Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Typo evcauation/evacuation

Incident→3rd paragraph→Last sentence: "when the evcauation proceeded" Adlerweb (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Already done — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024 (2)

Remove the current ATC Transcript section. Although liveatc.net is decently reliable, ATC transcript does not add anything to the matter at hand and the transcript seems to not be translated by a trusted translator. ATC may be added later into an Investigation section if required. ItsNotJasper (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Borgenland (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

citing error

in reference page for the first source, it appears as "Cite error: The named reference NU was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." What was the original source cited in that citation? Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been fixed at some point :) Timtjtim (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

how many people were on the coast guard flight?

5 or 6? 2406:3003:2004:2E9E:214F:C600:D578:B2AA (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

BBC says 6 total, 5 unaccounted for: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-67862184?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6593ded798b40e4897f598d8%26Five%20unaccounted%20for%20on%20coastguard%20plane%20-%20reports%262024-01-02T10%3A04%3A28.203Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:f2f2fb2a-70f3-4ed3-9887-b23bc1ebf0b1&pinned_post_asset_id=6593ded798b40e4897f598d8&pinned_post_type=share Timtjtim (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

6:

1 captain and 5 crew members;

Captain survived, 2 out of the 5 crew members officially dead according from the Tokyo Fire Department, while the remaining 3 still haven't been identified as of now. Detektiv Prime (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The numbers in the information for each aircraft not correct. Fix? 152.110.59.104 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hull loss

I'm not sure planespotters.net counts as an authoritative source here; shouldn't we wait until JAL or Airbus confirms before we write that it's a hull loss?

And aside, where does planespotters.net get their information from? Is it original journalism / research? I don't see any sources on their page. Timtjtim (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The aircraft is completely burnt out, the only part that seems to have somewhat survived is the wing/center section. It's certainly a hull loss. 155.137.0.9 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly according to who? If it's "obvious" from the videos (I agree) that's WP:OR. Timtjtim (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, maybe "destroyed" would be more appropriate at this point rather than written off/hull loss? 155.137.0.9 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Planespotting.net is sometimes referred to as a source in terms of the data of the aircraft (MSN first flight and entry into service etc) and fleet lists [1][2], and has been used in American Airlines Flight 11 (an WP:FA). Hull loss is reported by Simple Flying : [3] S5A-0043^Talk 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Simple Flying are using planespotters.net as their source - and are also not authoritative.

Until we have official confirmation, I don't think we can make this claim (and I don't think planespotters.net / simple flying should be either). Timtjtim (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly official confirmation, but Alex Macheras, who is an aviation expert who was previously quoted by the BBC [4][5] and Al Jazeera [6][7] has tweeted that the crash is "the first A350 hull loss" [8]. Should be a subject-matter expert pass on this.

Also, considering the aircraft is "destroyed" ([9][10]), it's quite obvious that this is going to be a write off. S5A-0043^Talk 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is simply that it is not one yet. Of course it is going to be and of course we can see that it is destroyed. But Written Off is a term of art which should be used with care, when it is known to be the case. It is NOT yet written off, is my point, and the fact that it is clearly going to be does not mean that we can make this claim - it is currently untrue. DBaK (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some of the editors here understand that Written Off has a specific technical meaning and is not just a sexy synonym for "broken"? DBaK (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree that the aircraft is "destroyed" - happy to take a SME's word for that, and we can include that statement in the article.

But, as others have said, a Total loss or Write-off is a formal accounting (or insurance) procedure, not just something that magically happens. A Hull loss is a specific case of a Total loss:

A hull loss is an aviation accident that damages the aircraft beyond economical repair, resulting in a total loss

Timtjtim (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If that’s the case then I’ll suggest a compromise for all of us for now because in any case we can expect the hull loss report to come out in a few weeks or so:

The aircraft was destroyed in the fire following the crash, marking the first serious accident involving an A350 and the first destruction of the type from an accident since its introduction.
Feel free to refine. S5A-0043^Talk 12:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep - I'll make that edit now! Thanks :) 185.62.159.164 (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it is officially written off, but it is gonna be for sure due to how bad the damages are. We just need official confirmation Detektiv Prime (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a hull loss. Destruction just sounds corny. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for changing this back before I saw the discussion (live and learn!), but IMHO this falls under WP:BLUESKY. When every TV channel is airing footage of the entire fuselage collapsing in flames, it's as obviously a total loss as the sky is blue. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it obviously will be a total loss, but right now it isn't one because a Total loss / Hull loss is a technical term decided by insurers / accountants. Hence the change to "destroyed". I'd also be happy with "completely destroyed" - anything that comes under bluesky, but nothing that is an official term with a technical / administrative meaning.

