Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

JAL Airbus A350 and Japan coast guard plane collide on runway at Haneda.

379 from Airbus survive, 5 from smaller plane dead.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240102-japan-airlines-plane-on-fire-on-runway-at-tokyo-s-haneda-airport-tv-images

---

I saw a picture and thought those looked like A350 windows. I'll have to hit up airliners.net for more.

0:20 on that video is the collision off in the background.

Captain of Dash 8 survives the collision.

Wouldn't a "near miss" be a hit?

smh

When ability is not considered to be an important criteria to do the job, this is what we get.

sleepybeagle said:

---

Señor Chang said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Correlation vs Causation.

---

So the number of near misses is correlated to "diversity" in the FAA? What conclusion would you draw from this?

---

Let's see... What happens if:

a) I hire the most qualified people no matter what they look like
b) I hire people who fit a particular political guideline, regardless of how qualified they are

Asked another way... How many games do you think an NFL football team would win if they drafted defensive backs based on DEI?

---

What would be nice would to be able to figure out a way to run people through interviews without divulging anything that is immaterial to the job at hand so that they would have to hire on ability and only on ability.

Early transcripts from air traffic control seem to indicate that the Japanese Coast Guard pilot taxied onto an active runway without being cleared to do so.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/japanese-transport-officials-police-begin-site-probe-after-106065758

Seems the Coast Guard plane was told to taxi to a 'hold short' point just off the runway. Sure looks like he pulled onto the runway, instead

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jl516-tokyo-accident/

Was phraseology a factor?

aviationag said:

---

Was phraseology a factor?

---

I don't know. From reading the articles, it doesn't seem as if the transcript linked by "Yokel" is exactly the same as the one I linked.

Side issue, English is used in international aviation communication. But I have no idea if it would be used for domestic flights in Japan.

DIE is almost everything to these Airline CEOs and the recent nose wheel landing that bent a 767 was definitely a DIE hire.

This guy puts it all on the Coast Guard plane

Coast guard was cleared to taxi to runway holding position C5. Not lineup and wait, not onto the runway and a fairly typically taxi instruction overseas.

They messed up and it cost their lives. Everyone in aviation makes mistakes, some just die for it while the rest of us get lucky.

Also seeing that the c5 stop bar (think stop light for taxiing onto a runway) has been down for a week now, so that indicator to the coast guard plane was not available.

Bad confluence of events.

Still stuck on how that plane was on active runway for 40 seconds without anyone in control tower noticing.

I would be upset with myself or one of my coworkers if they tried to sell me on the fact they took an active runway because the lights were out.

It's painted on the taxi way and it's fairly obvious either way where the runway is.

Swiss cheese theory. As CB17 said, lights being out is not an excuse, but just lines up one more hole in the Swiss cheese. Maybe if the lights were working, no wreck. But pilot ignored lots of other things to have ended up on the runway.

Quote:

---

Still stuck on how that plane was on active runway for 40 seconds without anyone in control tower noticing.

---

I can see how it would be easy to miss at night. But I guess I was under the impression that ground control had radar to track planes on the ground. Did I just imagine that?

B-1B crash landed in South Dakota.

All four aircrew ejected.

Link

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Also seeing that the c5 stop bar (think stop light for taxiing onto a runway) has been down for a week now, so that indicator to the coast guard plane was not available.

Bad confluence of events.

Still stuck on how that plane was on active runway for 40 seconds without anyone in control tower noticing.

---

If Japan issues their version of NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen), would that have likely been in a NOTAM?

Juan Brown, aka Blancolirio over on YouTube, had an update yesterday. In addition to the stop bar lights at C5 (and other crossings) being out, the tower transcript was released.

Three flights were taxiing on C. Delta and JAL were sent to C1 to lineup and wait. Delta was told they were number 2 in line. The next taxiing aircraft to talk was the Coast Guard. They were told they were No 1 in line and to taxi to C5. Then JAL was sent to C1 as No 3 in line. Interspersed in this the A350 was cleared to land and advised that departures were also occurring on the same runway. A second plane was in line to land behind the A350 and was later diverted.

