![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
"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.
Some details I got from the Mayday documetary (See above) which are not mentioned:
Some more details although i'm not sure if these are significant enough to be added
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"[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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Okay, here is Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image - Take a look WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"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."
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)
Some additional information from the JTSB
WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The full passenger and crew list appears in Hood, C.P., 2011, Dealing With Disaster in Japan, London: Routledge.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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. -- Irfan faiz 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I notice that there are two separate articles about JL123 give two different names to one of the passengers.
- Both clearly refer to the same person - But which name is correct? Or is one name a nickname? WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Defintely Ken. His story is one of the most well-known in relation to the crash. His mother is now the head of the organization set up by many of the bereaved families. She and her husband were famously photographed at the crash site trying to find the spot where their son died, even though the mountain was closed off to the public. C.P.Hood - www.hood-online.co.uk/JL123/
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
> 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)
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 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for letting me know. The person who should not be named ( talk) 13:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
"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.
Some details I got from the Mayday documetary (See above) which are not mentioned:
Some more details although i'm not sure if these are significant enough to be added
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"[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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Okay, here is Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image - Take a look WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"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."
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)
Some additional information from the JTSB
WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The full passenger and crew list appears in Hood, C.P., 2011, Dealing With Disaster in Japan, London: Routledge.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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. -- Irfan faiz 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I notice that there are two separate articles about JL123 give two different names to one of the passengers.
- Both clearly refer to the same person - But which name is correct? Or is one name a nickname? WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Defintely Ken. His story is one of the most well-known in relation to the crash. His mother is now the head of the organization set up by many of the bereaved families. She and her husband were famously photographed at the crash site trying to find the spot where their son died, even though the mountain was closed off to the public. C.P.Hood - www.hood-online.co.uk/JL123/
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
> 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)
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 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for letting me know. The person who should not be named ( talk) 13:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)