Why so many bad landings at Kai Tak?

[witchdoctor]

Been a real anorak and popped over to airliners.net for a browse of the piccies following a link on another thread.

I was absolutely amazed by the number of hair-raisingly shocking landings/approaches being made by the wide bodies there. Is it really that prone to what are probably more accurately called lucky escapes than bad landings, or is it just down to the number of spotters pointing cameras down the runway at this particular airport?

I understand the geography of the place means it is subject to windshear and turbulence from the hills alongside the runway, but is it so much worse here than anywhere else?

Sorry if it all sounds a bit critical or morbid.

[Notso Fantastic]

I'd better let someone else do this one otherwise the Witchdoc will think I am personally sticking pins into him!

Unleash the hounds.......!

[GlueBall]

Maybe that's why the airport was closed, and "moved," many moons ago. :zzz:

[G-ALAN]

Probably something to do with the checkerboard approach they had. I dunno if you heard of it but because of the geography of the place the aircraft could not come straight in, instead they approached at almost 90degrees to the runway and then at a few hundred feet turned almost 90degrees on to finals and had to straighten up very quickly and land on the numbers. Not too hard for something small and quite nimble like a 737 but murder for the big heavies!

[wingview]

Why so many bad landings at Kai Tak?

Why where there so many many more very nice app and landings?!

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

Take a Look at this picture :D :eek:.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/~woody/pics/by-woody/aviation/ke747.jpg

BAe 146-100

[Maxrev]

No brainer really, all of the above:

Nasty winds at Kai Tak certain times of the year, Lots of spotters all waiting with Polaroids waiting for a scrape and a very short Final Approach Fix.

[akerosid]

If you think that's bad (and I've seen worse!), you should have seen some of the AZ M11 landings. How they managed to fly 4 or 5 years into Kai Tak without losing one, I don't know. Some of those landings were humdingers - sterile area, too high, too low, winglet scrapes, the lot ...

Ah, grazie por the memories!

[PAXboy]

Yes, I too have a collection of pics and movies from various web sites. :rolleyes:

The distance between getting the wings level and the pointy end lined up with the black stuff, was so short as to be very, very difficult. On the very short final, the a/c was between tower blocks - you could look out of the window at 300 feet and be looking people in the eye as they hung their washing on the balcony. So the wind slipping around those buildings would probably have chopped up a fully stabilised approach, leave alone when they were still trying to line up!

I'm sure that even in the days of the 707 and VC10, it must have been tricky. I have only been into Kai Tak in heavies, DC-10, 767 various 74's and 340s, the skill of the flight crew was wonderful to behold. It is no surprise that they needed a special endorsement to operate HKG.

From a saftey point of view, the move to the new field (built on a specially extended island at Chep Lap Kok) was overdue. Also, the old terminal was ghastly and zero fun.

The climb out over Hongkong island was wonderful - if you were on the starboard side. Equally, the departure towards the Chequerboard was dramatic with a 'turn on the wing tip' feel.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

This picture shows a engine strike.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/122621/M/

BAe 146-100

[witchdoctor]

Thanks folks,

Obviously a great deal more difficult than I appreciated. Never been there or seen it other than on photos, so difficult to know exactly what goes on. Sorry if you thought I was having a go.

Still seems unfortunate though that almost every picture of Kai Tak on that website shows a poor landing - doesn't really do justice to the crews who (as has quite rightly been mentioned) make many more excellent landings.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

witchdoctor, this is a good landing.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/120239/M/

BAe 146-100

[PAXboy]

I see that my collection has a 'photocopy' of the Instrument Approach Chart for Kai Tak, on the ILS for Rwy 31. This was the approach from the sea, with climb out over the land. This is dated 1996 from the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department. Also another for the approach under discussion on to Rwy 13. :uhoh:

When I was on a project in Hong Kong, I was working near to Stonecutters Island at the international container port and was under the approach for '13' as they headed for the hill. Great fun.

