Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision/Archive 2

Japan Airlines or JAL?
It's getting dangerously close to an edit war between "JAL" and "Japan Airlines".

The article currently has both, many references to "JAL", "the JAL flight", "JAL said", "communication with JAL" etc, and 1 reference to "Japan Airlines Flight 516" in the main article, and many more in the introduction and info box.

It doesn't make sense to use both "JAL Flight 516" and "Japan Airlines Flight 516" in the incident section.

I'll note that a lot of news articles use "JAL"    - that seems to be the name of the company (JAL Group;  )

I'm leaning towards continuing to refer to the company as "JAL" everywhere once we've explained the acronym. Timtjtim (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Reposting this explanation from an offending user’s talk page:
 * I had explained in an edit summary that at the beginning of the article the airliner had been provided with an acronym after its full name. Yet said user curiously left that part untouched. If they had been serious about pushing the full I believe they would have removed so immediately rather than leave that loophole for other users to reinsert the acronym and cause this edit war. As for me, I don’t think this is an issue worth fighting over incessantly but my only 2 cents on this is that why waste precious bytes throughout the article and making life harder spelling out a full name when there is an adequately explained acronym. Borgenland (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just use "Japan Airlines" in the first instance of each section and "JAL" afterwards. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah sounds good. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

get the runway correct
can someone please correct the runway in the text under the investigation heading. it currently reads 34 left

the accident occurred on 34R, the source has the transcript as 34 right. but the text on this wikipage is 34 left. which would imply incorrectly, that they were on the wrong runway. 203.122.246.82 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ RickyCourtney (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we mention just in case "also referred in some articles as Runway C", since some articles, Japanese in particular, mention runway C a lot? Detektiv Prime (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ATC Transcripts all use 34R so I'd avoid confusion and stick with that. Japan Airlines: Coastguard plane not cleared for take-off, transcripts show - BBC News Timtjtim (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no runway C. The parallel taxiway is named "C".  And turns off taxiway to the runway are labeled C1, C2, etc.  The Coast Guard plane was at the C5 turnoff from the taxiway to the runway. Si Guy 57 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it came into somewhat common practice in Japan to call the runways A, B, C and D, likely in connection with the expansion project in the 1990s. That said, it's confusing to use those terms because the parallel taxiways are also called A, B, C and D, plus the international practice is to call runways by their compass headings. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting explanation, thanks for replying. I agree it is confusing. Si Guy 57 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Transport Ministry released official ATC transcript
Link: https://note.com/ooya113/n/n868be39fb82c https://twitter.com/itsukaichi_engi

The transcript has shown that JA722A entered the runway without ATC's clearance, which is important for article readers to understand about the cause of the whole accident. Jadenlai19 (talk) 06:34, 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)
 * Thank you! Jadenlai19 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that official ATC transcript has been released, should this be added to the article? Clueless.explorer (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably although, ás I said above, someone might want to create an article, or update an existing article, with Holding point (airport)? Currently all we seem to have is Holding Point. It seems that Aviation Week has already decided who's to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

JCG Plane
Any word on where the JCG ended up? Borgenland (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The what? Detektiv Prime (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard plane. Borgenland (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. not sure. All the info we have is the personnel of the plane. But I assume the aircraft is pretty much destroyed. Detektiv Prime (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was a bit confused and mistook this incident for a mid-air collision. That’s why I was wondering where the other plane is. Borgenland (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't reflect right now that the JA722A was preparing to take off (= not landing or something else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.88.209 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No word, but close up Reuters photo shows it just off the centreline. https://indianexpress.com/article/world/japan-plane-goes-up-in-fireball-details-9092749/ Davoloid (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, the JCG aircraft type is listed as Bombardier Q300, but link and article refers to it as De Havilland Canada Dash 8-300. Should the type be changed? Clueless.explorer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a change of manufacturer's name since it was built? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In cases like this would the original manufacturer name stay, or will it change to the new manufacturer? I wasn't sure hence asked the question and not updated it directly Clueless.explorer (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