According to Blancolirio the captain will taxi as the tiller (nose wheel steering controls) are on his side. During that time the First Officer will almost exclusively handle the radio. He suspects anticipation bias. The Captain is taxiing and listening to his FO on the radios. The Captain knows they're doing an intersection takeoff and he's likely heard that they're No 1 ahead of the jumbos 1500 ft away at C1.

C5 is just beyond the touchdown zone. This is the area down the runway and indicated by the large thick white stripes painted on the surface. At night the touchdown zone would be indicated by wide bands of lighting in the pavement. The De Havilland would have indicator lights on the wing tips and a rotator or flashing beacon on top of the plane (likely obscured by the high T-tail). Being just beyond brighter lights of the touchdown zone their takeoff and taxi lights would probably just blend into the background sea of lights.

Additionally the A350 had probably just touched down with their mains and the nose would have been elevated still in the flair. Early photos show nose cone/radome damage but no wind screen damage. I don't know the exact height comparisons, but I suspect they were still bringing the nose down and ran the nose of their plane right over/through the T-tail which ground the entire plane underneath them.

eric76 said:

---

If Japan issues their version of NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen), would that have likely been in a NOTAM?

---

Yes, buried somewhere amongst the dozens of pages full of garbage.

Interesting note here:
https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0

Quote:

---

According to a Japanese Media report by a reporter on board of the A359 as passenger the evacuation was mainly completed about 7 minutes after the collision, the captain subsequently walked through the aircraft and found a number of passengers who had not yet evacuated and prompted them to leave the aircraft. The captain was the last to leave the aircraft 18 minutes after coming to a stop.

In the evening of Jan 5th 2024 the Ministry added, that the aircraft had been evacuated within 7 minutes after the collision, however, it took another 11 minutes until the captain managed to convince several petrified passengers still in the cabin to leave the aircraft.

---

Haven't heard of a report like this before where passengers are so traumatized (and otherwise physically uninjured) they don't have the wherewithal to leave the aircraft.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

B-1B crash landed in South Dakota.

All four aircrew ejected.

Link

---

My dad and I were talking about this just this morning. He lives in the country, west of Abilene, and has Dyess AFB B-1's fly over all the time. Said, "I hope they don't start dropping out of the sky and land on me." Made me chuckle.

Logos Stick said:

---

Listening to Walsh yesterday. He claimed Obama went hard on DIE in the FAA in 2013. Claimed that per NASA the last decade, the number of near misses has risen significantly, normalized for number of flights.

I googled and there are numerous articles, one from NYT in August , backing this claim.

Are we headed for a disaster here?

---

Near misses are racist.

The Fife said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

JAL Airbus A350 and Japan coast guard plane collide on runway at Haneda.

379 from Airbus survive, 5 from smaller plane dead.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240102-japan-airlines-plane-on-fire-on-runway-at-tokyo-s-haneda-airport-tv-images

---

I saw a picture and thought those looked like A350 windows. I'll have to hit up airliners.net for more.

---

DEI from that bisexual Muslim Marxist Biden is so dangerous it's killing people in Japan!

Logos Stick said:

---

Listening to Walsh yesterday. He claimed Obama went hard on DIE in the FAA in 2013. Claimed that per NASA the last decade, the number of near misses has risen significantly, normalized for number of flights.

I googled and there are numerous articles, one from NYT in August , backing this claim.

Are we headed for a disaster here?

---

From what I have read, the near misses point to staffing shortages. I have not read anything that mentions DEI as a reason. That does not mean that this is the case as we all know the media lies, obfuscates, and omits.

A friend of mine back in the early 90's wanted to become an air traffic controller and was waiting tables at the time. One day he was waiting on a guy who was with the FAA and expressed to him his desire to become an air traffic controller. He said the guy looked at him and said, "I hate to break it to you, but you are the wrong color and sex and it is very unlikely that you become an air traffic controller." This was around 1994 mind you!

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Or that it doesn't matter what skin tone someone is and that people into aviation are into aviation, take pictures and share their passion.

---

She's hauling more hair than the 1980's.

Bubblez said:

---

Quote:

---

Haven't heard of a report like this before where passengers are so traumatized (and otherwise physically uninjured) they don't have the wherewithal to leave the aircraft.

---

---

My guess would be that with earlier commercial aircraft with more flammable materials on board, there were people who panicked and froze, but instead of getting off last they burned up and died.

