Jump to content

Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fire rescue response

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the fire rescue response.. fire trucks were on the scene fighting the fire and spraying foam before the first passenger exited. There is also no mention of the aircraft burbing uncontrollably for 6 hours .. a first in post crash aircraft fires... 100.38.221.81 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tellingly, despite your well-stated question, there is yet to be any reply. Then again, while such fires are of increasing concern, why does the article and title lead with the runway collision?
P.S: Be careful when attempting to highlighted this burning issue, for you could be given a short-term ban - I was! 95.147.153.57 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a ban for what? 100.38.247.36 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The fire response should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently reading the accident report of a B737 that caught fire in Japan. The aircraft had arrived at the gate with a fuel leak that caused a fire. The fire response was slow due to communication error but fire trucks arrived with 4 and half minutes. JAL516 Response met the airport requirement of 3 minutes. Once they arrived they were abel to extinguish China Air 120 within an hour. we need to ask why JAL516 a Airbus 350, burned for 6 with more then 70 trucks responding...
Quote:
The passengers and crew gathered in the terminal, thankful at the very least that nobody was seriously hurt. Only now did the fire trucks finally arrive to fight the fire, which was sending up a plume of smoke that could be seen from across Okinawa. It took them an hour to put out the blaze, leaving the charred wreckage of flight 120 lying askew on the blackened concrete of parking spot 41. 100.38.247.36 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
China Airlines Flight 120 smaller plane and different scenario. The fuel leak only led to fire after the plane had parked. JAL516 landing started at the nose gear and spread because the fuselage was still traveling at landing speeds. Shencypeter (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mentionnthst the capt once in the rear to check for passengers could not return to the forward section. As the center of the aorcraft had already collapsed.. requiering his to exit the 4L door. Also it is too early to say that the fuslage survived the impact and they aircframe being composite saved the passengers. They are using opinion peices as a citiations. No expert reporr has been released. Lets stick to the facts. 100.38.247.36 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First composte airframe hull loss

[edit]

There is no mention of this being the first cimoosite hull loss that investigator will use this a bench mark. No mention the post crash fire will be a huge part of this investigations. They way this aircraft burned for 6 hours and reached temps in excess of 1000C and actucally comsumed the entire fuselage will be the focus. 100.38.247.36 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not our job to speculate. Wait until the report is out. There are other social media that I am sure will accept any theories going, but not in Wiki please. Ex nihil (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok how come there is no mention that it took 6 hours to put the fire out. A record in aviation fires. 100.38.247.36 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not speculation when Tokyo fire department already released a statement on their response and the actions they took. They have already beem published..quote, 70 trucks fought it for 6 hours with no effect.. they finnally let it burn itself out. 100.38.247.36 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you trying to make? Why does it matter how long it took to burn after it stayed intact long enough to evacuate everyone successfully and has been praised for just that compared to older style hulls? Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Safety video

[edit]

