HK AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL BLOG
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Somewhere in the Four Corners
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I can, how about 05:00 - 06:00? Other airport works are done between the hours of 01:00 - 06:00 to minimise the impact on operations, why not an ILS flight check?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try to ask your company to question CAD. I cannot put the reason in public forum.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a daylight only requirement to do the flightcheck?
Yeah I can, how about 05:00 - 06:00?
Last edited by bekolblockage; 26th May 2014 at 23:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R/T and SPEED CONTROL QUESTIONS
1. During busy periods when HK Director (119.5) is in use, it seems implied that we check in with our call sign only (no altitude, speed, heading). Is this officially published anywhere or is it simply local knowledge?
The HK AIP doesn’t differentiate between checking in on Director as opposed to any other HK sector; ie., AIP ENR 1.1.2 requires: callsign, level and cleared level in all cases. Operational FAD controllers are in favour of the change to callsign only and it was recommended some years ago but was not taken forward. The HKATCA will approach the officer in charge for his consideration.
2. On approach to RWY 07L we are typically assigned 220 kts at around 30 nm to touchdown. For the 'procedural approach' to RWY 07L there is a speed of 180 kts at Tonic. When being vectored for the approach (non-procedural) are we able to automatically ignore the previously assigned 220 kts and reduce to 180 kts when on base?
No, you cannot slow as the current ATC clearance applies (in this case 220 kts). Half the guys I fly with request speed reduction and half simply start slowing down. Yes, I would too, as a stable-approach would be foremost in my mind and the principle of aviate, navigate and communicate applies - but I would certainly advise the Director that I’m slowing down. From the HKATCA perspective, stable-approaches are a safety issue and the HKATCA strongly supports air traffic management’s efforts to drastically reduce the amount of vectoring inside of the IAF’s.
Thanks again for the blog.
It's a great source of knowledge.
Answers courtesy of APP Control
The HK AIP doesn’t differentiate between checking in on Director as opposed to any other HK sector; ie., AIP ENR 1.1.2 requires: callsign, level and cleared level in all cases. Operational FAD controllers are in favour of the change to callsign only and it was recommended some years ago but was not taken forward. The HKATCA will approach the officer in charge for his consideration.
2. On approach to RWY 07L we are typically assigned 220 kts at around 30 nm to touchdown. For the 'procedural approach' to RWY 07L there is a speed of 180 kts at Tonic. When being vectored for the approach (non-procedural) are we able to automatically ignore the previously assigned 220 kts and reduce to 180 kts when on base?
No, you cannot slow as the current ATC clearance applies (in this case 220 kts). Half the guys I fly with request speed reduction and half simply start slowing down. Yes, I would too, as a stable-approach would be foremost in my mind and the principle of aviate, navigate and communicate applies - but I would certainly advise the Director that I’m slowing down. From the HKATCA perspective, stable-approaches are a safety issue and the HKATCA strongly supports air traffic management’s efforts to drastically reduce the amount of vectoring inside of the IAF’s.
Thanks again for the blog.
It's a great source of knowledge.
Answers courtesy of APP Control
Can "HKG Radar" controllers please stop slowing down aircraft 15nm before CYBER expecting us to make the FL260 restriction...
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
Last edited by AQIS Boigu; 21st Jun 2014 at 13:07.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can "HKG Radar" controllers please stop slowing down aircraft 15nm before CYBER expecting us to make the FL260 restriction...
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPEED and LEVEL RESTRICTIONS INBOUND
Can "HKG Radar" controllers please stop slowing down aircraft 15nm before CYBER expecting us to make the FL260 restriction...
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
Terminal South (HK Radar 126,3) is the affected sector in the instance you’ve cited but the fundamental principle of “aircraft cannot slow down and get down” is universal.
Tactical
The Terminal controllers presiding over CYBER, SONNY & MAPLE are trained to address this issue with either of two simple methods:
1) The speed restriction should only be applied at the way-point (not before); eg., “At CYBER; reduce speed to 250 kts and descend to reach FL130 by MANGO.”
2) If a speed restriction is imperative, the level restriction at the affected way-point must be cancelled; eg.,”Reduce speed to 250 kts, cancel CYBER level restriction.”
