Narrative:

Day 10 of a 13 day pattern that transited europe, middle east and asia, this was leg hong kong to dubai, uae. Fpr from sikou R399 nng, R474 nob B465 oroga FR3 mia FR1 legob B465, sumag...the portion from nng to sumag was only used once before by dispatch, ie, not the normal routing. En route overhead nng while in the left turn to join R474, we received ATC instructions to turn right direct bse with no initial explanation. I entered bse in the CDU legs page and proceeded direct, and I confirmed a couple more points beyond bse and entered them on the legs page of the CDU. We had great difficulty obtaining further clearance from ATC (naning control) due to the chinese controller's understanding of english and our own requirement to ask questions out of the ordinary for them. We immediately tried to contact our dispatch to verify the new routing as this could affect our redispatch flight plan. Our satcom voice mode turned out to be inoperative and we used ACARS to seek help from dispatch. They were unaware of the rerte and had no idea of any further routing. When contacting the next center, kunming, we pressed them for further clearance to include crossing myanar airspace because of yangon's extremely poor and sometimes non existent radios. We finally got a clearance from kunming center all the way to chila in bangladesh via A599. I entered the points along A599 on the legs page starting with makul as we were proceeding to lxi. We made a position report over lxi in the standard format: 'lxi at (time), 9600M, estimate makul (time), gma next.' over lxi we started to proceed to makul when kunming advised us to turn right to kmg on the legs page and it was a point on A599 between lxi and makul. The kunming controller had not noticed our omission of kmg when we made our position report, otherwise he would have certainly corrected our reported route. I immediately turned right to kmg and resumed our route via A599 to kmg, makul gma, etc until resuming our original route at sumag. Their inability to actually understand our position reports and our only receiving bits and pieces of the new route from each of the chinese controllers' separate airspace contributed to our omission of kmg from our route of flight. Another contributing factor was that our crew was not advised in advance of this significant rerte. Our dispatch department has no answer to this question yet, but confirmed that we had the same routing that they had sent. Additionally, our filed route was again adjusted en route over pakistan when our route conflicted with what karachi control expected us to fly, resulting in another rerte. The rerte was due to inappropriate domestic routing segment in our flight plan. Having spoken with our dispatch upon arrival in dubai, they and I both feel that we may not have had the same exact flight plan as was submitted from hong kong to ATC. Personnel in hong kong may have altered (corrected to the normal routing) the flight fpr before submission, but did not coordinate their actions. This has happened before, according to dispatch. Rertes are dangerous at best in chinese airspace with the inherent language problem. Crew fatigue may have played a role as well as this was the 10TH day transiting 12 time zones.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HDG TRACK DEV OCCURS WHEN THE FLC OF A B747-400 OMITS ONE WAYPOINT ON THEIR AMENDED RTE CLRNC ON FREQ WITH KUNMING CTL, FO.

Narrative: DAY 10 OF A 13 DAY PATTERN THAT TRANSITED EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA, THIS WAS LEG HONG KONG TO DUBAI, UAE. FPR FROM SIKOU R399 NNG, R474 NOB B465 OROGA FR3 MIA FR1 LEGOB B465, SUMAG...THE PORTION FROM NNG TO SUMAG WAS ONLY USED ONCE BEFORE BY DISPATCH, IE, NOT THE NORMAL ROUTING. ENRTE OVERHEAD NNG WHILE IN THE L TURN TO JOIN R474, WE RECEIVED ATC INSTRUCTIONS TO TURN R DIRECT BSE WITH NO INITIAL EXPLANATION. I ENTERED BSE IN THE CDU LEGS PAGE AND PROCEEDED DIRECT, AND I CONFIRMED A COUPLE MORE POINTS BEYOND BSE AND ENTERED THEM ON THE LEGS PAGE OF THE CDU. WE HAD GREAT DIFFICULTY OBTAINING FURTHER CLRNC FROM ATC (NANING CTL) DUE TO THE CHINESE CTLR'S UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH AND OUR OWN REQUIREMENT TO ASK QUESTIONS OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR THEM. WE IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO CONTACT OUR DISPATCH TO VERIFY THE NEW ROUTING AS THIS COULD AFFECT OUR REDISPATCH FLT PLAN. OUR SATCOM VOICE MODE TURNED OUT TO BE INOP AND WE USED ACARS TO SEEK HELP FROM DISPATCH. THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE RERTE AND HAD NO IDEA OF ANY FURTHER ROUTING. WHEN CONTACTING THE NEXT CTR, KUNMING, WE PRESSED THEM FOR FURTHER CLRNC TO INCLUDE XING MYANAR AIRSPACE BECAUSE OF YANGON'S EXTREMELY POOR AND SOMETIMES NON EXISTENT RADIOS. WE FINALLY GOT A CLRNC FROM KUNMING CTR ALL THE WAY TO CHILA IN BANGLADESH VIA A599. I ENTERED THE POINTS ALONG A599 ON THE LEGS PAGE STARTING WITH MAKUL AS WE WERE PROCEEDING TO LXI. WE MADE A POS RPT OVER LXI IN THE STANDARD FORMAT: 'LXI AT (TIME), 9600M, ESTIMATE MAKUL (TIME), GMA NEXT.' OVER LXI WE STARTED TO PROCEED TO MAKUL WHEN KUNMING ADVISED US TO TURN R TO KMG ON THE LEGS PAGE AND IT WAS A POINT ON A599 BTWN LXI AND MAKUL. THE KUNMING CTLR HAD NOT NOTICED OUR OMISSION OF KMG WHEN WE MADE OUR POS RPT, OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY CORRECTED OUR RPTED RTE. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED R TO KMG AND RESUMED OUR RTE VIA A599 TO KMG, MAKUL GMA, ETC UNTIL RESUMING OUR ORIGINAL RTE AT SUMAG. THEIR INABILITY TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND OUR POS RPTS AND OUR ONLY RECEIVING BITS AND PIECES OF THE NEW RTE FROM EACH OF THE CHINESE CTLRS' SEPARATE AIRSPACE CONTRIBUTED TO OUR OMISSION OF KMG FROM OUR RTE OF FLT. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT OUR CREW WAS NOT ADVISED IN ADVANCE OF THIS SIGNIFICANT RERTE. OUR DISPATCH DEPT HAS NO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION YET, BUT CONFIRMED THAT WE HAD THE SAME ROUTING THAT THEY HAD SENT. ADDITIONALLY, OUR FILED RTE WAS AGAIN ADJUSTED ENRTE OVER PAKISTAN WHEN OUR RTE CONFLICTED WITH WHAT KARACHI CTL EXPECTED US TO FLY, RESULTING IN ANOTHER RERTE. THE RERTE WAS DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE DOMESTIC ROUTING SEGMENT IN OUR FLT PLAN. HAVING SPOKEN WITH OUR DISPATCH UPON ARR IN DUBAI, THEY AND I BOTH FEEL THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE HAD THE SAME EXACT FLT PLAN AS WAS SUBMITTED FROM HONG KONG TO ATC. PERSONNEL IN HONG KONG MAY HAVE ALTERED (CORRECTED TO THE NORMAL ROUTING) THE FLT FPR BEFORE SUBMISSION, BUT DID NOT COORDINATE THEIR ACTIONS. THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, ACCORDING TO DISPATCH. RERTES ARE DANGEROUS AT BEST IN CHINESE AIRSPACE WITH THE INHERENT LANGUAGE PROB. CREW FATIGUE MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE AS WELL AS THIS WAS THE 10TH DAY TRANSITING 12 TIME ZONES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.