JAL 123 reference
@Sunnyboy122 raised a concern about this sentence in the lead, since it conveys (incorrectly) that people died on the JAL flight. It was both the first fatal accident and the first hull loss of a JAL aircraft since the crash of Flight 123 in 1985. I agree with those concerns. The solution was to change (diff) "of" to "involving". I think we should go further, and completely remove the reference to a fatal accident. I get it, we're getting to shoehorn in a reference to JAL123, but it's just unnecessary and too difficult to word without conveying JAL had fatalities. Local Variable (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps splitting into two separate sentences might help? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's since been removed by another editor. Local Variable (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Major accident would have been less contentious. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Local Variable (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Identify coast guard aircraft by registration number.
I think it's important that we identify the coast guard aircraft by registration number, not casually alternating between "the coast guard plane" and the "Dash-8" / A350. Only one of these flights have a commercial flight number. I just feel that identifying aircraft by model could refer to any aircraft. Shencypeter (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There is only 1 coast guard plane or Dash 8 involved in this incident. We generally don't use aircraft registration numbers other than as a passing note, but not for regular use. Using Coast Guard plane is number more identifiable to the reader of the article than a random registration number. Words rather than numbers are more descriptive. Canterbury Tail talk 21:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But registration is clearly its call sign in the ATC transcripts?! Shencypeter (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most of the article does not refer to the ATC transcripts. Again simple descriptive words mean more to a reader than trying to remember which number letter combination is which plane. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ATC Transcripts?
I have a few questions on including the ATC transcript now.

I find the ATC Transcript citation rather vague, and I am not really sure are we supposed to include the ATC Transcripts right now? The source cites "liveATC.net" and it looks like some wikipedian transcribed it themselves. I don't see any similar transcripts on major Aviation accidents except when they are cited on the Accident Reports? Is it too early for that? PatrickChiao (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The transcript also mentions a runway 36R. There is no runway 36R at Haneda Airport. The transcript should reflect what was actually said over ATC. Pauliewaffle (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly think we should remove that, or insert it into the accident section. I don't think we need a separate ATC transcript section. S5A-0043 Talk 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think ATC Transcripts should be included at this time. It is better to add a section of transcript information possibly in the Investigation section whenever it is created. ItsNotJasper (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this transcript adds anything, this doesn't appear to be an incident caused by ATC instruction but an accidental runway incursion. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think (once confirmed by WP:RS) that is really useful information to include, and possibly an RS with the ATC transcript will be evidence, but agree that the transcript itself is inappropriate right now Timtjtim (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I would consider the RS of this to be: Full text: Air traffic control communications right before Tokyo Haneda collision | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News since its also used on NHK in jp-JP. Wolfstorm94 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone might want to create an article, or update an existing article, with Holding point (airport)? Currently all we seem to have is Holding Point. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Article for note Shencypeter (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Local time
Sterling work so far, everyone, but shouldn't we have the times as local, i.e. GMT +9, with GMT for reference? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, the times should be set to the Local time in Tokyo (GMT +9) Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the aviation world all times are (or should be) reported in UTC (essentially the same as GMT) 46.114.192.220 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't see Zulu time on your boarding pass. Always local time.... Shencypeter (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Passengers use local time, but all aviation is in UTC. That being said I don't really care much which we use in the article and the Aviation Wikiproject doesn't appear to have any style guide around that. And only the military calls it Zulu time so that has no cause being anywhere near the article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Zulu time is also the correct phraseology used in air traffic control operations. I think that both times should be mentioned, in format: local time(utc) 2001:999:58D:2C2:6C48:2764:132C:6C51 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Other planes in the area that Tower was talking to
Using the playback feature on PlaneFinder and FlightRadar24 I have obtained a view of the other different planes that Haneda Tower was talking to in the ATC transcripts and audio.

DAL276 (Delta A330-200 N851NW (RJTT > KDTW). Behind JA722A on taxiway, back to spot.

JAL166 (Japan Air B737-800 JA336J (RJSK > RJTT). Arrival behind JL516, go-around.

ANA35 (All Nippon B767-300 JA625A (RJTT > RJOO). Taxiing to runway 5 behind JAL131.

JAL131 (Japan Air B767-300 JA601J (RJTT > RJOO). Taxiing to runway 5, first to report a fire on 34R.

JAL25 (Japan Air B787-8 JA832J (RJTT > ZBAA). Departed runway 34R before JL516.

DAL181 (Delta B767-300 N174DZ (PHNL > RJTT). The last arrival to land on 34L. All other arrivals divert to nearby airports.

