Japan JAL516 A350 Crash Update - Haneda
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 січ 2024
- Here's the latest update on the Haneda Tokyo crash:
The A350 was cleared to land.
The Dash 8 was not supposed to be on the runway, and had been told to taxi to "spot C5".
The Dash 8 got onto the runway, and appeared to be moving from the intersection of C3 towards C5 via RWY 34R instead of via the Taxiway.
2024 Pilot MasterClass (flying Alaska to Florida and back): learn.fly8ma.com/courses/real...
(the first 5 lessons are free).
👉Take our online PILOT GROUND SCHOOL✈
fly8ma.com
🛩️Private Pilot:
-Everything you need to know start to finish
-How to choose an Instructor
-How to perform the maneuvers
-Airspace
-Landings
-Oral and Checkride prep (premium version)
-And so much more! Try it for free with the link below!
bit.ly/2I3evAd
🌦️Instrument Pilot Ground School:
-Learn all the abbreviations and IFR speak
-Approach Plates and Procedures
-Airspace
-Rules and Regulations
-Systems
-Real World Scenarios
-Accident case studies when things went wrong
-Written test prep
-Oral and Checkride Prep
-Etc, Click the link below to check out the course!
bit.ly/2I3hZTr
🛫Commercial Pilot Bootcamp:
-Learn about Holding Out
-Maintenance Requirements
-Systems
-Airspace
-Rules and Regulations
-See full oral exams and checkride videos
bit.ly/2I5W4eo
👉Check out our many other courses too!✈
-Tailwheel
-Crosswind Landings
-Weather
-Airspace
-Seaplane
-Sport Pilot
-Spin Awareness
-Accident Case Studies
-And more! Click below to see all courses:
bit.ly/2I4whDp
#fly8ma #flighttraining #aviation #bushplane
Your Support Makes our Videos possible! Thank You!
Support us at: / fly8ma
Check out our site at fly8MA.com
The FLY8MA.com Free Online Ground School for Sport and Private Pilots is available to everyone as a means to make flying more affordable and increase learning for everyone. We are funded with the help of our viewers and subscribers to our website: www.fly8ma.com and our Patreon page: / fly8ma
Every dollar helps us to grow our project into a comprehensive online ground school for Sport, Private, Instrument, and Commercial Pilots. We greatly appreciate all of your support and hope you will share us with your friends and family in #aviation.
FLY SAFE!
-Jon - Авто та транспорт
As to extinguishing the fire, I've read that the composite structure of the plane burned slower and held together better than a standard aluminium hull, which allowed more time for the evacuation. The downside is that the composites are much harder to extinguish once on fire. Overall, this is a good tradeoff, as you want as much time for the evacuation as possible and the plane would've been scrap either way.
Best update and analysis on this crash yet!!
thank you genec9560
So to recap - a military crew spent almost a minute sitting on a runway without a clearance, they were nowhere close to the taxiway they were supposed to hold short at, they had lights off. Nice.
Classic sharp elbows job. The CG captain had been told he was No.1 for take off. That's what the No 1 in his clearance meant. I believe there were other aircraft that were at the C6 threshold hold and he was making damn sure he was No 1. He under-estimated where the A350 was going to touch down. As a pilot I've had no trouble with the rt. It is normal dialogue. None of it was unintelligible so it is strength 5.
Perhaps "#1 for takeoff after A350 on final" would have removed any ambiguity?
@@andrewplumb6544 why was he at C3 when he was told C5? and of course should have waited for permission to enter the runway and not just go in like nothing just because he was told he was going to be first. Delta and others were doing a queue at C1.
@@tonyhorn2954There was no ambiguity. The coastguard plane wasn't cleared to enter the runway
That’s military to you……they don’t fly often, they don’t re-confirm clearances, eventhough it sounds suspicious?…..why would anyone be sitting on an active runway, at a busy international airport for a whole minute?….doesnt that ring a bell somewhere?…..the Coast guard plane is wrong….the captain thought he had the clearance to lineup…..thought is just a thought in one person’s mind…..but had he declare his intention to his co-pilot, his co-pilot may interject, on a runway fir more than 20 sec, one should say, on runway____ready for departure…..this would ring a bell fir the ATC, that there a plane where it’s not suppose to be.
This is the exact type of coverage I've been looking for.
not some bullshit news channel!
Ignore this video, A lot of what he is saying is nonsense.
@@bobg1069 Although too much assumption was made in this video, it's still much better than what mainstream news says about this incident.
@@bobg1069 What about what he said is nonsense
It appears the Dash 8 strobes were on from enhanced CCTV footage. One issue to consider is the A350 HUD. The HUD is notorious for poor dimming. At night, it is not uncommon for pilots to look around the HUD to gain a better appreciation of weather ahead due to a bright green hue. I would also posit the HUD is not focused to infinity.
