Japan marks 1 year since fatal collision at Tokyo's Haneda airport

They seem rather reluctant to admit that the coastguard pilot on a mercy mission was at fault.

Regarding the five deceased coast guard members...we've never seen their faces, learnt their names or understood their life circumstances. No go fund me accounts, tributes or public memorials for any of them. I don't understand why this is.

If not enough traumatic news, dig up something old and rehash it.

That is sensationalism, not journalism.

If not enough traumatic news, dig up something old and rehash it. 

That is sensationalism, not journalism.

No, it’s not. It’s a respectful observance.

"The Japan Transport Safety Board said in its report that the airport traffic controller was focused on monitoring the JAL plane that was set to land on the runway and was unaware of the erroneous entry into the runway by the coast guard plane."

Fancy way of saying professional negligence resulting in death.

Norm: "No, it’s not. It’s a respectful observance."

No, Norm, owzer has a good point. We are on Day 2 of this year and 40 hours of the 43 have either been focused on the Noto Peninsula earthquake and the destruction and death it caused, or now this. Watching the news here, when it's not focused on Ohtani, is more depressing than watching the news in any place I've ever been, and they even have people reenact things and have traumatic voiceovers and subtitles.

…showed that its crew likely erroneously believed…

likely? the coast guard pilot in command said he believed, not likely believed they had clearance, which they did not.

airport traffic controller was focused on monitoring the JAL plane that was set to land on the runway and was unaware of the erroneous entry into the runway by the coast guard plane.

the ground controller handed off the aircraft to the tower controller after it was directed to a holding point, after the aircraft crew read back the instruction correctly.

the tower controller gets a warning light of a runway incursion on a screen, but their focus is outside and inside the tower. he noticed it too late, had no idea where it was or what it was to do anything about it. there is no audible warning, just an annunciator light.

the quality of writing and editing is sloppy.

"Flight voice recordings from the coast guard plane released last month showed that its crew likely erroneously believed their aircraft was allowed to enter the runway..."

What gave them the incorrect impression they were "allowed to enter the runway"? Very unlikely the pilots just assumed they were cleared at an airport with such high volume of planes. I think maybe there is more to the story. How about the traffic between the military plane and the ATC and Tower?

Article describes the released data somewhat vaguely as "Flight voice recordings from the coast guard plane". It doesn't says between the plane and the controllers. Was it just internal communication in the military plane or between them and the controllers? Are there recordings telling them to proceed to a location and hold for further instructions?

the radio comms between the ground controller and the crew were online within hours of the accident.

sigh.

Sadly, my initial reaction when I saw the title of this article was “OMG, it’s already been a year?!”

"the radio comms between the ground controller and the crew were online within hours of the accident.

sigh."

Okay wise guy, and it'll all be in Japanese, so maybe it would have been nice for that to be mentioned/translated into this article.

sigh.

all aviation radio communications are in english.

all aviation radio communications are in english.

Not necessarily. I was in Papua New Guinea flying for Columbia Helicopters when the Russians showed up with a half dozen KA-32s and a Mil-26. None them spoke a word of English and they struggled on the radios. Not only that but all of their instruments used metric measurements where we all used English units. They called altitudes on meters, we used feet.

Same thing when the Swedish Air Force started showing up at NATO exercises. They too used metric units for altitude, airspeed and vertical speed. Nothing on their aircraft was compatible with NATO or European / ICAO standards used at the airports in Europe and North America.

It's very sad for everyone involved especially the loved ones of the crew, but moving forward I would like to know has any policies been reviews on safety procedures, up dated, procedure and implications manual been changed, and extra training days, so that this mistake/accident can't happen again