JL Incident at HND

[FA@AC]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-67862011

[Malcolm]

Planes catch fire after a collision at Japan's Haneda airport, killing 5. Hundreds evacuated safely

 

 

 

Japan Airlines plane engulfed by flames

 

 

 

 

 

01:20

 

Japan Airlines plane engulfed by flames

A passenger plane and a Japanese coast guard aircraft collided on the runway at Tokyo's Haneda Airport on Tuesday and burst into flames.

Transport Minister Tetsuo Saito confirmed that all 379 occupants of Japan Airlines flight JAL-516 got out safely before the plane was entirely engulfed in flames. The pilot of the coast guard plane also escaped, but five crewmembers died, Saito said.

•  Sign up for breaking news alerts from CTV News, right at your fingertips

Local TV video(opens in a new tab) showed a large eruption of fire and smoke from the side of the Japan Airlines plane as it taxied on a runway. The area around the wing then caught fire. Footage an hour later showed the plane fully on fire.The JAL plane was an Airbus A-350 that had flown from Shin Chitose airport, near the city of Sapporo, to Haneda, the transport minister said.

Coast Guard spokesperson Yoshinori Yanagishima said its plane was MA-722, a Bombardier Dash-8. The plane, which is based at Haneda, had been due to head to Niigata to deliver relief goods to residents affected by a deadly earthquake in the region on Monday that killed at least 48 people.

Swede Anton Deibe, 17, who was a passenger on the Japan Airlines plane, told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that "the entire cabin was filled with smoke within a few minutes. We threw ourselves down on the floor. Then the emergency doors were opened and we threw ourselves at them.

•  In pictures: Photos of the fiery crash(opens in a new tab)

"The smoke in the cabin stung like hell. It was a hell. We have no idea where we are going so we just run out into the field. It was chaos," added Deibe, who was travelling with his parents and sister.

Saito said Haneda is currently closed while the collision is under investigation by aviation safety investigators and police, but that they are doing their best to reopen the airport Wednesday or even sooner.

He added that said officials are doing their utmost to prevent any delays in the relief goods delivery and other operations for the disaster-hit region.

Haneda is one of the busiest airports in Japan, and many people travel over the New Year holidays.

------

[Jaydee]

Actual collision caught on camera

 

 

[Malcolm]

based on the outcome, the crew followed their training and no lives lost on the JAL aircraft.  Well done.

[dagger]

7 hours ago, Malcolm said:

based on the outcome, the crew followed their training and no lives lost on the JAL aircraft.  Well done.

The big question - aside from how did this happen, which crew or ATC screwed up - is whether the composite fuselage burned slower or faster than a traditional aluminum fuselage. A lot will be learned from this accident, too bad it cost five lives. 

Edited January 2 by dagger

[Jaydee]

[Kip Powick]

If you look at the photos on AVHearld you will see the A350 has a substantial dent on the nose..To me that means the A350 "pool-cued" the Dash 8.....

Latest  I heard was the A350 had received landing clearance.

With the landing attitude of the A-350...(Nose up, maybe ) the crew couldn't see the Dash 8 until it was too late.  from the rear he might have just blended in with the dark runway.

It will be interesting to hear the CVR from the A350.

[Maverick]

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

 

 

[vanishing point]

A Dash 8-300 has strobes.  Wingtips and tail.  

Sad event but highlights excellent training by the crew and passengers doing what they should to all get out.

Condolences to the families of those aviators who perished.

 

[Kip Powick]

59 minutes ago, vanishing point said:

Dash 8-300 has strobes.  Wingtips and tail.  

I did not know that...my post corrected

Thanks

[IFG]

56 minutes ago, vanishing point said:

A Dash 8-300 has strobes.  Wingtips and tail ....  

That was certainly my recollection, but I think the references to the Japan CG DH-8 not having strobes alluded to selection.

Many pilots do not select strobes on until cleared for take-off. Same for landing lights. 

Runway environments at night are so cluttered with various lights, I'm not convinced that the strobes on a holding aircraft even make much difference to another aircraft on approach to land. It further doesn't help that we're so anal about lining up or taxiing right on the centre-line, so aircraft lights just blend in to 100's or 1000's of others (& some of them flashing too). 

Seems to me it would be better to taxi asymmetrically, and certainly hold position off the centre-line. 

A bit more problematic (for other aircraft on the ground) is using landing lights whenever on an active runway. I leaned more to being visible, but tried not to blind anybody . IAC, the illuminated runway surface is unmistakable to a landing aircraft.

JMHO, Cheers - 

[vanishing point]

Jazz policy was/is (have to think of this as a retired pilot hence the past tense) activate the strobes when entering the active runway.  Regardless of policy, I’ve always felt it was good airmanship.

Just watched this video on the accident:

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by vanishing point
Added video

[Kip Powick]

As he said, readback all clearances from ATC is imperative, however, he could have mentioned  that is also imperative to fully UNDERSTAND and adhere to  the content of the clearance.

