Polar near one.

[Docfly]

Woken up by Polar turning right too soon off 07R and going over DB just before midnight. How much did he miss Lantau by?

[Natca]

Under the call sign cx86 operated by polar.

[catpac]

Yep, approx 2800ft 175kts above DB Marina, direct from 07R DER.

Highest surrounding peak on Lantau 3064ft....it nearly was a Polar Near One.

But man, doesn't a -8 look and sound great!:ok:

[Bob Hawke]

How much fuel did he save?

[BlankBox]

...this a gee vs haw mixup??

[Australia2]

holy crap,

Went straight over the top, lucky boys.

There by the grace of god we all go.

[Airbubba]

In guessing they were assigned the RNAV RASSE 1E since they were filed out over OCEAN after 15Z. The box in the 747-8 would have radius-to-fix capability I would think.

Did some finger trouble drop out PORPA and perhaps LNAV was taking them direct PORSH? :confused:

Yep, approx 2800ft 175kts above DB Marina, direct from 07R DER.

Highest surrounding peak on Lantau 3064ft....it nearly was a Polar Near One

The FlightRadar24 .kml data shows them crossing Lantau Highway at 2050 feet (uncorrected):

2017-09-24 15:45:06 UTC

Altitude: 2,050 ft
Speed: 164 kt
Heading: 109°

And Discovery Bay Road at 2675 feet:

2017-09-24 15:45:43 UTC

Altitude: 2,675 ft
Speed: 165 kt
Heading: 100°

Here's the 15Z weather:

VHHH 241500Z 12012KT 090V170 9999 FEW020 SCT030 29/25 Q1009 NOSIG

They must have got an EGPWS warning with a nav display terrain popup on both sides lit up like a Christmas tree, right?

It appears that the hill they passed closest to has an elevation of about 1500 feet from the topo maps.

CX 905 to MNL departing behind Polar was given a tower clearance to maintain 3000 feet and follow the SID which they questioned as being below their terrain minimums. Unfortunately, Polar's departure control conversation on 123.8 does not seem to be available on LiveATC.net.

Was the CVR breaker pulled after an ACARS from Polar flight ops? Or, as with other recent incidents will the recording be overwritten as the crew heads out over the NOPAC to ANC on A590 right now?

[The FUB]

Children of the Magenta Line.

[oriental flyer]

Seriously don't pilots read the SID anymore . Very pleased that they got away with it and didn't plough into any parts of DB

[AQIS Boigu]

CX 905 to MNL departing behind Polar was given a tower clearance to maintain 3000 feet and follow the SID which they questioned as being below their terrain minimums.



If you look at your terrain chart you will actually see that 3000ft is acceptable and ABOVE terrain clearance till about north and east of Tsing Yi (OCEAN SID) and all the way to PECAN. “Maintain 3000ft” gets occasionally issued by the tower if the preceeding aircraft’s ROC is low or if the crew is not adhearing to speed control (ie. Mainland carriers).

East of SMT and CH VOR is fine for 3000ft till you hit the New Territories and even Hong Kong Island can be overflown at that altitude legally if under radar control.

But I guess most of our kids wouldn’t even know where these two VORs actually are.

[Airbubba]

Some terrain awareness on this ATC Surveillance Minimum Altitude Chart:

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-101.pdf

Looks like the hill they flew by on the way to buzz DB is charted as 1527 feet elevation.

[744drv]

Once you deviate from the SID below MSA you are in the realms of pure luck. The peak altitudes and roc are immaterial, you shouldn't be there and the outcome is a roll of the dice. This sort of event is occurring with increasing regularity. This is the effect ...... what could be the cause??

[Goldeye]

flightradar24 had recorded them at an altitude of 2141’ over that point of high ground (1527’). Whatever went wrong, just glad everyone is okay, aside from a few spilled drinks in the DB plaza ;-)

[Airbubba]

Once you deviate from the SID below MSA you are in the realms of pure luck.

If you look at your terrain chart you will actually see that 3000ft is acceptable and ABOVE terrain clearance till about north and east of Tsing Yi (OCEAN SID) and all the way to PECAN. “Maintain 3000ft” gets occasionally issued by the tower if the preceeding aircraft’s ROC is low or if the crew is not adhearing to speed control (ie. Mainland carriers).

East of SMT and CH VOR is fine for 3000ft till you hit the New Territories and even Hong Kong Island can be overflown at that altitude legally if under radar control.

I can see where CX 905 was concerned about maintaining 3000 for the turn south toward RAMEN because the MSA is 4300 north of the 255 radial of TD. However, as AQIS Boigu points out, 3000 is OK from the ATC Surveillance Minimum Altitude Chart. CX 905 was told to stay on the SID (and not follow the folks ahead on the shortcut over DB ;)).

But maybe the publicity (and fine?) from this one will provide some food for thought...oh wait!

Previous incidents suggest that a freighter on a midnight takeoff where nothing was bent might not generate much media attention.

Will there even be an investigation? Or will the crew file a safety report about the deviation and get a slap on the wrist for a nighttime noise violation?

Was the CVR 'accidentally' written over? Was a terrain escape maneuver performed in response to a EGPWS warning?

Did the crew debrief in ANC at F Street or the Bush Company?

