Tragedy struck this evening in Tokyo when a Japan Airlines A350-900 struck a Japanese Coast Guard Dash 8-300, killing five on the Coast Guard aircraft. If there is any glimmer of good news in this story, it is that all 359 passengers and 20 crew members safely evacuated the JAL aircraft. It is that I want to focus on here…and how the emerging narrative may not capture the reality of what really happened onboard in terms of the evacuation.
A Twist In The “Follow The Rules” Narrative Of Japan Airlines A350-900 Evacuation After Landing Collision?
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024, a Japan Airlines A350-900 (registration number JA13XJ) landed in Tokyo Haneda (HND) at 5:47 pm after completing a domestic flight from Sapporo (CTS). It was dark and shortly after landing it struck a Japanese Coast Guard Dash 8-300 (registration number JA722A). Take a look at this video:
【緊急生ライブ】羽田空港で火災 日本航空機と海上保安庁の機体が衝突か
▶https://t.co/WcerhTBLit pic.twitter.com/kD8KYMVlbS— 日テレNEWS NNN (@news24ntv) January 2, 2024
Tragically, five of the six crew members onboard the Coast Guard aircraft perished in the accident. Amazingly, all passengers and crew safety evacuated the JAL A350.
Tokyo Haneda Airport briefly closed, but has now reopened.
I want to focus on one part of the story: the safe evacuation of all 379 people onboard. We’ve seen numerous reports praising this:
It’s miraculous that so many passengers and crew managed to escape the larger passenger aircraft when the fire overwhelmed it so quickly.
Quite true. We’ve also seen many praises of “Japan’s culture of following rules.”
But did that actually occur here?
According to passenger reports as noted on The Aviation Herald, it seems that passengers may have defied crew instructions to remain seated and evacuated anyway. Instead, even though the crew told passengers to remain seated due to the dangerous flames engulfing the exterior of the aircraft, one or more passengers stood up and everyone else followed:
“Passengers of the A359 reported the landing appeared normal at first, after touchdown there was a thud and the outside lit up in orange. A first announcement was made “please calm down” followed by “do not take your luggage and do not stand up.” There was no clear announcement to evacuate, however, when other passengers stood up they also stood up and thus escaped.”
Kudos to most passengers for leaving their carry-on items behind, but the story within the story may be that the Japanese passengers actually disregarded the culture of following rules and instead took matters into their own hands to evacuate.
And that makes me all the more thankful there were no life-threatening injuries or death, because look at the videos and pictures above – it looked like a very dangerous situation.
CONCLUSION
A JAL A350 collided with Japanese Coast Guard Dash 8, killing five of the six crew on the Coast Guard aircraft. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the lost.
While the passengers on the JAL aircraft are being praised for following the rules in evacuating the aircraft, the story may actually be that the passengers ignored crewmember instructions and evacuated anyway.
We’ll mark this story as developing.
Were you a passenger onboard this jet? Please let us know what it was like onboard?
I read that as well and it was fascinating. Ultimately we now know that it takes a burning plane for the Japanese to say, “To heck with rules and instructions.”
Fast speech and poor diction cause confusion … all speech ought to be slow , loud , and with clear diction . This also applies to air control communications . Also , far too many passengers .
The temerity of economy pax trying to evacuate before first class.
So, are you saying one of the passengers deployed the emergency door against crew instructions? Too much for “we are here for your safety”. Now, it will be interesting to learn who exactly screw up as one of the planes was definitely not supposed to be where it was when they collided.
This is a key fact that has not emerged. It is a pivotal part of this story.
I don’t understand how this can be written as a story without this key fact being verified.
We’ve heard passenger accounts, but waiting for official word.
It’s been reported elsewhere as being told passengers. So, why would Matthew not cite this as such? I can give you Bob Woodward’s email address if you need.
As a journalist myself, it feels like one should probably have the facts of the story before posting sensationalist clickbait rubbish like this article. For shame.
I can be just as much a curmudgeon on these things. And have also called out bloggers for what you speak of. But let’s be real here. Matthew was simply relaying the information that was clearly in Aviation Herald. Which is one of the most trusted reporting sites for aviation accidents and incidents. Simon, who runs it, is normally very careful with his vetting of information prior to “reporting” it. Further to that, this is a blog, not the New York Times. I think there’s a fundamental difference in how stories are presented. The bottom line is, passengers said it happened. No, Matthew was not there so he simply stated what he read from a trusted source of AV Herald. Nowhere did he say it was definitive. And his post (not a news article) was a discussion on the idea that if true would be a fascinating back story.
Quite right. Could not have said it better. Thank you, Stuart.
Disturbing videos taken inside the plane are emerging on social media. It’s troubling that some passengers, were focused on the phone rather than the evacuation.
Sometimes this documentation helps the investigation
Are you surprised? How are they going to get “likes” on Instagram?
Come on, Santastico, Instagram is only for the ‘older’ set. Tik Tok is the place to be now. At least, those taking videos looked up from their screens.
