Malaysia Airlines plane starts flying in the wrong direction

[AreOut]

"An investigation has been launched after a Malaysia Airlines plane took off from Auckland Airport on Christmas Day and surprised the pilot with the direction it started flying.

Just eight minutes into the direct flight to Kuala Lumpur, MH132's pilot queried why his Airbus A330 was heading so far south.

He wondered why the plane was heading towards Melbourne and not taking a more direct flight path to the Malaysian capital.

It is understood passengers on board the flight, which left at 2.23am Christmas Day, were not alerted to the mix-up."

Malaysia Airlines plane starts flying in the wrong direction - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11566463)

pilot wondered where the plane was going?!

[ex-EGLL]

pilot wondered where the plane was going?!

Methinks it was probably going where (directly or indirectly) the pilot told it to go

[ExSp33db1rd]

Don't Malaysian pilots check their flight plans - as prepared by either the airline itself or a contracted agency - before boarding the aircraft, or do they just load numbers into the computer and go along for a mystery ride ?

The route may indeed not be a direct line from A to B for a variety of reasons, taking into account wind, weather, airspace restrictions etc. etc. but the time to question is before accepting it, when the amount of fuel calculated has to be checked, as well ?

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

[Cazalet33]

"Now what's it doing?" said Alice, eight minutes later.

[Ollie Onion]

Very strange, makes it sound like the fplan was loaded without anyone checking it or reviewing it with the crew then being surprised when it wasn't the routing they were used too.

Surely they would have reviewed the plan before getting onboard the aircraft let alone airborne.

Pilots really are there own worst enemies some times.

[Airbubba]

Looks like MH132 was filed out of the NZAA FIR over PEBLU N759 to SASRO to enter the YBBB FIR. Once they hit SASRO it appears that the filed routing was nearly direct to the Sepang aerodrome.

Here's the filed routing (in that familiar non-human readable format that some cultures seem to crave):

PEBLU N759 SASRO M080F340 M636 PLUGA M081F360 M636 TESAT H44 KAT A576 KALUG M081F380 A576 AS A587 ONOXA N0470F400 G326 BLI M635 SURGA M081F400 M635 TPG A464 SJ G579 LAPOL N0470F400 G579 VJB A457 GUPTA

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS132/history/20151224/1235Z/NZAA/WMKK

It looks like the more normal initial routing for this flight would be PAPTI A464 RIGMI.

Did some 'ham radio operator' hear the exchange with ATC and call the media? Please don't tell the news folks that those NAT Track airways were moved again today. ;)

In recent years we've been told that the flight planning computer software considers all the variables and picks the best route for the flight and that we shouldn't second guess it as mere pilots. I've sure had a prayer meeting before with the dispatcher on Satcom asking why we're flying two hundred miles in the wrong direction before turning back around for the crossing. She didn't know but said she was required to file a form with flight ops if I refused the computer generated routing. Didn't want that to happen :eek: so I signed the flight plan, took off and ATC gave us direct to the first oceanic point.

Was the wrong flight plan in the FMS? Or did the MH crew just ask why they were going so far west before turning toward KUL today? Weather, military or Santa ops possibly?

Here's some fairly good media discussion on what seems to me to be a non-event:

Airways ground staff said typically an airline will decide the route for a certain flight.

This route would be communicated to Airways, and then get passed on to air traffic controllers. Air traffic would then direct the flight's take off and landing, and a route would be programmed into the plane to provide turning points and direction for the pilot.

A spokeswoman for Airways said the glitch could be explained by a miscommunication of plans.

"The flight path the airline filed us was going to Kuala Lumpur, but following a slightly different flight plan that the pilot had on board."

"Quite quickly after taking off the pilot realised that the direction that we were sending him in was different."

The plane was headed towards Melbourne, rather than taking a more direct route to the Malaysian capital.

After talking to the bemused pilot, Airways uploaded their flight route to the airborne plane.

The pilot adjusted to the surprise, continuing across the Tasman Sea before heading north-west to the destination.

The spokeswoman said the new route was in fact an established flight plan to Kuala Lumpur - but not the one the pilot had planned to follow.

"Airlines often choose different flight plans depending on weather and other variables."

The spokeswoman said Airways would be looking into the incident.

