Greetings from Beijing ACC [Archive]

Lowkoon

11th Oct 2007, 09:45

I could be falling for a rather obvious wind up, but welcome to pprune Nintendi.

One of the biggest complaints I have about PEK is when you assign arrivals so late. They are assigned by approach! THis is way to late to be loading/changing arrivals, we have to load it, brief it all before we are issued the next runway change. 3 runway changes is not un common with PEK, the worst I saw was 5. This is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous!

Another problem we have in PEK is no communication between your controllers. We are assigned something with 1 controller, only to have the next guy issue something completely different and conflicting with the intentions of the previous guy. IE maintain high speed, the next guy asks you to slow to 180kts on the frequency change.

Also issuing ridiculous requirements like descend at 2500fpm and slow to 200kts when you are doing 300kts.
Also the atis. Why state that its cavok, when you cant even see the new terminal through the polution, and guys on approach are just getting visual at 800ft? Everywhere else in the world, when you here cavok, it would be a reasonable expectation that the conditions would allow for a visual circuit.

Other than that, keep up the good work!!!! :ok:

Mr. Bloggs

11th Oct 2007, 10:19

Ask yourself why would a controller in PEK be posting here? I must say your English is very good. Do they have foreign controllers there?;)

Could it be “The Management”? Usually management types are a bit more direct. Come on you can do better than that.:ok:

ChairmanBoysClub

11th Oct 2007, 14:11

I speak mandarin. Why do you guys always talk about cows and chickens in Chinese on VHF freq.? My mothers chicken died yesterday of birdflue but I hope Beijing does not find out etc.. Sometimes I here you talk about pigs too. It not funny. :*

scbsli

11th Oct 2007, 16:34

Hello all,

As a native Chinese working in foreign aviation field for several years, I realised that there are some big or even we can say Hugh mis-understandings between the Air Traffic Controllers in mainland China and the foreign crews. And this is exactly why I encouraged my good friend, NINTENDI, to come here and introduce himself and getting to know your friends.

I know there are many rules and ATC operations that seem "strange" to you all, as foreign crews. I know sometime our controllers' English communication skills are not that good as you had in Hong Kong TMA/ACC. But as I know, the ATCs in mainland China are working hard and always learning and improving themselves. Compare to Hong Kong, which airspace open to foreign carriers for more than 50 years of time, mainland Chinese airspace was opened for normal operation no more than 25 years. Also, unlike Hong Kong, English is not our education language and therefore there must a process for our controllers to learn and practise.

I hope the topic here is not a tool for you to express your internal "Fire". Rather, this is a topic that I hope you friends can exchange the ideas with each other and elimate mis-understandings on both sides.

I will try to ask more mainland ATCs to come to this forum and share the ideas/thoughts with you friends.

Greetings, what do you know about PVG? Every time I try to get out I get my ATC clearance, call ready, I am told to contact Ground Control and immediately told 50 mins delay. What is the problem? Hi, thanks for asking. I am asking one of my friend who is the Vice-Director of PVG Tower to come to this forum to answer your question. He will probably be here in a few days. :-)

26 year old Chief Controller. In China ?, I don't think so.
On the other hand, they do seem like a bunch of beginners.
Maybe they are all just out of high school. NINTENDI is one of the chief controllers in Beijing ACC, no doubt. He is a very brilliant young-man and he was being promoted very fast. From your words I can see that you are one of the men that have lots of internal "Fire" about Beijing ACC/TMA. We are looking forward to letting you know the truth about your concerns and questions. Feel free to post your questions & concerns, but would you please be more respectful? Thanks.

Ask yourself why would a controller in PEK be posting here? I must say your English is very good. Do they have foreign controllers there?;)As I know, there is NO foreign controller in mainland China. In order to be a ATC in mainland China, you must be a Chinese Citizen and you must be able to command both Chinese and English.

I speak mandarin. Why do you guys always talk about cows and chickens in Chinese on VHF freq.? My mothers chicken died yesterday of birdflue but I hope Beijing does not find out etc.. Sometimes I here you talk about pigs too. It not funny. :* Haha, sounds interesting, but that's impossible. You must interpret some mandrain air-ground communications in a wrong way :-)
Why not share us what you heard in Pinyin or even in Chinese? We'll explain them to you.

I could be falling for a rather obvious wind up, but welcome to pprune Nintendi.

One of the biggest complaints I have about PEK is when you assign arrivals so late. They are assigned by approach! THis is way to late to be loading/changing arrivals, we have to load it, brief it all before we are issued the next runway change. 3 runway changes is not un common with PEK, the worst I saw was 5. This is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous!

