Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gander Oceanic To LH471 "Gross Navigational Error"  
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 25148 times:

Listening to Gander oceanic on 5649 the other day (25th) I heard the following dialogue :

0219z
YQX selcals DLH471 AL-BM (D-AIHB).

DLH: DLH471 answering selcal.
YQX: DLH471 Gander, ATC requests confirm oceanic routing after 40W
DLH: DLH471 after 40W, the next is 55N 030W then 55N 020W and then RESNO.
YQX: 55N 030W 55N 020W RESNO, Gander.

0228z
YQX selcals the flight again.

DLH: DLH471 answering selcal on 5649.
YQX: DLH471 Gander, routing clearance when you're ready to copy.
DLH: DLH471 go ahead.
YQX: Gander ATC clears DLH471 after passing 40W cleared via 56N 030W 55N 020W RESNO NETKI, go ahead.
DLH: DLH471 is cleared after 40W via 56N 030W 55N 020W RESNO NETKI.
YQX. DLH471 readback is correct, Gander.
YQX: Ah DLH471 Gander, message from ATC.
DLH: DLH471 go ahead.
YQX: Gander ATC advises DLH471, your 30W should be 56N 030W. Where did you get clearance for 55N 030W? Be advised that a gross navigational error may be filed for incorrect oceanic routing.

- long pause -

YQX: DLH471, Gander.
DLH: DLH471.
YQX: Did you copy message?
DLH: DLH471 I copied your message, and er, we are checking again, er, the received message, and I confirm, er, the printed message is, er, 56N 030W.
YQX: OK, you're confirming that your printed message does say 56N 030W?
DLH: That is confirmed, DLH5, er, DLH471, 56N 030W is the printed message.
YQX: Will pass that along to ATC, your printed message does say 56N 030W, Gander.
DLH: That's confirmed.

Oops! What is likely outcome for the crew? Dismissal or just a telling off? Given that the oceanic tracks are generally only 10 degrees latitude apart, that could have resulted in a collision with another aircraft if it hadn't been spotted by ATC.

http://www.liveatc.net has a save of the audio if anyone is interested in hearing it for themselves : http://archive-server.liveatc.net/hf...lantic-NAT-C-Jun-25-2012-0200Z.mp3

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1552 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 25016 times:

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
Oops! What is likely outcome for the crew? Dismissal or just a telling off?

It happens from time to time! Odds are the crew won't hear anything about it, unless ATC makes a big fuss about it. There was no loss of separation or anything, so I highly doubt ATC will make a big deal out of it! It has even happened to us, confusing the wrong VOR on an arrival and then having ATC point out the mistake! Embarrassing? maybe a little, but definitely not worthy of punishment or even a talking to for that matter!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 24869 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 1):
It happens from time to time! Odds are the crew won't hear anything about it, unless ATC makes a big fuss about it. There was no loss of separation or anything, so I highly doubt ATC will make a big deal out of it! It has even happened to us, confusing the wrong VOR on an arrival and then having ATC point out the mistake! Embarrassing? maybe a little, but definitely not worthy of punishment or even a talking to for that matter!

I'm sure it does happen from time to time, mistakes get made, but in all my years of HF listening I've never heard a situation like this before. Remember that the oceanic airspace here does not have any radar coverage and ATC relies on position reports from the aircraft to know where they are and their planned ETA at their next fix, so it's not like they can see them on their screen like they can under normal radar coverage.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 24555 times:

The error would be about 60 nm from 55N to 56N at 030W

Yes, the tracks are separated by 1 degree - so a mistake moving from 56N to 55N would put the aircraft on the NAT course farther south, unless the aircraft was flying the most southerly track of the day.


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 24296 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
Yes, the tracks are separated by 1 degree

Sorry meant to say 1 degree, not 10!


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24191 times:

I wonder when or where this exchange occurred? Namely, how was the error noticed?

As noted, there is no radar, so it is not like an ATC controller noticed the diversion after 40W.

One thing some people don't know, is when using HF to communicate with ATC, you are not actually talking to the controller. You are talking to a "radio operator" that is conveying the message back and forth between the aircraft and the actual controller.

When an oceanic clearance is received by data-link, it is still read back to the "radio operator" that conveys it to the controller. Likely the controller noticed the error in the read-back, then corrected/confirmed it (via the radio operator). Sounds cumbersome, it is, but that is why the exchange above sounded like it did.

My guess, is that the aircraft never even got to 40W before the error was noticed.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24043 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):
My guess, is that the aircraft never even got to 40W before the error was noticed.

