日航 123便

Lawsuit demanding the disclosure of raw flight data for the deadliest single airplane crash of all time: Japan Airlines Flight 123

 

AUGUST 12, 1985: THE FATAL CRASH OF JAPAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 123

 

1. OFFICIAL ACCIDENT REPORT

 

• official cause of crash announced by Japan’s Ministry of Transport
  “According to the accident investigation report, the cause of the accident was a pressure bulkhead that broke due to a repair error by Boeing Co.”
  However, the four survivors testified that there was no sudden decompression, and their eardrums didn’t rupture (suggesting that a bulkhead failure and subsequent cabin depressurization was unlikely)

 

2. 2013 ADDENDUM RAISES A CRUCIAL QUESTION: The abnormal 11 ton force

 

• 26 years later, in 2013, the Japan Transport Safety Board published further crash research materials online, this time saying:.
  “... the accident report states that ‘an abnormal force of 11 tons struck the vertical tail wing from the outside’”

  • No further explanation for the “11 ton force” is offered. Why?

  • Parts of the airplane, including portions of the tailfin remain on the bottom of Sagami Bay - we ask wrecovered them.

 

3. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED: TEST MISSILE STRIKE

 

• An 11-ton dummy missile strikes Flight 123 while it was flying over Sagami Bay
  “At the time of the crash, a domestically produced missile was under development, and a Self-Defense Force destroyer was undergoing trial operations in Sagami Bay. The Self-Defense Force was also recovering the shattered vertical tail fin.”

  • here is Eyewitness testimony of an orange flying object in the air concurrently with Flight 123

 

4. CRASH SITE CONFUSION

• Despite Takeo Kurosawa, the then mayor of Ueno Village in Gunma Prefecture, informing authorities that the plane had crashed nearby, the Japanese government did not immediately enact a rescue operation.

• Instead, Self Defense Forcesworked to destroy any evidence that could link to the accidental shooting by the Self-Defense Forces.
  (Written by Toko Aoyama 「Getting to the truth from eyewitness testimony 」Publisher: Kawade Shobo Shinsha,Tokyo)

*The Self-Defense Forces had destroyed the rear pressure bulkhead found in the crashed mountain with a cutter（based on Newspaper reports of the time）

*The Self-Defense Forces cut up important evidence of the cause of the crash into small pieces. Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone testified in his book (Memoir, 2012) that the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. Military were unofficially communicating. Priority was given to on-site destruction over rescue operations.

 

 

 

RECKLESS RESPONSE FROM JAPAN TRANSPORT AND SAFETY BOARD AND JAPAN AIRLINES TO THE BEREAVED

　

 

1. GIVEN THE RUNAROUND

 

• When a bereaved British national, Ms. Susanne Bayly-Yukawa, asked the Japan Transport Safety Board for a reinvestigation, the response was as follows.

“The JTSB understands that the situation doesn’t necessitate the reopening of the investigation based on new and significant evidence as specified by Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.”

-Takashi Kawashima. Director of Public Relations office, Japan Transport Safety Board, Secretariat.”

(13 May 2021) 

 

-further-

 

“Japan Airlines does not have control of the records nor is aware of the existence of such records.”

-Japan Airlines President Yuji Akasaka, 3 September 2019

 

• Information disclosure request to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism by the bereaved families in Japan.

 “The cause of the accident is still under investigation, so no further information is available. You can show the document about the DC-10 plane or English documents.

However, the voice recorder was returned to Japan Airlines. We don't have raw data.”

(10 March 2020)

 

2. WHAT THE LAWSUIT DEMANDS:

• The release of the full, heretofore unpublished, cockpit voice recorder.

From plaintiff Motoko Kibi, bereaved wife:

“Why did you return the raw data such as the voice recorder to Japan Airlines even though it is still under investigation? In that case, I want Japan Airlines to disclose information to the bereaved family.”

 

3. RESPONSE RAISES MORE QUESTIONS

Contradictory answers from lawyers representing Japan Airlines:

“If you want to listen to a voice recorder, you can listen to the publicly available recording on the Internet. There is no confidentiality about this.”