Strategic
When the HK Flow Manager requires arrivals to reduce speed to absorb delay, the controlling sectors prior to MAPLE, CYBER and SONNY shall be responsible for issuing the requirement; eg., “Arrange your descent to be 230 kts by CYBER, when ready descend to reach FL260 by CYBER.”
The Association understands your frustration as we view this as a failure by individuals to understand the basics of managing an aircraft’s energy condition. If aircrew do not experience service as advised above, then they should immediately advise the responsible controller that they cannot comply with the affected way-point level restriction.
We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.
How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."
Thanks,
AB
Terminal South (HK Radar 126,3) is the affected sector in the instance you’ve cited but the fundamental principle of “aircraft cannot slow down and get down” is universal.
Tactical
The Terminal controllers presiding over CYBER, SONNY & MAPLE are trained to address this issue with either of two simple methods:
1) The speed restriction should only be applied at the way-point (not before); eg., “At CYBER; reduce speed to 250 kts and descend to reach FL130 by MANGO.”
2) If a speed restriction is imperative, the level restriction at the affected way-point must be cancelled; eg.,”Reduce speed to 250 kts, cancel CYBER level restriction.”
Strategic
When the HK Flow Manager requires arrivals to reduce speed to absorb delay, the controlling sectors prior to MAPLE, CYBER and SONNY shall be responsible for issuing the requirement; eg., “Arrange your descent to be 230 kts by CYBER, when ready descend to reach FL260 by CYBER.”
The Association understands your frustration as we view this as a failure by individuals to understand the basics of managing an aircraft’s energy condition. If aircrew do not experience service as advised above, then they should immediately advise the responsible controller that they cannot comply with the affected way-point level restriction.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to Psycho a bit.
I wouldn't blame the outer "HK Radar" controller or the Flow Controller too much for this late notice reduction.
As described in an article in Crew News last year, the problem is our sequencing "horizon" is pretty much exactly where you talk about being slowed.
The Flow (and the AMAN system) are holding off waiting to see the SIERA traffic (almost 30% of our arrivals). The problem is the limited time before SIERA that we get your SSR into the flight data processor from Guangzhou and hence your target correlates and starts accurately processing in the AMAN. Usually that happens around 15 minutes from SIERA (if we are lucky), which is only 28 mins from touch on 07. Guess where you are 28 from touch when coming from the south? Exactly where you say you were.
There is no point second guessing who is number 1 before we see them and even if the SIERA is judged to be 1 second ahead at the runway, you will suddenly jump back almost 2 minutes on the timeline. Put a stream of European flights there as happens in the afternoon and you suddenly can go backwards 4 or 5 spots. So flow controllers are told not to "set" the sequence too far out and en-route controllers are told not to slow aircraft (except for within their own group of aircraft to spread them out) until the stabilized point on the timeline is reached.
Of course the counter arguement is, well just make the ones we can see number 1 and bugger the others for a couple of extra minutes. Thats ok if you are CX/KA with 42% of flights and its swings and roundabouts but if it happens to be your airline's only flight into HK for the day you jump up and down wanting to know why you were delayed just for controller "convenience".
We are expecting with ADS-B in the new radar system that our horizon will be greatly increased as we will not be reliant on the transfer of SSR code data but the unique 16-bit ADS-B code of your aircraft on the FPL. We should be able to see you around 250NM northwest.
I wouldn't blame the outer "HK Radar" controller or the Flow Controller too much for this late notice reduction.
As described in an article in Crew News last year, the problem is our sequencing "horizon" is pretty much exactly where you talk about being slowed.
The Flow (and the AMAN system) are holding off waiting to see the SIERA traffic (almost 30% of our arrivals). The problem is the limited time before SIERA that we get your SSR into the flight data processor from Guangzhou and hence your target correlates and starts accurately processing in the AMAN. Usually that happens around 15 minutes from SIERA (if we are lucky), which is only 28 mins from touch on 07. Guess where you are 28 from touch when coming from the south? Exactly where you say you were.
There is no point second guessing who is number 1 before we see them and even if the SIERA is judged to be 1 second ahead at the runway, you will suddenly jump back almost 2 minutes on the timeline. Put a stream of European flights there as happens in the afternoon and you suddenly can go backwards 4 or 5 spots. So flow controllers are told not to "set" the sequence too far out and en-route controllers are told not to slow aircraft (except for within their own group of aircraft to spread them out) until the stabilized point on the timeline is reached.
