this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
82 points (94.6% liked)

World News

38987 readers
2067 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Knew it pretty much had to be this or the controller forgetting they had cleared a jet onto the runway (Los Angeles runway disaster). Less likely the incoming jet landing on the wrong one.

Controller error would maybe be easier to determine a full root cause, very sad for everyone on the coast guard aircraft though.

[–] sonoranspace@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The Live ATC archive sounds like the controller said "taxi to holding position Charlie 5". With no explicit "hold short runway 34R" there no transcripts yet, and we don't know what the coast guard confirmation response was to the command, but the tower command seems ambiguous at best. It's pretty hard to pick out but the tower call is at about 15:10 in this archive https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Taxi to holding position is standard ICAO phraseology, they should have been off the runway at C5. Line up and wait would have them on the runway.

US uses different phraseology.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, we the same sort of language as the US up here in Canada too, but I always assumed it was the same thing the world over. Is there a website or handbook containing ICAO standard language available somewhere? I’m curious what other differences there are

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

ICAO PANS ATM Doc 4444

It has actually been a cause of runway incursions by US-trained aircrew in the past.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That makes a lot of sense, because like I said in another comment, I’d be more likely to interpret that as “taxi into [takeoff] position and hold”, not “taxi to threshold.” Hopefully the change that comes of this is US/Canadian aviation starts using the ICAO standard phraseology.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While I do think this is a good idea, I don't think it can be attributed as a factor in the accident. The captain of the Japanese Coast Guard had nearly 5 years under his belt and was likely much more familiar with ICAO phraseology than what is used in North America.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

You're probably right, I’m being too quick to jump to conclusions.

As an aside, I find it a little ironic that most of the world follows ICAO phraseology, yet Canada, home to ICAO’s headquarters, does not.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thank you for pointing this out.

I had also looked into it in more detail, and came to the same conclusion. In the ICAO quick reference guide they provide an almost identical example:

Taxi to holding point C, runway 27, Big Jet 345

I've clarified this in my analysis.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

The official transcript was shared in a press conference:

[ATC] JA722A Tokyo Tower. Good evening. No.1, taxi to holding point C-5.

[JA722A] Taxi to holding point C-5, JA722A No.1. Thank you.

I've put together a detailed write-up here.

[–] ZJBlank@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I couldn’t make sense of anything in that recording, but if you’re right about the tower call, then that sounds a lot more like “taxi into position and hold” than “taxi and hold short of runway.”

[–] closetfurry@yiffit.net 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's actually pretty impressive that there weren't more lives lost. The whole situation sucks and should've been avoided, but once it happened, I'm surprised it was "just" five

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

It's a testament to safety standards in new planes. The A350 has tons of fire safety implemented and I believe is actually one of the first ones to have this amount of safeguards against fires spreading quickly.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah only the Coasties lost anyone, surprised all passengers made it off of the air bus with the way that fireball went up.