Narrative:

Departing icn (seoul incheon airport; korea) for pvg (shanghai pudong airport; prc). This flight was a part 121 scheduled cargo flight filed under an IFR flight plan. This flight was also a training flight in which I was the instructor captain flying from the right seat (I am a qualified check airmen simulator/airplane all seats). This was the first flight of a series of flts for a new transition captain from the classic boeing B747-200 to the B747-400. WX for departure and arrival airport was IFR but not adverse except for some cumulonimbus activity forecast and occurring on the arrival pvg. The crew consisted of 3 crew members; 1 training captain (myself); 1 student IOE captain; and 1 additional pilot qualified on the aircraft for 5 yrs. The flight plan was a typical company flight plan except it was 'manually' generated instead of using the normally utilized automated feature for construction purposes. This flight plan contained the departure procedure; en route airways structure ending at a point 'dumet' approximately 60 mi from the airport and omitted the arrival portion that is normally contained in an automated computer generated flight plan. The flight also was the first exposure in flying from feet to meters in a 'glass airplane' for this new captain. During the cruise phase of flight; the 'new' captain loaded and briefed the arrival he thought we would be given (DUMET22A). However; during the briefing we noticed that the arrival and transition (right or wrong) that he selected did not contain the profile waypoints and descent altitudes that the actual and current arrival plate had annotated. The student loaded the 'manually' entered waypoints for the profile descent and were what 'we' thought checked to comply with the anticipated arrival into pvg. Next! Shanghai center passes us off to shanghai approach. We are already passing waypoint 'dumet.' approach states 'radar contact.' approximately 2 mins or so passes and shanghai approach states 'say heading.' aircraft heading was 270 degrees. Controller states that confirm you are cleared for DUMET22A arrival. I now expeditiously enter departure/arrival page of the FMC and reselect the DUMET22A and the appropriate transition. In front of me on both the CDU and navigation display is the arrival with all waypoints and altitudes constraints as depicted on the arrival plate. The navigation display now displays the aircraft approximately 2 mi off course to pud the next waypoint of the arrival as properly loaded. We are actually heading toward the FAF for the active runway in use runway 17. The shanghai approach controller states: 'continue heading 270 degrees for vectors to final; descend and maintain 900 meters.' the rest of flight was uneventful. We apologized for the error to the controller. There appeared to be no consequences of our error with the controller. It appears that the PF (new captain)had initially entered an erroneous arrival; one close but slightly different than the one actually anticipated. The incorrect one entered of course did not have the appropriate waypoints and stepdowns. This required the crew member to now manually build all the constraints required to fly the arrival as depicted. In the future; I will allocate additional time on the departure and climb phases of all flts (especially in a training environment in which these errors are most commonly made and dangerous). Doing this will enable me as PIC to situation back and have the bigger picture of monitoring and managing rather than instructing in a critical phase of flight. If this situation were to occur again I would assume control of the PF duties and brief after the aircraft was on the ground and in blocks and shut down before trying to train a new student in this area.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747-400 FLT CREW APCHING ZSPD EXPERIENCES A COURSE DEV ON THE DUMET 22A ARR DUE TO INCORRECT DATA ENTRY.

