PDA

View Full Version : Delta 747-400 takes a beating over China


B-HKD
29th Jun 2015, 03:36
Delta 159 Detroit - Seoul, operated by N664US a B747-451 was initially unable to get clearance to deviate off track while over China (as usual), and ended up flying right through some major storm cells.

It is rumored that the aircraft will be written off, as Delta decided to re-activate N671US which has been sitting at Mojave in long term storage (along with two other Delta -451s). Cheaper to re-activate one of the three frames that were put into storage as they were approaching heavy maintenance.

Aircraft is still AOG at RKSI and Delta is working on a one time ferry permit with Boeing for a one-time ferry straight to Mojave. Rumored to be extensive to leading edges and wings in addition to what is visible in the pictures.

The norm in China is requests to deviate around weather denied, along with having to cruise 10,000 feet below optimum altitude due to airspace restrictions (use by the military).

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/e15/11426334_1437651913211273_168151349_n.jpg

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIoOO-LWUAAr3cu.jpg:large

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIoOO-NWwAEWuI7.jpg:large

Arfur Dent
29th Jun 2015, 05:43
Bloody ridiculous. "Mayday Mayday - Delta 123 deviating 20 miles right of track due weather. Will call back on track". China has to get with the programme especially considering some of the appalling weather they have. The Captain of this flight shoul have been a lot more proactive and, yes I have insisted on deviating due weather and filing an ASR afterwards ( cover your a*se) - admittedly we didn't call Mayday but that was next. :mad:

p.j.m
29th Jun 2015, 06:17
Delta 159 Detroit - Seoul, operated by N664US a B747-451 was initially unable to get clearance to deviate off track while over China (as usual), and ended up flying right through some major storm cells.

Just wondering what part of China it would have been flying over?

http://i.imgur.com/P99fX0b.jpg

ROSCO328
29th Jun 2015, 06:22
Ultimate responsibility for safety of a/c and passengers lies with the Captain!! ATC WORK FOR YOU!. :ugh:

highflyer40
29th Jun 2015, 06:37
But fly off track and your in military airspace, in a communist countries with fast jets and dubious command and control, that also has to be taken into account when deciding to go your own way... Just saying

ATC Watcher
29th Jun 2015, 06:44
ATC WORK FOR YOU
Yes absolutely, but ATC has to follow regulations too, if the military declares an airspace prohibited or restricted ( for instance due military excersice or else) do not expect any a controller to you give you a clearance to deviate in there. In some countries ( e.g China,or North and South Korea ) this is extreme and can be on both sides of the track/airway..
Of course when you are PIC you can always decide and take your chances.

But think this scenario: a US registered aircraft penetrating a North Korean military airspace to deviate from a CB against ATC instructions ? I think I would rather take the CB or make a 180.
But OK , we do not know (yet) the real situation in this case ,

Airbubba
29th Jun 2015, 06:55
Just wondering what part of China it would have been flying over?


According to FlightAware, DL 159 on June 15 had the following polar routing:

LAYNE BNNET SSM 5000N 08500W 5500N 08700W AVOKU 6500N 09500W 7000N 10000W 7400N 11000W 7700N 12000W COALL NIKIN G226 TAKUN G226 RUTIN G226 RUNON G226 UTS B148 ROLBI B148 ODANA G494 OGTIN G494 SOVIK G494 BANIR G494 BLG G494 SIMLI A588 HEK A588 CHI W107 SANKO A326 DONVO G597 AGAVO Y644 REBIT

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL159/history/20150615/1942Z/KDTW/RKSI

The part from SIMLI to AGAVO is over China in the Shenyang and Shanghai FIR's.

DirtyProp
29th Jun 2015, 07:44
Ultimate responsibility for safety of a/c and passengers lies with the Captain!! ATC WORK FOR YOU!. :ugh:
Exactly.
Easa rules state clearly that the PiC can deviate from a clearance for safety reasons.
I presume Chinese rules are different.

FlyMD
29th Jun 2015, 08:01
How comforting to be able to quote the applicable EASA rule when a SAM hits your ass.... :confused:

DOCTOR BOMBAY
29th Jun 2015, 08:09
Having flown the 747 in china for 7years the Mayday Mayday Mayday call is all that is required, anything less will be meet with silence.:ok:

JammedStab
29th Jun 2015, 08:37
I went for a crew rest one time over China. About 30 minutes later we were into thunderstorms for about 10 minutes and ended up with six lighting strike locations and a severe turbulence check. The pilots said that they could not get a deviation around weather, But why not just enter a hold somewhere short of the thunderstorms(such as present position) and then decide the next course of action. No military airspace violated.

de facto
29th Jun 2015, 09:12
Request a deviation as early as possible...left or right,if both sides not allowed,inform you will have to reverse your track...that works,while never had to actually do such manoeuvre.

alwayzinit
29th Jun 2015, 09:45
With all due respect and caveats to those who were operating the flight:

I fly over and through Chinese Airspace ALL the time, well a great many times!

And yes there can be problems with getting wx avoidance clearances. To wit I have employed a rather different approach to gaining the required track.

1. Call as early as possible. "XXX requires yy NM L/R of track due weather, safety of flight"

To be fair this produces the required result and off we go.

However, if
"xxx negative remain 3 miles rht of track"

Apply method 2) XXX unable to proceed along cleared track due safety of flight,we are commencing a right hand orbit this position. Standing by for further clearance.

I have applied this method only once and the effect was immediate:ok: and wx deviation was immediately granted.

The difference between "I request" and "I require" is the same as "I would like" and "I need".

I would need a Chinese speaker to tell me if the translations are significant.

Bottom line, if it IS THAT bad don't fly through it! Orbit!

Basil
29th Jun 2015, 09:49
was initially unable to get clearance to deviate off track
Recollect westbound, HK>?? somewhere about Nanning at night and told ATC diverting left (because, on wx radar, that looked the better option - it wasn't great and we had to keep diverting left).
The Chinese ATCO was getting more and more agitated demanding that we turn back which I did not consider an option because we'd then definitely have gone into a Cb. As we, ahem, brushed Viet airspace, the poor guy was almost apoplectic.
When we could turn right I thanked him profusely and apologised for the inconvenience. I heard no more of the incident so guess that he, like me had decided least said soonest mended.
Being in a HK reg aircraft probably helped a bit ;)

Una Due Tfc
29th Jun 2015, 11:07
I know China is particularly bad at this, but it's hardly unique to them. It's your call but militaries tend to be tight lipped on exactly what they're doing in there, if they're training with SAMs or AAMs well.....

They might only be using primary radar too, so 7700 would do FA for you.

BurglarsDog
29th Jun 2015, 11:33
Remember training Chinese Tower controllers to be radar controllers en behalf of Lufthansa(track shortening deal I think) at the DFS school nearly 20 years ago and the LH Captain who gave a presentation on the day focused on one main topic - that of weather avoidance and the need for off track approval when requested. Not sure that the message got through though! Looking back, whilst trigonometry was a student strong point, flexibility was not!:ugh:

BD

Landflap
29th Jun 2015, 11:44
What a weak Commander. Unable to get clearance he decided to endanger the safety of his aircraft and endanger the safety of it's contents. I thought that we were charged with avoiding that very scenario. And this Bloke winds up writing off his aircraft !

deptrai
29th Jun 2015, 12:15
what a weak commander

They landed safely, no one was harmed. So, let's turn this into a willy waving contest about who is "strongest". You weren't there, but as the stronger guy, can I assume you would fly into a missile test range without clearance? Blame the "weak commander" for all the holes in the cheese that lead to a damaged airframe...end of discussion, move on, and hope that "there but for the grace of God" applies to you too.

lomapaseo
29th Jun 2015, 12:51
Again after-the-fact hindsight is so very clear.

