it hits the other aircraft. Just before the moment of collision you can see the strobes of the Coast Guard aircraft. Then it’s engulfed in flames.

[Salina Chan]

2 fires to deal with - and I wonder if some equipment was out dealing with the fallout of the earthquake

the earthquake happend on the other side of the island and it is unlikely that ARFF equipment and personell would be sent. Esp. when access to the region seems to be difficult and there is no widespread fire/destruction (compared to the last "big one" that hit Japan).

[NWSRG]

if all souls were accounted for, perhaps it was not worth fighting this fire, and more prudent to just let it burn itself out.

Absolutely...fire fighting is for preservation of life. As someone mentioned further up, you then put fire fighters themselves at undue risk if you keep going once passengers / crew are safe. Unless the fire creates additional collateral risk to life.

[flt001]

They’d just restarted parallel approaches, this accident aircraft was the first in a stream of arrivals for 34R.

Also still operating departures then as one aircraft was holding short

[Kraftstoffvondesibel]

Quite right too - these plastic aircraft full of Lithium ion Batteries and various pressurized accumulators should, once all pax and crew off, be cordoned off and left to burn. Also, there is residual fuel in the empty aux/tail tanks and probably 20% fuel in the main tanks.

Foam does not prevent Lion Batteries self sustaining....

Now, take into account that the battery installation on the A350 is about 1/100 the size of a medium Tesla battery, or contains the energy equivalent to 1/10.000 of a ton of jet fuel. do you really think it provides amounts of energy that even registers in a fire such as todays?

[jolihokistix]

Dash crew update. 4 just been confirmed dead. The captain in serious state, concerning one other, no pronouncement yet.

[TimmyTee]

Guessing there’s no live streams of Haneda Tower ATC?

[TURIN]

Quite right too - these plastic aircraft full of Lithium ion Batteries and various pressurized accumulators should, once all pax and crew off, be cordoned off and left to burn. Also, there is residual fuel in the empty aux/tail tanks and probably 20% fuel in the main tanks.

Foam does not prevent Lion Batteries self sustaining....
When you say 'full of', how many are we talking about? I thought it only had two. Or do you mean passenger and crew hand held devices too.

[jolihokistix]

Former JAL pilot speculates from the quick fire spread that JAL 516 wing tank might have ripped, leaked and sparked off from engine. He thinks one or other of the pilots must have misheard ATC instructions.
In Japanese:
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014307221000.html

[rkenyon]

Guessing there’s no live streams of Haneda Tower ATC?

https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3

[Ivor_Bigunn]

Here are 3 screengrabs from the video in post #65.

They are each 2-3 minutes apart, in sequence:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1363x768/fire3_155_80a017895630a5cb03526e19d3204db28fc0fa20.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1364x729/fire4_153_5e4e0b0719a6bc3b9095ee7294ddec9c04e7a3eb.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1332x755/fire2_6f886087d3bbdf7671d9b4313160503e25c37707.jpg


In frame #1 you can see the evacuation ongoing. A steward stands in the doorway with a flashlite, until 1-2 minutes after the last passenger evacuates down the rear slide - so great job there.

In frame #2 you see that the evacuation is apparently complete, and that fire trucks are on the scene but sending no foam. But 1 lone fireman is approaching the LH engine.

You see him very clearly in Frame #3, spraying the LH engine by hand. Also, overall the fire is markedly reduced. Evidently it erupted later, to engulf the entire plane, but minutes after the evacuation was over.

I guess that the firemen are following SOP's, not to spray foam on an empty aircraft? Although the fire is quite small by then. The trucks did not spray foam at any time during the evacuation, so they cannot have run out of foam.

But what is the "lone fireman" doing? Has he disobeyed orders? What he is doing looks dangerous, and rather pointless, so I think something has not gone to plan.

IB

[Pilot DAR]

This is MA720, a sister ship, while I was witnessing developmental testing in 2008


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x533/ma720_031e63784ed7ef4e0ec3aca9a0fbf06637ff8e8a.jpg

[Hellsheep]

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster. I am not here to speculate, just point out one fact I have heard so far, that given the intensity of the situation could prove to be incorrect later on. I have pulled the LiveATC archive of the incident and you can distinctly here around 17 minutes and 36 seconds or so, a controller or someone report "We have a fire on 34 Left". Given departures were operating on 34L at the time and 34R was JAL516's assigned runway for landing from reading above, it might shed a little bit of light if the information proves correct during the investigation.

[chalkhill-blue]

Considering everyone on board the A350 got off safely this looks like an incredibly efficient evacuation. Probably not the right moment to blame people for carrying bags when there is no way of knowing if anyone did.

[milhouse999]

Here are 3 screengrabs from the video in post #65.

They are each 2-3 minutes apart, in sequence:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1363x768/fire3_155_80a017895630a5cb03526e19d3204db28fc0fa20.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1364x729/fire4_153_5e4e0b0719a6bc3b9095ee7294ddec9c04e7a3eb.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1332x755/fire2_6f886087d3bbdf7671d9b4313160503e25c37707.jpg


In frame #1 you can see the evacuation ongoing. A steward stands in the doorway with a flashlite, until 1-2 minutes after the last passenger evacuates down the rear slide - so great job there.

In frame #2 you see that the evacuation is apparently complete, and that fire trucks are on the scene but sending no foam. But 1 lone fireman is approaching the LH engine.

You see him very clearly in Frame #3, spraying the LH engine by hand. Also, overall the fire is markedly reduced. Evidently it erupted later, to engulf the entire plane, but minutes after the evacuation was over.

I guess that the firemen are following SOP's, not to spray foam on an empty aircraft? Although the fire is quite small by then.

But what is the "lone fireman" doing? Has he disobeyed orders? What he is doing looks dangerous, and rather pointless, so I think something has not gone to plan.

IB

Agreed - as per my original posts. Lots of people saying you don't fight fires on an empty aircraft, there was a significant amount of firefighting going on over an hour after the incident when a large number of extra resources arrived. Tentatively, these appear to be county resources and they are using aerial platforms to fight the fire, something the airport doesn't have maybe?. You don't do what that lone firefighter is doing and go right up to an engine on fire. You can fight the fire remotely, from the tenders, with the right kit.

[Diff Tail Shim]

368 people are very lucky to be alive. That could have been so much worse.

[mickjoebill]

If you scroll to the start of this video:

This is incredibly poor, you can't sugar coat it any other way sadly.

​​​​​​Your assessment is premature.
Having worked at night with airport fire crews I'll wait for more info because there were multiple aircraft involved. There are currently 80 persons beavering away at the wreckage of the coast guard plane. The dispatcher would be aware at some point the JAL aircraft was evacuated and made the priority the smaller craft. In this case, a hands on search and rescue of the wreckage to find and extract the victims.

[readywhenreaching]

https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3
He clearly read back 34Right.
Very strong reminiscence of the 1991 LAX crash though without that many casualties, thankfully.

[threep]

Having lived in Japan, my expectation is that the vast majority of passengers would have done exactly as instructed and not attempted to take cabin bags with them. It will be interesting to read the accident report to learn just how quickly they did manage to evacuate and how close they came to disaster.

[jolihokistix]

Last 5 from Dash now confirmed deceased. Captain badly injured.

Reports of 17+ injuries among the passengers. Severity unknown. Numbers may increase.

[VHOED191006]

My thoughts:

The firefighter on Engine 1 does appear to be in a spot of danger (look no further than EK521).
I apologise if this has been answered or asked before, but did any passengers take their carry-ons with them? If not, did perhaps their society's culture have a role in the success of this evacuation?
Congratulations to the crew for such a successful evacuation of a pretty dense A350 in a rapidly deteriorating situation.

[Tu.114]

Haneda 34R is a CatIII equipped, 60m wide runway with the associated runway lighting. A DH8-300s wing span is 26m - about half of the runway width; the white strobes are mounted on the tail and wing tips on this type.

It was night, but weather was nowhere close to low vis, judging from what Avherald states:

RJTT 020900Z 33008KT 9999 FEW020 07/04 Q1016 NOSIG=
RJTT 020830Z VRB03KT 9999 FEW020 SCT090 08/04 Q1016 BECMG TL0900 30006KT=

Is there any word on what runway lights were switched on at the time of the accident? If the runway was fully lit, it would probably not have been easy for the approaching crew to spot the Dash.

The tower controller and the 350 flight crew will likely have interesting answers to the questions put before them.

[Catastrophic_Failure]

WIN for eastern respect and culture. Try getting 379 westerners off a plane without grabbing their carry-on's and filming/posting everything as they went. "F*** o**! You can't tell me what to do!".

[mickjoebill]

368 people are very lucky to be alive. That could have been so much worse.
The culture in Japan to be respectful and orderly may well have contributed to the successful evacuation. In particular the videos appear to show passengers on the apron without luggage. Bravo.
Another point worth noting is the onboard video shows a good % of passengers wearing face masks perhaps contributing to survivability within the cabin where smoke is visible.