IMO the RSes using the term hull loss are wrong (and very annoying) here - it's not for them to say that (especially planespotters.net, which is normally a useful resource). Timtjtim (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I'll note that "obviously" to you and I is not always obvious to everyone. For example, many people know that aircraft are expensive, and it's not obvious at which point one is beyond repair. Maybe reattaching the tail is a plausible fix. Remember WP:POPE and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue#The_%22obvious%22_isn't_always_obvious Timtjtim (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You may not have reviewed all currently available footage, but it's gone well past "maybe reattaching the tail is a plausible fix". The front broke into several sections as the fire progressed and as it continued there are whole sections of forward fuselage completely gone. I understand some editors being very recalcitrant to accept that a term used for insurance purposes could ever be acceptably used by persons unqualified in insurance assessment until formal sign-off, but with such an extent of the aircraft no longer in existence at all, that level of pedantry is no longer sustainable per WP:BLUESKY. It is unequivocally a hull loss because so much of the airframe simply no longer exists, per reliable sources. — Rob.au (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it won't be a hull loss, I'm saying it is not a hull loss until declared as such. Just as a motor vehicle is destroyed before it is officially written off by your insurance company - e.g. https://www.gov.uk/written-off-vehicle.

"It is unequivocally a hull loss because so much of the airframe simply no longer exists" - that's not what determines a hull loss. An insurance company determines a hull loss, not an RS.

What is the desire to use a currently inaccurate term here? Is there a good reason to use hull loss over destroyed? Timtjtim (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just using the specific term for it and a link to the appropriate article. I see no issues with the way it is mentioned in the article at this time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the specific term for something that has not happened.

However, it seems consensus has now changed to including this (imo incorrect) term, so I'll concede for the time-being. Timtjtim (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly - have a look at https://www.youtube.com/live/5qSNJX4O4FA?si=qPMvc4gRy9GloAaK - there is next to nothing left of the airframe. It will be a hull loss. People are calling it a hull loss now because the sky is blue. I won't cite the page again for why it's allowable on WP to call it a hull loss now. Rob.au (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also hull loss isn't purely a specific insurance term (that would be written off), it's a general aviation term relating to the loss or destruction of an airframe. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that this is a hull loss and multiple reliable sources are reporting it as the first A350 hull loss. I think it can be included. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

To hopefully allay any remaining concerns and directly answer the first comment in this section, JAL's press release has stated Aircraft Condition: Total loss https://press.jal.co.jp/en/items/uploads/03JAN2023_Press%20Memo_JL516r1.pdf -- Rob.au (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, that absolutely counts as an authoritative source! Timtjtim (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

change the title?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

should the title be changed to reflect the collision rather than just the japan airlines flight? a probable would be "2024 Haneda Airport Collision". 2401:7400:401C:48EF:A1BC:8537:A14F:8BCE (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. Maybe 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision or 2024 Haneda Airport disaster might be better suited. RPC7778 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I think enough RS are reporting that it was a collision to make that change.

Let's make sure we get the capitalisation correct: I'd agree with

2024 Haneda Airport runway collision

Timtjtim (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting for a while. RSes hadn't figured out that yet, and I'll note in advance that there are examples of article names using the commercial airplane title for accidents involving a military and civilian aircraft, or just one commercial and one plane without flight number each: Eastern Air Lines Flight 537, British European Airways Flight 142, Proteus Airlines Flight 706 and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182. S5A-0043^Talk 11:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the key difference here is that the smaller planes in all of the aforementioned incidents are all small single-occupant civilian or military light aircraft, whereas the involved CG aircraft here is a large plane capable of high occupancy in an airline configuration, with all 5 fatalities centered on this aircraft and not the JAL flight. Xanblu (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it's different because the deaths in those other accidents were mainly on the bigger commercial plane. Vilhelm.s (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Tokyo Haneda Airport Collision 82.69.41.190 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@2401:7400:401C:48EF:A1BC:8537:A14F:8BCE I think it should be " 2024 Tokyo Haneda Airport Collision " Yohan Maduranga (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS CONTINUED IN THE REQUESTED MOVE SECTION BELOW Ex nihil ^(talk) 15:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Japan Airlines Flight 516 → 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision – The title should be renamed since it was not a collision between an aircraft and a ground vehicle but rather two aircraft. RPC7778 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per comment from S5A-0043. jhpratt (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Would keep the original title since it's easier to page through later in the other articles. However the rename proposition can be used in the Coast Guards article. Detektiv Prime (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we want two articles for the same incident. Is there a second page somewhere? Timtjtim (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I agree that we don't need so. S5A-0043^Talk 11:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

comment: the difference is that all the deaths from this incident were from the coast guard aircraft though. 2406:3003:2004:2E9E:D0DE:D9C5:F721:5835 (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest '2024 Haneda Airport Runway Incursion'.