Another problem we have in PEK is no communication between your controllers. We are assigned something with 1 controller, only to have the next guy issue something completely different and conflicting with the intentions of the previous guy. IE maintain high speed, the next guy asks you to slow to 180kts on the frequency change.

Also issuing ridiculous requirements like descend at 2500fpm and slow to 200kts when you are doing 300kts.
Also the atis. Why state that its cavok, when you cant even see the new terminal through the polution, and guys on approach are just getting visual at 800ft? Everywhere else in the world, when you here cavok, it would be a reasonable expectation that the conditions would allow for a visual circuit.

Other than that, keep up the good work!!!! :ok:

Thanks very much for bringing these questions up. NINTENDI will answer your questions in detail shortly.

TheDrop

14th Oct 2007, 17:37

Good thread, I don't think it is a wind-up. Let's make this dialog productive and positive, OK?

I have a question for PVG ATC.

In the charts, a lot of different sectors, with different frequencies are listed. Yet so often, it is one controller covering many sectors on the same frequency, even when it is busy. Mixing Mandarin and English does not make it easier, and just for the English part of it, accents from long haul flights from different countries, make it even more complicated.

So is it a question of not enough controllers when all these sectors are combined? Sometimes even a short "request descent" can be hard to get through on the frequency, and in the middle of a clearance, Chinese pilot interrupt so you can start all over (I am sure the same also happens the other way). It would be really great if the ATC staff would be enough to cater for the actual traffic there is, especially at peak periods.

Also, like mentioned for Beijing, arrivals are often announced very late, and often they are off the flight plan route. Coming from HK there are two STARs via the same entry point, and when you plug in both in Route 1 and Route 2, they give you a third one, at the very last moment. Some times we neither get vectors nor a STAR but because of congestion on the frequency, we just follow the most obvious STAR in lack of better.

Busdude

14th Oct 2007, 18:47

Hi Scbsli and Nintendi:
Very nice of you to post and I hope everyone can engage in emotion free dialogue. I must admit that I have only flown into Beijing once and that was quite an eventful trip, however, I overfly your airspace all the time.
My major concern on my flight to PEK was the huge discrepancy between the reported and actual weather. The ATIS was indicating SCT clouds and -RA with viz >10Ks. The actual weather was CBs with lightning over the airport. CB's on approach requiring deviation off the loc and windshear on final +15 to -15 knots with heavy rain hampering viz to about 1K. After we landed and taxyed off, the ATIS was still the same. Shortly afterward the airfield was shut down due lightning although the ATIS was still the same. We were delayed on ground for several hours and ATIS was upgraded to CBs in the area.
About the overfly, which is out of your jurisdiction, but maybe you could ask your colleagues: What is your standard separation over Guanzhou, Chengdu and Llanzhou airspace? I am usually radar identified and have seen separation to less than 10 minutes (normal procedural). Before we Muren airspace the separation is back to 10 minutes as I understand Muren is still procedural although they request our squawk (I take it they are training with radar).
Thanks for appearing on this website to enhance communication between air and ground personnel. Please don't apologize for your English to anyone on this website; I am sure your English is better than the most of these guys' Mandarin.:hmm:

NINTENDI

16th Oct 2007, 15:36

Hello All,
Thank you so much for posting. I am doing my best to answer your questions.

For the first question about the arrival routes:
Before ZBAA has new JB arrivals, traffic coming from A461 only has VYK as their entry point tin Beijing TMA area. Because of the single entry (VYK) existed for a long time, so our controllers are used to assign arrival route late or even don’t assign any arrival route (it’s obvious that VYK would be used since the entry point was single). Although we have JB arrivals now, available for traffic coming from A461 to use when the traffic is heavy at VYK, but most of the traffic will still go through VYK and therefore our controllers are still assigning arrivals late. Well, personally I think assigning arrival late is NOT good. I will bring this topic to our directors and hope they can work out some new working procedures in the coming future. Actually, our directors are now re-designing the procedures in ZBAA area as a preparation for this year’s opening of our third runway in our airport, so this can be a good chance for us to bring up this question to them and let them think about it and make some change. I will do my best! But for personally advice, you can ask the controllers for arrival when you think you need to know it. Usually, as a normal procedure, most of the aircrafts will be vectored instead of flying STARs.