Of course safety comes first when requesting deviations, but if the info available at the time of the ATC call is does not indicate a known risk as defined by training, then blame should not be part of this.

What does ATC or Delta have to say about this?

joe two
29th Jun 2015, 13:33
I would not think any Delta 747 captain would be "weak" , I guess it's the last promotion - the last plane to command after a long career allready.

Quite interesting to see what the plane and its wings can take , must have been a hell of a ride after the wx radar went inop after the first hits ...

Yaw String
29th Jun 2015, 13:39
Yangon(Yangon) airspace many years ago...Wx ahead and deviation,right of track (the best option),requested,...no reply..requested again,many times,until,left of track became the only option..
Informed that left of track was not available,and to deviate right only...
By now,there was a killer CB immediately to our right,and ahead...
My reply was that 180 degree turn,or left deviation were the only options possible...still no sensible instruction from ATC,so,began my left turn,around the weather....nothing more said...and we survived...
I like the idea of PP holding though(suggestion of).bound to illicit some extra thought from ground!

Edited addition...
What is the immediate threat facing you?..entering a CB with potential vertical currents of up to 150 kts!...how much yellow/red return..guess it all comes down to this.....you need to be the crew on the day....

hunterboy
29th Jun 2015, 14:18
It's one thing to do your own thing over a country with limited military power, and it is another to do it over the likes of China, whom one would suspect has the kit and the cojones to use it against an intruder flying through military airspace, even if just avoiding weather.
They certainly seem happy enough blatently hacking all and sundry on the internet for military gain. After all, if they do end up shooting you down in error, what is the rest of the world going to do? Boycott them?

donpizmeov
29th Jun 2015, 14:36
Some years ago I had a Turkish airliner in front of us do the PPos hold thing while waiting for clearance for weather deviation in Chinese airspace . Very inconvenient as we had to deviate around both him and the weather. That ten minute spacing ended very quickly. Controller got a bit excited too.

Fixed the landing order into PEK though, so always a silver lining I guess.

DirtyProp
29th Jun 2015, 15:57
How many foreign airliners have actually been shot down - or threatened to be - over China?
I can't find any in recent years. Anyone got any links?

Super VC-10
29th Jun 2015, 16:03
EASA was mentioned earlier. Doesn't the E stand for "European"? CASA wouldn't work as they're a Spanish aircraft manufacturer!

deptrai
29th Jun 2015, 16:08
How many foreign airliners have actually been shot down over China?

China has been diligent at not shooting down either foreign or domestic airliners recently, after CX VR-HEU. Kudos to them. Better track record than the US and many others these days. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to be the one to test my luck

JammedStab
29th Jun 2015, 19:58
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Cathay_Pacific_Douglas_DC-4_shootdown


Actual pilot flying details here...

Last Act in the Hainan Incident ? Part 1 of 3 ? HistoricWings.com :: A Magazine for Aviators, Pilots and Adventurers (http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/07/last-act-in-the-hainan-incident/)

B-HKD
29th Jun 2015, 21:08
The aircraft is still at RKSI, Delta purchased the two former Singapore Airlines Cargo 747-412BCFs. 9V-SCA/B last year, and have continued to store both aircraft at Victorville, CA (SQC already had them there). Both frames are used as spare part donors for DLs 747-451 fleet.

Various parts (mainly wing panels) have been taken from -SCA/B the past few days and are being shipped to RKSI in order to make N664US fit for a ferry, unclear at this point if it will be to KMSP for return to service work or to KMHV to be immediately retired. All PW4056s have been boroscoped and were reported undamaged.

One of the previously three stored -451s at KMHV, N671US was ferried to KMSP a few days back to be immediately prepared for return to service. All three aircraft were stored in such a manner to be returned to service within a few days if necessary, great fleet/contingency planning.

These three frames were stored last year as Delta has begun to slowly retire the once 16 strong B744 fleet, the first three were chosen based off their vicinity to the next heavy maintenance checks.

Metro man
29th Jun 2015, 22:44
I while back I heard a Cargolux aircraft request headings around weather, first left which was denied, then right also denied. His next call was "PAN PAN PAN"

In Australia a Virgin 737 requested deviation around a CB which was denied IIRC he started to turn but was informed by ATC that he was going to have a breakdown in separation with another aircraft, he ended up going through the CB instead.

Tough choices, deviated without clearance and risk possible collision or being shot down. Continue into bad weather with results like this.

BTW Vietnam is conducting missile firing in the South China Sea at the moment and ATC instructions are to be strictly followed.:hmm:

iceman50
30th Jun 2015, 03:03
Where is all this rubbish about being shot down in China if you deviate coming from?

The civilian airspace is basically the airway everything else you can class as military.

If you cannot get the weather avoidance either hold in your present position or declare an emergency weather deviation. That then allows the civilian controller a "get out" to his military counterpart.

Landflap
30th Jun 2015, 08:31
Exactly and yet we have DEPTRAI not wishing to chance his luck and would , presumably, slam into a CB. Nothing to do with "Willy Waving" ole son, just pure airmanship, Command authority and awareness of what fearsome responsibility we are charged with. It is why we get paid these vast sums isn't it ?

Yaw String
30th Jun 2015, 09:03
Aha..I believe that " airmanship" is to be included in the next ATPL syllabus,
Until then,however,............just remember AirFrance.....and don't go there,at least,not with me on board....something that Iberia has just learned,into Linate,15th May...A320.

Huck
30th Jun 2015, 12:27
May I meekly point out: it is possible they hit a hail shaft many miles from the CB radar signature. I am reminded of the Valujet DC-9 that hit hail external to the clouds going from ATL to Chattanooga many years ago.

"Between 10,000 and 12,000 feet, the flight was cleared to continue the climb to 23,000 feet. At that time, the crew asked for and received a 330-degree heading to remain clear of weather. The pilots stated that they were in visual meteorological conditions at this time and that their radar showed a light area of precipitation west of the line of weather. They stated that their radar also showed an approximately 10-mile gap between two storm cells in the line of weather and that, through this gap, they were able to see that no adverse weather conditions were on the other side.

"The flight crewmembers reported that as they proceeded through the gap, they observed an egg-sized piece of hail hit the center windshield, causing its outer pane to shatter. At the same time, they began experiencing turbulence that lasted about 10 seconds. They stated that approximately 1 to 2 seconds after the encounter with the first piece of hail, the airplane encountered significant hail, which lasted about 3 to 5 seconds and shattered the outer panes of the captain's and first officer's windshields. Both pilots stated that the hail caused significant damage to the skin of the airplane but that no control problems were noted. They stated the nose radome cover was torn off and that the noise level in the cockpit was high. They also stated that the airspeed indication was zero and the altimeter indications were erratic."


http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001211X10040&ntsbno=DCA98MA045&akey=1

Callsign Kilo
30th Jun 2015, 12:43
What a weak commander

Jesus, were you there? Do you know all the variables? Have you ever been faced with this exact situation? God, how I love flying with @*#*¥$ that get everything right

short bus
30th Jun 2015, 13:27
Accident: Delta B744 over China on Jun 17th 2015, hail strike (http://avherald.com/h?article=48893f03&opt=0)

They have photos of weather imagery and flight track.

oicur12.again
30th Jun 2015, 15:04
Something to consider wrt wx dev in China.

