Japan Airlines aircraft on fire after landing 2 January 2024

[Blueadventures]

Reports coming in about a Japan Airlines aircraft erupting into flames on landing and reports all person evacuated.   May have collided with another aircraft.  

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjcuPDFur6DAxU0kq8BHfRIC40QvOMEKAB6BAgfEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2024-01-02%2Fplane-erupts-into-flames-as-it-lands-at-tokyo-airport%2F103280258&usg=AOvVaw3oKszXq9w4AkDr0AtIimp4&opi=89978449

 

A Japan Airlines plane was in flames as it landed on a runway at Tokyo's Haneda airport on Tuesday evening.

Footage on broadcaster NHK showed flames coming out of the windows of the aircraft and beneath it. The runway was also set alight.

The plane, which had taken off from Sapporo, collided with a coast guard plane, NHK said, citing authorities.

All 379 passengers and crew on board were evacuated, media reports quoted the airline as saying.

Edited January 2 by Blueadventures

[onetrack]

Wow, they sure lit that one up good and proper!  

 

https://abc7news.com/japan-airlines-fire-haneda-airport-airplane/14258485/#:~:text=TOKYO%2C Japan -- A plane,400 people%2C got out safely.

[onetrack]

The aircraft was an Airbus A350, only a couple of years old. Shortly after landing it slammed into a Japanese Coast Guard Dash 8 that was enroute to the earthquake zone with supplies.

 

It's reported that 5 of the 6 crew on the Dash 8 died, only the Captain survived, and he has serious injuries. All 379 of the pax on the A350 evacuated safely before the Airbus became fully engulfed in flames.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-airlines-plane-set-on-fire-tokyo-haneda-airport-airbus-2024-1

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516

 

Edited January 2 by onetrack
corrected pax numbers...

[kgwilson]

Well one of them was on the wrong runway at the time or ATC f***ed up.

Edited January 2 by kgwilson

[facthunter]

To get them out of that fiery maelstrom was a miracle. A dash 8 is not a light aircraft.   Nev

[spenaroo]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Well one of them was on the wrong runway at the time or ATC f***ed up.

the runway was 34R, so confusion with 34L is a possibility... 
its a shame with a dual runway that they don't have one dedicated to landings and another dedicated to take-offs.

guess there is a ton of $$$ in time saved lining up for take-off while the landing plane clears.

 

the airline has already come out and said that they had clearance to land...
coast guard was about to take off. maybe the ATC didn't have the separation timed right.

either way I want to know why neither of the Airbus Pilots saw Red and Green lights on the runway and didn't think to go-around.
that's one of the most basic checks before commitment to the landing (Runway clear, carby heat off)
I think we have all had an aircraft at some point still on the runway when we are on final and made that call.

 

hope its not a stupid case of "but I had right of way"

 

https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2024/01/02/moment_of_collision_loop.mp4
can clearly see the aircraft lights just before the impact

Edited January 3 by spenaroo

[spenaroo]

Wikipedia has this:

the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) announced that prior to the accident, air traffic controllers cleared the Japan Airlines aircraft to land on the runway 34 left, while the Coast Guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway, and remain on the taxiway

but it doesn't have the source linked

while multiple sources are listed for

 the aircraft collided with a Japan Coast Guard DHC-8-315 Dash 8 while landing at Haneda Airport on runway 34R

Edited January 3 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

 The nav lights are a fairly low intensity. A plane at night with engines running on the runway, should have more than nav lights on. You have to be cleared across or onto a runway. That's more the issue.  Nev

[spenaroo]

18 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

Wikipedia has this:

the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) announced that prior to the accident, air traffic controllers cleared the Japan Airlines aircraft to land on the runway 34 left, while the Coast Guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway, and remain on the taxiway

but it doesn't have the source linked

while multiple sources are listed for

 the aircraft collided with a Japan Coast Guard DHC-8-315 Dash 8 while landing at Haneda Airport on runway 34R

 

wiki is wrong....
found the source (now listed)

 

Audio from LiveATC.net appears to detail the crew reading back a clearance order for runway 34, saying “cleared to land 34 right.”

 

and from the financial post

At a press conference Tuesday night, JAL officials said they believed Flight 516 had permission to land, though they weren’t yet drawing conclusions. It wasn’t clear whether the coast guard plane was also given clearance to be on the runway — instructions were garbled on the ATC recording. 

Edited January 3 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

Who just lines up on a runway with an approaching plane  with Landing lights blazing on a clear night.   Nev

[spenaroo]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Who just lines up on a runway with an approaching plane  with Landing lights blazing on a clear night.   Nev

I assumed it was already lined up, hard to see behind you
there was a minute and a half between the clearance to land and the crash.
that's a good 7km out, I don't have anywhere near the experience to know if I could tell what parallel runway they are lined up for at that distance

but I cant find any footage from the surveillance camera that isn't cut to 1/2 a second before the moment of impact.
I saw one that showed a flash of Nav lights before the crash, that was where id expect to see of an aircraft holding before take-off
but its a split frame and had to watch multiple times to confirm it. 

