Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AirAsia flies to Melb instead of KL . Navigation error

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AirAsia flies to Melb instead of KL . Navigation error

Old 7th Sep 2016, 07:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
AirAsia flies to Melb instead of KL . Navigation error

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...vigation-error
garpal gumnut is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 07:40
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
A comedy of errors so hilarious that you couldn't make it up. Thanks for a good laugh to start my day !
HamishMcBush is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 07:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
Hard to believe really.
framer is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 07:44
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,255
Cheezus Christos!!!!!
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 07:57
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 730
Yep, at one point after getting airborne the FO was going to cycle all three ADIRUs to OFF to 'reset the system'. The captain initially said nothing and the FO got as far as turning ADIRUs 1 & 3 off before the captain told him to stop!
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:05
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
"when autopilot engaged at 410 feet," says it all really. As many have suggested in this forum on previous occasions, what is wrong with hand flying the aircraft to (say) 10,000 feet or even transition altitude? Had one of them done this the other might have had time to reprogram the FMC from scratch providing, I suppose, the inbuilt systems in an A330 would allow the flight crew to do this once they were airborn?
Xeque is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 540
Video from the original thread

ATSB Final report


Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 7th Sep 2016 at 08:49.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 901
Obviously unable to fly using "old conventional " nav. & totaly "untrained" in the fmgc as their is an position update facility.
IcePack is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:41
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 89
Colour me stupid

One small planes, a normal check is to make sure the DI and compass are aligned as part of the start-up checks. When flying with a GPS a similar "does the reported position agree with where I am" sanity check during start-up is useful.

Now, colour me stupid, and I am not familiar on type, but if the inertial nav initialisation position is significantly different from the current GPS coordinates, should that not bring up a very large warning that one (or both) are not to be trusted? Or was that the initial warning that they ignored?
paperHanger is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
And what were the Aussie ATC'ers doing when the flight departed radically from its filed route?
Algol is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:53
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 730
ATC was the saving grace in this whole sorry episode. They picked up the aircraft's incorrect tracking immediately after take-off and then provided assistance to help the hapless crew get the aircraft back on the ground. The crew weren't able to do a visual approach back in to Sydney due to the weather, so ATC provided vectors all the way to Melbourne.
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:54
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,455
Getting everyone else out of the way!

A review of the ATC response to this occurrence identified that the controllers carried out several tasks that reduced the risk to both the occurrence aircraft and other aircraft in the area. They were the first to notice and alert the crew to the tracking problem, and provided assistance to identify that the aircraft’s main heading indicators were erroneous. Additionally, ATC quickly resolved a possible conflict with another aircraft lined-up and ready to depart on the parallel runway.
Subsequently, coordination with several ATC units and the availability of continuous radar coverage provided the crew with a safe diversion alternate and vectoring from Sydney all the way to final approach in Melbourne. The captain reported that ATC had prevented the situation becoming a ‘dire emergency’ and that in many ways they had ‘saved the day’.
EGPFlyer is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 08:55
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 540
And what were the Aussie ATC'ers doing when the flight departed radically from its filed route?
From the report page 3
A few seconds later, ATC observed the aircraft turning left, contrary to the SID, and tracking towards the flight path for the active parallel runway, runway 16L. In response, ATC contacted the crew and requested confirmation that they were tracking via the SID and would be maintaining a heading of 155 before turning right. At the same time ATC held another aircraft in the line-up position for departure from runway 16L
More on the ATC response on page 5.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:00
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Thailand
Age: 76
Posts: 492
Don't these big jets have the equivalent of the RAF P12 compass ?How in laymans terms did a large airplane "get lost" after taking off from a large airport!!
oldpax is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,261
paperHanger

I am not familiar on type, but if the inertial nav initialisation position is significantly different from the current GPS coordinates, should that not bring up a very large warning that one (or both) are not to be trusted? Or was that the initial warning that they ignored?
I would have thought so. Some types certainly will warn " check present position" or similar if the entered position is wildy out from GPS.

It's interesting to see (from the report, if I'm reading it correctly), that they manually entered the gate position as a lat/long even though it seems they had GPS. Certainly on a similar type I know of if GPS is available then you must line select the GPS position into the IRS/ADIRU present position "boxes" at the start of the align process ( basically copy and paste), without amendment, precisely to avoid the sort of finger trouble described in the report.

TBH regardless of the above I'd have though there were plenty of other opportunites to catch the foul up before start, let alone takeoff (Gross distance checks, map display checks, etc....).

Last edited by wiggy; 7th Sep 2016 at 10:56.
wiggy is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by oldpax View Post
Don't these big jets have the equivalent of the RAF P12 compass ?How in laymans terms did a large airplane "get lost" after taking off from a large airport!!
They had all kinds of options available to them. They had full VOR and ILS capability and could easily have flown the approach back to Sydney. I guess not having a magenta line scared them.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 358
Children of the majenta line, of course, but will this industry ever wake up to the solution ? It is going to get much worse.
slowjet is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 1,311
The report also states that after almost 3 hours on the ground in Melbourne (during which time system checks found no unserviceability with the aircraft), the same crew flew on to Kuala Lumpur, for a total duty of 14 hours 53 minutes and total flight time of 10 hours 27 minutes.

Am I the only one who thinks it very unwise to continue a duty, obviously into discretion, after a significant incident?
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:50
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
It will be interesting to learn of Air Asia's actions with the crew. Not only did they show a huge lack of procedural knowledge in the flight preparation, and discipline with disregard of warnings and mis-use of checklists, the F/O then exhibited huge lack of technical knowledge in his suggestion and subsequent attempt to realign the IRS's in the air. Not to mention that the view out of the side window after 400' is not what was expected.
"Oh, a/c is turning left and we expect to turn right. Why?" Heads down FMC-ing? Solution: disconnect, ask for vectors and clear critical airspace.
As someone said, why can they not fly an instrument approach to Sydney. They still had 1 IRS it would seem for attitude information.
It seems a little more than a re-training session is required.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2016, 09:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
Are the Australian public happy with their government departments decision to allow this operator to share airspace with them?
It's beyond a joke.
framer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.