KA tops the HKIA go around list

[TheGreenDragon]

Was chatting to an ATC buddy and he showed me the log of go arounds for the last 6 months. Finally KA are top of something! 3 times as many missed approaches as the nearest rival . And that was not CX or HKA but ...( sworn to secrecy;)

Inexperienced Crews using V/S fine tuning , seems to to blame , as the weather has been manageable for the last few months.
Or is there an underlying cause ?

[cxorcist]

Was chatting to an ATC buddy and he showed me the log of go arounds for the last 6 months. Finally KA are top of something! 3 times as many missed approaches as the nearest rival . And that was not CX or HKA but ...( sworn to secrecy;)

Inexperienced Crews using V/S fine tuning , seems to to blame , as the weather has been manageable for the last few months.
Or is there an underlying cause ?

Using V/S to fine tune an approach does not cause go-arounds... Maybe the KA boys are trying to deadstick it in with idle thrust in an effort to save all of CX's REALLY expensive fuel.

[Toruk Macto]

How many KA A/C been told to go around as they are been used by ATC to fill gaps and it does not work ?

[JY9024]

Or perhaps they are going around when required and the other operators are simply pushing on with unstable approaches??

Love to put a different spin on these posts...:E

[OK4Wire]

Or, they have more approaches in HKG when compared with other carriers (therefore they are exposed more).

[KABOY]

More like the continuos breakdown in ATC wake turbulence separation.

Dragon XXX maintain 160kts to 4 miles.

Dragon XXX caution 4.1 miles behind B777, contact twr!!!

[donpizmeov]

They get paid by the minute right?

[MENELAUS]

Just goes to prove they have a just and safe no blame culture. Put me on one of their ( or their green tailed cousins ) a/c any day compared to some of the other muppets operating in our airspace.

[skywagondriver]

'Sworn to secrecy' ...um ok. I'm fairly certain your ATC 'buddy' has actually signed an offical secrets act and probably isn't overjoyed his 'buddy' has made his indiscretion public.
After so much effort industry wide has been put into stressing that a go around is a no jeopardy event some one has to post this puerile attempt at slagging a particular operator.

[GMEDX]

Utter nonsense Anotherday. KA are now in the Cathay group travel scheme. i.e. they get exactly the same benefits, same priority, same FOC etc as anyone else in the group.

[LongTimeInCX]

Whilst I fly for the cx, I certainly have no worries or concerns about getting in KA flights around the region. That they go around a few more times than other airlines - so what. It's an arbitrary statistic without qualifiers.
The guys I know who fly for them seem no different in their outlook and professionalism from the guys in cx I sit with.
Good effort by TheGreenDragon at trolling though.

[Metro man]

The A320s wind shear detection system is very sensitive and will trigger an alert more readily than other types. Perhaps the crews are simply responding correctly ?

[Dan Winterland]

They most definitely aren't on the same number of FOC as us, I know for a fact its more

They definitely are - even if they didn't sign over to the new scheme. Fact! The number is the same, but If they opted to stay on the KA scheme, the allocation is slightly different - but applicable to KA flights only.

Those who signed over to the group scheme are on exactly the same deal as CX staff.

[Farman Biplane]

Kept the travel fund as well!

[airdualbleedfault]

Came in at the bottom of the thread and thought it was another whinge feast about staff travel, but no it's actually about go arounds in HK. Someone bought up a good point, KA would have far more arrivals than CX

[Krone]

KA have recruited low cost local guys ad infinitum .
The benefits are lower crew operating costs but higher number of operational stuff ups . The financial savings on the low experienced guys have to be offset by the perception of a less safe airline from KA's customer base.

[tsimbeit]

KA have recruited low cost local guys ad infinitum .
The benefits are lower crew operating costs but higher number of operational stuff ups . The financial savings on the low experienced guys have to be offset by the perception of a less safe airline from KA's customer base.

Most reputable airlines around the world have recruited cadets since the 1960's, without any problems.

