Narrative:

Departure runway 7R, cleared rjcc flight plan route, maintain 5000 ft, perch 1 departure, radar, vectors elato. On takeoff we believed that a runway heading climb out was what was required of us by hong kong radar. We climbed out on runway heading, and after a brief climb (3000 ft) we were asked why we weren't in a right turn. We responded that we were expecting radar vectors to elato intersection. We were then given a series of headings to fly to elato intersection. The flight plan we had was predicated on a runway 25L departure. Except for 'radar vectors elato,' our clearance had nothing to do with our flight plan. We (the captain and I) discussed this, and our routing. A question to ground/tower/delivery on VHF 122.55 convinced us that a runway heading climb out was appropriate and expected, in spite of the right turn depicted on the departure plate. This was the second leg of a 3 leg trip from melbourne, australia, to hong kong, to chitose, japan and on to anchorage, alaska. The aircraft is double crewed for this trip sequence. This is a 'legal' (far) trip with 2 crews, and appropriate 'rest' facilities. Nevertheless, I believe that fatigue could have been a factor. Because of being on a 'normal' wake/sleep cycle, the captain and I began our day at approximately AM00 local on sunday at melbourne, australia. Efforts to get additional sleep are problematic, both during daytime in hotels (maids cleaning etc, noise/light) and on the airplane (aircraft noise, temperature, people moving about, and just being wide awake). On a long trip like this, crews try to accommodate each others work/sleep needs, nevertheless on a trip like this with a double crew, one crew is tasked to fly when they should (probably) be going to sleep. I recommend that double crewing of aircraft be eliminated. Although the folks at hong kong ATC 'speak' perfect english because of slight differences in word usage, there is always a possibility for misunderstanding a clearance or a question and response. I don't know what to do about that. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that their schedule required that the double crew fly alternating legs. The first duty period left los angeles with 3 en route stops at honolulu, pago pago and melbourne, australia. The second duty period left melbourne, australia to hong kong, prc, chitose, japan and anchorage, alaska. Each stop required about 2 hours for ground service. The hotel rest periods were during the daylight hours with the hotel and city noises interrupting their sleep. It appears that conditions were so difficult that the trip pairing was changed from a double crew to single crew operation. The additional rest periods required by the single crew operation should greatly enhance the flight crew's performance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SUPPLEMENTAL CARRIER, FLYING A B747-100, FAILED TO FOLLOW THE ASSIGNED DEP CLRNC FROM HKG. ENGLISH LANGUAGE WAS NOT A FACTOR IN MISSED TURN.

Narrative: DEP RWY 7R, CLRED RJCC FLT PLAN RTE, MAINTAIN 5000 FT, PERCH 1 DEP, RADAR, VECTORS ELATO. ON TKOF WE BELIEVED THAT A RWY HEADING CLBOUT WAS WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF US BY HONG KONG RADAR. WE CLBED OUT ON RWY HEADING, AND AFTER A BRIEF CLB (3000 FT) WE WERE ASKED WHY WE WEREN'T IN A R TURN. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE EXPECTING RADAR VECTORS TO ELATO INTXN. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A SERIES OF HEADINGS TO FLY TO ELATO INTXN. THE FLT PLAN WE HAD WAS PREDICATED ON A RWY 25L DEP. EXCEPT FOR 'RADAR VECTORS ELATO,' OUR CLRNC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR FLT PLAN. WE (THE CAPT AND I) DISCUSSED THIS, AND OUR ROUTING. A QUESTION TO GND/TWR/DELIVERY ON VHF 122.55 CONVINCED US THAT A RWY HEADING CLBOUT WAS APPROPRIATE AND EXPECTED, IN SPITE OF THE R TURN DEPICTED ON THE DEP PLATE. THIS WAS THE SECOND LEG OF A 3 LEG TRIP FROM MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, TO HONG KONG, TO CHITOSE, JAPAN AND ON TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. THE ACFT IS DOUBLE CREWED FOR THIS TRIP SEQUENCE. THIS IS A 'LEGAL' (FAR) TRIP WITH 2 CREWS, AND APPROPRIATE 'REST' FACILITIES. NEVERTHELESS, I BELIEVE THAT FATIGUE COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR. BECAUSE OF BEING ON A 'NORMAL' WAKE/SLEEP CYCLE, THE CAPT AND I BEGAN OUR DAY AT APPROX AM00 LCL ON SUNDAY AT MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. EFFORTS TO GET ADDITIONAL SLEEP ARE PROBLEMATIC, BOTH DURING DAYTIME IN HOTELS (MAIDS CLEANING ETC, NOISE/LIGHT) AND ON THE AIRPLANE (ACFT NOISE, TEMP, PEOPLE MOVING ABOUT, AND JUST BEING WIDE AWAKE). ON A LONG TRIP LIKE THIS, CREWS TRY TO ACCOMMODATE EACH OTHERS WORK/SLEEP NEEDS, NEVERTHELESS ON A TRIP LIKE THIS WITH A DOUBLE CREW, ONE CREW IS TASKED TO FLY WHEN THEY SHOULD (PROBABLY) BE GOING TO SLEEP. I RECOMMEND THAT DOUBLE CREWING OF ACFT BE ELIMINATED. ALTHOUGH THE FOLKS AT HONG KONG ATC 'SPEAK' PERFECT ENGLISH BECAUSE OF SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN WORD USAGE, THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDING A CLRNC OR A QUESTION AND RESPONSE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT THEIR SCHEDULE REQUIRED THAT THE DOUBLE CREW FLY ALTERNATING LEGS. THE FIRST DUTY PERIOD LEFT LOS ANGELES WITH 3 ENRTE STOPS AT HONOLULU, PAGO PAGO AND MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. THE SECOND DUTY PERIOD LEFT MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA TO HONG KONG, PRC, CHITOSE, JAPAN AND ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. EACH STOP REQUIRED ABOUT 2 HRS FOR GND SVC. THE HOTEL REST PERIODS WERE DURING THE DAYLIGHT HRS WITH THE HOTEL AND CITY NOISES INTERRUPTING THEIR SLEEP. IT APPEARS THAT CONDITIONS WERE SO DIFFICULT THAT THE TRIP PAIRING WAS CHANGED FROM A DOUBLE CREW TO SINGLE CREW OP. THE ADDITIONAL REST PERIODS REQUIRED BY THE SINGLE CREW OP SHOULD GREATLY ENHANCE THE FLC'S PERFORMANCE.

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.