If you can only get a clearance for deviation of 5 miles for example, it doesnt mean you cant take 7 or 8 or 9. What is cleared over the radio is often different to the lattitude they actually permit you to have before they pipe up and question you.

its better than busting a radome.

Good Business Sense
30th Jun 2015, 15:23
Jesus, were you there? Do you know all the variables? Have you ever been faced with this exact situation? God, how I love flying with @*#*¥$ that get everything right

YES - I've been there !

Go around the weather, don't hurt people or damage/destroy the aircraft and use the words MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY - anything else is stupid, seriously stupid !

golfyankeesierra
30th Jun 2015, 15:39
I have been there as well.
My experience is that Chinese ATC works fine when everything goes as planned. Any request out of the ordinary will be denied, the answer will mostly be "stand-by" in stead of "negative", they don't like saying no. They also don't take initiative.
I had to divert over China once due to WX at destination, asked several times for reroute, each time was told "stand-by" The second I called "Pan-pan" I was almost cleared direct the alternate. I am sure he was waiting for that call, so that any responsibility was taken out of his hands..

neila83
30th Jun 2015, 15:42
[QUOTE=Good Business Sense;9029536]YES - I've been there !

Go around the weather, don't hurt people or damage/destroy the aircraft and use the words MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY - anything else is stupid, seriously stupid ![/QUOTE

Exactly, on the balance of probabilities the CB is more likely to kill you. I can't believe pilots would willingly fly into one. As a passenger this is my number one fear, pilots brave/reckless/inept enough with the radar to fly into one. Now I hear they'll just do it deliberately rather than so a 180? Maybe I shouldn't fly in the tropics...

con-pilot
30th Jun 2015, 15:47
May I meekly point out: it is possible they hit a hail shaft many miles from the CB radar signature. I am reminded of the Valujet DC-9 that hit hail external to the clouds going from ATL to Chattanooga many years ago.


Very true, anyone that lives or flies in the Midwest/south of the US can tell you or has experienced encountering large hail miles from any visible cells.

Twice I encountered hail while well clear, 20 miles or more, of any cell painted on radar and flown into hail, once in a Kingair 90, the other time in a 727. Fortunately both times it was light hail, pea size and only damaged paint. But the noise was unbelievable. Both times we were in the hail for only seconds.

So don’t be so quick to blame the guy in the left seat.


Oh, I've flown in China as well.

Naali
30th Jun 2015, 16:03
Yes,sometimes the clear part will give You everything the wet part has produced...

ATC Watcher
30th Jun 2015, 16:13
GYS : quote :The second I called "Pan-pan" I was almost cleared direct the alternate. I am sure he was waiting for that call, so that any responsibility was taken out of his hands.

Common misunderstanding. in ICAO land PAN-PAN is just "an urgency message ,not requiring any assistance" , it wil clear the frequency to state your request(s), but that's about it. (ICAO- DOC 4444)
MAYDAY-MAYDAY on the other hand will get controllers to brake the rules to help and indeed it superseed "normal" rules and regulations, because it is a distress call and a statement of emergency.
.
For info the Civil Chinese controllers we talk to are as frustrated as you and me about the military airspace situation, but they have to follows their SOPs like all of us.

Good Business Sense
30th Jun 2015, 16:53
For info the Civil Chinese controllers we talk to are as frustrated as you and me about the military airspace situation, but they have to follows their SOPs like all of us.

Exactly!

Exercise command and take the fate of your aircraft and the passengers therein out of the hands of a Chinese ATC/Military SOP ....... don't endanger your aeroplane because you can't get permission for a reroute ! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Can't see any of the old skool types like John Wayne running into the CB for the want of an ATC clearance ! :):)

ehwatezedoing
30th Jun 2015, 18:46
Nobody shoots down nobody, just because you deviate to avoid severe weather.:=
Yes sure!

That's assuming the guy buried in his bunker, with the trigger, understand that you are there only to avoid severe weather.

RAT 5
30th Jun 2015, 18:54
'Risk management.'
1. You fly into a CB you have a very strong chance of severe damage.
2. You deviate and avoid the severe damage.

You have a very small chance of being shot down. To avoid the 2nd you have a radio, you can be back on track before they catch you, you have a chance of common sense being in action because you have broadcast your intentions.

You choose.

Good Business Sense
30th Jun 2015, 19:25
Those talking about shoot downs etc need to get out more and stop watching movies .... you obviously, haven't been to modern day China and before you start talking about it, KAL was different !

Herod
30th Jun 2015, 19:29
Guys. Were any of you there? The CAPTAIN, I repeat the CAPTAIN made a decision. At the moment only he knows whether it was right or wrong. Presumably the company will carry out an investigation, at which point they will also know. Until then, its all speculation, based on different scenarios.

edmundronald
30th Jun 2015, 22:02
There have been multiple cases of macho horseplay and brinksmanship games between the US and Chinese airforce, but has there ever been a case of a commercial heavy in two-way radio contact with traffic control being harmed or even harassed in China after declaring an emergency?

I agree with everything people say about Chinese inflexibility, adherence to the playbook, and passive-agressive behaviour; but on the other hand, compared to the average third world country, one can expect both compliance with chain-of-command from the base of the pyramid, and real competence from the higher up bureaucrats.

Edmund

Basil
30th Jun 2015, 22:15
YS,
Yangon(Yangon) airspace many years ago...Wx ahead and deviation,right of track (the best option),requested,...no reply.
We went across Burma about 15 years ago with no reply from ATC at all.
I flew at an intermediate level just in case. Weird.

Tank2Engine
30th Jun 2015, 22:22
China is investing $80 billion in aviation projects this year alone - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-investing-80-billion-in-aviation-projects-this-year-alone-2015-6)

Good to hear that China is investing $80 billion in air travel infrastructure, but at the same time you can't fly 10-20nm around a TS because all the airspace is blocked. :ugh:

Let's hope the Chinese will learn something from this incident and in the way they 'manage' their airspace and that it takes more than just runways and terminal buildings to build an aviation infrastructure, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

By the way, am I the only one who get's the distinct impression that Chinese ATC deliberately tries to screw non-Chinese airlines by refusing weather deviations and also sometimes forcing you to fly 4000, 8000 or even 10000 feet below normal cruising levels?

deptrai
30th Jun 2015, 23:23
yet we have DEPTRAI not wishing to chance his luck and would , presumably, slam into a CB.

no, I didn't say that. I just don't like it when people who weren't there, without a full accident investigation, slam the pilots or the commander. The knee jerk reaction of blaming the commander and calling him "weak" seemed uncalled for, so I came up with a somewhat extreme example of having to chose between weather and a missile test range. We don't know what their wx radar displayed, we don't know what other information they had or didn't have, we don't know their conversation with ATC. We don't even know the extent of the damage to the airframe. I see the composite radome has been hit by flying icebergs, but the cockpit windshields appear ok, no cracks visible to me, and there's no good photos of leading edges and engine nacelles where I would expect possibly damage, and no boroscope inspection of engines... The unsharp low resolution picture of the wing doesn't tell me much, it could be paint that has been scraped off.