 

once again,

hope its not a stupid case of "but I had right of way" - unfortunately both captains say they had clearance....

If its a clear visible night then I think both could be held equally culpable for not sighting the other.
but then they equally could be responsible for inattention on the radio calls.
surely the dash-8 would have made an "enter and hold 34R" just as the airbus pilot confirmed  "clearance to land 34R"

I assume there was 4 pilots with transmit buttons

But I fly visual rules from an uncontrolled airport in daylight.
so its just armchair analysis without any experience and knowledge

[facthunter]

As a general practice you don't hold lined up on runways very often. I wonder if the DASH 8 knew it was on a runway. It will come out Tragic and Miraculously lucky in the one circumstance. Nev

[spenaroo]

Yeah, there is so many questions and the only thing being reported are the airlines side. And not much about the lead up.

 

Haven't heard anything about how the dash-8 was hit. Was it crushed, flipped etc... that would tell us a lot.

 

I just find it strange the footage must be there of the dash-8 taxiing onto the runway before the incident. The only thing I can think of is that if happens so early enough that its too big of a break for the networks 30 second attention getting clip. They all start at the crash and track the airliner down the runway.

 

Apparently the dash-8 was told to taxi and hold, so maybe heard enter and hold. Only way it makes sense in my mind they are sitting on that runway not moving. And the garbled recording isn't helping.

 

Now how do I put this delicately - Asian cultures have a trait of not speaking up and questioning leaders. And I have read several articles about this culture being ingrained in their airlines - so when I said there was 4 pilots listening to the radios... did 2 feel they were unable to speak?

Edited January 3 by spenaroo

[pmccarthy]

Blancolirio today suggested the dash 8 was on runway centreline and hit from behind. But it’s early days.

[kgwilson]

It is amazing that everyone aboard the A350 got off. The Japanese do seem to respond well to instructions as they were told to get out and not take anything & they did.

 

I've see other scenarios that end up in tragedies where stupid passengers are grabbing their hand luggage and others falling over them trying to get out. The resultant chaos that ensues ends up with injured people on the slides from failure to follow instructions, crashing in to one another, falling off or being hit by idiots and their luggage. It seems ridiculous but it has happened and has all been videoed.

[Bosi72]

Whilst Japanese are highly organised, disciplined and proud nation, they are still humans, with common "flaws", therefore they should not be idolized.

The lady at the photo below looks like having a backpack.

 

 

However, I am now more concerned about ATC's, pilots and other survivors wellbeing.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

The fact the Airbus stayed in one piece is remarkable.  Nev

[facthunter]

They should not be idolised or STEREOTYPED. There were cockpit Tyrants in all races. .  Legends in their own lunchroom. ACE of the Base etc.  Nev

[kgwilson]

This crash demonstrates to me (as Juan Browne said) the importance of correct readback of ATC instructions. The commercial transcript is not clear & while in English, it is with a heavy Japanese accent & seems to tell the Dash 8 to taxi to the C5 holding point. Some reports say this is disputed by the Dash 8 pilot though he is apparently very severely injured. The transcript does not say hold short but also does not have any indication of proceeding on to the runway. The readback (if it was made) is not in the transcript. The initial report that should come out quickly (but it won't) and should include the ATC recording of all of the communication between ATC and both aircraft (but it might not) will be very telling.

[spenaroo]

taken from reddit, which was taken from a Bloomberg article behind a pay wall

 

Something else that has come to light is there was a NOTAM that the stop bar lights were not operating

Edited January 4 by spenaroo

[onetrack]

It's pretty obvious the Dash 8 Captain thought he had takeoff clearance, even though he was told to hold. Surely a glance skyward when approaching the main runway would have alerted him to the oncoming Airbus?

And it's claimed the Airbus crew did not sight the Dash 8, thus their reason for not going around. I'm quite surprised by this claim, it's not like there was only one pair of eyes looking out the front window.

It was a clear night, so no level of reduced visibility that I could see, but maybe a lot general airport lighting and too many flashing lights distracted them from sighting the Dash 8, until it was too late.

Or maybe they saw the Dash 8, and thought it was going to stop at the hold point, and it didn't, and they were too far into landing to conduct a go-around.

 

The puzzling part of the communication transcript is the Tower talking to JAL166 (which appears to be lining up behind JAL516) and during the communication with landing instructions Tower says, "we have departure", with no other reference. This looks like fuzzy communication techniques to me.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-04/japan-airlines-crash-permission-to-land-coast-guard-not-cleared/103283704

 

 

 

Edited January 4 by onetrack

[kgwilson]

With the Dash 8 on the runway facing away from the approaching A350 it would have been almost impossible to see. The only indication are the Nav lights on the wing tips and possibly a red beacon on the tail. The runway lights define the runway which is just black between those lights. Juan Browne is an airline pilot and that is his summation.

