Page 2 of 3
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 2nd, 2024, 4:23 pm
by Lootman
airbus330 wrote: AFAIK this is the first time that there has been a major crash with fire in a carbon composite airframe. There has been much conjecture on how this material will perform and many worries that it would not. It seems that Boeing have done a good job and the integrity of the hull appears to have withstood impact and ensuing fire very well.
It was of course an Airbus plane and not a Boeing,
The equivalent carbon composite airframe from Boeing is the 787 Dreamliner, which is a little smaller than an A350. It was grounded a few years ago due to problems with its batteries catching fire but there has been no 787 hull loss to my knowledge.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 2nd, 2024, 5:20 pm
by gryffron
airbus330 wrote:Notice in the videos that no (that I saw) passengers attempted to take their carry on luggage, only coats.
Japanese internal flight. So virtually all of the passengers will be Japanese. Very disciplined and polite people the Japanese. Do what they're told.
Different story if it was a plane full of drunken Brits.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 2nd, 2024, 5:48 pm
by airbus330
Lootman wrote:airbus330 wrote: AFAIK this is the first time that there has been a major crash with fire in a carbon composite airframe. There has been much conjecture on how this material will perform and many worries that it would not. It seems that Boeing have done a good job and the integrity of the hull appears to have withstood impact and ensuing fire very well.
It was of course an Airbus plane and not a Boeing,
The equivalent carbon composite airframe from Boeing is the 787 Dreamliner, which is a little smaller than an A350. It was grounded a few years ago due to problems with its batteries catching fire but there has been no 787 hull loss to my knowledge.
So sorry, it was of course an Airbus 350-900. My bad, as I was thinking about plastic airframes earlier in the day. Doh. Same thoughts apply though to the first big survivable accident in the latest gen of building techniques.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 2nd, 2024, 5:49 pm
by airbus330
doolally wrote:airbus330 wrote:Secondly, AFAIK this is the first time that there has been a major crash with fire in a carbon composite airframe. There has been much conjecture on how this material will perform and many worries that it would not. It seems that Boeing have done a good job and the integrity of the hull appears to have withstood impact and ensuing fire very well..
It was an Airbus A350, I think
doolally
Of course, you're right. I was reading some stuff on plastic aeroplanes earlier and got it mixed in my head doh
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 2nd, 2024, 6:07 pm
by Tedx
swill453 wrote:Worth noting that 2023 was the safest ever year in commercial passenger aircraft in terms of crashes and fatalities.
There were only two fatal crashes with a total of 86 deaths, both involving propeller aircraft on domestic flights.
No fatal accidents involved international flights or jet aircraft.
https://twitter.com/SimonCalder/status/ ... 8881800634Scott.
Even safer than COVID 2020/21?
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 8:59 am
by tjh290633
As far as I can see there were two problems.
The Airbus had been cleared for finals and landing.
The relief aircraft moved on to the runway. Had it been told to hold at the threshold or had it been cleared for takeoff?. If the former there was a pilot error. If the latter, which permission was given first? There is a possibility of Aircraft Control error.
What I do not understand is why the Airbus was not told to abort it's approach and go round again. ATC must have seen the smaller aircraft moved onto the runway, either visually or on their radar.
Maybe panic in the tower or fear of loss of face?
TJH
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 11:26 am
by bungeejumper
tjh290633 wrote:The relief aircraft moved on to the runway. Had it been told to hold at the threshold or had it been cleared for takeoff?. If the former there was a pilot error. If the latter, which permission was given first? There is a possibility of Aircraft Control error.
What I do not understand is why the Airbus was not told to abort it's approach and go round again. ATC must have seen the smaller aircraft moved onto the runway, either visually or on their radar.
The FT reported this morning that the authorities have so far been unable to locate the black box recorder on the A350 that would be able to correlate its communications with the control tower. That sounds to me like playing for time, since presumably the control tower had its own recordings? The black box for the smaller aircraft has been located successfully.
I'm a bit surprised that physical sightings are still required to tell whether a plane is on the runway or not. Surely there must be automatic sensors that scream blue murder if two planes are in the same tarmac space?