Edit: What I do see, is that the "instagram" post the pictures were taken from says it was Delta 157, which would be Amsterdam-Memphis. So much for reliability of random sources on the global internets.

avherald has some more information: http://avherald.com/h?article=48893f03&opt=0

Airbubba
1st Jul 2015, 03:58
We went across Burma about 15 years ago with no reply from ATC at all.
I flew at an intermediate level just in case. Weird.

I transited the Yangon FIR on L301 totally lost comm less than five years ago. We turned the lights on and made position reports in the blind. Other planes on guard had no joy either with the ground guy. I remember thinking that we were lucky not to be over the U.S. for forty minutes without talking to ATC, we'd be intercepted and risk being shot down if there was a misunderstanding.

I've had pretty good luck with wx deviation requests from Shanghai and have been known to fudge a vector off course while waiting for a reply. As others have observed, some of the problem is language. Some of the (other) country boys I work with try something like 'Uh, we'd like to come left a little to get around this cell' instead of 'Request deviation one five miles left of track due weather'.

Does Shanghai use a dice cup for the offsets? I've had mostly stuff like five right but I've occasionally had one like 'offset two miles left'.

slowjet
1st Jul 2015, 08:07
CALLSIGNKILO displaying his customary hot-headedness. None of us were there but read the thread starter again and note that this is "RUMOURS and NEWS". All entitled to comment upon the rumour. I too have flown with people who know it all. I really DID "love" it as I managed to learn valuable lessons and never found it necessary to describe them with facetious use of hidden profanity. FACT is that the aircraft has been written off. RUMOUR is that it was because a denial of off track request led the Commander to stay on track & hit the ice-berg. All has produced lively debate which is the beauty of these forums.

Midnight Oil
1st Jul 2015, 08:49
Regarding the problems of weather avoidance in the PRC - I have been flying into and out of China for almost 25 years, almost every time I strap into an aircraft. I have done thousands of weather deviations there over the years. Requesting weather deviation is the same as anywhere else in the world. Whether you want 5 miles or 50 miles deviation, just tell them what you need and you will usually get it.

However, it is not unusual to have deviation refused due to military activity, or proximity to sensitive airspace, particularly on the east coast. The controllers will almost always offer an alternative deviation on the other side of the airway. I can only think of one or two occasions when I have been refused deviation in any direction. If you have no alternative but to deviate against the controller’s refusal then just transmit “PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN”, stating that you are deviating due to thunderstorm. You will then hear the ATC supervisor come over the top to approve the deviation and to ask you to advise when clear of weather. It is never a problem and there will be no comebacks to you.

alwayzinit
1st Jul 2015, 10:25
"KAL was different !"

It most certainly was! That was the Russians! Though I stand ready to be corrected!

Dan Winterland
1st Jul 2015, 11:30
A PAN call is understood and works in China - the controllers understand it. The controllers are often being overseen by a military controller. The civilian controller will have to get deviation clearance from his military counterpart and this may be refused. But if he turns to the guy and says "the aircraft has to deviate - he has called an emergency" then then everyone is happy and you can deviate.

silvertate
1st Jul 2015, 17:22
The radar and Wx radar plot on Av Herald would suggest that the captain DID divert around the weather.

They appear to be threading between two storm cells, to avoid a very leangthy diversion. So it may be that they were hit by anvil-hail, which is very hard to spot on the Wx radar.

Tate

neila83
1st Jul 2015, 19:44
The radar and Wx radar plot on Av Herald would suggest that the captain DID divert around the weather.

They appear to be threading between two storm cells, to avoid a very leangthy diversion. So it may be that they were hit by anvil-hail, which is very hard to spot on the Wx radar.

Tate

Except we know the reason given for this event is that they couldn't divert because they weren't allowed to. Also reports of severe turbulence and the damage meaning this is likely a write off implies they were in the storm rather than just getting hit by some hail. Since the pilots requested a diversion, it seems they saw it on their radar. And flew into it, essentially relying on nothing but luck that they wouldn't kill everyone. I feel for the passengers, o cannot imagine how terrifying it would have been.

deptrai
1st Jul 2015, 19:56
if the airframe is written off, sure there must be substantial damage, but keep in mind that this was a 26 year old ex Northwest airframe, and Delta will be phasing out the 747 fleet by 2017. Not trying to be a smartass, and not advocating flying into hail or cb but the resale value of that 747 probably wasn't extremely high even before it was damaged. iI a decision to write it off is taken, it reflects repair cost > residual value, not "damage" alone.

Airbubba
2nd Jul 2015, 01:11
Not trying to be a smartass, and not advocating flying into hail or cb but the resale value of that 747 probably wasn't extremely high even before it was damaged. iI a decision to write it off is taken, it reflects repair cost > residual value, not "damage" alone.

And, in some cases like this, the repair will be done, even if it doesn't appear to make sense economically just to avoid a 'hull loss' which can drive up fleet insurance rates. Or, look bad for the airline 'Rainman' safety record e.g. QF1 at BKK.

lomapaseo
2nd Jul 2015, 02:28
And, in some cases like this, the repair will be done, even if it doesn't appear to make sense economically just to avoid a 'hull loss' which can drive up fleet insurance rates. Or, look bad for the airline 'Rainman' safety record e.g. QF1 at BKK.

Yet from another view, having negotiated with insurance consortium, they are pretty savvy folks who look at far bigger pictures than small stuff like this one.

Then again I have seen airlines who gladly attempt to write off what appears to be repairable in order to get something newer.

parabellum
2nd Jul 2015, 02:52
Just the insurance angle. The 26 year old airframe would be worth in the region of $10 to $15 million max. but would have very little chance of resale so possibly even less than $10 Million. Because of the low value Delta may only insure liabilities, (pax and third party plus War) and self insure the hull, another possibility is that, given the age of the airframe, its book value has been written down to zero.


If the hull is insured with underwriters then the decision to repair or write-off rests with the insurers, in consultation with Delta, Delta's options are then likely to be: accept the pay-out, minus the deductible/excess, (and possibly buy the salvage), or cough up the amount of the deductible towards the cost of repair. An incident such as this won't effect Delta's premiums at next renewal, their overall fleet value is far too large and this is small beer.

tdracer
2nd Jul 2015, 04:19
One article I saw quoted the aircraft value at between $6 and $10 million. Given a significant portion of that would be the four PW4000 engines and readily salvageable avionics, I think it's safe to say this airframe's future is beer cans. Especially since Delta has ready 'spares'.

As to the actions of the aircrew, hindsight is always 20-20. I'll wait until I see some sort of official report before I condemn their actions.

Arfur Dent
2nd Jul 2015, 05:04
Another ploy to avoid weather in China is to ask for "direct routing due weather ahead". It does start the dialogue with a possible solution and the lowly Controller who is possibly operating in the dead of night and virtually alone has an 'opt out' rather than being accused later of allowing an aircraft off track just for the 'direct' option. The response to "Fly flight plan route" can be countered by stating unequivocally that it is "Not possible due weather ahead affecting safety of aircraft". Then, "Mayday" etc.
I know I wasn't there and I do sympathise but the one thing you don't do in the tropics (or the MidWest in USA - or anywhere) is blunder into a CB! You have no idea what is going to happen next and, in this case, they stumbled out of the CB having written off the aircraft but now didn't even have a serviceable radar making it quite likely that they will repeat the performance until, presumably, they crash! Not a good plan whether I was there or not IMHO. :=

bcgallacher
2nd Jul 2015, 06:52
During the mid 80,s I saw a 737 - 200 which diverted into Riyadh of all places after sustaining hail damage.The leading edges of all aerofoils were literally beaten flat, the engine intakes and bullet fairings looked as though someone had worked them over with a ball peen hammer. Judging by the radius of the indentations the hailstones were possibly about golf ball size. The black coating was stripped from the radome and paint removed on the forward fuselage curved section. The surprising thing was that the first stage compressor blades were all intact with no visible distortion. It would seem that hail is not unknown in Saudi as I saw a news report showing hailstones about golf ball size being bulldozed off a mountain road. I was in Riyadh for seven years and never saw hail,I did see the most torrential rain that I ever encountered in Riyadh - I have been in typhoons and tropical monsoons but never saw anything that remotely approached the few hours of rain I saw on that occasion.

deptrai
2nd Jul 2015, 07:24
The leading edges of all aerofoils were literally beaten flat, the engine intakes and bullet fairings looked as though someone had worked them over with a ball peen hammer.

