HK AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL BLOG

[psychohk]

The HONG KONG AIR TRAFFIC CONTOL ASSOCIATION has created a blog as a means of addressing issues that arise in the HK FIR, to create a better understanding within the aviation industry of current restrictions and procedures.

ON AIR: HKATCA Official Blog (http://hkatca.org/blogs/blog7.php)

A platform for pilots and fellow ATCOs to communicate. Have a question? Don't hesitate to drop an email to [email protected]. Our technical reps are always happy to answer you!

[psychohk]

The HKATCA has in the recent past conducted airline briefings on suggested practices as the movement rate for HKIA rises. Some points from discussions following those briefings:

1. How Clearance Delivery operates. Many misconceptions most incorrect
2. Start up delays. Never a straight forward issue.
3. Delays from mainland ATC and how they are administered
4. Sequencing traffic on departure to achieve the best overall movement rate or efficiency in en-route airspace
5. R/T: what is necessary and what is wasted air time
6. What ATC can see with our surveillance equipment. That is what information do we already have on each aircraft movement?
7. How aircrew can assist in maximising runway usage on both arrival and departure. Significant gains can be achieved just by understanding the preferred outcome versus current practice
8. Sequencing inbound - the use and application of speed control - landing slot times and how the landing sequence is created
9. At maximum hourly movement rates, the impact of minor or major interruptions and their consequence on holding requirements
10. Stack swapping - being changed from one holding pattern to another
11. The impact of weather - the impact of each crew requiring an individual approach to weather avoidance - what ATC and aircrew can achieve if we have a common understanding
12. Aircrew conduct, entering, taking off, landing and vacating a runway
13. The dramatic impact of overflights on HKIA movements and complexity in the provision of ATC

The HKATCA is endeavouring to conduct a new round of briefings/discussions with Cathay and Dragonair, between line pilots and operational controllers. From those conducted already, the benefits were widely acclaimed by both parties.

If you have any queries on the above or other issues, a suitably qualified person will be assigned to answer, so please use the blog.

[swh]

Hey "psycho",

Could I suggest a new Pprune ID, one that imparts confidence in ATC ?

Regards

:sad:

[bekolblockage]

Trust me, the name Psycho in HK ATC (and formally Oz military/civilian ATC) is synonymous with exemplary knowledge, passion and dedication to aviation.
Everybody who knows him or recognizes his voice in the Tower knows that he imparts a level of confidence in ATC that his peers look up to.

Good initiative thanks Psycho.

BB

[gtseraf]

As a frequent visitor to HKG from Japan, this is a fantastic initiative. A great way to improve things is by good communication and understanding of all the priorities, procedures and problems faced by all involved.

[Captain Dart]

A good initiative but all the 'blogs' in the world, an extra runway and another terminal will not improve the situation much until the 'cousins' up north open up their airspace and remove the 'glass wall'. What happened to the mooted integration of the area's airspace? I was under the impression that we would all be talking to 'Pearl Approach' by now, nearly 17 years after the handover.

The delays I am experiencing on a regular basis, even in Hong Kong's version of 'CAVOK' weather, are concerning, and do not bode well for the coming summer. HKIA's reputation as an efficient and reliable hub may well be under threat due to delays and missed connections.

[BTC-GC]

why 250kts and not less when cleared to enter a hold?

why force inbound planes to descend 10nm from DOTMI, "when ready" omitted when no one is crossing the outbound corridor?

why all the "unrestricted"?

why S6C, and not S6A, nevermind the good old slam dunk with "expect track miles" during quiet hours?

why climb "TO" FL? why descend "TO" FL? ("to" added)

why climb "" ft? why descend "" ft? ("to" omitted)

why runway change when wind VBR? creating a huge queue consequently push back delay

why the inefficient push back consequently creating chaotic inbound outbound scenes over the North bays

why would the third runway increase TKOF/LDG movements when the bottleneck is at base leg

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[crwkunt roll]

why put a link up here that we can't be logged into..... or alternatively, tell me how? Is it just an email address????

I have one though....... Why do Mainland ATC descend us to ridiculously low levels so far out from HK?

[psychohk]

I'll address this issue and have the necessary information posted shortly.

Then all submissions will be answered publicly on the blog. Some submissions have already been answered privately by email, but that's not the intention. We want the information shared as widely as possible.

The post above has some great points and will be answered in a day or two. They will require some detail. It is precisely by giving our reasoning that it will dispel some of the misconceptions of why we do what we do.

Thanks for posting.

[jacobus]

That's easy, and sadly can't be blamed on ineptitude. Industrial sabotage.

[Captain Dart]

It's also in case Colonel Wong wants to fly his MiG copy for 20 minutes; the PLAAF controls most of the country's airspace. This is a happy result for China, as it puts the squeeze on Hong Kong. I note, and sometimes compete with for levels, more and more mainland airliners flying direct to destinations in Australia and elsewhere. Maybe that's why we still don't have 'Pearl Approach' after 17 years.

The new Jebel Ali airport in Dubai will have five parallel runways, has desert weather, their military is under control, and is home to an airline that has embraced the A380. It is noteworthy that Virgin has dropped out of the 'Kangaroo Route' via HKIA.

ATC blogs are laudable, but HKIA has gone as far as it can go unless there are radical changes 'up north', and CX needs to order VLA's 'yesterday'.

[jacobus]

True Dart, sadly all too true; with the caveat that Colonel Wong doesn't fly his Mig clone in the dark or at 04 dubs in the morning, or presumably in inclement weather for that matter. That comes with the next load of technology that they steal from someone else. Leading me to the conclusion that we are being intentionally f@cked about in order to waste fuel.

[psychohk]

Replies to BTC-GC have been posted on the HKATCA's Blog

HKATCA Official Blog (http://hkatca.org/blogs/blog7.php)

[TSIO540]

ANA has an engine failure reference procedure published for the B767 off r07L and R. This procedure is also applied to single engine missed approaches. Basically, it calls for tracking to Rover or Porpa, as appropriate, then a LEFT turn to a track of 182 degrees

Dragonair, the locally based airline has the identical procedure to yours. In my opinion, if you stand in the tower and survey the standard missed approach track re terrain, there is a genuine low point below that track.

I have been told about the procedure in question and it basically says fly the runway 07L or R track to 8 DME then turn RIGHT and track 190.

I believe that in the event of an engine out missed approach above maximum landing weight only, the performance engineers would have determined that the standard missed approach climb gradient requirement exceeds the aircraft capability which would by the insistence on this procedure.

Would the right turn really cause an issue?

[bekolblockage]

Basically, it calls for tracking to Rover or Porpa, as appropriate, then a LEFT turn to a track of 182 degrees

Firstly, I think the original writer meant a RIGHT turn to track 182 after PORPA/ROVER. At least I hope so.

Would the right turn really cause an issue?

I believe the right turn Psychohk is talking about in the blog refers to a non-standard engine-out missed approach from 07L turning slightly right to ROVER, the 07L SID waypoint, (before turning down the West Lamma Channel) instead of the standard MAP which turns left 15 degrees.
The standard MAP is considered procedurally separated from the 07R SID, even in IMC, but has a climb gradient requirement of 7%.

As you can imagine, if the non-standard MAP to ROVER was commenced unannounced when a departure was just airborne for PORPA, things can get pretty sporting very quickly in IMC with little way out except a lot of finger-crossing.
Certainly if made aware that an engine out missed approach was likely, the departure would be held, as we do in Dependent (or Coordinated, as we call it here) Mode.

[SloppyJoe]

So the reason we can't reduce to min clean or descend at 500ft/min when told to expect 15 mins holding at a point 50nm away is because the computer gets confused?

Pathetic!

[bekolblockage]

Pathetic!

Psycho gave you a reasonable response with the caveat that he is not a radar controller in the Centre.
Suggest you grab a copy of Crew News from a few months back where the issue of arrival sequencing was dealt with in detail in one of the articles.

To supplement a few of the other topics raised by an earlier poster:

why force inbound planes to descend 10nm from DOTMI, "when ready" omitted when no one is crossing the outbound corridor?


Please don't confuse the DOTMI corridor (you used the term, so I presume you know about it) which we use for lower level crossing traffic (below F260) with the reason for your early descent.
Generally the reason would be due to convergence of A1 traffic at MAGOG at the same level (I'm willing to bet it's when you are normally at F320?). While it may seem the simple solution is just descend the ELATO traffic earlier, often thats not possible due to other traffic and getting you stepped the wrong way would stuff up the sequence.

why all the "unrestricted"?

See the thread on "HK ATC ---/5000B"
I think I explained it pretty clearly there.
Its being fixed as we speak but at least 2 AIRAC cycles (56 days) are required for promulgation to the coders.

why S6C, and not S6A, nevermind the good old slam dunk with "expect track miles" during quiet hours?

The default track is the S6A. If delay of around 3-4 minutes or more is required, then the normal practice is to give the S6C. It is approximately 4 minutes longer and is supposed to give you some sort of predictability to manage your profile rather than wandering around seemingly aimlessly on vectors. If we gave you the S6A then told you to head 200 from SIERA would you be happier??
The "slam dunk" still happens during "quiet' times. I guess thats why you don't see it as much now. With around 1100 flights a day now, there are few "quiet" hours. Besides, the slam dunk probably resulted in the "too high/too fast" and the "yes we can make it/no we can't, can we have an orbit on final?" one too many times for both your and our Managements' liking.

why climb "TO" FL? why descend "TO" FL? ("to" added)

why climb "" ft? why descend "" ft? ("to" omitted)



The former is ICAO as Psycho says. The latter is incorrect and should not be used.
There seem to be some who find ambiguilty where there is none.
If you understand the ICAO phraseology and realize that the word "TO" is part of the phrase, you cannot confuse the level given or whether the controller meant TO, TWO or TOO.

why runway change when wind VBR? creating a huge queue consequently push back delay


I think Psycho forgot to mention that particularly during summer months, a certain amount of forecasting is going on by the Tower guys to predict the sea breeze effect as it comes and goes in the late morning and early evening. There is nothing worse than waiting for it to completely push through with resultant 10 kt tailwind and multiple go-arounds and rejected line-ups before deciding to switch.

As for the question on pushbacks- he's the expert on that and really you should be asking AA why they continue to design terminals that cause multiple bays to be blocked when pushbacks occur.

why would the third runway increase TKOF/LDG movements when the bottleneck is at base leg



Whether its through PRD airspace redesign or advances in PBN, we should be able to achieve independent base legs. (either from opposite sides or the same side). Independent parallel approaches to the outer runways will be feasible and independent departures from the south and centre runways, with 15 degrees divergence will be as per standard ICAO.
The aptly named "glass wall" certainly has a terrible effect on efficiency, in terms of handling, but in reality it is not an airport capacity constraint.

[Master Caution]

With apologies to Francis Ford Cuppola, I love the smell of a slam dunk in the morning.
Wakes you up.
Helps if you can get ZGGG to release you early to VHHK for early descent.
On the other hand on a clear day you can see the crazy airspace design when you are close enough to be on left base for 07L but you are in another FIR at FL210!

[AtoBsafely]

Psycho and Bekol,

Thank you for your information here. I (and most of my colleagues I hope) appreciate the work that you guys do to sort us out, given the constraints you have. I look forward to the day when we can be given a time for ELATO or ABBEY a few hours out, and make small adjustments early. Wishful thinking!

I appreciate being informed of a time at fix early, so that I can adjust speed. Alternatively, please assign a transition speed as early as possible because it does take a little time to set up.

I think on the ABBEY arrival TD should be FL110 procedural altitude. But LIMES should be 4500 or above.

I love a slam-dunk in the morning; it is like a big WELCOME mat!

[C172Driver]

UNIFO, bekolblockage and psychohk, thanks for your post replies, they are an interesting insight to what is going on behind the people we speak to on frequency. Keep up with the replies and good work! :ok:

[psychohk]

Question:

On departure from RWY 25L, OCEAN 2B, on initial call to departure prior to PRAWN we were given the clearance: “Climb unrestricted to 9000”.
What is the intended meaning of “unrestricted"?[

Ref is to FMC Database Coding. There are no altitude limits in the OCEAN 2B SID, other than TROUT at or above FL140.