I’m not sure there’s a world where you can keep people seated and calm while inside an airplane engulfed in flames on parts of the exterior. I can’t help but imagine the outcome would be much worse if it were a flight within the US as people seem to struggle to follow directions when the plane isn’t on fire.
This and an earthquake/Tsunami, bad start to 24 for the Japanese people.
It’s 6. Reiwa 6.
Image what the pilots of that ANA plane pushing back thought when the flaming a350 wreckage sitting just to their right came into view!
“Stay in your offices, everything is under control” then later: “Everyone go up to the roof to be rescued by helicopters”……guess who the only ones in the buildings that day who survived were? That’s right, those who gtfo.
+1
Generally the command is evacuate evacuate evacuate .. flight crew or flight attendant are allowed to order evacuation. Prior to evacuation command, remain seated remain seated remain seated is given, by flight crew…this prepares FA to be ready to open doors and slides deployed. The investigation will determine what protocol was followed.
There is something very wrong if the FA’s were trying to tell people to remain seated. The videos out there so far make it very clear that an evacuation was warranted and should have been started immediately as soon as the aircraft came to a stop. This is a part of what FA’s are trained to do. Asses when an evacuation is needed and then assess their exit and act accordingly.
It also looks like the crew did an amazing job getting everyone off quickly. The standard is 90 seconds from 1/2 of the exits but in this case they only had 3 of 8 available based on the pictures out there.
A friend of mine is a retired Captain of a major US airline and he cautioned me about flying on an Asian airline because the culture prohibits the first officer from challenging the pilot of there is an issue. He did state it’s slowing changing. A flight attendant he knows was on a flight that had an emergency landing for, as I recall, an engine fire and the FAs told everyone to stay in their seats when they landed. She opened the emergency exit and started evacuating passengers and was arrested.
CRM in Asia was addressed years ago with new training and better cultures resulted. This is such old thinking and your pilot friend must be 100 y/o old, lol. He is going back to some of the Korean incidents of the 80’s and 90’s which did fuel a whole new training regiment for pilots across Asia. Long ago remedied and some of the safest airlines in the world.
Now, if you want to talk about the ME3, there can be some debate on that one. They are hiring pretty much anyone around the world for the cockpit and there have been a lot of close calls in the past few years.
Sounds like the passengers made the right decision if everyone escaped without injury
It’s now emerged that some passengers (up to 14) were injured – it is not yet clear the severity of the injury. That’s still a decent number on an aircraft that full.
It is highly unlikely that passengers initiated this evacuation. Crew members have to assess the evacuation prior to giving the command. This includes evaluating fire and others hazards to determine best direction to egress. Opening the doors and deploying the slides takes a few moments and would be hampered by a panic rush. So an initial instruction to remain seated very briefly, followed by an orderly exit would be in line with standard practice. Not too impressed with this premature analysis.
Analysis? These were eyewitness reports from passengers. And do you not see the plausible that people got up anyway and headed to exits whereby FA’s saw no choice but to deploy the chutes? These were passengers quoted as saying it’s what happened. Not that it’s always correct, but it’s far more than speculation.
https://youtu.be/uj_QqTYxDho?si=TMI_pYtyuMF3Zg0j
This video is incredible. Passengers remaining seated and relatively calm while the fire raged outside. Waiting for crew instructions as the flight attendants likely assessed which exits were safe to open.
I see one FA in the video. Who looked as confused and lost as everyone else. She just keeps looking around and doing nothing. Assessing? More like confusing. Not to her fault, no matter how you train, of course they are not going to react like in training. The human factor will always prevail. In the end, human instinct will take over. Hopefully in time.
It turned out only three of the exits were usable since there was fire outside 2L and 3L. Also reports say the number 2 engine kept running, making 2R, 3R, and 4R unusable.
You can see out the passenger window that there is fire, leaving the flight attendant unable to open her exit. She stayed remarkably calm and it’s a good thing she didn’t just panic and open the door into the fire.
My God! You keep insisting and insisting on this, Stuart!! Where is the confusion? This was probably the most efficient evacuation in recent times! Get a job, Stuart!! Aside from being Matt’s primary defender (redacted from what I originally meant to say!)
Old rules re evacuation were that flight attendants would shout “stay seated stay seated” until FA were able to assess situation outside the exits and determine which exits could be opened. Then commands would be shouted- remember the closest exit may be behind you.
Better to have passengers seated a few more seconds rather than have passengers up and heading to wrong exits.
Matt, you removed my comment that factually stated the firefighters at SFO literally killed a girl lying outside the aircraft.
You can be entitled to your own opnions, but not your own facts. How dare you. Did you think they were justified in murdering her? Monster.
https://abc7news.com/dan-noyes-asiana-crash-exclusive-iteam/3705154/
I didn’t remove any comment…
Do you mean your comment here?
https://liveandletsfly.com/evacuation-japan-airlines-516/