She said passengers on board the flight were at no point in any danger, as the flight was still under radar control.


Nice picture of the A330 cockpit in the article ;):

Malaysia Airlines' Christmas route surprises pilot leaving Auckland | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/75470909/malaysia-airlines-christmas-route-surprises-pilot-leaving-auckland)

[ex-EGLL]

If the pilot on the December 25th flight was "surprised", I'd hate to think what the reaction of the pilot was on the 16th Dec

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS132/history/20151215/1235Z/NZAA/WMKK

[gleneagles]

Common guys, it has happened before. Very gung-ho dispatchers fired off a new operational flight plan due to new meteorological data for upper winds, but forgot to refile the ATC flight plan. Crew loaded in the OFP route in the fmgc.

On obtaining clearance, the only got " cleared XYZ on xxxxx departure, oceanic transition, squawk 1122 " which they flew dutifully. It was only after flying the SID, only after they were cleared direct to the FIR boundary/Oceanic transition that the crew realised the discrepancy and queried their onward clearance!

Sometimes it is only a matter of a few knots of headwind/tailwind but the idiot boxes churn out different routes saving about 100-200 kg of fuel.

Much ado about nothing. Some mischievous blokes hitting hard on some third world airline down on its luck! It makes hot splashy news and all the bully boys patting themselves on the back. Low blow below the belt when rivals are already down on the mat!:=:=:=

[No Fly Zone]

Last I heard, minor - or even MAJOR changes from original flight plans were common. Some are to accommodate traffic; some are intended to avoid weather issues and perhaps other possible issues. That much is all in a day's work for any bro or sis pilots, whether local flyers or the 12+ hour crowd. It happens and it is even ~~normal.
The part that I do NOT understand is why no one, ATC, Company Dispatch or some other entity bothered to inform the flight crew. I've read the notes, read (and questioned) the major media accounts - they are never to be trusted... I still have to wonder either, 1) what I have missed, or 2) WTF happened. Sorry kids, but I do not understand what happened here. I'm inclined to congratulate the MH crew for asking, but I/we really do not yet have enough information to know. This DOES require some detailed inquiry...:ugh:

[Suzeman]

Wonder if the MH captain was influenced in his questioning of the initial route by the fact that an ANZ B787 going to Singapore took off just before him and went on the "northerly" route heading for overhead Brisbane?

The MAS flew over the top of Singapore just as the ANZ landed there. Flight times on the two different routes ex Auckland were therefore comparable. ANZ went overhead Brisbane and Darwin; MAS went overhead Sydney and Alice Springs.

Information from FR24 replay.

[Wageslave]

A wee bit of route confusion and this makes Front Page on prune? Rumour or news??? It wouldn't even make interesting gossip in most crew rooms.

God, what is this place coming to?

Moderators, puhleese!

[RHKAAF]

Anyone remember the Mount Erebus crash ?

[Suzeman]

A wee bit of route confusion and this makes Front Page on prune? Rumour or news??? It wouldn't even make interesting gossip in most crew rooms.

God, what is this place coming to?

Moderators, puhleese!

It seems to have sparked an official internal inquiry by Airways. From the press article

Although there were no apparent safety concerns with the confusion, Airways yesterday confirmed it was investigating.

"We have an internal safety team who will investigate it," a spokeswoman said.

"The flight plan the airline filed with us was going to Kuala Lumpur but via a slightly different route than the pilot was expecting."

Airways will "work closely" with the much-maligned carrier to find out how the confusion came about, the spokeswoman said.

And this now from Aviation Herald seems to throw a bit more light and notes that MH are now holding an investigation

Incident: Malaysia A333 over Tasman Sea on Dec 25th 2015, crew, dispatch and ATC out of sync (http://avherald.com/h?article=491733fa&opt=0)

A Malaysia Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration 9M-MTG performing flight MH-132 from Auckland (New Zealand) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), was climbing out of Auckland on a southwesterly heading consistent with a flight track towards Sydney,NS (Australia), when the crew queried with air traffic control why they were heading that far south. Air Traffic Control cross checked and reported that they had received a flight plan to Kuala Lumpur taking the aircraft across the Tasman Sea on a southerly routing, enter Australia near Sydney and carry on towards Kuala Lumpur. The aircraft continued across the Tasman Sea, entered Australia just south of Sydney and landed safely in Kuala Lumpur on schedule.