BJ
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 12:06 pm
by Mike4
bungeejumper wrote:tjh290633 wrote:The relief aircraft moved on to the runway. Had it been told to hold at the threshold or had it been cleared for takeoff?. If the former there was a pilot error. If the latter, which permission was given first? There is a possibility of Aircraft Control error.
What I do not understand is why the Airbus was not told to abort it's approach and go round again. ATC must have seen the smaller aircraft moved onto the runway, either visually or on their radar.
The FT reported this morning that the authorities have so far been unable to locate the black box recorder on the A350 that would be able to correlate its communications with the control tower. That sounds to me like playing for time, since presumably the control tower had its own recordings? The black box for the smaller aircraft has been located successfully.
I'm a bit surprised that physical sightings are still required to tell whether a plane is on the runway or not. Surely there must be automatic sensors that scream blue murder if two planes are in the same tarmac space?
BJ
The place to find immediate (if not official) answers to questions like this, or pose them yourself, is the Professional Pilots Rumour Network discussion forum. The thread there about this accident has a tonne of illuminating insights. You'll spend most of the day reading it though. Its very easy to get drawn in.
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close- ... rport.html
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 12:07 pm
by gryffron
tjh290633 wrote:The relief aircraft moved on to the runway. Had it been told to hold at the threshold or had it been cleared for takeoff?. If the former there was a pilot error. If the latter, which permission was given first? There is a possibility of Aircraft Control error.
There's a row of red lights across the taxiway called a stop bar. Which turn into a green centreline when you can move.
ExplanationNighttime imageVery hard to imagine how the pilot could have misunderstood that!
bungeejumper wrote:Surely there must be automatic sensors that scream blue murder if two planes are in the same tarmac space?
They have ground radar to manually track aircraft. But not usually automated, as slow taxiing planes are often so close together collision detection would be difficult. Even a clever automated system could be too late if the second aircraft was taxiing onto the runway just as the first is landing.
Gryff
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 2:11 pm
by Lootman
tjh290633 wrote:As far as I can see there were two problems.
The Airbus had been cleared for finals and landing.
The relief aircraft moved on to the runway. Had it been told to hold at the threshold or had it been cleared for takeoff?. If the former there was a pilot error. If the latter, which permission was given first? There is a possibility of Aircraft Control error.
What I do not understand is why the Airbus was not told to abort it's approach and go round again. ATC must have seen the smaller aircraft moved onto the runway, either visually or on their radar.
The version I read, from someone who had listened to the ATC conversation, was that the Dash-8 had been told to hold short of that runway. It did not, which looks like pilot error.
The A350 would surely have performed a go-around, which does not require ATC approval, had its pilot seen the Dash-8. So I assume that either he did not see the Dash-8 or it was too late to do a go-around.
But it is all very early still,
As an aside JAL and ANA have a rather unusual habit of using wide-body planes for short'ish domestic flights. This is presumably because of the large numbers of passengers on those routes. Such planes have high-density seating, often with no premium cabin. The JAL 747 that crashed years ago had 520 souls on board. So this was a lot of people to evacuate, and impressive that it was pulled off in such a situation. A UK domestic flight would typically carry half that number of passengers.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 2:51 pm
by Gerry557
Yes we can speculate at the moment but interpretation will be the key to try and prevent it from happening again.
The other pilot claims he had permission, ATC claiming to hold short. Of course the tapes will aid getting a clearer picture. Did the Co pilot miss inform him. Was it the norm to do as he did and he miss interprete the instruction. There are many possibilities. Even brake failure.
The flight recorders might also add more once found and downloaded.
This investigation will run for months even if evidence points to a quick conclusion. Fortunately we know what happened now we need to know why.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 3rd, 2024, 5:55 pm
by 9873210
gryffron wrote:There's a row of red lights across the taxiway called a stop bar.
They have ground radar to manually track aircraft.
Are you asserting that these were installed and in use at Haneda Airport?
Both of these technologies, and several more, exist but are not installed at all airports or all runways and taxiways at airports where they are used. I would guess that a major airport in Japan would have all the bells and whistles, but my guess is not worth anything.
