JAL A350 burns at Haneda Airport after collision on runway 15

[hokie66]

This says that the Coast Guard plane did not have a transponder, so flight control did not know the exact position of the aircraft. And the pictorial shows the two planes moving in opposite directions on the runway. Can that be correct?

Hand held megaphones, Alistair.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/grap...coast-guard-plane-crash-graphics/72083108007/

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It will have a had a transponder it will just have been a mode C instead of the Mode S + ADS-B which is required on all commercial aircraft for over 5 years now.

The mode S has ADS-B which then links into the ground radar system and the runway incursion alerting system in the tower. Big airports such as Heathrow and Schiphol all the ground vehicles carry an ADS-B transponder. My small country single runway airport has them as well and our ops has big display showing where everything is airside. I don't have a clue what they do in Japan. I think they have it in Dubai as well.

"The spanner in the works is Government aircraft tend to have dispensations to avoid/not turn on some of these systems for operational reasons or just plain they don't want to pay for them."

This seems to be an issue in most country's it certainly is in the UK military and USA mil.

 

[hokie66]

I stand corrected. Haneda is a major airport, so would have the latest and greatest. But probably not the Coast Guard.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

And btw the minor injures are likely to include several people with tights/nylons melted into there legs from friction off the slides giving third degree burns.

The slides have friction strips down them and my back and backside gets well hot with a boiler suit on over normal bloke clothes. And the cabin simulator slide is about 1/3 of the length of what must be on the A350. And the friction strips on the simulator get 20 people down them a day the A350's will be brand new max friction.

 

[hokie66]

I think most of the people exited down the front slides. Because the nose gear had collapsed, those slides were at a very shallow angle, so people walked/ran off rather than slid.

 

[Sym P. le]

Scaled images reveal that the A350 could plow right through the Q300 (Japan Coast Guard inventory) with barely a nick from the Q300's props. The nose damage on the A350 suggests a direct centerline strike to the tail of the Q300. Any artist renditions of nose to nose contact is pure speculation and poor journalism. Photos show the remains of the Q300 facing down 34R. Images of the A350 prior to its incineration indicate engine cowl damage in line with the wing height of the Q300.

The ramp numbers at Haneda have been revised with field upgrades in recent years. Many web resources are outdated. Images suggest contact was first made immediately at the C5 ramp location with the remains pushed towards the C6 exit.

Hold Bars at C5/C6 with aircraft entering runway - Google Maps

A relevant portion of tower communication transcript indicates the A350 was cleared to land and the Q300 to hold at C5. I don't recall enough lingo to know if the Q300 pilot would misinterpret his No. 1 queue position as clearance to enter the runway.

 

[dik]

Alistair... is there an actual 'painted' marker on the taxiway that is denoted 'C5'? a physical marker or 'line'?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Sym P. le]

There are lit signs adjacent the ramps. You can see an array of them in the Google Maps image in the armpit of the C6 ramp.

 

[Tomfh]

Any reason they don’t write “C5 HOLD” or similar on the ground?

 

[Sym P. le]

The same reason they don't write "Please stay in your lane" on the road. Big boys and girls understand the lane markings.

 

[Sparweb]

While I don't think the transponder would have helped, I did notice this:

None of the aircraft identified in the queue on taxiway Charlie are the DHC-8. I expect that the DHC-8 did not have an ADS-B compliant transponder, which was probably what Hokie66 meant. While there are future plans to implement systems that would alert aircraft in flight to runway incursions, using equipment like this, it's still a long way away.

I can't think of any way for the JAL516 crew to have known or seen the Dash on their runway.

 

[Sparweb]

Detailed record of the accident has already been compiled on ASN:

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349537

 

[dik]

Thanks... If there was no suitable transponder, will the final report stipulate that the accident may have been prevented if one had have been active?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Sym P. le]

The flightradar grab confirms what I thought I was seeing in the video. I'm working on some video extracts and its difficult to make out the movement of the Q300 but it clearly stops in the center of 34R for a full 40 seconds prior to the collision. That is in addition to the time it took to line up on the runway. The Q300 was poorly lit and there was a lot of large traffic moving towards 34R.

Using the aviation-safety.net info, a can add (roughly) one more data point to the list. This raises the question, how far can a Dash 8 travel in 82 seconds at ramp speed, the time between acknowledging the tower instruction and holding on the runway? I'm trying to pick out his movements in that time frame but the video only picks up after his last communication and as I said he was poorly lit, at least for the purposes of video footage.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Just to give you the heads up what the latest system is

https://skybrary.aero/articles/autonomous-runway-incursion-warning-system-ariws

Your all talking sense, so I won't bother answering questions that occurred while I was sleeping. They have been answered and I agree with the answers.

And thanks for correcting me that it was a Q300 not a Q400

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The normal max taxi speed is 30 m/s or 30knts. So 2.5 km. And its normal to do that. We have an alarm and get an email if we go over 32 knots on the A220. But I doubt the Q300 has such a system. The Q400 didn't have an alarm but you got an email 3 days after you did it. If you were over 35knts you would get a call from the flight safety office.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Just to explain the calls.

With the taxi call to the Q300.

Number 1 means that there will be other aircraft on the taxi way and you have right of way. if you didn't you might get something like "after the A320 crossing left to right, taxi C5" C5 is what's called your clearance limit. ie once you get there you stop and don't move and await further instructions. Although rereading it appears to be a number in departure sequence because they were talking to tower not ground.

Runway operations always start with a standard word. "Cleared" so to do what the Q300 did I would expect. "Number 1, via C5 cleared to line up and wait 34R"

If the controller is a bit slap dash and just says "line up and wait runway 34R" most commercial pilots would immediately hit them with "confirm, cleared to line-up and wait RWY 34R?" first officers usually do the radio on the ground and they very quickly learn its one of the things they can use their initiative with, with out being asked to do so by the Captain. Red stop bars if still up we just don't cross. Its also a feature of sim sessions, crossing them isn't a session fail. But your looking at a right talking too in the debrief. Some company's stipulate to cross a red stop bar that has a fault and ATC can't drop you need an ops follow me to escort you across it.

Bit of history

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000525-0

This accident in Paris triggered wide changes in procedure and technology development in the industry relating to runway occupancy, You can still get two aircraft on the same runway I might add under certain circumstances.

 

[Sym P. le]

Re: runway incursion, I saw reference to it today in all that I skimmed through with regards to Haneta and wondered if it was active. Even if it was installed, it could always be down like the ramp sign lighting. If it was up and running, this incident would have been a key test.

Here's my animated GIF (slowed down a touch) with a reference frame and Google Earth perspective:

 

[LittleInch]

Haneda is a two main runway airport. Why was it operating 34R as a single or mixed mode runway?

Was it rare for planes to be landing on 34R whilst seemingly being used as the main take off runway looking at flight radar?

That second photo from sym p Lee shows a fairly intense fire right under the nose wheel which I don't think is fuel from the dash 8.

The delay in starting evacuation is a bit worrying though understandable if there were flames visible everywhere.

Thought the fire trucks would have been there faster with more foam though.



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It will be mixed if they had departures and arrivals.

Some airports they only ever do mixed for performance reasons. And very reluctantly. It carry's a vastly increased risk to single mode.

The foam thing I wouldn't worry about. They are only meant to initially supress until evacuation is complete. They have in the past found squashed bodies under the foam of pax that have been run over by fire engines and ones that have suffocated. Its a subject I have zero clue about but know they have changed it over the years after various experiences. There is zero attempt to save the hull fire fighting.