Talk:Japan Airlines Flight 123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Passenger List

I have been looking for pasenger list of victims, since a dear friend of mine was on that fatal flight. This is first time I have come to read story.

-- I don't think there is a an online version of it (at least in English). I have a copy. Please contact me via my homepage (www.hood-online.co.uk) if interested. 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadheading

What is deadheading? A quick Google search turns up references to gardening, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in this article. -Etoile 15:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Deadheading is a commercial aviation industry term for flight/cabin crew that are off-duty passengers on a flight operated by their employer(s). I'm uncertain about its etymology. Avalyn 16:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually deadheading is the movement of (a) crewmember(s), while on duty, aboard a revenue/active flight as a passenger, so that he/she may work another flight at that destination. This is to fill an opening on the crew roster, to avoid further delay and/or cancelation of that flight. A deadheading crewmember, whether pilot or flight attendant, is positive space and cannot be bumped for any reason. In some cases, a full-fare passenger is bumped to make room for the deadheading crewmember. An example: Deadhead from Chicago to Boston to work a flight from Boston to Denver.

[edit] Worst aviation disaster of all time?

"It remains the worst single-aircraft disaster in history, and the second-worst aviation accident of all time, second only to the Tenerife disaster."

Surely the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September caused more fatalities than either Japan Airlines flight 123, or the Tenerife disaster? This should make Tenerife the second worst and Japan Airlines the third.

I think it's more correct to catagorise 9/11 as a terrorist attack, not an aviation accident. Matthew king 12:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
On top of that, if one counted only the 9/11 victims who were onboard the planes, the total number killed still wouldn't surpass JAL123. Avalyn 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And the bombing of Hiroshima, which was accomplished using a single aircraft, killed way more people than all four planes on 9/11 put together. But I don't think you'd call that an "aviation disaster" since it was planned and all of the fatalities were on the ground. - Sekicho 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There is hell a lot of difference between casualties during war and peace time. What is implied is that it was the worst aircrash during 'Peace time'
There is also "hell a lot of difference" between a deliberate attack like 911 or Hiroshima and an accident.
All the people killed on 911 in the World Trade Center should be counted as casualties in the same way that the people killed on the ground in Lockerbie were counted as casualties of an aviation accident.
At most, you should count only the people in the planes. And even if you did, there's no reason to count the planes together. These are seperate incidents even if they're part of a wider 'incident'. So it still wouldn't be the worst aviation accident. In any case, the Lockerbie bombing was an explosion in midair whereas the September 11 planes were purposely crashed in to a building/ground. As other's have stated, counting the people in the WTC etc makes as much sense as counting people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The peacetime argument is a bit silly since it's irrelevant. But if you want to get in to peacetime arguments, the people flying the planes clearly didn't think they were at peace and even GWB has declared a 'war on terror' in response to September 11 so the claim it's any more peace time then say Pearl Harbour which also involved aeroplanes is dubious Nil Einne 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize the length of my argument is very long. I just ask of you to please read the entire thing. I would very much appreciate that, for I may shed new light on the 'why is it the worst disaster in aviation history?' debate. Thank you. The definition of an 'aviation accident' is "an occurrence on board an aircraft resulting in injury or death to one or more persons." This differs from an 'aviation incident' whereas it is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. The italicized text refers to the aircraft's status; how well the hydraulics, engines, gauges, etc. are working. An example of an aviation accident is if a derranged suspect stabs and kills another passenger. The man may be subdued, but the death still occurred, so it is classified as an 'accident.' An example of an aviation incident is if one of the engines of an aircraft fails to operate and the aircraft loses it's stability; it's ability to stay aloft, and crashes to the earth. This may be caused by incorrect repair and/or maintenance, or maybe even pilot error. See the difference? The 9/11 attacks and Hiroshima or Nagasaki do not qualify as aviation accidents or incidents because they were both done intentionally, (you know, the opposite of accidentally) and none of them were caused by the failure of operation of part(s) of the aircraft. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it's during peacetime or wartime; accidents and incidents happen in both times and only some of them turn into 'disasters.' Disasters can be caused by ANYTHING. Pilot error, incorrect maintenance or repair, severe weather, terrorist actions, etc. JAL123 crashed on a slope in central Japan, where it could possibly be under 40 degrees Fahrenheit (due to the elevation and time of day) in which most of the passengers in the front of the aircraft died because of a sudden stop at over 100 times the force of gravity, that doesn't mean that the SURVIVING passengers couldn't have died due to smoke inhalation, (remember, there was hundreds, if not a thousand or two gallons of feul still aboard that aircraft that ignited and caused a huge explosion, burning trees and other foliage around the crash victims) shock, hypothermia, a severe hemorrage or two (caused by flying shrapnel) or the many other ways of dying that might have taken place that fateful night. One must think of all the aspects of disasters such as this. That's why I must continue. The search and rescue efforts made by both governments (Japanese and American) are also the cause of speculation. The American helicopter that arrived on-scene no less than two hours after the crash was ordered back to base, supposedly by the Japanese gov't. Then the Japanese SAR teams stayed at a village overnight, causing even more delay, and in turn, deaths. This is also one of the aspects that makes this 'incident' a disaster. Another idea that might make this incident a 'disaster' is the fact that Boeing, the worldwide-known aviation company, did the incorrect repairs on the aircraft, causing the rear bulkhead the tear off during pressurization. The idea that Boeing might have made other fatal errors in repair or maintenance of other aircraft they operate should have made headlines around the globe. Can you imagine how many damaged planes there may be out there, flying hundreds of passengers miles above the surface, slowly breaking down further until the day it crashes? I, for one, think that inspections of every commercial aircraft around the globe should be conducted every few years. What's the cost of maintaining an aircraft? Several million dollars, but think, airline companies! You should have to pay condolences (several million dollars as well) for the 529 people you killed because you didn't inspect the entire aircraft! 'The worst single-aircraft incident in history' is for-sure Japan Airlines Flight 123. May something like this never happen again. Thank you for sticking with me and reading my entire argument. Mattokunhayashi 09:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan_Airlines_Flight_123#Rescue_operations