The ATC transcripts also mention a "JL179". What I've managed to find is that such a route exists from Tokyo RJTT to Yamagata RJSC and is flown by an Embraer 190. But it doesn't show up in either Planefinder or FR24, so my thinking is that the Embraer in question was still in its spot. JustAnotherNZWikipedian (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's all very interesting, thanks, but will any of this information improve the article? Are you in some way trying to suggest what the workload level was for the ATC that night? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did insert a summarized testimony of the ATC’s being too distracted from handling other aircraft from noticing the JCG entering the runway. Borgenland (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We currently have this source which says "The coast guard plane is believed to have mistakenly entered the runway where the collision took place. Traffic controllers have said they were unaware at the time." This supports the sentence: "Following reports that the air traffic controllers were unaware that the Coast Guard aircraft had entered the runway without clearance, the ministry also installed a new air traffic controller post on 6 January that would provide constant monitoring of aircraft at the airport". This seems to be perfectly well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Evacuation time?
Current article states "The evacuation was completed within a span of 20 minutes."

BBC News article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67865132) has one of the passengers state that the evacuation took about 5 minutes: "Mr Yamake, the passenger, said for all of the chaos, it took about five minutes for everyone to get out. "I saw that the fire had spread in about 10, 15 minutes," he added." 217.163.105.229 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The official statement from JAL is that it took 18 minutes for the last person on board to get out. Borgenland (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seen the JAL official statement, thanks. The actual evacuation start time is probably unknown at this time, so the evacuation time may be less than 18 minutes. Thanks for clarifying that it's 18 minutes after landing, 217.163.105.229 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the official time includes pilot / captain who remained (potentially attempting to trigger fire suppression systems) until the last minute. But I probably wouldn't trust the time estimate of a passenger in the middle of an evacuation! Timtjtim (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it says that. I think it implies that complete evacuation was confirmed at 18 minutes.  Confirmed by who? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN reported that the captain was the last person leaving the plane - 18 minutes after the collision.NSX-Racer (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What time did the last PAX(not crew) exited out, exactly ? Bouzinac (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's likely the last passenger was not that long before the captain exited, but I'm seeing more reports that the bulk of the passengers exited in about half the time, then the crew did a sweep, found some remaining passengers and got them out. This kind of detail will likely come out in the report, so this can be clarified in due course - without really having WP:RS in the interim we kind of have to run with it was completed by 18 minutes after the collision, which is true. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It apparently took 7 minutes for the last pax to exit https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1743326260321738924?t=fRFbRiVRz8W3z0GGSV1p9A&s=19 Bouzinac (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what the tweet says, the tweet reflects my previous comment above. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