[Jonty]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x713/img_2316_ad8f3ac0ad8ee1725aa724a423a067763e68125f.jpeg
Got this from Facebook

[jolihokistix]

Prime Minister Kishida speaking, praising the crew and passengers…

[chalkhill-blue]

This may have no bearing on the accident, but I noticed on FR24 that the runway on which this happened (34R) was the departure runway at the time, traffic was landing on 34L. As far as I can see there had been no recent landings on 34R. I presume JAL516 had been cleared to land on 34R, no one seems to have the ATC recordings so we can't be sure what happened. But clearly one of these aircraft was in the wrong place and the reason for this is not clear.

[AirScotia]

Looking at the pitch of that rear slide, I'd be surprised if there weren't injuries. It's not that easy stopping at the bottom even from a 737 at a normal height (personal experience).

[Dct_Mopas]

This may have no bearing on the accident, but I noticed on FR24 that the runway on which this happened (34R) was the departure runway at the time, traffic was landing on 34L. As far as I can see there had been no recent landings on 34R. I presume JAL516 had been cleared to land on 34R, no one seems to have the ATC recordings so we can't be sure what happened. But clearly one of these aircraft was in the wrong place and the reason for this is not clear.

ATC live recordings are available and JAL516 was cleared to land 34R. It was the first of a number of aircraft given 34R for landing.

https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3

Landing clearance readback at 15mins.
Report of fire at 17mins 20secs

[jolihokistix]

(They asked the Prime Minister if the smaller aircraft was carrying relief for Noto, but he avoided answering.)

[RB Thruster]

Saddened to see this, in my former life I used to spend time at Haneda, working in an overhaul shop at the airport. I used to pass the coastguard hangar on the train, and always saw the coastguard guys doing their morning excercises. RIP.

[ORAC]

If we have the ATC recordings, what were the taxi, runway, hold instructions for the Dash-8?

[Ikijibiki]

ATC live recordings are available and JAL516 was cleared to land 34R. It was the first of a number of aircraft given 34R for landing.

https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3

Landing clearance readback at 15mins.
Report of fire at 17mins 20secs
What about the ATC communications with the Coast Guard plane? Would those be in this audio stream?

[RickNRoll]

I find it hard to believe all escaped. There is video of them coming down the slide with flames inside the cabin.

[meleagertoo]

Why are the nacelles on the ground? Is the loss of nosegear going to cause such substantial contact?

[PC767]

New video of evacuation from aircraft right, shows no2 engine still running. Well done to cabin crew for situational awareness and not evacuating behind no 2 engine.

[Dct_Mopas]

If we have the ATC recordings, what were the taxi, runway, hold instructions for the Dash-8?

This really is an unconfirmed ATC message - but from what I made out an aircraft unknown was told “your number 1, taxi for holding point C5”. Which is an intersection for 34R.

[Auxtank]

Last 5 from Dash now confirmed deceased.

Died in the course of duty bringing relief and supplies to earthquake victims.

RIP

[ORAC]

Latest video on Sky News shows the right hand engine still running and throwing out sparks and debris as the evacuation is taking place with a heavy fuel leak from the centreline tanks. Only front slide in use on the right side, front and rear on the left.

https://x.com/skynews/status/1742133182336548888?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

[Skillsy]

The evacuation from a few angles...
https://x.com/mishika_singh/status/1742120270050074822?s=20
https://twitter.com/i/status/1742151272181145844
https://x.com/koidrupesh/status/1742154376070979883?s=20
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1742128781509423358?s=20

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GC1ePUSXAAEJpwy?format=jpg&name=medium

[PC767]

Also rh mlg collapsed, liquid pouring from fuselage centre, and damage to engine cowling as if something cut through it.

[RudderTrimZero]

That slide doesn't look like it deployed properly.

This is tragic. A member of the public can see aircraft movements on FR24 and spot a potential collision before any onboard aircraft systems and ATC can. How is that possible in 2024?

[PC767]

The new video also shows two AFRS in attendance and having laid foam down during evacuation. If the leaking liquid is fuel from centre tank, that foam saved lifes.

It appears the AFRS had a realitively intact aircraft under controlled evacuation. The inferno came after evacuation.

[Aerostar6]

Video on Sky news showing evacuation from the starboard side. Clear damage to the right hand nacelle and radome/lower fuselage.

A little sceptical that the leak of fluid from the lower fuselage is fuel. Would a short internal flight be using the centre tank? Also, the Japan Airlines title is partially obscured on the fuselage - foam covered? More likely fluid is fire fighting media.

[simfly]

Do the JAL 359s actuallly have centre fuel tanks? I know these birds were specifically built for JAL domestics. I’m sure I remember reading at the time they were introduced that they might not have the centre tanks to save weight because they didn’t need to carry more fuel than could be stored in the wing tanks?

[jolihokistix]

The Ministry of Transport and the Coastguard Service are now engaged in a meeting which started 20 minutes ago.

[M4rtyman]

The evacuation from a few angles...

Maybe it's the angle, but that slide looks really steep. Did it fully deploy? :bored:

[Switchbait]

Terrible accident.

Are all A350 delivered with the HUD on both sides?

Airplanes can be extremely difficult to spot on a runway amongst all the lighting, especially if they are stationary, but I would have thought with two pilots looking through the HUD, it could help reduce this risk.

[rkenyon]

Maybe it's the angle, but that slide looks really steep. Did it fully deploy? :bored:

It's because the nose is on the floor, so the rear is higher that normal. Thus the slide is very steep.

[M4rtyman]

It's because the nose is on the floor, so the rear is higher that normal. Thus the slide is very steep.
Ah yes - makes sense

[JT Eagle]

On the livestream at timestamp 17:59, a figure can be seen walking near the Dash-8 wreckage. He appears to have a limp and may possibly be the Coast Guard pilot.
JT

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1610x1360/screenshot_2024_01_02_at_12_37_52_c55a1e7365f10fb4c9c931769f ff4ca3e7b02b51.png

[chalkhill-blue]

That slide doesn't look like it deployed properly.

This is tragic. A member of the public can see aircraft movements on FR24 and spot a potential collision before any onboard aircraft systems and ATC can. How is that possible in 2024?

Checking on FR24 I cannot see the Dash 8 at all.

[jolihokistix]

Transport Ministry and Coastguard spokespeople.
Joint press conference announcement update.
Apparently the details are not yet known, but the Dash Captain had simply reported that a) his aircraft had exploded, that b) he had escaped, and c) he knew nothing about the other crew members.
They also said that it is not yet clear if the JAL flight hit the Dash side-on or from the rear.
(The rest was what we already know so far.)

[Rie]

Checking on FR24 I cannot see the Dash 8 at all.
FR will not show many Government/Military Aircraft.

[The Hustler]

ATC live recordings are available and JAL516 was cleared to land 34R. It was the first of a number of aircraft given 34R for landing.

I know this is standard at many airports around the world to cope with the shifting balance from more outgoing to more incoming, but any time there is a change from one system to another - especially if it’s a regular changeover - then it’s possible for people to slip into regular habits. It’s one reason so many checks and double checks are in place in so many industries.

As it appears both pilots survived then the investigation will be interesting and I feel that lessons will definitely be learned from this most unfortunate accident.

[2b2]

FR will not show many Government/Military Aircraft.

Can you get replays from adsb exchange? I've never used it but I believe it shows a lot more of the "blocked* aircraft than FR24.

[TigerHeavy]

I'm curious to understand why tcas in sby mode is not used more often and would/could it have made a difference to the outcome that's just occurred.

[MichaelKPIT]

The culture in Japan to be respectful and orderly may well have contributed to the successful evacuation. In particular the videos appear to show passengers on the apron without luggage. Bravo.
Another point worth noting is the onboard video shows a good % of passengers wearing face masks perhaps contributing to survivability within the cabin where smoke is visible.
You are correct. I worked on the ground at LHR for a number of years and the Japanese groups were always the easiest. They'd typically have one group leader - you'd tell him/her what you wanted the group to do and the rest would follow their directions meticulously. My guess is that if the crew here said "leave everything behind" then they left everything behind. I believe that a lot of people survived here because of the Japanese culture.

[X-37]

https://youtu.be/GYxDz5BVHz4?si=m8DSvlZ7POK0apn9

[Ikijibiki]

I know this is standard at many airports around the world to cope with the shifting balance from more outgoing to more incoming, but any time there is a change from one system to another - especially if it’s a regular changeover - then it’s possible for people to slip into regular habits. It’s one reason so many checks and double checks are in place in so many industries.

As it appears both pilots survived then the investigation will be interesting and I feel that lessons will definitely be learned from this most unfortunate accident.
From all I've read here so far, it would seem the JAL flight was where it was supposed to be doing what it was supposed to do. Ergo, the Dash-8 probably was not. The big question then is why was he not where he was supposed to be?
.

