Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 123/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

I hate to nitpick this, but...... Deadheading can also be for the purpose of returning crew members to their domiciles, after they have completed a work assignment. Also, a deadheading crewmember can be bumped up to ride on a cockpit jumpseat, to make room for paying passengers, when the plane is full. Unions sometimes object to that, but it is not uncommon for a pilot to agree, so that additional customers can be accommodated. And, deadheading is not always for filling vacancies in a crew roster. Sometimes, it is a periodic scheduled deadhead, as part of a trip sequence that is laid out that way, each time a crew flies it. EditorASC (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But remember there is a difference between deadheaders and commuters, the latter being, for example, SFO based but living in RNO. Phobal (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

These are very important distinctions. If at any point of a mishap, intentional death/destruction is caused then that becomes quite different from an incident where no harm is intended. I consider it to be proper to categorize attacks (the former) separately from accidents (the latter).

While I agree with the primary point of Mattokunhayashi's detailed post, I am surprised that in the subsequent years, no one has pointed out a major flaw in that argument: one passenger stabbing another to death does not qualify as an accident, because that is an intentional act.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image doctoring

I'm not convinced that more of the tailfin has been edit out intentionally in this image in the article - looks more like a poor scan of a printed copy of a low resolution image. See here for a comparison from Flight Safety Australia magazine. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

More of the tailfin has definitely been edited out. The scanned image that keeps appearing here is also the one in Macarthur Job's book. But have a look at the official report available at http://araic.assistmicro.co.jp/araic/aircraft/download/bunkatsu.html#5

The file you need to look at is File 9. Then find image Number 124 on page 241 of the report as a whole or page 12 of that file. This is the only version of the picture that ever appears in the Japanese newspapers and Japanese books... why is it that in English sources someone has seen the need to doctor the picture?

Christopher Hood 13:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything malicious going on here. The image appears to have been sharpened for publication, perhaps poorly by today's standards, however respectable aviation mazagines have published it as it is shown here on Wikipedia. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not be malicious, but it does seem odd that all of the Japanese newspapers and books (at least which I have read to date) which have used the image and have tried to blow up the image to make it easier to view have managed to do so without that particular part of the image being altered. The conclusions/issues they draw from the picture are then a whole separate area for discussion which appear to be overlooked by many others. Christopher Hood 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope the image you are discussing is not the image being used now, as it is very clearly a computerized image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are talking about the famous image of the plane with it's missing tail ? Someone removed it because they SUSPECt it has been enhanced ? It's a pity, that image was horrific and brought home the horror of the disaster in a way that all these guess work computer renders cannot.

The image as it's routinely shown in the west (ie here) has been doctored. The original image can be seen in the official accident report and shows approximately as much of the tail remaining as the 3D render that's currently in use here. (However, the render is still not totally accurate - the fin broke cleanly, not with a jagged edge as depicted.) It's not a mystery how the stabilizer broke, and the photo in question was not really part of the accident investigation - it's part of the appendix in the accident report. Simply examining the wreckage at the crash site vs. what was recovered from the water and along the flight path told investigators all they needed to know about what was left of the stabilizer at impact. There's no real debate about this. Badasscat (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The following line: "Continued control problems required them to first request vectors back to Haneda, then to Yokota (a U.S. military air base)" and the assertion further down the page that the crew kept in touch with this base need to be checked. According to every documentary that I have seen an operative from Yokota contacted the crew but they did not reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.181 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Death count: fatalities vs avoidable?

Should the death count be turned in a way as to show that some were crash fatalities and some due to bad rescue ? It is common for disaster victims to die indirectly only some time later from mortal wounds, lack of rescue or a combination of both, but in this case some poorly led rescue clearly failed to save some lives, and is quite possibly responsible for some death by hypothermia. We might never have a precise count or correct source to rely on, but still... --Musaran (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no source, then no, it should not be part of the article. Yumi Ochiai's account does mention many survivors, but there is no way to verify that their deaths were the result of delayed rescue. In fact, the official accident report directly contradicts this assertion - autopsies showed the surviving passengers all died quickly from internal injuries, none from hypothermia. This is the only real source we have to cite about this. Assertions to the contrary in this article without sources would be speculation. --Badasscat (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"discovered" wording

"[The pilots] discovered that by giving full throttle they could cause the plane to rise out of a nose-dive..."
"discovered" is a weird wording as this is normal behavior for a plane and the pilots would be expected to know it and try that maneuver.--Musaran (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While I would agree that "discovered" may not be the best word choice, it does reflect the situation in which the pilots would have had to almost instinctively re-evaluate the flight characteristics of a severely damaged aircraft. The normal flight characteristics that pilots train for in a simulator would go out the window, especially where all the redundant hydraulic systems fail simultaneously (almost unheard of even in training sims). As it was, the pilots did a magnificent effort in an impossible situation.Pmarshal (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese accident report files

• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-01.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3cEO9c
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-02.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3djLYv
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-03.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3ex1ZG
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-04.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3gR0PC
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-05.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3l8Epq
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-06.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3pTWTo
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-07.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh40PYyw
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-08.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh42Ueix
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-09.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh47BbCQ
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-10.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh448gTc
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-11.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3vqHUI
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119-huroku.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zh3iACTf

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the breakup image original research?