This is an incident involving more than one aircraft, it should not be limited to the flight number of only one of the involved aircraft. TJWiki654 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Runway Incursion is also a technical term, which may not have been met in this case. I'd want to see a WP:RS using that term before we use it. Timtjtim (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think at least 'runway collision' would be more accurate than the present title, especially considering the deaths were localized entirely on the Coast Guard aircraft in spite of the article using only the JAL flight number. Xanblu (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirection from the current name, to 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision- Doesnt make sense to keep the current name as there is more than one aircraft involved in this collision. If it was just JAL516, I would be opposing. Wolfstorm94 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect from the current name. Would be in line with the current standards of the titling of runway incursion articles (see Tenerife airport disaster). The Linate Airport disaster has some similarities as it involved a passenger jet colliding with a smaller non-commercial aircraft, so the naming convention should be preserved. Seannie4 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the move to "2024 Haneda Airport runway collision", for reasons posted above. SammyR06 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support only if the lede mentions "Japan Airlines Flight 516" in the first sentence. NM 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now per my comment linked by jhpratt. I’d like to see some consistency for all these accidents, this included. I’d be happy to change my stand if RSes start using a different title or so. S5A-0043^Talk 12:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Reconsidered and changing my opinion to support 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, but I shall continue to oppose any title including the word disaster. Google News search brings up nothing branding this as a "disaster", which is a key difference between this and Los Angeles runway disaster and the like. S5A-0043^Talk 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect would be an option. Let us see what others think. Leoneix _(talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with a redirect from the current name - this is a collision between two planes and not just the JAL flight currently named. Eilidhmax (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with the same reasoning as the above comment by Eilidhmax. Deaths are also only on the CG aircraft vs. the JAL plane, which gives further justification for the title change. Xanblu (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support '2024 Haneda Airport Collision' with redirect from current title as I agree with some of the aforementioned comments regarding labeling the incident as a 'disaster' and therefore oppose 'Haneda Airport Disaster' Xanblu (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect. Could suggest renaming the article to 2024 Haneda Airport runway disaster as well, although it could be debated as the accident only involved deaths from the coast guard aircraft. Suggestion based on Los Angeles runway disaster. Tofusaurus (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Title to remain japan airlines flight 516 118.189.192.116 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for the oppose? Timtjtim (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: We have Batik Air Flight 7703, TWA Flight 427, etc., as a similar incident (i.e. a regularly scheduled flight collides with a plane that is not on a runway). I think the convention should be followed unless there are other stronger reasons. Sun8908 _Talk 13:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I'm actually confused why that article isn't titled '2016 Halim Airport collision' as opposed to this article going by the flight number. Xanblu (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect. Agree with Eilidhmax and Xanblu, the deaths are (so far) only on the Coast Guard plane, and the title should, as much as possible, reflect the full nature of the incident. Need the redirect because JAL 516 is going to be a common search term. Timtjtim (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy with 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision or 2024 Haneda Airport runway disaster, would want to wait for a WP:RS to confirm it was a runway incursion before we used that term - and even then collision / accident / disaster are more descriptive, there are many categories of incursion. Timtjtim (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect - same style as Tenerife airport disaster. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect from the current name. Having the title just as the callsign of the JAL aircraft involved is misleading as there is more than one aircraft involved. Should be titled similar to Linate Airport disaster and Tenerife airport disaster or Los Angeles runway disaster (mitchulhope)

