JAL A350 accident at Tokyo Haneda (02/01/2024)

[birchesgreen]

Not a miracle at all: the evacuation worked exactly according how it was designed to. The survival of all these passengers and crew was the result of hundreds of thousands of hours of research, testing, analysis of real-world accidents and simulations of evacuations, followed by intensive training and repeated careful briefing of crew. JAL and all its employees can hold their heads up high today: everyone did their job exemplarily.

Airbus as well, its amazing that the plane held together long enough for everyone to get off. Thats what decades of development gives you of course.

That would, however, be speculation at this stage - people are saying he might not have known he was partly on the runway, but I find that difficult to believe given the lights at the edges of every runway, taxiway and holding point at any airport. We might, therefore, be looking at the infamous "Swiss Cheese" holes lining up.

I've heard that some of the runway stoplights might have been inoperative.

 

[AlterEgo]

Airbus as well, its amazing that the plane held together long enough for everyone to get off. Thats what decades of development gives you of course.

I've heard that some of the runway stoplights might have been inoperative.

Very early to speculate but the coast guard aircraft was on the runway for 40 seconds prior to the collision, and that the collision was with the front of the A350. The coast guard aircraft was lined up to take off on the runway, so an accidental incursion part way seems unlikely at this stage.

 

[westcoaster]

The landing A350 would have been nose high due to being in the flair, trying to spot a small Dash 8 on a dark runway at night probably nigh on impossible.
Hugh high five to all the crew and responders, having had the chance to jump down an aircraft emergency slide from height in a controlled environment, cudos to the cabin crew in a hugely stressful situation fire/heat and smoke the worst combo.

Also condolences to the crew members from the coastguard Dash 8

Very early to speculate but the coast guard aircraft was on the runway for 40 seconds prior to the collision, and that the collision was with the front of the A350. The coast guard aircraft was lined up to take off on the runway, so an accidental incursion part way seems unlikely at this stage.

Said online they were at C5 when instructed to wait st C2 iirc.

 

[AlterEgo]

Said online they were at C5 when instructed to wait st C2 iirc.

Seen that also, but doesn’t explain how or why they were lined up. They were fully on the runway and the collision was by the centreline by the looks of it.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Seen that also, but doesn’t explain how or why they were lined up. They were fully on the runway and the collision was by the centreline by the looks of it.

Was that the case? Watching the video of the event it doesn’t appear that the Dash 8 was fully lined up. Impact and drag appear to be on the left side of the A350 so looks like the Dash 8 was entering the runway from the taxiway as the 350 landed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Was that the case? Watching the video of the event it doesn’t appear that the Dash 8 was fully lined up. Impact and drag appear to be on the left side of the A350 so looks like the Dash 8 was entering the runway from the taxiway as the 350 landed.

The aircraft had fully entered the runway at C4 or C5 and was lined up according to the latest data, but I’m sure more will come out in the wash. There are plenty of things not yet clear.

The CCTV shows fire around the A350 nose wheel; this was not a glancing blow so the aircraft must have been centred or nearly centred; alternatively the A350 may have attempted a late swerve on the ground. Either way this was not some partial incursion; the coast guard aircraft was there for 40 seconds before impact.

The coast guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway (it is not actually clear from the audio which holding point was instructed) but has, for whatever reason, entered the runway and was not seen by the JAL crew.

 

[Acfb]

Very sad, particularly as Haneda is such a wonderful efficient airport (better than Narita and Kansai). Will be interesting to find out the cause of why the Coastguard plane was on the runway. Reminds me of similar runway disasters that I've seen on Air Crash Investigation such as Detroit (1990). In that case the plane on the runway that shouldn't have been there as it thought it was a taxiway and that was hit by a plane's wing taking off as it wrongly entered the runway and they had to redesign all the taxiways afterwards.

One confirmed survivor from the Dash 8 (the captain), the other five currently still unaccounted for. Apparently, the Dash was on its way to the earthquake-affected region with supplies. Pray for more survivors there. At least everybody on the JAL flight was ok. Japanese airlines are very safe and standards are high.