You are correct, the OCEAN 2B SID only has TROUT FL 140 as a requirement, but FMC Database coding is the “restricted” that ATC are cancelling. For your reference, Hong Kong’s FMC coding is published in AIC03-10. I do not speak for others but the manager of HK Arrivals and Departures is presently tidying this issue up and his intention is to have all the FMC Database requirements unambiguously published on the SID charts. [As are the STAR charts which were consolidated, simplified and updated on 22 August 2013].

Along the same line…

On arrival when given an altitude crossing restriction ("cross SONNY at FL260") by a controller, then switched to a second controller and issued a lower cleared level ("descend to FL200") prior to reaching the previous fix(SONNY), is the crossing restriction cancelled, or does it still apply? The FL260 requirement still applies because it was not specifically cancelled by ATC. It would be the case where the new controller using “unrestricted” would be clearly canceling the crossing restriction("descend unrestricted to FL200"), but without the use of “unrestricted” is the crossing restriction (SONNY at FL260) still a requirement? Yes, as it is a published restriction (HK AIP ENR 1.10.5) it always applies unless specifically cancelled by ATC.

Hong Kong AIC40-12 is the reference. Part 4 dictates that the requirements at CYBER, SONNY and MAPLE always apply unless specifically cancelled by ATC. HK AIP ENR 1.10.5 notes 3, 4 & 5 is the authority.

From personal observation: ATC usually does not cancel published restrictions unless there is a pressing need and enough lead-in time for the derestriction to become effective. Aircrew often sound surprised when they query a restriction and ATC immediately replies, “Cancel the XXXXX level/speed restriction.”. When not cancelling restrictions, ATC is neither showing indifference or bloody-mindedness but, it is usually, because ATC has weighed up the workload benefit. Their reasoning is that, if there is not enough lead-in time for the derestriction to come into effect and if cancelling incurs added workload for little discernable result, then it is effectively a futile exercise. [This is why it is so important that authorities design TTRs, SIDs, STARs and IAPs that fit seamlessly. Otherwise, operational personnel (both ATC & aircrew) are constantly having to challenge each other because of the designed discontinuities or ambiguities].

[psychohk]

Several new questions on arrival procedures, altitude restrictions and holding requirements.

HKATCA Official Blog (http://hkatca.org/blogs/blog7.php)

[NIPPI 2000]

Thanks, Psycho. Informative and useful stuff!

Personally I think you guys and girls of HK ATC are doing a great job. :D

[psychohk]

We certainly appreciate the feedback.

We too (ATC) have to make adaptation to a changing environment with rapid movement growth, route structures that need prioritisation and re-vamping and technology integration. What worked yesterday doesn't necessarily work today. Clearly the better we understand each others lot, both parties profit.

Please don't harbour any questions. "there are no stupid questions"

We'll de-identify all questions via email. If you want them answered privately, simply state that and we'll oblige.

The HKATCA will be promoting ATC fam flights as much as possible to our members, so don't hold back with sharing your concerns should one of us join you on a flight.

[KABOY]

Thanks for the insight regarding HK airspace.

One particular occurrence I have noticed with increasing prevalence is the shortened base turn that follows speed reductions. It happens so regularly APP/ director recognises it and advises the track miles to run. Speed reductions and increased descent rates in jet aircraft don't work! Would it be possible to maintain aircraft speed and add another mile or two??

Every time this happens we are constantly been told to reduce further due to closure rates on preceding aircraft.

[744drv]

So many in ATC appear not to appreciate the inter relationship between speed and descent initiation. Recently told that the F260 constraint would apply at Sonny. Descent delayed due to traffic crossing below. Had passed planned top of descent so started to slow down. ATC come back with "CXXXX are you slowing down", "Affirm (otherwise will be unable to make constraint)". ATC reply with a very curt "maintain speed". I understand that we need to maintain common speeds for separation, but a thinking man in the above situation can see that a slow down pre descent followed by high speed in descent will sort out the requirement to make the constraint and maintain separation.

On a similar vein, do ATC realise how much easier it is for us to cope with speed requirements in the descent if those speeds are given prior to the descent point? Any speed changes in the descent are inefficient, and use more fuel.

[BTC-GC]

Thank you for the informative posts. theory behind for us helps :ok:.


why climb "TO" FL? why descend "TO" FL? ("to" added)

why climb "" ft? why descend "" ft? ("to" omitted)

Both of the above are a product of lack of standardisation. 'TO' is ICAO standard. The examples below are taken from ICAO Telephony Manual. It is becoming common for ATC and aircrew to subtract 'TO' or to add the word 'altitude' to clearances and readbacks. This is not standard ICAO. Some might think it's a good idea, but it's not standard. Sounds a bit anal, but it really is worth sticking to the book, otherwise people go off on their own interpretation and you'll end up with limitless possibilities.



G-AB DESCEND TO FL 60



FASTAIR 345 CONTINUE CLIMB TO FL 330..........CLIMBING TO FL 330 FASTAIR 345

This is an issue with readbacks as well. Generally ATC try to say minimum R/T. Then aircrew journalise it. Not a good idea. I assume being ex-caa, and the quoted example of "G-AB", "to" is not for all. reference CAA CAP413 affected 2013. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP41320Editionto4April2013_ISBN9780117928206.pdf


Chapter 3-1.2.3


"However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting. Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:

a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will also include the appropriate QFE or QNH."




:ok:

Break Break,

Decelerate and Expedite
Realistically, an analogy would be driving down hill, one cannot decelerate and steepen the descent, descent require transfers from potential energy into kinetic energy, as newton states the energy is not loss. Decelerate 210kts expedite descent just cannot be done at the same time.

[Benny Hill]

BTC-CG,

This is Hong Kong ATC, not the UK...the handover was in '97. Get with the times man.

[bekolblockage]

KABOY

I'm hearing you.
They are being educated about the incongruity of track shortening and reducing speed in the same breath. It takes time however, and even experienced controllers will argue some interesting rationale for why they find it necessary to do it regularly.
Yes there are times it is necessary to squeeze somebody into a tight gap while avoiding pointing directly at another aircraft but in our normal ops that shouldn't happen too often.

I think it stems from a one-dimensional view that is portrayed by linking the targets in the arrival sequence using a function we have called Range and Bearing Line (RBL). The tendency is then to "chase the tail" of the aircraft ahead looking only at the distance rather than the overall trajectory and energy of the following aircraft i.e think in terms of time to the same point.

We have had a couple of informal get-togethers with both KA and CX pilots which has allowed both sides to discuss the issue and get a better understanding of managing the aircraft's energy more efficiently.

BTC-GCI assume being ex-caa, and the quoted example of "G-AB", "to" is not for all. reference CAA CAP413 affected 2013. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP4132...0117928206.pdf


Chapter 3-1.2.3

•"However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not generated as a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases of flight. For example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or flight levels according to the phase of flight and the altimeter setting. Therefore, when passing level messages, the following conventions apply:
◦a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
◦b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or ALTITUDE employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or ALTITUDE. Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will also include the appropriate QFE or QNH."

Well, we pretty much follow ICAO as far as possible. I've often thought UK CAA seem to trip over themselves finding ambiguity in almost anything. Granted, its probably due to bitter experience but at what point do the "belts and braces" stop?
It makes for some pretty wordy R/T when you here somebody say ".... turn right heading xxx degrees, descend to altitude x thousand feet, QNH xxx hectopascals, reduce speed to xxx knots"

In a) above, please explain what ambiguity there can be in "... climb TO Fight Level 330" ?
In b), I believe the inclusion of the word "altitude" is not because of the ambiguity that "TO" might bring, but to highlight the level is referenced to QNH/QFE rather than 1013.
I actually happen to think that is a reasonable inclusion in a busy international environment, given we even have NA CX crews calling HK Approach "... maintaining one three thousand". :hmm:

[Gnadenburg]

One particular occurrence I have noticed with increasing prevalence is the shortened base turn that follows speed reductions. It happens so regularly APP/ director recognises it and advises the track miles to run. Speed reductions and increased descent rates in jet aircraft don't work! Would it be possible to maintain aircraft speed and add another mile or two??


Ka Boy

You have speed brake, flaps, gear and your three times tables! Jet aircraft are perfectly capable of the adjustments you mention.

ATC controllers throw it back at the airlines and say you are trying to facilitate economies through track shortening and their pilots are incapable of coping. Pilot descent and speed management inside of 30 miles is woeful- I'm tired of sitting in trail behind HKG pilots dragging their aircraft in and being so low on profile the TAS differential becomes a factor in ATC separation.

It has become so endemic in HK airspace that I sit on a comfortable jet descent profile and get asked by ATC if I have sufficient track miles to run!


I suggest ATC talk to airline management and use simulators to assess the prevalence of this profile laziness.

[bellcrank88]

Why is the weather always reported to be much better than it actually is?

If I see something like, Few at 800, Bkn at 1600 on the ATIS, then it is likely totally under cast as I arrive. Usually I can take the vis and divide it in half. Last time I departed the vis was reported as 3.5 km and I could not see the departure end of the runway when we lined up for takeoff. That is not unusual, but rather typical.

I know about the reporter being on the ground and the weather we experience being in flight .. Bottom line is the weather is almost never, ever as good as reported.

Is there a bonus for reporting good weather or something?

[bekolblockage]

Last time I departed the vis was reported as 3.5 km and I could not see the departure end of the runway when we lined up for takeoff.

Um, that would be because the runways are 3.8 km long I guess??? Sounds like the report was pretty spot on?

[bellcrank88]

I guess I did not state that very clearly. With the vis of 3.5 km reported I could see no where near to the departure end of the runway (which should have been visable)

[bekolblockage]

I'm not sure what type you are flying but we really are concious that a lot of the newer types have difficulty in making a 3 in 1 (~5%) descent gradient outside of the IAF unless they have the speed right back early, which is not what we want.

By way of example, we have had several representations from operators that the CANTO arrival is just too steep from MURRY.

Now when we designed and tested it rigourously in the B777 sim, it worked well in several extreme wind scenarios, albeit at least 1/2-3/4 speed brake was required for much of the arrival until after SILVA. But we designed it close to the limit of what PANS-OPS allows and what we understood the operators wanted. With 42 track miles from 13000 its right on the money at 5.1%

It now turns out that the 330s and -8s ,to name a couple, really struggle, so we have taken steps to lower the crossing altitude at MURRY.
In line with recommendations from the FMS manufacturers, rather than a hard level requirement, you can expect to see a window of F110-130 at MURRY come into play in around May. We need to give the FMS coders 2 AIRAC cycles notice to get it in the box.

We had to do a fair bit of airspace reorganization to do that as there is quite a bit going on in the sector below up to F120.

Hopefully that will allow everyone to fly their desired profile in future.

P.S. I'm waiting fr Nitpicker330 to come on and tell me 130 isn't a problem. I assume he's on the 330! ;-)

[bekolblockage]

Yes, sorry for being slightly flippant there.

I guess psycho could give a better answer there being a tower guy.
I know that the ATIS update process is nothing like what I was used to years ago. Seems we are inexorably linked to HKOs METARs which I have to agree always seem to be on the optimistic side.

As SLF, its funny to see the contrast between travelling to BNE and returning to HKG. When the captain informs us at TOD that its a pleasant morning with clear sky, I know I can look out and see 100km down to the Gold Coast in BNE. Returning to HKG, it means I can just make out my flat in Tung Chung. :hmm:

[744drv]

BekolBlockage,

Is the driving factor before bringing in a change to a procedure the FMS coding? I understand that changes to an RNav procedure, with lateral changes, might need "it to be in the box". However changing a FL130 vertical constraint to a FL110-130 window could surely be done by Notam in the first instance, backed up by a plate reissue and finally by FMS coding. After all, anyone flying the 'old' procedure would still make the requirements of the window by being AT FL130.

[Chingchung]

Psycho, what is your view on the ApplyDaily about using cellphone at work?

[psychohk]

100% against. Phone / device must be off. Nothing else is professionally/ethically acceptable.

[psychohk]

I am based in HK and regularly fly in and out of HKIA.

With the increase in traffic operating in and out of HKIA recently, I have noticed that separation between us(a private jet) and larger jets is getting reduced.
We have encountered wake turbulence of varying degrees consistently when approaching runways 07L/R. On our last approach to 07L, ATC approach controller got us to with 5.6 NM behind a B777.

