Recordings show coast guard plane crew in Haneda collision thought it OK to enter runway

the correct syntax is to proceed to the holding point and "hold short" of a runway.

nothing i've read was clearance, for example "line up runway XX and wait," or "cleared to depart runway XX."

the correct syntax is to proceed to the holding point and "hold short" of a runway.

Depends on the airport. Big airports like Haneda are different. The Coast Guard crew was instructed to "taxi to holding point C5". C5 is a specific point on the airport. The aircraft was cleared to C5 and no further.

Air traffic control is always in English, regardless of the country. Maybe they didn’t understand the English spoken?

But subsequent exchanges among the crew suggest they believed they had been given permission to enter, according to a Japan Transport Safety Board report.

That's where exactly "agreement" about interpretation among crews really happen that lead them to believe incorrect interpretation that create to a disaster.

Doesn't bode well that there was talk of being "no.1" in the take-off order. I don't think there should be any reference to "take-off" unless the plane has been cleared.

Line up and wait … is more like it … is not a clearance for take off!

I said this a YEAR ago:

The Air Traffic Controller used Incorrect Terminology and the Pilot and crew paid the price

At a minimum, I hope that ground controller has had to find another line of work. His instructions were unclear, non-standard, and ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation by the JCG flight crew. On the other hand, the JCG flight crew should have recognized and questioned the non-standard instruction and asked for confirmation before assuming they had been cleared to enter the active runway, a mistake for which they paid with their lives.

i believe the captain survived.

i have listened to the comms. the co-pilot readback was correct, but the pic (pilot in command) words here are from the cockpit voice recorder.

c5 (without the word hold point) is an entry to the runway. it’s an interim entry for a shorter take off roll and not the end of the runway.

there was an accident on an asian airline (memory fails me for the country) where the first officer was fearful of correcting the captain and didn’t say anything about a conflict of clearances. there is nothing in the article about the co-pilot disagreeing with the actions of the pic, yet he definitely read back the transmission correctly.

the pic also said #1, which means #1 for departure. #1 to take the active when cleared. never heard of an aircraft being #1 and cleared to take the active at the same time. you’re one or the other.

Maybe they didn’t understand the English spoken?

That has not been my experience with JMSDF officers, but I haven't had professional dealings with the Japan Coast Guard. However if you operate from international airports you are probably proficient in enough technical aeronautical English to function safely and effectively.

At a minimum, I hope that ground controller has had to find another line of work. His instructions were unclear, non-standard, and ambiguous,

Never flew out of Haneda but I don't find the ground controllers instructions the least bit unclear or non standard. The ground controller instructed the JCG crew to taxi to Holding Point C5. That is a specific point on the airport and the crew is expected to know where it is. It will be shown on the airport diagram they should have up in the cockpit (for us it was in a paper book that was revised every 90 days). Being told you are number 1 for takeoff is not clearance to enter the runway.

If you are a pilot at an unfamiliar airport your first duty is to study that airport diagram and know where you want to go before you go there. And it you really really lost ask for "progressive taxi" instructions. The ground controller will tell you where to taxi, where to turn, etc. It doesn't apply in this case but there were times when I turned off a runway in fog and suddenly didn't have a clue where I was on the airfield. I asked Ground for help. Better than making the evening news.

Peter NeilToday  09:44 am JST

i believe the captain survived.

-1( +0 / -1 )

the captain (pic) did survive and nhk says he misinterpreted the controllers instructions.

”A Japanese government investigation team says the captain of a Japan Coast Guard aircraft that fatally collided with a passenger jet at Tokyo's Haneda Airport in January said that he had misinterpreted the air traffic controllers' instructions.“

Desert Tortoise

The authorities here don't seem agree with you as the controller's actions are still under investigation, particularly their failure to unambiguously instruct JA722A to "hold short" and their failure to notice for 1'08" the alarm/warning of an unauthorized runway incursion on 34R, contributed to the accident and are deserving of criminal charges.

I wonder if the procedure at the control tower will change ( or has changed) to use the specific word hold short so this way any confusion is clear up, so this mistake can't happen again, or should it have been used like any where else, but wasn't used.

A good example of looking - and waiting - for the facts of the matter before jumping to a conclusion.

We don’t seem to have heard much from the JAL captain since the incident

holding point c5 means it’s holding point.

The authorities here don't seem agree with you as the controller's actions are still under investigation, particularly their failure to unambiguously instruct JA722A to "hold short" and their failure to notice for 1'08" the alarm/warning of an unauthorized runway incursion on 34R, contributed to the accident and are deserving of criminal charges.

Not catching the runway incursion warning is bad. But as a pilot, telling me to taxi to Holding Point C5 is unambiguous. Telling me I am number one for take off is fine but that doesn't mean cleared for take off.

At least the reason for the accident seems to be clarified, that will hopefully lead to changes that will prevent a recurrence.

i don’t know what those changes would be. there are about 100,000 flight ops per day in the world.

but this incident was a rare cascade of human error.

the cg crew read back the instructions properly, but didn’t follow them.

those instructions would have been by ground control.

it notifies tower of an aircraft directed to a runway entry point. ground control cannot give instructions to cross or enter a runway without checking with tower.

it’s never one thing. operations were more frequent that night with supplies flying with earthquake relief.

the cg captain was the primary fault. the ground controller wasn’t at fault. the tower wasn’t, until a runway incursion alarm. jal could have been given a go around instruction by tower without waiting to see what or where the incursion was. hindsight is easy.

the cg captain bears the responsibility.

this was a singular, unique event. hundreds of millions of operations and i don’t know of a similar event in commercial aviation. maybe there was, but i can’t find one.

not everyone excels at their job. someone is the worst pilot, and the cg captain is a candidate.

i don’t know what can be changed…

Several factors contributed to this incident. Because it was dusk the controller should’ve been attentive to the runway entry alert if he could not visually see the runway. Other crew members on the Coast Guard plane should also have been monitoring communications and would’ve warned the pilot in command about the runway incursion. A minor matter is that pilots flying in Japanese airspace for the first time might have difficulty understanding communications from the controllers who speak English with a Japanese accent, but in this case, apparently all parties were Japanese nationals who were communicating in English.

What most astonishing to me is about this is that a pilot at Haneda, when I just flew out in October had NO IDEA a Flight line Collision had taken place on the runway he was about to take off from.

A runway entry alert was displayed on a desktop screen but the controller apparently did not notice it,

I'm completely naive re these matters, but in these days of tech wouldn't a sound alarm system incorporated into the display alert be appropriate?

Maybe there is, but didn't function???

Anyone know?

i don’t know what can be changed…

It does not have to be a new system, just being aware this kind of mistake can happen may lead to extra emphasis during training, after all training courses are not made thinking about the best of the people but those that can make tragic mistakes because of incompetence.

the correct syntax is to proceed to the holding point and "hold short" of a runway.

No it's not. Or more accurately, that's not the only correct terminology. Nothing about the controller's terminology was non-standard or ambiguous.

I said this a YEAR ago:

The Air Traffic Controller used Incorrect Terminology and the Pilot and crew paid the price

Congrats, you were wrong a year ago and you're still wrong now.

It sounds like there was a runway incursion alert on the controller's screen, which may have prevented the crash. Curious why that's not getting more attention - surely the whole point of such an alert is to...you know, alert people.