[Salina Chan]

Can you get replays from adsb exchange? I've never used it but I believe it shows a lot more of the "blocked* aircraft than FR24.
yes one can and it does, but the Dash did not appear when i checked...
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1058x743/jal516_21bdb3def5489be8fc79426aeaa4529ea938597a.png

[Milvus Milvus]

Can you get replays from adsb exchange? I've never used it but I believe it shows a lot more of the "blocked* aircraft than FR24.

Doesn't show up on mine..


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1739/screenshot_510__6cd6b6e757512d7dfe6a208b36c81267a67b2cdb.png

[luoto]

Not that it is entirely relevant to the incident, but how long might the operational area be blocked [even after the wreckage is removed] so that any resurfacing [I guess may be needed?] could be undertaken.

I am not familiar with that airport, and am certainly not flight crew, but will the position of the accident create longer-term disruption for the facility [again, once the wreckage is moved away - and any in-place investigation has taken place].

[mobov98423]

They went to cover Japan from the plane even before ppl were evacuating? is that a standard practice in these scenarios, a priority to first cover the name of the airline or is that foam or some other substance covering japan on the plane's right side?

[luoto]

Agreed - as per my original posts. Lots of people saying you don't fight fires on an empty aircraft, there was a significant amount of firefighting going on over an hour after the incident when a large number of extra resources arrived. Tentatively, these appear to be county resources and they are using aerial platforms to fight the fire, something the airport doesn't have maybe?. You don't do what that lone firefighter is doing and go right up to an engine on fire. You can fight the fire remotely, from the tenders, with the right kit.
I wonder, even with very good training, if "human nature" sometimes takes over, meaning you think you are helping out whilst putting yourself unknowingly (sic) at risk.

The firefighter, whatever their gender [but I presume a male being Japan] has "big balls", whether judged to be personally foolish or not. I don't tread in their shoes or dare to tell them how to their job. I struggle to comprehend, but admire, those who rush /to/ a fire or similar disaster when the human response would be to be going the other way.

[Ivor_Bigunn]

Screengrab fom video referenced in Post #155:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1385x673/fire5_c1455f63dc4672146c8a0d1f148f9616e9c85c51.jpg

A lot of passengers coming down the RH Front Slide. Good!!

But the RH engine is obviously still running strongly. See sparks at rear, and internal fire/blades rubbing on casing.

I recall several recent incidents where the Engine Kill Switches did not work. This engine does not look to be majorly damaged.

And the fire overall is very serious but not massive. The plane was only engulfed after the passenger evacuation.

IB

[Angle of Attack]

Regardless of the reports I would say this is a textbook evacuation result. Quite extraordinary.

[PC767]

Just listened to Japan's transport minister. He said the aircraft landed on runway C. I don't know HND. Does runway C equate to 34R?

[DogTailRed2]

Five confirmed fatalities.
Japan Airlines plane fire: Five dead on coastguard plane after crash with jet on Haneda Airport runway - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-67862184)

[pattermeister]

Screengrab fom video referenced in Post #155:
This engine does not look to be majorly damaged.


Are we looking at the same picture?

[scampo]

Regardless of cause and disregarding speculation about the cause of the incident, the cabin crew and flight deck have to be commended for swiftly and safely evacuating the passengers before the aircraft was totally consumed by fire and from some of the video available not all the chutes were deployed. Hats off to them.

[Iron Duck]

A350 approaching on the opposite side to the Dash's captain.

I'm impressed at how, with this damage, the A350 crew controlled the rollout and stopped on the runway, and equally impressed at how tough the A350 structure appears to be.

Apart from the A400M prototype this is the first burnout of a composite wide body that I'm aware of. Composite structure must have a different flammability profile to aluminium alloy, and I wonder whether that explains the firefighting approach?

[krismiler]

Possibly a runway incursion by the coast guard aircraft, a clearance to line up behind being misunderstood as line up. If the coast guard aircraft was high wing they could have had difficulty in seeing an aircraft approaching from above. The JAL aircraft would have been in a nose up attitude which would have restricted their view, and being night time, all the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.

I haven’t operated into Haneda but the complexity of the taxiways at Narita was certainly memorable.

[AirScotia]

AVHerald reporting that there was no command to evacuate. "A first announcement was made "please calm down" followed by "do not take your luggage and do not stand up". There was no clear announcement to evacuate, however, when other passengers stood up they also stood up and thus escaped." Avherald (http://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0)

[Falcon666]

Just listened to Japan's transport minister. He said the aircraft landed on runway C. I don't know HND. Does runway C equate to 34R?

Yes, C1-C11 on that side of Terminal2

[xcris]

Just listened to Japan's transport minister. He said the aircraft landed on runway C. I don't know HND. Does runway C equate to 34R?
On ground movement maps for RJTT, the four runways are designated according to the corresponding taxiways letters, A, B, C, and D - 16L-34R being depicted as "C-RWY".

[luoto]

Whilst not criticising the passengers - I am not there and certainly not in a position to know the circumstances - some of the images do show what seem to be mobile phones "on" and in some cases "deployed" by the passengers. I wonder if they used the flashlight function [cabin dark?] or where they tempted to memorialise things? Or both, of course.

The ambient lightning outside of the acrft doesn't seem to require trhe use of additional mobile phone lighting in any case. I know in my personal case, I'd take longer to swipe to the damn function for it to be of use in an emergency situation.

[krismiler]

https://news.sky.com/story/plane-in-flames-on-runway-of-tokyo-airport-13040799

This link has a video from inside the aircraft.

[Big Eric]

Can you get replays from adsb exchange? I've never used it but I believe it shows a lot more of the "blocked* aircraft than FR24.

DHC-8's usually disappear from both FR24 and ADS-B Exchange once they get below around 2,000 feet, it's something to do with the transponders they have.

[AeroAmigo]

Just for reference for those discussing tracking the coastguard aircraft, searching the reported registration of the aircraft involved (JA722A) shows it arriving into Haneda 21 hours ago, it also shows that it is tracked via MLAT, with the last tracked position being just before the runway threshold.

I've copied this from multilateration.info describing how MLAT works:

"MLAT ground stations receive replies from all transponder-equipped aircraft, including legacy radar and ADS-B avionics, and determine aircraft position based on the time difference of arrival (TDOA) of the replies."

This generally requires (I believe) at least 3 or 4 receivers intercepting replies from any aircraft to be tracked so MLAT tends not to work very well, if at all at ground level.

From that information, providing the reported registration is correct we can assume that the aircraft was not broadcasting ADS-B data, would only be able to be tracked via MLAT and therefore there is no publicly accessible tracking data for it on the ground.

[Michael S]

They had to fight two fires at the same time. One from a most likely full fuel Dash-8 on the runway and one from the A350 with my estimate a least 1 hour worth of fuel. We might see in the next days what (little) is left from the Dash-8. .

Which actually might be the same amount.

[Maninthebar]

Whilst not criticising the passengers - I am not there and certainly not in a position to know the circumstances - some of the images do show what seem to be mobile phones "on" and in some cases "deployed" by the passengers. I wonder if they used the flashlight function [cabin dark?] or where they tempted to memorialise things? Or both, of course.

The ambient lightning outside of the acrft doesn't seem to require trhe use of additional mobile phone lighting in any case. I know in my personal case, I'd take longer to swipe to the damn function for it to be of use in an emergency situation.

At least one of the publicly available videos shows dark smoke in the cabin. In general the flow of people through bottlenecks is best achieved without haste, thus there would be time waiting for pax in the queue.

As everyone got off alive I suggest that the form of learning here can take the form WWW/EBI - What Worked Well/Even Better If

[jetnova]

At approx 17:29 (0847z) of that ATC audio, there are crackly remnants of a line up and wait instruction/read back. Can't tell for which runway or aircraft its relating to, but could be pertinent in case anyone has access to better audio/ears than me

[Jet Jockey A4]

Well this seems like another well handled evacuation from a professional crew which reminds me of another crash where all escaped thanks to the crew of the Air France Airbus 340 in Toronto many years ago. Many people are alive today thanks to this JAL crew.

[Dani]

That slide doesn't look like it deployed properly.
This is tragic. A member of the public can see aircraft movements on FR24 and spot a potential collision before any onboard aircraft systems and ATC can. How is that possible in 2024?
Slide deployed properly, but since the nose gear collapsed during the impact with the Dash, the tail is higher, so the slide is in a steaper angle.
There is no collision warning system on the ground. As soon as you touch down, those systems switch off. How would you navigate on the ground otherwise?

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

Not how Haneda Airport operates. With northerly winds, 34L is normal for arrivals and 34R for departures. Only been in and out of that airport about 100 times.


Well it's pretty non scientific but using FR24 I've had a look at a few random recent JL516 arrivals in to HND and for northerly arrivals they've all been on 34R, not seen a single L, I'd say I've looked at 12-15.