For the second question about the coordination between controllers:
Beijing ACC and TMA have many super-complex sectors (some of the complexities are contributed by the military restrictions and the old design of arrival and departure routes). The situation can change from second to second. It is hard for our controllers to work in a same schema because each controller has his or her own new situation in the sector. Therefore you will see lots of things may change between two nearby controllers. For the speed problem, when you enter Beijing’s first sector (usually 128.3 for you from A461), the controller in 128.3 wants you to fly 300 knots because he needs to place you into a good arrival position (help you join a good arrival queue). When you entered the second sector, usually 128.1 , most of the aircrafts are being placed in a good arrival queue so the regulating target for this controller is to help everybody smoothly transits from high speed into normal approach speed. Therefore, you’ll always be directed to reduce to a lower speed when you enter the second controller’s sector. We are always doing best in our complex sectors to help everybody touches ground on-time. Although some speed regulations may make you feel exhausted but please understand that we are doing our best in handling this super-complex situation in Beijing and we always want you to touch down on time.

For the third question about the high vertical speed:
The controllers in Beijing are being trained in a specific course about aircraft performance. We have a rule, in general situation, no speed control if the aircraft is descending with -3000ft/min. But in some unusual situation (e.g. traffic conflict), speed control with -3000ft/min may be instructed by our controllers. If you experience this in the future and you feel you cannot make it, please tell our controller instantly by saying “Negative due to performance”. We will continue provide more training about aircraft performance to our controllers.

For the fourth question about the weather report in ATIS:
The ATIS is generated in ZBAA Tower so as an ACC controller I do not know much about it. I need to ask my colleagues in Tower before I give you a detailed explanation about this. But as far as I know, it is true that the ATIS is not accurate some time.

About the question regarding to Enroute Separation:
In China, we have many super-large FIRs and control sectors. The situation may vary from one with another. As I know, in China, there exist three kinds of separation. They are Radar Separation (10nm), Procedural Separation (10 minutes) and Procedural Separation with Radar Monitor. The last one, Procedural Separation with Radar Monitor is a transitional method used in some areas where they are equipped with radar but the radar is not accurate enough to provide radar separation. Different areas may apply different situation (depends on equipment and other factors). For example, in Beijing, until 2004 ,we have 20nm radar separation and in Qingdao they use 20nm radar separation. For those aircrafts fly on airways and transits from one ACC to another, we have a rule that all controllers will apply the common-accepted maximum separation.

Trust us, we are always working our best in handling our complex sectors and guiding you home.

I have to stop here since I have to work tomorrow. Thank you again for your posting and I'll see you around!

Viper2

17th Oct 2007, 09:07

Hi,

Very nice idea to start a post like this. I am sure there are many questions and I have one as well;

Both from PEK and PVG we often run into huge delays during our departure. Usually this explained by the controllers due to separation enroute or enroute restrictions. It is nice that PEK (and PVG) is preparing a third runway but is this really going to decrease the delays. To me it looks like restrictions enroute seem to be the bottleneck. RVSM might improve this a little bit but do you have any infomation about the possible opening of more airways especially in direction of Hong Kong which can be used for internation flights?

Best regards...

Bedder believeit

17th Oct 2007, 10:55

scbsli

17th Oct 2007, 16:08

I note that in your last post Nintendi, you refer to vertical speed change in "feet per minute". Are you journalising here, or do you really think in "fpm" for rate of level change, but use metric vertical separation? Must be fun! All the best to you guys (and girls).Well, here we have another thing need to be clarified -- Why we use meters in Mainland China?

It looks strange, indeed. Modern civil aircrafts are almost all default in "feet". But why CAAC is still using meters, Even in the new RVSM across the mainland begins from Nov. 21? Here are some explanations:

The main reason that we cannot use feet in mainland China is the coordination problems between Civil Aviation and Military Aviation. All military aircrafts in China are default in Metric system (We bought a lot of military aircrafts from Russia and also we use metric as a national standard in developing new military aircrafts ourselves). There will be a BIG problem if the Civil part of aviation begins to use Feet. And it is IMPOSSIBLE for military forces to change to feet. So, basically, that's the reason.

Although the civil part of aviation use meters, all the civil aircrafts in China are being operated in Feet (convert from meters). So you can simply understand Meter as a shell in civil aviation. That's why in description of our new RVSM standard, it requires crews to Operate Meters in Feet. E.g. If the ATC advise you fly 9800M, crews should target their flight level at 32100ft ACCURATELY (Accurately speaking, 9800M does not Equal to 32100ft, it has been rounded down about 50ft).

Hope the statement above help you understand why the air-traffic controllers in mainland use "fpm" when talking about vertical speed.

NINTENDI

18th Oct 2007, 06:33

Let’s talk about the delays in the evening for those aircrafts fly from VHHH to European destinations. For those aircrafts that follow A461, they will have to fly over Mongolia FIR and the procedure in Mongolia FIR requires 10 minutes separation for the same flight levels. As you know, those flights heading to Europe prefer flying FL315 (S0960) due to performance. So if there is no 10 minutes restriction when they leave VHHH, then they will probably unable to maintain the level they preferred in Mongolia.

