JAL incident at Haneda Airport
Last edited by jumpseater; 7th Jan 2024 at 13:37.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making sure that all aircraft at Haneda actually broadcast their position might be a good start. Unfortunately, that will involve looking at the Coast Guard's aircraft equipment fit, and/or changing procedures. That amounts to an admission of liability and institutional fallibility. Given the conflicts of interest stemming from the Coast Guard, ATC and CAA all being departments within the same government ministry it looks as if the Coast Guard are coming out on top at the moment.
What you need to understand is that all parties (except JAL) involved in this accident are one in the same. JCAB, ATC, JCG and the airport authority, all part of the Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport. If any of you know people who fly in and out of Haneda regularly (which I did until 2015) you will know that this was an accident waiting to happen. Of all the 30+ airports in Japan capable of taking wide-bodies, this was the place where all the holes in the Swiss Cheese were most likely to line-up. Do not expect blame to be apportioned where it should be. My sincere sympathies are with the JCG crew (and their families) on the Dash 8, especially the survivor.
At the assumed time of crossing the C5 Stop Bar, the A350 was like 2NM from TDZ. With Landing Lights hopefully on this shouldn't look like 6NM out, and latest with a second glance you can already differenciate some lights from each other. AND: Distance between Rwy 34L and R are almost the standard 1NM. At landing traffic 2NM out (which the Dash-8 Crew didn't know) there can hardly be a confusion.
I say they missed to look or - in combination with the missing EXPLICIT takeoff or lineup clearance - neglected another warning. For whatever human reason.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you've seen all the posts that were removed. Quite likely only the moderators have (and possibly still can).
Not all of those posts fit your description there, so it isn't a discussion about some nuance of interpretation of just a muffled syllable or so in an audio the post author had actually listened to.
Some had words in a different order, with spurious extra words introduced, creating non-standard phrases, clearly either fictionalised or via a process possibly something like two or more translations with a paraphrase or two in the middle.
For instance, if a non aviation journalist in another language wishes to add an explanation to non aviation readers in that other language that a holding point is a place adjacent to the runway, this should not lead to some misunderstandings or allegations, either in that language or if translated back to English, that the pilot was actually told to go to the runway.
And someone who reads what I have just written in the above paragraph should not then quote from only part of it, and deduce something different themselves or claim that I had asserted something else.
Some countries may have a party game, in which a whispered message is passed from person to person, and you might find out it has changed quite a lot by the time it gets all the way round the circle. It's not appropriate here.
Let's also not end up with daft conspiracy thinking that if obviously false versions of a conversation are removed, that this supposed cover up constitutes proof the removed material is correct. No, it was because it is garbage.
Not all of those posts fit your description there, so it isn't a discussion about some nuance of interpretation of just a muffled syllable or so in an audio the post author had actually listened to.
Some had words in a different order, with spurious extra words introduced, creating non-standard phrases, clearly either fictionalised or via a process possibly something like two or more translations with a paraphrase or two in the middle.
For instance, if a non aviation journalist in another language wishes to add an explanation to non aviation readers in that other language that a holding point is a place adjacent to the runway, this should not lead to some misunderstandings or allegations, either in that language or if translated back to English, that the pilot was actually told to go to the runway.
And someone who reads what I have just written in the above paragraph should not then quote from only part of it, and deduce something different themselves or claim that I had asserted something else.
Some countries may have a party game, in which a whispered message is passed from person to person, and you might find out it has changed quite a lot by the time it gets all the way round the circle. It's not appropriate here.
Let's also not end up with daft conspiracy thinking that if obviously false versions of a conversation are removed, that this supposed cover up constitutes proof the removed material is correct. No, it was because it is garbage.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting there is some conspiracy. I'm just suggesting that the transcript that is going around may well not be accurate. We don't really know where it has come and it could well have come out of the game of [insert country name] whispers you mention. Some lines in it I can match up verbatim to the (also uncorroborated) live recordings, others differ between the recording and the transcript.
My main point is that we do NOT have the full story of what was said and what was read back. So reaching any conclusions now is utterly fruitless. We simply don't have the data. So I'm pushing back at those who state "they lined up without clearance". Or similar statement. Just because something is not written on that transcript doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are many many ways that they may have actually received a clearance or miss-interpretted something else as a clearance for them.