Support because there have been accidents involving two aircrafts in the past and they are also named by the location and manner of the event. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 13:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Speaking of a collision seems better and less misleading that only mentioning one flight. Maxime12346 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for consistency. Other articles in Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving ground collisions use the "Year-Airport-collison" format for collisions between two active aircraft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support move to 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, with redirect - too complex to list both flights in the title.Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. Move to 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision. Two planes are involved and most of the other articles mention the airport name, where the disaster took place. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for consistency as other runway incursions, such as Tenerife, has been formatted so that the airport name is mentioned in the title rather than the aircraft. ItsNotJasper (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support move to: 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, to avoid two parallel articles, but noting that the investigation may suggest a further move in the future. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support as per previous articles on way deadlier collisions of this type. Borgenland (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support move to "2024 Haneda Airport runway collision", per reasons listed above. Sapiann (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect. People would be searching up this flight number instead of 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision. But for consistency wise, page should be moved. Yienshawn (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, as per all the other discussion points. This wasn't just an incident with JAL 516. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support we should merge the articles and combine them into one on the entire incident. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Which articles do you want merged? Is there a second article? Timtjtim (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, seems I hallucinated seeing another one. However, still support as this is follows WP:AVTITLE. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with precedent such as Tenerife airport disaster, which also involved two planes and the wiki pages for the flight numbers involved redirect to that page. Aresef (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. This incident is a ground collision, not a single aircraft incident. So the title should reflect it as such. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 Haneda Airport Runway Collision because it is more descriptive of the actual incident. 91.159.157.246 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Runway Collision should not be capitalised per WP:LOWERCASE Timtjtim (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with redirect for Japan Airlines Flight 516. Undescribed (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support as this event isn't a single aircraft incident, but rather a ground collision between two aircraft. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support There are multiple aircraft involved, and the title aircraft had no fatalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerd (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with both aircrafts, and support collision in the title. Not sure if 'runway' is needed in the title. Yeoutie (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Two planes involved. No reason for the article title to refer to only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsky (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support There are two planes involved. Why refer to just one? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support - There are two planes involved is the strongly and most fundamental reason why. 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision is the best title, because "incursion" tends to be used for aircraft that may have collided but actually did not, whereas "disaster" is only used for a loss of life substantially higher than the five lost here (though I am willing to accept disaster since loss of life is bad regardless of number). ProtectionElegant8 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Is it possible to close this request and move before the 7-day period is up because of the notability of this incident - the overwhelming consensus seems to be Support Anguswiki (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally I'd like to give it a little longer per WP:RMEC, but this is a current news event so it having an accurate title sooner rather than later would be good. Timtjtim (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This is SNOW material. The current title isn't even arguable, there is no realistic prospect it will keep this name. The question then is, do we go for 'collision' or wait to see if others favour another term - while keeping a completely inadequate title in the meantime.

In my view, the consensus so far favours collision and if that's inappropriate, then another move request can be started. We shouldn't keep a completely inadequate title due to bureaucracy. Local Variable (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support - Typically, when there are collisions on aircraft, and this could be anecdotal, but whenever if that is the case, the title wouldn't name a specific flight number, compared to that in which both aircraft are totally destroyed because of that event. To be clear: Mid-air and on-runway collisions/incursions typically involve two aircraft, so unless if there are any precedents, then there is no reason for this title to be referred to just the Airbus A350 as if it is their sole responsibility... ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support change to more sensible and descriptive name. Maungapohatu (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy move: I'm generally against move requests on recent events, but this one is clearly justified. No good reason has been advanced for the current title - two aircraft are involved, and it's obviously a runway collision. That is sufficient to conclude the current title is inadequate. This shouldn't wait the whole period and someone who knows how to should close this and move it, debate can continue later about the precise title formulation (collision, incursion, disaster). Local Variable (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: It would be weird to have a page named after one flight while there are 2 planes that collided. We also have a page named "Tenerife airport disaster" and not KLM Flight 4805 or Pan Am Flight 1736. ItsOzelo (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I would also state that my understanding of the incident is that the mostly likely situation is that the question revolves around why the the Coastguard plane was on the runway when it had been cleared to wait before the runway, so attributing the entire incident to 516 also feels a bit wrong. ProtectionElegant8 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Written off

Editors seem to be overfond of saying things were "written off". Clearly both hulls were severely damaged or destroyed, but "writing off" is a technical term which is really down to the owners and their insurers etc, and should not be bandied around here like it's the flavour of the month. Unless there is a credible ref using this exact language it sounds like overexcited gee-whizz editing, which is the exact opposite of what we need. Best to all DBaK (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See discussion above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japan_Airlines_Flight_516#Hull_loss Timtjtim (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you very much, and for the sensible edits to the article. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that a write-off is an accounting term dealing with the recognized value of something. So a hull loss would always be written off, but not all aircraft that are written off are necessarily hull losses. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Military airplane?