The answer to your question quickly is 5NM, so in the case you mentioned you were issued a precautionary warning only. So what is our practice or required? ATC is REQUIRED to provide WAKE TURBULENCE SEPARATION (WTS). For RWY 07 there are many reasons why it may deteriorate below the prescribed standard. Poor controller judgement, one or more crews not following directed speeds, strong tailwind on base and headwind on final. If this eventuates:

A following aircraft that is positioned with less than the required WTS can

1. be removed by ATC from the sequence and repositioned

or

2. The following crew SHALL be advised, "C/s.... you are 4.6nm behind a Heavy, caution wake turbulence". If deemed relevant, and there is still significant closure, the amount of closure is to be mentioned. ATC is passive in that we don't ask, but passively wait to see if the crew requests to carry out a missed approach, as is their right and seek re-positioning. To my knowledge this has not occurred here.

Whilst it is done rarely if ever here, if the following were to have the preceding in sight and accept visual separation and continue on a visual approach, then then all responsibility for wake turbulence can be handed to the crew. i.e. for an aircraft on a visual approach, the spacing with preceding traffic is the responsibility of the following aircraft.

Since everyone is using VNAV for descents, we are all following the same vertical profiles, and therefore the smaller aircraft like us, and many others, have an increase risk of more severe wake turbulence from the ever growing larger jets.

From extensive research undertaken to try to minimise WTS, aircraft following identical flight paths are unlikely to encounter wake. LIDAR radar typically depicts wake descending below the flight path of an aircraft for approximately 100' and then levelling off. So the wake is resting below glide path and gradually being moved downwind. Lateral movement has the wake propagate laterally at approximately 5 kts from either wing tip in still air. So if you descend in trail on the same ILS final, in headwind or crosswind conditions, a vortex encounter is improbable. If however, there were a quartering tailwind on final, the wake may advance towards the threshold and the possibility is quite real. At HKIA the greatest threat is on base leg where there is a possibility that if you are below the preceding, you will fly through the wake of that aircraft.

What are the minimum separations between small and large jets? Does ATC factor in this to their planning when smaller jets follow the larger ones?

Rather than small and large, we operate in accordance with international weight categories. Other than BA41 from GFS and the very occasionally BE20, HK operates Medium, Heavy and Super categories. So whilst some of the BAC traffic is at the bottom end of the Medium weight category, they are considered the same as a B737 or A320. The more likely position for encountering wake from a preceding is on base leg, or if you are positioned on final 07R and cross behind the traffic ahead for 07L. Wake on departure is a threat, but for business aircraft the climb profile is usually radically different than other traffic.

The standards are:


Medium following a Heavy - 2 minutes on departure - 5nm in trail when inbound or crossing traffic not 1000' above or below you.
Medium following a Super - 3 minutes - 7nm & 1000' applies
Heavy to heavy - not applicable - 4nm in trail & 1000' applies
Heavy following a Super - 2 minutes - 6nm in trail & 1000' applies

Medium crews remember 2 and 3 minutes (behind a Heavy & a Super) + 5 and 7nm in trail
Heavy crews remember 2 minutes (behind a Super) +4 and 6nm in trail.

Any intersection departure other than J10 or J2 add 1 minute to timed departure standards. Also, timing is done from take-off roll, not rotation or airborne.


ATC is regularly trying to find efficiency in traffic sequences to minimise delays. So traffic following an A380 may be positioned on the South runway as will BAC and Cargo arrivals. To make this effective, it permits the sequence to compress if traffic can be positioned to take advantage of it. IFR separation allows for traffic to be staggered North and South at 2.5NM. Under ideal conditions, TWR can accept visual separation between the two finals and permit simultaneous landings. Difficult to achieve on 07 because of the close base.

So as mentioned above, where the major threat is on base leg, if we run North/South landings, controller technique should be to have the preceding heavier aircraft as low as possible on base and then retain vertical separation (1000' above) until the following intercepts final and is clear of the flight path of the other aircraft. There is no WTS consideration between two aircraft on different runways at HKIA due to the physical displacement between them.

Also can we request increased separation from ATC and will they be willing to comply?

Consider how may airlines, different types and business aircraft that operate into HKIA. Other than international standards, what justification is there to arbitrarily increase spacing? The industry is crying out for predictability. If APP and TWR were to conduct a personalised Q&A with each aircraft they handle on what their preferences are, I think you'll understand how futile it would be. Especially when you are part of a sequence that spans more than one hour of continuous traffic, then as you are being positioned on base you request additional spacing behind the Heavy in front. How much? What are the consequences for other traffic? On departure if you are number one at the hold, you're given line up with an inbound landing on final and as you enter the runway you announce you require not 2 but 3 minutes separation with the preceding departure.
Would you consider asking in LHR, JFK or ATL? ATC operates to provide separation using international standards, not aircrew preference.

These same topics have been asked by many business crews. Thanks for submitting to allow a broader education on them.

[psychohk]

The ATIS can be disruptive to all concerned. ATC has to create it to accurately catch prevailing conditions. If these are changing rapidly you'll approximate and generally we will be pessimistic if it is done manually. That is, post the worst case scenario.

Accepted practice though is that the ATIS should be left in general to capture the METAR conditions and that is what is transmitted. We do at times conflict with MET and time permitting will manually scribe the differences. This over-rides the METAR.

There are laid down criteria for when and ATIS must be updated, but if there are only minor variations, the aim to minimise workload in ensuring everyone is on the current information and minimise the R/T loading, is to limit the updates to hourly where ever possible.

For arrivals on first contact with TWR, all traffic will be given an update on conditions that vary with the ATIS. As you can imagine if there is a CB active and it is moving, to keep this type of information precisely updated is not realistic. So reality is to post a generalisation and any significant detail on APP or TWR frequency as it occurs.

[Chingchung]

So, Psycho, as a professional body, will the association issue a letter to members to observe professional discipline?

[psychohk]

Each member of the HKATCA is fully aware of my position as I've expressed it personally at every association forum possible.

The HKATCA currently has approximately 20 members. With our workforce of about 230 staff, we represent less than 10%. Do you think it appropriate/worthwhile then that I write to members?

Any suggestions, please approach me personally.

[Chingchung]

I don't believe you. 20+ members only against 200+ controllers??????? you must be kidding. If I don't pay my membership fee then it would be 19+.

With that less number of members, it is still worthwhile to issue a letter to them.

Another question, mobile phone is 100% against, what about dining at control positions? You are also 100% against it?

[troposcatter]

It must be ok, Supv and even the VP ATCA does it!
The ATCC smells like a Dai Po Dong!!@ times.
We don't have a cafeteria so what do you expect!!
We have so many staff issues, overloaded sectors now, (and before the summer wx hits,) undermanning, major TOIL & leave accumulation, and no voice!! = 20 ATCA members out of 200+, lets focus on that and NOT minor distractions like food etc..........................
ATCA needs support, so join, gather ranks, and take on the 'bigger' issues with management with one voice, otherwise it's divide and conquer!!

[EARLY-GO]

psycho, what is the association's view on early-go so called late-break? we basically leave the airport at least one hour before the official sign off time. the association should make it a legitimate affair.

[bekolblockage]

Professional pilots and professional controllers know the truth and appreciate your efforts Psycho.
Ignore the trolls.

[psychohk]

One post only from me on the subject. The HKATCA blog and this pprune re-direct is for one purpose.

TO ALLOW AIRCREW TO CONNECT WITH ATC ON TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF OPERATIONS WITHIN THE HK FIR.

The HKATCA needs members and the current board is attempting to build our relevance and future direction. Be constructive, join and contribute. If you wish to discuss ATC issues, please approach myself or any board member directly.

In future, there will be no replies to ATC internal issues.

PLEASE RESPECT THE AIM OF THE POST

[psychohk]

If you are in a 10nm hold and are given an Estimated Approach Time The HK AIP ENR 3.6. details the holding patterns and, as you have mentioned a 10 nm outbound leg, you must be referring to a VHHH STAR holding fix. This being so, you’ll be issued an OCT (Onward Clearance Time) not an EAT. An EAT relates to holding for the Instrument Approach Procedure and VHHH’s three IAF holds (LIMES and TD, and GUAVA [RNAV]) have 1 min outbound legs, not 10 nm,

on the last hold, can you cut the outbound leg short so are over the holding fix at the EAT? [Common sense wants me to say yes, but I can find no ICAO reference approving the shortening of the hold to meet the OCT. ATC’s are generally aware of this specific failure in ICAO practices, and this is usually why controllers, in very busy environments, take OCT compliance upon themselves by vectoring in the hold. The HK AIP (ENR 1.3.2) clearly states that OCT compliance is a flight crew responsibility, “It is important that pilots arrange their holding path so as to leave the holding pattern as near as possible to this time in order that an expeditious traffic flow can be maintained.” and, as best practice, some ATC’s endeavor to avoid vectors by stating, “Shorten or lengthen your hold to depart (fix) at ** and resume the STAR.”


Thanks in advance for answering my question. [Unfortunately the Association is unable to provide a definitive answer here and I’d be grateful if any reader has a better, reference-able, solution. Also, the HKATCA can request clarification from IFATCA and possibly have holding pattern shortening approved as ICAO practice.

Both ICAO and IFATCA Technical reps have been approached for an official stance]

[psychohk]

The reason why I ask that question was because a couple senior training captains believe that they can exit the hold (cut the outbound leg) to make the OCT at the fix.

However, many junior captains and the majority of the pilots believe that an OCT is the time that they’ll get onwards clearance and that the hold they’ve been cleared to is 10nm. Therefore, they will do a 10nm hold unless told otherwise.

From what I’ve heard from ATC, normally we’ve been radar vectored to exit the hold as opposed told to “shorten/lengthen hold to depart fix at XX”.

So its not just us pilots who are unsure. I guess there is no sure answer. Thanks for looking into it though.


Well a great find of this forum. Clearly this has considerable impact for ATC and sequencing, depending on interpretation by the crew. We will discuss internally, liaise with ICAO and publish an outcome.

Clearly for ATC, if aircrew can do accurate positioning to achieve times, this considerably reduces ATC workload, reduces R/T and minimises vectoring to maintain the intended sequence. Highly desirable.

[Baileys]

Does HK ATC ever take expat applications these days?

[psychohk]

Many enquiries, but no positions and not likely to be any. Comprehensive localisation policy now in place.

[psychohk]

For those looking for answers or information off-line

[email protected]

[psychohk]

Several questions on the required or desired phraseology.

ICAO. Doc4444 - 4.11.3 is the guiding document.

Frequency Change

designation of the station being called;
call sign (and “Heavy”);
level, including passing and cleared level if not maintaining;
speed (if assigned by ATC);
additional elements required by the regional authority. (If HK CAD has approved the inclusion of SSR code when entering from China – then that is clearly a regional authority element).

The Hong Kong AIP supersedes ICAO in HK for frequency change and ENR 1.1 2. requires:

callsign,
level,
assigned level.

CALLING DEPARTURES

From the detail above, on first contact with Departures, the SID identifier is not required.

[psychohk]

ATIS information should be stated only when contacting "Approach" (or equivalent)? Correct, but APP is still required to be confirm the ARR ATIS.


In addition, transponder code should be stated ONLY if entering HKG from China. Not required by the AIP but this information is helpful for Surveillance Identification purposes.

[A-GPS]

pyscho, is there SMGCS in hk airport.

[psychohk]

We have equipment named A-SMGCS by the manufacturer

However we don't use it as CONTROL equipment, only as a monitor.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

What about the rumour that HKG has the "taxi on the greens" system (as part of the A-SMGCS?) but it either: doesn't work properly; or takes too many controllers to operate effectively?

[psychohk]

We don't have the ability to do this. It is partially possible as most taxiways are sectionalised. By that I mean all of taxiway A or all of taxiway V. You are correct to attempt to use this control technique would be incredibly labour intensive.

I believe 'follow the greens' was a desired concept at HKIA opening, but due to many technical difficulties and the original contractor failing, it has never eventuated.

The future prospect is to data link a clearance to each arrival or departure and it be transposed onto a HUD. This will be to an intermediate holding point or to the bay or holding point for departure. With such a system, there is no corruption. What we are looking at, you should be looking at. This is not always the case with voice clearances. Especially beneficial on exiting a runway with momentum and having a visual presentation of what is required.