He didn't, you're right. He would've been around 45W at 0228z when called initially. The flight still confirmed that they were headed for 55N 030W after 40W even after Gander asked them to clarify.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 23946 times:

Quoting RobK (Reply 6):
The flight still confirmed that they were headed for 55N 030W after 40W even after Gander asked them to clarify.


That would make sense, as that is where they (mistakenly) thought they were cleared. There are a lot of "gotchas" here, and likely one of them "got them".

But ... that is why the system is structured the way it is, and why the mistake was caught.

My guess is that they flight planned 55N030W, and that was entered into the FMS. Then, when the oceanic was received, it was 56N030W. It happens probably 10% of the time, that your oceanic is different from the requested route. A dark cockpit, a feint data-link printer combined with ... I don't know, maybe meal time, maybe fatigue ... all of the Swiss cheese lines up.

Either when reading back the original clearance, or, when position reporting the next way-point, ATC picked up the error. That is why we do what we do, and why 99.999% when an error exists, it is caught.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 23927 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):
Namely, how was the error noticed?

By Gander in the following exchanges

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
DLH: DLH471 after 40W, the next is 55N 030W then 55N 020W and then RESNO.
YQX: 55N 030W 55N 020W RESNO, Gander.

Here the aircraft says they are heading to 55N 030W

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
YQX: Gander ATC clears DLH471 after passing 40W cleared via 56N 030W 55N 020W RESNO NETKI, go ahead.
DLH: DLH471 is cleared after 40W via 56N 030W 55N 020W RESNO NETKI.

Here the Oceanic control reports the correct course waypoint is 56N 030W from the aircraft cleared flight plan. The aircraft acknowledges 56N 030W is correct.

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
YQX: Gander ATC advises DLH471, your 30W should be 56N 030W. Where did you get clearance for 55N 030W?

Here Gander ask for confirmation and WTFO - where did the aircraft come up with 55N 030W

This is why the pilots and Oceanic read back each other. To catch any such errors, which can be very easy to make. Note - at no point in this exchange is there an indication that the aircraft is actually heading for 55N 030W rather than 56N 030W.

Since 56N 030W was on the printed clearance - it was likely entered in the FMS correctly - so the plane would have been flying the correct, cleared course.

Likely - it was just one pilot misspeaking a number on HF, or reading a number wrong off an instrument or piece of paper - not an actual off-course event.


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23771 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
Since 56N 030W was on the printed clearance - it was likely entered in the FMS correctly - so the plane would have been flying the correct, cleared course.

Well no, not at all. If he was flying the correct course then he wouldn't have confirmed his fix for 30W was 55N after specifically being asked by the rad op to confirm his routing. That is why YQX called him. Furthermore, if he'd been flying the correct course as you say, then there would have been no requirement for YQX ATC to threaten to report him for a "gross navigation error". As he hadn't yet got to 40W when this dialogue took place then there was no danger to anyone else, but had he already passed 40W and enroute to 55N 030W as per his own route confirmation to YQX then it could've been a different story.


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23647 times:

Also don't forget that ATC and Radio operators are two separate positions for oceanic. It *could* have been a miscommunication between the Controler and the radio specialist.


My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23142 times:

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):

Oops! What is likely outcome for the crew? Dismissal or just a telling off?

Probably nothing. I think this was picked up before the aircraft was actually off track. Despite having HF for voice comms, I would think that LH aircraft would have been connected by satellite datalink to the controller. Across the datalink, the aircraft automatically transmits position reports, and a number of forward waypoints from the FMC. If the down route waypoints do not meet the clearance, it should generate what is known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) Route Conformance Warning on the controllers screen.

With ADS-C a controller can also see you going off track, if you do not have a clearance to do that, it will also generate a ADS Route Conformance Warning. In the old days with HF we used to fudge it a little, if an isolated cloud was on track, we used to use the "strategic lateral offset" provisions to take a couple of miles to go around it. By the time you got onto the HF, they talk to the operator, then the clearance is sent back to the aircraft, you already had passed the weather, we didn't bother for a few miles. These days even small diversions need a clearance as they produce warnings on the controllers screen, this is done via data-link, and normally is approved very quickly as it is between the aircraft and controller direct.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):
I wonder when or where this exchange occurred? Namely, how was the error noticed?