[gsmitheidw1]

Whilst not criticising the passengers - I am not there and certainly not in a position to know the circumstances - some of the images do show what seem to be mobile phones "on" and in some cases "deployed" by the passengers. I wonder if they used the flashlight function [cabin dark?] or where they tempted to memorialise things? Or both, of course.

The ambient lightning outside of the acrft doesn't seem to require trhe use of additional mobile phone lighting in any case. I know in my personal case, I'd take longer to swipe to the damn function for it to be of use in an emergency situation.

Ambient/Emergency Lighting in aircraft is somewhat worthless when you're surrounded by opaque grey smoke and pungent choking fumes. Passengers would be in a panic mode and making rash decisions in difficult circumstances, some suffering with smoke inhalation and shock. Possibly separated from other family on the aircraft who may have disembarked from different chutes and looking to contact them in the hope they got out alive. When safely a distance away from the aircraft, taking a 'trophy snap' of the raging inferno they just survived seems kinda reasonable all considered.

[oxenos]

I’ve thought about this for a long time. I flew Ryanair in Europe once, 99% of the passengers were uni-aged kids and the emergency exit seats had been bought by an old couple. And I mean old. Like 80. So they clearly paid for more comfort whereas the kids wouldn’t. If something had happened they were the wrong people to have manning the exit. (I was in the exit row on the other side)
Don't be in too much of a hurry to judge by appearances.
I am 81. I flew 737's for 25years. I still give my full attention to the safety brief, in spite of all the times I did my safety training, and opened an overwing hatch for real. I suspect that I would be more likely to open the hatch in an emergency that a uni-age kid who did not lift his eyes from his computer game during the safety brief.

[Salina Chan]

A350 approaching on the opposite side to the Dash's captain.

I'm impressed at how, with this damage, the A350 crew controlled the rollout and stopped on the runway, and equally impressed at how tough the A350 structure appears to be.

Apart from the A400M prototype this is the first burnout of a composite wide body that I'm aware of. Composite structure must have a different flammability profile to aluminium alloy, and I wonder whether that explains the firefighting approach?
could be. i remember years ago, when they were in development, there were discussions in my company about new risks associated with a 787 or 350 crash sites, such as toxic smoke as well as particles akin to asbestos iirc which could be released in a crash. unfortunately, i did not follow up on what the final verdict was on these health risks for survivers and first responders....

[DaveReidUK]

From that information, providing the reported registration is correct we can assume that the aircraft was not broadcasting ADS-B data, would only be able to be tracked via MLAT and therefore there is no publicly accessible tracking data for it on the ground.

FR24's own blog about the event supports that interpretation.

[Tetsuo]

Well it's pretty non scientific but using FR24 I've had a look at a few random recent JL516 arrivals in to HND and for northerly arrivals they've all been on 34R, not seen a single L, I'd say I've looked at 12-15.

The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.

Apparently, domestic flights arriving from North under Northerly winds land at 34R. See below and link.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/739x493/capture_dd489f24cbde6fa58c5e59bff4a6f326c3e4d681.jpg

https://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/haneda/public/pdf/haneda_Pamphlet_english_vol2.pdf

[FabHK]

One thing to note on the firefighting: The fire appears to be small, with the lonely 2 people extinguishing it from the front/back of the #1 engine, and then does appear to die down (around 18:21 local in the timestamp in the video below). However, then the fire comes back with a vengeance, and around 18:24:40 a third person appears and goes first to the firefighter in front, then to the one behind the engine, and seems to pull them away and tell them to abort. Don't they have radio contact?

Video: "JAL flight516 is on fire at HANEDA airport after landing", referenced in post #148, youtube identifier A0FCKcTuRHo

[FUMR]

The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.

Generally yes. However, during peak arrival periods both are used. Seen it for myself on several occasions.

[2b2]

The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.

During the 90 minutes before there were 15 - 20 landings on 34R.

[Tetsuo]

in the 90 minutes before there were 15 - 20 landings on 34R.
North wind operations explanied below.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/607x835/capture2_e6e014e2d6c51ccba32257bbc904e87a2f6729c8.jpg

[Salina Chan]

The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
not really an anomaly. Looking at previous flights, the entire last week, JAL516 landed on 34R. And today, it was followed by JAL166 which also aimed for 34R.

[giblets]

My understanding so far:

We understand that the JAL A350 was following instructions/ permissions correctly.

We do not yet appear to have visibility on the instructions to the Dash 8 coastguard.
But appears that any issues revolve around whether they were:
* Faulty Instructions from control
* Correct instructions mis-understood/ not followed by the crew
Less likely could be
Some other technical issue that caused the dash 8 to enter the runway (eg. brake failure etc), though the coastguard captain is on record as stating he thought the aircraft exploded on the runway, so seems far fetched.

It seems odd that air traffic Coms to JAL have been published, but not to the coastguard.

Anything else?

[AirScotia]

The critical question is...why was this aircraft landing on rwy 34R when most other landings were on 34L. This is an anomaly that if not flagged cause accidents.
FR24 shows loads of a/c landing on 34R just in a couple of hours before JAL516. It shouldn't come as a surprise to a crew waiting for departure that there might be something landing.

[ATC Watcher]

What about the ATC communications with the Coast Guard plane? Would those be in this audio stream?
No, Taxi instructions are on the GND frequency , different from TWR.

[ATC Watcher]

Anything else? Yes there is most likely something else which contributed to that collision . Can someone confirms that HND has both SMR and SMGS ?

[2b2]

Yes there is most likely something else which contributed to that collision . Can someone confirms that HND has both SMR and SMGS ?
Stop Bars?

No sign of a "Ready" call anywhere.
Hard to misunderstand an instruction ( or get an incorrect one) if he never calls.

[mryan75]

Don't be in too much of a hurry to judge by appearances.
I am 81. I flew 737's for 25years. I still give my full attention to the safety brief, in spite of all the times I did my safety training, and opened an overwing hatch for real. I suspect that I would be more likely to open the hatch in an emergency that a uni-age kid who did not lift his eyes from his computer game during the safety brief.
Please understand, I find age discrimination abhorrent, even more so as it’s the last form of discrimination that many people find perfectly acceptable. That being said, I’ve seen plenty of people in the emergency rows who are not ideal candidates to be there in the event of a true emergency. Generally speaking it should not be a privilege given to the people willing to pay for it.

[mryan75]

My understanding so far:

We understand that the JAL A350 was following instructions/ permissions correctly.

We do not yet appear to have visibility on the instructions to the Dash 8 coastguard.
But appears that any issues revolve around whether they were:
* Faulty Instructions from control
* Correct instructions mis-understood/ not followed by the crew
Less likely could be
Some other technical issue that caused the dash 8 to enter the runway (eg. brake failure etc), though the coastguard captain is on record as stating he thought the aircraft exploded on the runway, so seems far fetched.

It seems odd that air traffic Coms to JAL have been published, but not to the coastguard.

Anything else?
Could be similar to the Austin go-around by the FedEx plane recently where a Southwest 737 holding short was given takeoff clearance and then took 800 years to actually get on the runway and get matriculating.

[jolihokistix]

January 2nd. ATC staff on duty. Emergency “push” (as they call
it) for earthquake supplies to roll.

Add pressure from approaching U-turn rush from the shortest holidays in the world.

(By the way they report that they have already re-opened the other three runways, A, B and D.)

[Iron Duck]

If you're going to be unusually slow in getting onto the runway for departure, might you want to check that the approach is clear before actually moving? Whilst the Dash was on the taxiway the A350 was approaching on the Dash captain's opposite side. I'm not going to suggest that the FO didn't look but I do wonder why an aircraft lit up like a Christmas tree on short finals wasn't spotted.

Or was the Dash already on the runway and lined up, but for some reason had not yet commenced takeoff? What is not clear to me in all the info so far released is in which direction the Dash was facing. Was it pointing across, or down the runway?

Remarks above concerning the visibility of aircraft on runways at night are pertinent, especially if the Dash had lined up.

[liider]

When the camera zooms in on the life footage, there are no signs of evacuation from 4L slide. At 1:25 evacuation begins and approx. 30 people slide down during one minute, some falling on top of each other. After that one minute later only three cabin crew members abandon plane via 4L. It seems that only 1R and 1L were used for evacuation due to height, but when the fumes breached the cabin, part of the people realized that they will not make it and jumped down from 4L. How likely is that these 30 people were the last ones and all other 350 people managed to leave safely via 1L and 1R?

[JG1]

Perhaps the 350 hit the Dash8 just on, or very shortly before, touchdown, nose high. The 350 radome has impact damage but the flight deck windows do not. If the 350 impacted the Dash from behind, level, the damage on the 350s radome (and flight deck) would probably have been a deep vertical incision. Looks like they are Very lucky 350 pilots. Perhaps just before touchdown as it lost rhs mlg, probably from heavy landing rather than passing debris as the rh engine is still attached. Had the impact occurred 50' before touchdown the 350 would probably not have survived in one piece. Wonderful post impact control of the 350, and admirable execution of evacuation by crew and passengers.

