omega Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Aviation regulators have a very good policy of avoiding placing blame on people. They will investigate the incident, they will determine what went wrong, and crucially, what needs to be changed so that this does not happen again. That might be changes to aircraft design, changes to airports, changes to the words used to give clearances, or additional training requirements for pilots or ATCs. Unfortunately our media and our politicans have trained us to have a psychological need for someone to take the blame, even if it is not the right person. It makes people feel better just"knowing" the answer. Even if it is not the right one. In this case, alot of people are jumping to conclusions already, and laying blame with the pilot of of the Dash-8 plane based on what little information the media has been given. For example, I've seen a report that the stop lights at the junction where the Dash-8 was supposed to stop were not working. I don't know how accurate that is, but the Air Accident report will detail everything. reader, a-447 and 10tazione 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 4 hours ago, unicorn said: No, NOTHING is conclusive. Maybe the CG pilot's self-serving statements are true, and the recordings between the control tower and the pilots were all faked. I guess we'll just have to wait to find out the truth. 😉 Like other things you write about, you've stumbled onto another subject that challenges your objectivity . Your postings in this thread make light of the whole incident and proceed to convict the pilot at the same time new information is coming forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members unicorn Posted January 6 Members Share Posted January 6 15 hours ago, reader said: ... and proceed to convict the pilot... I'm not convicting anyone. He's entitled to due process. That being said, this does not seem to be an issue filled with nuance or room for interpretation. Stop lights or not, a pilot should not move his aircraft into a runway unless he's been cleared by the control tower. Period. If the transcripts are accurate, things are looking pretty bad for the CG pilot. The instructions are not "guidelines" subject to the pilot's interpretation. They're hard and fast rules. Mavica and Marc in Calif 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 Until the cockpit voice recordings are known, until all the witnesses are interviewed, until all the electronic and human actions are examined can an objective finding be made. unicorn and Mavica 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members unicorn Posted January 6 Members Share Posted January 6 Well, the analogous situation might be a surgeon who amputates the wrong leg, instead of the one with the cancer. There are hard-and-fast procedures that are standard policy at all hospitals. Before surgery begins, there is a "time-out" in which the surgeon, operating room RN's, and anesthesiologist review and sign off on which side is being operated on, and so on. Failure to follow those protocols is considered a gross violation and will result in those involved being barred from the operating room. While they could fight the charges, most do not, since operating on the wrong body part is pretty much black-and-white evidence of gross negligence. Claiming "I thought I knew," "the other leg looked bad, too," or "the stop lights weren't working" will not cut it. Now there are other cases in which there are more shades of gray. I remember being in a panel judging a surgeon (fairly new to our staff) who'd had two serious surgical complications for a similar procedure. There were no violations of protocol, but other surgeons questioned the adequacy of his surgical skills. He fought the charges, and there were witnesses on both sides due to extenuating circumstances (the cases were difficult), but eventually the surgeon had his privileges revoked. Assuming those transcripts are accurate, this pilot's situation is more akin to the wrong-side surgery than to that of the new surgeon with the complications. Again, assuming those transcripts are accurate, being on an active runway without clearance is simply an inexcusable no-no. In legal jargon, it's called res ipsa loquitor: the act speaks for itself. One "can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context..." (Wikipedia definition). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 You've finally found a topic that you know less about than others: accident investigation. You don't "infer negligence" until after the evidence has been discovered and evaluated. You prefer to skip that process and go directly to guilt. thaiophilus and unicorn 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members unicorn Posted January 6 Members Share Posted January 6 12 hours ago, reader said: ...You don't "infer negligence" until after the evidence has been discovered and evaluated. You prefer to skip that process and go directly to guilt. You don't understand what seems pretty obvious to most people. Yes, of course the investigation needs to be completed. And, yes, the pilot is entitled to due process before any criminal conviction. However, if the control tower recordings are accurate, this pilot's career is over (at best). I can guarantee that if a surgeon amputates the wrong limb, he will never be allowed to operate again. The error is so egregious that it's career-ending. If the reported communication transcripts are verified as accurate, I'd be astonished if this pilot's error wasn't career-ending as well. And res ipsa loquitor is a recognized legal term, which a judge can inform a jury about when it applies. Marc in Calif 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 According to Japan's NHK Newsline, investigators are now in the process of interviewing the controllers and examining the cockpit voice recordings. I'll withhold judgment until they finish their work and issue their report. I think we can agree that no pilot would intentionally place his aircraft in jeopardy and more than a surgeon would intentionally remove the wrong limb. Let's give the process time to do its work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members unicorn Posted January 