Bedder believeit

18th Oct 2007, 09:54

Thank you Nintendi/scbsli, I obviously didn't make myself clear enough. I understand the 10 minute requirement for aircraft at the same level, but what I was referring to is the random imposition of 10 minutes flow control for all aircraft, regardless of level. As it stands, we can "play" to a certain extent with changing levels within the S0810 range to S0960 range quite well, and if there is a demand for say 12 flights over a 60 minute period, then we can juggle flights using the normal 3 minute "flow" requirement. When it get's tough is when a "10 minute flow" is instigated, regardless of level, and then we have a situation where those 12 demand flights over a one hour period are now subjected to a 120 minute time span, so the flights at the end can often be delayed by well over 40 minutes or so. And then, as soon as we get the delayed aircraft on their way, then the "10 mins flow - regardless of level" requirement will be dropped. I have to admit that it doesn't seem to happen often now, but about 6 months or more ago, it became a pretty much standard modus operandi. I got the feeling that it was being imposed because someone up there came up with the bright idea one night, then it took hold, and we in HK were having to pay the price for it. Anyway, I guess these issues gradually get themselves sorted out. It is well known by most HK ATC that you have many difficulties, particularly with the military, and you are doing the best you can under the circumstances.

LapSap

18th Oct 2007, 13:28

NINTENDI

With the greatest of respect, one wonders what your (Mainland ATC's) idea of ATC is.
If you want us to provide sufficient separation on departure so that everyone gets F315 entering Mongolia FIR, then why don't we cut out the middle man and tell the aircraft to call Mongolia direct?
Of course I'm exagerating but that is the general perception. The same goes for traffic through Sanya FIR. What is the point of their existence except to collect en-route charges?
Hong Kong has to set up the required longitudinal separation so that the standard is maintained all the way to the Ho Chi Minh FIR. Why don't we just hand off to HCM? All Sanya seems to do is take the transfer from us and pass it to HCM and vice versa. I can't recall the last time I saw Sanya actually change the level of traffic in their airspace. If someone asks for a level change northbound they just tell the a/c to call us and say "no restrictions"!
Enroute ATC is all about constantly assessing and reassessing what minimum standard can be applied depending on the circumstances and then giving aircraft the best possible level available. It seems many of the Mainlands new procedures are based on some fanciful perfect world where we can get someone airborne at the pefect moment, out of several airports, so that nobody along route has to do anything.
I wish.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit harsh, and I realize you are hamstrung by ridiculous Military megalomaniacs playing with thier toys, but that is reality.

Edit:
P.S. We used to do this sort of thing for traffic heading across the N. Pacific on the basis that Japan FIR needed 15 minutes between a/c going oceanic at the same level.
The fact that 5 hours after departure the aircraft would be at nothing like thier initial cruise levels and that they had either opened up or closed up the distance between them by more than 10 minutes made a mockery of the whole thing. Finally the Japanese had the sense to say "Oi, knock it off - its total rubbish"

D.B.er

22nd Oct 2007, 09:46

NINTENDI
Thank you very much for opening this thread and providing this opportunity to improve communication and understanding.
Question: If I need to make a rapid emergency descent in Beijing, should I change my squawk to 7700 or keep my assigned squawk? In Europe squawking 7700 over rides RADAR display height filtering in neighbouring (lower) sectors so that controllers get immediate early warning of an emergency that may affect them.
Does the same answer apply in other parts of china?
Regards
D.B.er

greenwindshield

28th Oct 2007, 07:03

Well , I've been flying in China for more than 3 years . My previous experience involves all 3 Americas and Europe and I never saw so poor control system as in China . Looks like you guys have no idea about big jets performance !! Climbs that take around 260 miles to reach the approved flight level . Descent earlier as 200 miles before the computed descent point with that " stupid" instruction: " - Descent rate of 2500ft/min or more " . What is this ?? Do you guys have any idea about the additional costs you bring to major airlines ?
And what about the delays ? Do you guys have any respect to our passengers ? Flow control ?? Came on !!!!
You should open your mind and send some controllers to observe and learn abroad . Go to Chicago for example ....
Sorry for being so hard and honest but you really need to improve a lot ...2008 is right there !!

SuzieWong

29th Oct 2007, 12:27

My colleage tell me, in 1 month we have more than 15000 minutes of delays into China. 15000! In 1 day, the worst is more than 2000 minutes. Thats more than 30 hours in one day! When we see all the flow controls it looks bad but never realize it add up to so much. :eek:
NINTENDI, can you explain??? Is it not embarasing for the mother land? Its embarasing to us!! No face.