I do not have access to a web site at the moment to display these images, if anyone does, please contact me with a PM and I will send copies so that they can be shown here. Otherwise, I can send them to folks who PM me with the request. That said, I am about to be away from my desk for a few days will not be able to reply immediately.

[moggie]

I'm sure that even in the days of the 707 and VC10, it must have been tricky.

... I used to fly VC10s into there and as long as you planned ahead, made sure you were at the right speed and turned at the right time then you were OK.

Oh yes, you also had to be prepared to admit when it was NOT going well - some airlines/pilots displayed a certain flair for "press-on-itis".

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

How does the old 13 approach into Kai Tak compare with the present curved Canarsie approach into JFK's 13L or 13R ? While not as scenically dramatic, it seems to be about the same technically, with a turn of about 90 degrees on short finals...... In turbulent conditions this too can be quite a ride.

[4PON4PIN]

Carnarsie ! Me Arsie! Kai Tak 13.. piece of wee wee. T-shirts 'n all!
Now Bait-al-Falaj (up t'road from Muscat) R/W 13 on a hot hazy early morn was a real good Rack-It, Hack-It, F**k-It Missed-It type of approach!!;)

[ShyTorque]

The IGS inbound track was 088 degrees and the runway track was 136, so the RH turn on was 48 degrees, not nearly 90 degrees as someone quoted. The MDA was 675ft amsl, with the runway elevation at 15ft.

However, with a southerly component in the wind, the aircraft had to over-bank to to the right in order to line up with the runway. Getting the bank off again at the bottom was the tricky part for the big stuff, that is generally how the engine pod scrapes occurred.

We used to be based just north of the 31 threshold. Some of the 13 arrivals were interesting to see even from that end, especially when you know it's yourself who is going to be involved in any rescue.

The worst (heart stopping) one I saw was a 747 which appeared out of cloud just on approach minima, well to the left of track. As they went around, re-entering cloud, they were turning LEFT towards the 2300 ft hill just to the north side of the runway. ATC were yelling at them to turn right, away from the hills; fortunately they got it sorted out but it must have been very close to the side of the hill.

As the WARNING note on the plate said, "Continued flight on the Instrument Guidance system flight path after passing the MM (middle marker) will result in loss of terrain clearance".

[Tan]

Golf Charlie Charlie


I've done both.. IMHO a fair way to compare them is how well rested the crew is for the approach. Flying into JFK is a domestic flight for us and the crews tend to be younger and better rested because of the domestic factor.

Flying into Kai Tak on the -340 regardless of the crew bunk there is a certain degree of time lag tiredness associated with the approach. Perhaps you are not as sharp as you would be flying domestic both because of the fewer landings and lack of rest associated with long haul flying.

As a matter of interest pilots always found the 13 approach into Kai Tak so exciting that the two jump seats were always occupied by the cruise pilots..

There was one enterprising local fellow that took pictures of every landing which he then sold to whoever was interested..

[Captain Airclues]

ShyTorque

"not nearly 90 degrees as someone quoted"

Perhaps they were refering to the CH NDB approach which was the standard approach before the IGS was introduced. Flew this approach many times in VC10s and 747s in the '60s and '70s. It was still used right up to the end when the IGS was U/S.

Perhaps one of our Cathay brethren can remember the track difference between the CH NDB approach track and the runway?

Airclues

[ShyTorque]

Cap'n A,

I have my last copies of the Kai Tak approach plates (Jepps) in front of me now; they were still current in 1998, just before the move to CLK.

There wasn't a CH NDB, it's actually a VOR / DME! This is on the north end of Cheung Chau Island.

CC was the NDB, on the south end of Cheung Chau, but it was used for a lead-in to the IGS RWY 13 (tracking west then north over Lantau towards the SL / Sha Lo Wan NDB). It was also used for a "visual step-down" to 13. Unless I have a plate missing, which I don't think is the case, that was it.

However!