The CG image of the breakup was not made by a by anyone connected with the investigation. It is not from an authoritative source. It is just an amateur's cool CG image of what he thinks the breakup may have looked like. Nice effort but really not appropriate here.

The same goes for the animation of the tail strike. This image may be appropriate for an article on tail strikes but this image is not the tail strike by JAL 123. It is an animation of a someone's impression of what a 747 tail strike would look like. Rsduhamel (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Firstly, I think the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard would be a great place to ask your question

Secondly, unlike images from the US's NTSB, images of other animations/diagrams/etc from Japan's agencies would be copyrighted - we would have no choice but to make an illustration depicting data that was gained from other sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

and the cred of wikipedia sinks, and sinks, and sinks.Phobal (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an unwarranted statement that does not directly address the sentences above. By accepting user-generated CG images (where copyright would make official ones inadmissable), Wikipedia indeed is credibly acting as a Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. First off WhisperToMe, Rsduhamel and the aforementioned anon user didn't ask a question. Secondly, why should we post something (arguments that you somehow see as inquisitive) pertinent to this issue on a general discussion board? Instead of addressing a very valid point at issue, you imperiously imply that this discussion should not exist on the pertinent talk board. Concomitantly, you insist (without basis) that a possibly flawed image from a non-expert about the issue is better than no image; in fact, you insist that there is "no (other) choice". Applying your logic, I should look over the shoulder of one of my friends having a webcam chat with you for five seconds. Then, I can draw a picture of what I remember you looking like in MSpaint, put it up on your usertalk profile, then refute any attempts to challenge the legitimacy of this artifact because I have "no choice but to make an illustration depicting data that was gained from other sources". Your statement is just as unhelpful as mine: of course the credibility of wikipedia is sinking; one user can decide the fate of an artifact, deflecting any critique due to formality. The singularity in this process is actually [i]worse[/i] that academe.Phobal 05:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phobal (talk • contribs)

"Good lord. First off WhisperToMe, Rsduhamel and the aforementioned anon user didn't ask a question"

In a Wikipedia discussion, that does not matter. One can still challenge one's viewpoint even if it is not phrased in a question-like manner.

" Secondly, why should we post something (arguments that you somehow see as inquisitive) pertinent to this issue on a general discussion board?"

In many cases discussions do belong on certain places instead of others. People, many times before, have challenged usage of CG images as "original research" and those uses have been upheld.

"Instead of addressing a very valid point at issue, you imperiously imply that this discussion should not exist on the pertinent talk board."

This isn't the pertinent "talk board" - the noticeboard is the pertinent "talk board" because CG images are used in many pages, and not just one.

"Applying your logic, I should look over the shoulder of one of my friends having a webcam chat with you for five seconds. Then, I can draw a picture of what I remember you looking like in MSpaint, put it up on your usertalk profile, then refute any attempts to challenge the legitimacy of this artifact because I have "no choice but to make an illustration depicting data that was gained from other sources""

That argument doesn't work, as you didn't take a photograph so you don't have the "schematics" of the person's face. You are just using memory. Those accident reports have almost all of the pertinent data recorded. 2. People all the time make reproductions of how events happen. Look in magazines, newspapers, etc. Look at the accident reports themselves (the only reason why people often can't use those images is because those are copyrighted). Are they all inappropriate too?

Because CG images are used across many articles, and the complaint had nothing to do with the particular aspects of this particular aspect, but instead the general use of CG images, it makes no sense to open a general challenge of CG images here. You open it at the noticeboard, and only AFTER taking into account all of the previous threads about the use of CG images. I'll list them here to help you.

"Your statement is just as unhelpful as mine: of course the credibility of wikipedia is sinking; one user can decide the fate of an artifact, deflecting any critique due to formality. The singularity in this process is actually [i]worse[/i] that academe"

Most internet users do not agree. Instead of crying "Wikipedia's credibility is gone!" work on a particular argument and use reason, not passion.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image - Take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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."

Are you talking about United Airlines Flight 232? WWEWizard (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Mr. Hood, what's up with that $143 initial asking price by Amazon? Surely, that's a mistake? Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

JTSB documents

Some additional information from the JTSB

• http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/kaisetsu/nikkou123.html
  • http://www.webcitation.org/64vC748mn
• http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/kaisetsu/nikkou123-kaisetsu.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/64vCFqu4w
• http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/kaisetsu/nikkou123-kikou.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/64vCaiJFd
• http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/62-2-JA8119.pdf
  • http://www.webcitation.org/64vCDTCmL

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture

http://www.goennet.ne.jp/~hohri/n-ochiai.htm

The picture at the end.. isn't that JAL123? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in section titled AIRCRAFT

How can a plane with 4,000 days (11 years) of operational life have "18,835 cycles (one cycle equals one takeoff and landing)". Surely this is a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.68.108 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is simple. The domestic line is not used for only one flight a day. For example, an aircraft between HND and ITM is used eight flights a day.