 

Why the Dash 8 thought he had clearance when the last transmission from him was the correct readback to taxi to holding point C5 is what needs to be established. He only made 2 radio calls, the first to establish communication, Tower provided the taxi instruction, Dash 8 read back correctly. Nothing more. Assuming the captain survives, the investigation will try to find out from him what he was thinking & why he made the decision to enter the runway.

[spenaroo]

once again a good reason to review the NOTAM system - 

 

NOTAM J2253/23: Tokyo Haneda International Airport (RJTT)

J2253/23 NOTAMN Q) RJJJ/QLRAS/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3533N13947E005 A) RJTT B) 2312271500 C) 2402211500 E) REF AIP SUP 225/23 ITEM TWY:2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,33,38,44,54 TWY-CL-LGT FOR M1,R1,W11(BTN W AND R1)-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR E10(BEHIND SPOT 53)-PARTLY U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR D5-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR A(BTN W AND A2),A(INT OF W1),A1,A2(INT OF A),W1 -PARTLY U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR A16-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR K(BTN SPOT 304 AND C),R(INT OF K)-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR R(BTN K AND Y),R(INT OF Y)-PARTLY U/S STOP-BAR-LGT FOR C1 THRU C14-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR T12,T14,Q,Q1,Q2-U/S TAXIING-GUIDANCE-SIGN FOR T12,T14,Q,Q1,Q2-U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR C(INT OF C3),C(INT OF C5)-PARTLY U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR T(BTN T2 AND SPOT 909),T(INT OF T4),T(INT OF T6) -PARTLY U/S TWY-CL-LGT FOR C3(INT OF RWY 16L/34R)-PARTLY U/S RAPID EXIT TWY INDICATOR LGT FOR D5-U/S

[spenaroo]

was looking at another forum and picked up some interesting info.

this summary in the agreed consensus (my comments from other info provided in the same thread in bold)

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656665-jal-incident-haneda-airport-20.html

Quote

 

Originally Posted by andrasz 

From what we know so far, a classic case of Swiss cheese that will likely make it into future textbooks. Investigation will take months to years, but I doubt any significant new information will be added other than a more elaborate analysis of the individual holes:

• 34R was T/O only runway previously, JL516 was the first to use it for landing. The MA722 crew may have had a mental picture not to expect any landings on this runway. For same reason, they may not have expected the need to hold short. (another post on showed a longer video from the surveillance cam that shows no landings in 19 minutes prior to this accident)
• Usage of "Number one" by ATC may have further reinforced the MA722 crew, missing the "abeam C5" or misunderstanding it as hold ON RWY abeam of C5 (which is exactly what they did). While usage of English in all ATC comms in Japan is commendable, in this case it probably just added to the confusion.
• Stop bar and taxiway lighting INOP.
• JL516 and MA722 on different frequencies (disproven in later reports)
• MA722 was sitting aligned on the runway for 45+ seconds. Probably Japanese culture at play, it is impolite to challenge authority or appear impatient, they were likely patiently waiting for ATC to clear them for T/O.
• DL taxied past MA722 a good 20-25 seconds before the collision, it was already out of their view and expectantly on its t/o roll as the A350 was approaching, so no extra set of eyeballs to wave off JL, as it was done in SFO. (not a factor)
• The combination of HUD and LED lighting probably prevented the JL crew from seeing MA722 even at close range, I'd wager they never saw what they hit. (some in cockpit images showing and pilots saying they need the HUD turned up to max brightness to see it against some lights)
• Visibility of a DH3 from the rear in the dark is practically nil. The only visible tail light is white, probably flooded out by runway lights, and the flashing orange upper ACL is obscured by the high tail from the approach angle. The otherwise fully warranted SOP of not using strobes until the beginning of T/O roll did not help in this case.

The only important question remaining is why did the approach controller not notice that 34R was occupied ? Even if MA722 was not where it was supposed to be, surely HND has SMR, there should have been both visual and aural warnings as a measure of last resort.

And the coast guard had been taxing for 50mins prior to Collison

 

Edited January 4 by spenaroo

[kgwilson]

The fact that 34R was not used as a landing runway for the prior 19 minutes is completely irrelevant. All  runways can be used for either at any time. Also if the Dash 8 had been taxiing for 50 minutes there were landings on 34R during that time.

 

I can't see why the usage of No1  has anything to do with it. This is the order of take off as assigned but the holding points are specific. Just because you are No 1 does not mean line up on the runway.

Edited January 4 by kgwilson