[psychohk]

SF thank you for the compliments on service delivery. This is important for controllers to hear, as it keeps their professionalism bar at a higher level when they know what aircrew prefer.

"All stations, be advised Shenzhen is no longer accepting diversions"

I'm aware this information is useful, but it can be quite impractical to track accurately. Diversions to airfields with limited capacity such as Macau, could change minute by minute. For this type of information to be passed on operational frequencies as well as status updates on HKIA during adverse weather could easily create a safety just with managing separation of aircraft. If it were some definitive information such as an aircraft disabling on the runway in Macau and there is a prolonged outage, this would be possible.

While 'general broadcasts' are very efficient means of distributing information they are not a complete form of communication. That is, there is no read-back from individual aircraft that they have received the information. 'Say agains', more detailed explanations and aircraft acknowledging can rapidly saturate available talk time. This could easily lead to ATC loss of control of the situation.

I would think such information is much more suited to being data linked to the flight deck. There is a package of Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) that is being developed for all stakeholders at HKIA. This type of information should be available to Airline Ops Centres, just as accurately or as up to date as ATC has, via such a medium. They could prioritise it accordingly.

[SMOC]

Tower unless you want the A/C down at B8/9 after landing on 07L, please stop using the term "exit Alpha eastbound" when A/C exit at A7 & A8, I have seen several A/C miss taxiway 'W' from A7 and A8-B7 from A8 as the time it takes to get the call to transfer to gound and then call on a busy ground frequency means A/C inevitably continue along alpha eastbound as instructed.

It would be better to say expect V or W or A8/B7 so A/C know they should slow to a crawl until able to get further instructions.

The first call from ground is usually "you missed the taxiway" which is false as they did as previously instructed until notified otherwise.

[psychohk]

Great point to illustrate what ATC is trying to do.

1st is minimising runway occupancy and ensuring separation. Ground flow patterns and expeditious taxi routes are always secondary. TWR and GMC work together as a team to achieve this and runway traffic will always have priority over ground traffic.

A7 onto V: Standard practice is to clear the aircraft onto "V hold short H, remain this frequency". Clear the next aircraft to land. Then come back to monitor the aircraft vacating. If they've progressed onto V and still moving away from the runway, they're switched to GMC. Very straight forward and a good catch point if the crew get confused in that intersection. All on the TWR frequency.

A7 onto W: If expecting W or given A hold short of W and then quickly transferred due to the short taxi, many crews come to a complete stop and change frequency. It is not uncommon to have locally based crews as well as transient ones to be on a high speed exit with half the aircraft straddling the holding point, ie not clear of the runway and with the next landing in the flare. Simply because the entire focus has shifted to ensuring they get taxiway W. Priority is the runway and separation. If you miss W, no big deal. A8 and a U turn onto B. All quite manageable and SAFE. Also ensures a continuous flow of traffic.

A8 onto A east bound. The same circumstance applies here. Aircrew vacate, most are aware of their bay and if the shortest taxi route is A8 - B7, they will prop on the high speed. All focus is out the front of the aircraft and another high percentage will come to a complete stop on the HIGH SPEED EXIT. There are many options to ATC from this position, so if we are all about safety, efficiency and retaining the movement rate, exiting onto A is the priority. Shortest taxi route is a bonus only. With tight final spacing a Go Round becomes a high probability. Just place yourself in the landing aircraft and I'm sure you'll understand where the focus should be.

A7 onto A eastbound This is the latent confliction. The landing TWR controller usually has ample separation with the aircraft vacating, instructs "A eastbound, contact GMC". Very common scenario is that aircraft vacates, comes to an excessively slow taxi speed and the next landing aircraft rolls to vacate at A8. A perfect intercept and the aircraft are on different frequencies. With minimum separation on final, the next landing, the third aircraft in the parcel, is now in the flare. Sometimes the situation develops quite quickly when it becomes apparent the second landing aircraft misses A7. GMC on the north apron can be quite complex and a high workload. ATC has strategies to handle the situation, but the overriding issue should be, when exiting and taxiing A eastbound, that you maintain a reasonable taxi speed onto A and clear the runway.

So if you miss W or A8 - B7, no problem. This is safe and expeditious to the overall runway performance. Airmanship will always provide the correct answer.

Retain some situational awareness of the traffic behind you and the mantra is land and vacate expeditiously onto A and retain a reasonable taxi speed.

Missing a taxiway and adding 60 seconds of taxi time is details in the scheme of things. Exiting in the same direction as the landing adds to gradual deceleration and not an abrupt pull up. The more compact the arrival sequence, the more the need for this discipline. To not stop or come to a crawl on a HIGH SPEED EXIT should need no amplification. The traffic in the flare is in a much more dynamic and critical phase of flight and will always be afforded priority.Shortest taxi routes are a distant second. Having said that, I would estimate they are achieved in 90% of arrivals. Unfortunately, some of that percentage is when it shouldn't have been and this reinforces a bad practice and expectation. Probably quite acceptable at 700 movements a day. WE need to change our habits to match the movement rate.

One other issue, is that ATC has a short window of opportunity to communicate with landing traffic on roll-out. If you are still in reverse thrust and at a reasonable speed, we are reluctant to transmit instructions as you decelerate. It becomes a bit of an art form as to when to pass the instructions. Other traffic can also block those opportunities as they check in on frequency.

Thank you for the post. A valuable opportunity to get our view across. If we could provide video evidence of a broad spectrum of operators at HKIA you would be amazed at the performance and lack of situational awareness being displayed.

[Killaroo]

"FlightXX maintain 160kts to 4DME".

What do you actually expect by this?
160kts to 4DME then decelerate? Or 160kts to 4.7DME then decelerate?

This is not a joke or a trick question!

[SMOC]

Missing a taxiway and adding 60 seconds of taxi time is details in the scheme of things.

Tell that to fuel bean counters :E

I guess what I was saying is two fold, the other day the north side was very busy as the single taxiway next to the terminal with single way flow is a great design (not) anyway, outbound flow was completely stuffed by the ground controller having a hard time with an A/C who had expeditiously gone down alpha eastbound as instructed by tower no doubt, she was more concerned about telling him off than giving precise instructions to get him (non local airline) to the south side.

Can we trial a standard routing to the south side to exit A7 straight onto V if clear rather than go steaming down A knowing we have to eventually get onto W or V. Even if it's only given to CX/KA something like expect taxiway V with the landing clearance, that way most of us who know HK well can keep the flow up and get away from the runway ASAP but not add to the ground traffic by becoming part if the departure ground movements. I'd rather " whiskey southbound" or "victor southbound".

And while I'm on a roll can someone change the new terminal 3rd runway complex to the ones like Heathrow and some of the US airports with the "toaster design" terminals, they're not pretty to look at but make north south airport movements a breeze compared to the current round the houses design in HK.

Does ATC have any input to the design of taxiways? CLK has the most unfriendly taxiway system around, the stopping and starting logjams associated with taxiways V & W are terrible for a so called international airport built with a clean sheet. I hope you agree you guys and girls would have it flow better if possible or at least say this wont work because of this that & the other.

Cheers

[psychohk]

As a business jet operator out of Hong Kong BAC, we often debate about asking for landing on 07R or 25L for expediency. It would lessen our taxi time inbound of course, and perhaps be smoother for airport OPs in terms of not needing another runway crossing, etc. Anyways, we usually forget to ask, and with typical visibility it might be too late when we see on final if the south runway is clear.

The question is, is it any problem for us to ask in general once approaching the terminal area for use of this runway? What is the first controller you would recommend requesting it to? (HK Director?)

HK ATC assumes all Cargo and Business traffic parking in the Business Aviation Centre prefers the southern RWY 07R/25L. During peak periods when there is excessive airborne holding, the south runway will be allocated to specific callsigns by the flow controller to land traffic ASAP. In all other circumstances, it is the prerogative of the TWR controller to assess the impact on departing traffic. i.e. if there is a gap in departures or very light traffic, we will coordinate for specific callsigns to be OFFERED that runway. It is a complex calculation with many variables. All of these are unknown to landing traffic. If ATC gets it wrong and we've offered the runway to a business jet, and as that aircraft checks in on final, there are six aircraft at the holding point and another 4 joining the queue, the resultant loss to the industry is perhaps a 3 minute delay to the first departure. Realistically though it must apply to all traffic in the queue. So in this case one business jet can incur a cumulative 30 minute loss to the industry. ATCs, through considerable experience of unstable approaches, are advised not to offer the southern runway to traffic inside 30NM from touchdown. The ideal is 50NM, but practically it is very difficult to forecast the departure queue at that range. All a poor Human Factors exercise with ATC aiming to please and crews being disrupted during high work load. Many crews will say they can handle it and brief both runways in anticipation, but there is an ample body of evidence that it can go wrong.

UNLESS YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN EMERGENCY OR HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY ON BOARD, PLEASE DO NOT ASK FOR THE SOUTHERN RUNWAY

What is the closest to the runway that you are allowed to issue a sidestep if requested?

A sidestep in HK is limited to a specific manoeuvre, not just a change of runway from one to the other. It is only used in reference to traffic when they are established on final on the Northern runway and it subsequently becomes unusable at short notice. VMC must exist for the sidestep to occur and it has a maximum distance when it has to be allocated by and a minimum distance when to be established on the Southern runway. By definition, as the sidestep is in progress at around 5NM, ATC is inducing an unstable approach scenario under the guise of a visual approach. It has been done once in my recollection with a CX aircraft on a clear blue day and well over 5 years ago. I think the airline industry in general frowns on this sort of late change with risk/reward analysis. As mentioned in the answer to the previous question, our instructions on offering an alternative runway should be by 30NM from touch down at the latest. ATC when dealing with business jet crews are always dealing with an unknown commodity in regards to capability and airfield/airspace familiarity. The vast majority of HK ATCs do not have live or regular experience in controlling such manoeuvres. It is in our manual, but it is to prevent a go round when short notices unforeseen circumstances cause a runway blockage. It is not intended as a last minute change for expedition.

Last comment is of course that professionalism prevails and we won't bother with a request at a time when the radio is so crammed as to be impractical.

Your points about eliminating a runway crossing and shortest taxi route are an ATC consideration, but similar to the situation in the post above about vacating the landing runway, these are two low priority issues.

So in summary if the south runway suits minimal delay to departing traffic, and there is no evidence of turbulence or wind-shear (local experience dictates that crews prefer the Northern runway during these conditions) we will initiate the allocation. During peak arrival periods it can be directed to any Cargo, BAC or South Apron parking traffic by the flow controller. In either case the reason will be transparent to you. As stated above, we automatically assume you prefer it. By asking you may lure an unsuspecting controller into thinking they are doing the right thing and initiate it. If this occurs, crews WILL make it habit forming. It is genuinely counter productive for the request to come from aircrew.

Once again, thanks for the question. Much better to sort issues here than on frequency.

[SMOC]

Why doesn't HK use 07L for departures and 07R for arrivals? Surely this would cut down immensely on the ground traffic heading for the BAC and the cargo apron. BAC & cargo A/C could depart 07R when a gap was available and if not cross via K4/K1 (G/S fluctuations noted) & N to depart from 07L, thereby not interfering with any other flows.

[SMOC]

ATCs, through considerable experience of unstable approaches, are advised not to offer the southern runway to traffic inside 30NM from touchdown. The ideal is 50NM, but practically it is very difficult to forecast the departure queue at that range.

Most CX/KA guys I've spoken to would happily take a optimal southern runway landing within 10miles. Anyway to change the above philosophy? It's rather frustrating going down 07L in a freighter seeing no one land or depart until you're half way down taxiway V having requested 07R 30miles out, even to the point of discussing we should request a visual sidesteps while on final (unusually clear day obviously). Can we give early (50nm) notice that we are willing to accept a intercept heading runway change? Which happens in Taipei quite often after a runway inspection is complete or is opened while on a base intercept heading.

[LapSap]

And while I'm on a roll can someone change the new terminal 3rd runway complex to the ones like Heathrow and some of the US airports with the "toaster design" terminals, they're not pretty to look at but make north south airport movements a breeze compared to the current round the houses design in HK.


You seriously think its about the aeroplanes SMOC???

Its about retail man!