There haven't been any serious accidents involving JAL since the JAL123 crash of a 747 in 1985 in which 520 people died. Although a lot of the deaths were caused by people not being rescued on the mountainside after the plane crashed rather than the impact itself.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

The aircraft had fully entered the runway at C4 or C5 and was lined up according to the latest data, but I’m sure more will come out in the wash. There are plenty of things not yet clear.

The CCTV shows fire around the A350 nose wheel; this was not a glancing blow so the aircraft must have been centred or nearly centred; alternatively the A350 may have attempted a late swerve on the ground. Either way this was not some partial incursion; the coast guard aircraft was there for 40 seconds before impact.

The coast guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway (it is not actually clear from the audio which holding point was instructed) but has, for whatever reason, entered the runway and was not seen by the JAL crew.

I’m not convinced. If the coast guard aircraft was fully lined up ready to go I think the impact would have looked significantly different.

Also not sure what a “late swerve” would be - it’s obviously not been a go around.

 

[jagardner1984]

It is quite intriguing for a lay person that for all the highly advanced equipment in the world …. If the above comment about the Dash8 being on the runway for 40 seconds stands, or even for a fraction of that time, there is not some sensor (heat or similar) which can detect in the A350 that there is something on the runway which is not the runway, thus causing the pilots to initiate a go around ? From the one time I have experienced one, it felt as if wheels were basically touching down at the point that decision was made, but clearly that was not apparent to the A350 flight deck on final approach.

The Dash8 being on the runway would seem to stack up for similar logic, if a shorter time span between the authority being given (or not) and them proceeding, why would they proceed onto a runway where there is evidently a huge wide body aircraft landing ? If you look at the geography of the airport on Flight radar, from the direction of the taxiway, the area beyond the runway is the sea, and the alternative runway some considerable distance behind you, so therefore logically the Dash8 must surely not have perceived the A350 to be headed their way.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not convinced. If the coast guard aircraft was fully lined up ready to go I think the impact would have looked significantly different.

Also not sure what a “late swerve” would be - it’s obviously not been a go around.

A Dash 8 is much smaller than an A350. The landing aircraft has basically run it over. That’s why it has lost its nose wheel and suffered fires in both engines, along with damage all around the underside of the aircraft. The nose of the A350 bears a huge impact mark exactly where the tailplane of a Dash 8 would be.

Footage from a passenger filming from a passing aircraft (this video

at about 6:18) shows the impact occurring immediately after but certainly not not at C5. This puts the collision almost exactly here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AFe4op9F731CgiuV6?g_st=ic

Consistent with the Dash 8 having entered, and lined up.

I think there is almost certainly no way this was a partial incursion or a glancing impact. This is almost definitely a rear-ending and “running over” of two aircraft, one of which shouldn’t have been where it was.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Lots of similarities to Tenerife here. I found it interesting that the starboard engine was seemingly unable to shutdown despite losing its fan and much of the nacelle. A testament to the quality of the A350 though that it suffered a collision at 140mph ish and then withstood fire long enough to evacuate everyone on board.

 

[Lost property]

Looks like a Japanese Coastguard Bombardier Dash-8 loaded with Earthquake aid taxied onto the runway while the A350 was just wheels down and the larger plane ploughed straight through it being pretty much still at stall/threshold speed.

Well that's about as ill informed as it gets.

I would suggest, politely (ish), you look up stall speeds / characteristics and then try and find an aircraft (ok, I will concede some G/A pilots do try to do this for "fun") that incorporates stall speed as a SOP for landing.

There is a significant margin between threshold speed / A.o.A and stall speed.

The contributor of post #30 makes a good summary of this tragic accident and the equally tragic lessons from the past.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lots of similarities to Tenerife here. I found it interesting that the starboard engine was seemingly unable to shutdown despite losing its fan and much of the nacelle. A testament to the quality of the A350 though that it suffered a collision at 140mph ish and then withstood fire long enough to evacuate everyone on board.

This is also similar to the 1991 LAX runway incursion, at least as far as the nature of the collision goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_runway_disaster

There are so many similarities it is uncanny and frankly disturbing to see an almost identical accident happen over 30 years of progress later.

