Aircraft Fire at Haneda Airport, Japan

[MangoKorat]

Obvioulsy this is a developing story and much more will be learned as time goes by and the full details are known but watching the video below - doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the airport's fire fighting capabilities.  Watching the lone firefighter in this video - his equipment seems woefully inadequate. The jet of retardent doesn't even reach the windows of the aircraft.

 

 

[Celsius]

Scary. Sky news is live and have footage from inside cabin

 

 

[Crossy]

Seems to have been a mid-air!!

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656665-jal-incident-haneda-airport-3.html

 

All out safely, one can hope!

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Sky News is saying a Japan Airlines plane collided with another aircraft, described as a Coast Guard aircraft, resulting in the fire...

 

An image from the Sky News coverage:

 

 

 

[MangoKorat]

3 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Seems to have been a mid-air!!

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656665-jal-incident-haneda-airport-3.html

 

All out safely, one can hope!

 

According to the BBC all the passengers and crew on the A350 got out but 5 of 6 on the coastguard plane it hit are missing.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

 

Channel News Asia is saying JAL 516 was one of the two aircraft involved. Looks like the whole aircraft is toast.

 

https://youtu.be/er1JkpJuE4s

 

Edited January 2 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From the AP:

 

"A plane burst into flames on the runway of Tokyo’s Haneda airport on Tuesday, with news reports saying it hit another aircraft after landing. NHK TV reported that all passengers aboard, believed to have been about 400 people, got out safely. (Jan. 2)"

 

Their imagery seems to show the whole aircraft from front to back consumed by flames.

 

 

 

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

 

Edited January 2 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

 

 

Japan Airlines jet bursts into flames after collision at Tokyo Haneda airport

"A Japan Airlines plane carrying hundreds of passengers burst into flames at Tokyo’s Haneda airport on Tuesday after it was in collision with another aircraft involved in earthquake relief efforts.

 

JAL flight 516 ignited after flying into Haneda from the northern Japanese city of Sapporo at 5:47 p.m. local time (3:47 a.m. ET)

 

All crew members and passengers, including eight children under the age of two, were safely evacuated from the passenger plane, according to the airline."

 

(more)

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/asia/japan-airlines-plane-fire-airport-intl-hnk/index.html

 

Edited January 2 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[MangoKorat]

Given that most/all airports have fire tenders with high pressure jets on them that can cover quite some distance - why is the guy in the BBC video so close to the wings of the plane where the fuel is stored?  Thankfully being and incoming flight, it won't have had a full fuel load but I wouldn't have thought being so close to the wings was a good idea in any case.

[Georgealbert]

This live web cam, seems to be the other aircraft involved.

 

Not sure if rescue is ongoing or is body recovery. Seems strange after 2 hours, for the activities taking place.

 

Edit, since posting Sky News is reporting 5 dead on the other aircraft

 

 

Edited January 2 by Georgealbert

[simon43]

53 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

...

Channel News Asia is saying JAL 516 was one of the two aircraft involved. Looks like the whole aircraft is toast.

...

 

A new coat of paint and it will be as new....

[MangoKorat]

Later footage shows a tender with a decent jet being used to douse the emergency exits so clearly they have such equipment - still doesn't explain why the lone fireman was so close to the wings with a retardent jet that was struggling to reach even half way up the plane.

 

5 out of 6 crew members on the coastguard aircraft confirmed dead.

 

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20240102_Y2/

[Georgealbert]

16 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Later footage shows a tender with a decent jet being used to douse the emergency exits so clearly they have such equipment - still doesn't explain why the lone fireman was so close to the wings with a retardent jet that was struggling to reach even half way up the plane.

 

5 out of 6 crew members on the coastguard aircraft confirmed dead.

 

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20240102_Y2/

Having watched that footages, seems there are 2 firefighters using hand lines, one either side of the wing.

 

My only guess, at what seems to be a strange deployment, is that they are trying to lay a foam blanket under that point of the aircraft, to protect the escape chutes. Very risky place to be.

 

Maybe there is a pool of fuel or large leak. Seems to be a lot of foam already on the tarmac.

 

I believe their also may having been waiting confirmation that evacuation was completed, then withdrew the hand lines and the main roof foam monitor was used.

[KhunBENQ]

1 hour ago, Crossy said:

All out safely, one can hope!

All out from the JAL A350.

Their second birthday,

 

[KhunBENQ]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

Seems strange after 2 hours, for the activities taking place.

Am a bit confused. This fire fighting scene is about 11 minutes after the impact.

[MangoKorat]

45 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

My only guess, at what seems to be a strange deployment, is that they are trying to lay a foam blanket under that point of the aircraft, to protect the escape chutes. Very risky place to be.

Yes, I've seen that footage but if you look at the original BBC footage that I posted, it clearly shows a guy trying to spray foam up the fuselage - and failing badly.  A lot of details to come out yet but that particular operation not only looks futile, its surely highly dangerous for a guy to be anywhere near the wings of a burning aircraft.