It's fairly common for a report to include something along the lines of "The accident could have been prevented if XXX had been available." Occasionally XXX is something as basic as a telephone, or a post-it note with a telephone number.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 2:36 am
by Hallucigenia
gryffron wrote:There's a row of red lights across the taxiway called a stop bar. Which turn into a green centreline when you can move.
ExplanationNighttime imageVery hard to imagine how the pilot could have misunderstood that!
According to PPRUNE, there was a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) that the stop bars were non-operational, and then the Coastguard plane seems to have misunderstood an instruction to move to holding point C5 (ie what would normally be behind a stop bar) and thought he was cleared to line up on runway 05, where the Airbus had already been cleared to land.
It's a miracle nobody died on the Airbus - much respect to all those who made that happen.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 8:41 am
by Gerry557
The issues with the runway lighting were scheduled to go on till March 24.
I wonder if the priority will be upped.
Most burglar alarms get bought after a burglary!
Still this is just one of many factors that might have broken a link in the chain of events. I'm sure there are lots more.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 1:08 pm
by DelianLeague
Some of this has the echo of Tenerife in 1977, still the worst aviation disaster in history.
Crew not fully conversant with the air traffic controller and an aircraft that wasn't in the correct location.
I thought it couldn't happen anymore due to the installation of ground radar.
D.L.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 1:22 pm
by XFool
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 1:29 pm
by swill453
DelianLeague wrote:Some of this has the echo of Tenerife in 1977, still the worst aviation disaster in history.
Crew not fully conversant with the air traffic controller and an aircraft that wasn't in the correct location.
I thought it couldn't happen anymore due to the installation of ground radar.
It seems the coastguard aircraft was told (and agreed) to taxi and stop at the stop line just before the runway.
If for whatever reason it didn't stop in the right place and continued onto the runway into the path of the already landing plane, it's difficult to see how anything or anybody could have reacted quickly enough to prevent the crash.
Scott.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 4th, 2024, 1:41 pm
by XFool
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 5th, 2024, 11:04 am
by Gerry557
Be careful of cherry picking the big events. There were over 1000 near misses in US airports last year alone.
Fortunately most end up just that near misses but probably have many similarities with this event and the solutions are probably the same.
In some ways it's more interesting to find out why there weren't more big events looking at those numbers.
Aviation is expected to grow and I expect more technology led innovation will become the norm. Not much use if it's not working though.
This has echos of many accidents not just Tenerife. I remember hierarchy control was a big factor and thought that aspect had been designed out.
Re: That burning plane at Tokyo
Posted: January 5th, 2024, 12:37 pm
by bungeejumper
Gerry557 wrote:Be careful of cherry picking the big events. There were over 1000 near misses in US airports last year alone.
Fortunately most end up just that near misses but probably have many similarities with this event and the solutions are probably the same.
This piece from Reuters (
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-12-20/) seems to put the blame squarely on a shortage of US controller staff.
The United States has experienced several near-miss aviation incidents this year, including some that could have been catastrophic involving apparent controller mistakes, according to the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board.
The FAA met its yearly goal of hiring 1,500 controllers for 2023 but is still about 3,000 controllers behind staffing targets.
This more recent piece (
https://www.reuters.com/world/japan/run ... 024-01-03/) also focuses on US airports, but says (if I read it correctly?) that only 35 of them have the current top-line tracking system, and that another improved system being developed by Airbus and Honeywell has effectively been grounded by cost considerations.
The Federal Aviation Administration says 35 U.S. airports are fitted with a system called ASDE-X that uses radar, satellites and a navigation tool called multilateration to track ground movements.
But National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy said in November the U.S. - a bellwether for airports worldwide - lacks sufficient technology to prevent incursions.
In 2018, Airbus said it was working with Honeywell on a system called SURF-A, or Surface-Alert, to help prevent runway collisions by giving pilots visual and audio warnings.
But no date for implementation has yet been announced and the idea has brushed up against reluctance from some airlines unwilling to bear the extra cost, while underlying reforms in U.S. and European air traffic systems have long been delayed.
"(The) primary concern about SURF is costs," one airline told a U.S. panel on air systems, according to a 2021 report.
Another commented: "Nothing can motivate investment; simply don't see a risk issue or benefit worthy of pursuit."
BJ