 

[methethpropbut]

One interesting point I note is that I've seen reports that the JAL plane collided with a "small plane" - I wonder how many members of the public have the wrong impression that they hit a small turboprop or something like that? The Dash 8-300, while obviously not a jumbo, isn't that tiny either - passenger variants can seat 50 people.

 

[DustyBin]

This is also similar to the 1991 LAX runway incursion, at least as far as the nature of the collision goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_runway_disaster

There are so many similarities it is uncanny and frankly disturbing to see an almost identical accident happen over 30 years of progress later.

That was the first comparable accident I thought of.

I think I’m right in saying (although I’m happy to be corrected) that the majority of runway collisions have involved aircraft striking other aircraft (or vehicles) during their takeoff roll, as opposed to when landing. I believe poor visibility has often factored as well.

Ultimately they all involve something being where it shouldn’t be though.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well that's about as ill informed as it gets.

I would suggest, politely (ish), you look up stall speeds / characteristics and then try and find an aircraft (ok, I will concede some G/A pilots do try to do this for "fun") that incorporates stall speed as a SOP for landing.

There is a significant margin between threshold speed / A.o.A and stall speed.

The contributor of post #30 makes a good summary of this tragic accident and the equally tragic lessons from the past.

Threshold speed is calculated as 1.3 times stall speed or 1.33 times if the aircraft is at maximum rated mass and that is the minimum speed a plane should be going when crossing the threshold of the runway (some manuals will add a 5 knot margin to the target to ensure it isnt undershot). An aircraft flares to reduce its speed from just below threshold speed (as the plane is slowing) to stall speed at which point it will touch down. Manuals do the maths for you on threshold flap setting, AOA and indicated knots at various weights but that is the mechanics of what is happening.

The pilot of the Coastguard plane has spoken and said he thought he had been given permission for takeoff but the audio recordings indicate he was instructed by ATC to wait at the edge of the runway and hadnt been given permission to take off.

 

[edwin_m]

This video from blancolirio (no text to quote) seems to me to be a good summary of what we know so far. Interestingly he mentions the poor quality of the ATC recording, and if it was this bad for the pilot (with added background noise from the aircraft) then it's perhaps unsurprising if it wasn't understood correctly.

 

[Speed43125]

Interestingly he mentions the poor quality of the ATC recording, and if it was this bad for the pilot (with added background noise from the aircraft) then it's perhaps unsurprising if it wasn't understood correctly.

liveatc.net is usually recorded with amateur equipment not even necessarily near the airport. Aviation Headsets will be of exceptionally high quality and audio quality should not be an issue. There might well be a conversation about the competency of the English spoken in Japan however.

 

[westcoaster]

The Aviation Herald

Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

avherald.com

I consider Avherald a very reliable source of information latest updates on yellow. Coastguard captain testimony is included.

Quote The Aviation Herald

On Jan 3rd 2024 Japan's Ministry of Transport said, that the DH8C had received instructions to proceed as far as he could, the coast guard captain by his own testimony however understood this instruction as takeoff clearance, lined up runway 34R instead leading to the collision. The JTSB is investigating the occurrence.

 

[AlterEgo]

So it seems the events are as follows:

- The JAL 350 is cleared for landing on 34R
- The Dash 8 is cleared to C5 but is not explictly instructed to hold short
- The Dash 8 is not however cleared to enter the runway
- The Dash 8 enters the runway, without authorisation
- The Dash 8 lines up, presumably awaiting takeoff clearance, and is present between intersections C5 and C6 for 40 seconds
- The JAL A350 approaches from behind and above
- The JAL pilots do not spot the other aircraft, either due to the nose up attitude of their own aircraft or weak lighting from the Dash 8
- The JAL A350 touches down and collides directly with the rear end of the Dash 8

The fact one Dash 8 pilot survived and was able to talk to investigators in the immediate aftermath is frankly miraculous.

 

[jfollows]

So it seems the events are as follows:

Thank you for this summary; it’s in line with what I’ve seen in the way of both facts and speculation elsewhere.

EDIT Air Traffic Control transcript (from https://www.pprune.org/accidents-cl...ncident-haneda-airport-22.html?ispreloading=1) attached: (text version from same forum thread)

17:43:02

(JAL516): Tokyo TOWER JAL516 spot18.