The airline confirmed that the aircraft tracked to Kuala Lumpur on a slightly different route that the crew did not expect. The route was selected due to winds at cruise level. An internal safety investigation has been opened however.

On Dec 27th 2015 the airline added that the flight was given the latest flight plan by the airline's dispatch, however, air traffic control inadvertently received an earlier flight plan. "Both routes were following an approved flight path and the aircraft had enough fuel for both routes. The safety of both passengers and crew were never compromised at any time. Malaysia Airlines is currently conducting its investigation in the flight plan submission."


Far better to investigate and plug a potential hole in the swiss cheese don't you think? Need to know why did the confusion arise in the first place.

[evansb]

In the early 1980's. a PWA B737 departed Yellowknife NWT (CYZF) to Norman Wells NWT (CYVQ). Unfortunately, Churchill MB (CYYQ) was programmed into the flight director. CYYQ is nearly in the opposite direction to the intended flight. The error went unchecked for quite a while until human intervention prevented a near disaster. Keep in mind that vast area of Canada was not under ATC radar surveillance.

Nevil Shute's novel "Pastoral" contains some drama when a WW.II bomber departs on a heading of 320 instead of 302.

[Hotel Tango]

ATC having one FPL and the crew flying according to another was nothing all that uncommon at my unit. It got sorted and we moved on.

[Square Bear]

A wee bit of route confusion and this makes Front Page on prune?

Never have worked out how to post on the Back Page of PPRuNe!!

[aterpster]

RH:
Anyone remember the Mount Erebus crash ?

My thought exactly.

[aterpster]

evansb:

Nevil Shute's novel "Pastoral" contains some drama when a WW.II bomber departs on a heading of 320 instead of 302.

Those WWII IMC disasters recall the TWA CFIT with Carol Lombard.

[Another Number]

The mystery is solved ... MH 370 was obviously just a little computer-generated, un-briefed "double reverse great circle" shortcut, which the crew blindly followed, while preoccupied with an endless loop of power-cycling the comms! :}

[Chuck Canuck]

And this now from Aviation Herald seems to throw a bit more light and notes that MH are now holding an investigation

Incident: Malaysia A333 over Tasman Sea on Dec 25th 2015, crew, dispatch and ATC out of sync

Quote:
A Malaysia Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration 9M-MTG performing flight MH-132 from Auckland (New Zealand) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), was climbing out of Auckland on a southwesterly heading consistent with a flight track towards Sydney,NS (Australia), when the crew queried with air traffic control why they were heading that far south. Air Traffic Control cross checked and reported that they had received a flight plan to Kuala Lumpur taking the aircraft across the Tasman Sea on a southerly routing, enter Australia near Sydney and carry on towards Kuala Lumpur. The aircraft continued across the Tasman Sea, entered Australia just south of Sydney and landed safely in Kuala Lumpur on schedule.

The airline confirmed that the aircraft tracked to Kuala Lumpur on a slightly different route that the crew did not expect. The route was selected due to winds at cruise level. An internal safety investigation has been opened however.

On Dec 27th 2015 the airline added that the flight was given the latest flight plan by the airline's dispatch, however, air traffic control inadvertently received an earlier flight plan. "Both routes were following an approved flight path and the aircraft had enough fuel for both routes. The safety of both passengers and crew were never compromised at any time. Malaysia Airlines is currently conducting its investigation in the flight plan submission."


Gleneagles, I bow to your wisdom and sagely reply. You got it right on. A sign of a true aviator who knows the ins and outs of the profession.

To those ever so keen to find fault, jump to conclusions and pillory others just to feel good about themselves...it is sad indeed that you have really devolved!:=:(

[AmuDarya]

Erm...

One may expect an especial degree of sensitivity on the part of Malaysia Airlines pilots to their aircraft being on an unexpected heading to the Southern Ocean.:O

With the greatest possible respect, of course.

[Dan_Brown]

Surely a look at the compass, at the very least, must have told the crew something was not quiet right. Or have the basics gone completely out the window?