LapSap

30th Oct 2007, 04:33

Absolutely no need for that sort of language AGNES. Thanks for probably ensuring we don't get any meaningful response from NINTENDI to our somewhat harsh, but legitimate questions. :(

JrYOUNG

30th Oct 2007, 05:45

I'm an expat Controller in Hong Kong, and a question that I have, is an explanation of random implementation of 10 minutes flow control at nights (between 10pm and midnight) on B330 and/or A461 (normally we provide 3 minutes). I must say that it's not as common now as it was 6 or more months ago, but we have many departures late in the evening from VHHH to Europe, and when a 10 minute flow control is enforced with little or no warning, it can really make things difficult. I do stress, that the situation has improved, however, it still happens occasionally. I note that in your last post Nintendi, you refer to vertical speed change in "feet per minute". Are you journalising here, or do you really think in "fpm" for rate of level change, but use metric vertical separation? Must be fun! All the best to you guys (and girls).

:\
Hello all...
I'm a tower controller of Guangzhou Airport (ZGGG) and i had worked in Gungzhou ACC for one year or so when i was a probationer.So I'm willing to explain what's happening within our airspace.
Several factors have contributed to such flow control that you complained
First of all,I wish you could gain a clear idea of this:In mainland China,all airspace are managed and supervised by Military Air Force,even our civil control area cannot make an exception!:suspect:
That's why we can't approve the crews' request of direct sometimes,even though the sector is quite clear and there's no collision at all! It's not the thing we could dominate and it's already up to the Military Authority!
When there're activities or conventional trainings by PLA Air Force,all civil flights will have to give way to those military aircrafts according to our rules...As a result,flow control could be an usual thing in that situation!
Not only you,but also us are all fed up with this!But who is to blame?I don't know...:sad:

Traversing through China from South to North,the A461 is an international airway along with six ACC can be found (Guangzhou、Changsha、Wuhan、Zhengzhou、Beijing and Hohhot)...They're inseparably combined that each and every mishap in one certain spot may as well led to total confusion!Especially Beijing,the aviation "Hub" of China.
On one hand,it's just like my colleague NINTENDI said:Mogonlian ATC require 10 minutes separation on A461.Obviously,a great disparity is laying ahead of us if compare with your 3 mins one...Coordinating is of great importance.
On the other hand.As we all know,the Pearl River's delta zone contains five main airports,making it an extrodinary busy airspace.Hundreds of flights,which follow A461,fly back and forth between Canton(ZGGG)、Shenzhen(ZGSZ)and Beijing (ZBAA) every day in mainland China.Hand off of flights between HongKong and Guangzhou are exactly realizes in such a complecated area!According to the L.O.A,all flights depart from HKG to European countries,which follow A461 and heading North,must maintain S048 or above to get over BEKOL before they turn to YIN in the sirspace of GZACC.Meanwhile,maintaining S051~S060,flights depart from ZGGG (follow YIN-SID) and ZGSZ (from LMN dct YIN) to Beijing are also gather at YIN and waiting for climb to their cruise altitude.Shortage of altitude and quantities of aircrafts,what's worse,the restritions or flow control by whichever of those six ACC...all cause in the diffculties of sequencing.
That's why 10 mins separation is required for the flights from HKG...Is that going to far in this case?I don't think so...:uhoh:

What about B330? Most flights from Chinese Southwest cities to Canton must follow this airway and join the GYA-STAR.Simularly,flights from Europe to HKG are also follow this airway...making collision could be an easy job if you're careless.Usually we will told those flights landing at HKG from GYA direct to SIERA if avialable...But if the Air Force is going to hold a party is this manoeuvring area and deny our scheme...These poor guys will have to fly over POU the join the R473...descend to reach FL 170 or above by SIERA before they contact HongKong 127.55 or 127.10...Here's the problem:all flights depart from ZGGG,which SID is heading South and destinations are Southeast Asia or Hainan Province,must pass POU too!One of our tempoary airway is from POU direct to BIGRO for these flights.Unfortunately,it's also not avialable when the party is in progress.:sad:
Everything seems crazy at that time,right?...So the best and most safety choice for us is.....FLOW CONTROL!:bored:

Last but not the least,I know there's a saying that "CAAC means 'Chinese ATC Are Crazy'..."I can understand that...however, what i want to express is:We're so sorry about the delays...but...We are also sufferers...

