Air China CA428 Near-Miss CFIT at take-off in HK

[Lliane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ycqp6KYfyM

Air China flight has near miss with mountain on Hong Kong?s Lantau Island | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2096928/air-china-flight-has-near-miss-mountain-hong-kongs)

[brak]

Not the first time in that area: Shenzhen Airlines plane in near miss with Hong Kong's Big Buddha, East Asia News & Top Stories - The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/shenzhen-airlines-plane-in-near-miss-with-hong-kongs-big-buddha)

I also had flown on a mainland carrier whose FR24 track (after landing, in the dark) put us pretty much on top of the said statue and at a height just a few hundred feet above.

[Thaihawk]

Mainland Chinese carriers have had a remarkable run of luck, with no crashes for a number of years. This cannot last...........

[Metro man]

China Southern alarmed ATC with an early turn towards a hill not too long ago.

[cappt]

Wrong runway in the box?

[pattern_is_full]

Way I hear it, Departure gave instruction "Climb FL130" and F/O heard "Fly heading 130" and dialed in the turn.

As you can hear from the recording linked in the original post, CA428's radio was not operating 5-by-5.

[RoyHudd]

Safety Briefing? MSA/High Ground on departure? EGPWS? Did these come into play?

[RAT 5]

S.A? ATC: "Say again?"

[Capn Bloggs]

Way I hear it, Departure gave instruction "Climb FL130" and F/O heard "Fly heading 130" and dialed in the turn.
I wonder what the readback to ATC was... or is that your point, Rat?

[Pontius]

Level 6 for all my friends!

[bringbackthe80s]

Forget the english language, even if that's what they read back is there any justification for turning right towards a mountain?

[oblivia]

Forget the english language, even if that's what they read back is there any justification for turning right towards a mountain?

Not a pilot, but I think the mountain is left. Forgive me if I've got my aviation terms confused...

[MichaelKPIT]

I think 80's is using "right" as in "turning directly towards a mountain." They turned left but it was directly towards the mountain.

[wongsuzie]

Briefing never cover MSA?

Anyhow fly.

[ATC Watcher]

Humpmedumpme ; in case you do not know ( but my guess is that you do ) Hong Kong ATC ( and CAA) are not operating and trained the same way as mainland PRC and they do not follow the same rules.

The generic R/T exchange you posted is unfortunately reflecting the current sate of affairs in the PRC , where the whole airspace is military . Chinese controllers ,like everywhere else on the globe , have to follow the rules imposed on them , and are as much frustrated as you do having to say " negative " all the time.

I have read t recently that there are intentions to take some airspace away from the military to extend the civil areas of responsibilities, but these are definitively political decisions which are not in the hands of ATC .

[bpp]

I attended a Chinese CAA meeting for foreign carriers addressing the rapid growth in the airline sector. During this meeting a question was asked why various airways are blocked by the military. The CAA representative stated it was not military control of the airways rather it was the lack of English speaking Controllers to service that route.

[Toruk Macto]

There are more English speakers in china than India now .

[ATC Watcher]

bpp :
The CAA representative stated it was not military control of the airways rather it was the lack of English speaking Controllers to service that route.
That remark is possibly true for expansion ( i.e opening new sectors or routes ) but does not stand when talking about releasing airspace around existing routes to allow proper efficient ATC and address safety related issues like CBs deviations.

[A340Yumyum]

There is more English speakers in china than India now .

There 'are'

[atpcliff]

There are many routes in China that foreign carriers are not allowed to fly on, because the controllers for those routes are not English speakers.

[Metro man]

When flying airways in China, you are normally instructed to offset 3 or 6 miles right of track as the route is so congested the controller can't identify you.

[Savage175]

Not True. The offset is required to comply with RVSM requirements, as PRC uses metric altitudes/levels

[Dan Winterland]

The offsets are one of the few things I like about flying in China. It's very safe and I wish other agencies would adopt it.

[Onceapilot]

bpp :

That remark is possibly true for expansion ( i.e opening new sectors or routes ) but does not stand when talking about releasing airspace around existing routes to allow proper efficient ATC and address safety related issues like CBs deviations.

