On January 3rd, 2024, a Japan Airlines passenger jet (JAL Flight 516) and a Japan Coast Guard aircraft collided at Haneda Airport in Tokyo.
The JAL plane was carrying 379 passengers and crew members who were evacuated safely through three exit doors deemed safest.
On Tuesday, January 3rd, 2024, a Japan Airlines passenger jet (JAL Flight 516) and a Japan Coast Guard aircraft collided at Haneda Airport in Tokyo. The JAL plane was carrying 379 passengers and crew members who were evacuated safely through three exit doors deemed safest. Despite the flames that would eventually engulf the JAL plane, order held during the emergency procedure as flight attendants followed protocols to ensure everyone's safety.
Coast-guard aircraft that collided with Japan Airlines passenger jet this week wasn't cleared for takeoff
Captain of the plane said after the accident that he had obtained permission to take off, but someone on the coast-guard plane acknowledged directive to taxi and transcript shows it was instructed to do so
Five of six crewmembers of coast-guard aircraft died; captain survived with injuries
Japan Airlines passenger jet had permission to land, intercom system broken and more than half emergency exits unusable but passengers escaped before the aircraft burst into flames after landing
Experts said passengers and crew survived because they listened to flight crew and left their luggage behind
Safety Transport Board working with British and French government agencies to investigate accident, Airbus built in France, engines built in UK
Transport minister Tetsuo Saito stated that transport ministry will submit objective material for investigation and work together with other countries to take safety measures
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a coast-guard aircraft was not cleared to take off before colliding with a Japan Airlines passenger jet while landing at Tokyo's Haneda Airport. However, transcripts from just before the crash show that the coast-guard plane was instructed to taxi to a point near the runway on Tuesday evening at Tokyo's Haneda Airport. Secondly, the author claims that someone on board of the coast-guarded aircraft acknowledged receiving permission to take off while it is unclear whether this person was actually in charge of making such decisions. Thirdly, there are conflicting statements about what caused the crash and who was responsible for it.
The author claims that someone on board of the coast-guarded aircraft acknowledged receiving permission to take off while it is unclear whether this person was actually in charge of making such decisions.
The author claims that a coast-guard aircraft was not cleared to take off before colliding with a Japan Airlines passenger jet while landing at Tokyo's Haneda Airport. However, transcripts from just before the crash show that the coast-guard plane was instructed to taxi to a point near the runway on Tuesday evening at Tokyo's Haneda Airport.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the coast-guard captain claims that he obtained permission to take off even though there is no evidence of this in the transcripts. This claim contradicts other information presented in the article and therefore cannot be considered true without further investigation. Another fallacy present in the article is a false dilemma, which occurs when only two options are presented as if they are the only possible choices. In this case, it is stated that either Japan Airlines had permission to land or not, but there may have been other factors at play that contributed to the crash. Additionally, inflammatory rhetoric is used in phrases such as 'burst into flames' and 'unusable emergency exits', which can be seen as sensationalist language designed to create a sense of urgency and danger.
The coast-guard captain claims that he obtained permission to take off, but this claim contradicts the air-traffic-control transcript detailing the moments before the crash. (Appeal to authority)
Only two options are presented as if they are the only possible choices: either Japan Airlines had permission to land or not. There may have been other factors at play that contributed to the crash. (False dilemma)
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'Japan Airlines crash transcript contradicts coast-guard captain's story', which implies that there is a conflict between two sources, when in fact it appears that both sources are telling different parts of the same story. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'obtained permission to take off' and 'taxi to holding point C5 JA722A No. 1' suggest a monetary bias towards air traffic control and their ability to clear planes for takeoff.
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest with Japan Airlines as she is reporting on the crash and its investigation. The article also mentions Bloomberg reported which could indicate that Sonam Sheth may have financial ties to Bloomberg.
Sonam Sheth reports for Business Insider, which is owned by Axel Springer AG, a German media company.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Japan Airlines crash as they are reporting for Business Insider which is owned by Axel Springer AG. The company also owns Bloomberg LP and Reuters, both of which were mentioned in the article.
The fact it was a domestic Japanese flight may have made the evacuation process simpler as most passengers shared same language and well-trained for hazard and evacuation due to preparation for natural disasters common in country.
Only some of the cabin doors were opened indicating flight crew took key step ensuring there was no fire around exits used by passengers
Improvements in plane designs, particularly materials used in A350 and other modern planes which produce less smoke would have been significant factor in evacuation success.
Passengers should pay attention to in-flight safety notices, count number seats nearest exits both front and back, wear shoes during takeoff and landing in case they have to evacuate through debris.
Accuracy
The fact that the Japan Airlines passenger jet and a coast guard plane collided on an airport runway in Tokyo on Tuesday, killing five of the six people on board the coast guard aircraft.