TriAg2010 said:

---

Where is the data to show that diversity hires are involved in near-misses or accidents at higher rates? I see some taking anecdotes - whether verified or not - and passing that off as accepted fact. There are obvious reasons why near misses could be increasing that are not caused by DEI hires:... That has to be considered before reaching a conclusion.

---

You want EVIDENCE? Ain't nobody got time for that.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Juan Brown, aka Blancolirio over on YouTube, had an update yesterday. In addition to the stop bar lights at C5 (and other crossings) being out, the tower transcript was released.

Three flights were taxiing on C. Delta and JAL were sent to C1 to lineup and wait. Delta was told they were number 2 in line. The next taxiing aircraft to talk was the Coast Guard. They were told they were No 1 in line and to taxi to C5. Then JAL was sent to C1 as No 3 in line. Interspersed in this the A350 was cleared to land and advised that departures were also occurring on the same runway. A second plane was in line to land behind the A350 and was later diverted.

According to Blancolirio the captain will taxi as the tiller (nose wheel steering controls) are on his side. During that time the First Officer will almost exclusively handle the radio. He suspects anticipation bias. The Captain is taxiing and listening to his FO on the radios. The Captain knows they're doing an intersection takeoff and he's likely heard that they're No 1 ahead of the jumbos 1500 ft away at C1.

C5 is just beyond the touchdown zone. This is the area down the runway and indicated by the large thick white stripes painted on the surface. At night the touchdown zone would be indicated by wide bands of lighting in the pavement. The De Havilland would have indicator lights on the wing tips and a rotator or flashing beacon on top of the plane (likely obscured by the high T-tail). Being just beyond brighter lights of the touchdown zone their takeoff and taxi lights would probably just blend into the background sea of lights.

Additionally the A350 had probably just touched down with their mains and the nose would have been elevated still in the flair. Early photos show nose cone/radome damage but no wind screen damage. I don't know the exact height comparisons, but I suspect they were still bringing the nose down and ran the nose of their plane right over/through the T-tail which ground the entire plane underneath them.

---

Haven't watched the video, but I think you're saying the Dash 8 was down the runway expecting a C5 intersection departure and had been told to LUAW. At that point, the red and green wingtip lights aren't visible to anyone behind you. So all there would be is the beacon and white recognition lights - maybe strobes. Landing and taxi lights may not both be on (I know I leave one off until I've been cleared for takeoff) and are pointed forward/blocked by the airplane from behind. I imagine that's pretty tough to see since they're the same color as the TD zone lighting. Oof. Not good.

They weren't told to line up and wait

They were told to taxi to C5 runway holding position, number 1or similar verbiage meaning to taxi and hold short at C5, number 1 for departure


They were never cleared onto the runway and the A-350 was cleared to land and didn't see them.

Agree with your point. But I think their terminology is a little wacked. Telling him he was number 1 for departure could be construed as takeoff clearance.

I know it should not have been seen as clearance, but why risk it?

I'm wondering if this will be a case of bad communication between the FO and the pilot, as to the radio calls. Added to that a FO who was hesitant to tell his superior that the superior messed up

Number for departure is common at busy air fields

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Swiss cheese theory. As CB17 said, lights being out is not an excuse, but just lines up one more hole in the Swiss cheese. Maybe if the lights were working, no wreck. But pilot ignored lots of other things to have ended up on the runway.

I can see how it would be easy to miss at night. But I guess I was under the impression that ground control had radar to track planes on the ground. Did I just imagine that?

---

They do, but there have been similar incidents where the ground radar has not been operational at the critical moment (Swiss cheese theory, as you note).

Not all airfields are designed such that the tower has the ability to maintain visual contact with all aircraft on the ground; don't know whether this is the case at Haneda.

Similar incident.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Number for departure is common at busy air fields

---

Lubbock is as busy as I ever got.

Señor Chang said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Correlation vs Causation.

---

So the number of near misses is correlated to "diversity" in the FAA? What conclusion would you draw from this?

---

When hiring criteria include qualifications unrelated to the tasks performed, there's always the potential to make the wrong hire. When those unrelated qualifications have a significantly higher weight in evaluations you most likely make the wrong hire.

I'm not saying a DEI candidate cannot have optimal job qualifications, just that hiring based on DEI status does not guarantee sufficient job qualifications.