Of course the counter arguement is, well just make the ones we can see number 1 and bugger the others for a couple of extra minutes. Thats ok if you are CX/KA with 42% of flights and its swings and roundabouts but if it happens to be your airline's only flight into HK for the day you jump up and down wanting to know why you were delayed just for controller "convenience".
We are expecting with ADS-B in the new radar system that our horizon will be greatly increased as we will not be reliant on the transfer of SSR code data but the unique 16-bit ADS-B code of your aircraft on the FPL. We should be able to see you around 250NM northwest.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm here, here's one for you guys.
We recently introduced some revised level restrictions on the SIERA/CANTO STARs to alleviate some problems with the steep descent profile from MURRY on 07.
This is an opportunity for a bit of an education process for both sides.
ICAO has faffed around on and off again over the past few years with the need for the controller to reiterate altitude requirements/restrictions, where we are at the pojnt where nobody knows what they are meant to do.
PANS-ATM has now clarifed that altitude restrictions on SIDs/STARs must be adhered to unless explicitly cancelled by the controller.
The whole objective is to cut down on the R/T.
Unfortunately, nobody in their right mind will trust aircraft to follow the published steps and base separation on them now, given the to-ing and fro-ing from ICAO.
The new SIERA/CANTO STARs are a good opportunity to at least gain some confidence that aircraft can simply be descended to FL110 without saying anything else and you will cross CANTO at or above F130 and MURRY between 130 and 110.
Again, I would say no controller would issue such an instruction if there is a Shenzhen departure immediately beneath you at F120. They would be mad to at this stage.
But you guys can start to do your bit by not asking "is that unrestricted?" when you are given descent to F110 outside CANTO on the STAR. I know most controllers will come back with "affirm" but that just reinforces the whole uncertainty again.
Please just follow the published restrictions. We know its actually not a restriction- you never get near F130 before CANTO, so just don't say anything and leave it in the box.
Gradually I hope both sides will start to trust that these type of procedures can work and we can introduce in other areas to cut down immensely on R/T.
Thanks!
We recently introduced some revised level restrictions on the SIERA/CANTO STARs to alleviate some problems with the steep descent profile from MURRY on 07.
This is an opportunity for a bit of an education process for both sides.
ICAO has faffed around on and off again over the past few years with the need for the controller to reiterate altitude requirements/restrictions, where we are at the pojnt where nobody knows what they are meant to do.
PANS-ATM has now clarifed that altitude restrictions on SIDs/STARs must be adhered to unless explicitly cancelled by the controller.
The whole objective is to cut down on the R/T.
Unfortunately, nobody in their right mind will trust aircraft to follow the published steps and base separation on them now, given the to-ing and fro-ing from ICAO.
The new SIERA/CANTO STARs are a good opportunity to at least gain some confidence that aircraft can simply be descended to FL110 without saying anything else and you will cross CANTO at or above F130 and MURRY between 130 and 110.
Again, I would say no controller would issue such an instruction if there is a Shenzhen departure immediately beneath you at F120. They would be mad to at this stage.
But you guys can start to do your bit by not asking "is that unrestricted?" when you are given descent to F110 outside CANTO on the STAR. I know most controllers will come back with "affirm" but that just reinforces the whole uncertainty again.
Please just follow the published restrictions. We know its actually not a restriction- you never get near F130 before CANTO, so just don't say anything and leave it in the box.
Gradually I hope both sides will start to trust that these type of procedures can work and we can introduce in other areas to cut down immensely on R/T.
Thanks!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUNWAY CHANGES
Several taxying aircraft have had to return to the gate due to weight issues following a runway change or failed to meet a departure restriction enabling them to arrive prior to curfew at destination.
Runway changes for ATC and airport operations are not always predictable, but involve many factors. For instance if an aircraft is taxiing for departure with a critical departure slot time and the runway changes, there is every possibility the aircraft will miss that slot. We will endeavour to stretch the system to accommodate but HK ATC can't operate with the primary focus on a very small number of aircraft. ATC must consider the majority. In the case of a forced runway change, there will be no leeway available.
How do we change runways?