[DIBO]

Three sequences from the impact, the same lightsource (wingtip???) being indicated by the arrows.
Difficult to discern the Dash8
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1383x511/haneda01_d61b7f3799b64876047ffbf139a373d8ac41baaf.jpg

[luoto]

About seating... it is unpalatable but those with less mobility should perhaps be placed further away from the exits. It is not nice to think of such people as second-class citizens, but they can and may inhibit speedy egress of the aircraft in an emergency situation, putting more people at risk.

Yet I would be one of those people [if I flew, which I don't, due to other medical issues now] who would be relegated to the possible "death zone" because of mobility. I get it however. The hardest thing would be, however, with family to get them to gtfo...

The whole pay for seating without eligibility is a joke but as ever I doubt regulators so far give sufficiently a stuff... or are used to the posh seats and don't see the problem IRL.

[EDML]

Actually the fire services had three fires to fight:
- The DHC-8 at the beginning of RW 34R
- The A350 with 379 on board down the RW
- Fiercly burning parts of the DHC-8 (looks like one wing with engine & MLG) have way down the RW

[Chipzilla]

Be interested to see, if reports are accurate, whether the coast guard crew were familiar with Haneda airport or were operating there for the first time ever/in a while due to recent events.

What difference would that make? Great to see everyone coming to their own conclusions re. the accident investigation as per usual :ugh:

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

No way. There would only have been pieces left at that speed.
The location of the wreckage tells a story.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/246x380/screenshot_2024_01_02_at_14_40_27_75219ef3fc1d42ed2da684bedf 6019d1120ea6d3.png

The configuration of taxiway lights and the E6 marker board show this pic must have been taken from close to E6 looking NNE
The original fixed cam video of the impact looks to me to be on the cargo terminal roof overlooking E8 facing E which fits that location too.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/524x370/screenshot_2024_01_02_at_14_50_54_2e54e8199f4a0c58fccefafc43 7adb57223cb8a9.png

Thus the wreckage of the Dash lies c. 1400 - 1500m beyond the JAL's touchdown markers, ie around exit C7. The relatively light collision damage to JAL's radome and nacelles indicates a lowish speed impact as might be expected from an aircraft that had probably been on the brakes for the best part of 1500m. In any case very considerably less than touchdown speed. Doubtless someone will soon do the calcs from a video and confirm that.
Trouble is, the only credible way the Dash would be expected to gain the runway would be via C5 or earlier, and it's maybe 500m past that. That's not a lot less than a Dash's take-off roll so a long way for one to be astray from its lining-up point.
So unless the Dash was shunted 4-500m along the runway which the videos do not seem to show it's in a very peculiar position indeed. It can't be crossing as there's nowhere to cross to. So one might then assume it was lined up or actually in the process of taking off - which could explain its strange position along the runway remote from any reasonable entry point.
And those symmetrical chops into each side of both nacelles at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions? Same height as a Dash's trailing edge I wonder?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/218x257/screenshot_2024_01_02_at_14_55_02_efc6b65e40e4136a6f60184e55 f3e87c399d23d0.png

Someone on here has said that ATC transmissions suggested that the Dash had been asked to hold at C5, so that's pretty close to the A359's touchdown point if so. The video doesn't look like an aircraft that's had brakes and reversers on for 1500m to me, but again that's purely subjective. I should point out that the charts I'm looking at have C5 shown as a regular turn off much closer to the to the landing end than the fast turnoff indicated in this post.

[JG1]

Good points, meleaguertoo. I hadn't seen that photo with the C6 board. Perhaps the Dash had started his takeoff roll which would put him further down the runway. Wonder why then the 350 flight deck is undamaged? Hitting a Dash from behind would put that big tail right there, slicing.

[SLF3]

I understood aircraft fire fighting aimed to suppress a fire for long enough to allow an evacuation, not necessarily to put the fire out. And the First responders had three fires to deal with. Not hard to imagine back up could take a while to arrive, or was judged unnecessary, given everything else the Japanese are dealing with at the moment.

Id ignore the 'no evacuation announcement' comment: I've been down the slides for real and in the heat of the moment did not see or hear the cabin crew at the door even though they were praised for their behaviour in the accident report. "I did not hear an evacuation announcement' is not the same as 'there was no evacuation announcement'.

Was leaking fuel ignited by the engine or did the fire spread from the engine?

[guadaMB]

Just listened to Japan's transport minister. He said the aircraft landed on runway C. I don't know HND. Does runway C equate to 34R?

Well, NO.
C is the the taxiway at left of runway 34 R (at left if heading 16 L).

BUT it's called with letter C on the blueprints of Haneda (A,B,C and D the four runways) and all of its exits from 1 to 11 (C1, C2, etc).

[Skywards747]

This is purely speculation on my part but I flew for JAL for nearly 15 years. What I have witnessed during those years was that while the English proficiency level of JAL pilots are acceptable for international operations, proficiency levels of the non-civilian Japanese pilots are usually not that great. That could have led to a mis-understanding of an ATC instruction by the Coast Guard crew as most of the time (unlike China, France etc.) Japanese ATC speaks English to even the Japanese pilots. RIP to those who perished.

[NG1]

Someone on here has said that ATC transmissions suggested that the Dash had been asked to hold at C5, so that's pretty close to the A359's touchdown point if so. The video doesn't look like an aircraft that's had brakes and reversers on for 1500m to me, but again that's purely subjective. I should point out that the charts I'm looking at have C5 shown as a regular turn off much closer to the to the landing end than the fast turnoff indicated in this post.

Same here, subjective as well, but also to me the aircraft in the video did not look like an A350 decelerating for 1.500 meters hitting an accelerating aircraft.

[Semreh]

Nlg collapsed, hence the tail was higher than normal

Non-functional NLG happens often enough that I wonder how the trade-offs are being evaluated between rear-door escape slides that can cope with the situation and those that can't. Perhaps that needs revisiting?

If anyone has links to relevant documentation, I'd be grateful. It seems odd to have apparently functional emergency escapes that are likely to seriously injure or kill their users.

Ships can use vertical slides/chutes that disgorge into inflatable life-rafts. They might not be high enough throughput for aircraft.

https://www.seawardsafety.com/products/offshore-evacuation-escape-chutes/

Subsequently, I found

https://skybrary.aero/articles/evacuation-slide-functional-issues
https://skybrary.aero/articles/emergency-evacuation-land

The latter references the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) paper Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Passenger Aeroplanes - https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/4292.pdf
In that reference it states:

In brief the EASA 25.810 requirements are:
(a list, which includes)

The assist means must be of such a length that when fully deployed that the toe end of the evacuation slide is self-supported on
the ground and provides safe evacuation for passengers and crew with one or more of the landing gears being collapsed;

Separately ETSO-C69c_CS-ETSO_0.pdf ( https://www.easa.europa.eu/download/etso/ETSO-C69c_CS-ETSO_0.pdf ) states:

4.13 Device Length Extensions.
4.13.1 The device extension must be capable of being inflated at any time after inflation of the basic
device has been initiated. The time required to complete extension of the device must not exceed 4 seconds beyond
the time required to inflate the basic device.
4.13.2 Inflation of the extension must be initiated by separate controls from those for the basic device.
The controls must be clearly identified and must be located separately from the manual inflation actuation controls
to minimize the possibility of inadvertent actuation.
4.13.3 The junction of the basic device and the extension must not impede evacuation

Looking at some of the pictures, it seems that the rear escape slides had extensions that didn't deploy correctly, or perhaps did, but became non-functional. No doubt it will come out in the analysis.

[Jeff2023]

Newbie here, there is a picture on the UK daily mail report (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/01/02/14/79527879-12918841-Footage_taken_aboard_another_plane_shows_the_inferno_below-a-342_1704206430115.jpg) on the UK daily mail report (about 2/3rds way down) taken presumably from the plane behind the A350 going around, looks like the A350 came to rest at about C8, difficult to tell but also looks like collision point before C5, but not sure if runway map posted above is to scale.

[gsmitheidw1]

Some interesting details and updated reports from NHK:

www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014307191000.html

The fire now extinguished had burned for 6 hours
14 passengers injured, 4 hospitalised with non-life threatening injuries


Some (more relevant to here) eyewitness reports loosely translated:

" Inside the plane, there were announcements saying, ``Please calm down,'' ``Don't take your luggage, and don't stand up.''"
"We took turns getting off the escape shooter and were instructed to form a circle of 10 people close to the aircraft, holding hands, and the flight attendants checked for injuries."

Livestreams show air investigations in progress with photo stills being taken of wreckage of the Dash:

www3.nhk.or.jp/news/realtime/rt0010026.html

[EDML]

I think the burning wreakage at C7 are parts of the Dash that were dragged by the A350 and left behind half way down the RW.