The article has the category Category:Accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, but are planes of the coast guard indeed military airplanes? 109.38.150.17 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, the Japan Coast Guard is part of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, rather than being a military branch like the US Coast Guard is Timtjtim (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Coast guards are not military in many countries, they're civilian. Japan is one of them. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Flightradar report over Transponder

Would it be worthwhile also discussing/adding the Flightradar report that the Coast Guard Aircraft (Dash8) had no ABS-D Transponder? See Flightradar24 on X: "The Japan Coast Guard aircraft is a De Havilland Canada DHC-8-315Q MPA with registration JA722A It was not equipped with a modern ADS-B transponder." / X (twitter.com - https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1742136715253313938 ) for more info Wolfstorm94 (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's relevant - ADS-B is not mandatory in Japan as of yet. Eilidhmax (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eilidhmax Agree. I'd say for the article relevance more or less comes down to official statements, accident reports, and/or official changes. FrozenHourglass (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What time did the incident occur?

Refer to title Aviamonix (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Per NHK (Bing Translate to English - https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014307191000.html#:~:text=%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88%E3%83%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%80%E3%83%BC%E3%81%AE,%E3%81%88%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%99%E3%80%82 )

> According to the private website "Flightradar 24", which publishes flight courses based on the position and altitude information transmitted by the aircraft, this Japanese airliner departed from New Chitose Airport at 4:27 p.m. and flew smoothly, and then landed at Haneda Airport at 5:47 p.m.

So assumption would be 5:47pm JST or shortly there after Wolfstorm94 (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-67862184?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=659402d0f825603c1a3816ed%26What%20we%20know%20so%20far%262024-01-02T12%3A42%3A22.984Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:6a752ef7-ebca-4b71-9b12-84b79e3b9b2f&pinned_post_asset_id=659402d0f825603c1a3816ed&pinned_post_type=share 17:47 local time / 08:47 UTC according to the BBC Timtjtim (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

08:47 UTC according to flightradar24 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/jl516#3376ab31 PayDaPro (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Other accidents in "See also" section

Should similar accidents to this one be included into the "See also" section? Per my addition of Los Angeles runway disaster but was later removed by someone else in another edit. Tofusaurus (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see some that are specifically runway collisions - e.g. Linate Airport disaster, Tenerife airport disaster or Los Angeles runway disaster. Let's leave the link to the full list of commercial accidents as well for now Timtjtim (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

Live changes because of current changes. Modification of statistics MRT aviation (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

update the statistics. Add for example new reactions. Give more detail about aircraft. Delivered in 2019> 4 years old. Also add a picture of the flaming plane MRT aviation (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/japan-airlines-jal-mileage-bank/2146390-japan-airlines-a359-fire-haneda-after-colliding-coast-guard-plane.html

Update injuries MRT aviation (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We (editors) are currently doing the best we can do, to add new details once reliable sources are found. As for the image, there are currently no images of the burning aircraft that I can find and use at the moment. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@MRT aviation Fyi, forum websites such as Flyertalk are considered as unreliable source per WP:SPS. As mentioned above, provide a reliable source, preferably secondary reliable source i.e. news sources. As for images, there isn't any images available that is suitable for inclusion as per WP:Image use policy and Commons:Licensing. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:EDITXY - if you are submitting an edit request you need to be precise about the exact changes you want made. Until you form it into the exact wording you want added / changed / removed, it's not a valid edit request.

If you're just requesting additional details, you should start a new generic talk topic with the details you want added. You could add some links to WP:RS if you have to help aid the discussion.

Also, remember WP:NOTNEWS - we would not expect this page to be the most up to date record of information! Timtjtim (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fireball aboard" is misleading

The following sentence in the first paragraph of the Incident section is misleading:

"A fireball erupted aboard the plane, producing a fiery trail as it moved down the runway."

This sounds like the fireball appeared "on board". Meaning "inside the passenger cabin". That's not true.

A fireball can be seen on a video footage of the incident, but it appears OUTSIDE of the airplane.

I think better wording would be:

"A fireball erupted FROM the airplane" 100.36.135.250 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

reworded Timtjtim (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Map?

Why is there a map showing the Coast Guard planes route? From what can be gathered the coast guard plane was on the ground and preparing to take off. So it doesn't need a route as it's not relevant as it never took off. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'll remove that now. – Isochrone (T) 14:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the edit summary. Borgenland (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry-- I took this from ADS-B Exchange and they have a flight path for the coastguard plane coming in at 17:14; this is it coming in to land prior to its collision. Removed. – Isochrone (T) 14:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I see we've added the flight map back in again. I'd say remove it all together, it has no relevance to the incident. The incident happened on the runway and has no connection to where it flew from or how the plane made the approach or flight plan. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears the thumbnail still erroneously shows the Coast Guard's arrival path from the previous day. Both the thumbnail and the map itself incorrectly show the collision location as over water. This map probably isn't adding value as the approach path is not relevant. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with removal, per reasons listed above. Map in it's current state is not accurate or relevant. Sapiann (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fatal incident for Japan Airlines"

