日航 123便

Some Issues at the Tokyo High Court

 

１．

The bereaved family has already settled with JAL, so there is no need to disclose the information.

 

２．

Japan Airlines is a private company, not a public company, and is not obligated to disclose information. Since the details are described in the accident investigation report, there is no further need.

 

 

Rebuttal to this judgment

 

Allegations of plaintiff Ms.Motoko Kibi

 

１．

According to court records from the time, Boeing was the other party to the settlement. Not JAL.  appeared in court only once at the end and only distributed the money.

There was no explanation as to what caused the accident.

A different cause of the accident was found later, and no re-investigation was carried out. The preconditions for reconciliation are different. Only money was settled. I was reconciled without knowing the cause of the crash.

 

２．

At the time of the accident, JAL was a semi-governmental company. Although it is a private company now, it should have a mission as a public transportation system.

 

In the report published as a separate volume of the accident investigation report in 2013, "the impact point of the abnormal external force on the vertical stabilizer" was described. It should let you know what it is. JAL should let the bereaved family listen to the voice recorder.

 

The existence of the point of impact of the abnormal external force written in the research materials of the accident investigation report cannot be denied.

 

The JAL side did not issue any counterarguments about the point of impact of the abnormal external force that caused the crash. In other words, it is accepted.

 

However, JAL refused to disclose information such as the voice recorder.

The reason for this is that the captain of JAL Flight 123, Masami Takahama, was a member of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, secretly cooperated with the test flight, and had a conversation with the pilot of the Self-Defense Force Phantom at a time that was not officially announced.

 

Until August 11, 1985, the day before the plane crashed, the Self-Defense Forces were conducting development tests of a domestically produced missile. At that time, the escort ship Matsuyuki was also under test operation under the flight route of JAL Flight 123.

 

●supplementary explanation

The court found that Annex 13 could not be used as an excuse for not being able to disclose information. It turns out that voice recorders can be made public in court, just like in other aircraft crash trials. It turns out that JAL makes no excuses for another cause of the crash. It also turns out that JAL would rather disclose information for their own legitimacy, but they don't want to.

 

But the presiding judge was completely unmotivated. He may have had political pressure.

 

It was a trial that was probably the limit of the Japanese judicial system.

 
★Please inform the English-speaking bereaved family of the trial information. Please write to the English version of Wikipedia.