[skanchan95]

The Pilot in Command of the Q300 was well aware he was not to enter the runway and was supposed to hold and he confirmed it, as per the ATC transcript.


However:

Originally Posted by govindremesh

let's assume the Dash 8 crew made a mistake of runway incursion, wouldn't the pilots on the A350 spot it and initiate a go-around?
.

Not easy to spot in the dark, as proved in the animation below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdJ211nXV_o

In the above accident (which is somewhat similar to the one being discussed), the pilots of the 737 did not see the other aircraft on the runway until they lowered the nose of their aircraft onto the runway after landing. They applied the brakes and tried to veer off, but did not have enough time for evasive action.

[am1m]

I don't know anything about airline accidents, but I saw a clip of the inside of the plane during the evacuation somewhere online, and I have to say, my god Japan! How do the Japanese do it, really?! People sat and listened to the crew, while smoke filled the interiors. Orderly evac. I'm not going to say "people from this country would have done that, that country would not have", so I'll just speak for myself - I would have upped and bolted and yes, I would have tried to get my bag from the overhead bin. And that would have been totally idiotic. Following procedure saved their lives.

Take a bow Japan! First the cleaning up after football world cup matches and now this. What a people, what a culture.

[arijitkanrar]

Originally Posted by govindremesh

Thinking out loud and looking for opinions on this from the pilots on the forum: Even though the A350 was cleared to land and let's assume the Dash 8 crew made a mistake of runway incursion, wouldn't the pilots on the A350 spot it and initiate a go-around?
Also, what's the procedure once you're on the runway, spoilers and thrust reversers deployed , and then you spot a runway incursion? (My understanding is that one should not perform a go around once the thrust reversers are deployed - apparently doing that is one of the things that resulted in the IX812 crash).

I think it depends on the timeline of events. We still dont know at what point during the landing of JAL512 did the Japan Coast Guard aircraft intrude on the runway.
If it was some time before the A350 was about to touch down, then a go-around might (and thats a huge might) have been an option provided the pilots saw the aircraft, identified it, initiated a go-around with enough time available.
If the runway incursion happened just before or around the time of the landing aircrafts touch-down, then there isn't much anyone can do at that point.
As can be seen in a photo in the post just above, the incursion happened at the C5 hold point which is very close to the touch-down zone of the runway. At this point its already too late.
The time of landing just prior to and after touch-down is probably the worst time to initiate a go-around. The aircraft is just about to or has already quit flying and the wings are not generating enough lift. The engines are idling and will take a lot of time to spool up (think a few seconds at the minimum for the large high-bypass turbofans on the A350), the aircraft is in a dirty configuration (lots of stuff protruding out like flaps, slats, landing gear, spoilers if deployed etc) which means very high drag.
All this equates to a very low energy state of the aircraft and coming out of this to regain flying speed needs a lot of crucial time which isn't really available to avoid a collision.

[sparky@home]

This tragic accident mirrors an almost identical collision in Los Angeles at night in 1991 when a USAir Boeing 737, Flight 1493 was cleared to land on runway 24L and at the same time a SkyWest Metro II aircraft, Flight 5569 to Palmdale, was permitted to line up on runway 24L but hold and tragically a collision occurred killing 12 passengers and crew on the Metro Liner and 22 on the 737.
The above also reminds me of the Tenerife airport disaster when KLM flight 4805 and PANAM Flight 1736 collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport. The crash killed 583 people with 61 survivors.
Here that the passengers were saved is a commendable feat for the airline crew.

[SS80]

A few questions that someone from airlines/ prior experience can answer.
1. Why did the landing gear collapse/breakaway? Could it be the first point of contact with the smaller aircraft?
2. Those escape shoots in the front have a lower gradient to slide since the landing gear has collapsed. Surprised to see 100% evacuation despite this issue.
3. In the videos there is some white liquid dropping off the fuselage and onto the floor and the engine for some reason seems to be spinning.
4. Since the A350 will be in a Nose high and tail-down position(not sure of the exact technical name) at the time of landing, they won't be able to see directly what's beneath their nose, won't a proper camera with night vision help pilots in this case?

[Freespirit27]

Couple of points come to mind:-
1. The Coast guard plane on a relief mission must have been under some pressure operating from a busy and maybe unfamiliar airport.
2. The Stop lights for entering runway being non functional may have added to the error already being committed.
3. The burn pattern seems strange, that the entire main body is cleanly and completely charred, while the wings (presumably with fuel) are mostly intact. A generous amount of foam may have been used (on the wings for same reason) but even then, aren't the cabin /passenger area supposed to be some form of fire resistant/retardent type? A350 may be well equipped but this is something more to look into?
4. Some doubts being raised of being allowed to burn, I guess, in this case of an unalerted (no emergency would have been declared or warning received) incident, the reactive evacuation action time would've been much lesser than the fire & emergency response times, so thankfully the evacuation process would have already started by the time fire services closed up.
5. Airline industry reports maximum chaos due to passenger collection of baggage during emergency so that is not something restricted to us- just that Japanese are more compliant to orders as a culture thing.

We'll all's well that ends with limited damage and the heart goes out to the Coast guard crew losing life while on a noble mission.