-Attorney Atsushi Yamashita

“Japan Airlines has no legal obligation to disclose raw data to bereaved families” (7 May 2020)

 

 

 

CASE BRIEFING

 

 

Tokyo District Court

Information Disclosure Lawsuit from 26 March, 2021 to 13 October, 2022

 

Main clause

１　Plaintiff's complaint dismissed a party's request

２　Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff

 The subject matter contested in court

①　Whether the plaintiff can request the defendant to disclose information under the Personal Information Protection Act, moral rights, etc.

 Japan Airlines is a private company, not a state or public entity. Articles stipulating countries do not apply. Only the laws of private companies and individuals apply. It cannot be said that the defendant's act of not disclosing the voice recorder damaged the plaintiff's legal interests. It cannot be said that the plaintiff's privacy was violated.

②　Carriage contract and information disclosure

The defendant had a legal relationship with the plaintiff based on the contract of carriage, under which a domestic transportation contract was signed to ensure safe transportation to the destination. There is no provision for information disclosure among the articles written in the transportation agreement. However, it is a fact that there is a significant gap between the plaintiff and the defendant in terms of their ability to collect information. This point has already been made public in the accident investigation report. you should read it. There is no need for JAL to cooperate any further. The plaintiff has settled with the defendant and the damages claim has been terminated. So all rights are extinguished.

For the above reasons, the plaintiff's action is dismissed.

This ruling is an unfair ruling at the mercy of the government and companies. The plaintiffs submitted an enormous amount of evidence, including theories, accident investigation reports, and past judicial precedents. The accident investigation report turned out to be false.

JAL, on the other hand, published only one newspaper article. A newspaper article that the bereaved family has reconciled.

The court did not require JAL to submit formal settlement documents.

Mrs. Kibi said payment documents are like receipts. In other words, it was a paper that only wrote the amount.

In that case, even if you received compensation or financial settlement, you should not be denied the right to know the cause of the accident, which you did not know at the time. The content of the settlement did not state that the cause of the crash would not be pursued.

Plaintiff plans to appeal. The trial is still ongoing.

Motoko Kibi

"I have the right to know what happened 38 years ago and why it caused the death of my husband. In the first place, there are many inconsistencies in the accident investigation report, and there are many materials that are different from the sighting information. The conclusion remains presumed, 38 years have passed without criminal liability for the deaths of 520 people. Even if the raw data at that time is released, it will not cause any inconvenience to Japan Airlines. Japan Airlines, which has all the information, is obliged to clarify why my husband had to die this way. ”

Attorney Hiroshi Miyake

For Japan Airlines, which was not answered properly last time, we asked two experts to write their evaluation opinions. The concept of the contract, that is, not only the promise, but also the social norms of information is the first security project. It is a civil law and is stipulated in Article 2 (exercise of rights and fulfillment of obligations must be done in good faith and in good faith). Even if a passenger dies, the information to that effect is as follows. Since the contract is a social norm, it is not only an individual agreement but also an obligation to consider the safety of society. It is an obligation to provide information. A passenger died and an airplane crashed. Due to the relationship between the passenger and JAL, you obliged to provide so-called information even if he dies. The wife has the right to know the truth of her husband's death. As his own information. Experts do. I wrote in the paper. I submitted it to the court as a preparatory document. Japan Airlines Flight 123 was a very big accident. However, JAL denied the disclosure. Our（JAL Flight 123） voice recorder is not personal information, it is an aircraft Claims to be in flight status and indicates that it does not have the right to request disclosure of accident information, not information about the deceased passenger (Without specifying a legal basis).

Of course, the bereaved family wants to know why they died. That is important data.

The bereaved family has been living a difficult life since August 12. Mrs. Kibi wants to know for the rest of his life. Just because she received compensation does not mean she lost her contract with her husband at JAL.

The conclusion is that Japan Airlines should disclose information to the bereaved family based on the good faith and the right to know the Constitution.

【References】

• Dr. Christopher Hood, professor at Cardiff University,UK

“Dealing with Disaster in Japan; Responses to the Flight JL123 Crash” and “Osutaka”

 (Books that describes exchanges with British bereaved families and the details of the accident.)

• Toko Aoyama, Doctor of International Cooperation Studies, The University of Tokyo

A group of flight attendants she belonged to died on JAL Flight 123. Non-fiction writer.

She has written many books about the crash of JAL Flight 123, including a book on eyewitness testimony, a book on investigating the remains of aircraft wreckage, and a book on trials.