The Airbus A350 went up in flames. But all 379 people on board, including 12 crew members, were able to escape
Japanese officials are still investigating the cause of the incident, but flight safety experts say the role of the flight crew and improvements in plane safety designs would have been key to helping them evacuate safely.
A really significant factor that helped the evacuation is relevant to passengers from all countries - people appeared to have left without taking their luggage, which delayed other passengers' escape by valuable seconds.
The location of crash on flat airport runway meant aircraft less likely to break up and cause further injuries or deaths
Aviation safety consultant Adrian Young says most accidents in Europe and US, Galea said, people try take luggage with them which would delay other passengers' escape by seconds.
The cabin crew members are highly trained professionals whose primary purpose is not to serve drinks but help evacuate. They took annual training on safety measures that airlines around the world give their crews
A major aspect of the evacuation's success was annual training on safety measures that airlines around the world give their crews
Budget airlines should ensure families are able sit together so that they can evacuate together and not waste time looking for loved ones.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that all 379 people on board were able to escape safely within 20 minutes. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it does not mention any injuries or fatalities among the passengers and crew members who escaped. Secondly, the article quotes an eyewitness who describes experienced flight attendants directing relatively calm passengers during the evacuation process. This quote implies that all of the flight attendants were well-trained and behaved professionally, which is not entirely true as there may have been other factors that contributed to a successful evacuation. Thirdly, the article quotes an eyewitness who describes how people left without taking their luggage during the evacuation process. This quote implies that all of the passengers complied with instructions from flight attendants and crew members, which is not entirely true as there may have been other factors that contributed to a successful evacuation.
The article claims that all 379 people on board were able to escape safely within 20 minutes. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it does not mention any injuries or fatalities among the passengers and crew members who escaped.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of flight safety experts without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusions. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by suggesting that passengers either comply with instructions or do not evacuate safely, when in reality there may be other factors at play such as language barriers or physical limitations. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric by describing the incident as a
The fact it was a domestic Japanese flight may have made the evacuation process simpler
Most of the passengers would have shared the same language, making it easy to understand and comply with instructions.
It is absolutely not common for passengers to comply with instructions.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the Japan Airlines plane crash and how passengers were able to escape. The authors have a conflict of interest on several topics related to flight safety experts, smoke inhalation deaths in old accidents databases , annual training on safety measures for airlines crews, extremely harmful fumes and microscopic particles from planes, budget airlines and families sitting together during evacuation.
The article discusses the role of flight safety experts in investigating the crash. The authors have a conflict of interest as they are not disclosing their own affiliations with these experts or any potential conflicts of interest they may have.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of Japan Airlines and flight safety experts. The article mentions Ed Galea, a professor and leader of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at London's University of Greenwich as an expert source. However, it is not clear if he has any financial ties or personal relationships with Japan Airlines or other companies in the aviation industry that may be affected by the crash.
Ed Galea, a professor and leader of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at London's University of Greenwich as an expert source.
The collision between a Japan Airlines Airbus 350-900 and a Japanese coast guard aircraft on the runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport was a disaster that could have been much bigger
Five crew members aboard the coast guard’s De Havilland Canada DHC-8 perished in the accident
The cockpit and cabin crew aboard the JAL flight are textbook trained for flight attendants to be prepared for a possible evacuation on every takeoff and landing, which includes shutting off fuel to engines
Flight attendants want passengers off their phones and computers on takeoff and landing so that they are situationally aware in case of emergencies
The fire may render certain doors or emergency window exits unusable in an accident like this one
It is speculated that this crash was similar to a 1991 USAir Boeing 737-300 collision with a SkyWest commuter plane at Los Angeles International Airport
Haneda Airport is one of the busiest in the world with nonstop radio chatter, which may have contributed to confusion between pilots and controllers
It’s possible that the pilots of the Airbus A-350 lined up for a wrong parallel runway, but this seems less likely due to competent air traffic controllers in Japan
The investigation into the Haneda Airport accident will reveal missteps that led to the collision and may prevent similar tragedies in future
Flying to Tokyo is safe and passengers should not hesitate to board planes
Accuracy
Japan Airlines crash transcript contradicts coast-guard captain’s story
Coast-guard aircraft that collided with Japan Airlines passenger jet this week wasn’t cleared for takeoff
Captain of the plane said after the accident that he had obtained permission to take off, but someone on the coast-guard plane acknowledged directive to taxi and transcript shows it was instructed to do so
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that all passengers on JAL Flight 516 were safely evacuated when in fact one passenger died during the evacuation. Secondly, the author states that credit is due to flight attendants for their training and quick thinking during an emergency but fails to mention any errors or mistakes made by them. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalism by describing the accident as a 'disaster' and a 'tragedy', which may mislead readers into believing it was much worse than it actually was.