There seems to be some stiff criticism in the article concerning the way the Japanese handled the rescue efforts. Since I suppose this is disputed, is the wording ok / npov ? I believe the US-helicopter could not land either, so: who is claiming that the Japanese handled this poorly? — Xiutwel (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, are you sure the American helicopter couldn't land? Or it didn't land because it was ordered away from the scene? I saw a documentary Mayday (TV series): Out of control - which was Canadian and did seem a bit American biased however it still seemed to provide a decent overview). I think the criticism focused on (the documentary didn't really cover the rescue crew issue that much):
  • The fact that the US helicopter which AFAIK was first on the scene was ordered away from the scene and the Americans were prevented from helping.
  • Offers of help from the US were turned down
  • I believe there was some infighting amongst the Japanese over who should handle the rescue effort
  • The helicopter pilot couldn't land but did AFAIK report there didn't appear to be any survivors, as such the rescue crews heading to the site chose to sleep overnight in a town rather then head to the site ASAP
It sounds to me like the Americans were ready to rappel down to the crash site and maybe even land. Potentially the JSDF helicopter took a while to arrive because it had to find the crash scene even tho the scene had already been found by the Americans (possibly while it was still light). Also, I guess questions remain over whether the Japanese helicopter should have attempted to land or at least send someone down to actually examine the scene. Don't get me wrong, I normally don't like it when Americans make them selves out to be superheroes but it does appear to me that the Japanese screwed up the rescue operation and rejected help which may have saved more lives. I assume that the goverment and the Japanese forces didn't want to be upstaged by the Americans which while not uncommon amongst any group/country, I personally find silly and in cases when it costs lives, detestable. If someone is able to help, you should accept it. It's not as if there were any secrets here or anything. Nil Einne 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, here's the data I got for sunset times:

Sun and Moon Data for One Day

The following information is provided for Crash Site (longitude W138.7, latitude N36.0): 
Monday   
12 August 1985        Universal Time - 9h            

SUN
Sun transit               12:20                 
Sunset                    19:08                 
End civil twilight        19:35
Of course, this was on a mountain so this could affect the light level significantly. But it sems like it's possible that when the US helicopter arrive at 19:16 there would have still be some light. Nil Einne 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, it'll help if someone who speak Japanese could check out the Japanese article. Even more so if it's someone who was in Japan at the time and remembers the incident. I presume there was probably an outcry against the apparent bungling of the rescue operation and we should add details if it were true. Were there any people who resigned or even commited suicide over this?