 

Strobes,,,Yeh, old and retired as well but I believe WD had us put the strobes and landing lights on when cleared for T/O, (A310).

I believe the strobes / landing lights were off so as not to bother other aircraft at the button, or taxing to the button....

(feel free to correct)

[PaulD]

That’s the way I remember it as well at Air Canada

[Malcolm]

Not much left.

 

Changed link as previous link included unrelenting short videos not relevant to the accident. This link is almost the same as earlier posted link

Apparently it took a little over 8 hours to extinquish all fires......

[Kip Powick]

Sad to say but I would be willing to bet that had the A350 been full of non-Japanese citizens, the outcome would not have been the same.

My daughter taught in Japan for 4 years  and often stated that the Japanese were extremely patient and very prone to following instructions, as well as coping very well when thrust into  crowded conditions. 

My experience when visiting her over there certainly amplified her opinion and I viewed this trait many times while visiting Japan.

[Turbofan]

15 hours ago, vanishing point said:

A Dash 8-300 has strobes.  Wingtips and tail.  

Sad event but highlights excellent training by the crew and passengers doing what they should to all get out.

Condolences to the families of those aviators who perished.

 

Yes but much of that can be wiped out by the intensity of the touchdown lighting.  Viewing the runway through the HUD also an added light intrusion.  I don’t know if you run the HUD lighting on manual or Auto.  I use manual.  You have to turn it up as you approach the touchdown lighting.

Im thinking a peak around the HUD short final will will be a takeaway for me.

 

[vanishing point]

379 souls were saved because of excellent training of the crew and passengers following instructions.  It has nothing to do with “miracles”.  Much like the Air France crash in 2005 at YYZ, 309 souls survived that accident because of this:

”The accident highlighted the vital role played by highly trained flight attendants during an emergency.” (quote from the Wikipedia page)

Another video showing the two aircraft:

 

[vanishing point]

2 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

Yes but much of that can be wiped out by the intensity of the touchdown lighting.  Viewing the runway through the HUD also an added light intrusion.  I don’t know if you run the HUD lighting on manual or Auto.  I use manual.  You have to turn it up as you approach the touchdown lighting.

 

Excellent point.  I adjusted the HUD lighting for the same reason.  I used manual mode as well.

I recall an accident years ago when an aircraft landed on another in the US at night.  I think it was a ‘37 on the approach and a Metro in position waiting to go.  IIRC, the Metro had its anti-collision lights on but due to circumstances described above, the ‘37 crew never saw the Metro.  The anti-collision lights blended in with the runway lighting.

[vanishing point]

3 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

As he said, readback all clearances from ATC is imperative, however, he could have mentioned  that is also imperative to fully UNDERSTAND and adhere to  the content of the clearance.

That reminds me of the time we were taxiing out in YVR and I asked the ground controller to confirm we were cleared across runway 12/30.  He confirmed we were and I said “Thanks.  Just wanted to make sure”.

He replied “we always want you to ask if unsure rather than just proceed on what you think you heard”.

[Kip Powick]

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 two minutes later, the JAL flight collided with the coast guard plane on the runway, according to the timestamp on airport surveillance video.

[Turbofan]

Two minutes in position without a takeoff clearance is a long time. AC SOP is no longer than 30 seconds without querying ATC if the delay is not known

[IFG]

5 hours ago, Turbofan said:

Yes but much of that can be wiped out by the intensity of the touchdown lighting

Exactly! I also recall the 737/Metro collision, it was around then that I started using landing lights when on active runways at night (obviously having some consideration for other aircraft close by), as well as taxiing/holding off-centre. High intensity lighting pretty much drowns out any running/strobe lights on an aircraft, but there's little chance of missing the illuminated runway surface ahead when the landing lights come on.

I did float the idea at a couple of ALPA safety meetings, but it didn't get much traction.

Also retired now, so just my $0.02, after a couple decades of cargo-hauling across the country at night. Nothing much changed after previous tragedies like this one, Reason's model is alive and kicking ...

Cheers, IFG - 

[Malcolm]

Analysis-Japan crash marks test of how new carbon jets cope in a disaster

Analysis-Japan Crash Marks Test of How New Carbon Jets Cope in a Disaster (usnews.com)

 

FILE PHOTO: Japan Airlines' A350 airplane is on fire at Haneda international airport in Tokyo, Japan January 2, 2024. REUTERS/Issei Kato/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

By Valerie Insinna and Joanna Plucinska

WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - Tuesday's runway collision in Japan marks the first time a modern lightweight airliner has burnt down and is being seen as a test case for how well a new generation of carbon-composite airplanes copes with a catastrophic fire.

 

The Japan Airlines (JAL) Airbus A350 crashed into a De Havilland Dash-8 coast guard turboprop plane shortly after landing at Haneda airport in Tokyo, bursting in to flames. All 379 people aboard the A350 were evacuated from the burning aircraft, but five of the six coast guard crew were killed.