From what I've heard the Dash 8 was on the alternate tower frequency 124.35 while the A350 was on 118.8. Operating out of uncontrolled G airspace on a regular basis, I can't stress enough how important it is to hear other traffic to build the mental picture and hence situational awareness.
That explains why neither the captain or FO were like "wait, they were just instructed to land on our take off, lets double check things."
I had a similar experience many years ago, with a intersection runway departure, I was told to line up and wait, at the end of the runway another airplane was also told to lineup and wait. I heard it, I immediately told tower, I was ready for takeoff and was cleared. Long story short! I no longer excepted intersection departures.....
My question is “How many flights had that coastguard captain made in the last 24 hours?” If he had been ferrying supplies to the earthquake zone he might have pushed the limits of his own endurance in the name of doing his duty. I’d really like to hear about his last 24 hours. As you said “Make sure you rested…”
🤔good point, might be overworked!
Reuters carried a piece quoting an anonymous source: the plane had previously been involved in ferrying emergency supplies to the quake zone but the pilot, the previous day, had flown a 7 hour mission to do surveillance on some Chinese vessel. He had rtb at 5pm, so realistically had just under a day of rest assuming he lived at the airport.....
@@sereneanna4040 not possible, regulations in JP are very strict related rest times .
I noticed it wasn't mentioned that he may have assumed priority take off because he was on a disaster relief mission.
Good point. Maybe something got to do with fatigue issues
Great video.... Just one clarification.... The airfield diagram you're looking at is out of date.... Two new taxiways were added between C2, and what you shows as C3B...
The two new taxiways are C3 and C4, so..... C5 is now what you shows as c3b.... The dash-8 was just past the touchdown zone markers.
How does a Dash8 sit on an active runway at the country’s busiest airport for 43 seconds and tower doesn’t notice?
Its night and the Dash8 lights are off.
@@ricopunojr.4137 The Dash8 had strobes on in videos I've seen. They look like the old-style xenon strobes rather than the newer LED strobes, but they were visible on camera.
He had no transponder maybe
Standard phraseology is essential regardless of where you are flying in the world. Back in the day I was flying out of a GA airport in a capitol city here in Australia. There were times you were told "Hold short 17 left. Caution Cessna on final" and you would read back the hold short. Then, once the Cessna had landed you would be told "Line up and wait" which you would read back. When the Cessna had vacated you would get "Clear to take off" In this way the tower issues an instruction and expects to hear that instruction repeated back to them so they know you understand exactly what is required. In this case even "You are number one for departure after A350 on final. Hold short 35R" would have prevented the disaster.
That phraseology is still used in the USA and it makes sense. My local field's controllers are very picky (and rightfully so) about phraseology. "53D at A1, ready for takeoff" will get you a good tongue-lashing, with them reminding you that you are ready for DEPARTURE, not take-off and they'll clear you for TO when they've got room for you. It bothers me when I hear people use "ready for takeoff". The "takeoff" word should ONLY be used once you are CLEARED for TO.
@@grayrabbit2211 While no where near as critical, it emphasizes the importance of specific wording and not having any overlap in the words.
I was moving a truck across a yard that had a muddy patch, my boss told me that once i got going, keep going. So when I was driving through the muddy section I was surprised to hear him yell "Stop". It didn't make sense, but maybe he knew of an issue I was unaware of so I stopped.
He then yelled at me for stopping, so I told him that I stopped because I hear "stop". Turns out, he had said "DON"T STOP". Due to the noise of the engine, I didn't hear the "don't" in front of "stop".
Based of the current facts this is a very good explanation and assessment of the incident. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the cockpit recordings when the investigators get to that stage. I cant understand how the Dash8 pilot survived this impact and fire ball. That is truly a miracle.
All the best from NZ.
A very thorough and usefully contextual account--thanks! Not to mention it introduced me to the concept of the PDI, Power Distance Index. Such a brilliant concept, to quantify a cultural/interpersonal dynamic that way, and with much wider application than just cockpit dynamics.
Glad it was helpful!
Just a couple of comments:
1. Both aircraft communicated with ATC on 2 different frequencies..... Possibly a military frequency for the Dash 8.
2. Juan Browne on his Broncolireo site is a long time 767 pilot with plenty of experience. He states beyond a doubt the runway lights are so bright virtually no aircraft lights can be seen over the super bright runway lights.
So the Airbus 350 had no chance to see the Dash 8 until they were mere feet from it if they ever saw it at all during their flare.
3. The Dash 8 either had no ADSB or it was inoperable.
This reminds me of the 1991, USAir Flight 1493 landing on a turboprop. Lots of dominos have to fall before the final one drops, its vitally important to learn from the entire chain of events.
It sure does…..very similar.
According to the tecorders collected from ATC, A350 and C8, ATC told C8 pilot to move to a holding spot, but somehow the pilot interpreted the instruction as a clearance to enter the runway. C8 moved into the runaway, stopped for 40 seconds to wait for a further instruction to ready to fly. That was when A350 touched down and collided with C8.
