Air China CA428 Near-Miss CFIT at take-off in HK
RVSM is vertical, the offset is lateral. If you are assigned 10400 meters and (per the FLAS) fly FL341 and your opposing traffic is 10700 and flying FL351 there is one thousand foot separation. If the offset is critical to the vertical separation how come it varies from 2 miles to 8 miles right of track?
Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification). 
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot:
Good question but it is for the bean counters to address. But I would say if you want to fly to Country X you follow the rules of that country ,that said PRC non-deviation rules are not unique : look at the Afghanistan chart for instance . Deviate there and you risk to be shot down.
I would like to ask: How can major Western airlines manage to have state approval and insurance for routine operation in PRC if ATC safety-related performance, such as inability to deviate due CB etc, is so poor?
Nope. If you fail to operate the aircraft within its certification requirements and limitations you are liable. However, it is up to the State of registration to police these regulations. It will be up to the Courts to define which individuals are criminally liable.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification).
Because many just risk it! 
Severe turb associated with CB, TSRA etc can usually be avoided by Wx radar. Jetstream forecast severe CAT areas should be avoided by routing, level changes or delay. But don't ask me how all the transatlantic oceanic traffic that ploughs through forecast severe CAT areas clear that with their operating authority (they don't
).
Severe turb associated with CB, TSRA etc can usually be avoided by Wx radar. Jetstream forecast severe CAT areas should be avoided by routing, level changes or delay. But don't ask me how all the transatlantic oceanic traffic that ploughs through forecast severe CAT areas clear that with their operating authority (they don't
).
Our "enthusiastic amateur" airline plans us through it routinely, as, I suspect many other flight planning departments do.
Also, I reckon LPPO is becoming a bit like the boy who cried wolf with sev turb forecasts.
Also, I reckon LPPO is becoming a bit like the boy who cried wolf with sev turb forecasts.
So, God forbid, when a 300+pax airliner suffers a forecast severe turb big-nasty on the NATS, they are going to cite that "everyone has ignored it forever" as their mitigation? It should not be, some of us DO honour the limitations.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot :
Of course wx avoidance is not an emergency! But you do not seem to understand how the system works : ATC does not force you to go through it . ATC might refuse the diversion for various reasons and because of external factors :e.g military area, prohibited airspace even conflict zone (e.g Ukraine or Turkey , etc..) You then have the choice to divert to another destination , go back or possibly go through.
Just like Fog at your destination: Landing at intended planned destination is not mandatory under all circumstances. CBs are included in that.
Of course wx avoidance is not an emergency! But you do not seem to understand how the system works : ATC does not force you to go through it . ATC might refuse the diversion for various reasons and because of external factors :e.g military area, prohibited airspace even conflict zone (e.g Ukraine or Turkey , etc..) You then have the choice to divert to another destination , go back or possibly go through.
Just like Fog at your destination: Landing at intended planned destination is not mandatory under all circumstances. CBs are included in that.
ATC Watcher, Thanks for your informative post. Actually, I have encountered all of your examples as Captain in my worldwide heavy flying career.
Tell me, do you just watch ATC? Maybe you misunderstand my view?
Tell me, do you just watch ATC? Maybe you misunderstand my view?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once a pilot : Sorry if I offended you , but there are too many people on this forum nowadays who are not who they are pretending to be .
No I am not only “watching ATC`’, I also fly my own aeroplane around and do since quite a while a few other aviation related things on the international field, that allowed me to gain a certain knowledge that I sometimes try to share here.
I think I got your point, I hope you got mine. Which basically was : No point bitching at Chinese ATC for not allowing deviations from routes. If you are retired and flew in Europe you surely remember the 3 Berlin corridors , a CB in one of them and it was 180 degr back . Well ,basically nothing has changed.
No I am not only “watching ATC`’, I also fly my own aeroplane around and do since quite a while a few other aviation related things on the international field, that allowed me to gain a certain knowledge that I sometimes try to share here.
I think I got your point, I hope you got mine. Which basically was : No point bitching at Chinese ATC for not allowing deviations from routes. If you are retired and flew in Europe you surely remember the 3 Berlin corridors , a CB in one of them and it was 180 degr back . Well ,basically nothing has changed.
You can be in a position where turning back will put you into Cb with the added hazard of reduced g margin so it is better to continue. For the non pro: carrying out a 180 at 36000 ft takes up a LOT of sky.
I've had Cb avoidance problems over China and just did what was best for my aircraft safety whilst 'discussing' the situation with ATC who was afraid that we were going to inadvertently enter Vietnamese airspace.
I've had Cb avoidance problems over China and just did what was best for my aircraft safety whilst 'discussing' the situation with ATC who was afraid that we were going to inadvertently enter Vietnamese airspace.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely correct Basil, and we both know a 180 is not the norm, but in some parts of the world it might be asked of you and then it is probably time to use the magic 7700 to open the doors. At least this is what I would do in this situation.