1. JAL 101 B6 6:30 7:40 HND ITM
2. JAL 106 B6 8:30 9:35 ITM HND
3. JAL 113 B6 10:30 11:40 HND ITM
4. JAL 116 B6 12:30 13:35 ITM HND
5. JAL 121 B6 14:30 15:40 HND ITM
6. JAL 126 B6 16:30 17:35 ITM HND
7. JAL 133 B6 18:20 19:30 HND ITM
8. JAL 138 B6 20:15 21:20 ITM HND

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Victim list info

Here are some victim lists, with non-Japanese listed separately.

• [1] - http://archive.is/OXnlx and http://www.webcitation.org/6JBvAE15x
• [2] - http://archive.is/TFA2Y and at http://www.webcitation.org/6JBv815Si - States its source as page 4 of Tokyo Shimbun (morning edition on Aug.14, 1985)
• [3] - http://archive.is/2Qgbg and http://www.webcitation.org/6JBvWh1p2

Oda Mari cannot identify the nationality of 葉 瑞祥 For the other foreigners, they include 1 resident in West Germany, 1 resident in Kobe, 1 resident in Hyogo, 3 from "Indea" (India), 7 from "America" (United States), 1 from "England" (United Kingdom), four from Hong Kong, two from "Milano" (Milan, Italy), 1 resident in Kawasaki, and 1 resident in Osaka. In addition, Ｊ・クラウベルト should be West German and 安 時懊 is Korean. 鄭 順徳 and キョアン,リー・ヒー may be Chinese/Korean living in Japan and Oda Mari thinks he is probably Korean WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The full passenger and crew list appears in Hood, C.P., 2011, Dealing With Disaster in Japan, London: Routledge.

What does the term "vector" mean in this context?

As a non-expert in aviation matters, I don't understand what "Tokyo Area Control Center directed the aircraft[...] to emergency landing vectors" and "Capt. Takahama requested a vector to Haneda" is supposed to mean. Therefore, feel that something should be changed, either by rephrasing or the use of an appropriate wikilink. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A 'vector' in this context is a course direction to steer, given over radio by ATC, using their radar - it comes originally from this; Chain Home and this; GCI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

777 after 1985

Can someone double-check the following as boeing 777 were introduced in 1994 : After September 1, 1985, the flight was changed to flight 127 using a Boeing 777 Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.220.1 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keiko Kawakami and her location

In: User talk:宇野宙太郎 there is a discussion on whether Keiko Kawakami was found in a tree or inside the wreckage of the aircraft. It may be good to get out the sources (in English and Japanese) and compare them.

I found:

• Dealing with Disaster in Japan and on Google books page 161: "Rescuers taking Keiko Kawakami out of the plane wreckage" (presumably a caption of a photo)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Names of non-Japanese victims

I don't think this is usable in the article, but in case consensus changes, I found sources that state the names of foreign passengers. Could these names be used to find the full victim list? Victim lists are often included as external links in aircraft accident articles.

• Moosa, Eugene. "Jet Crash Kills Over 500 In Mountains of Japan." Associated Press at The Schenectady Gazette. Tuesday Morning August 13, 1985. First Edition. Volume 91 (XCI) No. 271. Front Page (p. 5?).
  • States that the American passengers were two employees of Stearns Catalytic Co., of Denver, Colorado: Edward Anderson (believed to be 48 years old) and 40-year old Michael Hanson
• "Japan crash probers study flight recorders." United Press International at The Pittsburgh Press. Thursday August 15, 1985. p. A4. Google News 3 of 55.
  • States that 52-year old Jochen Klaubert of West Germany was among the victims

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The full passenger and crew list appears in Hood, C.P., 2011, Dealing With Disaster in Japan, London: Routledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.133.28 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I noticed it's Spread across several pages in the book (I searched "Klaubert") WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I also found: http://d.hatena.ne.jp/adlib/19850812 - http://www.webcitation.org/6S4ZVCvP4 - WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I learned there is a full list on p. 45 of the book from the Junko Otani review. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with Disaster in Japan criticisms and commentary of the final report

I want to know if it is reasonable to include the criticisms and commentary of the final accident report that were made in Dealing with Disaster in Japan.

• The section "Problems with the Final Report" begins on p. 73.

The author is a lecturer in Japanese studies. Were his comments made with the guidance of air accident investigators, and what is the science like in regards to the comments? I understand standards are more stringent for inclusion of material in relation to the hard sciences compared to the soft sciences (especially medicine but I imagine this is also true for air accident investigation).