No fatalities were reported on the Japan Airlines flight. They were solely on the Coast Guard flight. Wouldn't that mean this wasn't a fatal incident for Japan Airlines, but rather a fatal incident for the Coast Guard? ~SlyCooperFan1 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct - reworded to "...first fatal incident involving a Japan Airlines aircraft..." Timtjtim (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

ADS-B data aiding in ground tracking

The fact that the coast guard aircraft didn't have an ADS-B transmitter doesn't matter for runway incursion detection in this case, as Haneda airport has a ground radar system. This could thus be misleading, as it implies atc could've possible been unable to detect a possible runway incursion. 91.159.157.246 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that ADS-B is better than radar, so it seems to be relevant to include that it wasn't using the most up to date technology: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/adsb/faq#g1.

Do you have a suggestion of a reword that would clarify that it was not impossible for ATC to detect an incursion just harder / less accurate / less reliable? Timtjtim (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say remove it entirely. It's conjecture that it's related and would have made a difference. We're implying this in Wiki voice by leaving it in. Leave it out until such time as it's proven to be relevant. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. Done Timtjtim (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How many were injured?

BBC are now reporting only 14 were injured on the JAL aircraft. Do we have a second source for this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-67862184?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65942e70f825603c1a381729%26Number%20of%20injured%20passengers%20and%20crew%20revised%20down%20to%2014%20-%20reports%262024-01-02T16%3A07%3A44.143Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:1f905ab8-f438-4758-8420-a759a063f4a7&pinned_post_asset_id=65942e70f825603c1a381729&pinned_post_type=share

• Japan's public broadcaster NHK is now reporting that 14 people from the Japan Airlines flight suffered minor injuries, citing fire officials. This corrects previous reporting that the Tokyo Fire Department had said 17 people were hurt.

Timtjtim (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

The BBC, NHK, and the Tokyo Fire Department are all stating 14 injuries on the JAL aircraft, not 17. Njsky (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the links? Timtjtim (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I edited the article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-67862184?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65942e70f825603c1a381729%26Number%20of%20injured%20passengers%20and%20crew%20revised%20down%20to%2014%20-%20reports%262024-01-02T16%3A07%3A44.143Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:1f905ab8-f438-4758-8420-a759a063f4a7&pinned_post_asset_id=65942e70f825603c1a381729&pinned_post_type=share

This was published 2 hours ago, and cites NHK and the Tokyo Fire Department- which are both recognized reliable sources. Njsky (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I included that earlier and my edit was rejected because CNN was outdated still.

https://news.sky.com/story/japan-plane-fire-latest-hundreds-were-on-board-plane-footage-shows-explosion-as-it-taxies-on-runway-13040808?postid=7002539#liveblog-body also states 14. Timtjtim (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

An outdated CNN article doesn't trump BBC and The Guardian telling us that the number of injuries has been adjusted down imo. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

the BBC article is newer and cites the people who put out the fire; 14 is the correct number. Njsky (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Reactions from Former Pilots

Wondering if it makes sense to include in /* Reactions */ that of former pilots that have been speaking to the News Outlets in the United Kingdom - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/02/japan-airlines-plane-fire-tokyo-haneda-airport (also includes the possibility of those who have talked to NHK as well - Also cited in the source) Wolfstorm94 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably stick with relevant organisations, rather than individuals. The reactions of the pilots will form parts of the RS's reporting, and naturally be included as makes sense. Timtjtim (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Airbus A350-900 or -941?

We list the aircraft involved as both an A350-900 and Airbus A350-941.

Under the Airbus naming scheme, the 41 refers to the engine model. However, there's no true distinction as the A350-900 has only one engine choice.

A350-900 is overwhelmingly the common name used in media and in Google searches (per Google Trends), so my suggestion would be to only use A350-900.

But either way, we should be consistent. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell the practice is to only use the specific engine designation in the "Aircraft" section and infobox, with optionally an explanatory note in the Aircraft section indicating why it is designated "A350-941". The rest of the article can just use A350-900. S5A-0043^Talk 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Did that using Transair Flight 810 as a guide. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Runway collision

I think the runway collision part should be added back into the accident - summary box, as a runway incursion doesn't automatically mean a colission, it means an unauthorized entry onto a runway. 91.159.157.246 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

Maybe adding a picture to the aftermath of the crash would definitely be better. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a good idea, but currently, no one has uploaded any aftermath pictures to wikimedia commons. Maybe wait for a few days and those would become available. PatrickChiao (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking some people on Xiaohongshu right now that just happened to be at Haneda, hopefully someone will come back and reply a yes. S5A-0043^Talk 03:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Passenger list

Is a breakdown of passenger nationalities available? Borgenland (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it is relevant since the Japan Airlines flight did not have any casualties at all. But let's have other decide on it.