A PLANNED CHANGE
We do two types of runway changes. General criteria is that if downwind exceeds 10KT dry, 5kt wet runway, TWR will initiate a 'change at your convenience' to APP. They'll assess the traffic to see if there is an advantageous gap or least disruption point in the sequence. Sometimes it can be rapid within 10-15 minutes, but more commonly 30-45 minutes. TWR is then issued a clearance expiry time for the old runway. With an absolute minimum of exceptions, it is hard and fast. We are very conscious of the fact that if an aircraft is at the hold and needs to be changed, it will be a considerable delay till departure is possible. This is especially the case for 07. It the aircraft is an eastbound departure, converting to RWY25 will involve an 8 minute taxi, probably 10 minutes of delay at the opposite end until the change is complete and add about 30 track miles or more once the aircraft is airborne to be in a similar point to had it departed 07. So we push the traffic as much as possible. This is one area we'd like to highlight to aircrew regarding the time they waste during the last portion of taxy on to the runway and to eventually roll. Crews think they are expeditious, but they waste significant time. It is simply an awareness issue. If we were to have a 10 aircraft queue to depart off the old runway, every crew must play their part to ensure number 10 gets away. A lot of misses come from the poor actions of number 2, 3 or 4 in the sequence. It's not just down to the last aircraft being expeditious.
A FORCED CHANGE
A very quick change due to the passage of weather where the selected runway is just no longer suitable. They are usually preceded by one or two missed approaches.
Many crews seem perplexed that we are operating on a downwind runway. A case in point during recent bad weather. 8 kts of tailwind on RWY 25 for about an hour and we persisted without changing. If a change had have been initiated, it would have caused a double change as the wind eventually returned to a westerly. The average holding at the time was 20 minutes +. To accommodate a double change under those circumstances in a relatively short space of time, would have incurred a dramatic increase in holding. It really is a considered compromise. Sometimes traffic operating in downwind conditions may just be one of a number in the queue to operate on the old runway and a change is already in the pipeline. As a general rule, ATC considers the impact of a runway change on the performance of departure traffic more than the arrivals.
What latitude is there extend the use of a runway to get one or two away on the old runway to avoid a significant time/ cost penalty to those aircraft.
Regarding the expiry times issued to the TWR, we've been instructed not to hassle APP for alterations and it is consistent practice worldwide. If you have an inbound flow and HKIA is at capacity, a runway change severs the flow and the terminal controllers workload spikes significantly trying to delay traffic and create a new sequence for the next runway in the most expeditious and fair manner. So the dictum is that traffic in the air should always have priority to those on the ground. This will impact many sectors and they are all sequencing with each other. It's as if there are many many cogs and you create a plan to merge them, if you alter the timing it has a huge impact not just on time, but safety. Naturally by favouring one or two you will incur a much greater delay to the inbound sequence and the overall traffic handling of the airport.
Questioning Clearance Delivery on future developments
Putting questions to clearance delivery on expected delays or what runway will be in use in 20-30 minutes, has a very low accuracy value. This position can get overwhelmed with workload. It is most commonly volume of traffic and the extensive co-ordination requirements that obviously are not reflected on the frequency. This position has no control over airspace and therefore no jurisdiction. Final approval comes from the relevant sector that the aircraft will depart in. A restriction may be an existing flow on a specific route, minutes in trail of a specific callsign, or a clearance expiry time to allow the blending of that aircraft with through-area traffic. Aircraft request an update where they'll be ready in 5 minutes, then report ready in 30 and vice versa. From the time a call is made questioning departure restrictions they almost certainly will change. Guangzhou may impose a very restrictive departure flow without warning. If you return to call ready to start and you are now number 5 with 15 minutes between departures, your previous request serves no purpose other than for you to consider that ATC has no idea of what we are doing.
It is common during summer for the terminal controllers to be unable to process traffic in an efficient manner. i.e. they get overloaded and for safety reasons, will quickly restrict the flow of traffic to maintain control. For routes V1-V5 are commonly restricted due to deviations shortly after departure. For V10-V12 it may be a separation requirement departing our airspace.
And the red light for the terminal controllers is "stop departures". All combinations of HKATC, Guangzhou, neighbouring FIR requirements or purely traffic unable to depart due CB's on our very restrictive initial departure tracks.