Do the KA pilots receive enough TRAINING, guidance and support from their trainers/managers?

Training and management is an investment for any organisation, money should be well spent and produce good results.

Only donkeys never change their minds. In a dynamic, ever - changing world, being able to grasp new realities is a virtue.

[JulieAndrews]

Cannot believe there are pilots out there trying to convert the number of 'go-arounds' into petty point-scoring. A very strange attitude indeed - and one to be ashamed of.
As some have alluded to on here, I would rather see a 'go-around' than forcing a botched approach - any day.
Having a mind set that every approach is a 'go-around' unless you're lucky enough to convert into a landing might reduce the number of 'hard landings' and other such incidents that fail to get reported around here............

[Gnadenburg]

Inexperienced Crews using V/S fine tuning , seems to to blame , as the weather has been manageable for the last few months.
Or is there an underlying cause ?

V/S is cheating. You should be able to idle onto the Glide Slope.

KA is a training airline. It's great that guys are going around and there is no requirement to report it. I've gone around six times in 10 + years, reported once due gnd equipment, the rest of the time a Capt's PA is a better tool than a company spokesman. The only time KA pilots had foolish pressure to report go arounds was when CX had their exchange pilot program - when we got one of theirs and they got one of ours.

We have 4000 hr Captains with 200 hour MPL's. The no blame GA culture needs to be strong and like many here, I'm surprised that pilots would raise this on prune.

There are also a lot of pilots who do not know how to descend jet aircraft efficiently and their conservatism is never questioned in this day and age. Even if you are late to recognize ATC shortening expected track miles, it's not hard to get an A320 or an A330 in from what many would deem pretty extreme altitude versus track miles.

[iceman50]

V/S is cheating. You should be able to idle onto the Glide Slope.


That comment could be one of the reasons, if that is how you train! Skygods:ugh:

[betpump5]

I am also confused...

Exactly 'what' are we cheating?

I do recall some "I can p!ss further than you" stories regarding ex-TriStar Ops where you were considered inferior if thrust came up before 1000ft blah blah zzzz.

Is this what you are referring to?

[Gnadenburg]

Sorry to disappoint, but skygods wear hats in my experience !

Our handling co-pilots are often second officers with a few hundred hours. An effective way to draw them away from diving and driving their descent profiles is a few tips on how to descend a jet and a carte blanche to work their descent profiles back from a go-around.

It's actually a very effective confidence building technique in my experience. An inexperienced pilot, with a few hundred hours to a few thousand, sees profile dynamics create a better natural awareness of hi and low energy management, terrain, environment, traffic and by working back from a GA gate, a better tactical strategy in case that's what they have to do. Importantly too, perhaps relevant to this thread, they are not startled by ATC cutting them in significantly ( say 20 miles to run 7000' ) whereas the the pilot that is locked onto the VNAV is caught in the headlights in a fight or flight stress reaction.

I could bang on with more depth but really, I'm sure somewhere, someone is getting ready to ban the intercept from above technique from our operation.

[OK4Wire]

thrust came up before 1000ft blah blah zzzz.

What?! Are you joking!?

In my day (Classic - the old one, not the 330) it was 500' (max) and preferably over the threshold. Normal ops.

[OK4Wire]

Not disagreeing with you, CR; just saying how it used to be (with a touch of irony).

[Krone]

Gandey , you are rather pompous , if I may say. All your preaching , I bet you are a real live wire and a whopping fun guy.

You are wrong in one respect. Go arounds are now being written up by A320 captains when there is no need. I counted three ASRs re go arounds this month.
And another paranoia creeping in: ASRs for tcas TAs . I mean wtf.
I hate the 320 micro cosom.

[gearupmaxpower]

I trust you're referring to TA's?

An RA should always be an ASRable event.

[Krone]

Yes TAs , PAs n MAs ;)

[WhatsaLizad?]