Living n learning for the better. Thank u for sharing this life real experiences.
Excellent assessment of the material facts, sir. Fly safe...
Thanks, you too!
Honest and realistic. Thank you.
fire response: i was watching the burn when this first hit the news, and the foam truck at the aft left was having trouble dispensing. It was sputtering for a good 2 minutes before they had foam flow
As a civilian traveller I am always mesmerized by the labrinth of roadways leading to the actual runway. I figured it was training and experience that helped pilots navigate this maze. So I was very shocked to hear you say that you, as copilot, had to stop a captain from accidentally crossing a runway, and that the pilot hadn't realized it was the actual runway until you stopped him. Thus, saving you from paperwork\violation. How many other violation close-calls? Yeeps!😢
Because pilots are people and people make mistakes. That is why procedures are designed to build in redundancy wherever possible. In other words, system is working as intended. GPS maps that show your exact position on the airport has helped situations such as this.
Flying the airplane is easy. Trying to navigate the airport is the real difficult part of flying, and that's just during the daytime. At night it's difficult to navigate even your home airport. I use an EFB (electronic flight bag) which has GPS-referenced ground plates so I can see where on the airport diagram I am.
I'm not sure if the Coast Guard crew was using such a thing or if they're relying on something old & crusty like a Garmin 430 which is only good for navigation in-flight.
It is different than driving down the road....A sign is a sign. The media likes to hype up all the plane crashes but neglect the fact that thousands die going to and from the airport in cars each year. The three most dangerous concepts on the planet. religion, pharmaceuticals and driving.
Runway incursions are rare at some airports and worryingly common at others. Sometimes accidents happen, sometime accidents are avoided; but all are a source for concern.
That maze is call “Taxiways “.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
05:48 the landing gear on most aircraft are usually a magnesium alloy. The landing gear were probably on fire after skidding down the runway with no tires. Magnesium is very hard to put out. And burns very hot probably burned through the structure into the cabin eventually
There are videos on Japan News of the plane intact, and not on fire. Fire crews has sprayed the plane down. Left engine was stopped and a fire fighter was shooting foam into the engine from the tail of the engine. The right engine was still running and throwing sparks as it began to destroy itself. It is not known why that engine continued to run. But it would not be surprize that the right engine had a major role in starting a fire and burning that aircraft down.
The main gear structure was intact by the looks,maybe ripped the hydraulics though,that oil will burn like crazy with the ignition source been the Dash.
looks like was the right engine as the cause.
ua-cam.com/video/oy07iqm0p64/v-deo.htmlsi=aUj4G23F-HnWr1gP
Aluminum is hard to extinguish because of the destructive alloy it created when it burns. That is partly why the Twin Towers collapsed after the second plane hit the Twin Towers.
@@herestevenEspecially since the pilot should have shut down the engines once they stopped rolling.
What about a lighting system that illuminates the runway in case of a current landing? Or, for example, big traffic lights that indicate STOP if an airplane is scheduled to land. There is a lot of potential to improve the system on the ground and should be done, especially for airports with high runway incursion and parallel use. It just costs money, but maybe saves lives.
This system with red lights before entering the runway is installed there, unfortunately it wasn't working that day.
I thought it was reported, this airport had those lights but they were inoperable at the time…….I could be wrong, a lot of reporting going on…..
@@freeculturethat system is only used at Haneda in poor visibility. It would not have been on even if working.
This SHOULDN'T be required. Ideally, if you're at the #1 position at the hold-short line, you're listening to the radio, trying to build a mental map of who is in the pattern, along with looking out the window to see if anyone is on approach. Likewise, having some sort of GPS-referenced map display and ADS-B to show other aircraft AND CHECKING IT is good practice.
Adding lighting to the runway is cheap, but changing the crew and culture is very difficult.
The inoperative red stop lights at the runway barrier would NOT have been used on that day. The Haneda procedures document states that they are only used in low visibility conditions.
I feel bad for the coast guard crew, they were heading towards earthquake victims to drop supplies.
It is that which concerns me too and I wonder how many flights these pilots had already done that day and if fatigue could have been a factor.
What you misheard on ATC was the No.1 part. This was the readback from the 1st officer on the Dash 8, adding that No.1, to note that the 1st officer is on the radio, not the captain.
Thanks for this excellent video !
The operating manual for Haneda says the stop bar lights are ONLY used when visibility is less than 600m. The lights would not have been on even if they did not need to be repaired. Nobody would have taken them being off as clearance to enter the runway.
@@Hypersonic-es6vh not understanding what you think it would have done to alert the A350. Maybe it would have given another mental check to the coast guard crew. The runway incursion warning in the tower was a better opportunity to stop the collision by giving a go-around, but that signal was missed.
