Within the last 45 minutes, others are also reporting on the ATC transcripts. This is from CNN: Air traffic control gave the JAL passenger plane permission to land on Runway C at 5:43:26 p.m. local time (3:43:26 a.m. ET), according to the transcript. However, the transcript does not show clear takeoff approval for the coast guard aircraft, instead telling it to “taxi to holding point” at 5:45:11 p.m. (3:45:11 a.m. ET). The crew of the coast guard plane confirmed the instruction seconds later, according to the transcript. About 2 mins later, the 2 planes collided. Also, according to CNN, The flight recorders have been recovered from the CG plane, but not the JAL flight.
- Why was the Dash 8 given (and the pilot-in-command opted for) an intersection departure. While the Dash 8 is certainly capable of departing in half of the 9,840 feet that constitutes 34R, the safest option is to insist on a full-length departure. Nothing more useless than runway behind you, etc...
- How much of a factor was pilot fatigue, given that the crew was responding to a natural disaster with understandably heightened workload demands and pressure to "get the job done".
- The safe evacuation of everyone on the Japan Airlines flight recalls the 2 August 2005 crash of an Air France A340 that overran the runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport. In that case, too, all 309 on board escaped as flames enveloped the aircraft.
What is also astonishing is the seeming normalcy on the tarmac after the initial impact. Worker continues to walk toward the building, with out turning. Presumably had hearing protection on. Plane continued to be backed out of its terminal position.
But what did surprise me, watching to the end was no appearance of flashing lights heading to the Dash 7. I don't think i messed them. Headed towards the Airbus?
"Perhaps future safety briefings need to be a lot more blunt:
'In Tokyo, everyone left their bags and stuff behind … and everyone got out alive.'"
Sobering and realistic: so much of the socials convo I have seen on this concludes that American pax would not all have survived, because some of them would have insisted on taking their luggage, and slowed egress to a fatal degree.
CNA - Channel News Asia - reports that the Minister of Transport told reporters that the Coast Guard plane was told to taxi and stop (hold short) at runway 34 and Flight 516 had been given clearance to land. https://youtu.be/sx_dGKmDOTI?si=1NOKSECzGqCVOuHj
I was greatly impressed by the rapidity with which the Japan Airways professionals emptied the burning plane before it exploded. There was a curious comment that this was possible with Japanese passengers, but less certain were they Chinese passengers, who might have been less obedient to follow orders to flee without hand baggage.
This becomes curious and curiouser—but kudos to no Japanese Airways deaths or injuries.
The crew of an arriving jet did not see an aircraft holding in position; its lights were lost among the bright approach and touchdown zone lights on the runway. The jet landed on top of the smaller turboprop.
The Haneda crash also recalls another near disaster at night at San Francisco involving Air Canada flight 759. In 2017. The landing jet confused the parallel taxiway with the runway. Only the urgent warning from the pilot of another airliner waiting to take off averted a terrible collision.
There's a good article about the evacuation of the Japan Airlines plane at https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/inside-a-flaming-jet-367-passengers-had-minutes-to-flee-heres-how-they-did-it-f0e3c2dc or on Apple News+ at https://apple.news/AI5vbKsdmTXiWSHz4PeGAGg
Within the last 45 minutes, others are also reporting on the ATC transcripts. This is from CNN: Air traffic control gave the JAL passenger plane permission to land on Runway C at 5:43:26 p.m. local time (3:43:26 a.m. ET), according to the transcript. However, the transcript does not show clear takeoff approval for the coast guard aircraft, instead telling it to “taxi to holding point” at 5:45:11 p.m. (3:45:11 a.m. ET). The crew of the coast guard plane confirmed the instruction seconds later, according to the transcript. About 2 mins later, the 2 planes collided. Also, according to CNN, The flight recorders have been recovered from the CG plane, but not the JAL flight.
Some thoughts that come to my pilot's mind:
- Why was the Dash 8 given (and the pilot-in-command opted for) an intersection departure. While the Dash 8 is certainly capable of departing in half of the 9,840 feet that constitutes 34R, the safest option is to insist on a full-length departure. Nothing more useless than runway behind you, etc...
- How much of a factor was pilot fatigue, given that the crew was responding to a natural disaster with understandably heightened workload demands and pressure to "get the job done".
- The safe evacuation of everyone on the Japan Airlines flight recalls the 2 August 2005 crash of an Air France A340 that overran the runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport. In that case, too, all 309 on board escaped as flames enveloped the aircraft.
What is also astonishing is the seeming normalcy on the tarmac after the initial impact. Worker continues to walk toward the building, with out turning. Presumably had hearing protection on. Plane continued to be backed out of its terminal position.
But what did surprise me, watching to the end was no appearance of flashing lights heading to the Dash 7. I don't think i messed them. Headed towards the Airbus?
"Perhaps future safety briefings need to be a lot more blunt:
'In Tokyo, everyone left their bags and stuff behind … and everyone got out alive.'"
Sobering and realistic: so much of the socials convo I have seen on this concludes that American pax would not all have survived, because some of them would have insisted on taking their luggage, and slowed egress to a fatal degree.
CNA - Channel News Asia - reports that the Minister of Transport told reporters that the Coast Guard plane was told to taxi and stop (hold short) at runway 34 and Flight 516 had been given clearance to land. https://youtu.be/sx_dGKmDOTI?si=1NOKSECzGqCVOuHj
Jim Again warm thanks for your expertise.!
I was greatly impressed by the rapidity with which the Japan Airways professionals emptied the burning plane before it exploded. There was a curious comment that this was possible with Japanese passengers, but less certain were they Chinese passengers, who might have been less obedient to follow orders to flee without hand baggage.
This becomes curious and curiouser—but kudos to no Japanese Airways deaths or injuries.
As more details emerge, this crash seems similar to a deadly 1991 collision on a runway at KLAX: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_runway_disaster
The crew of an arriving jet did not see an aircraft holding in position; its lights were lost among the bright approach and touchdown zone lights on the runway. The jet landed on top of the smaller turboprop.
The Haneda crash also recalls another near disaster at night at San Francisco involving Air Canada flight 759. In 2017. The landing jet confused the parallel taxiway with the runway. Only the urgent warning from the pilot of another airliner waiting to take off averted a terrible collision.