The surprising thing was that the first stage compressor blades were all intact with no visible distortion

when I saw the pictures of hail damage on this 747, my first thought was, "I've seen much worse hail damage". The composite radome will and does break, but I didn't see much damage to leading edges and engine inlet cowls, no cracked windshields (may be the pictures though). Here's a random example of worse looking damage: bmi G-MIDJ, where the accident report (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422f61d40f0b6134600061b/dft_avsafety_pdf_029049.pdf)stated "the manufacturer later confirmed that the aircraft was in a safe condition to continue to its destination". There's been some airliner accidents where storm cells with hail and rain caused flameouts due to water ingestion, but engines have been modified as a result (continuous ignition, fan shape). My point being, modern airframes are remarkably resilient, and while this is no excuse for risk-taking, I'm sceptical to the drama in media reports without seeing a full accident investigation. Just like I'm sceptical to pilots blaming fellow pilots based on hearsay. Medical doctors don't usually blame their brethren without clear and very convincing evidence, but a few pilots always seem to rush to vilify their colleagues. No blame culture my a**. Yet airline incidents seem to invoke some kind of primeval response in many people, and pilots get to be either villains or heros (both labels can be equally undeserved). I remember some psychologist who had a good explanation for this behaviour, I'll search for it :)

We may never get to know (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2015/06/30/hail-pummels-delta-747-over-china-nwas-spirit-of.html) much more about this particular incident though:

Delta notified the the National Transportation Safety Board about the incident, but reported no injuries, "no substantial damage" to the aircraft and no airframe penetration, NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said. The incident is not under investigation, he added. He declined to provide more information.

scud
2nd Jul 2015, 07:26
Never had any issues diverting for weather over China. In fact, at least in Beijing airspace, they have been quite proactive in vectoring around weather on arrival and departure. Once, declaring a low fuel situation as a result of and unexpected hold with no EFC time, vectored immediatly direct to PEK and then they flipped the landing runway to accommodate us.

OTOH, Japanese controllers can be quite obstinate. Requested direct to the oceanic entry point, bypassing the previous one due to weather. Never approved despite a few requests. OK, then proceeded to that waypoint I wanted to avoid, but then could not proceed to the oceanic waypoing as a build-up was in the way, and the controller was then going ape-**** because we were proceeding into oceanic airpsace without clearance in that area, unable to turn. Finally had to fly through what I didn't want to fly through and I relented because the radar returns were yellow at altitude. Secured the cabin and got some moderate chop. It seemed to be me to be a pissing contest, as the controller probably figured I wanted to cheat and take a short-cut, using weather as a pretext. Not very professional at all. Chinese controllers sometimes have difficulties with language, especially en-route, but nevertheless found them to be professional.

I expect that the controller responsible for the Delta incident is heading off to the salt mines.

de facto
2nd Jul 2015, 16:18
Most probably....

Suvarnabhumi
4th Jul 2015, 04:02
Aircraft being damaged due to CBs and ATC refusals to deviate happens alot in China. I see Wechat pictures all the time from my Chinese first officers of some poor aircrafts radome damage etc. There is very seldom any CAAC report published (accessible and in English almost never) anyway.

Our feedback and tips from my Chinese airline on this issue is that the civilian controllers are often working under a lot of pressure from the military , and CANNOT authorise certain deviations on the tapes (they must cover their ass like everything in China) any greater than the military supervisor who is milling around the ATC consoles or sipping green tea in the cafe as approved him to.

Even if the airspace is clear of the military exercise at that moment (eg lunch time break) they still cannot (instant dismissal) clear civilian aircraft deviate into that zone. Sometimes these zones are not on the charts or notams. The CAAC charts my first officers use differ in areas and routes from the jeppesen charts foreign captains use.

I have been told numerous times by my management pilots , when faced with impenetrable bad weather to :

1) request deviate one side....x miles or a heading
2) request deviate the other side x miles or a heading
If both options denied do a 180.....and land if needed.

Most airlines in China live in fear of punishment from the authorities for any transgressions so will always prefer an operational delay or cost as opposed to a investigation , punishment and sanctions.

China airspace and ATC issues have no real focus on operational effectiveness or safety , only a power fight between the PLAF and the CAAC. With everyone covering their own personal ass on the day. The unfortunate foreign captain on this day learnt about flying in China the hard way.

Delta should push ICAO , IATA , and Flight Safety Foundation etc to look into these issues and contraventions in China .....but I predict like everyone else Delta won't want to upset the powers at be in Beijing and keep the money rolling in. :ugh:

Basil
4th Jul 2015, 09:43
If both options denied do a 180.....and land if needed.
As I'm sure you know very well, the problem is that, by the time you've tried negotiating a track alteration, you're pretty close to the Cb and, in a 180 at cruise level, very likely to spend considerable time in the very hazard you're trying to avoid.

lomapaseo
4th Jul 2015, 12:35
I'm a bit frustrated by this seemingly damned if you do damned if you don't. Are we saying that it's unsafe to fly in China or just inconvenient?

I wouldn't look for outside help at ICAO until the problem is better defined from a safety standpoint. If its just sniping about who's at fault, then nothing is going to happen.

ImbracableCrunk
4th Jul 2015, 14:08
In 1996, one of N664NW's stablemates encountered worse hail after departing KDTW for RJAA, if I recall.

I saw this plane in the hangar at looked to be much worse off than 664. I can't seem to find any reports on that one. It could have been 664 then, too, actually.

bankangle
4th Jul 2015, 22:20
Personally feel that it is very difficult to judge any Captain's actions based on such flimsy evidence, let's wait and see. Observationally though....

On contract to a fare east airline some years ago, during the Monsoon season, operating DAC/RGN/BKK large jet, we encountered and unbroken squall line with cells joining cells etc about 1 hour after take off - nightmare on radar. 3 crew aircraft, one local one and one, like me, on contract, turned back to our base with full load of pax.

Having previously worked on contract for a (the?) ruthless east midlands based operator, I was concerned about my reception at base. On landing back at departure point, the operations controller merely said "no problem Captain, safety first". No paperwork, no reports, no explanations beyond my one verbal statement. No aftermath. How refreshing that was after the blame culture up the M1.

Refreshingly sensible approach to safety in a much derided area of the world.

Merely an observation, we weren't there, give the Captain a chance to wait of the report.

It is not the third world.

LLuCCiFeR
6th Jul 2015, 09:12
The lightheartedness and the complete nativity with which some people here suggest to "just do it anyway" and "you're the PIC and China is an ICAO member" is really mind boggling.