The other thing I want to push back at is those saying the Coastguard crew should have seen the JAL on final and the guys in the JAL should have seen the Coastguard on the runway. People who are saying this have clearly never landed or taken off from a busy international airport at night with all the lights. If you think you can identify the distance of the 3 or more landing lights you can see in a line inbound to the runway you have been cleared to line up and wait on then you are deluding yourself. You look, you see lights and you trust the clearance you have been given.
The final piece of the Japan puzzle is that as the pilot in command of an aircraft that is involved in an "accident" or "incident" at a Japanese airport, you are liable to arrest, charges and imprisonment by the Japanese police. In japan, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Yes you make a good point about me not seeing all the removed posts. Point taken.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting there is some conspiracy. I'm just suggesting that the transcript that is going around may well not be accurate. We don't really know where it has come and it could well have come out of the game of [insert country name] whispers you mention. Some lines in it I can match up verbatim to the (also uncorroborated) live recordings, others differ between the recording and the transcript.
My main point is that we do NOT have the full story of what was said and what was read back. So reaching any conclusions now is utterly fruitless. We simply don't have the data. So I'm pushing back at those who state "they lined up without clearance". Or similar statement. Just because something is not written on that transcript doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are many many ways that they may have actually received a clearance or miss-interpretted something else as a clearance for them.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting there is some conspiracy. I'm just suggesting that the transcript that is going around may well not be accurate. We don't really know where it has come and it could well have come out of the game of [insert country name] whispers you mention. Some lines in it I can match up verbatim to the (also uncorroborated) live recordings, others differ between the recording and the transcript.
My main point is that we do NOT have the full story of what was said and what was read back. So reaching any conclusions now is utterly fruitless. We simply don't have the data. So I'm pushing back at those who state "they lined up without clearance". Or similar statement. Just because something is not written on that transcript doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are many many ways that they may have actually received a clearance or miss-interpretted something else as a clearance for them.
There will absolutely certainly be recordings at the ATC centre of all the calls on all of the radio channels, all of the phone calls, etc. This was true in an ambulance control room I worked in part time decades ago, radio channels and phone calls. It isn't a new idea,
It would not be wild speculation to surmise that this will be far better quality than what you and others have attempted to interpret from third or fourth hand poorer quality unofficial stuff (you yourself describe some of it as incomplete), somewhere in a corner of the internet.
The official investigation will look at all of the relevant real information. This doesn't include amateur recordings from elsewhere, it doesn't include fourth or fifth hand innuendo about someone guessing what the captain may have understood by misinterpreting something that was in true fact never said, such as someone unofficial falsely alleging words that were not in the clearance and read back, it doesn't include Google Translate of what the internet says halfway round the world.
Last edited by aox; 7th Jan 2024 at 14:01.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whereas the correct response is to mandate that all aircraft constantly broadcast their position via ADS-B, with any which for whatever reason cannot, banned until compliant. In this way, any number of eyes watching any number of ADS-B receivers can become aware of potential conflicts, with some of them in a position to intervene to prevent them.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: SG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I hear RWY 05 for that takeoff clearance as well. I'm not suggesting that it was a clearance for JA722A. But I am STATING that this transmission is not on the 'official transcript' which does include some transmissions that are not specifically to the aircraft in the collision (and JAL166 that was #2 to land and was told to go around). So this supports my argument that the transcript is not complete or accurate.
The other point is that in the time period we are talking about, there were transmissions that JA722A could have miss-heard as clearances for them. They may have even read those clearances back and these readbacks were stepped on or missed by ATC. The captain of JA722A is adamant he was cleared. He didn't deliberately decide to take matters into his own hands and line up without clearance as some are suggesting. He had a lot more experience than me, that tells me I could also make the same mistake! This is why I am so keen to understand the mistake that was made, so I can analyze my own actions and make sure I am not so complacent that I think it could never happen to me. So, I am convinced that JA722A had heard something that meant they thought THEY were cleared. What I can make out of the taxi clearance from tower to them that we do hear leads me to believe that was not as clear-cut as some are saying. And we don't hear the readback so cannot hear what might have changed in the understanding of the crew from command to readback.
There being a departure on 05 also changes what everyone is assuming about both JAL516 [not heard in actual audio, only on written transcript] and JAL166 being told there was a departure to get out. Commentators are assuming this was reference to JA722A's departure. Which threw up a load of questions as there was no space to get anyone out in this gap. But if that were a departure on 05 then then conflict window is a lot smaller and the approach only need be clear while that departure is rolling with no consecutive departure and go-around procedure conflict or wake turbulence conflict. My point being, by using the 'official transcript' we are missing a lot of this detail that builds a bigger picture. This is why I would argue for more discussion around what we can hear in the audio (the posts that keep getting removed) and less sticking to the line that the transcript that is out there is official and without error.