This is one reason why I want to find commentary on Dealing with Disaster in Japan by air accident investigators and/or people who study the field. I myself am not a part of this field, so I would rely on the expertise of others in order to judge whether Hood's commentary on the accident report is worthwhile to include. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Passenger heading

The paragraph listing the nationalities and then the graph immediately to it's right are contradictory. Are either of the figures right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.47.148 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cover-up

To this day, the Japanese government is covering up who exactly messed up the rescue operation management. The US forces could have effected an immediate nighttime rescue saving one or two dozen more lives, but the Japanese government mysteriously declined it. The Japanese press has tried to find out who messed up, but they have been stymied by a Japanese government cover-up. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to provide WP:Reliable sources to back up your claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following sources are all used and properly referenced in the Japanese Wikipedia article on JAL 123:

Stars and Stripes "CRASH : Japanese took 12 hours to reach site" August 1995

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/satoumamoru/20070308/1173317610

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/satoumamoru/20070309/1173397609 --Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Yes, that is correct. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

How can you expect to have a source when the Japanese media suppresses it? It is a fact however that the ineptitude and pride of the Japanese government most likely resulted in the deaths of a good number of people that otherwise would have survived. Thomas (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several personal Japanese websites which openly discuss the apparent incompetence and indecision involved with the government's initial response to the accident, but I'm not aware of any reliable Japanese media sources which go into the issue in great detail. There are probably several reasons for that and not just because of a government cover-up, because the Japanese media, in my experience, does print stories critical of the Japanese government. At least one book in Japanese has been published about the crash, and I would be surprised if the book(s) didn't explore the issue to some degree.

The US military's Stars and Stripes newspaper printed an in-depth report about how the US military helicopter which arrived on scene soon after the crash was ordered away and the Japanese government declined an offer of assistance from US military forces at Yokota. That story, as far as I'm aware, is not available online. To obtain it someone would need to email the Stars and Stripes staff and ask if they would be willing to scan if from their archives and email it, or else travel to the newspaper's office in Tokyo and dig it up oneself, which I may do someday if I have a chance. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A scan of one of the pages is here: http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp//imaginenosekai/yokota-ss.JPG . Heian-794 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past few years, a number of Japanese television news departments have begun pointing out that the government appears to be covering up something. One key issue: The Japanese government has never revealed who within the Japanese government made the decision to call off the American rescue shortly after the crash. The name of the decision maker has never been revealed. Nor have they specified this person by title, leaving out his name. It was a decision that resulted in the deaths of one to two dozen victims who survived the initial crash but died overnight. One Japanese TV documentary interviewed an autopsy doctor who said that a number of the injuries would not have been fatal if given prompt medical attention. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ken or Takeshi?

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

• Says "Ken Miyajima": http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06208/709077-82.stm
• Says "Takeshi Miyajima": http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074738-5,00.html

- 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. C.P.Hood - www.hood-online.co.uk/JL123/

The confusion is caused by the fact that the Japanese character can be read as both Ken and Takeshi. The Takeshi reading is more popular, which is why someone probably made this mistake. In this case, it is read Ken. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

You have to understand that landing slots at both of Tokyo's airports were extremely tight during the 80's and 90's. JAL and ANA ran 747's on the one hour flight from Tokyo to Osaka because of the extreme need to maximize seats per landing slot, even on short flights. In fact, this 747SR version was developed by Boeing specifically in response to requests from the Japanese airlines. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747SR . This is how you get to an average of 5 take-offs per day. Moreover, the high number of pressurizations accelerated the metal fatigue on the mis-repaired bulkhead, bringing about the disaster. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Japan Airlines Flight 123. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080501100857/http://www.jal.com:80/en/safety/center/center.html to http://www.jal.com/en/safety/center/center.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101120071020/http://press.discovery.com:80/uk/dsc/programs/aircrash-confidential/ to http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/aircrash-confidential/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See Also: It sounds wrong (redux)

> Chalk's Ocean Airways Flight 101 crashed in Florida due to metal fatigue, > more than 20 years after the crash, and killed all 18 passengers and 2 pilots.

If this was meant to say "more than 20 years after the start of the fatigue", it should say that. As it stands, it's merely confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.200.122 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It meant that the crash occurred 20 years after the crash in this article. I've clarified the year to make it less confusing. Opencooper (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Japan Airlines Flight 123. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722115944/http://nexx.jp/flash/jal123.swf to http://nexx.jp/flash/jal123.swf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080121050224/http://www.planesafe.org:80/jal123/ to http://www.planesafe.org/jal123/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Boeing at fault?

The article says rumours persisted in Japan that Boeing admitted fault to protect JAL However the article suggests the fault was due to faulty repair work which didn't meet Boeing's approved standards. Does this mean the repair work was carried out by Boeing? The article isn't particularly clear. Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking above (a few threads above) I can see my own message, I knew I'd read/heard about this before and it was indeed Boeing technicians. In fact the article was clearer on this [4] at the time (of my earlier message in 2006). I've improved the wording now to make it clear it was Boeing not JAL carrying out the repairs which is important given the Boeing/JAL issue mentioned later. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Related to the new wording: Article would benefit from a very brief explanation of why JAL was sued and settled, and not Boeing, since the article seems to make it plain that Boeing itself was at fault. Tempshill (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Boeing's responsibility to repair the bulkhead correctly, but there was also a JAL technician present who was supposed to verify the proper repair. This two-deep safety factor failed. Boeing mis-repaired, and the JAL technician did not catch the mis-repair. So responsibility lies equally with Boeing and JAL. Also, recall that it was a JAL pilot's tail scraping incident that caused the need for repair in the first place. Also, the repair took place at JAL's Osaka maintenance facility (where the plane scraped its tail). The Boeing repair crew traveled from Seattle to Osaka to make the repairs. This also made the repair more of a joint effort. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 story, quotes NTSB' Ron Schleede,

Horikoshi,Toyohiro. "U.S. leaked crucial Boeing repair flaw that led to 1985 JAL jet crash: ex-officials." Japan Times - Kyodo. (August 11, 2015).