I can read Japanese, and I was in Japan when this accident occurred. I have always thought it scandalous that the Japanese government did not take advantage of the American offer for help. I just read the section of the Japanese Wikipedia article that deals with the rescue operations. The US helicopter equipped with night vision equipment arrived on the scene within two hours and was about to lower rescue personnel when they received an order to return to home base (Atsugi AFB). The order had apparently come through from the Japanese government that they would handle the rescue by themselves. To this day, the Japanese government has not made clear why they called off the American rescue attempt. The Japanese military possessed no night vision equipment, so the actual rescue did not occur until 12 hours after the accident. There probably would have been one or two dozen more survivors had the Americans been allowed to continue their rescue operations. Specifically, one of the survivors (a young girl) remembers talking with her father immediately after the accident. When the Japanese rescuers showed up in the morning, her father was dead. In the end, the Japanese government foul-up of the rescue was a lot like the US government foul-up on hurricane Katrina. Bureaucratic stupidity cost lives. Westwind273 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulator recreations

I recently watched the "seconds from disaster" episode of this disaster on Discovery Channel and it mentioned that several simulations were run with very capable crew, none of which were able to land the plane and few got close to the 30 minutes of flight time achieved by the original pilots. I was thinking about adding something similar to this article. Your thoughts?

--The fact that this plane was kept in the air that long is miraculous. Loss of all control surfaces is essentially a death wish for a plane. The pilots were in a life and death situation and that may have contributed to the fact that it lasted as long as it did.71.230.128.8 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All 15 crewmembers…

According to the article, all 15 crewmembers died. However, according to a National Geographic programme about the accident, says that one of the four survivors was an off-duty flight attendant. Jon Harald Søby 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes she was off duty, and probably did not count as part of the flight crew for that particular flight. Limitedexpresstrain 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also: It sounds wrong

"used a steer-by-throttle technique he had subsequently practiced to land the plane in a controlled crash that killed 111 people of the 296 on board."

It sounds as if because of his heroics people died, not inspite of it.

I feel the rigth way of putting it would be "controlled crash that saved 185 people of the 296 on board."

[edit] Hypothermia in the summer?

"It is believed that a substantial number of people survived the initial crash, but succumbed to hypothermia before they could be rescued." -- This incident happened in mid-August. How could the survivors of the initial crash die from hypothermia? Just from the height of the mountain? But the Japanese article mentions how quickly the victims' remains decomposed and how that made identification difficult.

Don't know but remember that it was overnight so it would be significantly colder then during the day. I don't know much about hypothermia and the wiki article doesn't help but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a factor. It was probably a combination of hypothermia and shock, remember that these people had just been in a very major accident so their bodies were probably very weak and it sounds to me easily possible they would enter hypothermia even if the outside temperature was say 15-20 degrees C Nil Einne 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
MacArthur Job's book states that the crash took place at quite a high altitude, 5400 feet and above, in fog and rain. I'm guessing that it could have been as cold as 3 to 5 C during the night. (My guess is based on the fact that thinner air at higher altitudes doesn't hold heat well. It can be +36C/96F here on a hot summer day, but at night the temperature can dip down to almost freezing.) Add rain to a cold night and hypothermia becomes not just a possibility but an almost-certainty. --Charlene 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mid air break up?

I didn't understand how it broke up mid air (though the vstab broke off the plane). But it crashed into a mountain and broke one of it's wings and finally crashing into a second mountain. --Irfanfaiz 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Er the plane didn't break up in mid air AFAIK. Catostrophic failure to the rear pressure bulkhead (due to faulty repairs) resulted in sudden depressurisation and the vstab breaking off but the plane was still intact until it crashed AFAIK. Nil Einne 09:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

Some details I got from the Mayday documetary (See above) which are not mentioned:

  • The pilots & engineer didn't put on their face masks. I believe it's standard practice that pilots should put on their masks when decompression has occured so this is a but puzzling. Indeed there was even a suggestion by one of the crew that they should put on their masks but they didn't. While they couldn't have done anything so it likely didn't make any difference in the end, there were signs the pilots may have been suffering from hypoxia, e.g. the captain appeared to be very slow to respond (even within the cabin). I believe the was a general lack of communication from the plane to the ATC but this perhaps isn't that surprising or uncommon when the pilots are struggling to control the plane.
  • JAL supposedly suffered greatly from this accident as there was a perception amongst the Japanese public the JAL was reponsible but Boeing had covered up from them (as a major customer)

