NHK has learned that an air traffic controller at Tokyo's Haneda Airport had given permission for a Japan Airlines passenger jet to land on a runway before it collided with a Japan Coast Guard plane on Tuesday evening.
Interesting, we the same sort of language as the US up here in Canada too, but I always assumed it was the same thing the world over. Is there a website or handbook containing ICAO standard language available somewhere? I’m curious what other differences there are
That makes a lot of sense, because like I said in another comment, I’d be more likely to interpret that as “taxi into [takeoff] position and hold”, not “taxi to threshold.”
Hopefully the change that comes of this is US/Canadian aviation starts using the ICAO standard phraseology.
While I do think this is a good idea, I don’t think it can be attributed as a factor in the accident. The captain of the Japanese Coast Guard had nearly 5 years under his belt and was likely much more familiar with ICAO phraseology than what is used in North America.
Taxi to holding position is standard ICAO phraseology, they should have been off the runway at C5. Line up and wait would have them on the runway.
US uses different phraseology.
Interesting, we the same sort of language as the US up here in Canada too, but I always assumed it was the same thing the world over. Is there a website or handbook containing ICAO standard language available somewhere? I’m curious what other differences there are
ICAO PANS ATM Doc 4444
It has actually been a cause of runway incursions by US-trained aircrew in the past.
That makes a lot of sense, because like I said in another comment, I’d be more likely to interpret that as “taxi into [takeoff] position and hold”, not “taxi to threshold.” Hopefully the change that comes of this is US/Canadian aviation starts using the ICAO standard phraseology.
While I do think this is a good idea, I don’t think it can be attributed as a factor in the accident. The captain of the Japanese Coast Guard had nearly 5 years under his belt and was likely much more familiar with ICAO phraseology than what is used in North America.
You’re probably right, I’m being too quick to jump to conclusions.
As an aside, I find it a little ironic that most of the world follows ICAO phraseology, yet Canada, home to ICAO’s headquarters, does not.
Thank you for pointing this out.
I had also looked into it in more detail, and came to the same conclusion. In the ICAO quick reference guide they provide an almost identical example:
I’ve clarified this in my analysis.