During adverse weather, delays are caused because aircraft can't or won't fly in accordance with their clearance. Remember this the next time you are in weather and you ask to deviate simply for ride comfort through cumulus cloud or rain. Deviating off track will always have consequences. ATC can have a high volume of traffic prepared to maintain track and a small minority not. The impact on airspace capability varies with the number of deviations. So ATC don't delay aircraft, it is always weather or other traffic delaying aircraft. A small anomaly that often gets overlooked.
The person working clearance delivery usually does not have the time to accurately track the weather conditions nor the intentions of the controllers around them that will make that call. Many people working this position are very junior and many have not yet attended an ATC course. They have limited understanding of the complex interactions surrounding a runway change, other than being directed by the supervisor, coordinator or ground controller.
Delays at HKIA can be ad hoc with little warning. So please before you ask the question of clearance in the future, just be warned the answer you get will most likely have so many variables involved that it is not useful. We contend it is not worthwhile asking. Yet many times on this frequency, the workload is dominated by endless calls of this nature. In effect you are only delaying yourself and others by occupying the one person who can get you moving when it counts.
Runway changes for ATC and airport operations are not always predictable, but involve many factors. For instance if an aircraft is taxiing for departure with a critical departure slot time and the runway changes, there is every possibility the aircraft will miss that slot. We will endeavour to stretch the system to accommodate but HK ATC can't operate with the primary focus on a very small number of aircraft. ATC must consider the majority. In the case of a forced runway change, there will be no leeway available.
How do we change runways?
A PLANNED CHANGE
We do two types of runway changes. General criteria is that if downwind exceeds 10KT dry, 5kt wet runway, TWR will initiate a 'change at your convenience' to APP. They'll assess the traffic to see if there is an advantageous gap or least disruption point in the sequence. Sometimes it can be rapid within 10-15 minutes, but more commonly 30-45 minutes. TWR is then issued a clearance expiry time for the old runway. With an absolute minimum of exceptions, it is hard and fast. We are very conscious of the fact that if an aircraft is at the hold and needs to be changed, it will be a considerable delay till departure is possible. This is especially the case for 07. It the aircraft is an eastbound departure, converting to RWY25 will involve an 8 minute taxi, probably 10 minutes of delay at the opposite end until the change is complete and add about 30 track miles or more once the aircraft is airborne to be in a similar point to had it departed 07. So we push the traffic as much as possible. This is one area we'd like to highlight to aircrew regarding the time they waste during the last portion of taxy on to the runway and to eventually roll. Crews think they are expeditious, but they waste significant time. It is simply an awareness issue. If we were to have a 10 aircraft queue to depart off the old runway, every crew must play their part to ensure number 10 gets away. A lot of misses come from the poor actions of number 2, 3 or 4 in the sequence. It's not just down to the last aircraft being expeditious.
A FORCED CHANGE
A very quick change due to the passage of weather where the selected runway is just no longer suitable. They are usually preceded by one or two missed approaches.
Many crews seem perplexed that we are operating on a downwind runway. A case in point during recent bad weather. 8 kts of tailwind on RWY 25 for about an hour and we persisted without changing. If a change had have been initiated, it would have caused a double change as the wind eventually returned to a westerly. The average holding at the time was 20 minutes +. To accommodate a double change under those circumstances in a relatively short space of time, would have incurred a dramatic increase in holding. It really is a considered compromise. Sometimes traffic operating in downwind conditions may just be one of a number in the queue to operate on the old runway and a change is already in the pipeline. As a general rule, ATC considers the impact of a runway change on the performance of departure traffic more than the arrivals.
What latitude is there extend the use of a runway to get one or two away on the old runway to avoid a significant time/ cost penalty to those aircraft.
Regarding the expiry times issued to the TWR, we've been instructed not to hassle APP for alterations and it is consistent practice worldwide. If you have an inbound flow and HKIA is at capacity, a runway change severs the flow and the terminal controllers workload spikes significantly trying to delay traffic and create a new sequence for the next runway in the most expeditious and fair manner. So the dictum is that traffic in the air should always have priority to those on the ground. This will impact many sectors and they are all sequencing with each other. It's as if there are many many cogs and you create a plan to merge them, if you alter the timing it has a huge impact not just on time, but safety. Naturally by favouring one or two you will incur a much greater delay to the inbound sequence and the overall traffic handling of the airport.