Thanks scbsli telling me about this forum.
I'm pleasure to exchange with all of you...
Have a nice day and,all the best!

hongkongfooey

30th Oct 2007, 06:02

I am afraid whilst greenwindshield may be a little harsh, he is 100% on the money.
China is responsible for possibly the worst pollution in the world, which is a huge shame as it is a beautiful country, and I believe they are also responsible for some of the biggest waistage of jet fuel I have ever encountered, anywhere.( and by association, greenhouse gases )
There is busier airspace elsewhere in the world, that does'nt have the restrictions China does, including HK.
I personally think RVSM will make little difference apart from maybe on the longer sectors you will get somewhere within 10000' of your planned level, flying around in a jet at 21-25000 feet is just plain ridiculous and waistful, not too mention very bad for passengers when you're getting the :mad: beaten out of you in mid level cloud.
China is going to have to do something about the military dominance of the airspace, for christs sake, how much air do they need ??
How on earth are they going to cater for the forecast increase in air traffic over the next 10 years?? are we going to get to the stage where we call for a clearance and get told, matter of factly, that the delay will be 3 hours?? because thats exactly where it is heading ( 1 hour is already becoming the norm for some destinations )

Emphysemic

30th Oct 2007, 08:06

Nintendi,

Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..

This is done all over Europe for this very reason..

Thanks

JrYOUNG

30th Oct 2007, 09:33

Where are you NINTENDI and Scbsli? Did you say you would answer all the questions?

Your pretended show is over. F:mad: off!:D
Yeah?How about yours?
Are you really a controller? I means,are you really an adult who graduated from university and has accepted advanced education?
Extremely doubtful...
Mind your words!Jerk!
BTW,thanks for your f:mad:ing reply!

Absolutely no need for that sort of language AGNES. Thanks for probably ensuring we don't get any meaningful response from NINTENDI to our somewhat harsh, but legitimate questions. :(

Good grief!Man!what a talented idea!!!
I'm not intend to offending you,seriously.You're a good guy who knows how to talk properly.But do you understand what are sovereignty and territory?
To come back to the subjects.Most flights from HKG to Europe would maintain their cruise altitude through out Russia.So why don't you just cancel all Russian FIR and tell those crews to contact their destination ATC by using shortwave radio?:ok:I'm going to pay for the ticket of your great performance.That's pretty exciting,you know!
What's more,Sanya AOR is absolutely not just an intermediary between Ho Chi Minh and HongKong as you deem.It in charge of the airspace of Southern part of Hainan Province,where flights from mainland China to Australia and Southeast Asia have to pass through everyday.Moreover,flights between Sanya Airport (ZJSY) and Chinese inland cities are also under the control of Sanya ACC.Did you just said no level changes in Sanya AOR and we could cancel it undoubtedly?
Almighty God!I'm full of ggratitude to you for reminding me how to spell "Ridiculous"...I've almost forgot it just like someone has forgot to tell you guys that flow control has been cancles!Damn!

I have to reiterate:We're here because we want to exchange and comunicate more with each other,but not provoke or quarrel!My FRIENDS!

Perhaps you guys are running out of excuses...
Lol...We're running out of excuses.....Here's another talent!:D
You do NOT know the situation in China at all!...That's my conclusion!Out.

carl baker

30th Oct 2007, 11:08

HI

Can someone more informed than me - one of you PRC ATC people only please - explain the logic and requirements for complying with STAR and SID i.e. arrival and departure procedures, as assigned by ATC to aircraft. Read below for more details!

Altitudes on SID/STAR in PRC
On Descent more so than climb, this may be critical, with respect to
going below an altitude on a STAR considering terrain clearance
implications. It is unclear whether the altitudes are mandatory for
airspace, flight path crossing points or terrain considerations. On
departure to gain clearance for "Confirm no restriction" may be
satisfactory, but to go below on arrival is questionable without adequate
supporting documentation such as Jeppesen LSALT or PORT page
guidance. It is also not qualified in CAAC AIP.

The point is - if you cleared to descend, and the clearance for Lateral
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.

An example

ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"

Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?

Thanks

Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?

JrYOUNG

30th Oct 2007, 12:14

The point is - if you cleared to descend, and the clearance for Lateral
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.

An example

ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"

Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?

Thanks

Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?

I'm willing to answer your question,Sir!
As the matter of fact.These two instructions have no contradiction at all if you could truly understand what does it mean.This is a standard terminology pattern for mainland controllers.Whlie initial contact has established between Pilots and Controller,our approach controllers will have to issue STAR、runway in use、ATIS Code and so on...
For example:''China Southern 3102,Guangzhou approach,good evening,radar contact.Expect ATAGA 01A arrival,runway 02 right,infomation Charlie.Now descend to 3600 metres on standard.''
In that case,it means you're cleared for descend to FL118 right now.Our controller has already considered about the terrain altitude.He's just telling you which STAR and runway you should use first...STAR altitude constraints on your charts are just a consultation.There is no need to worry about if the altitude he've told you is below the MSA.Just comply with what controller says,and everything will be fine...
It's a difference between English cogitation and Chinese one...:)

Thanks for the insight JrYOUNG, Nintendi and the rest, try to ignor these uptight captain moonlights........
Thank you Jizzmonkey...