The A350 could not possibly detect the smaller aircraft, and a go around would have been feasable only if asked by ATC and very early in approach, and ATC was not aware of the position of the other aircraft
Informative... thank you ....
Glad it helps!
I'm not sure I agree with some of what you say. To portion any blame on A350 is totally unfair. There was no confirmation bias, just confirmation. ATC gave permission to land. That's why they are there. If you have to second guess that, there is a problem. PIC focused on flying. PM focused on instruments. PIC looking further down the runway....remember, where you look is where you go. If this was daytime, I'm sure the result would be different.
PF and PM should've cleared entire runway, its a common sim situation to have a truck pull out on the runway at night. Hitting the truck is a fail in the sim, and in real life. You are never "guaranteed" a clear runway, wildlife, vehicles, and aircraft do things they are not supposed to do from time to time, i.e.....
@fly8ma ..all wrong, you sound like you are sim pilot, not real pilot, I stick what commercial pilot say- it would be next to impossible for the Airbus crew to spot that plane in the place/position.
@@fly8ma.comflighttraining199 common for trucks to pull onto active runway? It's certainly not common. It rarely happens anywhere except maybe USA.
@2:25, what is the source of the aerial image that seems to place the Dash 8 wreckage near C3? Nowhere else is C3 mentioned as the entry taken by the Dash 8 nor do any other aerial images indicate the Dash 8 wreckage to be at C3 but rather at C5.
New subscriber always watching your videos❤
Thanks for subbing!
To wrap up: The Dash 8 took the runway without ATC clearance.
They were likely cleared for holding right before one of the runways, but definitely not to be on the runway or within range of the A350 wingspan like that.
Please get your facts straight before you make any speculative conclusions. C5 intersection is not a ‘spot’. It’s a a 90 degree intersection which is also considered a holding point when given instructions for holding short of the runway. In this case, the Coast Guard Dash 8 was clearly instructed to taxi to C5 holding point, not to enter the runway and line up. The Dash 8 was planning an intersection takeoff from C5, runway 34R. This takes away 900 meters from the total TODA 3,360 meters of RJTT 34R (about 27%). Haneda Tower instructed the Dash 8 “number 1”. It could have meant “number 1 for taxi” as there were two other aircraft for taxi or, it could have meant “expect to be number 1 for departure”. This is unclear and only the subsequent investigation will resolve what the instruction really meant. This is standard ICAO phraseology. I am an airline captain who has actively been operating at least twice a month in RJTT for the past 10 years. It’s a very complex airport to operate with a very complicated airport layout specially at night. Taxiways are very complicated to navigate and 6 way intersections and confusing lighting. On top of this, there are too many bright lights that are all on at the same time. Unfortunately for this particular incident, the most important lights, the stop bar was u/s. Another challenge is the very difficult to understand way the Japanese controllers speak English. Having said that, the controllers actually use STANDARD ICAO PHRASEOLOGY. For Americans who use non standard FAA slang, they will have to work on their ICAO standard phraseology in order to understand the transcript for this case. It would also help if you understood that there are 3 approaches for RJTT 34R. ILS Y 34R, ILS Z 34R and finally, HIGHWAY VISUAL 34R. I suspect it was the third one. As far as the comments blaming the JL516 A350 for not having seen the Dash 8 on the runway, one consideration is that the Dash 8 would have entered on intersection C5 which is down almost 1/3 of the length of the runway from the threshold, not where the FDC eyes would have been focused which would have been the threshold or the PAPI (this is a visual approach) which is to the right of the threshold for 34R whereas C5 is on the left. It would also have been very dark and it is possible the Dash 8 did not have all its lights on which would explain why ATC did not notice that the Dash 8 had already entered the runway in error and was actually on the runway for 40 seconds before impact occurred. Lastly, in my personal experience, HND controllers notoriously speak Japanese when communicating with native pilots which takes away from situational awareness of non Japanese speaking pilots. Ironically, this was not the case in this accident. Although the accent is very thick, all the communications in this case were conducted in standard ICAO phraseology.
In the transcript tower says at 17:43:10 "we have departure". Apparently whis was jal25 who was rolling on 34R. This was approx a good safe 3 minutes before jal516 landed. Later at 17:46:09 tower in contact with jal166 "we have departure". In fact jal166 is told to reduce airspeed to 160. So i take it they are aware of a "departure" on 34r taking place. This was approx 75 seconds before the impact. Who told tower that a departure was happening? If jal516 did hear this tiny piece of information would ther have been enough time to go around? It appears the phraseology is not used in the uk, but i did find a japanese manual that was dealing with runway incursion that used a similar phrase " we had a departure" infering past tense. To me the translation of the japanese phrases in the manual into english are not the way the english speakers might say it. I would appreciate any enlightment you could give.
Stop bar lights at Haneda are only used in low visibility (RVR less than 600m)
This could happen to any of us, let’s not blame anyone, but learn from this
Nonsense.