Edited January 2 by MangoKorat

[Georgealbert]

1 minute ago, KhunBENQ said:

Am a bit confused. This fire fighting scene is about 11 minutes after the impact.

My link above is from the airport web cam, showing what I believe is the coastguard aircraft. It is still live by the tine stamp.

 

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

This live web cam, seems to be the other aircraft involved.

 

Not sure if rescue is ongoing or is body recovery. Seems strange after 2 hours, for the activities taking place.

 

Edit, since posting Sky News is reporting 5 dead on the other aircraft

 

 

 

[Georgealbert]

49 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Yes, I've seen that footage but if you look at the original BBC footage that I posted, it clearly shows a guy trying to spray foam up the fuselage - and failing badly.  A lot of details to come out yet but that particular operation not only looks futile, its surely highly dangerous for a guy to be anywhere near the wings of a burning aircraft.

My comments are only a best educated guess, and is difficult from the footage.

 

When applying foam, there are 3 methods, rain down, bounce back or splash in, (layman terms) The firefighters may be applying foam to the fuselage to allow to fall down to onto the foam blanket, so he does not damage the foam already applied, so no ignition of any vapours.

 

Yes agree is looks highly dangerous, but the airport will have prepared plans for all incidents, based on aircraft type, location on airport, weather and wind conditions, which would have determined the tactics, monitors and hand-lines placement. Any variation from these plans would require a dynamic risk assessment, from incident commander. I believe they had not confirmed everyone had been evacuated at that stage.

 

I will state that in a past life, before Thailand, I have attend many UK airports incidents, including Heathrow, but I was never ARFF ( airport rescue and firefighting) accredited. In the UK, local authority fire service role is to back up the airport fire teams. The Airport Fire Chief would be in charge of deployment and placement of appliances and equipment and tactics involved. So my comments are still a best guess from footage I have seen.

 

i also believe the JAL plane may have landed on top of the coastguard aircraft, from the damage under the aircraft, and the footage of the fire under the aircraft, from airport CCTV and passengers phones.

Edited January 2 by Georgealbert

[KhunBENQ]

Just seen a video of the evacuation. It shows the right side of the plane with no fire at the time.

Evacuation all through the two very wide slides in front.

From the rear left you see the fire shining.

[asiansnow]

My understanding what that the inital fire before evacuation was actually very small, to the point the flight attendants decided it was worth evacuating slowly (and orderly). Looking at footage there were at least two fire engines at the start, but remember that the last thing you want to do is douse passengers in firefighting foam when there is no real danger of fire (remember what happened to the South Korean Asiana Airlines flight in San Francisco). Overall nearly 100 firefighters were deployed.

 

I believe what happened was that the JAL was cleaered to land, while the Coastguard was cleared to wait just before the runway half way down (because smaller planes do not need a lot of runway). The JAL flight then landed and slammed into the back of the Coastguard plane halfway down the runway. What needs to be understood is why the Coastguard plane was on the runway instead of waiting before it. 

Edited January 2 by asiansnow

[Georgealbert]

2 hours ago, asiansnow said:

My understanding what that the inital fire before evacuation was actually very small, to the point the flight attendants decided it was worth evacuating slowly (and orderly). Looking at footage there were at least two fire engines at the start, but remember that the last thing you want to do is douse passengers in firefighting foam when there is no real danger of fire (remember what happened to the South Korean Asiana Airlines flight in San Francisco). Overall nearly 100 firefighters were deployed.

 

I believe what happened was that the JAL was cleaered to land, while the Coastguard was cleared to wait just before the runway half way down (because smaller planes do not need a lot of runway). The JAL flight then landed and slammed into the back of the Coastguard plane halfway down the runway. What needs to be understood is why the Coastguard plane was on the runway instead of waiting before it. 

 

The collision caused a leak of fuel and the planes are seen in a massive fireball during the landing, which aircraft that burning fuel is from is not clear, but probably both aircraft.
 

The extent of fire and actions of the initial fire appliances is difficult to assess, as I cannot find an unedited video sequence from impact to full evacuation. The video below shows the Dash 8 burning after the imoact.

 

The cabin is starting to fill with smoke (pic below), so the smooth evacuation has to be down to the professional conduct of the JAL crew and possibly the disciplined cultural response from the passengers.

 

The nose of the JAL plane has been damaged (pic below), but I don't believe it could not have slammed into the back of the Dash 8, as that would have destroyed both planes, as approach speed of A350, is about 269 km/hr, from ICAO category D aircraft at runway threshold, and FAA circular 150/5300 - 13A.

 

The A350 seems to have lost the nose landing gear during the landing, with most of the visible damage to the under belly of the aircraft., with both wings and engine not ripped off, location of A350 fuel tanks are in this area.(pic below)

 

The investigation report, will determine the sequence of events, and an initial report issued maybe within a week ir so.

