日航 123便

Foreign media, Must not be Fooled !

 Similarities between reports on JAL Flight 516 and JAL Flight 123 and the big problem hidden therein.

 

 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　           Tohko Aoyama

 

   On January 2, 2024, at around 17:47, Japan Airlines Flight 516 and a Japan Coast Guard plane collided and burst into flames at Tokyo Haneda International Airport, the gateway to Japan that had just ushered in the New Year. Both aircraft were severely damaged. Japan Airlines' aircraft is an Airbus A350-900 (R/N: JA13XJ). The Japan Coast Guard's equipment is Bombardier DHC8-300 (R/N: JA722A) "Mizunagi 1”. This Japan Coast Guard plane was in a hangar at Sendai Airport during the tsunami caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake, but it was miraculously the only plane that escaped being washed away. All the others were washed away by the tsunami, but this plane was extremely valuable. On January 2nd as well, the special rescue team was transporting supplies for the Noto Peninsula earthquake that occurred on January 1st. In the midst of this, it collided with a JAL plane.

 

All 379 people on JAL Flight 516 (12 crew members and 367 passengers) escaped, but 15 people were injured. Five of the six Japan Coast Guard crew members were killed and one (the captain) was injured. Overseas media reported that was a ``miraculous rescue'' in which everyone was able to escape, with the state-of-the-art Airbus A350, the interior of the aircraft engulfed in flames. The report emphasized this as if it were Japan Airlines' credit. Furthermore, even in Japan, JAL's flight attendants were praised for being wonderful. Despite the fact that five people died and 15 were injured in this collision, the Nikko (JAL) alumnus appeared on TV smiling and praising his juniors. In addition, former JAL captains argued in a program that used aircraft simulations that it was natural for JAL to be unable to detect a Japan Coast Guard aircraft that entered the runway. In particular, in the night setting, he repeatedly made strange claims such as the fact that when a flare is done, the nose of the aircraft points upwards, making it difficult to see what's ahead. It was clearly a biased report intended to protect the JAL captain, “emphasizing that evasion at night was impossible”. Zero commentators mentioned whether JAL could have made a go-around to avoid a collision.

 

Meanwhile, it was revealed that the seriously injured captain of the Japan Coast Guard plane accidentally entered the runway and remained on the runway for 40 seconds. Therefore, it was determined that the cause was an oversight on the part of the air traffic controller and an erroneous intrusion by the captain of the Japan Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard reported that the fault was on the Japan Coast Guard aircraft's part. However, if the Japan Coast Guard aircraft had been on the runway for 40 seconds, the JAL aircraft would have had a last chance to see the plane on the runway. Initially, reports said that the Japan Coast Guard plane was difficult to see because it was a small plane, but it was not a small plane, but a medium-sized plane with a total length of 25.68 meters, and the beacon lights to prevent collisions should have been visible. But the opinions of those pilots were drowned out, saying that if they could spot it visually, they would be able to make a go-around within 20 seconds since it was a state-of-the-art powerful aircraft. Furthermore, while the names of all the crew members on the Japan Coast Guard plane were made public, the names of the crew members on the JAL plane were never made public. There has been no announcement of voice recorders or flight recorders from JAL aircraft, which have already been analyzed. On January 23rd, Takeda, chairman of the Japan Transport Safety Board's accident investigation committee, spoke about the matter as follows at a regular press conference. “We don't know anything yet, but the JAL aircraft's voice recorder may be made public if we deem it necessary. ICAO rules state that it will only be used for accident investigation and cannot be made public”. I couldn't believe my ears. Where is such a rule? Furthermore, who makes the decision not to make it public? Does Japan, in principle, not release all information, and only release a portion if it is determined that it will contribute to safety? The chairman completely ignored the fact that voice recorders have been made public in past accidents around the world. Moreover, when asked questions by reporters, the committee chairman kept his mouth shut and shook his head without saying a word. Everyone felt a sense of distrust at the appearance of the committee chairman. In some cases overseas, public hearings are held and members of parliament listen to the matter. Japan was the only country with an attitude far removed from the world standard, and this was the strange attitude of the Transport Safety Accident Investigation Committee. It was finally announced on January 29th that interviews had begun, but even though nothing was known yet, the public was already preconceived by reports that ``Japan Coast Guard plane is bad, JAL plane is not bad, and JAL flight attendants are particularly wonderful.'' Preconceived notions were instilled in the public through media coverage, and the cause of the accident was solidified. Even though the investigation into the accident has only just begun, why is the media defending and praising JAL so much? I believe that the fact that the ``JAL Flight 123 Voice Recorder Information Disclosure Trial'' is currently being heard at the Supreme Court has something to do with it.