On the videos it looks like they collided right on touchdown or shortly after while lowering the nose gear. That way the very sturdy wing box took most of the impact. The nose just impacted the tail or horizontal stabilizer.

[FullWings]

If you're going to be unusually slow in getting onto the runway for departure, might you want to check that the approach is clear before actually moving? Whilst the Dash was on the taxiway the A350 was approaching on the Dash captain's opposite side. I'm not going to suggest that the FO didn't look but I do wonder why an aircraft lit up like a Christmas tree on short finals wasn't spotted.

Or was the Dash already on the runway and lined up, but for some reason had not yet commenced takeoff? What is not clear to me in all the info so far released is in which direction the Dash was facing. Was it pointing across, or down the runway?

Remarks above concerning the visibility of aircraft on runways at night are pertinent, especially if the Dash had lined up.
I find it quite hard to spot aircraft on the runway, especially small ones, when on approach at night to large airports. There are so many lights of varying colours that aircraft ones can get lost in the clutter, more so if the runway itself has the full gamut of lighting at high intensity. This is even more true when the aircraft on the runway is stationary, so there are no motion cues, and their main lights are projecting away from you.

Judging by the damage to the nose of the A350, the -8 must have been either lined up or had crossed the centreline during the line up process, but that’s about all you can say at the moment. Amazing that it was completely survivable, except for the crew of the smaller aircraft, unfortunately.

[Auxtank]

I would imagine a few people giving each other the nod in Toulouse today, and, although the fatalities in the coast guard aircraft are very sad indeed the A350 frame did what it was meant to do in terms of fire resistance and frame intergrity.

[guadaMB]

Someone on here has said that ATC transmissions suggested that the Dash had been asked to hold at C5, so that's pretty close to the A359's touchdown point if so. The video doesn't look like an aircraft that's had brakes and reversers on for 1500m to me, but again that's purely subjective. I should point out that the charts I'm looking at have C5 shown as a regular turn off much closer to the to the landing end than the fast turnoff indicated in this post.
ATC transmissions CANNOT suggest anything related to the Dash because taxiing comms are GND radio.
This is the reason we have ONLY the A-350 exchange with tower.
All the taxi/hold/access comms between Dash and GND are in another record (and not public YET).

[Frankfurt_Cowboy]

ATC transmissions CANNOT suggest anything related to the Dash because taxiing comms are GND radio.
This is the reason we have ONLY the A-350 exchange with tower.
All the taxi/hold/access comms between Dash and GND are in another record (and not public YET).


Have a scroll back though, someone said that it had been on GND. Can't vouch for the veracity of it, but according to my 6.1.23 Jeppesen, C5 doesn't look far off where the collision seems to have occurred, so it's feasible, But yup, there's better people than me, and maybe even you, on the case.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Amazing to see the core of the No 2 engine continue to idle with the fan totally destroyed (taken out by the ) and the FADECs doing what they are supposed to do. Suspect fuel SOV disabled with fuselage / wing damage. Fire handle pull should have shut it. I bet the crew did all the emergency shutdown procedures.

[Long Haul]

Terrible accident.

Are all A350 delivered with the HUD on both sides?

Airplanes can be extremely difficult to spot on a runway amongst all the lighting, especially if they are stationary, but I would have thought with two pilots looking through the HUD, it could help reduce this risk.
In my opinion the HUD makes it much harder to see aircraft or vehicles on the runway. I brief this as a threat and ask the pilot on the observer seat (if there is a pilot on the observer seat) to pay special attention to this.

[waito]

Ok, I'm known to search for facts. Here's a first guess from the video in post #29!

The CCTV camera shows a local time, I refer to that

17:47:27 An Orange Shine from offscreen is visible on the right edge of the cam frame.It's rather sudden, so a kind of explosive event, not a steady burning object that simply comes closer. Little later a bang can be heard. (can s.b. measure time to see distance from cam?)

17:47:39 (12s later) JAL A350 enters the cam frame from the right. After 4-5 rewinds my first estimation "more than 50KN, less than 100KN"

17:47:56 (17s later) The A350 exits the cam frame to the left. Hard to tell how much slower it got.

So I detected, how much "aircraft length" the cam covers of the runway and how long the crossing took. The visible aircraft length should be less perspective angle dependent than estimating length units.

I count 10.8 lengths of a 350-900 (~67 metres).

On cam entry, it takes avg of 1.35s to proceed 1 length. That's ~100KN
The full travel through the cam frame takes 10.8s. Thats an average of 80KN
On cam exit, it takes avg of 1.7s to proceed 1 length. That's ~79KN

Thus, we are talking of a high speed collision. Assuming that the collision took away a bit of speed, we must assume at least 90KN. If the video entry happened at 100KN, we must assume 110KN or even more (we don't know when and how braking action started and persisted)

Anybody want to crosscheck?
Where is the camera located?
Is there a GND chart at known scale? once we know the position, we can get an idea where the collision took place

[guadaMB]

Have a scroll back though, someone said that it had been on GND. Can't vouch for the veracity of it, but according to my 6.1.23 Jeppesen, C5 doesn't look far off where the collision seems to have occurred, so it's feasible, But yup, there's better people than me, and maybe even you, on the case.
The main question.
¿Was the A359 STILL ALOFT in the C5 zone?
¿Isn't it not very FAR from the recommended touchdown point (cause apparently the A359 pilots were more than handly at the moment of the hurry)?
IF the collision with the Dash was in the C5 access, WHERE was the Dash facing?
C5 is NOT a crossing (to nowhere/water).
There are only two possibilities: was on the TO procedure (had to be waved and confirmed) or doing nonsense because that's not a place to HOLD.

[waito]

An Orange Shine from offscreen is visible on the right edge of the cam frame.It's rather sudden, so a kind of explosive event, not a steady burning object that simply comes closer. Little later a bang can be heard. (can s.b. measure time to see distance from cam?)

It's like 3.3 s until a smaller bang and 3.9s until a louder bang is heard. So the collision was at 1100m/3600ft up to 1330m/4400ft distance from the cam position (wind ignored).

It's all very rough estimation with significant errors possible! May it helps to get a bigger picture,

[SRMman]

My take on the impact, just from the photos and videos, is how surprisingly little damage there is to the A350. The nosecone is very light structure, yet only has a dent, and both engines appear to have light damage to their intakes.
Therefore one must assume that most of the A350 impact was taken on the lower front hull and nose landing gear.

Obviously we don’t yet known the 2 aircraft’s configuration at impact but it’s still difficult to see how the bigger aircraft got away with such little obvious damage, particularly to the wing structure.

[Diff Tail Shim]

My take on the impact, just from the photos and videos, is how surprisingly little damage there is to the A350. The nosecone is very light structure, yet only has a dent, and both engines appear to have light damage to their intakes.
Therefore one must assume that most of the A350 impact was taken on the lower front hull and nose landing gear.

Obviously we don’t yet known the 2 aircraft’s configuration at impact but it’s still difficult to see how the bigger aircraft got away with such little obvious damage, particularly to the wing structure.
Landed on top of the Dash 8 it seems. Shows how tough the fuselage of the A350 is. F1 survival cell tough?

[Ivor_Bigunn]

Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1373x771/fire7_7dfa73da938e5878c94883421ae4a9760427af86.jpg

Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1340x967/fire8_edit3_d3ea8e10407f2d07f1933c5b24908bb33ded0d6b.jpg



The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?

So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?

IB

[chopper2004]

BBC News - Japan Airlines plane in flames on the runway at Tokyo's Haneda Airport
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011
https://x.com/FlightEmergency/status/1742112892684480644?t=kz8jhaKBfH44gA3H9D5LpQ&s=09

RIP to five crew of the JCG Dash 8 and hope the surviving crew member who managed to escape is ok

Just received Airbus official statement Airbus statement on Flight JAL516, 02 January 2024

@Airbus

Toulouse, 02 January 2024 - Airbus regrets to confirm that an A350-900 operated by Japan Airlines was involved in an accident during flight JAL516 from Sapporo New Chitose Airport to Haneda International Airport shortly after 17:47 (local time) on 02 January 2024. All 367 passengers and 12 crew members on-board evacuated the aircraft.

The A350 collided with a DHC-8 aircraft at landing in Haneda. The Japanese authorities have since confirmed that sadly five of the six people on board the DHC-8 did not survive. The exact circumstances of the event are still unknown.

The aircraft involved in the accident, registered under the number JA13XJ, was MSN 538, delivered to Japan Airlines from the production line on 10 November 2021. It was powered by Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines.

In line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 recommendations, Airbus will provide technical assistance to the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) of France and to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) in charge of the investigation. For this purpose, Airbus is presently dispatching a team of specialists to assist the Authorities.

Further updates will be provided as soon as consolidated information is available and Airbus is authorised to release them.