No, not every safety video emphasizes that. Only in Japan Airlines (and ANA) that luggage part is emphasized in detail. Sources have pointed out specifically that this safety video stood out from all other airlines' which is usually a passing one-liner. See [1], [2] just for a few more examples. Happy to have others weigh in for a consensus on this. - Mailer Diablo 19:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say as a frequent flyer every safety video and card for every airline I've ever flown clearly states to leave all belongings behind. It's not unusual, it's normal. And watching the JAL one, it's not really any different to dozens of others. Many sources are actually saying that it was cultural rule following and the instructions of the cabin crew, not specifically the in flight video, that made everyone leave their belongings but that's also not the talking point here. None of those sources you quote make the claim that the flight safety video was the reason for them obeying the cabin crew and not grabbing their belongings. Yes the edit in the article is factually correct, but there's no evidence of immediate relevancy. Yes it's true that they have a section in the inflight safety video on no taking your belongings (like all of them), but the sources don't claim that's why it no one brought their belongings. As a result the edit in the article is a truthful statement, but makes zero point or relevant claim. It's a piece of information that is seemingly trying to push and lead a reader towards a thought conclusion that isn't in any way supported or stated. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two paragraphs: "Of particular interest was the emphasis...likely helped save everyone's life." of the Rain's (BI) article, for instance, makes that assertion. - Mailer Diablo 21:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's incredibly wooly, and it's not making any kind of claim just an opinion and supposition. And it still doesn't fix the fact that the edit is implying to the reader to make an assumption, which is not encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are 2 admins fighting over this 126.166.216.207 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "fighting", we're having a debate over the inclusion of something. Nothing more. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable enough to endure discussion beyond this incident. See [3] for instance. There's more sources I can put out [4], but I've made my point - hopefully more editors will comment here then reverting with only an edit summary. For the IP: no admin tools are involved, we are simply editors when discussing content. Has always been this way. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be add the information, that "leaving luggage" was suggested by ANA and that on one hand is "standard procedure at most airlines" and one other hand had "most likely helped to empty the airplane in shorter time". --GodeNehler (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good as is and matches the cites. Leaving luggage was not an ANA suggestion, it was an instruction, and the instruction did not originate with ANA. It is an EASA requirement, an FAA guidance, probably the requirement by every civil aviation authority and the slides are certified with no luggage so no airline is going to allow that to be violated. The debate I have seen is not about whether ANA had more stringent procedures but was a reflection on the cultural differences of the passengers; some countries trust authority and have more social cohesion than others. Ex nihil (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't matter where the no luggage allowed is presented, in the video or on the safety placard, had some people not followed the instruction. Shencypeter (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "Ground collision" to "Runway incursion"

[edit]

The term "Runway collision" usually refers to a runway incursion, in which at least 2 planes collide on the same runway. However, in the article about the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, "Runway collision" links to Ground collision. I was just asking if I could change it from ground collision to runway incursion. TG-article (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, it's a ground collision. Two planes collided on the ground. And aircraft collided with another aircraft on the runway, that's the textbook definition of a ground collision. Additionally a runway incursion is classified as an incident, not an accident. An incident poses a safety risk, but does not rise to the level of an accident. Canterbury Tail talk 01:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then why does the Tenerife airport disaster article use runway incursion instead of ground collision? Also, runway collision redirects to runway incursion... not sure why you disagree. TG-article (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles showing different is not relevant to this article. This discussion is about this article not another one. This was a ground collision, consensus in the talk pages is it was a ground collision, an incursion caused a collision but it's ultimately a ground collision. Why would we link to an article where it's abundantly clear it's not the correct one as it's about a potential safety incident, and not an actual accident? Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check Runway incursion#Definition and you'll see that you're wrong. // Kakan spelar (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over here (page 12) from ICAO International themselves, a ground collision is a "Collision while taxiing to or from a runway in use". It says it here too. While for runway incursion it does say "Any occurrence", I think it only means incidents when aircraft do not come into contact of one another, unlike for the ground collision standard. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Canterbury Tail is right. Other articles showing different stuff is not relevant here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those Occurrence Categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One can lead to another, in this case a Runway Incursion led to a Ground Collision. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kakan spelar: please be more careful, saying people are "wrong" is problematic at the best of times and often comes across in a way you may not have intended. I don't think anyone here is suggesting this was not an "incursion" what I think is being said is that it is way more a collision than simply an incursion. If you look at the table below your definition link it says in brilliant purple "Accident" and the explanation links directly to the Ground Collision Page. The Ground Collision page itself is in dire need of some attention - it would be great if we could put some resources into improving this. Maungapohatu (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change A runway incursion can occur without having a ground collision; it's just a plane on the runway when it shouldn't be there. In this case, a runway incursion was certainly the precursor to the ground collision, but the main, overwhelming, issue is the collision, not the cause of the collision. Leave as ground collision. Ex nihil (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change, as per User:Ex nihil. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision&oldid=1262055374"