Questioning Clearance Delivery on future developments
Putting questions to clearance delivery on expected delays or what runway will be in use in 20-30 minutes, has a very low accuracy value. This position can get overwhelmed with workload. It is most commonly volume of traffic and the extensive co-ordination requirements that obviously are not reflected on the frequency. This position has no control over airspace and therefore no jurisdiction. Final approval comes from the relevant sector that the aircraft will depart in. A restriction may be an existing flow on a specific route, minutes in trail of a specific callsign, or a clearance expiry time to allow the blending of that aircraft with through-area traffic. Aircraft request an update where they'll be ready in 5 minutes, then report ready in 30 and vice versa. From the time a call is made questioning departure restrictions they almost certainly will change. Guangzhou may impose a very restrictive departure flow without warning. If you return to call ready to start and you are now number 5 with 15 minutes between departures, your previous request serves no purpose other than for you to consider that ATC has no idea of what we are doing.
It is common during summer for the terminal controllers to be unable to process traffic in an efficient manner. i.e. they get overloaded and for safety reasons, will quickly restrict the flow of traffic to maintain control. For routes V1-V5 are commonly restricted due to deviations shortly after departure. For V10-V12 it may be a separation requirement departing our airspace.
And the red light for the terminal controllers is "stop departures". All combinations of HKATC, Guangzhou, neighbouring FIR requirements or purely traffic unable to depart due CB's on our very restrictive initial departure tracks.
During adverse weather, delays are caused because aircraft can't or won't fly in accordance with their clearance. Remember this the next time you are in weather and you ask to deviate simply for ride comfort through cumulus cloud or rain. Deviating off track will always have consequences. ATC can have a high volume of traffic prepared to maintain track and a small minority not. The impact on airspace capability varies with the number of deviations. So ATC don't delay aircraft, it is always weather or other traffic delaying aircraft. A small anomaly that often gets overlooked.
The person working clearance delivery usually does not have the time to accurately track the weather conditions nor the intentions of the controllers around them that will make that call. Many people working this position are very junior and many have not yet attended an ATC course. They have limited understanding of the complex interactions surrounding a runway change, other than being directed by the supervisor, coordinator or ground controller.
Delays at HKIA can be ad hoc with little warning. So please before you ask the question of clearance in the future, just be warned the answer you get will most likely have so many variables involved that it is not useful. We contend it is not worthwhile asking. Yet many times on this frequency, the workload is dominated by endless calls of this nature. In effect you are only delaying yourself and others by occupying the one person who can get you moving when it counts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRCREW MINIMISING DELAYS
From ATC: Not sure if aircrew are aware of the impact of not taxying into the line up position expeditiously and then rolling when take-off clearance is issued. If you lose 30 seconds in just one departure, in two departure slots ATC could have been able to release 3 aircraft instead of two. Seems insignificant, but if there are 10 or more in the outbound queue each aircraft is penalised by that amount. If you're arriving at the back of the queue it is feasible you've got 3-5 minutes of delay caused by poor anticipation and reaction time of those preceeding you. The delay is not restricted to only the following aircraft.
A suggestion is for the next departure to have the nose wheel coming onto the centreline as the preceding is rotating. It is only in this manner that we can significantly reduce departure delays just by changing entrenched bad habits.
Many crews complain about the uphill slope from intersection J2. However, just as many crews anticipate and are able to cope well by utilising better anticipation and a more suitable application of thrust for the gradient.
The other issue causing delays is that aircraft taxy and hold well short of the holding point. It is simply not possible to be in a position to use the runway should you get the call and you're stationary 200M from the holding point.
The next area to assist is to accelerate consistently after airborne. Even in the same airline, occasionally crews will delay to a much higher altitude than we expect. If TWR has to wait to see a consistent speed on climb out before releasing the next departure, instead of achieving roughly 4NM separation (it is possible to use the minimum of 3NM medium to medium or heavy following a medium), the result is 6-7NM. If you are following a business jet, please anticipate an early release.
The overall impact is astonishing if these two areas were handled consistently well. Anticipate a line up clearance if you have no aircraft between you and the holding point you'll greatly assist in reducing holding queues and fuel burn for all users. If we are forced to move more traffic we have to strive for efficiency.
A suggestion is for the next departure to have the nose wheel coming onto the centreline as the preceding is rotating. It is only in this manner that we can significantly reduce departure delays just by changing entrenched bad habits.