"Being a PIC" of a 777 would not have impressed a BUK missile if Kiev would have replied "negatiwww, due to lestliction" when an unfortunate crew would have deviated 20-30nm off track due to weather, contrary to ATC instructions.

It is not the third world. Indeed it's not. China is a totalitarian communist police state (try surfing to Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or any blogsp*t, and while you're at it, have a look at who's the number one nation worldwide in executing people) with a large military and air force.

Now I'm absolutely not suggesting that it's a good idea to fly near or through a TS, but with the Chinese police state and MH17 in mind, I can definitely understand the great hesitation that some crews can have in deliberately ignoring a "negative" from ATC when asking for a deviation around weather.

The current inflexibility of ATC in China is outright dangerous and needs to be addressed as soon as possible before a real accident happens!

p.s. I find it a big coincidence that people who have "HKG" or "hong kong" as location on their pprune profile never seem to experience many problems with ATC in China. Are national Chinese and Hong Kong airlines ("one nation, two systems") treated differently as opposed to European, North American or other Asian airlines?

deptrai
6th Jul 2015, 14:14
Are national Chinese and Hong Kong airlines ("one nation, two systems") treated differently as opposed to European, North American or other Asian airlines?

no, they're not. Both CAAC, chinese pilots, and chinese civilian ATCO are equally frustrated. The real root issue is this imho: China has lifted an unprecedented amount of people out of poverty, and there's a rapidly growing middle class that couldn't previously afford to fly, which fuels a huge growth in aviation. The military has always been the primary way to project power for the party, and is intimately interwined with the party, and they're very reluctant to give up their "old ways", even for seemingly innocent things like delegating something to civil ATC; laws/regulations/infrastructure/education can't keep up with the rapid economic growth. One communist official I know told me he feels managing the regulatory/legal/civil society changes is like riding a bicycle downhill on a steep slope...they know if they hit the brakes too hard they will fall, so they can't do that, but they're terrified of the speed and try to keep braking as much as they can.

bwalker351
11th Jul 2015, 02:22
I was on this flight. Delta has been rude and uncooperative in providing any information as to what exactly happened. I am also amazed that an incident like this is not investigated by the NTSB, in order to better understand what happened.

bwalker351
11th Jul 2015, 03:22
Delta flies hail-damaged NWA Boeing 747 to Arizona boneyard - Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2015/07/10/delta-hail-nwa-n664us-boeing-747-boneyard-pinal.html)

Spooky 2
11th Jul 2015, 13:41
Who would Delta supply this information to other than the FAA and the NTSB at this time? Certainly not some random passenger such as yourself. How were they rude to you? Why do I suspect your'e a lawyer?

bwalker351
11th Jul 2015, 15:28
As a passenger on this flight (and all others on board), endured a very scary incident. I simply requested that they provide all passengers with some sort of report or explanation as to what happened. I don't think that is asking too much considering what happened. Given that no one at this point seems to want to explain what happened (Delta, FAA, NTSB), I guess you simply shrug and say 'these things happen' and try and forget it. I would bet that if you were on the flight, you'd want to have some sort of explanation as well. BTW, not a lawyer. Just a somewhat educated average traveler.

neila83
11th Jul 2015, 23:46
Who would Delta supply this information to other than the FAA and the NTSB at this time? Certainly not some random passenger such as yourself. How were they rude to you? Why do I suspect your'e a lawyer?

Not sure of the need for this kind of response. A passenger is bound to want to know what happened after being put in a situation where they may well have felt their life was in danger. If on any other form of transport, bus, train etc. such a dangerous situation was encountered, passengers thrown around, the vehicle substantially damaged, then the company would generally look after customers afterwards. Not simply expect them to shrug it off. Yes flying is extremely safe, but it is the one form of transport that will willingly put its passengers through some pretty scary situations just to get from a to b.

Personalyl I'd rather, and I'm sure most passengers, that airlines said 'if weather means we can't get to where we should we won't try and push on regardless and hope for the best'. I'm sure this is how most operate, but it seems there are some pilots who will push through. It's never that important to get somewhere. If a train sees a tree on the line it doesn't try and bulldoze through it and hope it works out. It scares me when I see pilots talking about flying through things they didn't want to. Passengers don't pay to be on test flights.

deptrai
12th Jul 2015, 11:01
but it is the one form of transport that will willingly put its passengers through some pretty scary situations just to get from a to b

Do you have any evidence for that? Can you show me just one line pilot who willingly scares passengers? I have never met any. Pilots in general are safety conscious to the extreme, and - unrelated - care a lot about making a flight comfortable for passengers. If possible, pilots stay far away from even mild turbulence, just to ensure passenger comfort (even if it has nothing to do with safety). To continue this off topic discussion (sorry for the thread drift): Driving a car will put you in a lot more dangerous situations, yet few people seem to think that is scary. Yet some people are easily scared by completely innocent turbulence. Turbulence may be annoying, making it more difficult to read or sleep, and you could spill some coffee, but it isn't dangerous. Frankly concerns about turbulence seem to be a very subjective, somewhat irrational fear. So why do some people perceive turbulence as scary Or is it something else that scares you?

Spooky 2
12th Jul 2015, 13:34
Bwalker, you didn't answer my question regarding who was rude to you?

Sailvi767
12th Jul 2015, 13:52
I suspect the airline has little to add to what you already know. Investigations into a incident like this can take up to a year. Any information they were to provide you now would more then likely be inaccurate. The other thing you need to keep in mind is the vast majority of requests like yours are from passengers fishing for info for a planned lawsuit.
You know the basics of the event. What specific info do you want Delta to provide?

Hotel Tango
12th Jul 2015, 13:55
deptrai, I agree with most of what you say, but the turbulence one encounters in a CB is well above the norm and will for sure be bloody scary for most passengers, not to mention cabin crew for that matter. Indeed, knowing full well how crews do their utmost to avoid them, if my flight went through a CB I think even I would be curious to know why. So, I can understand bwalker351's point of view in that sense.

Spooky 2
12th Jul 2015, 15:07
I guess I missed that point regarding the aircraft penetrating a CB Where did you read that?

deptrai
12th Jul 2015, 15:21
so far there is only evidence that there was hail. I am not aware of any evidence that they penetrated a cb. They could just as well have encountered hail outside of a cb, maybe slightly under the anvil, and/or on the downwind side.

Spooky 2
12th Jul 2015, 15:42
Exactly. You need to be careful what you read on the internet or what thought you read on the internet. Throwing the crew under the bus at this stage seems a little premature.

bwalker351
12th Jul 2015, 15:47
I can understand Delta wanting to manage the communication and information on this incident. I have worked in corporate communications and crisis management, etc. I requested that Delta provide me and all other passengers with some sort of follow up report as to what happened during this flight. I did not ask for an immediate report. Delta did an admirable job with their initial communication to me (presumably to all passengers) acknowledging the uncomfortable flight and crediting us with 15K Skymiles as compensation. This email was sent out to me within 4-5 hrs. after the flight. I can also understand the concerns of a potential lawsuit. Of course, a lawsuit would only have merit if Delta did something wrong.

Many years ago I pursued my private pilots license, but have not piloted anything bigger than a 172, so I wouldn't presume to have any knowledge or experience comparable to many of you here. All that I do know is that the flight was totally uneventful and smooth until the pilot made an abrupt warning to passengers and cabin crew to sit down and buckle up. The turbulence we encountered after that would clearly be deemed severe. The plane 'dropped' several times and then slammed into something. The food and beverage carts were knocked over. At least two (from what I could see) overhead bins popped opened and luggage came out. The captain (presumably) came on and said he was having trouble with the Chines ATC in getting around the weather. The cabin crew did a good job at checking on everyone afterwards, restowing luggage, and distributing extra air sickness bags.