Yeah, that's so cool and all, but there are a lot of reasons why pilots don't do that anymore, and why companies, manufacturers, regulators and flight safety outfits all prevent pilots from operating that way: because it's not safe and still plenty of pilots hit or almost hit the ground proving it.


You mean bringing up the power at 1000' after a well planned idle power descent from cruise altitude? Obviously, the old "watch this" idle power dead-stick to touchdown demo was idiotic and unsafe.

[crwkunt roll]

You mean bringing up the power at 1000' after a well planned idle power descent from cruise altitude?
You mean when ATC allowed you to track direct to the FAF at high speed, without slowing to min speed, to hold, to speed up again, to hold again, to slow down again, then add a couple of radar vectors for good measure?

[Metro man]

It was known as "The formaldehyde glide."

(Embalming fluid)

[iceman50]

Gnadenburg

I could bang on with more depth but really, I'm sure somewhere, someone is getting ready to ban the intercept from above technique from our operation. 13th Mar 2017 01:52

Yes that is a really good TECHNIQUE, heard of a false glideslope? The technique shoud be from BELOW! Sounds like you run your own flying circus.

[WhatsaLizad?]

crwkunt roll,


Obviously the plan won't work at LHR, JFK and probably most other large city airports. Too much jerking around as mentioned. I took the previous comments in terms of airports where little traffic permitted unrestricted descents from altitude to landing. Probably the realm of narrow body aircraft and rare for the heavies. And it definitely shouldn't conflict with required final stabilized (power up) altitudes in regards to SOP's and conditions such as spool up time.


Even in the narrow bodies at my US carrier it is a lost art. Some seem lost without a Flight Director, dive down at 3000' fpm to drone along at 4000' and heaven forbid, are lost on a simple circle to land box pattern without attempting to draw stick figures in the FMS for the ND. My last one was a hyper female FO. "But, but, but, how are you going to know when to turn right base when you can't see the runway!!!!"
I simply explained that I picked out a building below far in advance for a base leg turn. She seem lost at the concept. I did brief her on my visual approach plan. A constant 800-900 fpm 180 turn to final. It does take practice, and it is surely tough to do if not impossible for the long haul heavy crews.

[Gnadenburg]

Gnadenburg
Yes that is a really good TECHNIQUE, heard of a false glideslope? The technique shoud be from BELOW! Sounds like you run your own flying circus.

Yes. The "false" G/S capture is a threat. The 9 degree lobe the first ? That scenario will involve a very obvious set of circumstances with a high rate of descent. What is the likelihood of a false G/S capture and what is the vertical geometry at 9 degrees?

You are correct, an easy defense against the False G/S capture is to intercept at the IAF and do a OM altitude check. But airspace is complicated and in KA's op's it is very normal to intercept the G/S beyond the IAF or before.

There is also the insidious threat of the "erroneous" G/S which in some circumstances a FAF or OM crosscheck or even a GPWS won't save you. Perhaps with the advent of GPS this is no longer addressed. It was certainly a threat in the olden days, before GPS and certainly in the China / Asia-Pacific region. But in those days pilots may have been more profile conscious and the intercept from above wasn't frowned upon ( as you are suggesting it is now due a very remote chance of a false G/S capture ).

Anyways, back to the scenario where you may have to intercept from above. A pilot who is executing this process in a safe and measured manner will need to have a continuous profile awareness of DME versus altitude- countering both erroneous and false G/S threats. From what I've observed, the dive and drive guys can be half asleep and rely on a single G/S altitude check.

Iceman what other core pilot skills do you want banned from the Flying Circus at KA? The circling approach, the visual approach, the intercept from above, the raw data ILS, non-VNAV descents…….?

If you're an F/O at CX, at KA, they are training your replacement within 12 months, a Captain, it can be 4 years. And that's with some sort of modest expectation of delivering what you seem to deem a Flying Circus skill-set. Reduce it much more an we are on terms with Air Asia.