Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether it was perfect or not, there are only a few words/phrases that allow an aircraft to cross the hold short bars at an airport with an active control tower. "Cross", "line up and wait", and "cleared for takeoff" are pretty much it. Runway incursions are very dangerous, as this incident shows, and pilots must be very sure they have clearance before entering a runway. If anything is ambiguous in an instruction, pi…
Is "line up and wait" really the new approved terminology? Way back when I was a PP student, it was "taxi into position runway XX and hold. Acknowledge hold." Line up and wait sounds like something you tell preschoolers to do :-)
JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
401–410 of 515 posts
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Excellent evacuation job This couldn't be further from the truth. From what I've read, this was handled terribly. There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site…
> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. Here is an in-flight video. It appears that the passengers did not manage the evacuation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "line up and wait" really the new approved terminology? Way back when I was a PP student, it was "taxi into position runway XX and hold. Acknowledge hold." Line up and wait sounds like something you tell preschoolers to do :-)
Line up and wait (meaning, on the runway, prior to actual takeoff clearance) is very common during busy periods. This is in America.
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it could have helped the flight attendants to quickly determine the exits that are safe. For obvious reasons, ordering the evacuation, in conjunction with criteria such as which side and which doors is the Captain's job, or if the Captain is incapacitated, the First Officer. They will have access to far more data than the cabin crew will (e.g. whether the engines are safely shut down, circumstances on the ground th…
Makes sense, but why do we have to open the shades during take-off and landing? It's a honest question, I always heard in case of emergency for the personnel being able to see all sides, but if that's not it, what is it?
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the medical condition is so dire that medicine must be kept on hand then it should be in your pockets, not tucked away in luggage. What is the probability of being stung by a bee or eating a bag of nuts between your seat, the slide, and the ambulances rushing to the scene to rescue people? Otherwise by this logic, just about everyone has a reason to self-justify needing to get into their luggage in an emergency ev…
I’m guessing you aren’t carrying an epi regularly — they seem likely to be broken if in my pocket. It’s not a pocket sized form factor. The bag I have is about the size of two croissants — I keep it under seat in front of me or in my lap. But this topic has inspired me to improve my process, so I would like to find a money belt or shoulder holster style bag to carry meds and epi while traveling. Basically body huggin…
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rule in the USA (set by FAA) is maximum 3 minutes, preferably 2, or they deny your certification and you don't get to be an airport. So I would not characterize 6 minutes as decent. In fact, it's pretty damn terrible. Source: 14 CFR 139.319: Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier…
Practically speaking, does this mean guys are just hanging out in the truck 24 hours a day decked out in full gear?
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#407Definitely better links than Daily Mirror out there, avherald.com unfortunately overwhelmed, but in terms of discussion: - Crazy how well the carbon fiber A350 held up given that it seems to have landed pretty much directly on a Dash 8 (RIP Coast Guard team). Looks like trading long term flammability for initial rigidity lived up to the design intent. - Excellent evacuation job, especially as it looks like on some vi…
> Excellent evacuation job This couldn't be further from the truth. From what I've read, this was handled terribly. There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site…
Let's wait for facts (ie. the accident report) before making such statements.
> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA.
Of course there was confusion, that is inevitable. Again, we do not have solid information on what PAs were made, but from the looks of the damage and the likely accident sequence, the main avionics bay was pretty much completely destroyed. It's fairly likely the pilots were not able to make any evacuation order by PA on account of half the plane's electronics being on fire a kilometre behind them.
> The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out.
Video clearly shows an orderly evacuation, supervised by cabin crew, who can be seen directing from the exits with flashlights and leaving last. I don't know where you got the idea it was passenger managed from. It appears that the exits facing the worst of the fire were not deployed which is additional evidence of a properly managed evacuation. I don't know their SOP wrt. running engines, or if this engine was even 'running' and not just freewheeling (it doesn't seem to be producing meaningful air movement), but it appears they made a rational decision to use the R1 exit, since everyone survived and the evacuation was pretty quick (~2 minutes).
> It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site of the burning aircraft. In the US and Europe this would be unheard of, the fire brigade would be rolling as soon as the aircraft hit the ground.
I haven't found video of the very early moments after the aircraft stopped, but there appears to already be foam laid down under and on the aircraft and at least two trucks attending during the late stages of the evacuation, so I don't know where you got this 6 minutes from. Given the circumstances, the crew waiting 6 minutes to begin evacuating doesn't sound reasonable.
> The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture.
Yes, the passengers are also an important part of an effective evacuation, and it is why you should not ignore the safety briefing and follow the instructions of the crew. Good on the passengers for effecting a successful evacuation in this case. You might well be right it would have gone down differently elsewhere, with the eventual report yet again espousing the importance of leaving the baggage behind and maintaining order. This is reason to praise the passengers' behaviour and learn from it, not somehow criticize it as 'overly polite and orderly'.
I am sure there were things that could have been done better, but this was a successful and quick evacuation. It's far too early to decide what went well and what could be done better, but it's pretty clear that it was a good job - everyone got out quickly and with minimal injury.
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Line up and wait (meaning, on the runway, prior to actual takeoff clearance) is very common during busy periods. This is in America.
I've never seen planes line up and wait on the runway since there is only supposed to be one on there at any time.
It could also be used while other aircraft/vehicles are crossing the runway at other intersections.
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. Here is an in-flight video. It appears that the passengers did not manage the evacuation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU
The video shows passengers sitting calmly in a burning aircraft quickly filling with smoke, I presume awaiting further instruction, which may or may not have come from the crew. The scene almost defies belief.
They got nearly 400 people out with only 14 minor injuries.
Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
"position and hold" was the old phraseology in the US. It changed to "line up and wait" on 2010/09/30 to match ICAO standards and because "hold (on the runway)" might be confused with "hold short (of a runway/taxiway), or "hold position (wherever you are now)". https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/luaw
I do love how we try so hard to disambiguate language. Especially hard when working across languages too. And it shows how badly things can go if left to fuzzy language protocols.