It also depends if JAL wants to release the list in the first place. Detektiv Prime (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to either have a full breakdown, or nothing. The random line about there being 14 Australians feels a bit out of place at the moment. Timtjtim (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Arial footage of the runway after the collision

Stumbled across a few pictures taken from a helicopter that photographed the whole runway (16L/34R) after the fires have been extinguished. Not sure if we can use them since they are published on GettyImages. Also since the markings of the collision are visible now, are we able to modify the Airport diagram that has been added to showcase where the exact collision took place on the runway? Detektiv Prime (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Modifying the diagram would be good. Unless the images have been published elsewhere under a compatible licence, we can't directly include them. Timtjtim (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gonna have to reference on the photographs to locate the exact location, and have then to download the original svg file and add a boom sign (not sure what it is called exactly but hope you get what I mean) on C5/C5B. Detektiv Prime (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Japan jet crash: How crew pulled off flawless evacuation from plane inferno https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67870119 this article has an aerial image with diagram, you can use this as a reference Timtjtim (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

Suggestions on which markings should be which color? Detektiv Prime (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RED/BLUE/GREEN? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's done as an SVG, we can always edit it later if there's an issue :) Timtjtim (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not able to publish it due to the automated filter. Any help to get it updated please? Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Right engine still running

Why was the right engine still running when evacuation began? You'd think that the pilots would have shut the engines down right away. Was there damage to the wiring connecting the cockpit to the fuel valves? Did the pilots for some reason just not think of it?Bill (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've actually not found any reliable source saying that the engine was running during evacuation. The claim has been circling around, with some claiming sparks were coming from it. The videos I've seen are not high quality enough to confirm that the engine was still running and causing sparks, vs the fire sparking as it progressed.

I've removed the claim because I can't find a WP:RS for it - if anyone does find one, please add it back because it's an interesting detail if true Timtjtim (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing this again until I see an RS. Timtjtim (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it definitely sounds like the kind of rumour that would spread without evidence. Appreciate your cleanup ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024 (2)

It was a runway incursion as the the JAL aircraft was landing at the time of incident 82.132.185.231 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Should be changed to incursion 82.132.185.231 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that this was a runway incursion? Timtjtim (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I provided one above (Aviation Week). Meanwhile, Sky is reporting it "may have been a runway incursion".

I'm not going to edit war for inclusion but I think this is sufficient to at least mention the possibility. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as we are careful with language about it potentially being a runway incursion, and clear that no investigation has happened yet. Timtjtim (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Unable to state that it was an incursion, if it was then it would be by the Coast Guard plane, not JAL. Because the ATC instructions are currently not known we cannot call it an incursion. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Demographics

Removed the number of Australians but I think listing nationalities involved would be a good addition, just need reliable sources to confirm breakdown rather than just randomly listing the number of Australians but not other nationalities. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It was the only available detail at the time I added it. I was also hoping for a more detailed breakdown to appear. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

dash 8 wreckage

i found a picture of the japan coast guard dash 8 wreckage here https://images.radio-canada.ca/q_auto,w_700/v1/ici-info/16x9/japan-collision-airplane-coast-guard-jal-40008.png should we add it? 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5820:1EAA:7134:4D33 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the licence? What page is that image displayed on? Timtjtim (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No. This is likely part of Kyodo/Reuters' reporting [11]. – robertsky (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep - second image on the gallery, https://www.reuters.com/resizer/JRSHzu68IJx9hVUlwB7kLRNOfcg=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ZZGCROLEKJIGJN7KHCYJSZJCQI.jpg

Deffo not a compatible licence. Timtjtim (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Coast Guard history

We say that this was:

the first fatal accident and the first hull loss involving a Japan Airlines aircraft since...

but nothing about the equivalent statistics for the Japanese Coastguard. Does anyone have a source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not definitive (it's not a full history) but this list [12] has no other planes marked as a loss. Timtjtim (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Captain claims he had permission to take off

Suggest we add mention of this: The captain of the Japan Coast Guard aircraft stated afterwards that he had "obtained permission to take off," 202.138.15.213 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that we can use within the article? Or should it wait for now due to the investigations only have started? Detektiv Prime (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

NHK reported it. Inserted it a few minutes ago. Borgenland (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Detektiv Prime (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just clarified that it was the pilot making the claim, rather than a third party. Timtjtim (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Japan Airlines: Coastguard plane not cleared for take-off, transcripts show - BBC News Timtjtim (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Injured toll incorrect.