 "Releasing  ... was critical ... because it would reveal
  ...  crash was attributable to the peculiar cause of
    a repair error in a single aircraft ..."

Schleede also said:

“I was told by Jim Burnett to tell a New York Times aviation reporter the facts, including the improper repair. The reporter called Boeing and they confirmed the facts.”

Here is the citation for the _NY_Times_ story, first revealing NTSB- Schleede's leak to Dick Witkin (aviation reporter at _NY_Times_):

Witkin, Richard. "Clues are Found in Japan Air Crash: Evidence Reported of Faulty Repairs That Could Have Led to Damage to Tail." New York Times. (September 6, 1985), A7.

For investigator-training, Schleede's 2015-admission (to a 1985-"leak") is both

--  a reassuring ethical stand to NOT hide knowledge; and
--  a breach of the ISASI Code of Conduct.

IGhhGI (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japan Airlines Flight 123. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108194621/http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-jal123.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-jal123.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japan Airlines Flight 123. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710175502/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20100812p2g00m0dm004000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20100812p2g00m0dm004000c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015055146/http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/jal123.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/jal123.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

It is commonly know that this was a Japanese government screw-up. Turf war and prestige wound up costing lives. The article does not point this out sufficiently. A similar mess was seen after the Kyoto earthquake - that mother-of-all-government-foul-ups is probably documented elsewhere. Yes, I experienced this while living in Japan. Thomas (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

typical J stupidty - ww2 great example ,even J admirals knew attacking US was stupid but they did it anyway Juror1 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2017 (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?

Those coords are in the middle of the Pacific. I think the "W" should be an "E", which places it in the middle of some mountains within Japan. Is the rest of the information above correct, and the W was just a typo? -69.49.160.142 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Whether the US Air Force offered the rescue operation is disputed. See the Japanese version for details. --217.235.3.125 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the accident the Japanese authorities were not sure whether the crash had been caused by a bomb and so they did not want unaccountable other people trampling around what may well have been a crime scene - the JAL crash came only a couple of weeks after the crash of Air India Flight 182 which was strongly suspected of being due to a bomb.

The JAL aircraft impacted a remote and inaccessible hillside after becoming uncontrollable - the pilots reported they had no control to ATC prior to the crash - and so it could have been reasonably assumed by the Japanese authorities immediately upon hearing of the crash that there wouldn't be any survivors - in these sort of circumstances there are usually no survivors. Thus there would likely have been no sense of urgency simply because the crash was almost certainly perceived as un-survivable. That there were a few survivors was pure luck.

With hindsight perhaps the Japanese authorities could have handled the aftermath of the crash better, but they could only make decisions on what was known at the time. And in the absence of a dedicated Mountain rescue organisation, who could have lowered properly trained and qualified teams on lines down through the trees from helicopters, there was very little that could be done to find out anything until daybreak later on.

In 1988 a film crew were making a documentary series about the RAF Air-Sea Rescue force in Scotland, and one evening the rescue helicopters received a call to an oil rig in the North Sea. The film crew accompanied the flight and filmed the subsequent events, live, as they happened. That oil rig was the Piper Alpha. The TV series was Rescue and that particular episode is here: [5]

You see, when a disaster such as the JAL Flight, or Piper Alpha, occurs, often the people trying to sort it out know very little about what actually happened. That only comes later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Even if the crash were caused by a bomb, saving human lives takes priority over accident investigation. And what kind of rescuers assume there are no survivors? If this ridiculous statement were in fact true, that in and of itself would be a scandal. The Japan Self Defense Forces were aware that the US forces in Japan possessed night vision equipment, and should have made the request regardless of whether it was offered by the US forces. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst it may appear 'ridiculous' to you with your 20/20 hindsight, the earlier poster was merely pointing out that the Japanese authorities could only base their decisions on what was known or strongly suspected at the time.

And if it had been a bomb - the pilot of Flight 123 states ' ..erm, it's a bomb' in his reply to the request to "confirm your degree of emergency" radio call to Tokyo ATC [6] - as was strongly suspected at the time of the first reports and for the first few days after the accident, the Japanese authorities and police would not have wanted unaccountable third parties from a foreign country disturbing evidence at a crime scene of-which Japan would have been ultimately responsible and accountable for the investigation-of. The flight was an internal one and so there was no legal obligation for involvement of any outside authorities, however the US NTSB was specifically allowed in at their own request because of the Air India crash a short while before which was suspected at the time of being due to a bomb but which might instead have been due to a design problem with the 747. The only official US involvement therefore was to help clarify which of the two possible causes it was.