Nintendi,

Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..

This is done all over Europe for this very reason..

Thanks

Yup...er...it's a reasonable suggestion,or maybe,requirement for all foreign crews...Seriously.:ok:
I have to say i'm also agree with you...
But unfortuntely,just a controller and i can't make any promises to you.:sad:
Anyway,I'll try to refer this advise to our leaders.That's what can i do...So sorry...

Hole in Two

30th Oct 2007, 12:33

Agnes, your attitude is an embarassement to us all. You think China is the only ACC in the world that impose restrictions? Go to Europe, America, and Middle east. Take a look over there and see what it's like. China have a complex airspace structure, far more complex than in HK. You are lucky you are working under a simple and small airpace.

Who, every morning, imposes a 10 mins flow control to TPE ACC for traffic fm Kaohsiung to Macao, and 5 mins fm Taipei to Macao? HK ATC.

Who imposes 3 mins flow for all Bekol departures? and if DEP can't cope, 5 mins.

To mainland controllers, agnes is a typical HK controller. Rude, loud, unfriendly, arrogant, over confident, over-rated......... but fortunately is only a minority. (may be he's/she's from the management)

SuzieWong

30th Oct 2007, 13:28

Rude, loud, unfriendly, arrogant, over confident, over-rated
Hey! Not me!!!;)

agnes is a typical HK controller
but fortunately is only a minority.

Hard to argue with logic like that!!

P.S. AGNES- you are the weakest link.

idg

30th Oct 2007, 15:00

Jr Young,
I also think it's great that we're getting this information and thanks to all the PRC controllers for their contributions. I think the last discussion is important with regard to altitude clearances on SID and STARS.

We use a very conservative approach because the PRC AIP defines 'radar service' for lots of airports in PRC. However there are ports that we visit where controllers apparently give 'radar control' but are not (apparently) approved to do so because they are not listed in the AIP for 'radar service'.

Also in the past we have had 'close encounters' with military traffic that are not visible to us on TCAS when descending below constraints on SIDs and STARS.

Finally whilst you offer the advice that we can descend immediately to the cleared altitude given by the controller, I personally have experienced GPWS alerts when doing so! HGH is a classic for this and CKG another.

We have asked Beijing for the documentation to support what you say (ie that 'radar contact' means that a 'radar service' is now being offered) but so far this confirmation has not been forthcoming. This is not to doubt you, but perhaps you can give us the reference in your manuals where we can find this confirmation.

Many thanks once again for the inputs. :ok:

scbsli

30th Oct 2007, 16:09

Great discussion.

Thank you all for taking part in this mind exchange :D

We hope both side can understand each other better instead of blaming each other.

But for some of the HKATC folks, would you please keep your mouth clean?

I am wondering why many Hong Kong people are so uptight when talking about mainland...

Many HK people that I encountered in my life showed me that they were very self-confident and they were very proud of themselves being high educated... But unfortunately, I could hardly agree with many of them. And I believe most people here cannot agree with them either, as we can see what they Posted above (although some posts were being deleted but you can still find some of them in JrYoung's quote).

Once again, this is a topic for mind exchange. Not a topic that you express your internal fire!

NINTENDI

30th Oct 2007, 17:03

Dear Friends,
I am sorry that I am too busy recently that I do not have time to visit this forum and reply to your questions, please accept my apologies.
Well, I am pretty glad to see that we have some folks with their high excitements recently in our topic. One said, “Descent with -2500ft/min” was stupid. Yeah, I agree, but I think the word “stupid” should not refer to us, instead, you should refer it to the airplanes manufactures – HOW THE HELL that they can make the aircraft descend with 2500ft/min in normal performance range and HOW THE HELL that they can allow you set the V/S with -2500ft/min on MCP.
Another friend said that “in 1 month we have more than 15000 minutes of delays into China”. Woow, that’s really lurid! But for Beijing Capital Intl. Airport, we have more than 30,000 flights per month, and divide by that number, the average delay time per flight is only half a minute, statistically.
I’ve heard that Hong Kong people are very fond of Offbeat News, well, would you please keep your fancies out of here?