7 Members Share Posted January 7 49 minutes ago, reader said: ...I think we can agree that no pilot would intentionally place his aircraft in jeopardy and more than a surgeon would intentionally remove the wrong limb... While that statement is true, the issue here is not one of an intentional act, but one of gross negligence, due to not following standard, universal procedures. Another surgical example is the leaving in of instruments or equipment in the patient during a surgery. There are strict procedures to prevent this, and it's not simply a matter of looking carefully. Before closing a patient, the scrub RN must count out all pieces of equipment, including sponges, gauze, needles, and so on. The number must be the same as those the procedure started with. The RN must declare "The count is correct," before the surgeon can close. If it's not, the surgeon must look again, and if the item cannot be found, take an X-ray while the patient is still on the table to either find the lost object or ascertain that the lost object is not in the patient (even gauze pads have strips of metal in them which will show up on X-ray, for just this reason). If an instrument or needle, etc., is left in the patient, no extenuating circumstances can be claimed to avoid guilt. The circulating RN has recorded the procedure. Either the scrub RN miscounted (in which case there's liability on both sides, but especially the RN), or the surgeon ignored the miscount. Similarly, there are strict rules that a plane does not enter a runway without clearance from the air traffic controller. In these circumstances, the fact that an accident occurred demonstrates that either the air traffic controller or the pilot didn't follow the rules. The transcript of the conversation and the flight data recorder will determine who didn't follow procedure. Marc in Calif 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 At least no one can accuse you of being loquacious or pompous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members unicorn Posted January 7 Members Share Posted January 7 5 hours ago, reader said: At least no one can accuse you of being loquacious or pompous. The loquacious title goes to another one of our regular posters. And certainly not pompous, maybe pumpus--and right! 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 Recognize you anywhere, Love the pumps. unicorn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 From the Associated Press Japan issues improved emergency measures following fatal collision Japan's transportation ministry said Tuesday it has introduced improved emergency measures for the country's airports, a week after a fatal collision between a Japan Airlines jetliner and a coast guard plane at Tokyo's busy Haneda airport that is seen as a result of human error. The measures — including more visible stop line markings on taxiways leading to runways and use of clearer language in traffic control communication — are to be implemented right away at Haneda while they are slated to go into effect at other airports across the country in the coming weeks. The probe into the collision has focused on what caused the coast guard flight crew to believe they had a go-ahead for their take off. A partial release of the air traffic control transcript showed no clear takeoff approval was given to the coast guard plane. According to the text, the Tokyo air control gave the JAL plane permission to land on the 34R runway, noting that there is a departing plane, with the JAL pilot repeating the instruction. In the transcript, the traffic control tells the coast guard plane that it was given a “No. 1” priority for takeoff, an expression some experts say might have led the Bombardier crew to mistakenly believe they got a permission to proceed to the runway. According to a report Tuesday in the Asahi newspaper, the coast guard plane may have started communication with the traffic control only after the JAL plane got its landing permission and may not have been aware of the airliner’s arrival. The ministry's new emergency measures call for making sure pilots understand the terminology specifically related to runway entry, urging them to repeat the instructions given by the traffic controls, and ask if they are uncertain. They also instruct traffic control not use numerical terms such as No. 1 suggesting takeoff and landing priorities to avoid confusion. The Haneda traffic control tower has created a new position specifically assigned to monitor a radar system that indicates any unauthorized runway entry, beginning next Saturday. The Haneda airport is the world's third busiest, and preferred of the two in the Tokyo region because of better accessibility to the city's downtown. During its peak time, flights come and leave every few minutes, a frequency comparable to Tokyo's commuter trains. Marc in Calif and vinapu 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
floridarob Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 4 hours ago, reader said: a week after a fatal collision between a Japan Airlines jetliner and a coast guard plane at Tokyo's busy Haneda airport that is seen as a result of human error. In the USA, there would be investigations, millions spent on consultants and after a year, no changes because the airlines didn't want to do them. Marc in Calif 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 1 hour ago, floridarob said: In the USA, there would be investigations, millions spent on consultants and after a year, no changes because the airlines didn't want to do them. And Japan authorizes were quick to acknowledge that their own communications protocols may have been a contributing factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 From NHK Newsline JAL pilots: What happened and how they evacuated burning jet More details have emerged about the collision between a JAL jet and a Japan Coast Guard plane at Tokyo's Haneda Airport on January 2. The following link contains new and updated information, videos and visual reconstructions of the crash and the evacuation following interviews with the captain and two co-pilots. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2976/index.html vinapu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