The aeroplanes are just a way of getting everyone into the same shopping mall. They're shopping centre managers.

Of course they don't want toast rack type layout. The new Terminal will be just like the current with a Y at the eastern end as well. So we can have blocked pushbacks at both ends in future.:mad:

[NIPPI 2000]

Why doesn't HK use 07L for departures and 07R for arrivals? Surely this would cut down immensely on the ground traffic heading for the BAC and the cargo apron. BAC & cargo A/C could depart 07R when a gap was available and if not cross via K4/K1 (G/S fluctuations noted) & N to depart from 07L, thereby not interfering with any other flows.


Have you ever done some approaches onto 07R with winds which have a southerly component?

If not, then a quote from the Jepp HK Airport Briefing plate might answer your question.


1.7.2.2. EASTERLY THROUGH SOUTHWESTERLY WINDS

When prevailing winds are from the East through Southwest and with a speed in
excess of 15 KT, significant windshear and moderate turbulence can be expected on the approaches to or on departure from both RWYs. Larger magnitude of windshear and turbulence is possible when the wind speed is in excess of 30 KT. Because of the closeness to the hills of Lantau, the windshear and turbulence are more significant over the southern RWY (RWY 07R/25L).

[SMOC]

You seriously think its about the aeroplanes SMOC???

If any airport is concerned about sales in the terminal it's LHR yet they have seen the way ahead is the use of the toaster system.

Have you ever done some approaches onto 07R with winds which have a southerly component?

Yes several times, it was the only runway when CLK opened and it worked fine then.

HK can't help but cry wolf on every ATIS it says significant Windshear forecast 120/7 :eek:

[NIPPI 2000]

Given my own fair share of rather challenging approaches I had onto 07R, the decision to use 07L as the primary landing runway makes totally sense to me. :ok:

[bekolblockage]

While the wind characteristics can play a part very occasionally, the runway operating policy of departures on the south and arrivals on the north is primarily to ensure independent operations under the vast majority of conditions.

The ICAO guidance for independent parallel runway operations recommends 30 degrees divergence between a departure from one runway and the missed approach track of an arrival on the other.

Due to the terrain around CLK, we are limited to 15 degrees divergence, if an acceptable minima/climb gradient is catered for, however the runway spacing at CLK is approximately twice that required in the guidance.

A safety case was carried out, based on, in simple terms, twice the initial spacing and half the divergence, (its not quite that simple obviously when determining the tolerances, especially in the MAP phase). The risk was shown to be no worse than the ICAO guidance.

Obviously if we reversed the runway operations we suddenly have a situation where the south runway MAP has to be straight ahead due to Lantau and every departure off the north runway would have to turn away to the north and somehow get back south at some stage. Off 07 that would be up the Tai Lam gap and off 25 you would head up the PRD- but to no-mans land.

Once the PRD airspace is sorted, well........ Don't call us, we'll call you.

[SMOC]

Understood, thanks.

I take it the third runway must be based on future airspace improvements?

Any new improvements on the cards for 2014?

Cheers.

[bekolblockage]

Hmmm, not a lot I'm afraid. Certainly not PRD-wise.
Everybody working flat out on the new radar system.
We were expecting to move into our new Centre soon but .....get someone to translate the Apple Daily for you. They seem to know even more than we do.

Minor change to the CANTO and SIERA STARs coming in May. Crossing height at MURRY lowered. A window now F110/130. Know the 744 and 777 guys don't care but the hard F130 kills the 330 guys and the -8 struggles a bit too apparently. Especially if you get slowed on first contact with APP - which is only like, 99% of the time.
You should see the AIP Supps come out shortly.

We're consistently getting close to or over 1100 flights a day now into HKIA. Will go close to 1200 over Easter. Growth still running at 6% pa as of last month.
700 odd overflights as well. LCCs in the region have exploded this past 12 months.

PS. And yes, 3RS operations predicated on airspace issues being resolved satisfactorily by early 2020s. Once 3RS is in, you will go up the Tai Lam gap off the Centre runway to head north.

[psychohk]

1. Runway allocation - please come and visit ATC. You need to see 20 or 30 aircraft being considered at a time. Workload simply does not permit devoting perfect handling to individual aircraft.

Not all TWR controllers will assign the South Runway, because if they get it wrong, it can cause significant delays to departures. Simply looking out the cockpit will never give you the 'picture'. For example, today's departure restrictions: Routes V1-V3 +3 minutes , V4 -V5 +3 mins PECAN +4 mins and BEKOL +5. So two taxiways of 15-20 aircraft all staggered in the correct sequence so we can release departures with absolute minimum delay. Then BEKOL changed to +15 minutes. The entire sequence needed to be reset. Aircraft needed to be taken onto the runway and taken upstream to the outbound flow. Then the departures were altered for a composite V1-V5, 2 minutes alternating to 4 minutes and BEKOL back to +10. Another complete reset. So if you happen to land and see no traffic at the hold, there is every possibility that while you were in the flare on 07L that a complete parcel of departures was able to be released and three of them were all critical set course requirements. Put you on a 7NM final 07R and that can't happen. The two GMC positions are always trying to thread aircraft to the holding point with 2 and 3 minute slot windows. This is always transparent to traffic lined up in a queue. So as a runway controller, if you see considerable set course restrictions on outbound traffic, to assign landings to the SOUTH runway, is anti team work and can have drastic consequences for traffic into China or Taiwan if they miss a slot. The coordination process to re-negotiate can involve several controllers, plus incurring a similar impact on any neighbouring ATC unit. Just for one departure. So please don't think surveying a runway gives you the 'picture'.

2. Taxiway exits and instructions: Some explanation of how ATC works. We use segregation of airspace or areas of jurisdiction. It's the same on an airfield as it is in the TMA and En-Route Sectors. Generally speaking we don't talk to each other as it escalates workload dramatically. All interfaces between controllers have very strict protocol for what you can and can't do to avoid coordination. For the case you've mentioned, of vacating from A7, generally, you will be issued taxiway V. This is a standard release of that taxiway from Ground to Tower. GMC is obligated not to infringe it whenever it may be used by exiting traffic. All other traffic not proceeding to the South apron, is issued taxiway A eastbound. This ensures traffic remains separated during the handoff from one controller to the other.

HKIA has insufficient parking bays. What you may not be fully aware of, even though you see them, is the towing arrangements. Generally each hour the GMC's combined will handle between 20 to 30 tows. We give the instructions via our strip system and those are passed to the tractor driver, in Cantonese via a separate radio network. To thread them, generally in the opposite direction to taxiing traffic, can be very time consuming to minimise the impact on in -service aircraft. Delay a tow more than 30 minutes and the company will be on the phone asking its whereabouts. Common practice is to run tows on one taxiway and live traffic on another. Cross field tows will then generally run on V and all live traffic on W. So the simple exit and join V no longer applies.

During Single runway operations, we totally reverse the use of taxiway V and W from dual runway ops. We also have 5 narrow body bays below the TWR that exit directly onto V. These are practically invisible to the GMC positions due to the physical size of the TWR. When these are in use, they also impact how V is handled.

I hope you get my point. There is almost never, a standard way to operate the inter-relationship between TWR and GMC and the use of V. What ATC does do in-house is to give priority to runway traffic. So taxiways A and V are GENERALLY kept clear to allow traffic to land and exit asap and get handed off a dedicated GMC. Any protracted discussion between GMC and TWR is highly undesirable and counter productive. Generally this applies to any pairing of controllers. Coordination is generally last resort. Procedures should eliminate the vast majority. Almost all coordination in the radar environment is 'silent', done using electronic symbology with dedicated meanings.

3. What you want and what the industry demands: What you can accept and what you think your mates can accept is unfortunately not a sound model to run close to maximum movements by. It generally costs time and dramatically increases risk. With one freighter getting the South runway and if it were to impact 6 or more departures the cumulative time loss to the industry can approach 30 minutes with just one landing. Any ATC in a month will observe literally 1000's of flights. 100's of 1000's of flights over a year. What you see or hear during 5 minutes on an ATC frequency is not necessarily representative of as sound assessment of what works and what doesn't. You may well a have an understanding how actions impact you, but not 15 other aircraft. This has nothing to do with status, but aircrew consider ONE aircraft where ATC has to consider numerous aircraft. At 1000+ flights a day, ATC has to provide a safe, predictable and repeatable model to allow traffic to arrive and depart in. Ad hoc and ad lib, has little place in high movement rates. The repercussions go right through the system and invariably impact safety. Having said that, sometimes ATC has to 'make it up' to make it work. We are invariably on increased alert when we do something non-standard.

4. Procedures and where they come from: The majority of our procedures are dictated to us from consultative processes between CAD and the Airline industry. Switching runways at 10NM does not meet any TEM model we know of. ATC obviously is certainly not immune from mistakes and poor judgement, but aircrew need to comprehend the numerics of keeping 33 departures and 33 arrivals moving per hour without integrated flow management, plus all the repositioning of ground traffic, 600+ daily though area flights and the impact they have on virtually every flight into and out of HKIA, all ticking over with the least average delay to all traffic. This is not a simple exercise.

Hopefully this forum will allow us to share with you that what looks simple to you, is in fact quite complex. Do we need to change our procedures and constantly review? Absolutely, but just pitching endless criticisms at current operations without all the facts or understanding the implications of altering traffic patterns wont help.

[jacobus]

Psycho. Pls keep up the good work and fair play for all your articulate and intelligent efforts in posting here. One question:- where and when can I get on one of these ATC tours ? For various reasons ( industrial in nature ) I didn't do one on my command course and would have a genuine interest ( vested admittedly ) in seeing how you guys go about your daily work. Pls feel free to pm if nec.
Cheers.

[SMOC]

So please don't think surveying a runway gives you the 'picture'.

Sorry I should have been a little clearer, on days where you can hear and see traffic on 07R I completely understand, my one example was actually no A/C getting airborne (TCAS) and one CX 777 taxing down J with no one at the hold when we were on final for 07L (gin clear day) we were taxing down V when the 777 got airborne ahead of us. This was what we thought was a slick opportunity do slot us in on 07R having requested it earlier. However you have explained that ad hoc changes aren't the best. I guess what myself and others are looking at is efficient practices used at other airfields and if they can be applied to HK, likewise I look at some airfields and think why don't they do it like HK ATC.

All info much appreciated. Cheers

[psychohk]

First of all what a great blog you got now, with a lot of great info for us pilots. Thanks for that.

I have a few questions for you.

1.Quits(sic) often we seem to be radar vectored on both arrival and departure along the STAR or SID +\- less than 1 mile. Are your aircraft separation less when radar vectored compare to on SID/ STAR or what is the reason. Separation in both cases is a standard 3nms. Wouldn't it be easier to use speed and stay on the SID/STAR? It would appear so but we’re learning that it is strongly influenced by individual interpretation. There is a proverb in ATC that states a controller’s interventions per sector, is proportional to that controller’s trust in the system and the consequences of any breakdown (system, here, refers to equipment, the airspace structures and procedures, and ability of aircrew to accurately comply). As a formula: Interventions = Consequences / Trust, you can deduce that as a sector becomes more congested, the risk of Consequences from non-compliance will increase and, assuming Trust remains constant, then the number of ATC Interventions will increase. If Trust decreases, then Interventions soars.

2. On approach we tend to get " speed (ect 210) or greater. Would you normally want us to keep high speed or slowdown towards this speed? Rather than giving you a specific (fast) speed, the controller is affording you three options: 1) keep your present speed, 2) come back to the minimum stated or 3) anything in between. By giving this clearance, the controller doesn’t foresee any consequences from either action. Please note: we are using this clearance because so many operators now, don’t like flying fast inside APP/FAD airspace. The standard ATC speeds are: 280kts in descent, 250kts at 10000’, 210kts on downwind, 180kts on base and 160kts to final, thus when we use “***kts or greater” we’re referring to those standard speeds and want you to go as fast as your company allows.


3. Now the season with weather is upon us, and we need weather deviation. Some time we just need less than 1 mile to get around a TCU. Can we " just " get around it without talking to you and blocking up a already busy frequency, in this case what would be acceptable from your point of view. You must ask, even for a small deviation. Horizontal separation is predicated on you staying on track. Also for SID and STAR would you prefer a specific heading or etc deviate up to 5 nm right/ left of trek. Personally I prefer the last which give me more freedom and not blocking the frequency with numerous requested heading requests. Either is acceptable.