NINTENDI

30th Oct 2007, 17:06

Hello D.B.er

About the squawk change that you mention in your topic, I think you should follow your company’s procedures when encountering the situation that you mentioned. From OUR perspective, we SUGGEST you DO change your squawk code to 7700 when doing an emergency descent. By doing so, all our controllers in Beijing can see you on our radar, no matter how they set their radar filter.

In addition, the radars we (Beijing ACC Enroute Control, Shanghai ACC Enroute Control, Guangzhou ACC Ernoute Control) use are THALES company’s Eurocat System.

captncannot

30th Oct 2007, 17:43

JrYOUNG

31st Oct 2007, 05:44

Thanks to all you PRC ATCers for contributing! Great thread.

I have a question regarding QNE vs QNH altimeter settings. In many areas of China, on departure we're frequently told to climb to a level 'on standard' which is actually below your published transition altitude.

Can you please explain what is happening from your perspective, that makes this practice necessary? Why do you not simply comply with your promulgated standard transition levels at all times?

I have at times been held down for 10-15 minutes, on QNE, and below the transition level. This is an uncomfortable situation for us to be in, particularly when the area QNH differs considerably from ISA.

The risk of ATC or pilot errors resulting in a loss of vertical separation is probably increased with these clearances, so I'm hoping one of you could help me understand how this practice works from the ATC perspective?

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

Controller told you climb to a level on standard which actually below TA?
If that's ture...It's absolutely a stuip mistake.
But that's nearly impossible to make such a weak mistake...sir.
Would you pls tell me which airport is it?Or which Tracon?:suspect:

However,the only reasonable explain is the airport which you were going to land,it's QNH is below 979HPa or above 1031Hpa...I guess...
Or you are flying on the Transition Layer altitude...:confused:

caucatc

20th Nov 2007, 01:15

I am the approach controller from BeiJing , I think i can answer your questions about the flight procedure so that you can have a preparation about it next time .
For 36L/R:
KM-11A is used very often for the aircraft which will come into our space from KM ,KM-13A will be used also ,but not very common unless you are very high (MAYBE higher than 5100M,because there will be a conflict with the one who will depart with CD-13D).
LR-21A is used often , there is only one STAR for LR.
It is very hard to tell you when we use JB-11A or JB-13A ,that depends on the position of the traffic on the KM-11A ，because we ATC know some position where will take the same time to land from the different STAR,but I suggest you to load JB-11A before we tell you the STAR ,because there is enough space to turn to the final with that STAR .
As for the VYK , we seldom use the VYK-21A OR VYK11-A unless there is not many traffic .We always vector the plane heading to northeast after VYK.Our pattern is indenpendent ILS approach ,there are 4 "GATE" on the final of 36L/R ,the west final use the altitude higher than 1200m(exclusive) ,and the east final use the altitude lower than 1200m to intercept the localizer ,and the plane's altitude is high in the east but low in the west ,we have to ask the pilot to make a manuver after VYK and always require them to have a high rate of descend.

18L/R

the STAR is easy to remember and load when we operated from north to south:)

JB : JB-12 A
KM: KM-12 A
LR : LR -22 A
VYK: VYK -22 A OR DOXAS -22A (DOXAS -22A IS SELDON USED)

One thing need to remind you is that some ATC will prefer to say "after LR heading 230（when use 36L/R） or 250(when use 18L/R)" that is their habit,the track will be similar as the STAR :)

HOPE THESE COULD BE USEFUL FOR YOU :)

mnttech

16th Jan 2008, 00:34

During a CAAC simulator eval, we were told that CATI visablity is not 2400 feet (730 meters) but another value. I looked at the Jepp plate for Beijing, and did not see anything there.

If this is true, what are the ceilings and vis for CATI, CATII, and CATIII in China?

Thanks for the help

Sleeve_of_Wizard

14th Feb 2008, 09:58

Thanks NINTENDI and JrYoung,
I find yr posts informative and full of good stuff. I will keep it short and sweet. I regularly fly through China, both B330 and A461, although I'm not a regular into ZBAA so I am not qualified to comment on that.
I did read JR's earlier post, however I just want to ask , when asking for a Direct ( yes, in order to cut some minutes and save some fuel) why do the Controllers instantly reply NO, without even thinking about it? There is often no traffic, ( when asked about it) no other response is given except " FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE" it would be better if we were told to STANDBY, then declined. Even though the airspace is managed by the Military, what is the reason for not approving direct tracking, through clear airspace with no traffic???

One other thing....... Why , with the new Yet not improved RVSM in China, why are we constantly told to OFFSET from our tracks??

Thanks guys......

------ Is used to work well now I hang like Sleeve of Wizard----------