see also page comments
first thing--the description of the Tenerife disaster lists it as the deadliest air disaster in history; however, the deadliest air disaster in history is the collision of American Airlines Flight 11 with the North Tower. I believe this should be changed to "deadliest air accident" (which is what is written on the actual Tenerife accident page) in order to avoid confusion. second thing--for the sake of making the section clearer, the incidents listed (in my opinion) should be based on casualties instead of chronology. third thing--the section in general seems to be non-specific and small. would be great for anybody to simply expand on it rather than just leaving it as a lackluster summary sentence. PhillyCheeeeseSteak (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SEEALSO such sections are only supposed to be a bulleted list and there isn't necessarily a requirement to have such a section at all. Where the link's relevance isn't immediately apparent, a brief annotation is appropriate to explain it, but detail isn't required or appropriate.  Most likely once the final report comes out in due course, we'll probably need to clean this section up to focus on what's genuinely related - at the moment it's a bit of a scattergun of possibly related articles about collisions on runways. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of passenger escape slides
This story mentions that the 3 escape slides used were in the front. According to photos and other stories, 2 were in the front, and the third was the left rear slide. Perhaps the article could be updated to reflect this. Si Guy 57 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do update it - make sure to cite a WP:RS!
 * If you don't have permission (the article is semi-protected) please start an edit request, and provide the sources you've found and what you'd like the article to say! Timtjtim (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm too new to be able to edit this article. Also, I don't know where else to go to start an "edit request". I thought that was what this Talk session was for.
 * The Incident section of this story states - "All 367 passengers and 12 crew members onboard Japan Airlines Flight 516 exited using three of the aircraft's eight evacuation slides located in the front of the plane."
 * There can only be 2 slides in the front, one on each side. Obviously the over-wing slides could not be used due to the fires.  The third slide that was used was at the left rear.  I can include a link including a picture that clearly shows 2 slides in the front, and one in the rear on the left side of the plane, I have seen this picture on many sources.  I can not find an article describing this detail.
 * https://liveandletsfly.com/japan-airlines-a350-900-evacuation/
 * If this source of information is not adequate, then I would suggest removing the phrasing "located in the front of the plane" as none of the sources quoted make that statement. Thank you. Si Guy 57 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made this change. The existing sources on this article provide abundant WP:VERIFY of which three slides were used in descriptions, images and video. -- Rob.au (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the update, I like your wording and specificity. I have been monitoring the story on Avherald.com, and I can see that only recently has Simon added that level of detail, I am glad you were able to find that and use it to support the change.  I look forward to continued updates to this story as the information becomes available. Si Guy 57 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An A350-900 has no over-wing exits.
 * There are two at the front.
 * Two ahead of the leading edge of the wing.
 * Two behind the trailing edge of the wing.
 * Two at the rear.
 * Depending on the seating layout, there can be 17 rows of seats between the front and rear wing exits. 46.114.192.220 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, did not realize that! I see now that most wide bodies don't have over wing exits, it's the narrow bodies that do. Thanks for pointing that out! Si Guy 57 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually just varies by aircraft. 747, 777, A380 have full doors over the wings, others like the 767 have smaller emergency-only style doors over the wings.  Just happens to be the case that the A350 has no overwing exits at all.  Door layouts can vary even by different models of the same type, there's no "rule" other than certification rules on overall exit capacity. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Black Box
Any word on whether the JAL black boxes have been recovered? Borgenland (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Somewhat surprising this has not yet been announced. Although, given we have the ATC transcript, not sure how much extra they might add anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All I know is that the black box in the Coast Guard plane is found. Kakan spelar (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will be interesting once the Coast Guard black box information is released by the investigation as that would probably be more critical to understand the Coast Guard pilot's actions that led it onto the runway while JAL 516 is landing Clueless.explorer (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg article from today saying still not recovered: . I'll add this source in. Local Variable (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Errmm... we won't want to keep updating this on a daily basis, will we? Looks a bit like non-news. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with providing up-to-date information in an article? The article is a work in progress, it will develop over time. Nothing out of the ordinary (and NOTNEWS deals with scope of coverage, it isn't a prohibition on keeping articles up to date). Local Variable (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If a WP:RS reports that non-recovery of the FDR/CVR is significant, e.g. is hampering the investigation, then I see no problem with adding that. Otherwise it's the recovery and analysis that's the real news. In this particular case the sequence of events is very clearly already known and all the aircrew are alive and able to give statements. That's not to say that important data, about the reaction of the aircraft to the collision, might not be gleaned from the eventual analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. But I agree with Borgenland below, whether or not it's found is relevant and ought be mentioned. Another editor or I will update it when it's found or is toast. WP:RS only requires that things in articles are sourced, it doesn't limit what is or isn't in an article. In other words, we don't need a source to say 'the JAL's black box is important' before mentioning its status in this article. The fact the JAL box's status is getting independent coverage would count against a claim of non-importance in any event. Local Variable (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are two of them, not just one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very least the only other important date is when it’s found or confirmed to be cinders. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear who has been tasked with downloading and analysing the data from the Dash 8 FDR and CVR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The terminology, if used, should be recovered not found. They don't need finding, they know exactly where they will be they can't have up and walked away, they just haven't recovered them as yet possibly because there's no urgency to do so for the JAL plane. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as in that list. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A350 FRD now recovered, as stated here. Article has been updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep you got in before I could comment here. :) Which was to say... I've updated the article to reflect the A350 FDR being recovered. The CVR status is open, so we're now waiting for a WP:RS to confirm its recovery or (presumably if not recovered) its suspected destruction.  Probably self-explanatory that I agree with comments above that it is valid for inclusion in the article, and updating the article reasonably quickly when the time comes is not an issue. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The FRD may have been physically recovered, but there is no word yet on its condition. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I kept the "recovered" language in the article. Sorry, was there a concern here? -- Rob.au (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no concern with your edit. I was merely asking if the FRD was still usable. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Total Collapse of the A350 Structure
While giving a reasonable outline of events, might not the article go more in-depth and address the real issues of concern? For should not more be said about the ease by which plastic planes burn, the collapse of the aircraft structure and the real trouble firefighters had in putting fires out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.152 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is the collapse of the aircraft structure significantly different to a non-composite (metal) airframe subjected to the same conditions?
 * Was the challenge with putting out the fire due to the nature of the composite airframe?
 * Do you have a reliable source (WP:RS) discussing these points?
 * Timtjtim (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From a cursory search     it looks pretty similar to the outcome of the burning up of a metal airframe, just more extensive, likely due to the more significant damage caused during the collision. Timtjtim (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an issue I would expect this article will cover in time as WP:RS address the issue. At this stage it seems to be widely reported/accepted that this is the first destruction by fire of an airframe dominated by composite materials, but going in depth on this now will likely be WP:SPECULATION.  The JTSB report, when it eventually comes, I would expect to be a particular trigger to go more in depth. -- Rob.au (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In Reply to Rob.au:
 * Given how quickly the media and public loose interest, might not highlighting present safety concerns be considered a something of a public service? 95.149.166.236 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What safety concern? No one has raised any safety concerns. In fact many sources have been praising Airbus's design for preventing the fire entering the passenger area long enough to evacuate. It seems you're just trying to scaremonger up a story that isn't there. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't abandon Wikipedia guidelines because we fear the public might lose interest. We don't do WP:SPECULATION and a bunch of other stuff in that policy. We all get annoyed with Wikipedia in different ways at different times, but ultimately there's nothing here to add at present. Once there's appropriate information to add to the article, backed by WP:RS, it'll get promptly added. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In Reply to Timtjtim:
 * The total collapse of the aircraft structure was notably different to a metal airframe subjected to the same fire conditions.
 * From TV news footage, it is clear that the real trouble firefighters had with putting out the fire was due to the nature of the airframe.
 * An online check will return reliable sources that fully address any points of concern. 95.149.166.236 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some WP:RS sources which substantiate these claims? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article currently states that the fuselage held intact sufficiently for all to be evacuated. To my knowledge, Fire-resistance rating does not suggest that the aircraft will remain intact indefinitely or how easily the fires could be tackled. there's always a specified time limit before the materials give way to heat damage. Consider Singapore Airlines Flight 006 and Collapse of the World Trade Center..... Shencypeter (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * IP 95, what's the purpose of this discussion exactly? To add a claim into the article along the lines of "the A350 is made of plastic and therefore it burns much easier than other aircraft, just look at the video!"? Have multiple WP:RS sources raised this point? If so, where are they? Otherwise this is just a WP:OR non-starter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The investigations will inevitably compare this and Emirates Flight 521. And only then will we have the WP:RS to document..... Shencypeter (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this discussion is, in part, to highlight the real problems faced by the firefighters. For does not the news footage clearly indicated that the Airbus A350 - being made of plastic (and other) materials - burnt easier, hotter and longer than older aircraft? 95.149.166.211 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If that were true then everyone on the plane was dead by now. Stop making speculative garbage based on what you untrained eye sees. Borgenland (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Non-standard "No. 1" now prohibited in Japan
The Japan transport ministry has now instructed air traffic controllers to stop using the non-standard "No. 1" in their phraseology. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20240109_04/