Narrative: DEPARTING ICN (SEOUL INCHEON ARPT; KOREA) FOR PVG (SHANGHAI PUDONG ARPT; PRC). THIS FLT WAS A PART 121 SCHEDULED CARGO FLT FILED UNDER AN IFR FLT PLAN. THIS FLT WAS ALSO A TRAINING FLT IN WHICH I WAS THE INSTRUCTOR CAPT FLYING FROM THE R SEAT (I AM A QUALIFIED CHK AIRMEN SIMULATOR/AIRPLANE ALL SEATS). THIS WAS THE FIRST FLT OF A SERIES OF FLTS FOR A NEW TRANSITION CAPT FROM THE CLASSIC BOEING B747-200 TO THE B747-400. WX FOR DEP AND ARR ARPT WAS IFR BUT NOT ADVERSE EXCEPT FOR SOME CUMULONIMBUS ACTIVITY FORECAST AND OCCURRING ON THE ARR PVG. THE CREW CONSISTED OF 3 CREW MEMBERS; 1 TRAINING CAPT (MYSELF); 1 STUDENT IOE CAPT; AND 1 ADDITIONAL PLT QUALIFIED ON THE ACFT FOR 5 YRS. THE FLT PLAN WAS A TYPICAL COMPANY FLT PLAN EXCEPT IT WAS 'MANUALLY' GENERATED INSTEAD OF USING THE NORMALLY UTILIZED AUTOMATED FEATURE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. THIS FLT PLAN CONTAINED THE DEP PROC; ENRTE AIRWAYS STRUCTURE ENDING AT A POINT 'DUMET' APPROX 60 MI FROM THE ARPT AND OMITTED THE ARR PORTION THAT IS NORMALLY CONTAINED IN AN AUTOMATED COMPUTER GENERATED FLT PLAN. THE FLT ALSO WAS THE FIRST EXPOSURE IN FLYING FROM FEET TO METERS IN A 'GLASS AIRPLANE' FOR THIS NEW CAPT. DURING THE CRUISE PHASE OF FLT; THE 'NEW' CAPT LOADED AND BRIEFED THE ARR HE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE GIVEN (DUMET22A). HOWEVER; DURING THE BRIEFING WE NOTICED THAT THE ARR AND TRANSITION (RIGHT OR WRONG) THAT HE SELECTED DID NOT CONTAIN THE PROFILE WAYPOINTS AND DSCNT ALTS THAT THE ACTUAL AND CURRENT ARR PLATE HAD ANNOTATED. THE STUDENT LOADED THE 'MANUALLY' ENTERED WAYPOINTS FOR THE PROFILE DSCNT AND WERE WHAT 'WE' THOUGHT CHKED TO COMPLY WITH THE ANTICIPATED ARR INTO PVG. NEXT! SHANGHAI CTR PASSES US OFF TO SHANGHAI APCH. WE ARE ALREADY PASSING WAYPOINT 'DUMET.' APCH STATES 'RADAR CONTACT.' APPROX 2 MINS OR SO PASSES AND SHANGHAI APCH STATES 'SAY HDG.' ACFT HDG WAS 270 DEGS. CTLR STATES THAT CONFIRM YOU ARE CLRED FOR DUMET22A ARR. I NOW EXPEDITIOUSLY ENTER DEP/ARR PAGE OF THE FMC AND RESELECT THE DUMET22A AND THE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION. IN FRONT OF ME ON BOTH THE CDU AND NAV DISPLAY IS THE ARR WITH ALL WAYPOINTS AND ALTS CONSTRAINTS AS DEPICTED ON THE ARR PLATE. THE NAV DISPLAY NOW DISPLAYS THE ACFT APPROX 2 MI OFF COURSE TO PUD THE NEXT WAYPOINT OF THE ARR AS PROPERLY LOADED. WE ARE ACTUALLY HEADING TOWARD THE FAF FOR THE ACTIVE RWY IN USE RWY 17. THE SHANGHAI APCH CTLR STATES: 'CONTINUE HDG 270 DEGS FOR VECTORS TO FINAL; DSND AND MAINTAIN 900 METERS.' THE REST OF FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. WE APOLOGIZED FOR THE ERROR TO THE CTLR. THERE APPEARED TO BE NO CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ERROR WITH THE CTLR. IT APPEARS THAT THE PF (NEW CAPT)HAD INITIALLY ENTERED AN ERRONEOUS ARR; ONE CLOSE BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE ACTUALLY ANTICIPATED. THE INCORRECT ONE ENTERED OF COURSE DID NOT HAVE THE APPROPRIATE WAYPOINTS AND STEPDOWNS. THIS REQUIRED THE CREW MEMBER TO NOW MANUALLY BUILD ALL THE CONSTRAINTS REQUIRED TO FLY THE ARR AS DEPICTED. IN THE FUTURE; I WILL ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL TIME ON THE DEP AND CLB PHASES OF ALL FLTS (ESPECIALLY IN A TRAINING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THESE ERRORS ARE MOST COMMONLY MADE AND DANGEROUS). DOING THIS WILL ENABLE ME AS PIC TO SIT BACK AND HAVE THE BIGGER PICTURE OF MONITORING AND MANAGING RATHER THAN INSTRUCTING IN A CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT. IF THIS SITUATION WERE TO OCCUR AGAIN I WOULD ASSUME CTL OF THE PF DUTIES AND BRIEF AFTER THE ACFT WAS ON THE GND AND IN BLOCKS AND SHUT DOWN BEFORE TRYING TO TRAIN A NEW STUDENT IN THIS AREA.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.