Line of sight is exactly what I am saying about the transmissions and why they are so hit and miss for different aircraft. JAL166's transmissions are the clearest (also helped by that pilot having very clear English - there is a Delta in the transmissions as well who is easy to hear despite the poor audio quality because of the clear English). What is odd though is that some of Tower's transmissions are clear and others garbage. But maybe they have multiple antennae and are using different ones depending which controller is talking to which aircraft?
The other point is that in the time period we are talking about, there were transmissions that JA722A could have miss-heard as clearances for them. They may have even read those clearances back and these readbacks were stepped on or missed by ATC. The captain of JA722A is adamant he was cleared. He didn't deliberately decide to take matters into his own hands and line up without clearance as some are suggesting. He had a lot more experience than me, that tells me I could also make the same mistake! This is why I am so keen to understand the mistake that was made, so I can analyze my own actions and make sure I am not so complacent that I think it could never happen to me. So, I am convinced that JA722A had heard something that meant they thought THEY were cleared. What I can make out of the taxi clearance from tower to them that we do hear leads me to believe that was not as clear-cut as some are saying. And we don't hear the readback so cannot hear what might have changed in the understanding of the crew from command to readback.
There being a departure on 05 also changes what everyone is assuming about both JAL516 [not heard in actual audio, only on written transcript] and JAL166 being told there was a departure to get out. Commentators are assuming this was reference to JA722A's departure. Which threw up a load of questions as there was no space to get anyone out in this gap. But if that were a departure on 05 then then conflict window is a lot smaller and the approach only need be clear while that departure is rolling with no consecutive departure and go-around procedure conflict or wake turbulence conflict. My point being, by using the 'official transcript' we are missing a lot of this detail that builds a bigger picture. This is why I would argue for more discussion around what we can hear in the audio (the posts that keep getting removed) and less sticking to the line that the transcript that is out there is official and without error.
Line of sight is exactly what I am saying about the transmissions and why they are so hit and miss for different aircraft. JAL166's transmissions are the clearest (also helped by that pilot having very clear English - there is a Delta in the transmissions as well who is easy to hear despite the poor audio quality because of the clear English). What is odd though is that some of Tower's transmissions are clear and others garbage. But maybe they have multiple antennae and are using different ones depending which controller is talking to which aircraft?
Last edited by Jasonbay; 7th Jan 2024 at 22:22.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: SG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jasonbay, I was not standing there in Haneda seeing it happen, so the numbers I mention are all estimates and speculation based on what has been posted in this forum.
I agree with you that there are many factors that need to be taken into account; and let's leave the rest to the official investigation team...
I agree with you that there are many factors that need to be taken into account; and let's leave the rest to the official investigation team...
Certainly what you hear on LiveATC is NOT what you would hear in an aircraft, at or near the airport, or in the ATC tower. How do I know... roughly 15 years analyzing aviation ATC/aircraft audio for work.
- GY
Easy Street, thanks for the Juan Browne video, I hadn't seen that. I was going to say that IMO the A350 nacelle damage both sides was not sufficient to tear off the wings; the nacelle would need to penetrate the Dash TE right up the wing rear spars to meet enough resistance to shear them off. But now looking at the video I can see the damage to the inner edges of the nacelle both sides has indeed done that. FWIW I'd estimated that the spars are around 30" from the TE. I'm still surprised at the difference in height (from the ground) the nacelle damages are, comparing the inner and outer edges, more so than is accounted for by the 2.5deg dihedral.
So yes, I apologise, I agree with your analysis.
So yes, I apologise, I agree with your analysis.
Also, one needs to analyse both the ATC tape and the CVR to know what message was transmitted by ATC and what was actually received in the cockpit (and vice versa). Maybe there were some confusing communications on the second box on 121.5, for what it's worth - we don't know, but the investigators hopefully will.
Clear is, that two different situation pictures arose in the head of the tower controller and the Dash-8 flight crew.
You can not expect that a LHR Director style fast communication alone will ensure error free operation over decades in that high traffic environment.
It can only be obtained by reliable redundancy. So the main focus of the investigation should be, why did the redundancies did not work?
By (only) asserting blame for the first error, you will not improve the situation, you will ask for the next accident. So the holes in the cheese behind the first are the important to work on.