4. When in holding we always seems to get 2/3 the holding and the radar vectored to the waypoint. How accurate are your system with arrival times, because we could adjust the speed in the holding within the ICAO limits. To meet our airport Arrival Acceptance Rate (AAR) the Terminal controllers have to accurately (+- 1min deviation) meet the AMAN OCTs. Again, the formula, Interventions = Consequences / Trust applies. HKATCA sees benefit for everyone if holding, OCTs and FMS are the standardised methods of managing arrival delay and is trying hard to convince controllers at a professional level. However, we do see it as a Trust issue.


This was just a few questions from me which I hope you could explain.
Again thanks for this opportunity for us to communicate with you guys.

[bigjames]

I fly locally and think we get amazing support from ATC who have to deal with Macau traffic, GFS, and other professional local traffic while being extremely accommodating to student pilots who sometimes require three attempts to read back their QNH. My question is how do you roster staff between CLK commercial traffic and local GA? Thanks for the help!
:ok:

[The Bald Innocent]

Agree with UNIFO. The AMAN time +/- 1 min is ref only.


Even with this +/- 1 min the approach controller still need to work out the spacing on to final, be it vectoring or speed control.


Not until the FMS can make accuracy in terms of secs we can make good use of it to ease vectoring.

[psychohk]

I fly locally and think we get amazing support from ATC who have to deal with Macau traffic, GFS, and other professional local traffic while being extremely accommodating to student pilots who sometimes require three attempts to read back their QNH. My question is how do you roster staff between CLK commercial traffic and local GA? Thanks for the help!

Once an ATCO is rated in the TWR, they need to work all positions. Both runways (Air Movements Control -AMC) two GMC's, Clearance Delivery and a combination CO-ORD - Zone and Flight Information position. The latter can be very busy or very quiet. As a CO-ORD you support the running of AMC and GMC and conduct most of the effort during runway changes. If there is a considerable volume of traffic it can make the position a bit willing. All controllers on shift get cycled through all positions.

Not all Clearance Delivery operators are ATCOs. Aircrew tend to get impatient on this frequency. What is not necessarily evident is that this position has no jurisdiction over airspace. They are purely an intermediary. In most cases, if you call ready, they need to co-ordinate. Simply because there is no radio chatter doesn't mean they are idle. Also, the overriding metering tool is how quickly we can launch traffic from the runway. Average is 90 seconds to two minutes. So stepping on each other on this frequency is quite senseless. In many ways asking for delays is in the same category. Flow control can be imposed at any time. On an average day it is altered 30-40 times. This is the reality of HK departures.

[SMOC]

It's probably been asked before but do ATC ever ask A/C to increase speed especially the A/C that can go fast. For example the other day OCEAN dept of 07 told to maintain a max of 250kts and 7000 due traffic ahead. This ended up being traffic 7000 feet above us from Macau? (A320) who was actually behind us on TCAS but no doubt had a higher TAS/GS we got a stepped climb & acceleration all the way to ENVAR, we ended up getting there 2min before the said traffic. Now we were in a 744 and could have easily been asked to go fast and simply get out in front.

Weather was not a factor and there wasn't much traffic it was surprisingly quiet.

It just appears that slowing traffic is always the answer for spacing. With the NOTAM regarding slow speed climbs (M0.78) I'd imagine the A320 is one of the A/C for which it's applicable, do ATC consider the A/C type when considering performance a short vector or speed control applied to a 320 would allow the majority of wide body A/C to accelerate away. It's much better for us to have the potential energy of 350kts held low than trying to accelerate from 250kts and also climb.

I still wish ATC would join us on flights around the region so we can hear from you while it's happening.

Cheers.

I felt for the clearance guy the other day he was doing a good job. Unfortunately many crews weren't listening to the fact that the delay was due to HK weather (nothing to do with China) and the fact that it was approximately 2min per A/C delay, so once informed of their number in the sequence they then wasted a call to ask how long the delay was. :ugh:

[The Bald Innocent]

SMOC

Yes we do use speed control including speeding up and consider aircraft type in order to get the job done.

In the case you mentioned against the VMMC Departure I am not sure if it is the only factor which limited your climb with speed control.

However I would like to point out that according to the standard procedure regardless if you are departing from VMMC or VHHH if you are going on the same route e.g. via OCEAN to ENVAR the departure controller shall give 10NM in trail and no catch up to the next sector at OCEAN.

As you mentioned the VMMC departure is probably much higher then those from HK the TAS/GS would be significantly different and that adds complexity to how to achieve the requirement stated above.

The alternative is to step climb you below the VMMC Departure which requires agreement between the Departure Controller and the Area Controller in the next sector. This doesn't not always work as the VMMC DEP may need a lower level while you need higher. (the planned cruise level going into to TPE control in your case; note there is always level restriction going on different route downstream and destination) in this case the area controller may vector or give direct track to create "space" for the one below to out climb the one above.

Now to put this into reality the area controller may be controlling 20 or 30 aircraft at the same time this would be easier said then done.

Here is my question regarding using TCAS to displaying traffic on your ND, how much do you see and how do you interpret ? I always have a feeling that pilots would use them to guess what cause a restriction however in some case what cause a restriction may have nothing to do with what you see.

[SMOC]

I don't use TCAS as reliable location laterally, regarding the Macau A320 traffic, we assumed it couldn't of been him initially as he "appeared" to be behind us a fraction however during the climb and all the instructions it became obvious he was the traffic and we saw him eventually. We got a stepped 250/270/280/300/300+/M0.83+ accel and stepped climb, plus only got a direct once above the traffic, he got all the directs and no speed control, I suspect he was as I said basically doing an Econ climb into around M0.78, she was determined that he was first and we would be the ones to create the required separation.

Apologies if it comes across as nagging I'm just interested in the process so when the discussion ends up on the flight deck of "why" hopefully I can have a clearer picture.

A good example on a different occasion would be we were cleared high speed (not requested) but held at 9000 as usual so we accelerated to 350kts (smooth nil weather) ATC then requested our speed, and traffic behind us an airbus was also cleared high speed and told maximum 350kts by the controller, the airbus guy had a double take assuming he said 250kts it was resolved and the airbus saying he couldn't go that fast, anyway we both got plenty of directs and unrestricted climbs. Now we could have done an Econ accel to say 303kts so restricting the A/C behind us to 300, he may have wanted 310 for all I know but the point being ATC could ask us for max speed if he wanted while we were held low it may not work for us every day but it seems like an opportunity for ATC to use high speed as a tool rather than just cleared high speed.

High speed for most crews I suspect is to accelerate to Econ climb speed anywhere between 270-340 depending on A/C type and weight. Most if not all should be able to at least do 320kts so ATC could ask for 320 or greater if they want and release the guy later I hope. The guy at the front doing 280kts high speed still stuffs everyone else wanting 310 for example.

Understood however the next sector may have an issue.

Cheers

[The Bald Innocent]

Thanks for the reply SMOC.

Being a 747 may have advantage over other types but sadly as you are normally faster then others types and can possibility slow down late you will always find more scenarios which we requires you to slow down rather then speed up.

With the number of traffic we handled these days and internal procedures we tend to generalize everything, and we may not cater well enough for all the differences between types and airlines.

Example would be sending you right after an A340 going the same route on DEP which means you will get speed restriction for quite a while after departure. Remember that 10NM in trail requirement... we also have users who refuse to speed up below 10000ft... company SOP they say.

In contrast we also have cases with those airbus going to China via BEKOL/DOTMI who are reluctant to speed up too much to trade for climb rate and meet various restrictions...

I understand your reason to speed up during a level restriction to trade speed for climb rate later on... yes we would try to help if possible, however it may not be the solution the controller have in mind to deliver the spacing required.

Having said that doesn't mean we can't do better, I would certainly agree that the more we understand each other's OPS we would be able to deliver more efficient services to the public. :ok:

[SMOC]

Thanks for the reply, didn't know about the restrictive SOPs used by some carriers which would go a long way to explaining "why", can you "sin bin" them and send them off on some wild vector? :} Nothing like a good bit of nepotism for us locals :ok:

Thanks again.

[SMOC]

Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.

[geh065]

We arrived at ELATO about 5nm behind a much slower aircraft the other night 4000ft above us. I was already dreading the speed reductions and zig zags but thanks to the controller who wisely told us to maintain high speed, quick pass the traffic then let both planes descend normally. It is obviously the most logical way to do it but the first time I have experienced it. Usually it seems to be 'whoever is in front wins' with us having to zig zag all over the place and slow down and totally screw up the descent just to appease a slow 737 or A320.

Hope the sensibility continues!

[Killaroo]

SMOC
Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.


How do you feel about being told to fly 290+kts through CU?
My passengers seem to dislike it.:hmm:

[CCA]

What's your turbulence penetration speed killaroo? Plus you know about weather radars right? :ugh:

[Killaroo]

:bored:
Do you know WHY we have a turbulence penetration speed? Do you understand what it is for?
Hint: The turbulence penetration speed has NOTHING to do with PASSENGER COMFORT.

The passengers pay your wages.
Turbulence is to be avoided where possible, not exacerbated by accelerating in it.

Weather radar does not display small CU. it displays CBs. However I have a pair of eyes, and I look out the window. When I see CU ahead of me I will ask for a deviation. Sometimes I get it in time, on other occasions I won't. HK is busy and constrained airspace. More often than not I'm just forced to plow through stuff. Small CU can be very rough. Even a layer of ST can cause significant bumping around. I'd be a fool to accelerate in that.

Likewise at night, if my lights show I'm entering cloud, and can't tell what it is, or what might be embedded in it, I do not want to accelerate to 290kts, and I will not do so.

Thank you.

[CCA]

So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night then :ugh:

[SMOC]

How do you feel about being told to fly 290+kts through CU?
My passengers seem to dislike it.

Simple, I don't do it.

[Killaroo]

So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night

Y'know, its hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who wants to be a dick.

Did you figure out the real purpose of your turbulence penetration speed yet?
Ask a Training Captain if you aren't sure.

[jmmoric]

Do you know WHY we have a turbulence penetration speed? Do you understand what it is for?

Killaroo, I suppose the reason for turbulence penetration speed, is the same as the reason I have a max. rudder input when flying a Piper 28 in turbulence?

Otherwise I would like to hear the reason :o) Just trying to learn a little more here ;o)

So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night then

To my understanding the sun has a great deal of influence on turbulence? Not that it doesn't exist at night....

[Zual]

Silber,

Apologies for causing the angst and I'll desist immediately.

"Unrestricted climb" appears perfectly sensible but it can have upstream implications, so its use causes controller angst. Accordingly, we have instructions not to use "unrestricted climb" but to rather use the correct ICAO procedure. The ICAO requires that each SID restriction must be specifically cancelled (although in reality this problem is RNAV coding and not SID restrictions). There's nothing wrong with the ICAO but its very cumbersome if the airspace is not well integrated. For expedience, some Departure controllers do use "unrestricted climb" but this causes the majority of non-local operators to, correctly, challenge with, "Confirm the XX **** foot restriction is cancelled?" All this challenging creates a lot of RTF traffic.

Anyway, some of this should all be cleaned up in a few weeks time.

Of interest, I understand, ICAO intended to introduce "open climb/descent" in January 2013 but this was questioned by the FAA who were using "Descend via STAR" and introducing "Climb via SID". Here is video of how the FAA explains their change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrPzv96VBp8

[NIPPI 2000]

Was flying on the 9th and 10th in really shxx weather around HK and I have to say my FO and me were really impressed about how well HK ATC was handling the stack of traffic, Wx deviation, etc.

Well done :ok:

[crwkunt roll]

Very accommodating today, also, dare I say it, so were ZGGG ATC.

[kookaburra]

Yep, Thanks guys,

....but no thanks to the turkeys who decided it was a good idea to shut an engine or two down in the que to depart without telling anyone because they were so tight on fuel :=
Caused no end of problems and delays for the unsuspecting stuck behind.:ugh:

I hope ATC have a way of ensuring the offenders think about that effort before they try it again.

[Zual]

I also want to express thanks to the Guangzhou ACC. Some very testing weather conditions over the past few days and it was a pleasure to work with the ZGGG SIERA Sector guys who were really switched on. By pushing HK arrival traffic West of SIERA rather than East, your efforts made life so much easier for HK.

