[AndrewinHK]

Breaking news via Twitter that a JAL a350 aircraft, flight JL 516 aircraft which was arriving from Sapporo, has collided with a coastguard aircraft on the runway at Haneda airport. Video shows both aircraft in flames on the runway.

[Inquisitive]

BBC, CNN etc. are showing this live.
Sad and pathetic scene. Fortunately all passengers are able to exit and safe.

2 users thanked author for this post.

fqtvgla, GivingupBA

[AndrewinHK]

Some passenger videos posted on X of inside the aircraft as the collision occurred, amazing how calm everyone remained, 400 people on board a 350-900, if reports are correct that all evacuated safely, quite impressive.

1 user thanked author for this post.

fqtvgla

[TominScotland]

Notwithstanding the amazing evacuation of all passengers and crew from the JAL A350, 5 members of the coastguard lost their lives in the collision with the small aircraft at Haneda. Our thoughts must be with them and their families.

12 users thanked author for this post.

SimonS1, CathayLoyalist2, Inquisitive, cwoodward, Swissdiver, AndrewinHK, fqtvgla, ASK1945, MartynSinclair, esselle, AlanOrton1, CheerUp

[Hannah Brandler]

Airbus have provided a statement:

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.

[FDOS]

On first viewing, this looks like a runway incursion.

RIP.

1 user thanked author for this post.

fqtvgla

[cwoodward]

The JAL crew seem to have done a magnificent job no doubt assisted by the orderly and respectful way that Japanese behave in any sort of stressful situation.

Having traveled by air so much for so long I like to understand how these accidents happen and thus have taken a look at what is available from trusted industry websites that possibly outline accurately what happened here.Some here may be also interested

It seems at first pass that the major cause was Air Traffic Control error(s) that resulted in the Dash 8 being on the wrong runway

The fatal error seems likely to have been a combination of the below:

“According to ATC recordings the A359 as well as a number of other aircraft departing runway 34R were handed off to Tower Frequency 118.725MHz, however, the Coast Guard DH8C was handed off to tower at 124.350MHz. JL-516, upon being handed off to tower by approach, was told by tower to “continue approach”, about 90 seconds later tower cleared the aircraft to land…….”

It seems likely that the Coastguard flight was cleared to the incorrect runway:

‘Given departures were operating on 34L at the time and 34R was JAL516’s assigned runway for landing according to available ATC reports.
ATC live recordings are available and JAL516 was cleared to land 34R. The JAL flight was the first of a number of aircraft given 34R for landing”.

This may have been what happened:

” a runway incursion by the coast guard aircraft, a clearance to line up behind being misunderstood as line up. 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”.

“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 Coastguard aircrafts.”

“I think we can reasonably suppose the Dash 8 was given clearance either to line up on the runway or hold short.

I think we can reasonably suppose the JAL flight was given clearance to land on the runway.

I think we can also reasonably suppose the landing clearance was not cancelled based upon the actual position of the Dash 8.

What remains, at least for me, is why the landing clearance was not cancelled based upon the actual position of the Dash 8, regardless whether the Dash 8 was cleared to be in that position or not.”

2 users thanked author for this post.

DerekVH, AndrewinHK

[cwoodward]

Some Japanese aviation media is now reporting that there is ATC evidence that the Coast Guard Dash-8 aircraft was told to ‘hold short’ of entering the active runway.
At the point of the crash the Dash-8 had entered the runway and basically the incoming JAL A350 landed on top of it as the aircraft was not visible to the JAL pilots whos aircraft was in the nose-up flared position of the final approach.

A tragic accident of miscommunication it seems but of course nothing official at this time.

2 users thanked author for this post.

AndrewinHK, DerekVH

[Woodpecker]

If ever there was a reality incident to reaffirm how vital it is to make a swift & speedy evacuation under pressure, this was it.

No praise is high enough for the professional crew & disciplined passengers, ground reports show not a single piece of hand baggage amongst the 379 passengers. These vital minutes before the fire got out of control almost certainly saved all lives.

One shudders to think had this happened with a LLC comprising passengers with a different mindset in lesser trained environment. Subsequent interviews with JAL spokesperson have revealed the rigid & continuous military like training the crew have undergone just to be prepared for an eventuality like this.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Inquisitive

[FDOS]

Post #1507368 apparently fails to take into consideration Japanese culture and patterns of cabin v checked luggage.

As such, the conclusion is a logical fallacy.

1 user thanked author for this post.

theflyingnurse

[Woodpecker]

@ FDOS, even if it a “logical fallacy” which I doubt, may I please ask what is inappropriate that needs to be flagged?

[Inquisitive]

Let’s not debate culture, discipline etc., because these traits actually make different nation different.

This evacuation from this aircraft was a perfect example how crew shall instruct and how all passengers shall follow instructions in this kind of incidents. Salute to these guys.

Instead of what if, we, all the air passengers shall learn something from this behaviour.

[FDOS]

@Woodpecker

I did not flag your post as inappropriate and there is no flag showing on the thread, that I can see, therefore I cannot answer your query.

Your post conflates a Japanese domestic flight to an LLC (I assume you meant LCC) and comments crticially on the latter. LCC cabin crew are highly trained and I have seen them in an emergency, where their reaction was exemplary.

Please remember that easyJet has never lost a hull and in the one hull loss incident with Ryanair, due to a low level multiple bird strike in both engines, all passengers were evacuated safely, with only one minor injury.

Your post is a logical fallacy, based on your conclusion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

notmenotme

[FDOS]

@inquisitive, I don’t see how we cannot recognise the impact of culture in this incident. I have deep respect for Japan and Japanese people and their honourable respect for authority is at least part of the reason this evacuation was so successfu, IMO. Also, JAL crew are well trained.

7 users thanked author for this post.

theflyingnurse, maxgeorge, TonyR, Charley Whiskey, notmenotme, Jacob, AndrewinHK

[Mark Caswell]

Hi – just to clear up the confusion on the reported post above. It was accidentally flagged for report (as does happen from time to time), and we have removed that flag.

2 users thanked author for this post.

cwoodward, FDOS

[Author]

Posts