BTW, it was, and is, quite reasonable to assume that if the pilot of a large passenger aircraft reports an explosion and then further reports the aircraft has become uncontrollable at 13,000 feet, the aircraft subsequently being reported as having impacted a remote and inaccessible hillside, that there will, in all likelihood, be no survivors to rescue. In these circumstances the criminal investigation would be assumed to then take priority. The first helicopter on the scene couldn't have landed, there was no clearing big enough and the only available area was the wreck site itself, and to have landed-on would have disturbed any light items of wreckage due to the rotor's down-wash, and so hampered any criminal investigation. BTW, at this time only the Japanese authorities suspected a bomb. The US personnel involved thought it was a simple accident.

In addition, as a foreign military aircraft operating within a sovereign state, the only circumstances in which a landing outside designated bases and areas would be authorised by its own military would be if the helicopter was in imminent danger itself, such as for an emergency landing. In all other circumstances they would need specific permission from the sovereign state's government, in this case, Japan's. To do otherwise - even in circumstances such as this - could have raised fears of causing a diplomatic incident between Japan and the US. To get this permission would take time, possibly even several days. So it was almost certainly its own military, i.e., the US, who ordered the helicopter not to land, not the Japanese authorities. I suspect that some pilots, if they had actually seen survivors, would have landed anyway to give help, without waiting for permission. But it would appear he/she didn't see any. If they had seen survivors and landed without permission, that would almost certainly have been regarded as justifiable, and so would probably not have led to problems in relations between the two countries. But if not, and they had landed without permission, that could have been the end to the helicopter pilot's career.

The fact that two countries were involved, as well as a military force of one of them, therefore complicates things considerably as one then enters the realms of politics, diplomacy, and international relations. What appears reasonable and justifiable to two countries with good relations between them, may not appear so to countries with poor mutual relationships.

As in many areas of life, things are often not as simple and as clear-cut as they may at first appear. While some of the responses of the Japanese authorities may seem, with hindsight, to have been unwise, they were made on the basis of what little information was available at the time, and based on assumptions that no doubt appeared reasonable and proper to the people making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.231 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

All these considerations are laughable compared to the importance of human life. Remember how the New York firefighters rushed up the WTC stairs. They didn't just assume the buildings would fall down, and go home. Rescuers try to rescue above all other considerations. Let's call a spade a spade. The Japanese bureaucracy simply screwed up big time, due to parochialism and incompetence, and a dozen survivors are dead because of it. This is not the first time for the Japanese to do this. Read about the slow Japanese response to the Kobe earthquake, and the inaction of the submariners after the collision of Nadashio with the Fuji Maru fishing boat. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

By the time news of the crash came in it was getting dark, and the reported accident site was a densely wooded area on the side of a mountain. Due to the lack of roads nearby the only access to the site would be by helicopter, which would be unable to land, as there were no suitable clearings in the trees, and at the time Japan had no specially trained helicopter rescue teams capable of abseiling down to the ground and performing any useful task. Untrained helicopter crews flying in such circumstances were likely to achieve nothing but risk the possibility of further accidents and additional deaths.

The crash area was remote and uninhabited and there were no lights on the ground to provide the helicopter pilots with any visual references. In addition it was mountainous, with hills and peaks all around. You don't send helicopter crews into such difficult circumstances at night without proper training. Without this training they are quite likely to end up killing themselves, and everyone on board with them.

This is what flying a helicopter in bad visibility, when you cannot see anything, in hilly areas is like; [7] - and they were trained for it and did it all the time.

Instead, the Japanese authorities waited until daylight the next day, when they could actually do something useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.236 (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Tailstrike animation

I removed this animation from the article because it does not accurately depict the tailstrike accident. According to ASN: "It floated after touchdown and on the second touchdown the tail struck the runway". 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Explosive decompression / rapid decompression

I changed the description of the event from "explosive decompression" to "rapid decompression". According to the final report(p72), the decompression took 7.51 seconds from start to finish. According to our article on the subject, an explosive decompression is one that takes less than 0.5 seconds. 80.2.41.198 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Agree. If you intend to make further edits to Wikipedia, and I hope that you do, I would strongly recommend that you create a Wikipedia account rather than edit under an IP address. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Material from a private author

A perusal of the article turns up no less than 7 different instances of the author Christopher Hood and his materials posted in various locations. In some of these instances he uses his published works to cite information easily found in more reputable sources (i.e., The New York Times for the pilot's name, or the fact that people were traveling during the Obon holiday). Much of what he has published espouses the narrative that the accident "continues to have un-answered questions" when published govt sources say otherwise. This is troubling, having materials appear in the article which promote alternate theories for an accident which was thoroughly investigated 30 years ago. I believe this material may be harmful to the article and seek consensus for its removal.

