Jump to content

Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 123: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,550,573 edits
Line 108: Line 108:
:::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.
:::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 circumstance 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.
:::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 the 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.
:::The fact that two countries were involved, as well as the 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.

Revision as of 15:40, 25 December 2015

Passenger List

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

-- There is a copy of the passenger list in the book Dealing With Disaster in Japan: Responses to the Flight JL123 Crash by Christopher P. Hood.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2] - 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 the 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Continued interest

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

Ken or Takeshi?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Japanese accident report files

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

JTSB documents

Some additional information from the JTSB

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

Thank you! I noticed it's Spread across several pages in the book (I searched "Klaubert") WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found: http://d.hatena.ne.jp/adlib/19850812 - http://www.webcitation.org/6S4ZVCvP4 - WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Victim list info

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_123&oldid=696753920"