 

 

[MangoKorat]

23 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

the disciplined cultural response from the passengers.

I suspect you have an important point there. I can imagine a different scenario where mass panic and ignorance of instructions given would result in 'an every man for himself' situation. Lessons to be learned from the behaviour of the passengers.

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, asiansnow said:

to the point the flight attendants decided it was worth evacuating slowly (and orderly).

Apparently they got all passengers and crew out within 90 seconds.

[MangoKorat]

6 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes agree is looks highly dangerous, but the airport will have prepared plans for all incidents, based on aircraft type, location on airport, weather and wind conditions, which would have determined the tactics, monitors and hand-lines placement.

Do you think those plans would have included walking right up to the wing (fuel tank) which could surely explode at any second without warning? This was an already burning aircraft, not one that has the potential to burn.  I've seen them cover (unlit) planes with foam at Manchester and was told by a firefighter friend that its something that's done when there is a known or potential fuel leak following damage but even that was done by a tender from distance not by a single firefighter standing right next to the wing.

 

If it had exploded, I can't think of any scenario where he would have survived.  I bow to your experience but I can't imagine any plan that would allow for him to be so close to an already burning aircraft.

 

Planned or unplanned, that guy is probably more lucky than the passengers.

Edited January 2 by MangoKorat

[Captain Monday]

24 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I suspect you have an important point there. I can imagine a different scenario where mass panic and ignorance of instructions given would result in 'an every man for himself' situation. Lessons to be learned from the behaviour of the passengers.

You just have to look at the many many evacuation events where your typical I am free I do what I want passengers ignore instructions and take all time in the world to wrangle their carry on luggage out of the overhead bins before casually deplaning*. 
 

I was airborne in the region at the moment of the incident hearing pilot reports on air to air VHF and from our dispatch that HND was closed.  Checking my ipad for initial net based news stories it was all extremely vague it almost appeared as if the planes had collided in mid air or the JAL plane had a landing gear problem and belly landed. 
 

Now clear, somehow, the Japan Coast Guard plane was on the active runway where the JL A350 had been already cleared to land. 

 

As always, a “chain of events” will be identified in the investigation. There is never a single cause as there are many places the chain could have been broken. Godspeed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*such punters should be fined and permanently banned from all IATA compliant commercial aircraft 

[MangoKorat]

10 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Now clear, somehow, the Japan Coast Guard plane was on the active runway where the JL A350 had been already cleared to land. 

Yes, watching the extended footage in one of the videos above a plane had taxied up past the parked planes on the runway side and then disappeared into the darkness, the A350 ignites at 3.47 into that video but its not really possible to see what it hit.

 

However, the A350's nosecone is damaged and the left hand engine has a dent on its left hand side (clear in a different video).  Could that indicate that the coastguard plane was indeed the one the disappeared from view and the A350 hit is as it joined the runway? Had it hit it head on I would have thought the physical damage would be greater.

Edited January 2 by MangoKorat

[Captain Monday]

I saw the dent on the left engine inlet photo too. Wait for the investigation that cowling damage is minor it could been a piece of flying debris. The coast guard plane was a DHC-8-300 the A350 may have directly rear end-steamrollered it while it was lining up on the runway without much nose cone damage. 

Edited January 2 by Captain Monday

[asiansnow]

6 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

I saw the dent on the left engine inlet photo too. Wait for the investigation that cowling damage is minor it could been a piece of flying debris. The coast guard plane was a DHC-300 the A350 may have directly rear end, steamrollered it without much nose cone damage. 

 

I remember reading that the inital fire was only on one side of the Airbus plane. IF it was also the left side than perhaps the DHC was struck on by the left wing of the Airbus.

 

I watched the long CCTV footage of the incident on Youtube and you can clearly see a bright light of the DHC at the location, and just about make out a couple of flashing lights while it was moving to the incident location (but not at the location itself), but I do not know which light could be so bright on a airplane.

[asiansnow]

 

You can see the DHC at around 2:30. If you have trouble spotting it then follow the single bright light (taxi light?) back from the collision point (3:48) and you should be able to make around the other flashing lights of the plane to as it moves into the impact location.

 

The question is why the DHC was on the runway when the garbled atc recording suggests that the DHC was only cleared to just before the runway (probably awaiting JAL to land first).

[MangoKorat]

27 minutes ago, asiansnow said:

The question is why the DHC was on the runway when the garbled atc recording suggests that the DHC was only cleared to just before the runway (probably awaiting JAL to land first).

Well we are all speculating - all should become clear shortly but it seems that the Coastguard aircraft was somewhere it shouldn't have been. The pilot survived so he will be able to tell his side of the story. However, in the movies we see ATC screens showing the exact position of every aircraft on the airport grounds.  If that's true to life, why didn't they tell him where he was heading?  Maybe it was too late?