Everyone, pilots and ATC, was to blame. Not knowing who was to blame cannot make us learn anything from it.
This should not happen. Pilots have to be in tune with the ATC and other aircraft near the airport when they taxi and when they are landing.
It’s not about blaming, but rather to determine the root cause, which is the role of the NTSB.
According to some reports, the Dash 8 did have a cockpit voice recorder on board. Also, according to ICAO document, Haneda airport had a surface movement radar. The investigation's report will be interesting reading.
Heres some fire science to try and help understand, with full acknowledgement that I'm not an airport firefighter so its more general than specific to aircraft. The biggest point is volume and scale, the larger ARFF trucks carry about 3,000 gallons of water and plenty of foam to flow all of that water and more at the 3% mixture its used for hydrocarbons and they can apply that volume in 1-2 minutes. In comparison thats enough to put out around 4-6 average car fires. Its already at a scale thats hard to surpass in a mobile package. To get a 2,000 gpm water supply requires multiple large diameter hose Iines and hydrants within 500 feet of any location supplied by a large water main, and youd likely max that out with one truck unless its comically large. So you have an airfield thats the size of some towns that needs multiple large independent water mains and high volume hydrants every 1,000 feet in any direction and a seperate apparatus to carry the hose. Its far easier to just have multiple apparatus that are huge yet mobile and can fill from a central location and shuttle what is needed. The only comparable industry for scale in firefighting is oil refineries and storage.
Also to note is that foam is simply a wetting agent, not a magic wand. It works primarily by creating a barrier between the fuel and the air but requires a full blanketing of the fuel, this isnt possible on the fuselage or engines so while it still helps, the foam isnt as effective compared to fuel on the ground burning in a puddle for example. As for the qmount of fire, a gallon of fuel is around 6.8 pounds, an A350 burns about 12,000 pounds an hour at cruise and as a passenger I'm going to hope they've got at least an hour left going in to land on the first attempt so at minimum roughly 1,750 gallons or one fuel truck worth. Not including what it took with it from the other aircraft as it crashed thru and was splashed onto the massive surface area of the Airbus. You also have the hold below full of luggage and cargo of unknown composition and even the paint and composites on the aircraft that are all burning. Theres just such a scale in place here where its simply unrealistic to have the goal of total extinguishment given whats burning and the resources that can be in place in an effective time. If it were mine to strategize the goal wouldnt even be to, it would be to focus the fire attack in the best manner to shield the people until they can evacuate. To hold it back, not to overreach with the resources and be ineffective towards a goal thats not realistic.
Finally, there were no fatalities on that plane. After that fireball, the plane and passenger area remained viable for long enough to get everyone off. Whatever the final report is as to how much that was the crew or the fire response, everyone got out. Most of the videos and pictures are well after that first 2 minutes. At that point show me the reward to justify the risk of doing more than containing the fire and letting it burn itself out. As for going bigger, the logistics of moving that scale of water is a science unto itself and while anything is possible without boundaries and budgets, its impossible to justify in this case and nearly as impossible to make happen in a matter of minutes.
One thing regarding ATC. According to another great channel (blancolirio), the AVHerald notes they were on different tower frequencies. He noted this is not unusual for very large airports like Haneda?
This may explain the crews not hearing one another's calls.
The Dash 8 read correctly read back the instruction, so why did they enter the runway?
@@bethhentges Same channel noted it could be the copilot was on comms while Captain focused on operating the aircraft. Maybe from ATC to copilot to pilot operating, some miscommunication occurred. 🤷♂️
@outermarker5801: The protocol for the cockpit crew for the Japanese Coast Guard is for both pilot and copilot to listen to their own tower comms. Thus, both of them heard ATC, and their read-back, yet interpreted it as permission to go past C5 and line up on 34R. Evidently, both misinterpreted the tower.
Noticing a few missing runway centre lights is probably not something that would happen unless one was specifically looking for it. Perhaps one could train oneself to do that, but this type of collision is very rare, and there's a lot of other stuff to be thinking about.
Airport firefighter here, i cant say they are doing it wrong, but in the US there likely would not be handlines deployed but the “crash trucks” would be flowing foam and shuttling in additional water if no water supply is established
How about seeing the strobe lights or not seeing the strobe light on the dash 8 ?
Imagine being in one of the other aircraft in line to take off and see at the last seconds what was going to happen and not be able to do anything.
Non-flyer perspective. 1. Mandatory working runway incursion traffic lights or close the airport. 2. Research into improving ATC communication clarity should be a priority.
Was the A350 pilot looking through a HUD (Head Up Display) , making it more difficult to see the Dash 8? For pilots flying into non-towered airports this is critical as we pilots have 100% responsibility to avoid this occurrence. "See and Avoid" is very difficult at times. We need all the help that we can get.