Our concerns and sympathy go to the families, friends and loved ones affected by the accident.


https://image.contact.airbus.com/lib/fe3f11717564047d731771/m/1/d30b2932-a03e-47c6-873d-d5b91f0c34aa.jpg (https://click.contact.airbus.com/?qs=592bae87da03832517895bc332bf11138fe6650d1f1fd5dfb6b38835 8e14f37ccb7b99a17b3b28c91bcd912124d16aefcfd907b26fdbabc25ac8 9c63063c7ec4)
Airbus newsroom (https://click.contact.airbus.com/?qs=592bae87da038325b42e5509dfd6155934fb2b2b103f3c93fc27fbff e660db3793ca29ec059dcf3ff6e308b4c5e7516abc3d3b3edc0235c32328 d6482971e62e)Airbus statement on Flight JAL516, 02 January 2024

@Airbus

Toulouse, 02 January 2024 - Airbus regrets to confirm that an A350-900 operated by Japan Airlines was involved in an accident during flight JAL516 from Sapporo New Chitose Airport to Haneda International Airport shortly after 17:47 (local time) on 02 January 2024. All 367 passengers and 12 crew members on-board evacuated the aircraft.

The A350 collided with a DHC-8 aircraft at landing in Haneda. The Japanese authorities have since confirmed that sadly five of the six people on board the DHC-8 did not survive. The exact circumstances of the event are still unknown.

The aircraft involved in the accident, registered under the number JA13XJ, was MSN 538, delivered to Japan Airlines from the production line on 10 November 2021. It was powered by Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines.

In line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 recommendations, Airbus will provide technical assistance to the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) of France and to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) in charge of the investigation. For this purpose, Airbus is presently dispatching a team of specialists to assist the Authorities.

Further updates will be provided as soon as consolidated information is available and Airbus is authorised to release them.

Our concerns and sympathy go to the families, friends and loved ones affected by the accident.
Miracle the pax and crew manage to escape the burning A350...

[JHPaulo]

The underside of the A350 was in shreds, from the front gear bay to almost the tail. It "ran over" the DHC-8. I'd venture that the nose cone broke the vertical stabilizer of the coast guard plane, and then everything went under.

[physicus]

Assuming 180t landing mass and 122kts touchdown/impact speed for the A350 and 18t takeoff mass for the -8 at 0 speed, a fully elastic collision would decrease the speed of the A350 by about 20kts only. Of course this was not an elastic collision and most of the energy went into deforming parts of both aircraft, so it would decelerate the A350 substantially less than 20kts.

As others have stated, we don't see the -8 in ADS-B data because it doesn't have an ADS-B capable transponder and thus will only be shown on flight tracking sites where MLAT data can be generated. RJTT doesn't have good enough ground coverage by multiple receivers, hence no MLAT position shown.

TCAS is inhibited from providing RAs below 900ft GND. So even if the -8 had an ADS-B transponder, I don't think the A350 crew would have received any warnings. Runway incursion warning systems AFAIK operate only on the ATC side.

[Lost in Saigon]

Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1373x771/fire7_7dfa73da938e5878c94883421ae4a9760427af86.jpg

Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1340x967/fire8_edit2_cc0b926b2d99226715fe052b76b01ffe4310700c.jpg


The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?

So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?

IB

Your chart is wrong. C5 is much closer to the threshold.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/6f62ef2d_86e0_44e3_b3f0_dbe03a3bd9ac_8212424bb5cd8a1cc93d728 0088caf8a55f3e75e.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1227/e10ed9cc_9cf2_4b31_a328_df345065b103_174ccab25068c358de152c4 c4d5fababb443f53c.jpeg

[Veruka Salt]

In my opinion the HUD makes it much harder to see aircraft or vehicles on the runway. I brief this as a threat and ask the pilot on the observer seat (if there is a pilot on the observer seat) to pay special attention to this.

I’m with you longhaul. The 350’s I flew had dual HUDs. SOP required their use for all takeoffs and landings. At night, I couldn’t get the dimness low enough for my liking and found it quite distracting at airports with busy ground lighting/traffic. Dash 8’s aren’t well illuminated from behind either, so if they were lined up would be hard to see through the HUD. I’m assuming of course the JAL birds had HUDs.

[Winterapfel]

My take on the impact, just from the photos and videos, is how surprisingly little damage there is to the A350. The nosecone is very light structure, yet only has a dent, and both engines appear to have light damage to their intakes.
Therefore one must assume that most of the A350 impact was taken on the lower front hull and nose landing gear.

Obviously we don’t yet known the 2 aircraft’s configuration at impact but it’s still difficult to see how the bigger aircraft got away with such little obvious damage, particularly to the wing structure.

This X-thread gives a good comparison in aircraft size

AGeeknologist/status/1742210072682369284?t=2Fsl58VGYSxmqsvUKSgMgQ&s=19

(not allowed to post full urls yet)

[Lost in Saigon]

C-5


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1786x1169/342b277f_e9e3_4849_9cb1_df0696827b78_c06abe215c20367ab525fb1 0a0a940c73caadb58.jpeg

[A0283]

I was looking at the TBS video, three takes from that:

Left side aft door - steeps slide ... at 0129 the first person out is visible at the bottom of the slide, at 0130 the second, one of the first walks around to grab a bag, then others come down, on top a crew member with a flashlight is constantly visible in the door opening, this person goes down the slide at 0341 with (probably) two other crew including (probably) on of the pilots... they then run to the nose section and (probably) meet the other crew members there... so 2min12 sec from first person down to last out...

in the middle of the (long, 5hrs) video you see a plane pass right to left hand at high speed past a sign which stands just right of an intersection, ... the sign says ... [ 16L - 34R ][ C5 ] ... not possible to read the registration number (which is some indication of speed) ...

Just like one of the posters above I never got an answer to questions about various effects of fires on large commercial composites fuselages, this video gives some indication of the burn through sequence, pity that the video contains a lot of repeats so you dont have a continuous timeline...

[waito]

Re: Location of Impact

A framegrab from an early video shows the moment of impact (or explosion) from a surveillence camera:

Using Google Maps I have made this VERY VERY ROUGH map:
IB

Thanks Ivor_Bigunn . I assume this picture shows the impact, not the burning remains of the Cost Guard aircraft.
With the correction of Lost in Saigon that all makes sense.

[A0283]

I was looking at the TBS video, three takes from that:

Left side aft door - steeps slide ... at 0129 the first person out is visible at the bottom of the slide, at 0130 the second, one of the first walks around to grab a bag, then others come down, on top a crew member with a flashlight is constantly visible in the door opening, this person goes down the slide at 0341 with (probably) two other crew including (probably) on of the pilots... they then run to the nose section and (probably) meet the other crew members there... so 2min12 sec from first person down to last out...

in the middle of the (long, 5hrs) video you see a plane pass right to left hand at high speed past a sign which stands just right of an intersection, ... immediately after the flash of (probably) the impact .... the sign says ... [ 16L - 34R ][ C5 ] ... not possible to read the registration number (which is some indication of speed) ...

Just like one of the posters above I never got an answer to questions about various effects of fires on large commercial composites fuselages, this video gives some indication of the burn through sequence, pity that the video contains a lot of repeats so you dont have a continuous timeline...

[ATC Watcher]

As others have stated, we don't see the -8 in ADS-B data because it doesn't have an ADS-B capable transponder and thus will only be shown on flight tracking sites where MLAT data can be generated. RJTT doesn't have good enough ground coverage by multiple receivers, hence no MLAT position shown.. TCAS is inhibited from providing RAs below 900ft GND. So even if the -8 had an ADS-B transponder, I don't think the A350 crew would have received any warnings. Runway incursion warning systems AFAIK operate only on the ATC side.
Please stick to what you know and stop mentioning ADS-B transponders and TCAS . For your info there is no such thing as ADS-B Transponders, just Mode S ones and I would be extremely surprised if a Dash8 would not carry one..

[RatherBeFlying]

The Air Canada Gimli Glider 767 lost its nose gear resulting in the rear slides hanging straight down. A number of passengers who took the rear slides were permanently disabled with spinal injuries.

In this case it seems the left rear slide reached the ground at a bit less than vertical and those coming down there were able to walk away, but may have suffered injuries.
​​​​

[Locked door]

ATC Watcher,

He’s quite correct that A/C fitted with ADSB OUT are visible on flight radar while on the ground if the transponder is on.

He’s also correct that TCAS is inhibited below 900ish ft but that’s not really relevant. We sometimes get a TCAS target with the orange (TA) symbol from a/c on the ground visible on the ND but never a TA or RA.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Your chart is wrong. C5 is much closer to the threshold.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/6f62ef2d_86e0_44e3_b3f0_dbe03a3bd9ac_8212424bb5cd8a1cc93d728 0088caf8a55f3e75e.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1227/e10ed9cc_9cf2_4b31_a328_df345065b103_174ccab25068c358de152c4 c4d5fababb443f53c.jpeg
Aircraft do not land at the threshold. Try a 1/4 of the way down of the runway or further. I happen to have an office on an airport and have never seen a B73, A320, B77, B78, turboprops etc land anywhere near a threshold. Always way down the runway.