The CH outbound track for RWY 13 was 045 degrees, turning right onto 131 degrees for the runway 13 so that WAS about 90 right, abeit the MDA being higher at 1040 ft which gave a bit more scope for judging the turn. This approach put the aircraft almost perpendicular to the steep hills ahead, so it was potentially also a bit dicey, with a warning on the plate about the possibility at night of mistaking the lights on HK Island for the correct lights further north. If the pilot made this mistake he would probably finish up in Ocean Park with the dolphins!

BTW, I was based at KT for 4 years and NEVER heard the ATIS give a cloudbase below IGS minima, although it sometimes most certainly was WELL below it! Those tourists needed to keep on rolling in..... :uhoh:

[411A]

Airclues,

In spite of what SkyTorque says, you and I both know that their was a CC (freq 360) NDB approach to rny 13 and, like you, have done it several times, altho in my case, with B707 aircraft.
It even had a 'figure 8' letdown procedure, and resulted in (as I recall) a 13 mile track from CC>SC>RW with approximately a 120 degree track change to final from Stonecutters.
The MDA was 890, as I recall.
Could be a challange on a dark and stormy night, when the IGS tripped off due to heavy rain.
Got really up close and personal with the boats in the harbor.

Ah, for the good 'ole days, reverse thrust and all (and I don't mean engines, either):ok: :E

[Soulman]

Hey Guys,

Just check out Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/) and select Hong Kong - Kai Tak in the Airport dropdown box - guaranteed to provide some very scary/interesting/amazing photos!

Also, this link (http://http://www.hang-out.co.uk/photos/kaitak.html) provides several good images and one movie of the Korean 744 (as pictured above) on the very tricky approach, which is fantastic! :p

I'm sure there are plenty more sites out there which have great info and pictures on Kai Tak, so if anybody comes across them - please post them because we'd all love to see them!

Cheers

Souls.

Edited 11/08 - hopefully the link works now!

[ShyTorque]

411A,

Oops! You have jogged my memory, you are correct, there WAS a CC letdown, and I have flown it myself! I think it was probably withdrawn in about 1996.

Your reference to the figure of 8 reminded me of it. I'll have another dig around to see if I can find that plate too.

My senility is obviously setting in quicker than I had realised... :\

EDIT:

Found it! It was in another place, I had obviously removed it from my personal aide-memoire booklet because it was no longer in use towards the end of my time out there. There was also a similar but abbreviated CC approach, that ran in from the TH NDB, out to the east.

Thinking back more a little more clearly now (!), we seldom used the CC approaches in anger because we operated VFR well below the wx limits required to utilise them and we could let down over the sea IFR to VFR and come in through the harbour.

The hold was on 041 inbound at 3500 ft. The figure of 8 descent was 251/041, then the inbound towards Stonecutters NDB (SC) was also 041. From there it was a visual approach following the curved set of lead-in lights (across the roof-tops etc) to the runway, a 90 right but a relatively shallow turn, given the distance out it commenced from. The MDA was 780 ft and the minimum vis. was 4000 metres for Cat D, and 3200 for Cat A.

Strangely, you needed to be able to receive the CH DME. It might have been for this reason that these NDB approaches were phased out. They were superfluous if you could receive the CH VOR/DME and that approach, already mentioned, was a bit less taxing!

[phnuff]

Hey Soulman, I think you need to look at your link to hang-out.co.uk !!

Having said that, I found my on way there - wow!! Well worth a look, especially the beared A340 shots

[Soulman]

Hey phnuff,

Point taken - the link seems faulty. I tried editing my post and replacing the old, faulty link with the new one - same result - :mad:

Just try Hang-Out (http://www.hang-out.co.uk/), click on photos, then follow the link to 'Kai Tak', hope it all works now!

Cheers,

Souls.

[jungly]

In the video clip at www.hang-out.co.uk have a look at the windsock.

The "tightening crosswind" was a major factor but also contributing was the tailwind down the IGS.

As such there was a large power requirement at the same time as making a tight"ish" turn on to Final.

(If youre not an airline pilot.... also consider that with underslung engine pods, a large power application also gives a large pitching [up] moment ....again, just as in fact you really want to keep the aircraft going down!)

Concur with one of the first responses though........a well flown IGS........GLORIOUS!