The part of your video (which was excellent) that I liked the best was when at 11:40 you related the incident of you as FO putting on the brakes when you realized the captain was not going to hold short of an intersection. It'll be interesting to see if we get a cockpit voice recorder tape if the FO said anything but I doubt it because they had 40 seconds to get back off the runway and they didn't. It looks like neither of them realized they shouldn't have been there. So sad.
My question is the audio better in cockpit because after knowing from the released transcript the dash8 pilot was told to hold short can’t really hear it in the audio but can hear the clear to land better
I am shocked to hear that abs-d isn't required at that airport and the Dash8 didn't have it. I won't fly without it today it is a huge improvement is safety.
I used to hate the idea of spending more money, but once you have it you deff want it in everything you fly
DASH8=LADD
I know that this Monday morning quarterbacking but I was taught to look left and right before entering the active to check no one on final.
Normal at a busy airport to have someone on a 3-4mi final, you just make sure you're rolling quick. Line up and wait clearance with traffic 3 out is pretty rare
does the air or ground traffic controller not see where airplanes are on their screen
I did some research and apparently the -8 was on a different tower frequency than the A350 even though it's the same runway
From what I've read, the aeroplane's shell is designed to burn in a way that creates a charred outer layer and slow down the overall burning so anyone inside has more time to get out. There are some trees in Australia that also do this as fire protection. However, I imagine it might come with the downside that the material is overall more burnable, thus why after a while it completely burnt down. That said I could be completely wrong.
Planes are so large it would take a huge amount of foam to 100% cut off the fire's air supply, and you'd need to somehow deliver if from above, where the fire is the most dangerous. Not to mention that most methods of putting big fires out are not safe for humans, so if they thought anyone might still be in there they would have to be very careful.
The thing about firefighters is that more often than not, they can't put out the fire. They're there to control it and stop it spreading.
The pilot of the Dash 8 was told that he was no 1 to take off. Yes we all hear that he was told to hold at C5 but with the lights being out at C5 his visual information was conflicting with the audible and mentally visual always trumps audible. He should have held at C5 and confirmed the clearance Its the way we are wired, As for controlling the fire you have to remember that they would only have half the fire fighting capacity at the A350 and there wouldn't be enough foam to suppress the fire at both the Dash 8 and the A350
Update? did the plane still crash? what is there to update?
5:20 my take is firefighters were not trying to suppress the fire but to protect the emergency exits.
I think the problem is when the fire is on the inside of the plane it’s hard for firefighters to get the foam inside to control the fire. I think aswell there is to much flammable things inside the plane. They won’t protect more against fire because of the cost of taking fewer passengers.
Initially the fire was in the exterior and should have been able to be controlled to keep it out of the cabin.
Good coverage but it looks like an old aerodrome chart you have there. On newer ones you can see the dash 8 entered the runway via C5
First of all,a huge thank you for the excellent explanation of the situation ..I'm an avgeek but with zero technical knowledge about flying or avionics..still I could understand clearly what went wrong.. Secondly,I am amazed to notice that pilots actually understand those garbled radio messages..they sound so inaudible,vague and full of static and yet the pilots work day after day decoding and understanding them..how do you do that? So they teach separately about these ATC messages during the pilot training?
Why have we not seen any video or photos of the Dash-8 at all? That leaves me curious.
There are video images in this post... look between 20:00 and 23:00 ... any burnt fuselage without wings is the Dash 8. Also recognizable by its size... the Airbus absolutely dwarves human figures. The Dash 8 is pretty small when you see people walking around it.
Situational overload. Easy for mistakes to happen. It just goes to show how multiple things can come to together to form a tragedy.
You are incorrect with your taxy way chart. The dash 8 lined up from C5, the chart you are referencing is out of date. Check latest taxy way charts.
Nice analysis. Its clear now, Dash 8 is on C3 not c5. He used the runway as taxiway going to C5. Dash 8 not even reach the C4 when the A350 hit the Dash 8.
2:28 Dash 8 actually on c3 not c5
You talk well sir. Thank you. :-)
Thank you kindly
Is "spot C5" the same location as "holding point C5"? Isn't that where the planes would have to hold prior to being cleared to taxi to the runway?
Same
2:26 There's a discrepancy here between your assertion that he was at C3 and charts shown elsewhere, e.g. Blancolirio. From Google Maps it seems he was at C5.
Your GND Chart is wrong and old.
Holding point C5 is now moved to C3 on your old chart. That Red circle point is now C5.
Use the available new chart.
5:00 not criticizing my fellow firefighters, but some early videos indicate they did not attack the engine fires early and some of the application of foam was to the top of the fuselage when the fire was in the engines and at the ground level.
Initially, the trucks seemed to stay only on the hard surface and not on the right side of the aircraft where there was an exit to protect. Haneda has plenty of fire trucks being a CAT 10 airport and they had up to 115 fire trucks in total finally arrive, but I don't see that in the videos.
A similar situation happened during the Emirates 777 crash of 2016. The fire was small and the first fire crews did not start attacking the fire. Eventually the fire got out of control and the entire aircraft was lost.