The use of "No. 1" in the call to the coast guard plane may have given the captain the impression that he could proceed onto the runway, especially since he was on an urgent mission to the earthquake region. The standard ICAO call does not include "No. 1". Japan was following non-standard phraseology by calling out the takeoff order.

US standard: JA722A Tokyo Tower good evening. Hold short of 34R at holding point C5.

ICAO standard: JA722A, Tokyo Tower good evening, taxi to holding point C5, runway 34R.

Actual Call: JA722A Tokyo Tower good evening. No. 1, taxi to holding point C5.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/115.pdf --Westwind273 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

runway collision shouldn't redirect to runway incursion yet
I think that before there is a formal report, it should just be written as a collision, as incursion would imply that there is an aircraft illegally on the runway, which despite the fact that it's highly likely, there isn't any WP:RS (yet) to back this claim up. I think "runway collision" without the redirect is best as of right now. 2401:7400:401C:48EF:A1BC:8537:A14F:8BCE (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * done Timtjtim (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added this back with a reliable source. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ideal that it's behind a paywall. I also don't think that aviationweek.com is an authoritative source on the matter, even if it is an RS. We need to be careful about using technical terms with a specific meaning without that having been determined. Timtjtim (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no issues with sources being behind paywalls, that's perfectly fine. It's good to have non-paywall stuff, but there's no restriction on it. Anyway the relevant portion is not behind a paywall and is readable. As for Aviation Week's reliability, it's never been determined to be not reliable and in previous discussions has been determined to be reliable. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 16:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not reliable, I'm saying it's not authoritative. Timtjtim (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess, although makes sense, kinda. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Runway incursion and Ground collision are two distinct events, and I don't believe the silent redirect of runway collision to Ground collision implies an editors' choice, as if we'd linked 'coke' could link to either Coca-Cola or Pepsi. It should be clear what the links link to.


