Saved you a click summary: The article does not say why.
The Coast Guard Plane (a DHC8 turbopro) was lined up for take off on runway 34L when it was struck. The article notes that there was a NOTAM (notice to airmen) that some of the runway lighting was inoperable. (but, editorializing here; normally planes don’t enter or cross a runway at an airport this size without specific instructions to do so).
What are your thoughts on the ATC transcript?
[ATC] JA722A Tokyo Tower. Good evening. No.1, taxi to holding point C-5.
[JA722A] Taxi to holding point C-5, JA722A No.1. Thank you.
While JA722A clearly did not have ATC clearance to enter the runway, the ATC instruction seems to me non-standard phrasing, which arguably left this open to interpretation. Especially because there is no “holding point” C-5 (there is only intersection C-5) and ATC did not stipulate to hold short of 34R.Miyamoto may have interpreted this as an instruction to enter onto 34R at C-5 and hold.
Edit: the ATC instruction and the read back were both in standard ICAO phraseology.
[ATC] JA722A Tokyo Tower. Good evening. No.1, taxi to holding point C-5.
I feel like I would have held short and reported there. If they wanted me on the runway I’d expect a ‘line up and wait’ instruction or a ‘cleared for takeoff 34L’.
Don’t confuse me for an expert though, my qualifications for these comments is I’ve spent way too much time watching vatsim videos.
Agreed, I would hold short of the runway at the stop line before C-5 and use that verbiage when reading back to ATC.