It will be interesting to learn how the composite materials performed in the fire conditions as compared to the traditional aluminum alloys bodies.
I think there needs to be some ARFF research on the composite aircraft and firefighting. I wonder if the foam did not work on the A350 as an older type aircraft.
Aqueous Film Forming Foam is just for covering pools of fuel on the ground. It is not for vertical and sloped surfaces.
Just for your information, the A350 and most of all Airbus, below 50' enters Direct Law , therefore full authority on the stick ( no input to the Flight Contros Computers ) . Below 50' Go Around was possible.
There are videos on Japan News of the plane intact, and not on fire as people evacuated the plane. Fire crews had sprayed the plane down. Left engine was stopped and a fire fighter was shooting foam into the engine from the tail of the engine. The right engine was still running and throwing sparks out the exhaust as it began to destroy itself. It is not known why that engine continued to run. But it would not be a surprize that the right engine had a major role in starting a fire and burning that aircraft down.
What amazed me as a retired aircraft engineer was the amount of flammable material in that cabin .Maybe it was fuel from the tanks.
Why did captain 615 and Tower Controller never see 722 on R/W 34 R ?
Night time didn't help
Why there are no red lights and boom barriers on runway entry points?
They have red lights, they were broken that day
The graphic simulation at 0:24s is incorrect, as it shows the turboprop entering the runway from a high-speed (angled) entry. This is false. They entered from a 90° intersection, as is almost always the case with intersection departures. The graphic shown at 01:30 is equally incorrect, in that it does not depict the perpendicular entry of C5 to the runway.
“Followin’ the facts, Followin’ the facts, Followin’ the facts”, but IN FACT the presenter here did not take the few minutes needed here to research and ascertain the real facts, which would have clearly indicated he was off on a wrong track….
So why does it matter whether the turboprop entered on a perpendicular or an angled entry? It matters because a UK Virgin Captain - someone people will believe as an authority - has given an interview indicating his “theory” that the turboprop, entering on a high-speed, slanted taxiway, did not perceive the STOP bars, because they were out of service, and continued not knowing he was already on the runway. This is a ridiculous and easily discredited theory, but It is an excellent illustration of how people - even highly trained professionals - not in possession of the full factual record may concoct wholly fallacious scenarios.
The more experience one has with this type of investigation, the more one comes to accept the maxim that “Until you know EVERYTHING about an accident investigation, You know NOTHING” about its causes, and even then, there will always be something that has eluded you….
So, discerning readers, please be cautious of those Internet commenters, eager to get their copy out first to profit from the greatest possible clicks and advertising dollars. The people who know how to evaluate these tragic events are ALWAYS those who do not rush to flash their tattoos to garner clicks in the first hours.
Smart people wait…
VASAviation has a video where one can see the Dash8 turning onto the runway. If that’s correct, then it’s not that the Dash8 simply passed the hold short line; he lined up on the runway.
The open exits acted as a wind tunnel, which increased the air going into the fuselage.
Thanks for the very logical hypothetical report
I completely agree with your hypothesis
Unfortunately, in Japan, the focus is on finding the culprit rather than investigating the root cause.
In Japan the culture dictates no single person takes the credit or blame for incident in any industry. A team or group share blame or credit. I wouldn’t be surprised if we never get to the bottom of this tragedy
Was the fuselage made of all fiberglass?
majority carbon fiber, probably some kevlar or s glass in there too
Have you considered the Coast Guard crew had a case of get-there-itis? In a hurry to get to the earthquake area.
Definitely, and maybe more used to military airports instead of heavy traffic Haneda.
How many times had that crew flown that day? I bet there are issues around fatigue also.
I agree that earthquake aid is stressful and exhausting. But if anyone shouldn't be pushed to disregard procedures and safety or time-stressed by rescue situations, it should be the Coast Guard.
I think that the TCAS needs to be evaluated and developed further so that it can also detect traffic on the landing strip. That could increase consistency to 100% in preventing runway incursions. Seemingly, TCAS only works between air/air targets. It would be highly beneficial if it would also work between air/ground, ground/air and preferably ground/ground targets. That would my advisory towards aviation to tackle this issue.
Yes, exactly wtpuck is why did they not get it under control inside?!? 2024 & it was charcoal ?!?
Extinguishing the fire - the Dash-8 ripped up the belly of the A350 and a lot of burning fuel from the Dash-8 probably ended up in the hold. So everything in the hold has probably caught fire. Live feeds from shortly after the incident clearly showed the A350 burning in the cabin. So that is difficult to extinguish and it fire spreads quickly upwards.
Also, emergency crew probably spend the first few minutes focusing on keeping escape routes for the passengers allowing the fire time to spread.
The surviving captain very likely won't be able to admit to himself that he made a mistake... if his crew made it out, he'd be more likely to accept the situation.