(Tokyo TOWER): JAL516 Tokyo TOWER good evening RUNWAY 34R continue approach wind 320/7, we have departure



17:43:12

(JAL516): JAL516 continue approach 34R.



17:43:26

(DAL276): Tokyo TOWER DAL276 with you on C, proceeding to holding point 34R

(Tokyo TOWER): DAL276 Tokyo TOWER good evening. taxi to holding point C1.

(DAL276): Holding point C1, DAL276



17:44:56

(Tokyo Tower): JAL516 RUNWAY 34R cleared to land wind 310/8



17:45:01

(JAL516): Cleared to land RUNWAY 34R JAL516.



17:45:11

(JA722A): TOWER JA722A C.

(Tokyo Tower): JA722A Tokyo TOWER Good evening, No.1, taxi to holding point C5



17:45:19

(JA722A): Taxi to holding point C5 JA722A No.1, Thank you.



17:45:40

(JAL179): Tokyo TOWER JAL179 taxi to holding point C1.

(Tokyo Tower):JAL179 Tokyo TOWER good evening, No.3, taxi to holding point C1

(JAL179): Taxi to holding point C1, we are ready JAL179.



17:45:56

(JAL166): Tokyo TOWER JAL166 spot 21.

(Tokyo Tower):JAL166 Tokyo TOWER good evening, No.2, RUNWAY 34R continue approach wind 320/8, we have departure, reduce speed to 160 knots.



17:46:06

(JAL166): Reduce 160 knots RUNWAY 34R continue approach, JAL166 good evening



17:47:23

(Tokyo Tower):JAL166, reduce minimum approach speed

(JAL166): JAL166



17:47:27

 

[MasterSpenny]

The extent of the planes damage has been revealed by a post on X. Looks like it’s a write off.

https://x.com/fl360aero/status/1742406229601751333?s=46&t=NwCcaynuPR-k7xjMa0OtGQ

First daylight visuals of the 2021 built JAL Airbus A350-900 plane (JA13XJ) on Haneda Airport 's Runway 34R after its landing collision and fire on Tuesday.

Sources say that the A350 jet was given permission to land moments before the collision with a coast guard plane.#aircraft

 

[Grumpy Git]

Video of also showing the remains of the Dash-8:

 

[Crossover]

The extent of the planes damage has been revealed by a post on X. Looks like it’s a write off.

https://x.com/fl360aero/status/1742406229601751333?s=46&t=NwCcaynuPR-k7xjMa0OtGQ

I think even without the fire, it would have been a total hull loss

 

[skyhigh]

The extent of the planes damage has been revealed by a post on X. Looks like it’s a write off.

Well that's a surprise...

 

[Ediswan]

- The JAL pilots do not spot the other aircraft, either due to the nose up attitude of their own aircraft or weak lighting from the Dash 8

I have seen it suggested that JAL (mandatory ?) use of the HUD could also have made it harder to see the Dash 8.

 

[WatcherZero]

French investigators were despatched yesterday as an Airbus and announced this afternoon British government investigators were being dispatched as well due to RR engines on the A350.

 

[edwin_m]

I have seen it suggested that JAL (mandatory ?) use of the HUD could also have made it harder to see the Dash 8.

The video I linked earlier simulated what an A350 would look like sat on the runway numbers in night time, and while the simulation is not necessarily accurate the single visible tail strobe was hardly conspicuous against the runway lighting from the point of view of the JAL flight on final approach. The Dash 8 is a lot smaller and was also further down the runway.

 

[Wynd]

Lots of similarities to Tenerife here. I found it interesting that the starboard engine was seemingly unable to shutdown despite losing its fan and much of the nacelle. A testament to the quality of the A350 though that it suffered a collision at 140mph ish and then withstood fire long enough to evacuate everyone on board.

Where did you acquire this info?
What evidence do you have of a supposed lost Fan?

 

[Grumpy Git]

French investigators were despatched yesterday as an Airbus and announced this afternoon British government investigators were being dispatched as well due to RR engines on the A350.

I heard the British representatives were actually from Rolls-Royce?