I would like to ask: How can major Western airlines manage to have state approval and insurance for routine operation in PRC if ATC safety-related performance, such as inability to deviate due CB etc, is so poor? Is this just a terrible accident waiting to happen that no one will face?:(

[MarkerInbound]

Not True. The offset is required to comply with RVSM requirements, as PRC uses metric altitudes/levels

RVSM is vertical, the offset is lateral. If you are assigned 10400 meters and (per the FLAS) fly FL341 and your opposing traffic is 10700 and flying FL351 there is one thousand foot separation. If the offset is critical to the vertical separation how come it varies from 2 miles to 8 miles right of track?

[Onceapilot]

Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification). :uhoh:

[ATC Watcher]

Onceapilot:
I would like to ask: How can major Western airlines manage to have state approval and insurance for routine operation in PRC if ATC safety-related performance, such as inability to deviate due CB etc, is so poor?

Good question but it is for the bean counters to address. But I would say if you want to fly to Country X you follow the rules of that country ,that said PRC non-deviation rules are not unique : look at the Afghanistan chart for instance . Deviate there and you risk to be shot down.

[Onceapilot]

Nope. If you fail to operate the aircraft within its certification requirements and limitations you are liable. However, it is up to the State of registration to police these regulations. It will be up to the Courts to define which individuals are criminally liable.

[Huck]

You can deviate for weather in China.

You just have to declare an emergency to do it. Controllers are just waiting for the magic word.

[Onceapilot]

But that is arse about face! Weather avoidance is not an emergency. Not avoiding weather routinely will cause an emergency. :rolleyes:

[neila83]

Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification). :uhoh:

Ok, so how did my and hundreds of other flights fly over portugal on Friday when severe turbulence was forecast on the Signet maps? Same for the area west of Dublin? Planes from western airlines routinely fly into Jetstream related forecast severe turbulence. Something I've often wondered about actually as I thought what you said is true.

[Onceapilot]

Because many just risk it! :eek:
Severe turb associated with CB, TSRA etc can usually be avoided by Wx radar. Jetstream forecast severe CAT areas should be avoided by routing, level changes or delay. But don't ask me how all the transatlantic oceanic traffic that ploughs through forecast severe CAT areas clear that with their operating authority (they don't :rolleyes:).

[farefield]

Our "enthusiastic amateur" airline plans us through it routinely, as, I suspect many other flight planning departments do.

Also, I reckon LPPO is becoming a bit like the boy who cried wolf with sev turb forecasts.

[Onceapilot]

So, God forbid, when a 300+pax airliner suffers a forecast severe turb big-nasty on the NATS, they are going to cite that "everyone has ignored it forever" as their mitigation? It should not be, some of us DO honour the limitations.:D

[neila83]

Thanks for the info. I'm intrigued, are there really airlines making huge deviations round the forecast areas while everyone else takes the tracks through them?

[ATC Watcher]

Onceapilot :
Of course wx avoidance is not an emergency! But you do not seem to understand how the system works : ATC does not force you to go through it . ATC might refuse the diversion for various reasons and because of external factors :e.g military area, prohibited airspace even conflict zone (e.g Ukraine or Turkey , etc..) You then have the choice to divert to another destination , go back or possibly go through.
Just like Fog at your destination: Landing at intended planned destination is not mandatory under all circumstances. CBs are included in that.

[Onceapilot]

ATC Watcher, Thanks for your informative post. Actually, I have encountered all of your examples as Captain in my worldwide heavy flying career.;)
Tell me, do you just watch ATC? Maybe you misunderstand my view?

[ATC Watcher]

Once a pilot : Sorry if I offended you , but there are too many people on this forum nowadays who are not who they are pretending to be .
No I am not only “watching ATC`’, I also fly my own aeroplane around and do since quite a while a few other aviation related things on the international field, that allowed me to gain a certain knowledge that I sometimes try to share here.
I think I got your point, I hope you got mine. Which basically was : No point bitching at Chinese ATC for not allowing deviations from routes. If you are retired and flew in Europe you surely remember the 3 Berlin corridors , a CB in one of them and it was 180 degr back . Well ,basically nothing has changed.

[Basil]

You can be in a position where turning back will put you into Cb with the added hazard of reduced g margin so it is better to continue. For the non pro: carrying out a 180 at 36000 ft takes up a LOT of sky.
I've had Cb avoidance problems over China and just did what was best for my aircraft safety whilst 'discussing' the situation with ATC who was afraid that we were going to inadvertently enter Vietnamese airspace.

[ATC Watcher]

Absolutely correct Basil, and we both know a 180 is not the norm, but in some parts of the world it might be asked of you and then it is probably time to use the magic 7700 to open the doors. At least this is what I would do in this situation.