[Bo Wing]

I'm curious.... who is responsible for making the call of when to do an ILS flight check? Is it ATC, HKCAD or the Airport? Whoever makes that decision, why did they decide to do it during the morning rush on Thursday 15th resulting in lengthy delays for all departures? :confused:

[Bo Wing]

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?

[777300ER]

Try to ask your company to question CAD. I cannot put the reason in public forum.

Sounds like typical Hong Kong nonsense. An obscure rule is written somewhere which makes little sense in present day, however instead of questioning it, we'll blindly follow as if we are robots.

[geh065]

Is it a daylight only requirement to do the flightcheck?

[bekolblockage]

Is it a daylight only requirement to do the flightcheck?

Correct geh065. And in VMC. Its not just a matter of flying down the ILS. A lot of it is off scale laterally and vertically checking for course reversal etc. Visual positioning for the next run cuts down the time a lot as well.

Yeah I can, how about 05:00 - 06:00?
You think its not relatively busy then? A quick check shows every morning this past week there were ~25 arrivals between 0530 and 0630.

[psychohk]

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

[psychohk]

Several enquiries, but no positions and not likely to be any. Comprehensive localisation policy now in place.

[AQIS Boigu]

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

[777300ER]

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

Or you could simply accept the clearance and state that you will now be unable FL260 at CYBER. I do this regularly and ATC has always been accommodating.

[psychohk]

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.

[bekolblockage]

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.

[bekolblockage]

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!

[psychohk]

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.

[psychohk]

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.

[flyhardmo]

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.

[nike]

Stop landing aircraft on 07R with multiple departures waiting will do more for efficiency gains than promoting expeditious line up procedures.

[BuzzBox]

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.

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.

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.

[4 driver]

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....

[sewerpiper]

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 (http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=VHHH)

[dribbler]

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

[crwkunt roll]

A suggestion is for the next departure to have the nose wheel coming onto the centreline as the preceding is rotating.
I'd rather not apply the park brake on the runway thanks, nor should we be cleared for immediate takeoff when the landing traffic is still at 7 miles.
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. :)

[Alistair]

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.

Use of "Behind the landing/departing Airbus/Boeing line up and wait behind" (which is used just about everywhere else on the planet) as the standard clearance would significantly assist pilots in expediting their line up. It enables us to anticipate when we need to be moving rather than being cleared and then get moving. The standard line up clearance in HK brings every one to a halt and no one (except the controller) at any of the 3 departure holding points knows who is next for departure. As at other international airports use of this line up clearance would negate most of your issues with traffic flow on to the runway and is rarely heard here.

The next area to assist is to accelerate consistently after airborne

The best way to achieve this would be to get rid of the 220/230 kt speed restrictions on departure from HK and make them 250 kts.

The aircraft takeoff acceleration profile is programmed into the FMC/FMGC and would be standard for everyone. The only way it would vary would be based on aircraft weight which would affect climb to 1'500 ft and accel profiles after this. When heavy the 220/230 kt speed restrictions affect our clean up profile and we are sometimes/mostly prevented from final flap retraction until they are lifted. Consequently we are unable to even fly the 220/230 kt as we are wedged between a flap min/max overspeed and trying to prevent an overspeed event.

[bm330]

which is used just about everywhere else on the planet

everywhere else where English is not the third or fourth language. Way too many operators would require two or three times at that clearance to get a readback that would even be close.

[iceman50]

crwkunt roll

Why don't you get the company to issue a NOTAM when you are flying, that way you can get exactly what YOU want.:ugh:

If you want more "wake turbulence" clearance tell the controller before you line up! As for no immediate take off clearance YOU do not know the whole picture. You don't like ATC telling you how to do your job, don't tell them how to do theirs! There are more people in the world than you.:rolleyes:

[balus man]

crwkunt roll.

You will get your 2 min wake turbulence behind an A380 and 90 seconds behind the B748 from the roll. Any additional delay needs to be specified before entering the runway. You are not aware of atc intentions re an immediate roll with a lander at 7 miles. Perhaps the controller is attempting to release another departure before the lander? With the daily movement rate now at HK around 1100, there are many instances where airmanship can be improved. A quick line up and roll within 30 seconds of a take off clearance is one. Don't get to the holding point and say you want a 10 min wait for your slot at destination is another. Don't stop on the high speed exit with one landing behind is another. Don't pester the ground controller for a push back when you have been told to standby is another.. Congrats on the nostalga re the high speed descent and direct tracking, the daily rate at that time would have been less than 700.
Perhaps it is better if you do your job and let atc do theirs.

[crwkunt roll]

If this thread was designed to be one-sided why bother starting it?
If we can't share each others' frustrations without being attacked, again, why bother?
Pilots normally ask why, ATC normally explain why. Thank you for your answers to my recent post, I understand.
Just one reply from me, Don't pester the ground controller for a push back when you have been told to standby is another.
We are all human and I understand that controllers forget to call back sometimes. That's why we "pester".

[SloppyJoe]

edited as may have been a bit harsh. I agree HKG ATC try their best in a far from ideal location, rather than giving an excuse for every criticism whilst at the same time criticising others try to see it from our side rather than just your own. Something most of us could be better at doing.

[iceman50]

Sloppyjoe

Glasshouses and stones!:rolleyes:

[SloppyJoe]

My thoughts exactly Iceman.

[White None]

Have to vigorously defend HKG ATC. Did a tower visit last year and came away understanding a lot of the, at first glance, seemingly nonsensical tactics (slow prior MUSEL - fast afterwards, Radar Vectors seemingly following the arrival rather than just letting us get on with it). I'm not saying there aren't any issues to be discussed but it's not a level playing field for the controllers between here and say Heathrow, the starting premise, equipment and players are different. Don't judge a man before you walk a day in his shoes etc.

Lastly - SLOPPY JOE, you're just bloody rude mate, reflects on you not those you anonymously denigrate.

[psychohk]

nike: Landing traffic on the South (departure runway) is an airline/industry agreed policy. It is referred to as TRAM (Tactical Runway Allocation Mode). When the TMA gets overloaded, TRAM is likely to be declared. The flow will select up to 6 aircraft in an hour to land on the South runway. This enables the Director to squeeze the sequence. It is not easy to accomplish with a single entry point form base leg, but some controllers can manage with a specific technique. Slowly those that can are educating others.

It does impact the departure flow significantly, but can be minimised if crews comply with instructions. Clearly the rationale is that airborne traffic and the ATC manageability of the airspace takes precedence over the ground traffic.

If there is a busy outbound flow and it's imposed, it backs up the traffic quickly.

777: Whilst I accept your point, GMC has a very complex role already dicing up the outbound traffic to accommodate Mainland and in-trail restrictions. To add another complication to that sequencing will be quite taxing. In the near future, the mid field concourse will open. This will provide another outbound flow of traffic to add to the mix. To add to the complexity, the A380 is not permitted to use the majority of taxiway H. If we are directed to do it we will, but this has not been mentioned previously.

4 driver: I understand your frustration. The facts of the matter are that we are 100% busier than about 10 years ago. Traffic will continue to increase. ATC and Aircrew can't keep saying the same volume of R/T and increase movements. Both parties need to do and say less.

It is not uncommon for crews to request the relaxation of restrictions when there is no chance they will bust whatever is imposed. It simply adds to unnecessary R/T. If controllers permit 'unrestricted' in relaxed traffic, they are setting you and the system up for operations in busy traffic. It is much more efficient, safer and less complicated if you simply comply with your clearance.

Having said that, there is no doubt how phraseology has been introduced without 100% industry input, has created a lot of the angst. Hopefully this will be addressed and clearances dictating how you are to descend will be appended to your instruction. "descend on STAR", "climb on SID", "descend to 2000' visually", for Australian trained crews "not below DME steps". It removes all ambiguity.

Dribbler: Minimum spacing is that we are aiming to provide DEP's with 4 nm in- trail. This is usually provided when the first airborne crosses the upwind end then the next departure is released. It can be compressed to approximately 3/4 of a runway length, using aircraft differential performance say in the case of an A340 following a long haul 300ER. For an A380 following anything, 3/4 is generally acceptable as they are slow to roll and slow to accelerate after airborne. If you're following a business jet 1/2 to 3/4 will be adequate. So if you're in one of the lesser performing categories mentioned, expect an early release. It dramatically reduces the departure queue in minimum time.

crwkuntroll: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if you identify yourself as a team player or not. HK ATC works extremely hard at doing the best they can within the very complex limitations and lack of integrated flow control both outbound and inbound. Europe, the UK and all of North America are in another category. They all possess centralised flow and total regulation of traffic including imposing ground stops to immediately limit traffic.

If you were to spend a brief period of time behind any busy controller you'll immediately witness the very complex dealings they are faced with and the vast majority of that complexity is not reflected on the frequency. For you to object to being cleared for an "immediate take-off" with a lander at 7nm demonstrates a basic lack of understanding. If you roll immediately there is the distinct possibility of getting a second departure away. Maybe even a freighter to cross the runway as well prior to the landing. All to minimise delay to others and fuel burn.

No big deal if we lose a slot. Or is it? If TWR can't release the second aircraft because you take it upon yourself to dawdle, the next departure will incur 3 to 4 minutes of delay. However, generally the queue to the holding point in Hong Kong is never ending. So that 4 minute delay accumulates through the entire queue. 10 at the hold and you've generated 40 minutes of delay to aviation with engines running. If the queue is endless all players accumulate the delay.

Just using wake turbulence separation as an example, what would you prefer? The international standard plus 30 seconds? Why not a minute? In fact if a minute is better, why not longer? I trust you can see this is not workable with the custom we have, especially when you commit someone to the runway with landing traffic. There has to be an expectation of compliance with standards.


ATC asks for expedition, why? Always to accommodate other traffic. Yet we are frequently responded to with "I'll see what I can do", "we'd do our best", "we are very heavy", "we're already at a reasonable speed". De-motivate controllers from trying to do their very best to minimise delays and you'll see them escalate drastically. You also must understand that a controller with just 5 years of ATC experience will have seen literally thousands of aircraft movements. It is quite apparent to them what aircraft can and can't do, who is accommodating and who is not. When we request expedition, we NEVER expect a reckless action. Only what you are willing to accept. The only time we want otherwise is if you ask not to be rushed. This is not a problem and you'll be re-sequenced. Pulling this manoeuvre at the holding point lacks airmanship. For controllers, if there is any doubt that a crew may slow, not accelerate, take their time, we'll impose expedition to ensure it occurs. It is poor technique and not proactive to control in such a manner. It is NOT a criticism.

Im curious reference your account of wake turbulence. You mention 90 seconds behind an A380 or 748. Behind an A380 is 2 minutes. For a heavy departing behind a heavy, there is no wake turbulence time standard. We use ICAO standards. Here is something that may assist from a previous post. By your logic, we need to be able to accommodate endless requests for flexibility. There are 130 or more airlines flying into HK and an almost limitless number of corporate jets flying here. I trust you can see the impact on efficiency if we were to permit and an unlimited menu of requests.

Medium following a Heavy - 2 minutes on departure - 5nm in trail when inbound or crossing traffic not 1000' above or below you.
Medium following a Super - 3 minutes - 7nm & 1000' applies
Heavy to heavy - not applicable - 4nm in trail & 1000' applies
Heavy following a Super - 2 minutes - 6nm in trail & 1000' applies

Medium crews remember 2 and 3 minutes (behind a Heavy & a Super) + 5 and 7nm in trail
Heavy crews remember 2 minutes (behind a Super) +4 and 6nm in trail.

Alistar: There is a significant movement towards saying less on frequency. Your phrase while correct is highly undesirable if it is repeated 600 times a day.

If you are in-trail of another aircraft from the same holding point, you will generally be instructed "line up RWY07R". Crews are quite robotic and react with alarm, "ok, roger, behind the departing traffic line up and wait behind RWY 07R". This would imply that you could have lined up in front of the departure. The line up clearance is simply a clearance for you to enter the runway, not intended to separate you from traffic. If however, you are to line up behind a departure from the full length and you are at an intersection, the behind phraseology will be used. The reduction in R/T is enormous and has a much greater chance of not being misunderstood by an non native English speaker.