After deplaning in ICN, many passengers stopped outside the jetbridge to take pictures of the aircraft damage. I took some pictures as well, and a pilot emerged from behind me from the jetbridge. He stopped when he saw the aircraft and stared for a few seconds, then took his phone out and started snapping some pictures as well. Some of the other passengers came up to him and asked if he was flying the plane. He said no, he had been in the crew rest area when the turbulence hit... and he said all he could do was hold on while he got knocked around.

I had to run to catch my connecting flight onward to MNL. Upon landing in MNL I checked my emails and Delta had sent their customer care email. Subsequently, I have only asked that Delta provide us with some additional follow up to the flight. Their final email to me was that they would not be responding to any more of my inquiries, would provide no more information, nor any more compensation. I had never asked for any more compensation, only for information. According to the news reports, Delta told the NTSB that there were no injuries nor any significant damage to the aircraft, thus no investigation would be conducted.

MrDK
12th Jul 2015, 18:51
Should Delta Report to Passengers?
There would be absolutely no requirements for Delta to do so.
Only appropriate regulatory agencies.

The fact is that many passengers (perhaps unjustly so) are worried about flying in general, when the plane they flew is "totaled" (unscheduled retirement) following, the even rises to unbelievable in the eyes of these passengers.

If the airline was "smart" and attended to customer relations it would have taken the time to write a letter to the passenger with some appeasing comments concerning their safety and that as uncomfortable as it may have been and despite the fate of the ship there was never a concern about safety.

I have been on flights where the entertainment system was all messed up and received an email after attempting to set matters straight, why not after a flight where the plane was taken out of service due to an event.

Marketing, plain and simple!

tlbrown350
12th Jul 2015, 20:35
Reminds me of a quote,

"There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime.

Sign over squadron ops desk at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, 1970"


But I believe, as some have said the hail came on fast and furious and often won't paint on radar outside main CB's

Sailvi767
12th Jul 2015, 21:30
Hail does not paint at all on radar unless it is wet hail. Hail can be thrown a considerable distance from a storm. In some cases 20 miles downwind.The aircraft was not totaled. Delta is parking the 747 fleet. 3 airframes had just been parked and 5 more will be parked in the fall. No point at all in fixing the airframe. Just grab one of the 3 just parked and put it back in service. It will be parked again in OCT probably forever. The 747's Delta has are very high time. Their only value is in the engines.

MrDK
13th Jul 2015, 07:29
"The aircraft was not totaled."

If you noticed I put that in quotation marks as tongue in cheek.
Passengers learning that it was taken out of service are, however, likely to see it as such and as most would understand perception is reality.

The airline and its associates can argue the technical and legal aspects all they want and be 100% correct.
Still many passengers will not understand.

Marketing and customer relations are very foreign concepts for many, but a simple email revealing nothing more than is already public and validated along some appeasing statements would be wise IMO.

Yaw String
13th Jul 2015, 07:31
Interesting point about airline passenger aftercare in such an incident,after my rant about Iberia,in May.
On that flight,having injured some,and scared the life out of most of the other passengers,they have followed up three times,with my family members...
Offers of discounted fares,at least!...but no real explanation,as that could easily open channels for litigation.....(just a general comment,Spooky..no one I know is interested in litigation,at least,not this side of the Atlantic)

Spooky 2
13th Jul 2015, 09:32
"Marketing and customer relations are very foreign concepts for many, but a simple email revealing nothing more than is already public and validated along some appeasing statements would be wise IMO".


Okay I know you want t sue so badly you can taste it and fishing around for some leads that will promote your cause. Go for it if you think your feeling have been hurt that badly. There are whole bunch just like you that inhabit a few other aviation websites. Suggest you try your hurt feeling on over there.


"Offers of discounted fares, at least!...but no real explanation, as that could easily open channels for litigation..... " More of the same."


Go for it if makes you feel better. There are always some in the crowd that think suing is the answer for just about anything that displeases them, or in their own minds is a justification.

MrDK
13th Jul 2015, 10:44
"Marketing and customer relations are very foreign concepts for many, but a simple email revealing nothing more than is already public and validated along some appeasing statements would be wise IMO".

Okay I know you want t sue so badly you can taste it and fishing around for some leads that will promote your cause. Go for it if you think your feeling have been hurt that badly. There are whole bunch just like you that inhabit a few other aviation websites. Suggest you try your hurt feeling on over there.

Spooky, I Think your board name becomes you.
You seem to be a bit paranoid with legal actions. In this regard any idiot would know there would never be one the could hold any water.
I am a three million miler with Delta and have had my share of opportunities if I was so inclined, I have received a fair few emails (and bonus miles for that matter) for events that was not 'normal'.
When I said "Marketing and customer relations are very foreign concepts for many", I now have proven my point.

Spooky 2
13th Jul 2015, 14:23
Well DK I guess we will just agree that we don't agree and leave it at that.

7478ti
13th Jul 2015, 15:42
Many of us have unexpectedly encountered hail, or a near brush with hail, or severe turbulence, even with responsible best planning and piloting efforts, and drawing on long experience. The threat of TRW++, and hail, and turbulence remains in global air transport. So without more data and facts, it is still inappropriate to be drawing conclusions about this specific event yet, especially in terms of the crew's potential role, for any conclusions beyond the fact that TRWs, and hail, and severe turbulence are still ever-present threats in global air transport.

Just for example... what radar were they using??? Even some of the latest modern WX radars have known weaknesses that are still being addressed and improved, for both false positives and missed threats. Some have even failed certs until evolved, required explanatory bulletins, or nearly failed certs for some aspects.

What relationship existed, and why did that relationship exist, between the crew and ATS in that FIR or sector, for the expeditious handling of any needed or requested WX avoidance trajectory change ???

What are the consequences of WX deviations on various routes or in various states globally, and how are they reflected in company policies for each state or FIR, and how are variances handled when a pilot deviation request is ignored or denied by ATS, even when repeated or re-emphasized by the crew, or escalating the request by using PAN, or using emergency authority, or even invoking MAYDAY?

What weather data did the crew have, and when, and what was its quality, age, and reliability. Our real time weather data in air carrier ops, especially in some regions and FIRS, and on the flight deck, is still abysmal compared to what we could already have had for decades (even in the US), if we weren't still mired in "PastGen" globally. What role did WX data or lack of WX data play?

So unless and until this is all better identified or clarified, it is still inappropriate to draw any conclusions on this event, except perhaps to be sympathetic to another flight crew and airline caught by encountering a delicate difficult operational situation, while we await more and better data, or the completion of the investigation.

Flying Clog
14th Jul 2015, 00:44
You're all completely over analysing the situation.

Coming from someone who reluctantly flies through Chinese airspace on a regular basis - you're dealing with a bunch of clowns here who have no clue how to clamber out of a wet paper bag, let alone run an efficient ATS. It's a complete goat f@ck.

Simples, take the bull by the horns, declare a pan or mayday if you have to, and get on with it, get around the weather and don't put the aircraft or it's pax in danger. By no means EVER trust them as far as you can urinate.

I can sympathise with the yank who did serious damage to his aircraft and endangered his passengers, in the good ol' US of A air traffic control go out of their way to advise and vector you around weather. However, this is sadly only the case in his home country. No other ATS in the world is quite that proactive.