I think it would have been picked up after the CPDLC/ADS-C position report generating a ADS Route Conformance Warning, hence the controllers request to find out where they got the 55N 030W from. I do not remember how many waypoints forward ADS-C transmits from the FMC (3 or 5 from memory), an ADS Route Conformance Warning should have been before picked up before they started towards that waypoint.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 5):

As noted, there is no radar, so it is not like an ATC controller noticed the diversion after 40W.

They should have had ADS-C, while it is not rader, they should have the ADS automatic position reports updated on their screens.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):

Since 56N 030W was on the printed clearance - it was likely entered in the FMS correctly - so the plane would have been flying the correct, cleared course.

Probably their flight plan was 55N 030W, and that is what was in the FMC. Their clearance was 56N 030W which would have required a change to the FMC waypoint. For flight plans with oceanic waypoints, I normally just download the flight plan directly into the FMC off our flight planning server, all I need to do is put the flight number in, and send the request off, the whole flight plan is then uplinked to the aircraft, this cuts down on errors. The crew needs to check the clearance received against what was filed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22740 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 7):
My guess is that they flight planned 55N030W, and that was entered into the FMS. Then, when the oceanic was received, it was 56N030W. It happens probably 10% of the time, that your oceanic is different from the requested route. A dark cockpit, a feint data-link printer combined with ... I don't know, maybe meal time, maybe fatigue ... all of the Swiss cheese lines up.

You always must check the filed route against the clearance. "I'll read, you check". That's the first thing you do after receiving the clearance. Usually I see a little "route amendment" blurb at the end to confirm that it's different.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21895 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 12):
You always must check the filed route against the clearance. "I'll read, you check". That's the first thing you do after receiving the clearance. Usually I see a little "route amendment" blurb at the end to confirm that it's different.


I don't think anyone here would argue that. That is learned right from your first day of IFR training.

However ...

My area of interest and expertise is Accident Investigation and one of the biggest areas presently being studied is "Human Factors". This type of error described is a lot more common than one would think, and as the crew involved in this example is well trained and tested, the "Human Factors" question would be "how can this happen?"

As I said above, I am willing to bet they were flight planned to 55N030W, but cleared to 56N030W. Simple change right? Easily caught? Why then wasn't it? On top of the reasons I stated above (dark cockpit, fatigue, feint printer, etc.), there is another phenomenon occurring frequently that is a little puzzling. That is, when you are expecting to see X, and you see Y ... chances are almost 50% that your brain will acknowledge X, while looking at Y!

That may well have happened here. They were expecting 55N, they were even looking at 55N on the FMS, but even though the data-link printed out 56N, they actually saw 55N!

That is why in cockpit SOPs are what they are. For example at Air Canada, the flight plan is cross checked from the FMS, then ... the FMS is cross checked against the ICAO filed clearance. A different place, a different format. It may be picked up. Then ... each leg distance is compared! Then ... when using a "user defined" way-point, (of which this is an example), just before each way-point, the next leg Magnetic Track and Distance are compared with the Flight Plan ... again!

Then just to add icing on the cake, the roles are reversed during the check, so that the one typing is not the one reading ..as he is likely to read what he thought he typed, not what he actually typed! And this is in a two person cockpit crew ... you don't even want to imagine the machinations of a three or four person crew!

And still ... these errors happen. Using this occurrence as an example, there were still several levels of safety after the error was made. The next level caught the error. The aircraft never actually went off course.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20727 times:

Quoting RobK (Reply 2):
Remember that the oceanic airspace here does not have any radar coverage and ATC relies on position reports from the aircraft to know where they are

Hi Rob,

I am not sure if Gander uses ADS, but some Oceanic sectors do not operate entirely blind (obviously if the aircraft is not equipped then it doesn't work, I'm not sure about the luftie -400's, however the fact they are SELCALling the flight may indicate no ADS & deffo no CPDLC). I have worked an Oceanic Sector with ADSCPDLC, and we get an automatic error displayed if the pilots FMS flightplan differs from our radar system flight plan. So when there is a mis-match it is easier to spot.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 353 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 19736 times:

To all above posters--very professional discussion and information analysis! Also very informative to myself, a flying enthusiast, but non pilot. Many times on A-net, the discussions become personal and childish. You have set a first class example of how to interact and discuss the info at hand!

Again thanks!   


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 478 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18486 times:

In the vein of what Longhauler said, with the amount of connectivity these days, why isn't some sort of computer matching done on things like this? Surely it's not beyond technology for the aircraft to send the data of where the flight computer thinks it's going to go and match that with what ATC/Oceanic have planned for it? Seems such a simple step that could avoid errors like this.