Notice I wrote the word basics. Anyone remember, what I mean? I think we are "so advanced" now to worry about them...not. Hmm.

[slowjet]

Chuck, your final comment seems to sum up most Chief Pilots ! Wish chaps like you were in the chair in my day !

[Spooky 2]

A casual friend of mine tells a story on himself that when he was in the US Navy flying the P3's they took off from Wake Island with the next destination being Japan. Right after takeoff he took up a easterly heading, until one of his squadron mates asked where in the hell are you going? Since he was going to the Far East it was only logical that the initial heading be in an easterly direction. Makes sense to me.

[Herod]

It happens in the best regulated environments. Departed Manchester one day, bound for a Greek island. Over southern England we were given a routeing totally different from the one on the flight plan. It seems Ops had sent one to us and a different one to ATC. A re-programme of the FMC, and a fuel check, and we were good to go, following the plan ATC had. No big deal, but then we were blessed with a benign route, with lots of alternates if it turned out our calculations were wrong.

[ShyTorque]

RH:
Quote:
Anyone remember the Mount Erebus crash ?

My thought exactly.

Mine, too. Someone changed the waypoint coordinates in that tragedy.

We had a recent event, similar in a way. The passenger knew where he was supposed to go. The person he told knew where he wanted to go. We were given another destination in print. Suddenly, on final approach, it was all the fault of the crew. Thankfully we had sufficient fuel to go to the other destination. No big deal in our case, but there's nothing like telling the people actually doing the job what the real plan is supposed to be. :rolleyes:

[Spooky 2]

Along those lines I think a large SE US carrier had a couple on incidents back in the 90's where the crew on the wrong airplane and flew it to some other destination than where the pax had purchased their tickets for. Happened more than once as I recall.

[Airbubba]

A casual friend of mine tells a story on himself that when he was in the US Navy flying the P3's they took off from Wake Island with the next destination being Japan. Right after takeoff he took up a easterly heading, until one of his squadron mates asked where in the hell are you going?

Probably just looking for a place that would cash his perdiem checks in dollars instead of yen. ;)

Along those lines I think a large SE US carrier had a couple on incidents back in the 90's where the crew on the wrong airplane and flew it to some other destination than where the pax had purchased their tickets for. Happened more than once as I recall.

Wasn't the Deltoids if it was the '90's. But, in 1980 they landed at MacDill Air Force Base instead of Tampa and Fort Lauderdale instead of Miami. And in 1987 they landed in Frankfort instead of Lexington, Kentucky.

A subsequent influx of Pan Am pilots in the early '90's raised the standards of navigation skills tremendously. :ok:

[Una Due Tfc]

It's happened to me a few times over the years. When I'm accepting traffic in a non standard situation, e.g. on a radar heading from another sector due conflicting traffic I'll click to see where your flightplan says you want to go once clear. If I get the "say that waypoint again" in response it gets my guard up that something might be wrong (ie one of us is dog tired or we are looking at different flightplans).

ATC eff it up too. Remember the Northwest bound for Frankfurt years ago that was routed and vectored into Brussels? The crew didn't notice until they realised the runways in BRU were different colours to FRA.

[The Rage]

Malaysia jet didn't fly wrong way for 8 mins | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/12/29/malaysia-airlines-didnt-fly-wrong-way-for-8-minutes-out-of-auckland/)


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[MTOW]

Back in the days of the Litton 9 waypoint INS, (where the crew had to insert subsequent WPTS manually as earlier WPTS were passed), I was told by someone who should know that (let's leave the company name out of it; sufficient to say "A South East Asian national carrier's") DC10 enroute SFO to Anchorage turned back to SFO after passing WPT 9 - because WPT 1 (and 2, and 3, and 4... all the way to 9) were still in the INS because the captain, who fancied his chances with a young flight attendant, went down the back not long after takeoff and stayed a little longer than anticipated - without briefing the FO to insert the subsequent WPTS.

When he got back to the flight deck and realised the aircraft was heading back to WPT 1 - south east and not north west, there was insufficient fuel to turn back for Anchorage. What ATC's reaction to this was not included in the story. The captain, a local, kept his job.

