JAL A350 burns at Haneda Airport after collision on runway 15

[hokie66]

It is amazing that all the people on the passenger jet got out, and apparently they could only use the forward doors.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01...flames-as-it-lands-at-tokyo-airport/103280258

 

[TugboatEng]

I wonder how many passengers tried to get their carry on luggage from overhead bins? That would make me want to start pushing people.

 

[Murph 9000]

I suspect the smoke and flames probably provided sufficient motivation for most people to generally GTFO immediately. Raw survival instinct tends to make people less concerned about possessions.

 

[3DDave]

Be happy Tug - no one was seen doing that. It is worth noting that the primary delay in every aircraft emergency evacuation is the bottleneck at the exit. Those waiting to get to the exit are not contributing to any delay. What is more concerning is, yet again, a nose gear failure made the rear exits 100% unusable because the slides are nearly straight down. Had the fire been at the front nearly all would have died.

 

[SWComposites]

I thought I read and saw a photo where at least one rear slide was used.

 

[TugboatEng]

For clarification, I am a very calm, non-violent person. It's just my observation of human behavior that makes me assume people would be grabbing for their carry-ons. I would be frustrated if I witnessed it just.

As kids on the school bus we used to joke, "the harder you push the faster you'll get off". I got pushed down the stairs on a few occasions. We had lots of bad kids on that bus.

 

[3DDave]

I see that a few left at the rear - it looked to be a 45 degree slope to the ground. The front exits, where most evacuated, had such a shallow slope from the nose gear collapse that the passengers were slowed.

One thing that can speed evacuation is to unlock the aisle armrests and move them out of the way. Get passengers to do that to save time.

 

[dik]

If the passengers were mostly Japanese culture... they may be a little more constrained to act properly... I'm not racist... just an observation. You get a natural disaster and they are quite restrained... no looting, etc. like New Orleans and other places.

Really fortunate that the number of fatalities were so few... five, I think.

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Remember, being racist means you make assumptions based on race. Not all assumptions are negative. You have assumed the Japanese will be more orderly during a chaotic incident. You have associated a trait with race which makes you a racist. This is no different than assuming white people are more able to acquire ID cards which is why voter ID is racist.

 

[Tomfh]

Not a great look for composite aircraft.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The Japanese are famous for their decorum in boarding and disembarking Aircraft.

The certification requirement is that an aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds with 50% of the doors blocked. And OEM go to colossal lengths for these tests. And there are some quite serious injury's after them because the test subjects are on a bonus if it passes.

In the aviation groups this accident is actually seen as a huge engineering success when it comes to modern composite design.

Its the first carbon fibre hull to be involved in this sort of real life accident. And so far they think its actually performed better than tin hulled aircraft.

The primary cause of the accident will be human factors. And we shall just have to see what the investigation finds.

 

[zeusfaber]

Looks like a golden opportunity to learn about the evacuation process - a really severe test, but without being burdened by the guilt of passengers (at least on the airliner) having been lost.

Am I right in believing that everybody got out through cabin-crew-operated exits? If so, I hope there will be a gentle investigation into why the passenger-operated exits weren't used. The first layer of that tree might include things like:

- Nature of accident rendered them genuinely unusable
- Designated passengers judged them to be unusable even though they might not have been
- Designated passengers tried to open the exits and failed
- Designated passengers 'just' followed everybody else in the commotion

Having seen a little of the training the cabin crew are given (and been down various boingy slides a few times myself), I've always been a bit surprised by the way half the exits on an airliner are under the control of people whose training is restricted to maybe having looked at a laminated cartoon strip for a few seconds.

A.

 

[Murph 9000]

The primary cause of the accident will be human factors. And we shall just have to see what the investigation finds.

It's looking like human factors between the tower and the pilots of the Coastguard DHC-8, resulting in a runway incursion. The ATC audio is very difficult to make out (there should be tapes that are quite clear, which will be available to the investigators and maybe eventually the public), but it sounds like the DHC-8 was cleared to taxi onto the C5 taxiway and hold short of the runway. It's possible in my listening that it might have deviated from ICAO phraseology, but that could be standard practice in Japan (nations do have some variations on the phraseology). ATC audio, recorded by a 3rd party, is included in Juan Browne's YouTube video covering the incident (at approx 4:10, if you want to skip directly to it):

blancolirio - Haneda Collision 2 Jan 2024

 

[Murph 9000]

Here's the source of the ATC audio before it hit YouTube. The instruction for the DHC-8 to taxi to the holding point on C5 is just after 15:00 in the recording:

LiveATC: RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3

 

[LittleInch]

Zeus,

The A350 looks to have 8 exits, 2 right at the front and the back, then 2 in front of the wing and 2 right behind it, but all big doors which nearly always have a flight attendant sitting beside it, so no passenger interaction.

Looks like the nose wheel collapsed and the engine cowling hit the tarmac. Not sure if the rear slides would have reached the ground, but all the flames were going that way so my understanding is that all passengers, and it was pretty full, 379, exited through only 25% of the exits, but even they were a bit iffy as the nose was on the floor. Reported as empty in 5 minutes, but the fire took hold after that. Actually looks like the port rear exit was also used, but at least one engine kept running.

The YT video linked above is very good and concise.

The nose is pretty badly smashed up and there seemed to be a fire there from the start so is that where the batteries are?

Still well done to the crew and with smoke in the cabin panic could have easily ensued. Maybe other countries wouldn't have been quite so lucky.

Also pretty good it looks like everyone left everything behind. You always like to think you will behave rationally but until it happens you'll never know.

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

 

[WesternJeb]

Murph 9000, I am not too familiar with ATC protocol and timing. Based on the recording, do you think this was an ATC issue that lead to this, or an issue of one of the aircrafts not listening to ATC?

 

[Murph 9000]

It's difficult to draw a firm conclusion from the very noisy audio that's available. It sounds to me (and I believe this was Juan Browne's interpretation), that the DHC-8 was instructed to "taxi to the holding point on Charlie 5". What I didn't hear was the phrase "hold short", although no aircraft should ever cross a runway holding point without explicit clearance to enter the runway (typically either "cleared for takeoff" or "lineup and wait"; or "cross runway xx" in the case of crossing an active runway). The holding points are highly visible on the ground via markings and lights, and critical to safe operations.

If ATC deviated from standard phraseology (as used in Japan), then they are partially at fault. If the pilots of the DHC-8 entered the runway without explicit clearance, they are mostly at fault. Right now, I have the feeling that the pilots entered the runway without permission. The landing A350 seems to have been cleared to land and would have great difficulty seeing the DHC-8 until it was too late, so those pilots appear blameless.

 

[3DDave]

The fire at the nose is probably where the fuel from the obliterated Dash-8 being splashed onto the A350.

Per the pro-pilot source, one observation/opinion:

Aerial video shows the Dash fuselage wreckage all together in a line along the runway centreline. The wings and engines are missing; also little sign of the fin and tailplane.

It looks to me as if, nose-high, the A350 has knocked off the Dash's fin and crushed its fuselage under its belly. The Dash's wings have made the dents in the A350's engine intakes, which might also have knocked off the outer wings. The A350's MLG (main landing gear) have removed the Dash's inner wings and engines and dragged them down the runway. This explains the large fire under the A350 as it rolls out, and the smoke blackening visible under the A350's wings before it burns out.

 

[WesternJeb]

Awful to hear. Nothing to do now but use it as a learning experience. Wasn't there a very similar almost accident at JFK this year?

 

[zeusfaber]

LittleInch, thanks for filling in the details about the centre exits.

A.