User currently offlineMHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 778 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18028 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 15):
To all above posters--very professional discussion and information analysis! Also very informative to myself, a flying enthusiast, but non pilot. Many times on A-net, the discussions become personal and childish. You have set a first class example of how to interact and discuss the info at hand!

Again thanks!

I second that !
Espeacially because we non-pilots get to know some of the safety mechanisms that joe public usually won´t even imagine ...

This kind of safety mechanisms really make me feel being "in good hands" when sitting somewhere behind row 0.

... and I enjoy it very much when such topics do not drift towards "Kindergarden" level !



I miss the sound of rolls royce darts and speys
User currently offlineLHBSL From Switzerland, joined Mar 2007, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17312 times:

Hi everyone

Some background informations:
- all A340-600 of Lufthansa are CPDLC equipped.
- The clearance issued by Gander and sent to the aircraft as an ACARS Message and coffirmd by the pilot via an "Approved" button on the ACARS screen; so NO voice readback!
- Gander has ADS; the possition report for each waypoint is sent automatically. You only have to do a SELCAL check with the respective ATC unit.

Regards


User currently offlineearlyNFF From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17026 times:

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 14):
I am not sure if Gander uses ADS, but some Oceanic sectors do not operate entirely blind (obviously if the aircraft is not equipped then it doesn't work, I'm not sure about the luftie -400's, however the fact they are SELCALling the flight may indicate no ADS & deffo no CPDLC).

According to f/n and tailsign, it was an A346, not a -400. Anyway, both of them are CPDLC equipped. There must have been a special reason why this conversation occured on HF radio. Normally, if a flight is logged in on CPDLC, no comm
on HF is required, even route changes are transmitted, and subsequently confirmed by the crew, via that means. I assume, the controller had already noticed a "mismatch":

0219:YQX: DLH471 Gander, ATC requests confirm oceanic routing after 40W

Disclaimer first: I have not flown NAT routes since a couple of years, so not up to date with procedures. Once you got a route change via CPDLC, confirm it, print it, then make changes on your FMS. There was a possibility to transfer the amended clearance directly from CPDLC to the FMS.

There is also a possibility that the pilot monitoring read off the 30W waypoint from his flight plan printout and this had not been updated, although unlikely.

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
Be advised that a gross navigational error may be filed for incorrect oceanic routing.

That was the radio op´s opinion, or the controller´s?

Quoting RobK (Thread starter):
Oops! What is likely outcome for the crew? Dismissal or just a telling off?

depending on the "facts", maybe a date for a coffee with management and/or safety pilots, and a warning/advisory note for the rest of the pilots group.

As it has been said, the flight was most probably not yet off track.

There have been cases of flying a whole track off course, in LH, in the past e.g. B741/2. It happened even to a management pilot, member of the board.

Thats why most of LH pilots know what QVU means (fly 1° north/south of track) 


User currently offlinesaafnav From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13932 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 3):
The error would be about 60 nm from 55N to 56N at 030W

Not to nitpick, but isn't 1° of Longitude always 60nm?

Regards,
Erich



On-board Direction Consultant
User currently offlineMANfan From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2010, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13208 times:

Quoting saafnav (Reply 20):
Not to nitpick, but isn't 1° of Longitude always 60nm?

If you substitute Longitude for Latitude, then yes, in the context of this thread talking about the difference between 56N and 55N, then it is always 60Nm.

Longitude varies considerably between one degree of E or W points, depending on the latitude. It's easy to muddle longitude and latitude in conversation !

MANfan


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12047 times:

Quoting saafnav (Reply 20):
Not to nitpick, but isn't 1° of Longitude always 60nm?

Not always. At the equator (90 degrees), yes, however, at the poles it would be 0nm. Lines of latitude will be equidistant.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineMANfan From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2010, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12009 times:

Just to reassure those non flyers reading this thread, the contact made by Gander OAC to the aircraft is a very good example of the layers of protection built into the system to protect everyone.
It appears an error was made, but the system picked this up, before it became an actual navigational error.

This highlights why position reports are structured to include the "next" waypoint, i.e. not just the waypoint you are now just setting off for, but the one after that as well.

For those unfamiliar with this, we would pass a position report to Gander passing 50W as follows
"Gander, call sign xxx, position. 55N 50W at 0114z ,FL350, estimating 56N 40W at 0202z, next 55N 30W"

It might take a few minutes to pass this position report if the HF frequency is busy (if not in a CPDLC equipped aircraft), but that doesn't matter because the aircraft is heading to 40W, which was checked at the previous position report. The 50W position report crucially contains the "next" point, at 30W.