[RAT 5]

An unsubstantiated story from B742 days: a/c inbound UK from east after a long night flight from further east. No company routes, each WPT' inserted manually. Somewhere over the teutonic continent the a/c started to make a substantial turn around. Captain woke up and noticed the sun in the wrong place. Alerted F/O to the apparent anomaly. The 1st reaction was, "I know what I must have done, E instead of W for the next WPT or added a 1 to the E longitude." F/O dived into the 'box' to correct the error. Captain said, calmly, as he disconnected the A/P and pointed the a/c in roughly the correct direction, "let's get going towards home, and then you can mess about with the box of tricks." KISS.

[Spooky 2]

Air Bubba you're just about wrong on every point you have posted, but no harm no foul since I don't think you understood my posting to begin with.

[Airbubba]

Air Bubba you're just about wrong on every point you have posted, but no harm no foul since I don't think you understood my posting to begin with.

And, let me guess, you happen to be too busy right now to give any examples of how I am just about wrong on every point... ;)

the captain, who fancied his chances with a young flight attendant, went down the back not long after takeoff and stayed a little longer than anticipated - without briefing the FO to insert the subsequent WPTS.


I saw a demo of how not to impress a flight attendant with an overwater navigation system years ago. I was an FE on the B-727 deadheading on my own airline to an overseas assignment on a brand new shiny widebody with the latest in FMS glass cockpit navigation.

The captain was back dozing in his first class rest seat and I was wide awake and bored in the dark at 30 West. I hadn't had any champagne and wanted to see this new fangled computer stuff so I went up to the cockpit and said hello.

The two FO's were busy showing a young flight attendant all the bells and whistles and lights of the modern flight deck.

They wanted to spell her name on the nav displays with a manually entered off track waypoint but 'Katrina' had too many letters. One of the FO's figured that they could do it with two waypoints, one 'KATRI' placed next to another named 'NA'.

In a scene I've witnessed (and participated in) several times in the years since, both pilots went heads down furiously typing on the FMS boxes trying to get the waypoints to line up nicely on the screen. At some point one guy line selected one of the waypoints and the other executed it and the plane started a 90 degree turn in the general direction of KEF, or should I say, KATRI.

Instead of going to heading select to stay on the NAT track, the FO's continued the tandem typing and eventually the plane wallowed back to the proper course.

[Spooky 2]

Well actually you're correct as I'm should be working on a project but let me familiarize you with some facts.


No operator had a greater loss rate on the 707 than Pan Am. There was a reason for that.


After the summer of 1987 at Delta they pulled their heads out of their arses and started doing things by the book and slowly but surely they got their act together, before Pan Am arrived on the scene. The Pan Am pilots were very good but they did not assume management positions for the most part that let them make changes. As far as I could tell Pan Am and Delta used pretty much identical procedures. It was transparent... for the most part.


I have worked for both airlines in the past so I have more than a casual interest in this subject.


I'm sure you will have something to add to this and I appreciate your point of view so don't go off on me with stuff that you might not have as much knowledge about as I do.


Was wondering if you were once a FTL pilot?:)

[RAT 5]

Instead of going to heading select to stay on the NAT track, the FO's continued the tandem typing and eventually the plane wallowed back to the proper course.

Gawd help us if Microsoft Flight simulator ever makes it to the flight deck. You know; that's the one where the control columns are replaced with a key pad and you control the a/c via the up/down/left/right arrow keys. +/- is for thrust control. > = climb: < = descend. You can type in the speed you want, the HDG/TK, the FL. Takeoff is automatic based on speed attained and landing is automatic based on GPS & ground aids.
In fact it all looks so easy for tomorrows geeks & nerds that pilots are now redundant.
I'm still trying to find out which keys are for brakes, engine start/stop. Ah?

[Airbubba]

I'm sure you will have something to add to this and I appreciate your point of view so don't go off on me with stuff that you might not have as much knowledge about as I do.

I can see that you probably have a lot more knowledge than me on most subjects. :ok:

After the summer of 1987 at Delta they pulled their heads out of their arses and started doing things by the book and slowly but surely they got their act together, before Pan Am arrived on the scene.

I was joking about the 783 Pan Am pilots raising standards ;) but the feds were indeed all over Delta after a slew of screw-ups in 1987:

Delta Probe to Focus on Four Suspected Human Errors

July 16, 1987|ERIC MALNIC | Times Staff Writer

A federal investigation of Delta Airlines initially will focus on four safety-related incidents that apparently involved human error, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Frank Leyden said Wednesday.