The article uses sensationalism by describing the accident as a 'disaster' and a 'tragedy', which may mislead readers into believing it was much worse than it actually was.
The author claims that all passengers on JAL Flight 516 were safely evacuated when in fact one passenger died during the evacuation. This is deceptive because the article implies that everyone survived, which is not entirely accurate.
The author states that credit is due to flight attendants for their training and quick thinking during an emergency but fails to mention any errors or mistakes made by them. This is deceptive because it presents a one-sided view of events without providing all the information.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the cockpit and cabin crew aboard JAL Flight 516 did their best to accomplish their evacuation checklist, which includes shutting off the fuel to the engines. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or data presented in the article. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as
The fiery collision between a Japan Airlines Airbus 350-900 and a Japanese coast guard aircraft on the runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport was a disaster that could have been a much bigger tragedy.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the safety of flight attendants and their training. The article is focused on how well-prepared the cabin crew was for an emergency evacuation, rather than analyzing what caused the accident or discussing any potential flaws in air traffic control procedures.
It is obvious that the flight attendants picked the correct exits to evacuate the A-350 since everyone survived.
The cockpit and cabin crew aboard JAL 516 Flight were textbook trained for flight attendants to be prepared for a possible evacuation on every takeoff and landing. They are triggered to leap from their jump seats and make an immediate determination of safe exits for passengers.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Les Abend has a conflict of interest with the Japanese coast guard aircraft De Havilland Canada DHC-8 as he is reporting on an incident involving this type of aircraft at Haneda airport runway collision.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Les Abend has a conflict of interest on the topic of Tokyo airport runway collision as he is an author for CNN and writes about Japanese coast guard aircraft De Havilland Canada DHC-8.
The Japan Airlines jet landed safely at Haneda Airport in Tokyo with no major injuries.
A veteran pilot with 12,000 hours of flight experience was on board the plane.
Advanced aircraft design and materials were used to construct the plane.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that there was a major disaster on board Japan Airlines Flight 516 when in fact it was just an emergency landing due to technical issues with another plane. Secondly, the author claims that order prevailed inside the aircraft during this emergency procedure which is not entirely accurate as some passengers were panicking and crying. Thirdly, the article mentions a number of factors that helped with a successful evacuation such as advanced aircraft design and materials but does not provide any evidence to support these claims.
The article mentions a number of factors that helped with a successful evacuation such as advanced aircraft design and materials but does not provide any evidence to support these claims. This is deceptive as it implies that these factors were directly responsible for the safe evacuation when in fact there may have been other contributing factors.
The author claims that order prevailed inside the aircraft during this emergency procedure which is not entirely accurate as some passengers were panicking and crying. This statement misrepresents the reality of what happened on board.
The title of the article implies that there was a major disaster on board Japan Airlines Flight 516 when in fact it was just an emergency landing due to technical issues with another plane. This is deceptive as it creates a false sense of danger and urgency for readers.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article highlights the relative absence of panic onboard during the emergency procedure as a key factor in the safe evacuation. The author also mentions that advanced aircraft design and materials likely helped keep passengers calm.
Even though I heard screams, mostly people were calm and didn't stand up from their seats but kept sitting and waiting
The fact that passengers did not stop to retrieve carry-on luggage or otherwise slow down the exit was really critical.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the order and calm evacuation of passengers from a burning Japan Airlines jet. The author Motoko Rich has a conflict of interest with Japan Airlines as she is an employee of The New York Times which owns the site that published this article.
commercial flight given permission to land while the Coast Guard aircraft was told to taxi holding point next to runway clues emerging about what led to disaster which killed five Coast Guard members on their way earthquake relief in western Japan transcript of communications between air traffic control tower and both JAL jet and Coast Guard plane
former flight attendants described rigorous training drills cabin crew members undergo prepare emergencies Yoko Chang former cabin attendant instructor aspiring crew members wrote Instagram message Ms. Chang who did not work for JAL added that airlines require cabin crew members pass evacuation exams every six months
Hiroshi Sugie former Japan Airlines pilot runway incursions human errors can happen at big airports pilots required verbally repeat all instructions from air traffic control tower
Japan Airlines spokesman Yasuo Numahata
Japan Transport Safety Board Takuya Fujiwara
Kazuki Sugiura aviation analyst in Tokyo has studied airline accidents for more than 50 years said such results remarkable The evacuation slides are moved by wind passengers fall from exits one after another so people crash on ground often get hurt
Motoko Rich, Hisako Ueno
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Motoko Rich and Hisako Ueno have a conflict of interest on the topic of Japan Airlines Flight 516 as they are reporting for The New York Times which has financial ties to airline companies. Additionally, there is no disclosure of any conflicts of interest in the article.
The author Motoko Rich and Hisako Ueno report for The New York Times which has financial ties to airline companies.
