All About the JAL Group - CSR Report 2007

Skip the navigation and go to contents.

HOME>All About the JAL Group>CSR Report 2007>Contents>Safety Incidents in Fiscal 2006

As can be seen from the table below, the number of serious incidents and flight irregularities underwent a major decrease in fiscal 2006 compared with the previous year. We believe this was a result of group staff uniting to engage in a variety of measures designed to improve safety. Unfortunately, there was one accident. The number of safety incidents that arose throughout the year, details of the major incidents and follow-up measures are presented in the following section.

Aircraft Accidents

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport defines aircraft accidents as an aircraft being involved in a crash, collision or fire, or death or serious injury to persons arising as a result of aircraft operations.

Serious Incidents

The transport ministry defines serious incidents as cases that, though not in themselves aircraft accidents, are recognized as having the potential to develop into accidents, e.g., veering off the runway, the use of emergency exits, onboard fires and smoke, irregular declines in cabin pressure and also when the aircraft encounters erratic meteorological conditions.

Flight Irregularities

While not developing into situations that immediately affect flight safety, flight irregularities are cases where it becomes necessary to modify scheduled destinations or return to the point of departure as a result of equipment trouble. Flight irregularities also include special situations, such as those that require the air-traffic controller to issue a directive to change the flight path.

Safety Incidents and Countermeasures in Fiscal 2006

Flight-Crew Member on Restricted Medicines

A flight-crew member diagnosed with a benign tumor of the parotid gland underwent an operation to have the tumor removed in May 2006 while on leave but failed to inform the company doctor of the situation. After the operation, he took four types of medication and was on duty on seven flights from June to July — a total of 9 hours, 50 minutes. These medicines did not make him drowsy, but possible side effects included hypersensitivity, stomach and bowel irritation and headaches. Flight crew are prohibited from serving onboard within 24 hours after taking such medication.

Countermeasures
We made a public announcement of this event and confirmed that no other cases had occurred in the period to July 27, 2006. As a health-management response, we prepared comprehensive guidelines about such health matters, distributed these to all flight crew, updated in-house regulations and implemented an education program.

Passenger Injured owing to Turbulence on Flight 3514

On July 4, 2006, JAL flight 3514 encountered unexpected turbulence while en route from Sapporo to Fukuoka, and a male passenger towards the rear of the passenger cabin, who was not in his seat at the time, injured his right ankle. The passenger reported this to the company two days later, when it was revealed that he had suffered a fracture to the right fibula. As a result, this incident was ruled to be an aircraft accident by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Causes and Countermeasures
According to the accident report of the Aircraft and Railways Accidents Investigation Committee, the aircraft was shaken as a result of the impact of localized disturbances in air currents owing to cumulonimbus clouds at the fore of a warm weather front, the seat-belt sign was off and it is presumed that the passenger lost his balance while walking in the aisle.
The flight crew and ground staff will collaborate to the best of their abilities to prevent injuries arising as a result of turbulence.

Flight 2620 Makes Emergency Landing

On February 17, 2007, JAL flight 2620 (MD-90), from Hanamaki Airport to Kansai International Airport, made an emergency landing. The flight crew followed appropriate fire-control procedures on the flight deck in response to a flashing warning light indicating an outbreak of fire in the cargo bay while the aircraft was making its descent before landing. The aircraft’s engines were shut down on the taxiway, and passengers alighted via two doors, located fore and aft. Checks were carried out after landing, but no traces of fire could be found, and there were no injuries to passengers or crew.

Causes and Countermeasures
The duct used for conveying warm air from the engine to prevent the wings icing had become separated from the connector (on the left wall of the cargo bay), and dust was whipped up by air leaking from that section. It is presumed that the fire detector was set off after this dust was identified as smoke. The reason for the loose duct was a rupture at the point where the duct was welded to the wall, and this presumably allowed the connector to slide back and forth.
JAL implemented emergency checks on all 42 MD-90 and similar-model MD-81/87 aircraft and completed parts replacement and/or repairs to nine aircraft (including the aircraft in question) where cracks were found in the aforementioned duct welding. We implemented new requirements concerning periodic detailed inspections of this section.

To page top