If anything was removed which does not meet any of the above qualifications I've just mentioned, please feel free to repost it with my apologies. Afterwards, kindly note the justification for its continual inclusion here on the talk page. — Spintendo^Talk 19:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what things you have taken out as I've not gone through the previous versions of the page, but having read Professor Hood's books on the JAL123 crash, it seems a bit odd that the Wikipedia page has no mention of the only significant studies into the crash which are written in English (other than the original investigation report itself). From memory one of the books discusses the issues of the difference between the English version of the Wikipedia page and the Japanese one as well as a variety of other problems relating to evidence and how it is handled in the English speaking world and the Japanese world. Without going back to the books again, I'm not sure which would be the most relevant parts to include reference to on the page, but perhaps some of the links that were taken out should be restored? M.Tanaka 09:15 6 July 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.253.52 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As far as I know, evidence in the West is handled the same way as in the East, with the differences being which structures of society are to take the blame. In the case of of JAL 123, the question would be who is to blame — the individual who performed the repair — or the system which educated the individual who performed the repair? It is my understanding that a collectivistic culture apportions blame differently than an individualistic culture does. Other than that, is there a consensus on which materials sould be restored? Spintendo^Talk 03:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I reviewed the edit here that removed citations to Hood.

• I strongly agree on not citing his work at all in regards to the technical/scientific nature of the accident (including any apportion of blame for the accident) on the grounds he is not a scientist (he is a lecturer in Japanese studies) and that the consensus is clearly aligned with the Japanese government's conclusions. This is why I did not cite the book when the author criticized the nature of the English translation of the accident report being different from the Japanese original; he is not a scientist in the field so he can't judge the veracity of the translation. ( I brought up this matter earlier here: Talk:Dealing with Disaster in Japan )
• I strongly agree the final accident report should in general be given far more weight and prominence in the article than Hood's book. (remember the Japanese version is the version of record)
• I am okay with citing the book on non-scientific matters and non-legal matters - the cultural impact, passenger demographics, etc. But there is no requirement to cite the book either. His book is published by Routledge (not self-published), so in regards to stuff unrelated to the scientific/technical/legal aspects it should be an RS.
• I strongly disagree with the removal of the mention of the book. We can't pretend the book doesn't exist even if its conclusions on the nature of the crash are spurious. Simply saying the book exists isn't equivalent to saying everything in it is true. The multiple reliable sources discussing the book give it enough notability for a Wikipedia article on its own (Dealing with Disaster in Japan) so that should give it sufficient weight to be mentioned in the article on the subject.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've just said. What stands out in my memory was at the time of this removal nine months ago that the mentions in the article of this publication were predominantly about the accident investigation. Perhaps owing to confirmation bias I'm remembering mostly the conspiracy-theory related aspects of this book more so than the cultural implications of the crash. It's just that the conspiracy-theory sections were so bizarre that, for me, they seemed to taint everything else.

I used to think that if a person believed in one bizarre scenario, every other scenario they believed in could easily be ignored. In this case, it may be that understanding the crash from the perspective of how it impacts the cultural psyche of Japan might be something that this author does well. Because the reasons given for why things occur in conspiracy theories are usually ascribed to emotional actions such as revenge, anger, jealousy and animosity — a conspiracy theory may be described as an emotional explanation for scientific events. In order to understand cultural issues, it takes someone who is attuned to the language of emotion — people's hopes, desires, indignations, upsets and victories. So it stands to reason that this author, while still engaging in useless conspiracy theories, could be more than capable of discussing cultural matters and still be believable. Spintendo      03:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty! I went ahead and posted an update to Talk:Dealing_with_Disaster_in_Japan; I wrote articles on books not only to have Wikipedia articles on the books themselves, but also to help guide Wikipedia editors on how to use the books in their research. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Crew casualties - One flight attendant survived?

The article as it stands says that all fifteen crew members were "casualties." But Nicholas Faith in his 1997 book Black Box (Motorbooks International, 1997) quotes one of the investigators on the scene, Ron Schleede, as saying "the surviving flight attendant had told people about this tremendous explosion..." Schleede continues: "...she looked up and out and saw the sky from her position in the aft part of the plane..." (p. 102). This, Schleede says, provided evidence of where to look for the fault that brought the plane down.

If this is right, then not all crew members were casualties, unless the entry is using "casualty" as one who is injured, which would at best be ambiguous, and at worst is misleading. dweinberger 14:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dweinberger:, as the article states, Yumi Ochiai was off duty (she was not on the job for this flight), and hence counted as a passenger. All of the crew assigned to JAL123 died. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Two changes that should be made

1. The Japanese article has much more content and we should expand via translation. 2. 9/11 is the deadliest aviation disaster according to Aviation accidents and incidents. Post your thoughts below. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to read "third deadliest disaster", which reflects the source and eliminates any question of whether 9/11 was an "accident". –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is debatable 9/11 was a disaster - in the strict meaning of disaster. Much better not to play the second third biggest game and just leave the whole bloody thing out. It is not really enclyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, most of these contrived superlatives could be removed. "The deadliest aviation accident involving a scheduled flight" and "the second-deadliest Boeing 747 accident" are unsourced. It would be best to follow the way that reliable sources describe the incident instead of applying our own definitions and criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Did the flight engineer ask to lower the speed brakes?