Injured passengers number of Japan air in the article conflicts with the one in the info box on the right. Windsor Yeh (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's 15 because the lone Coast Guard survivor was severely injured. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was the pilot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?

According to this report in Japanese, it was reported that "two pets" were checked in and were in the cargo compartment on Flight 516. Unfortunately, the report say that they were not rescued. Could this perhaps be added somewhere in the article? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it can. However I don't think I'm confident enough to include it since I'm not an expert on what counts as WP:RS in Japanese. Borgenland (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this something normally included in an article about an aviation accident? Timtjtim (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, now it's been added. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with publishing an updated version of the Haneda Airport diagram

Detektiv Prime's image

Can't publish an updated version of the Haneda Airport Diagram, which features markings of the airplane wreckages and the runway collision spot. Any help would be really appreciated. Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Background colours for the in-diagram text seem to be smaller than the text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Detektiv Prime your account has tripped an edit filter for some vandalistic edits that's not targeted at your content, hence you weren't able to publish the updated version. I will help you to update the image. – robertsky (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Detektiv Prime (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be better IMO if the diagram is smaller and you include the taxiways and runway identifiers. Those are an important part of the overall collision. Sort of like a Jeppesen chart, with the crash info, but a not a plagiarised one. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ATC transcript from Japanese government

This is the ATC transcript as released by the Japanese government https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/1742589102732574741 --Westwind273 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the copyright status on such works (ie. transcripts, ATC records, etc)? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Done but with better sources - Full text: Air traffic control communications right before Tokyo Haneda collision | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News Wolfstorm94 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ATC transcript

The Aviation Safety Network have tweeted a transcript of the ATC at the time. It seems that ATC instructions were misinterpreted by the crew of the coastguard aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

RS: Japan Airlines: Coastguard plane not cleared for take-off, transcripts show - BBC News Timtjtim (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding into this that NHK World Japan and NHK (local) has also reported on the full ATC Logs: Full text: Air traffic control communications right before Tokyo Haneda collision | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News Wolfstorm94 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility

The accessibility of the "Airport layout" map in the incident section is poor; especially its use of adjacent read and green to indicate two different things (red-green colour blindness is the commonest form).

Please can it be redrawn, with symbols as well as colours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. Always frustrating when diagrams are not designed with accessibility in mind. Here is some guidance https://venngage.com/blog/accessible-colors/ ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an SVG so you should be able to edit it fairly easily :) Timtjtim (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support - I know there was a version of what happened posted via the NHK that might also fit better: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240103/K10014307511_2401030417_0103152849_02_05.jpg Wolfstorm94 (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

5 JCG crew killed

did they collect dead bodies in DH8 plane? OrangePH (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the emergency services won't have just left them there. But the intensity of the explosion may have meant there were little human remains. Did you think something needed adding to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Would we add a new picture?

I saw some pictures in wikimedia commons and they showed the fire burning after the collision. Should we add them? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to these two images? [13], [14]

No, they should not be placed in the article as the two images are CSD tagged due to a copyright violation. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 13:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

FAA Investigation

FAA officials from the United States will assist Japanese investigation teams in investigating the incident. A member from Japan Airlines, Airbus, and the Japan Coast Guard will also be assisting with this investigation along with airport workers who witnessed the incident. The Japanese Government department of transportation will also be involved with the investigations. The pilots have being suspended by Japan Airlines, but will be providing information on the investigation. Crew members on both aircraft will also be interviewed and the Air Traffic Control team will also participate in the investigation 2001:8003:ED1E:8300:E1C4:D29F:5B4:FD32 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources for this? I can't find anything that suggests FAA officials will participate in the investigation, for instance. (Not logged in right now but can edit later) 2A00:23C8:5985:8501:C495:4F6E:2817:DA87 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Planes invovled are French (Airbus) and Canadian (DHC), so the outside investigators should be BEA (France) and TSB (Canada) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

BEA is indeed the outside authority. Unlikely FAA would be involved. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be added that also the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) will investigate because the Bombardier has been built in Canada (source: CBC news).NSX-Racer (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems likely. But do you have any source for that? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As I already wrote: CBC News - video is here. NSX-Racer (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bombardier Aerospace or De Havilland Canada? Or just Transportation Safety Board of Canada? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hull loss or Destruction?

Which one should we add? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Both aircraft were destroyed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes but Timtjtim wants to keep it as "Destruction". PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)