[no_fear]

Originally Posted by Freespirit27

Couple of points come to mind:-
1. The Coast guard plane on a relief mission must have been under some pressure operating from a busy and maybe unfamiliar airport.

3. The burn pattern seems strange, that the entire main body is cleanly and completely charred, while the wings (presumably with fuel) are mostly intact. A generous amount of foam may have been used (on the wings for same reason) but even then, aren't the cabin /passenger area supposed to be some form of fire resistant/retardent type? A350 may be well equipped but this is something more to look into?
.

Japan Coast Guard has a permanent base at Haneda Airport. Haneda is actively used by Japan Self Defense and Maritime Services (Coast Guard is under that umbrella), so lack of airport familiarization, although a factor, might be ruled out.

Haneda fire crew, after checking that no one was left behind, allowed the fire to burn out as a controlled measure. This was also done as one of the engines kept running and could not be shut down initially. Modern airliner fuselages are fire resistant to a certain extent. They should be able to withstand up to 5 minutes of a blaze, that is why the 90 second evacuation certification comes into place. Aviation experts on the forum can add more to this. Haneda fire crew sprayed foam to control the fire, not douse it out. Japanese media has covered this in yesterday and today's news.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Freespirit27

2. The Stop lights for entering runway being non functional may have added to the error already being committed.

Many air ports don't have these lights to start with. Also, this malfunction was noted in the NOTAM, the so called Notice to Airmen. As part of the flight planning and preparation the crew should have been aware.

Jeroen

[govindremesh]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

I think it depends on the timeline of events. We still dont know at what point during the landing of JAL512 did the Japan Coast Guard aircraft intrude on the runway.

Quoting from this link, it seems that the Dash-8 was on the runway for 50 seconds before impact. This is what I assumed, as pilots usually check the runway for arriving aircrafts before they enter to line up and wait. Additionally , the surviving captain of Dash-8 mentions that they had takeoff clearance.

It's strange that the A350 pilots did not see the aircraft on the runway. Might be due to visibility problems. Even stranger that the runway incursion alert system did not trigger despite Haneda having a surface movement radar

Curious to see the final report of the investigation.

Surveillance video shows the Dash 8 moved onto 34R and stopped—something a pilot would do if executing a “line up and wait” ATC command that gives an aircraft permission to enter the runway but not depart.

Nearly 50 sec. after the Dash 8 stopped, the A350, which touched down seconds before closer to the runway end, struck the national guard aircraft. Five of the six Dash 8 occupants died, while all 379 onboard JAL516 evacuated safely once the widebody came to rest.

Investigators will also look closely at how an aircraft could be on an active HND runway for nearly 1 min. without being detected, even in the dark. An ICAO document shows HND is one of many airports that uses surface movement radar—a long-used method of supplementing the visual view of the airfield controllers have. The system’s performance and controllers’ familiarity with it are other likely topics investigators will probe.

Originally Posted by SS80

4. Since the A350 will be in a Nose high and tail-down position(not sure of the exact technical name) at the time of landing, they won't be able to see directly what's beneath their nose, won't a proper camera with night vision help pilots in this case?

It's called a (landing) Flare.

[ZenMaster]

Not related to the crash, but this shows why it's important to have your passport and your wallet(which usually has your ID's) on you person at all times instead of keeping it in your bag.

Most people instinctively reach for their bags in the over head storages because of fear of losing critical documents.

Either keep it in your pocket or have a small fanny pack or a little bag you can throw around your neck for your critical docs and have it with you always.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by ZenMaster

Not related to the crash, but this shows why it's important to have your passport and your wallet(which usually has your ID's) on you person at all times instead of keeping it in your bag.

Passport, wallet & mobilephone! The 3 non-negotiable items to have in your pockets or within an arm length’s distance.

[bsdbsd]

In the days where general public can track where all the flights are, this one seems like an rather odd omission in terms of visibility. Another contributing factor could be the ADS-B of Dash8 was INOP. Its high time a FR24 like screen are introduced in the cockpit to suplement the vision of pilots, and ensure all vehicles that move are equipped with ADS-B transponders.

[itwasntme]

Further news coming clarifying that the evacuation may not be as miraculous as first thought. The first door was opened after 8 minutes and the last person off (pilot) was after 18 minutes. This when the ICAO standard is 90 seconds!

Of course, it does not take anything away from the professionalism of the pilots and cabin crew and the willingness of the passengers to do as directed, BUT something to chew on nonetheless.

[no_fear]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

The first door was opened after 8 minutes and the last person off (pilot) was after 18 minutes. This when the ICAO standard is 90 seconds!

The 18 minutes is counted from when the A350 struck the Coast Guard plane till the pilot leaving the plane. Evacuation was done as per text book standards with 3 emergency exits (2 in front, 1 in rear) and completed under 90 seconds. Flight attendants commenced evacuation as pilots could not communicate with crew since the intercom system was not working. Lead flight attendant started evacuation procedure in front of plane. Pilots also didn't know that plane caught fire, after landing.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by no_fear

The 18 minutes is counted from when the A350 struck the Coast Guard plane till the pilot leaving the plane.

My apologies then - lot of garbled reports coming out but even factoring that in, there DOES seem to have been delays in evacuation.

It could well turn out to be more credit to Lady Luck, Airbus and then JAL in that order.