You can not expect that a LHR Director style fast communication alone will ensure error free operation over decades in that high traffic environment.
It can only be obtained by reliable redundancy. So the main focus of the investigation should be, why did the redundancies did not work?
By (only) asserting blame for the first error, you will not improve the situation, you will ask for the next accident. So the holes in the cheese behind the first are the important to work on.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 57
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street, thanks for the Juan Browne video, I hadn't seen that. I was going to say that IMO the A350 nacelle damage both sides was not sufficient to tear off the wings; the nacelle would need to penetrate the Dash TE right up the wing rear spars to meet enough resistance to shear them off. But now looking at the video I can see the damage to the inner edges of the nacelle both sides has indeed done that. FWIW I'd estimated that the spars are around 30" from the TE. I'm still surprised at the difference in height (from the ground) the nacelle damages are, comparing the inner and outer edges, more so than is accounted for by the 2.5deg dihedral.
So yes, I apologise, I agree with your analysis.
So yes, I apologise, I agree with your analysis.
THUNDERTAILED
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a sense it doesn't really matter what was said. The fact that the Dash 8 captain asked the other crew if they were cleared to enter the runway means there was doubt.
When there is doubt about such a fundamental thing, the correct course of action is to confirm with the ATC, not with the crew.
Had many of us been the FO of that Dash, and the Captain was asking if we were sure we'd been cleared to line up as he sailed past the holding point, we would doubtless, in addition to trying to stop him, be scrutinising the runway and the approach path for other traffic, in case we were all mistaken, no?
Possibly why the Dash crew weren't too fazed about sitting on an active runway for 30-40 seconds without a takeoff clearance, was because that would be quite normal for a small aircraft operating in concert with heavy aircraft - waiting for preceding wake turbulence to abate.
When there is doubt about such a fundamental thing, the correct course of action is to confirm with the ATC, not with the crew.
Had many of us been the FO of that Dash, and the Captain was asking if we were sure we'd been cleared to line up as he sailed past the holding point, we would doubtless, in addition to trying to stop him, be scrutinising the runway and the approach path for other traffic, in case we were all mistaken, no?
Possibly why the Dash crew weren't too fazed about sitting on an active runway for 30-40 seconds without a takeoff clearance, was because that would be quite normal for a small aircraft operating in concert with heavy aircraft - waiting for preceding wake turbulence to abate.
The problem I have with the DHC misinterpreting the ATC is how on earth the DHC got both runway clearance and takeoff clearance from one instruction (which was read back correctly). You need two instructions to get from the taxiway to takeoff AND importantly you need the word "takeoff". It's quite a leap to get from 'wait at the holding point' to runway clearance AND takeoff clearance.
Just to mention something about the Minsitry of Transport, even in many western countries, you get all the departments under the same ministry i.e. ATC, aviation safety investigators, airport authority, coastguard, national airlines, etc... so it is not unique to Japan.
Just to mention something about the Minsitry of Transport, even in many western countries, you get all the departments under the same ministry i.e. ATC, aviation safety investigators, airport authority, coastguard, national airlines, etc... so it is not unique to Japan.
In a sense it doesn't really matter what was said. The fact that the Dash 8 captain asked the other crew if they were cleared to enter the runway means there was doubt.
When there is doubt about such a fundamental thing, the correct course of action is to confirm with the ATC, not with the crew.
Had many of us been the FO of that Dash, and the Captain was asking if we were sure we'd been cleared to line up as he sailed past the holding point, we would doubtless, in addition to trying to stop him, be scrutinising the runway and the approach path for other traffic, in case we were all mistaken, no?
Possibly why the Dash crew weren't too fazed about sitting on an active runway for 30-40 seconds without a takeoff clearance, was because that would be quite normal for a small aircraft operating in concert with heavy aircraft - waiting for preceding wake turbulence to abate.
When there is doubt about such a fundamental thing, the correct course of action is to confirm with the ATC, not with the crew.
Had many of us been the FO of that Dash, and the Captain was asking if we were sure we'd been cleared to line up as he sailed past the holding point, we would doubtless, in addition to trying to stop him, be scrutinising the runway and the approach path for other traffic, in case we were all mistaken, no?
Possibly why the Dash crew weren't too fazed about sitting on an active runway for 30-40 seconds without a takeoff clearance, was because that would be quite normal for a small aircraft operating in concert with heavy aircraft - waiting for preceding wake turbulence to abate.