[DIBO]

Re: Location of Impact
The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.
And the explosion is surely seen to be way "beyond" the end of East Term, (Green Line)?
So I am puzzled how the Coast Guard plane could have entered on C5 (Orange Text), which is only half way along East Term?
Prior to seeing your input, I came to a similar conclusion

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1504x899/haneda_impact_point_02_a8b8e64da272a134616acd32aee272471e8e5 78b.jpg

Aircraft do not land at the threshold.Indeed, you see part of the 'aiming point' in the top right corner of my picture.

[physicus]

Sequence of events based on ADS-B data from FlyRealTraffic.com / ADS-B Exchange data.

Times in UTC.
GS = GNSS derived ground speed
RSSI = received signal strength. Values > -20 dBFS are strong and reliable transmissions.
Baro altitudes are uncorrected (reference to 1013.2 hPa)
MCP alt sel: The altitude selected on the mode control panel
VS = baro derived vertical speed

QNH at time of incident: 1016.4 hPa at 8C temperature. You should therefore add 96ft to the reported barometric altitudes to obtain corrected altitudes.

Time: 08:47:18
Lat/Lon: 35.541982 139.803538
GS: 124 kts
Baro alt: 0 ft (96ft corrected)
MCP alt sel: 3008 ft
VS: -576 fpm
RSSI: -9 dBFS

Comment:
This is the last position data received. This position is 64m prior to the piano keys on RWY 34R and 2m right of centerline.
There are no ADS-B messages received over the next 4 seconds. At 124 kts that puts the aircraft 252m further down the runway, or just past the first set of touchdown indicators.
This indicates that something disabled the position data in the ADS-B source in those 4 seconds.
The collision therefore likely occurred at the C2/C3 intersection position along RWY 34R.

Time: 08:47:26
Lat/Lon: No data
GS: No data
Baro alt: -100ft (4ft/on ground corrected)
MCP alt sel: No data
RSSI: -7 dBFS
VS: No data

Comment:
This is the next ADS-B message that was received from the aircraft. Still with good signal strength, but now missing a host of data likely due to disabled sensor inputs.

Time: 08:47:28
Lat/Lon: No data
GS: No data
Baro alt: -175ft
MCP alt sel: No data
RSSI: -7 dBFS
VS: No data

Comment:
Only baro altitude and RSSI updates from this point forward. Baro alt fluctuating between -50 to -75 ft with RSSIs between -4 and -13, so still good signal.

The last message received is at 08:48:04.

[PointMergeArrival]

As an ATCO I am surprised that Haneda does not have any form of RIMCAS (Runway Incursion Monitoring and Collision Avoidance System) to alert controllers of hazardous conditions. At least it seems so according to this document describing Hanedas Runway safety Program

ICAO presentation (https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2013%20RRSS/S2-P1%20-%20Runway%20Safety%20Teams%20(RSTs)%20Description%20and%20Pr ocesses.pdf)

[waito]

Re: Location of Impact

The Red line of sight is judged by counting the number of stands seen on the East terminal. And it would be logical to place such a camera where almost all of the East Terminal Apron can be surveilled.

IB

Prior to seeing your input, I came to a similar conclusion


Yes, with me 3 people now agree, where the collision took place.

I gave it a bit more fuzziness, red lines mark roughly the collision zone.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1571x1339/jal516_1_11b060ec4007b3a7d375d66b8512c73c7e107332.jpeg

[waito]

Watching the video on Post #9 it seems that A350 was at landing roll at the moment prior to impact.

Carefully watching it on slow motion on youtube, there is a stationary probe light blinking at least two times (around sec 4 and sec 5 of the video), visible just above the tail of the plane with Star Wars livery. (Crop from screenshot marked which looks like the probe light below.)

Looking at this, it appears that the Dash 8 was stationary inside the runway and was hit by A350 during the landing roll.

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy4RIvRcwUo&t=5s

Thank you for this detail, Tetsuo!

In fact this appears as an Anti Collision Light, and there was no motion.

It's impossible to see the orientation of the Coast Guard Plane.
It's impossible for me to see the nose up angle of the A350 right before impact.
We can assume the impact speed was not too far from landing speed, so like in the 120KN region

[DIBO]

Please stick to what you know and stop mentioning ADS-B transponders and TCAS . For your info there is no such thing as ADS-B Transponders, just Mode S ones and I would be extremely surprised if a Dash8 would not carry one..
Even Garmin is adding to the confusion, a combined transponder, they call it an: "ADS-B "Out" Transponder" ;) (https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/140939/pn/010-01214-01)

[glekichi]

From LiveATC

0844:27 The JAL A350 is cleared to land.

0844:40 JA722A are told by the tower that they are no.1 (a taxi instruction - but maybe misunderstood?) and to hold short at C5. Cannot hear their reply. [Edited: I initially heard it as C1... and I work in Japan]

0845:30 A second JAL is cleared to land 34R no.2 "we have one departure". reduce speed 160kt

0846:55 Fire reported on the runway.

[MPN11]

C5/C6 appear to be close to the TDZ markings.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/930x982/screenshot_2024_01_02_at_19_29_40_67284169c0714853ae1467f877 12440d70be3f1f.png

[ATC Watcher]

ATC Watcher,

He’s quite correct that A/C fitted with ADSB OUT are visible on flight radar while on the ground if the transponder is on.

He’s also correct that TCAS is inhibited below 900ish ft but that’s not really relevant. We sometimes get a TCAS target with the orange (TA) symbol from a/c on the ground visible on the ND but never a TA or RA.
Yes you are right , but as you know ADS-B is a separate box from a transponder , using either the 1090 squitter or UAT format , it is not a kind of transponder. As to using TCAS on the landing phase (i.e. below 1000 Ft RADALT ) , not only the RAs are inhibited but the rather poor azimuth resolution of TCAS does not permit to distinguish between an aircraft holding short and one actually on the runway, so no use even if you get a TA.
Anyway none of these are relevant to this accident. For me why ATC was not aware that the Dash was on the runway is more important.

[DaveReidUK]

Time: 08:47:18
Lat/Lon: 35.541982 139.803538
GS: 124 kts
Baro alt: 0 ft (96ft corrected)
MCP alt sel: 3008 ft
VS: -576 fpm
RSSI: -9 dBFS

Comment:
This is the last position data received. This position is 64m prior to the piano keys on RWY 34R and 2m right of centerline.
There are no ADS-B messages received over the next 4 seconds. At 124 kts that puts the aircraft 252m further down the runway, or just past the first set of touchdown indicators.
This indicates that something disabled the position data in the ADS-B source in those 4 seconds.
The collision therefore likely occurred at the C2/C3 intersection position along RWY 34R.

FR24 has granular data with the last position plot at 08:47:31 showing the aircraft just passing the end of the aiming point marker, just before C5, but with no indication as to whether or not it has weight on wheels at that point.

[Armorer]

I don’t have posting privileges here so I cannot add a link but there is a video that shows a closer view of the plane already on fire before it comes to a stop on the runway under Noticias Del Mundo 24H on X.

[grizzled]

For me why ATC was not aware that the Dash was on the runway is more important.

BINGO

[Tetsuo]

Yes, with me 3 people now agree, where the collision took place.

I gave it a bit more fuzziness, red lines mark roughly the collision zone.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1571x1339/jal516_1_11b060ec4007b3a7d375d66b8512c73c7e107332.jpeg
On this video (link below) between 6:18 - 6:24 there seems to be a sequence of video where the landing aircraft passes the camera and crashes immediately (lights from flames visible). The video source (perhaps another aircraft taxiing in the opposite direction) rolls forward and C5 sign is visible. This puts collision just past C5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnaK5zzXcI

[waito]

On this video (link below) between 6:18 - 6:24 there seems to be a sequence of video where the landing aircraft passes the camera and crashes immediately (lights from flames visible). The video source (perhaps another aircraft taxiing in the opposite direction) rolls forward and C5 sign is visible. This puts collision just past C5.


Oh yes.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1142x647/jal516_impact_1_69eb23ab59dfafea6c97419dee5325b253d86d96.jpe g

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1145x641/jal516_impact_2_4d1dd73e319e3ecaa068675af697973f739113aa.jpe g



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1146x645/jal516_impact_3_761d1c351626bc75caf5164ea225d8678a298289.jpe g



and some seconds further right

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1001x484/jal516_4_93acf2c65b1251dd54657e4c9e16a7ffc54b1a66.jpeg

[Europa01]

Two things to note from the #257 video: i) after the collision there is a large fire just behind the nose of the A350 - burning fuel loaded section of the -8 dragged by the mlg? or maybe just that area coated in burning fuel ejected from the the -8 by the impact. ii) the A350 is not nose down in this video so mlg intact at that time and collapsed later after degradation by this fire - tyres destroyed then metal contact with the runway?