The error of 55N 30W instead of 56N 30W was transmitted with the 50W position report. This position report might have taken a few minutes to be transmitted (not in this case as CODLC, but for other non CPDLC aircraft), and then needed to be fed into the system by the Gander radio operator. The Gander controller (not working the radios) would then have processed it (not sure what that involves as i'm not a controller) and they picked up the potential error. This would then have been fed back to the radio operator who then contacted the aircraft involved to resolve the discrepency, but all the while the aircraft was en route to 40W, on course.

The system worked, and the error was trapped, before an actual navigational error was flown. It is still called a gross navigational error, as the first line of defence, at the oceanic clearance stage was breached.

Furthermore, there would potentially be another position report at 40W for the error to be detected, and the initial true track would have varied from that anticipated, as the aircraft headed for 55N not 56N.

If the original flightplan paperwork was for 55N (the now incorrect waypoint), this woud need to be trapped by the crew having amended the crew navigation paperwork with updated initial true tracks and distances.

Every operator is different, but following a re-route, which is clearly stated on the oceanic clearance message, and Gander normal highlight with the verbal comment "this is a track change/re-route", so it's not missed by the crew, a crew would normally look up these new figures.

In our airline, we not only amend the navigation flightplan, but we are also required to always plot the route on a flight progress chart and plot our actual position from the IRS/FMC onto this chart 10mins or 2 degrees of longitude (E/W) after passing over a waypoint (even if there is no re-route/track change). This will hopefully highlight that you are not quite heading where you should be.

Probably the biggest trap is on a random route, where the final clearance differs from the anticipated route in more that one place, but crosses the anticipated track in between. For example expecting 55N 50W, 54N 40W, 54N 30W, 53N 20W, DOLIP, but then given a re-route of 56N 50W, 54N 40W, 53N 30W, 53N 20W, DOLIP. The re-route highlighter might lead a crew to implement the route change at 50W, but miss the change also at 30W, because the 40W waypoint was as per the original route.

It is reassuring to see that this incident has highlight the various layers of protection on both the organised track system and the oceanic clearance in general do work, and how important the "next" element of the position report are in trapping errors before they become "actual" gross navigation errors.

As always, we learn, and have to be on our guard, on every flight. I'm sure an open and honest reporting of this mistake will be all that will be expected of the crew. Mistakes happen, it's how they are dealt with when discovered that's just as important.

MANfan


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10286 times:

Quoting earlyNFF (Reply 19):
That was the radio op´s opinion, or the controller´s?

The radio operator is relaying from YQX ATC :

"YQX: Ah DLH471 Gander, message from ATC."


25 MEA-707 : Can someone with a lot of time make a graphic with the intended and potential mistaken routing of the aircraft? I can't really see it for me so far.
26 Post contains links and images zeke : It does Not at all, sometimes it is just easier to make a request via HF, you are limited in what you can send via datalink, it would have been easie
27 MANfan : Does a CPDLC position report not give a "next" position, in the same format as a voice position report ? Genuine question. I appreciate the aircraft
28 speedbird128 : Interesting! On the CPDLC interface on our side of the system, we can send freetext messages, so the possibility of requests would be limited to imag
29 speedbird128 : So the system worked correctly to identify an erroneous input error and correct it. As I said above, I guess communication is perhaps better in duple
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA 767 Crew Smells Smoke, Diverts To Gander posted Tue Dec 8 2009 09:32:15 by YZFOO7F
Gander......Not What It Used To Be! posted Fri Dec 4 2009 03:34:20 by GhYHZ
NW256 MEM-AMS Diverted To Gander. posted Tue Dec 1 2009 01:28:23 by TWA902fly
Qatar Airways B777-300ER (QR052) Diverts to Gander posted Wed Sep 10 2008 09:37:39 by Sargek
Pilot Error To Blame For Crash Of Unmanned Drone! posted Sat Nov 10 2007 13:23:30 by Ferengi80
CO 43 FCO-EWR Diverted To Gander posted Mon May 28 2007 19:55:09 by Nycfly75
New Frontier Jet Inbound To MCO From Gander... posted Sat May 5 2007 18:48:02 by NASCARAirforce
Delta 72 Diversion To Gander Reason? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 09:13:08 by Artsyman
Concorde - Scrapped Due to Mech. Error? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 17:30:53 by Vector2
Blizzard Diversions To Gander (14 Flights) posted Mon Feb 13 2006 06:16:51 by Sebring