As a long haul skipper, I guess he should have been aware of this short fall in 'foreign' ATC, let alone the bunch of drop kicks that is Asian ATC.

:ouch:

As a side note, Hong Kong ATC used to be the exception with very professional ATC, but since the bean counters have taken charge of this sad, sad industry they've booted out the experienced guys/gals and replaced them with the utterly useless local 'cannot'/iphone squad. So now as soon as there's any weather within 500nm the wheels fall off, and again, one needs to take the bull by the horns and get on with telling these children how to do their jobs.

Pathetic.

Captain Dart
14th Jul 2015, 02:09
As someone who has been operating around Hong Kong, China and Asia for a quarter of a century, I heartily concur with the previous post.

Heliads
14th Jul 2015, 04:33
I owe you a Carsberg in a silver tankard at The Captains Bar for that comment. Well said Clog.

ATC Watcher
14th Jul 2015, 07:16
Flying Clog , unfortunately as an old generation former Controller I have to admit that I love your last paragraph !
I will share this on to my old ( mostly Aussies) mates in HK who will appreciate it I am sure.:E

Sometime It feel we're like the F@kng dinausaurs in this industry.

....and would love to buy you a beer too !

LLuCCiFeR
14th Jul 2015, 09:53
As a side note, Hong Kong ATC used to be the exception with very professional ATC, but since the bean counters have taken charge of this sad, sad industry they've booted out the experienced guys/gals and replaced them with the utterly useless local 'cannot'/iphone squadPerhaps a sign of the persistent 'Chinafication' of HKG?

"One country, two systems" is a nice little slogan in order to pacify people who are, rightfully so, extremely worried about China's human rights record, but over the last 5-10 years I get the impression that slowly but steadily, HKG is becoming less vibrant, less flexible, more bureaucratic and more a carbon copy of China.

oblivia
14th Jul 2015, 13:09
As a long-time HK resident I can certainly believe the goat comment, but does this mean that China's safety record is luck? Given the extraordinary growth there, it seems from a lay point of view that they've actually managed it well.

filejw
14th Jul 2015, 18:39
For those looking for more info from delta. Once an organization becomes a party to an NTSB investigation they are restricted mostly from commenting on facts in the case or they will be asked to leave the investigation .

Spooky 2
14th Jul 2015, 20:06
Don't disagree with your NTSB comments but do we know that the NTSB has opened an investigation into this incident? It may just be in the hands of the FAA and end there.

deptrai
14th Jul 2015, 23:06
from post #68: Delta notified the the National Transportation Safety Board about the incident, but reported no injuries, "no substantial damage" to the aircraft and no airframe penetration, NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said. The incident is not under investigation, he added. He declined to provide more information.

lomapaseo
15th Jul 2015, 02:41
I seriously doubt that any investigation beyond filing a report will happen.

I can't think of an action instigated by the regulator towards Delta.

Pilot decision making and foreign country controller actions by themselves are typically behind the scenes of being second guessed by outsiders to all the facts.

Spooky 2
16th Jul 2015, 14:22
You are right. Everything is so simple from seat 24A as some have implied.

ekw
17th Jul 2015, 01:12
The difference between "I request" and "I require" is the same as "I would like" and "I need".

I would need a Chinese speaker to tell me if the translations are significant.

Bottom line, if it IS THAT bad don't fly through it! Orbit!

I guess Chinese ATC would have attended courses in English jargon but if they are translating in their head then you might have problems with request and require as they come out the same (要求). What makes the difference is adding a time marker e.g. 'immediately'.

ekw
17th Jul 2015, 01:37
Yes sure!

That's assuming the guy buried in his bunker, with the trigger, understand that you are there only to avoid severe weather.

The Chinese military have a very long chain of command (low trust). Unless there is a crisis and the response has been pre-authorised, by the time they get the general out of his karaoke session you will be long gone. On the otherhand, if you have flown into a military exercise they might think you are the target drone.

Murexway
20th Jul 2015, 15:16
As a retired captain for a major carrier, I heartily agree with Clog's post. I also hate second-guessing the actions of any other captain when I wasn't in the cockpit at the time.

Without passing judgment on this particular incident, it's my feeling that it may not be just the newer ATC controllers whose heads are in the wrong place these days.

I've been retired for over ten years now (hard to believe), but even before retirement I was already noticing company encroachment into newer pilots' thought processes.

Although they won't admit it, airlines generally dislike "Captain's Authority", viewing it as a threat to "Management Authority" and heavily promote (at my company, at least) contacting dispatch for any little thing that doesn't go exactly according to plan. Even among the younger ex-military copilots, I would sometimes hear the question, "Shouldn't we contact dispatch?" whenever something like holding vs. diverting came up.

Don't get me wrong..... dispatch is a very valuable resource and I relied upon them frequently for input into my decisions. But when you're "real busy", so to speak, asking dispatch to make your decision for you wasn't the first item on my checklist.

I fear that the mentality of deferring to "higher authority" may be creeping into the left seat, and that sort of mindset includes ATC authority.

armchairpilot94116
20th Jul 2015, 16:00
quote ekw:

The Chinese military have a very long chain of command (low trust). Unless there is a crisis and the response has been pre-authorised, by the time they get the general out of his karaoke session you will be long gone. On the otherhand, if you have flown into a military exercise they might think you are the target drone.

unquote

Yes, and I remember the time the Taiwanese military shot down their Learjet (towing a target ) instead of the target itself.

So flying into an active target area is not safe, to put it mildly.

Spooky 2
30th Jul 2015, 15:52
Anyone see this?

American Airlines to ferry banged-up Boeing 787 from China to DFW next week | | Dallas Morning News (http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/american-airlines-to-ferry-banged-up-boeing-787-from-china-to-dfw-next-week.html/)

grimmrad
30th Jul 2015, 22:35
Not sure what Delta should have done different in communication. Crew communicated problem to passengers (ATC problem, not allowed to deviate for weather), cabin apparently more or less secured as no injuries, 4h after flight landed compensation of 15k miles... Seems pretty good reaction to me.

Heli-phile
1st Aug 2015, 04:32
I had very similar situation once flying from Berlin to Amsterdam (before the wall came down and Germany unified) Major cell drifting onto our airway and we squeezed around it. I had the East German controller pipeing up, informing me I was drifting into their airspace. This was 1988 (before GPS) and repeated vor/dme cross cuts kept me busy ensuring we were right on the edge of that airway. I kept the conversation going as we picked around the cell using the weather radar. Lots of threats from him, lots of calming dialogue back from me. Eventually I said if we returned to Berlin we could only turn 180 to the right due weather, which would take us way off the edge airway and much deeper into his airspace. I gave him the choice. While he provaricated (or spoke to senior goon) we cleared the cell and realignged with the airway. 20 minutes of unnecessary harrassment due to a communist dogma. I dont envy this Delta crews situation. Maybe squak 7700 and transmit "blind" heading wherever you need to for as short as time as neccessary. Only thing thats ever scared in 35 years flying has been CB related. CB's are a real and certain threat. The results of ignoring ATC are far far less of a threat.

Molon Labe
1st Aug 2015, 23:26
I went through the same airway about a week later, had a lot of CB's and was denied deviation. I deviated anyway and told atc what I was doing and kept saying "denied" "denied" "denied". Then he gave up objecting and acted normal, if there is such a thing with Dalian control. Anyway I never heard another word about it after that.