HDG TRACK POS DEV.

Date: 1993-10 · Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng

Anomalies: deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|other-airspace-violation-entry-or-exit

Synopsis

HDG TRACK POS DEV.

Narrative

APCHING BUCKS INTXN ON THE BUCKS 3 ARR TO PHL; WE WERE ISSUED A CLRNC TO HOLD AT BUCKS; AS PUBLISHED. PHL HAD BEEN BELOW MINIMUMS ALL MORNING DUE TO FOG; BUT HAD COME UP. THE HOLD WAS DUE TO TFC AND A RWY CHANGE. PREFERRING TO HOLD CLEAN; WE REQUESTED A HOLDING SPD OF 230 KTS AND ZDC REPLIED; 'WHATEVER YOU NEED.' TRACKING INBOUND TO BUCKS REQUIRED ABOUT A 7 DEG R DRIFT CORRECTION. AS WE ENTERED THE HOLD; I TOLD THE FO THAT I PLANNED TO HOLD A 'DOUBLE THE ANGLE ON THE LOW' DRIFT CORRECTION OUTBOUND FOR 70 SECONDS AS A FIRST CUT AT ESTABLISHING A 1 MIN INBOUND LEG. JUST PRIOR TO STARTING THE TURN INBOUND; CTR ASKED; 'ARE YOU STILL IN THE HOLDING PATTERN?' (RADAR SVC HAD BEEN TERMINATED AS WE ENTERED THE HOLD.) WE REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE. CTR CAME BACK WITH 'RADAR SHOWS YOU 3 MI N OF THE HOLDING PATTERN.' WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE TURNING INBOUND; WITH NO FURTHER COMMENT FROM CTR. I TOOK A 40 DEG CUT TO THE HOLDING RADIAL AND WONDERED ALOUD; 'WHAT CAUSED THAT?' THE FO REPLIED; 'OH; YOU APPLIED THE DRIFT CORRECTION BACKWARDS.' SURE ENOUGH; I HAD USED A R DRIFT CORRECTION INBOUND AND OUTBOUND. THIS RESULTED IN A 21 DEG (7 DEGS PLUS 14 DEGS) OFF TRACK HDG AT 230 KTS. A 3 MI ERROR WAS UNDERSTANDABLE. I WAS UPSET AT MYSELF FOR SUCH A BASIC MISTAKE BUT ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE FO HAD NOT MENTIONED IT. WHEN ASKED; HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT THINK IT WOULD MATTER; SINCE WE WERE ON THE CORRECT HOLDING SIDE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT SHARING THAT KIND OF INFO AND I ENCOURAGED HIM TO CALL OUT ANY DISCREPANCY; NO MATTER HOW MINOR OR EMBARRASSING IT SEEMED. THE REST OF THE HOLD WAS NORMAL; EXCEPT THAT AFTER BEING HANDED OFF TO PHL APCH WE WERE QUERIED ABOUT OUR SPD AND WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE HOLDING PATTERN. APPARENTLY; OUR REQUEST FOR A 230 KT SPD HAD NOT BEEN PASSED ON BY CTR. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. I THINK FATIGUE WAS A FACTOR. IN 4 DAYS WE HAD GONE FROM THE EAST COAST TO HNL (24 HR LAYOVER); HNL TO THE WEST COAST (13 HR LAYOVER); THEN TO PHL. THOUGH I SLEPT WELL ON ARR IN HNL; ONLY ABOUT A 2-HR NAP WAS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO DEPARTING HNL AND ABOUT 4 HRS ON THE WEST COAST PRIOR TO THE PHL FLT. FOR ME; THIS TRIP IS VERY DIFFICULT FROM A CIRCADIAN DISRUPTION STANDPOINT. THE REST OF THE CREW SEEMED TIRED AS WELL.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.