Some more details although i'm not sure if these are significant enough to be added

  • The offduty flight attendant evidently helped out during the emergency
  • They oxygen masks (at the back?) failed during the emergency and the emergency tanks had to be used/shared
  • The Japanese were reluctant to allow the NTSB and Boeing to assist the investigation. Eventually they acceeded but carefully monitored (especially the Boeing employees). This accident came at a sensitive time for Boeing as the 747 was still new and there had been another recent accident
  • The Japanese were planning to bring criminal charges against Boeing but eventually decided not to (at a guess, I would say political pressure had a part and perhaps the suicide of the person responsible for the maintence)
  • The tail section was found in the water near where the plane suffered explosive decompression, not long after the photo was uncovered showing it missing
  • Shrines were built and petals were dropped over the site by relatives (I believe planes flew over the site). This was quite fast after the accident I believe
  • Not surprisingly, it was calculated those in the front would have experiences forces in excess of 100gs so they had no chance of surviving.

I don't have a proper citation for these so won't add them myself but I guess they should be added. One more detail I read somewhere else. I believe the JLA president stated early on he would resign but would stay on to help with the investigation etc until he was no longer needed. Possibly he spent the first night with the relatives? Nil Einne 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Macarthur Job's book mentions some of this, including the public anger at JAL for a supposed coverup, the reluctance of the Japanese to allow the NTSB to assist (would have been seen as "kowtowing to the Americans" or "letting the Americans run the country" and would have been incredibly, incredibly unpopular among voters), and the shrines. Most of the rest wasn't mentioned. Interestingly, Job also mentions that the survivors were enraged by the decision by the government not to try to attempt a rescue that evening. They saw it as cowardice, and the subsequent discovery of four survivors as proof that more could have lived had the rescuers not stayed in their quarters that night. --Charlene 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know whether any Boeing employee committed suicide due to the mistake made by the companY? I'd never seen this until recently & it appears on a number of websites, but have never seen it mentioned in any books or documentaries (which always make a point of mentioning the Japanese suicides). --Chris 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen that in any book either - and I'd be surprised it wasn't mentioned if it did happen. It was on this page without any citation until I rewrote and sourced the Aftermath section. Cheers, Ian Rose 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12-Year-Old Survivor

What was the name of the surviving 12-year-old girl found in the tree when the rescue workers showed up at the 747's crash site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2007(UTC)

The four survivors have been listed in the page's intro for a while now... Cheers, Ian Rose 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Investigation into Rescue Operations?

Was there ever such an investigation, given that incompetence seems to have killed a significant number of survivors? Toby Douglass 08:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's doubtful, as Japan has a shame-based culture. The Government controls the press through direct and indirect means to prevent awkward questions being asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.110.178.99 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Source? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued interest

For those interested in JL123, there is a group at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6637333763

[edit] Ken or Takeshi ?

I notice that there are two separate articles about JL123 give two different names to one of the passengers.

- Both clearly refer to the same person - But which name is correct? Or is one name a nickname? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Defintely Ken. His story is one of the most well-known in relation to the crash. His mother is now the head of the organization set up by many of the bereaved families. She and her husband were famously photographed at the crash site trying to find the spot where their son died, even though the mountain was closed off to the public. www.JL123.co.uk 11 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.4 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book

I read in the Japan Times that a western author is writing a book on the accident, and solicited input from the public over the internet. Any news on when this book is coming out? Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. The webpage is www.JL123.co.uk The book will be out in 2010 or 2011. Originally planned for the former, but I keep uncovering more information & links, so it seems a shame to cut short the research. Christopher Hood 11 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.4 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to reading your book when published and using it as a source for information in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Investigation of History

The article mentions: "the aircraft accomplished 12,319 take-offs between the installation of the new plate and the final accident" - this repair was done 2nd of June 1978, the accident happened on August 12, 1985. This would mean that the plane did an average of 4.687 take-offs EVERY day during all this time. It seems to me this is a rather very high figure for a Boeing 747. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irresistance (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Remember that this B747 was on Japanese domestic routes - meaning it had frequent takeoffs. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)