Photographs of the wreckage showed the A350 fuselage in cinders. While investigators seek the cause of the collision, the aviation industry is keen to confirm the survivability of high-tech composite airliners which have transformed the economics of long-haul flight and airlines in the past decade.

 

Firefighters work on a burning Japan Airlines' A350 airplane at Haneda International Airport, in Tokyo, Japan January 2, 2024. REUTERS/Issei Kato/ File Photo© Thomson Reuters

The crash "is really the first case study that we have, not only from a fire perspective, but also just from a crash survivability perspective," said Anthony Brickhouse, an air safety expert at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Both Boeing, with the 787 Dreamliner, and Airbus, with the A350, made big bets in the early 2000s that lightweight carbon composites would produce major fuel savings and be less susceptible to fatigue, reducing maintenance.

 

Related video: Japan News | Video Shows Passengers Stuck On Burning Plane In Japan | World News | N18V | News18 (News18)

 

Loaded: 12.46%

 

 

Play

Current Time 0:01

/

Duration 4:48

 

Quality Settings

Captions

Fullscreen

 

News18

Japan News | Video Shows Passengers Stuck On Burning Plane In Japan | World News | N18V | News18

Unmute

0

 

View on Watch

 

Shortly after being put into service, the Dreamliner contended with battery problems that led to fires, resulting in its brief grounding in early 2013. A later fire on an Ethiopian Airlines 787 in July 2013 was caused by a short circuit in the jet's emergency locator transmitter and led to fuselage repairs.

 

FILE PHOTO: Officials investigate a burnt Japan Airlines (JAL) Airbus A350 plane after a collision with a Japan Coast Guard aircraft at Haneda International Airport in Tokyo, Japan January 3, 2024. REUTERS/Issei Kato/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

None of these incidents resulted in hull losses, however.

The A350 contains 53% composite materials by weight, with composites making up most of its external structure, including its fuselage, major portions of its tail and wings, and part of the nose section.

Experts said the fact that all passengers and crew evacuated safely while the structure was intact will renew confidence in the materials which were certified with special conditions.

 

But they cautioned it is too early to draw full conclusions about how the A350's composite hull held up against fire or what technological lessons may be learned.

Comparing the A350 crash to a 2013 crash involving a Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines - which caught fire after it struck a sea wall, killing three passengers - could provide engineers with valuable insights into the differences between composite and aluminum planes during a fire, Brickhouse said.

The JAL A350 is the first commercial airliner built mainly of composites to be destroyed by fire but not the first transport aircraft, though it is unclear what lessons about composite fires will be available to Japanese investigators.

In 2015, an Airbus A400M military airlifter - which also relies heavily on composites - plowed into a field outside Seville, Spain, after wrongly installed software jammed its engines. But an investigation into the crash by Spanish military investigators was kept confidential.

 

The accident, which resulted in a high-speed impact and fire, killed all four flight test crew and left hardly any visible trace of the plane in the blackened earth.

HOW COMPOSITES WORK

Composite airframes have several advantages over aluminum planes, said Bjorn Fehrm, a composites expert at trade publication Leeham News.

While aluminum has a melting point of about 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit) and conducts heat, carbon fiber can withstand temperatures about six times that, with the structure smoldering and burning away instead of melting, he said.

Airbus, in a 2019 guide for firefighters, said the A350 demonstrated "an equivalent level of safety" compared to traditional aluminum planes, with tests showing an "increased resistance" to fire penetration.

But when exposed to intense heat for long periods of time, Airbus noted that composite airframes can lose their structural integrity even if the composite skin appears to be intact.

 

In particular, the resin will burn off first and flames will propagate more slowly while the fire is ongoing, according to a United States Federal Aviation Administration document.

The JAL A350 burned for more than six hours before firefighters were able to completely extinguish the flames, broadcaster TBS reported, citing the fire department.

That raises a question about whether firefighters need additional training for handling fires involving composite jets.

Photos of the accident showed firefighters wearing surgical masks and helmets but no other protective clothing.

"The fire brigades of the airports actually have to look at why couldn't they stop the fire," Fehrm said.

Airbus noted earlier tests have shown composites offer similar fire-resistance to aluminum, with a spokesperson adding that it had carried out a full evacuation test of the an Airbus A350-1000 in 2018 with authorities present.

Various factors can impact how flammable composites are, including the structure, fiber materials and layers of fire-blockers used, said Nabil Al Kabir, a sales manager at German fire safety solutions firm svt Products GmbH.

"One point can be taken for sure, if the heat generated from burning kerosene is that intense, aluminum would also fail."

(Additional reporting by Lisa Barrington in Seoul, Allison Lampert in Montreal, Tim Hepher in Paris; Editing by Mark P

[Kip Powick]

 

(((  Also retired now, so just my $0.02, ))))

Younger generation will be going "Whhhhhhat?"              

Pennys are gone....wanna use a nickel ???