I read the cvr transcript in the accident report, and while I was reading the CVR transcript, I saw that the flight engineer asked to lower the speed brakes, just before it Banked to the right over Otsuki. But I don’t think the pilots did that, I’m not sure. The person who should not be named (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he did ask. But the pilots didn't acknowledge it. And I see no data in the DFDR graphs for speedbrakes, so there is no way to be sure if they were used. --Vandalism destroyer 04:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea, I thought so The person who should not be named (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly because of hypoxia which I’m assuming you think that as well. The person who should not be named (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the files to this article

I think we should remove the file that shows the route from the article, the route is incorrect and not supported by a reference. The person who should not be named (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I agree. It shows a left-hand turn over Otsuki, instead of the right-hand turn the plane actually took. I'll have to read up on the image policies, it's been years since I've uploaded one myself. --Vandalism destroyer 23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Before deleting it consult the author: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Beata_May Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll make sure to do that first, thanks! --Vandalism destroyer 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like someone's beaten me to it! I'd have contacted the original uploader in question earlier, but with everything going on for me lately (got promoted, then moved to work from home a week later along with the majority of our company due to COVID-19 concerns), I hadn't had the opportunity. It's an entirely different file, but it saves me the trouble in either case. :) --Vandalism destroyer 02:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Something doesn’t make sense

I noticed that when the plane first Banked to the right in a circle, it doesn’t explain the reason why it did, but it does explain why it did that the second time it Banked to the right, so I put the reason where it says when the plane first Banked to the right. The person who should not be named (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason it banked to the right over Otsuki was due to differential thrust. The No. 1 engine had a higher power setting than the other three engines right after they raised the power abruptly 40 seconds after lowering the landing gear. Engine No. 2 had slightly higher power as well, judging from the DFDR graphs from 18:40-18:45. They had not lowered the flaps at this point. The Flight Engineer suggested lowering them at 18:44:47, but the Captain said it was too soon. --Vandalism destroyer 00:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The person who should not be named (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vandalism destroyer: Where are you finding the DFDR Info? I have been looking for it on the accident report but I can’t seem to find it, do you know where to find it? Thanks. The person who should not be named (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I have already listened to the CVR Recording however. Thanks The person who should not be named (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I dont thing flight 115's article is nessersary... by that logic the china flight before 611 also must get an article. Besides most of the article focuses on how JAL 123 crashed — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuanLoud (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is, because other language Wikipedias did it. There is at least a source that focuses on this incident. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is neccesary at all, if JAL 123 never had a failure this wouldn't be article-worthy at all. 84.9.75.84 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with a merge. This incident would not have been notable if JAL 123 had not happened and therefore the content should be merged into that article. Elshad (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. StonyBrook (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse merge, as above.Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried creating a page on China Airlines Flight 009 but I don’t think I completed it. I am not sure. The person who should not be named (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this merger, if the tail strike was repaired correctly nobody would care it is only because of this crash that there is an article for it.GeneralBacon (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Unit order: imperial, metric, or nautical?

This article needs a lot of cleaning up, but I'm not going to do the work because some idiot will come in and revert the changes because they didn't agree with the order.

So let's decide now: which should go first, imperial, metric, or nautical? Ninjalectual (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:UNITS suggests the primary be SI units, other places mention that aeronautical contexts should also use knots and nautical miles; the original accident report seems to use a mix of these as well, only using nautical miles for significant distances, meters for short measurements, and feet for altitude. Unit context should probably be more important than trying to find an exact system to follow. I'll note that MOS:CONVERSIONS suggests not all the numbers need a conversion either, since it can get pretty cluttered Strangerpete (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Correction to my post, the accident report uses nautical miles in reference to the airplane and atc discussions, but does often use kilometers for general distances Strangerpete (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Location of Nagoya from site of explosion

Article mentions, rapid decompression happen over Sagami Bay. And Tokyo Control's suggestion to divert to Nagoya Airport 72 miles away. However if we check in the map, aerial distance of Nagoya Airport from the bay is lot more than that. It is more than 130 miles from the bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.148.63 (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The accident report detailed that by the time of that radio call, they had already crossed Suruga Bay, and passed Yaizu City a minute earlier, which puts them about ~80 miles, or ~70 nautical miles of Nagoya. Also don't forget the plane's cruise speed is about 5 miles a minute, so crossing the peninsula only takes a few minutes! Decompression to radio call is about 6 minutes total Strangerpete (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Japan Airlines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seat position of survivors

Confusingly, the seating position of the survivors as described in the text ("left side ...in the rear of the aircraft") differs from the position shown in the diagram (right side, near the front). This is the case in both the article and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Report (page 22, Figure 5). "Rows 54 to 60" suggests the rear of the aircraft, meaning the text is correct and the diagrams (including in the accident report) are incorrect. Gderrin (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin the diagram in the original report and here are both oriented nose-down, so the seating is indicated correctly, but is definitely a poor choice for representation. I raised this issue over at the file's Talk, but in retrospect it was unlikely anyone would ever see it; the other issue being the colors are distracting and misleading. Problem being, there are 3 other language versions to update too which is why I passed on it for now. Strangerpete (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)