Dispute Over Responsibility for Aircraft Collision at Haneda Airport in Japan... JAL States "No Issues During Landing Process"

JAL "Landing Permission Granted... Pilot Repeats Controller's Instructions"
Coast Guard Pilot and Controller Liability at Issue

Regarding the collision between a Japan Airlines (JAL) aircraft landing on the runway at Haneda Airport in Japan and a Japan Coast Guard aircraft, which resulted in casualties, aviation experts unanimously stated that this accident was a 'human error' rather than a mechanical failure. Amid differing opinions on responsibility, controversy is spreading as JAL was the first to claim that there was no problem during the landing process.

On the 3rd, NHK reported, citing information from JAL crew members involved in the accident, that "the JAL aircraft received landing clearance from the control tower, repeated the clearance back, and then proceeded with approach and operation." The pilots and air traffic controllers of the JAL aircraft claim they bear no responsibility for the accident.

JAL stated, "The aircraft entered the runway normally and began the usual landing procedures when the impact occurred, leading to the accident." They emphasized that the pilot received formal landing clearance from the control tower and went through the 'readback' process, confirming that there was no misunderstanding of the instructions.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

According to an investigation by Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, before the accident, the air traffic controller granted the JAL aircraft permission to enter runway C and instructed the Japan Coast Guard aircraft to taxi up to the front of runway C. It appears that JAL was to land, and the Japan Coast Guard aircraft was to move from the taxiway to the runway for takeoff afterward. The Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei) added, "It is common to temporarily stop at the stop line just before entering the runway from the taxiway," and emphasized that "permission is essential for runway entry."

However, at that time, the Japan Coast Guard aircraft was entering runway C from the taxiway to take off for transporting supplies to the earthquake-affected area of the Noto Peninsula. This contradicts the controller's claim that they were instructed to taxi only up to the front of the runway.

Therefore, how communication between the controller and the pilots was conducted is expected to be crucial in determining responsibility going forward.

Japanese aviation experts also pointed out that this collision incident was a 'human error' rather than a mechanical defect. Hiroyuki Kobayashi, an aviation commentator and former pilot, explained, "Controllers and pilots usually confirm instructions with each other, so the content understood rarely differs. However, since communication around airports is done via radio waves, human error can easily occur," adding, "The key point of future investigations will be whether the pilots and controllers confirmed the instructions with each other."

He also noted that since the accident occurred during the busy flight schedule between 5 and 6 p.m., "While this may not be the cause of the accident, it is possible that the schedule was congested."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Within Japan, there are currently various speculations about the cause, including whether the controller's instructions to the Japan Coast Guard pilot were as clear as claimed, whether the pilot ignored or misheard the instructions and entered the runway, whether there was a process of mutual reconfirmation between the controller and pilot, and why the JAL aircraft did not perform a go-around (aborting the landing and climbing again). However, commentator Kobayashi suggested, "Since the accident occurred during nighttime after sunset, JAL may not have seen the Japan Coast Guard aircraft entering the runway. Additionally, the landing speed of JAL's aircraft, the Airbus A350, is almost comparable to the Shinkansen bullet train. Even if noticed just before landing, it might have been difficult to respond."

Meanwhile, Japan's National Transportation Safety Board began investigating the situation, including communication with the controller, from that day. Since voice data of communications with the control tower still exists, they will analyze the communication records and conduct a detailed investigation of the damage. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established an investigation headquarters at the Tokyo Airport Police Station from that day to conduct on-site verification and interviews related to possible charges of professional negligence resulting in death.

Additionally, Airbus, the manufacturer of the JAL aircraft involved in the accident, announced it would dispatch experts to Japan. The French aviation accident investigation authority, where Airbus headquarters is located, is also expected to send an investigation team to Japan soon.

However, it is anticipated that it will take a considerable amount of time before the accident investigation results are finalized. Nikkei reported, "It takes years to finalize aviation accident investigation results. For example, the report on the China Airlines crash at Nagoya Airport in 1994 took 2 years and 3 months to be released."

As a result of this collision, among the six people aboard the Japan Coast Guard aircraft, five?excluding the captain, including the radio operator, mechanic, and co-pilot?died. All 379 passengers aboard the JAL aircraft evacuated safely. Fourteen people were transported to hospitals complaining of bruises or poor condition and received medical treatment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.