I think it's too early to do the "blame game". Much of what you said are primary factors that need to be focused on to determine if they had any impact on the incident. Only after looking at all the factors can the true timeline of actions and equipment be determined to be the primary, secondary, etc. causal factors of the incident.
2017, NAIA close call.... we are on board the Emirates A300 approaching to land nearly clipped the CEBPAC domestic flight taking off. Thanks God it didn't happened I'm still alive.
I'm not a pilot but I understand the responsibility they carry. Based on what I watched and your commentary this is my thoughts. The Dash 8 pilot seemed clear, based on his statement, that he was given the ok to enter the runway. Also, ATC needs to be crystal clear when giving instructions to pilots to eliminate ambiguity. This is so convoluted it may be impossible to understand who was actually at fault.
Blame is gonna get spread around on this one...they'll try to blame just one guy, but it'll spread by the time its all said and done
But he wasn't told to taxi onto the runway even though that's what the coastguard plane pilot later said. That's clear from the audio.
We know that. It's clear the pilot was fatigued and confused.
And the readback was correct.
Another channel said that it can be difficult to see something that is on the runway, but why wouldn't they have been able to see anticollision lights on the Dash-8?
When you are looking at 528 lights your brain doesn't normally think 'hold on - is that 532 lights?'. Or, it's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. It just a complication of brain saturation.
I have not read any report of the Tower stating “One on final”, that would make me immediately look for him, that is one of the holes in the cheese. ATP-RW, Com-FW, retired.
Question about runway incursion is appropriate and looking to the right as we enter the runway, clear final is important. What is more important did ground controller tell to switch to Tower frequency, and if he did then he should have heard the tower say "JAL you cleared to land RWY 34R" that could have raised alarm bells in the coast guard cockpit. Since weather was clear, great visibility then what about the crew looking outside in the direction of the runway. I know its dark, lots of lights but with the DASH-8 on the runway, lot's of centerline were certainly missing with aircraft parked on the runway.
Aircraft have Nav and taxi lights, how could you miss those at 500 yards??
Fire apparatus is using puncturing into the fuselage to suppress fire what I just learned on another USA show today
The example chart 0:35 shows a C-1 through C-6 Taxi Way On before a C-7 Taxi Way Off. This supports the information about the crash on location C-5 on the runway. The chart 1:26 there is only C-1 - C-5 On before a C-6 Off and does not support the info of the crash and Dash 8 could not have used C-5 but C-4 where the wreckage of Dash 8 looks like it was before the last taxi on. The recording of Dash 8 and the control tower gives information of the pilot knowing where he was and what he was doing. Who saw Dash 8 taxi to the holding point ? There were no taxi or runway lights because they were not operational and the crew on the A350 did not ?
The smoke tells what kind of burning fire it is, in this case it shows flames with black thick smoke, maybe google knows 🙄
Reminds me odf Tenerefe KLM 747takes iff when not given permission and crashes into Pan Am 747 just before I flew to Euro
Carbon fiber uses epoxy resin binder. That's probably why the fuselage burns like that. It's the binder.
All 3 A350 pilots reported that they didn't see anything on the runway. It is easy to miss an aircraft that is has been sitting, not moving for over 40 seconds. The strobe lights would just blend into all the other lights on the airport if the dash-8 is just sitting there. So not going to worry too much about the A350 pilots not paying attention. ADSB wouldn't be the system to detect an airplane on the ground. There is another system to do that, but I don't recall what it is called, but it is a system installed on the ground, not in the plane. It isn't installed at that airport I understand.
ASDE (airport surface detection equipment)
All Pilots are trained to expect the unexpected..
ATC instruction should be "hold on taxiway".. "do not enter onto runway, aircraft is on final for landing"..
ATC did not note aircraft on runway so as to give incoming go around..
Aircraft entering onto runways usually do so with strobes on..
Hopefully this unfortunate incident will be featured regularly in future pilot training..
R.I.P..
Mentour Pilot covers all "impossible" accident scenarios on U Tube..
They don't say this anymore since the Tenerife disaster. By default, you never enter a runway without explicit permission. they did told them to go hold C5 and that means WAIT there, in addition they were told they were going to be first so they should have patiently waited in their assigned spot (not C3, and not enter an active runway).
The Swiss Cheese Model!
It demonstrates how, generally, a failure cannot be traced back to a single root cause.
Accidents are often the result of a combination of factors.
It suggests that most accidents are the result of latent errors, which are failures that are intrinsic to a procedure, machine, or system.
You are wrong on one important point. The evacuation did not begin until about 6.5 minutes... I watched a full video today with clock showing from inside the cabin. I agree that the fire Fighters screwed up a bit.
Do you have link to full video?
@@Han-ve8uh ua-cam.com/video/ioCwZhhL8vE/v-deo.htmlsi=uLO6d4UVTfoG0Hx9
Haneda ATC after the crash: "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!"