Many crews complain about the uphill slope from intersection J2. However, just as many crews anticipate and are able to cope well by utilising better anticipation and a more suitable application of thrust for the gradient.
The other issue causing delays is that aircraft taxy and hold well short of the holding point. It is simply not possible to be in a position to use the runway should you get the call and you're stationary 200M from the holding point.
The next area to assist is to accelerate consistently after airborne. Even in the same airline, occasionally crews will delay to a much higher altitude than we expect. If TWR has to wait to see a consistent speed on climb out before releasing the next departure, instead of achieving roughly 4NM separation (it is possible to use the minimum of 3NM medium to medium or heavy following a medium), the result is 6-7NM. If you are following a business jet, please anticipate an early release.
The overall impact is astonishing if these two areas were handled consistently well. Anticipate a line up clearance if you have no aircraft between you and the holding point you'll greatly assist in reducing holding queues and fuel burn for all users. If we are forced to move more traffic we have to strive for efficiency.
Psychohk
Very valid points and thanks for bringing that up.
Send a copy of exactly what you wrote in your post to every company operating to HK advising them that HKATC is monitoring delays in line up, takeoffs and accelerations. Heathrow sent a nasty gram to a major HK carrier last year about slow line ups and it was issued to the pilots by a "notice to crew". It seems to have had the desired impact.
Very valid points and thanks for bringing that up.
Send a copy of exactly what you wrote in your post to every company operating to HK advising them that HKATC is monitoring delays in line up, takeoffs and accelerations. Heathrow sent a nasty gram to a major HK carrier last year about slow line ups and it was issued to the pilots by a "notice to crew". It seems to have had the desired impact.
Thanks psychohk, one of my pet peeves is people that dribble on to the runway at 2-3 knots, aiming to transition into a rolling take-off instead of stopping on the runway. More often than not they get cleared for take-off during the line-up and then take another 30 seconds to get going.
One possible reason for aircraft stopping short of the holding point at 07R is that larger aircraft (e.g. B777-300) have to make a very tight turn off taxiway J in order to stop at the holding point at J1. It can be done, but causes main wheel tyre scrubbing on the 777. I don't know what the current 'policy' is, but in the past we were urged to keep turns as wide as possible to avoid excessive tyre wear. I know it's not always possible due to sequencing, but one way of avoiding the problem is to allow the larger aircraft to enter J1 off H rather than J.
The other issue causing delays is that aircraft taxy and hold well short of the holding point. It is simply not possible to be in a position to use the runway should you get the call and you're stationary 200M from the holding point.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bekol;
It's best for us to confirm restrictions because we fly to 42 different countries with different sets of rules, and local restrictions.
In many parts of the world if you are cleared to an altitude; it deletes previous altitude restrictions.
We do our best to remember the rules of the various countries but we are human.
Regards....
It's best for us to confirm restrictions because we fly to 42 different countries with different sets of rules, and local restrictions.
In many parts of the world if you are cleared to an altitude; it deletes previous altitude restrictions.
We do our best to remember the rules of the various countries but we are human.
Regards....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N/A
Age: 43
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any of you guys would want to listen to HK ATC for whatever the reason, I"m feeding the individual freqs listed here from my tung chung apt. Ground and tower sound the best.
Airport Detail: VHHH | LiveATC.net
Airport Detail: VHHH | LiveATC.net
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does the previous traffic have to be for ATC to clear me for t/o (assuming heavy jet vs heavy jet for wake turb purposes)? It seems to be as the preceding g traffic reaches around 1000'......
That HKG taxi technique of racing to a red light only to have to abruptly brake and pumping the accelerator is far from comfortable
That HKG taxi technique of racing to a red light only to have to abruptly brake and pumping the accelerator is far from comfortable
Last edited by dribbler; 5th Feb 2015 at 10:09.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Here
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A suggestion is for the next departure to have the nose wheel coming onto the centreline as the preceding is rotating.
Please pass onto local controllers that even though I have my 90 seconds separation from the A380 or 748F ahead, I still need wake turbulence separation if I ask for it. Don't respond with "you already have the required separation".........
On another note, I have recently experienced "nostalgia" with a couple of high speed direct LIMES. Thank you for that.