 

 

We will examine reports based on incorrect information from overseas media.

 

① It took all JAL flight attendants 18 minutes to evacuate.

If you look at the video taken by the passengers themselves, you can easily see that the video was originally intended for overseas audiences to mislead people into thinking it was an escape from the plane engulfed in flames. This way, the other side was not burning. Smoke entered the cabin, but it lasted about 18 minutes before it was engulfed in flames. In other words, there was enough time to escape. Furthermore, because the front nose gear was damaged, the escape chute had to be descended from a much lower position, alleviating the fears of the passengers. By the way, when I was a flight attendant in the 1980s, airlines around the world were training to evacuate about 540 passengers from a B747 in 90 seconds. I have actually done this training and managed to escape in 90 seconds. Furthermore, in the case of jumbo planes, the escape chute was from a high position on the 4th or 5th floor of a building, with a steep slope of 45 degrees, so I remember being very scared. This time, the escape is easier and from a much lower position than the training of that jumbo plane era. Moreover, it took 18 minutes for the ship to be engulfed in flames, so it is natural that it was possible to escape. Furthermore, photos taken by passengers show that the other side was not burning at all. This is how the foreign media were fooled.
 

② Possibility of violation of duty of care on the part of JAL.

There were three pilots on board this JAL plane. 50-year-old captain and 29-year-old co-pilot was in training for transitioning to this type of aircraft. A 34-year-old co-pilot was on board as an observer. I believe that these three people may have violated their duty of care by missing the Japan Coast Guard aircraft that had stopped on the runway and was about to take off. They all said they were flying at night and couldn't even see the Japan Coast Guard aircraft's anti-collision beacon lights, but it is assumed that they missed it rather than couldn't see it. There was no way that all three of them could have been seen, and if they had been spotted, they would have been able to make a go-around within 20 seconds just before landing. It took just 20 seconds and the five disaster relief experts on board the Japan Coast Guard plane did not even have to die. If the co-pilot was in transition training on that day, it is quite possible that he was so focused on training that he was not paying attention to the runway. However, there are no reports mentioning this point at all. It appears that JAL's public relations team had devised a strategy to emphasize the report of the flight attendant's accomplishments to the world in order to avoid being accused of violating the duty of watchfulness on JAL's side. Japan Airlines, which is good at dealing with the media, is still hiding the information of the three pilots and has not released the voice recorders of only the JAL side.

 

 ③ Relationship with the Japan Airlines Flight 123 information disclosure request lawsuit.

The method of reporting this time is similar to the coverage of JAL Flight 123 in Japan and around the world 39 years ago. Even though the voice recorder of JAL Flight 123 was still being analyzed, the ``aft pressure bulkhead theory'' suddenly emerged. This is despite denials from both parties (JAL and Boeing). In the end, the Accident Investigation Committee came to the conclusion of the ``rear pressure bulkhead theory.'' Later, in 2013, the Accident Investigation Committee published research materials from that time on its website. It stated that ``the vertical stabilizer was directly destroyed by an abnormal external force.'' However, no investigation has been conducted on this abnormal external force until now, and it remains unexplored. No explanation was given to the family members. As a result, the bereaved families were forced to reconcile. Therefore, Motoko Kibi, a bereaved family member, has filed an information disclosure request to see all the raw data, including unpublished parts. However, the judgment was based on JAL's contradictory answers, such as that the voice recorder that had been returned to JAL was not confidential, so it had already been made public, and that JAL did not need to make it public again. The case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court. During this time, JAL Flight 516 burst into flames.

 

④ Information concealment strategy for the future.

It turned out that JAL had approached the universities where I and my defense team had given lectures, and had my books removed from the university libraries under the pretext of giving students an advantage in getting a job. JAL employees systematically concealed the truth, including slandering the bereaved family, Mr. Kibi, who was in trial, and the defense team. It was also revealed that he removed my books from the library and destroyed them, gave professors free airline tickets in return, and spread negative reviews of my books to students. JAL is doing what Nazi Germany did by hiding books that are inconvenient to them. Furthermore, this behavior extended to elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools. The same applies to national universities. Furthermore, the Minister of Defense is former JAL employee Minoru Kihara, a local who had one of the plaintiffs withdrawn in this case, and who has close ties to JAL. The actual circumstances of this surprising collusion are currently under investigation. This is an unprecedented book hiding incident that threatens to undermine the foundations of Japanese democracy. In this way, a system is created in which large corporations use power and money to bully inconvenient whistleblowers. That is why we must desperately protect our "right to know."

​

​

​

​