 * I don't think runway incursion necessitates an unauthorized entry into the runway. Clearly that's what has occurred, The coast guard plane went on the runway undetected by either the air traffic controllers or JAL. Are we getting too technical?
 * https://airwaysmag.com/runway-incursions-causes-mitigation/ Shencypeter (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Runway incursion absolutely necessitates an unauthorized entry onto a runway. It is an technical term in aviation, which implies an unauthorized entry onto a runway. An incursion also doesn't mean that a colission has happened, so in my opinion, ground collision is a more descriptive name either way. 2001:999:58D:2C2:6C48:2764:132C:6C51 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this suffice that the coastguard aircraft was waiting on the runway undetected for 40 seconds?
 * https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/01/05/japan/coast-guard-plane-before-collision/ Shencypeter (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Failure of rear doors
I am not adding this since it's just a quote but from this Al Jazeera article:

“Smoke began to fill the plane, and I thought, ‘this could be really bad'”, an adult male passenger told reporters at the airport.

“An announcement said doors in the back and middle could not be opened. So everyone disembarked from the front,” he said.

Also in BBC, France24/AFP, and CBS/AP. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The BBC article includes:
 * He said the crew were clearly able to understand which doors were away from the flames, which is why pictures show not all the exits were opened for people to escape through.
 * which I assume is why the rear doors were not used. Before we make any edits with this sort of information we should clarifiy if it was a matter of the doors could not open (due to failure), or were not opened (for safety).
 * It's also been reported that the starboard engine may have remained running, which could prevent the use of some doors.
 * Timtjtim (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The JAL plane landed with a collapsed nose gear, making the forward slides more level than usual. If the rear doors were used the slope would've been steeper than normal. Not a failure..... Shencypeter (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Collapsed nose gear sounds like a significant fact. (Presumably caused by collision with the Coast Guard aircraft?) Can this be added with a WP:RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have created Draft:List of runway collisions
Seeing somebody's reasonable edit summary. Someone who understand this subject matter may feel the need to move or massively edit this list (or not), but I agree it might be a good way to cut through the See Also clutter. 12:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) BusterD (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Civilian/Military separation in Japan
Kyodo is reporting that the Japan Coast Guard was improperly excluded from a 2008 government task force that focused on preventing runway incursions. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/afc485d5a59b-japan-runway-incursion-measures-not-shared-suitably-with-coast-guard.html --Westwind273 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Added it just now. Borgenland (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I don't see the word "excluded" in that source. Would "not invited" be fairer? Or, as per the headline, "not shared"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of "not privy" but it sounds a bit toiletty. Borgenland (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See this rev:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision&diff=prev&oldid=1194944594
 * Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that's a lot fairer/ more accurate. The heading of this thread prompted me to consider if the Japan Coast Guard really is "military". Similar to His Majesty's Coastguard, it falls under Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, so not really. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In the context of this incident, the Japan Coast Guard falls under the military category. At Japanese airports that are shared by military and civilian flights, the Coast Guard flights are handled similarly to the flights from the other branches of the military. Note that the Wikipedia article "United States Armed Forces" includes the Coast Guard, even though it is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Overall, keep in mind that we are in the early stages of this investigation. Right now, I would stick to the wording that is used in the reliable sources. However, over time I suspect we will see this broaden to a civilian-military problem in Japan. That is the way things are headed. It ties in with why the Coast Guard pilot thought he had priority to use the runway. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The Japan Coast Guard is not part of the Ministry of Defense (Japan). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The US Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense (US). Same thing. Try reading my comment again. Westwind273 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what happens in the US (or in the UK for that matter) is irrelevant to this article. When you say "At Japanese airports that are shared by military and civilian flights, the Coast Guard flights are handled similarly to the flights from the other branches of the military" what do you mean? I wonder do you have any other sources that explain this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see from your other comments on this talk page that you are only interested in bickering over trivialities, rather than improving the article. As such, I will decline further interaction with you. Goodbye. Westwind273 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was trying to understand what you meant and if any change was needed to the article. Perhaps another editor could help elucidate that. But not if you're going, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...
I thought there were 15 injuries, 1 on the CG plane and 14 on the JAL. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what all the references say in the body about that. Someone changed it on the 4th just stating "There were actually 15 injuries on the A350" while providing zero sources or evidence to back this up. So we should change it back to what the references say. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've altered it back to what the references state. If new info has come out it can change, but the references need to be provided and updated. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Archiving refs
Why is there a see-saw going back and forth in archiving the references? Borgenland (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Because @Susmuffin was not adding correct archived versions of these references. Tvx1 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had to undo the weird archives that were being produced, as they appeared with the proper archives. For whatever reason, the bot dislikes those references. A little while ago, someone else had the same problem. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The archived links you added in this case, were not correct. They were links from Google ads and they were not of the sites cited here. Clicking on them produced an archive page that doesn't even exist. The bot was functioning correctly here.Tvx1 18:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All
Should we add (all) to the infobox for the A350 since everyone survived? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For me "Occupants 379" is close enough to "Survivors 379" to make it redundant. But some readers might find it useful? I'd be surprised if there is no advice on this in the infobox template. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "Fatalities 0". <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in every air disaster I find with everybody surviving, they all say (all). PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so no formal advice, but consistent across all the similar articles you've looked at? How many are there to check? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I expect you've looked at lots. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well not all, just the less well known crashes. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's completely unnecessary (hence why I removed it). It's quite obvious from the numbers and details. The user already has to read past all those numbers before they get to the all. It's a redundant piece of information that is already given to the informed user twice by that point. Once by the number of fatalities (which is the primary piece of information), and once by the number of survivors. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just seen it before. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery
Should we add a "Gallery" section to put all the pictures? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the aerial "Airport layout" image squeezes the text (and is a bit small to see without clicking on anyway). But the position of all the other images seems fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, galleries are for images not relevant to other sections. Galleries are discouraged and images should be attached to relevant sections in preference. See WP:GALLERY and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. All images appear to be attached in the relevant areas in the article. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A gallery might be useful if there was a timed series of close-up images which showed how a collision progressed? i.e. across the space of say 10 - 15 seconds. A bit of a rarity, I suspect. But yes, such a series might be better placed at the bottom of a "Collision" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such a series would be better made into an animated gif - if the series existed. Dcs002 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe... PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Im talking about the runway pics.they PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop bar lights
Do we really need to mention the out of order stop bar lights, considering they were not supposed to be used anyway? Tvx1 17:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Looks like a dead heron. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see not mentioning the stop bar lights. But keep in mind that quite a few experts, both in Japan and the other developed countries, keep mentioning these stop lights being off. There are really two issues here: (1) It is correct that the stop lights would have been off anyway, since normal practice at Haneda was to only use them in situations with visibility much lower than that night. (2) But should those stop lights really be used all the time, not just in situations of low visibility? This may be one of the recommendations that comes out of the investigation. Westwind273 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. There may be a training issue with the Coast Guard aircrew (as suggested elsewhere on this Talk page). If the pilot was mistakenly expecting to see them illuminated, and they were not, that may have been a false cue for him to expect to proceed? Hopefully the accident report may consider this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would the pilot be expecting them to be on, if the regulations state they were not supposed to be used in this conditions. Why would the training contradict the regulations and common practices? Even so, then the issue would be the training and not the lights being out of use. The stop bar lights being out of use is still given a false importance here. Tvx1 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's pure speculation. None of us know what the pilot was thinking. The investigation might determine that. As I suggested above, the stop bar lights are probably wholly irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any opposition to me removing the passage then? Tvx1 20:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection. Seems like an irrelevancy. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection. It can be replaced is the final investigation report mentions it (which seems unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * p.s. maybe simply "comment out" until report is published? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection. The final report is likely to mention it. It can be added then. Westwind273 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mention it in the sense of "the stop bar lights played no role in the accident"? Or perhaps you have some very early insider information. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Now removed by User:Tvx1 here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been another one
I believe it is lot smaller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5eqilXPiY VScode fanboy (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No that is a simple one plane clipped another while taxing. It happens many dozens of times next year and is almost never notable. Has no relevance to this article. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed with whatever CT said above. A small paragraph within the relevant articles of the airlines and airport will be sufficient (I wrote the one for New Chitose Airport already.) S5A-0043 Talk 03:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This incident is so minor that it fails to meet the threshold of notability set forth at WP:AIRCRASH and should not be included on any page. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)