FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 3

Five Coast Guard Crew Killed in Haneda Runway Collision; Cause Not Determined

A Japan Airlines airliner struck a Japan Coast Guard turboprop while landing at Tokyo's Haneda airport on January 2; police have set up a special unit at the airport and the transport safety board is investigating.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Jan 2, 2024, 4:40 p.m. ETUpdated Aug 11, 2026, 10:28 p.m. ET

More on this incident

A airliner collided with a Coast Guard aircraft while at 's Haneda airport on January 2 and erupted in a fireball. The airliner was an , according to CNN, NBC News, MarketScreener and the Times of India, with Today describing it as an ; the operator was reported as by CNN, NBC News, MarketScreener and the Times of India, and as JAL by Today. The flight number appears variously as in Today, at CNN and 516 in the Times of India. The collision occurred on , according to MarketScreener, at , according to the Times of India. The incident is classed as a runway incursion. The cause has not been determined. Coast Guard crew members died, according to CNN and Today, which reported that of six crew aboard the Coast Guard aircraft were killed; MarketScreener and NBC News reported deaths in total. CNN, MarketScreener and the Times of India reported people aboard the aircraft. Accounts of survivors differ: CNN reported survivors, while MarketScreener reported one. A surviving Coast Guard plane captain was identified as Genki Miyamoto, 39, who alerted his base to the explosion; a commenter cited in Today's account named the captain as Genki Matsumoto. The Coast Guard aircraft had been bound for an earthquake-ravaged corner of western on an aid mission following Monday's earthquake, the outlets reported, adding that 115 fire-fighting units responded and that the aircraft was eventually consumed by flames. All passengers and crew evacuated by slides, without hand luggage, as the cabin filled with smoke; escape chutes were inflated within seconds. One passenger, Anton Deibe, a 17-year-old Swedish tourist, described flames, black smoke and difficulty breathing in the cabin. 's transport ministry said the airline's evacuation procedures were "conducted appropriately." The Coast Guard aircraft has been identified as a turboprop registered , according to Today. Aircraft registry records list as a Bombardier DHC-8 315 MSA, a twin-engine turboprop landplane with serial number 656, registered in . The registry lists the registered owner as the Japanese Coast Guard; a registered owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight. Background checks against that name return a Japanese government agency under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, headquartered in central , which states in its own published material that it operates fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at air stations nationwide for maritime patrol, search and rescue and disaster prevention; it has not been confirmed that those records refer to the same entity named on the registration, and because the registrant is an institution rather than a natural person, no individual pilot or aviation-business record was sought or found and none should be inferred. The airliner has not been identified; registry records list 115 aircraft under , which describes the operator's fleet and is not an identification of the aircraft in this accident. MarketScreener reported that the Safety Transport Board (JTSB), police, and French and British agencies are involved, and that police say they have set up a special unit at the airport to examine the incident but declined to comment on a report of a negligence probe; local media reported police are probing for possible professional negligence. Airbus, the European manufacturer that builds the model flown by , said it was sending technical advisers to help with the probe, according to the outlets. Air traffic control recordings indicate the jetliner was cleared to land minutes before the collision, and said its aircraft recognized and repeated the permission from air traffic control. Investigators recovered the Coast Guard aircraft's flight recorder but were unsure what data could be extracted. Experts quoted by CNN, NBC News, MarketScreener, Today and the Times of India cautioned that it is too early to pinpoint a cause. Those outlets noted this is the first significant accident involving the , which entered service in 2015, and drew comparison with the 1985 accident in which 520 lives were lost because of a faulty repair.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Registration
JA722A
Type
Bombardier DHC-8 315 MSA — twin-engine turboprop landplane
Registered owner
Japanese Coast GuardThe owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight.
Terrain elevation
89 ft
Nearest aerodrome
7.4 miles SSE of Iwabuchi Watergate Auxiliary Airfield (JP-0361)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 312 Aug 2026, 02:28current

    Introduced Airbus before its statement as "the European manufacturer that builds the A350 model flown by Japan Airlines," so the reader meets the source before it speaks; the statement and its attribution to the reporting outlets are unchanged. No other text was altered: all sourced conflicts (aircraft type, operator, flight number JAL-516 / JAL516 / 516, time 'Tuesday evening' / 5.46 pm, survivors 379 / 1), figures (379 aboard, five dead, 115 fire-fighting units, registration JA722A, serial 656, 520 lives in 1985) and attributions remain exactly as given.

  2. Version 312 Aug 2026, 01:47current

    Added the flight-number and survivor-count conflicts as sourced ranges, the runway-incursion classification, the Swedish passenger's account and evacuation detail, and a note that the aircraft's registration has not been identified alongside the operator's registered fleet size.

  3. Version 212 Aug 2026, 02:23

    Introduced Airbus at the point it is quoted \u2014 now identified as "the European manufacturer that builds the A350 model flown by Japan Airlines" \u2014 and attributed the statement about technical advisers to the reporting outlets. No other substantive changes: all sourced conflicts (aircraft type, operator, flight number, time, survivors, fatalities, captain's name) remain reported with their attributions exactly as given in the fact set.

  4. Version 212 Aug 2026, 01:42

    Added flight number 516, the conflicting reported times, that five of six Coast Guard crew died and the surviving captain's name and age, the 115 fire-fighting units, the transport ministry's evacuation assessment, luggage-free evacuation, and the 1985 JAL accident reference.

  5. Version 112 Aug 2026, 01:55

    First published.

  6. Version 112 Aug 2026, 01:37

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.