The FAA is conducting a systemwide investigation of the carrier after at least a dozen mishaps in recent weeks involving Delta jetliners.

The latest incidents occurred Wednesday, when a Delta flight bound for Salt Lake City returned to Los Angeles International Airport shortly after takeoff because a galley door was improperly closed and another bound for Mexico returned to LAX after it experienced a control panel malfunction, the FAA said. No injuries were reported.

Dick Jones, a spokesman for Delta in Atlanta, said that the airline will cooperate in every way it can with the investigation.

"We are every bit as concerned about safety factors as the people at the FAA," Jones said. "We will enthusiastically participate in their review of Delta's procedures."

Leyden said investigators will examine Delta's long-range navigation procedures and training, crew training for routine and abnormal procedures, and pilot training.

The first four incidents targeted for scrutiny include the sudden plunge of a Delta Boeing 767 to within 600 feet of the ocean off Los Angeles when the pilot accidentally cut off fuel to both engines on June 30; the landing of a Delta Boeing 737 at the wrong airport in Kentucky on July 6; a narrow miss and a close pass of a Delta Lockheed L-1011 with other jetliners off Newfoundland on July 8; and another Delta 767 landing on the wrong runway in Boston last Sunday.

"The data collection phase has already begun and is expected to take three to six weeks," Leyden said. "Preliminary results should be available within 90 days. . . . The FAA will initiate immediate action to correct any deficiencies found."

Delta Probe to Focus on Four Suspected Human Errors - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-16/news/mn-4484_1_human-error)

As far as I could tell Pan Am and Delta used pretty much identical procedures.

Pertinent to this long range navigation thread, Delta was forced to adopt Pan Am overwater procedures after the infamous 1987 L-1011 gross navigation error and coverup attempt. You'll remember that the Lockheed almost hit the Continental B-747. You might also remember that the L-1011 then followed the contrail of Clipper Skipper Skip Coolidge in his A310 to radio nav and landfall:

Disturbed by new evidence that bad piloting nearly caused a collision of two jumbo jet airliners over the Atlantic in July, the United States and Canada yesterday announced urgent recommendations for upgrading intercontinental navigation procedures.

The National Transportation Safety Board said the Delta Air Lines crew members whose 60-mile error led to the incident ''did not plot their present or predicted positions'' on a special chart when crossing checkpoints. The Delta plane did not carry such charts, which are recommended but not required by Government rules. Nor did the crew members otherwise verify that they were following the assigned track, the board said.

The board said the two American planes, both westbound from England to the United States and carrying a total of almost 600 people, had flown within about 30 feet of each other. Previous estimates of the distance between the planes was ''100 feet or less.'' The Canadian Aviation Safety Board said only that the distance was somewhere from 30 to 100 feet.

In the July 8 incident, which occurred around midday in clear weather about halfway across the ocean, the three-engine Delta L-1011 and a four-engine Continental Airlines Boeing 747 were assigned to parallel east-to-west tracks 60 miles apart at the same altitude, 31,000 feet. Near Collision Over Atlantic

But the Delta plane gradually strayed south toward the Continental plane's track and, at a slight angle, passed just beneath the 747 to the horror of people on board who, at the last moment, saw what happened.

The consensus among safety experts is that the crew of the Delta plane inserted incorrect data into the inertial navigation system, which automatically guides a plane from waypoint to waypoint, and neglected to check the plane's position.

One way to check would have been to draw the projected flight path on a special navigation chart and, as each waypoint was reached, make sure that the position shown in the computerized navigation system coincided with the position prescribed on the chart.

But the Delta plane lacked the special chart, and checking it is only one of several typical checking procedures that can be used on such flights. Another involves referring to a written flight plan made out before the flight, which is a listing of geographical latitude and longitude coordinates for each successive waypoint on the trip.

Talk of Keeping Incident Quiet

After the near miss, in a radio conversation involving the crews of the two planes and of two other airliners in the area, repeated suggestions were made that the incident not be reported to the authorities. But the Continental pilot firmly refused to go along. The gist of what he said at one point, according to an industry source, was, ''I have passengers pounding on the door, and crying, and they saw the whole thing out the windows.''