This is the sequence taught in HK ATC.
1. first aircraft is cleared for take off
2. second is cleared to line up
3. approximately when the first crosses the upwind end, the next is released.
4. next told to line up
5 when the departure is above 2000' and complying with the acceleration expectation, it is switched to DEP. Due to your workload and high threat environment immediately after departure we delay talking and assigning a task. The switch is a low priority item, but crews continually call early and quesiton "do you want me to call departures"?

TWR need to see your data label fill in completely prior to handoff. Quite often the callsign doesn't associate. So all DEPs can see is an SSR return. Quite often garbling with other ground traffic under tow not being filtered. No altitude component. Macau arrivals cross directly overhead and can overlap you target completely. In any of these circumstances we hold you on frequency. So unless you are rapidly approaching 5000', please let us come to you, not vice versa. Remember every time you initiate a call instead of us, you double the air time taken for the exchange. Getting frustrated with getting a call in on frequencies, then think carefully before you make your next request.

Hopefully we can get the switch put on the SID plate at an industry agreed standard of 2000' or slightly higher depending on cockpit workload.

So for a departure RWY 07R, discounting rarely used intersections departures, if you are at K1, J1 or J2, there is a 33% chance you will be the next to depart. Considering it takes roughly 80 seconds for a departure to cross the upwind threshold, I find it difficult to comprehend why it takes so long to get into position and then secondly, add thrust. It is rare that you'll arrive at any of these holding points as number 1. So adequate time to prepare your reaction when you get the call. Similarly 50% of traffic can comply. Why?

I would ask all crews the same question, would you behave this way at Heathrow or JFK? If the answer is no, then why 2 standards of behaviour?

I think many of the issues raised here are lost in translation when you consider HKIA now moves 1100 movements a day with 650 through area flights, with a single initial departure track, single entry point onto final and terrain up to 3300' immediately south and paralleling the arrival and departure tracks and no integrated flow control with adjacent ATC units. If you get frustrated, please don't take it out on the controllers. Surprising as it may seem, we are doing the best with what we are dealt with. Do we make mistakes -absolutely. Don't apply what used to happen here, because it was probably 30 to 50% less busy. Increases in traffic levels in congested and restricted airspace bring an exponential increase in complexity.

Balus man: you raise all very valid points. In particular highlighting the continual interjections for start-up. (see comment above about aircrew initiating calls rather than ATC) However in line with the intent of this forum, please don't be confrontational. There is a great deal of ignorance of the 'others role' and that's what we're trying to address. Thank you for your contribution and speaking up. Sign up for a Fam Flight and get your message across in person. Also consider coming to any ATC/Aircrew briefing.

[lepsap]

What is the position of the association on the recent hot topics in Fragrant Harbour about the promise-to-fail new atc system?

[Trafalgar]

Psychohk. Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed and informative post. I genuinely learned a few things from it, and it is undoubtedly helpful. It does strike me however that a third runway will be at capacity the day it opens...so no change to the present difficulties. :D

[RHKAAF]

The problem is always the same. Whenever something is done to alleviate congestion, the powers that be tend to see it as a chance to increase capacity. Therefore the system is always near breaking point. This is true of most, but not all, major airports in the world.
Competition for revenue is king.

[VSD]

Garbage, what do you expect from this social club, everyone wants promotion and pension. Psycho might be the only one who doesn't care but still he is now made very quiet. Forget about the association.

[OK4Wire]

psychohk:

A quick question on something that has me a little confused.

When I receive a line-up clearance (typically 07R) at night, the red stop bar lights remain illuminated, and then either clear magically as we get real close to the hold point or we call up for clarification.

Does this mean the line-up clearance by voice is not really a clearance, ie it's subject to the red lights, or can the red lights be ignored?

I'm not in the habit of ignoring red lights (in an aircraft, at least), but I would have thought the stop bar would (should?) be turned off at the same time as the voice clearance is given?

Thanks.

[lee.ho.ma]

Pyscho, what a hard work you did in replying on the "Runway OPS", we are proud of you. Thank you so much for your dedication to HKATCA.

[bekolblockage]

Psycho is away at the moment I think, so perhaps I could give you the short answer til he gets back. Not a Tower person, so stand corrected if this is not the 100% version.
The stop bar lights have an automatic timer which returns them to the 'on' position a certain time after the runway controller switches them off, so that the default is 'on'.
I'm not sure of the time (45-60 secs) but basically if you are cleared to line up when you have reported ready still taxiing towards the holding point and the stop bar is selected off at the same time, there's the possibility that they may automatically come back on just as you are about to cross.
This has happened quite a bit and caused go-arounds when a preceding departure has baulked just as they cross the stop bar and now infringes the runway with no time to start moving again and roll in time.
To reduce the possibility of that happening, the controller may verbally clear you for takeoff/lineup then wait until you get closer to the hold line before turning off the stop bar.
There have been discussions about increasing the automatic timer on some of the bars but the advantages/disadvantages and safety risk need to be weighed up.
Hope that helps.

[OK4Wire]

Thanks, BB. Didn't know about the timer.

I guess I should continue to question my line-up clearance if the stop bar is on, just in case it's there for a good reason.

[bekolblockage]

Absolutely OK4Wire. If the stopbar is still on as you approach it, I would definitely not cross it, regardless the verbal instruction.

[A-GPS]

Psycho, are you still an active controller? How to apply visit ATC control?

[atfso]

Psycho is made silent so don't ask him sensitive questions as he needs this job very much. He has young wife and ten kids to raise! This job is very important to him. Management would make him a real psycho if he did anything bad to them. The ex-ex-president of HKATCA was gunned, Psycho leant a lesson.

[Beholder]

The HKATCA is six feet under the ground for years.

[psychohk]

I apologise for being absent. Lots of extra duties with IFATCA.

1. I'm still an active controller.

2. HKATCA has about 100 members, up from 30 something. Please be positive. I'm no longer president, as it is only for a two year term.

Fix your eyes forward on what you can do, not back on what you cannot change.

3. Applying for ATC you have two routes. To qualify in the Tower only initially via the Airport Authority: HKIA Staff Services Limited (http://www.hkiassl.com/en/recruitment/opportunities_adct.html)

Or CAD direct. ATC has 3 streams of controlling. Tower, Terminal (within 100nm roughly) and Enroute control.

Training is streamed. So after selection you would be streamed currently into CAD for one of the two radar streams. Terminal or Enroute. Tower is currently almost exclusively being fed via AA entries.

For CAD it would appear they are not recruiting at present. You'll need to view their web site for vacancies and make and application via that medium.

https://csboa1.csb.gov.hk/csboa/jve/JVE_001.action

4. Red stop bars. 100% we should all follow NEVER CROSS REDS

the stop bar lights are on timers. The timers are different for both runways. Normally we judge ahead of time when to de-select the stop bar. If you are slow in lining up, they may re-set to on. Simply advise that you have reds. Sometimes they are in the hands of the techs. In that case we'll give you a definite "I'm unable to de-select the stop bars, disregard the reds and taxi...."

[psychohk]

Another question has been submitted on this topic.

In IMC or using radar separation only, Director (FAD) is permitted to reduce separation to a 2.5nm stagger between the two runways and wake turbulence separation is not a factor.

If there were catch-up and the 2.5nm were to be infringed, the radar separation can be replaced with visual separation (ICAO term: reduced separation in the vicinity of the airfield). This can be applied by the aircrew involved, by calling visual with the traffic ahead or by the tower monitoring both runway finals when VMC exists.

[bekolblockage]

Just to supplement Psycho: The ICAO standard is actually 2.0 NM within 10 NM of the runway but we couldn't quite fulfill all the required criteria (Tower frequency override on the Director position), so we based the safety argument on the ICAO same-runway 2.5 NM standard.

BB

[Beholder]

Fix your eyes forward on what you can do, not back on what you cannot change.

Can the following wipe away all your guilty??

Wing and a prayer ? Clear The Air News Blog (http://news.cleartheair.org.hk/?p=2772)

[Beholder]

Wei president of HKATCA, please say hello to our new DDG, welcome him to board the sinking ship.

[TOIL]

Please ask our new Deputy Director to pay membership fee :}

WE NEED YOU :ok:

Did another Deputy Director pay membership fee? With all the problems he created for the department, charge him ten times fee. :mad:

[EARLY-GO]

The Annual General Meeting is on 27 May, all members please pay membership fee to renew your social club membership as well as to sponsor those ...... very few ..... can join the KLAS 55th IFATCA AC. Not for you! Your role is to pay membership fee.

[tiger321]

Can any of the HKG ATC guys and gals tell me what the minimum horizontal separation in the TMA is? 4nm? Thanks

[bekolblockage]

3NM in the APP/DEP airspace. (2.5NM between adjacent final approaches within 10NM)
5NM in the remainder of the TMA.
Currently 10NM in ADS-B airspace but likely to reduce to 5NM later this year.

[tiger321]

Thanks bb.

[Strewth]

The Hong Kong Squeeze. (http://app.scmp.com/scmp/mobile/index.html#/article/2101812/desktop) SCMP 080717

[Zual]

Update on Post # 111

[QUOTE=psychohk;8529928]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.

Please note:

As from 27 MAR 2017 HK AIP Sup A03/17:

Approach Control will use the following phraseology when instructing a frequency change to Director; “(Callsign) contact Hong Kong Director 119.5 MHz with callsign only”. The pilot on first communication with Hong Kong Director shall state callsign only.

[PanZa-Lead]

I guess you fly around Asia most of the time. When switched to Director in most parts of the world you can just check in with call sign only. Giving your life history when checking in just wastes their time. They are extremely busy ( that's why they have a Director) and only want to know you are on frequency. By looking at their radar they know your altitude, heading and speed so why give it to them all again. But there again most pilots like to hear their own voices

[Sqwak7700]

I guess you fly around Asia most of the time. When switched to Director in most parts of the world you can just check in with call sign only. Giving your life history when checking in just wastes their time. They are extremely busy ( that's why they have a Director) and only want to know you are on frequency. By looking at their radar they know your altitude, heading and speed so why give it to them all again. But there again most pilots like to hear their own voices

My understanding is that Director is sitting looking at the same picture and right next to the approach controller that hands you to director. This is the reason that you don't need to provide the typical info you do on a regular handover.

I do wish controllers would omit duplicate clearances when checking in though. That does waste time, congests the frequency, and could introduce confusion.

For example, when checking in with departure you announce climbing to 5000ft. If the clearance is correct then departure should just say "Roger, or radar contact". Don't now clear me to the same altitude I checked in with (i.e., to climb to 5000ft). That now requires me to read it back. Not to mention it introduces another opportunity to misunderstand for a further climb, which is the next expected altitude clearance.

With the congestion over TD you can see the holes in the Swiss cheese coming into alignment. This practice does not enhance safety. If as a controller you are unsure about the transmission from the pilot then do as we do (or at least should do), and simply say "say again".

[Basil]

#163 & #164
The main thing being to ensure there is no misunderstanding like the Emirates/Seychelles 'Phew!':ooh:

[CCA]

Can we please start using "monitor tower" on ground and auto transfer to 123.8 on departure!

[crwkunt roll]

Why all the micro-managing as soon as one enters HKG airspace?
eg SABNO, NOMAN, ELATO..ie... descend NOW reach "too low, too far out" in 1 minute etc etc..... Slow down to Min clean speed, Turn to HDG xxx for spacing etc etc......and THEN get us to HOLD???
Why can the system not allow putting everybody in the Hold and sorting all from there? There is far too much talking, missed calls, over-transmitting, stressed controllers and pilots, not to mention the mono-syllabic grunts on 121.5 from our southern friends to add to the distraction.
Workload for everybody can be shed somehow, surely.

[pfvspnf]

Only a certain number of aircraft can hold at the same position at the same time , vectoring and speed control quite useful

[psychohk]

An all day event will be held at CAD HQ on the 29th September. All aircrew are welcome. There will be several presentations on current issues then a workshop will follow in the afternoon. Please come along with an open mind and also armed with all your questions.

The more we can iron out between us the less frustration will occur on the frequency. You may be surprised with what you think you know, versus what is the reality of current ATC rationale.

Can ATC do better? Without doubt. We need aircrew input to drive change. Please consider attending.