Ultimately the three other craft helped guide the Delta jumbo back to its proper track. But the dominant view of Government and industry specialists is that the deviation from course should have been reported immediately to traffic controllers.

The United States safety board addressed this issue in yesterday's action, saying that ''because the incident was not reported in a timely manner, the responsible air traffic control facility was unaware of the gross navigation error'' and therefore could not guide the Delta plane ''to a safe position on a track free of conflicting traffic.''

When the Delta jet returned to its track, the board said, ''it was unaware of the location of other aircraft on the track, and, as a result, it could have created an additional hazard to other aircraft.''

Sharp Criticism of Delta

The sharp criticism of Delta by both the American and Canadian agencies further damaged the image of an airline that, despite an exemplary reputation over the years, has been reeling from the effects of at least four recent dangerous incidents caused by crew mistakes.

In addition to the near miss over the ocean, they included an inadvertent shutdown of both engines that brought a Boeing 767 to just 600 feet over the Pacific, a landing at the wrong airport and another landing on the wrong runway.

The F.A.A. then began a special investigation of Delta, with initial emphasis on pilot training and procedures. Agency officials said yesterday that the inquiry was near completion.

The Delta pilots involved in the near miss have been suspended from flying, a spokesman for the carrier, Bill Berry, said yesterday. But the company declined to say how long the suspension was to last.


STIFF RULES ASKED IN THE NAVIGATING OF OCEAN FLIGHTS - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/04/us/stiff-rules-asked-in-the-navigating-of-ocean-flights.html?pagewanted=all)

[ExSp33db1rd]

......... and of course we can't forget the BOAC Hermes that crashed in the Sahara in 1952 ..... even a passenger noticed that the sun was on the wrong side of the aeroplane.

[Linktrained]

G-ALDN "the Hermes in the desert" had a combination of the " holes in a Swiss cheese" to make it easier to produce the errors.

TRUE courses were to be steered. This required whoever was Navigating that sector to adjust the Magnetic Variation Setting Control to the Local Magnetic Variation = which started at 3 Degrees W , increasing to 6 Degrees W or more during the flight

The V.S.C. was calibrated in TENS of degrees.... With a X10 printed above the calibration. The flight would have started misleading. right from the departure.

IF Tripoli had had VOR installed and operating at that date then the fact that the Hermes was tracking. in the wrong direction might have been apparent. The ADF would have pointed back over the tail.... Whatever direction the a/c was heading, N S E or W.

There were no NDBs available, reliably, on that route.

As a Britavia Hermes F/O I had been trained by B.O.A.C . in the use of the Hughes Periscopic sextant which demanded NOW "improved star recognition" THANKS to this accident.

( Perhaps F/Os did most of the "Chart Table Navigation". Britavia did not employ " Straight Navigators".)

PS The " passenger who noticed..." may have been a steward who had had some N/O training in the R..A.F. Or so we were told.

The VSC had been disconnected and the "X10" painted over. We flew Co (C) instead.

LT

[Spooky 2]

The CAL/DAL incident over the NAT was prior to the water shed events of 1987. Recall that they has also lost a L1011 in DFW.

Delta never adopted any Pan Am International procedures period. UAL on the other hand benefited from a former Pan Am guy who did assume a management position and wrote many manuals that were looked upon very favorably. Can't recall his name now but he was very effective.

Check you PM's:)

[Airbubba]

UAL on the other hand benefited from a former Pan Am guy who did assume a management position and wrote many manuals that were looked upon very favorably. Can't recall his name now but he was very effective.


I believe you are thinking of Hart Langer. He really did clean up Pan Am's manuals and add nice color pictures for folks like me.

Check you PM's

I did, thanks! :ok:

[Spooky 2]

Yep, that's the guy. He brought a ton of international knowledge to the table.

[rottenray]

A wee bit of route confusion and this makes Front Page on prune? Rumour or news???

Well, aside from that...

Reminds me of the Internet Explorer home page that shipped with certain versions of Windows ME.

"Where would you like to go today?"

So let's ship it off to Nostalgia or Computers, eh?


And, Happy New Year!