[Thunderbird4]

Many moons ago (around 200 or so) Air France executed a similar departure. This was back when the PORPA fix was published on the SID plate as some radial (lets say 100) and 2nm SMT. If you turn at 2nm SMT without looking at the radial you are right where Polar turned. At least they (AF) had a very weak/lame excuse. Be kinda hard to explain with a -8 database. Mind you there is a PORPA intersection in Argentina hmmm.

[act700]

OTP..every shortcut counts!

[bpp]

This flight is an Atlas Air operated flight for CX. Polar does not have any pilots as they are Atlas pilots operating under the Polar Air Cargo Certificate. And yes, someone screwed up!

[GICASI2]

What about not changing the SID as selected on the box and then check it (twice). And then fly it (note, I did not imply follow the MAGENTA - the B777 fleet got into trouble doing just that, following, not flying - at ZRH and made CX a laughing stock). Oh, and FOs that I (mainly) fly with, that includes the 5000 stop ALT so stop deleting it!

I presume the 3000ft could come from 'our' ENG INOP procedure that it is OK to ACCEL (down to level flight) when 2500AMSL is reached on track 190°? So ATC and the procedure designers might have a bit more info at their fingertips.

[Basil]

Did the crew debrief in ANC at F Street or the Bush Company?
Yes, and in that order :E
Recollect debriefing a little transgression in the forecourt of a filling (gas) station which sold beer.

[A-GPS]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/595534-air-china-ca428-near-miss-cfit-take-off-hk.html?highlight=Buddha

It will become an ICAO standard......only in Fragrant Harbour.

[geh065]

Actually GICASI2, the ZRH problem is the pilots didn't blindly follow the flight directors but instead trusted the magenta because it seemed to match what was on the charts also.

[GICASI2]

Ehm, I was not advocating what the electronics commanded but to follow what the chart and hence the legal requirement was - climb to 2000 AMSL and turn left - not difficult and should have been part of the PF's rehearsal prior to brakes off. Which was in fact what the FDS would have commanded. However, the refresh rate of the MAGENTA was so slow, they extended to follow it and did NOT follow the SID. And not just one, but many. Even Thai and our mainland brethren were getting it correct. Made me feel proud to be part of the show...

'Trust the magenta' speaks volumes about our iPod generation!

[RandomPerson8008]

I would use caution throwing out terms about which generation/age of pilot you think was responsible for this. It's not who you think/want it to be.

[arse]

Definitely trying to .... "zoom"!

http://i67.tinypic.com/awql3d.jpg

[cxorcist]

I haven't researched or listened to tapes, but I would venture to guess that the crew thought they were cleared direct to Rasse after issued "cleared high speed after the turn to Rasse." They probably thought they were "cleared high speed direct Rasse." Just my two cents...

[GICASI2]

I would use caution throwing out terms about which generation/age of pilot you think was responsible for this. It's not who you think/want it to be.

OK, experience and ability (or lack of) should cover it all - probably with a few of our illustrious C&T department 'training' in the mix (but on the barbie fleet there is a lot of snowflake representation even in the STC pool)... And in a different life, only 'iPod generation' youngsters will be capable of operating the F35... The older guys (30+) will not be equipped to find the relevant info!

[pilotcpb]

There was talk on other threads about a UAL 777 that did almost the same thing. If anyone has a link to info about it I would appreciate it!

[JulieAndrews]

Went to see a colleague in CAD for a catch up. Couldn’t open his door fully due to all the incidents that have been brushed under his carpet........

According to a Cathay Pacific spokesperson, “We are aware of an event involving a freighter operated by Atlas Air and wet-leased by Cathay Pacific. We are following up with the operator (Atlas Air) regarding the details of the event.” In addition, the CAD has informed Around DB and Life on Lantau that they are currently following up on the incident “in accordance to the established procedures and has informed the Civil Aviation Authority of the State of Registry of the aircraft concerned, for actions deemed appropriate.”

[BIGSTU1]

What does that actually mean though and what is being brushed under the carpet?

I am writing a feature for the South China Morning Post about HK aviation safety in the light of the Atlas Air event and trying to understand why these incidents keep occurring?

If thorough and rigorous follow up safety investigations and remedial action was completed after the two similar Lantau near miss incidents of 26 June 2016 (Shenzhen Airlines) and of 4 June 2017 (Air China) why did the Atlas Air incident on September 24 happen? Is this just the law of averages or is something serious and systematic going wrong?

Can an airline wet-lease from anyone and how rigorous are the hoops the nominated airline has to go through to satisfy local aviation safety standards?

Not claiming ANY expertise or looking for sensation- just trying to find out what's happening on a serious safety matter and grateful for any help from those in the know.

[balus man]

BIGSTU1

brushing things under the carpet is a polite way of saying by doing nothing the problem will go away. This is the way that CAD management has been treating incidents for years. the time is long overdue for a seperate Air Safety Investigation Department to look into all incidents and make recommendations direct to the Transport Minister as is done in the U.K, U.S.A, Australia and many other ICAO signatories. Hong Kong is a member of that group so why is CAD allowed to investigate itself?? With 1200 take off and landings and 1100 overflyers every 24 hours hours, Hong Kong airspace is now very busy. with an increase in the movement rate, there is a corresponding increase in the incident rate and this has definitely been the case in the last 12 months together with the introduction of the new radar system. Why does senior CAD management now require all incidents to be regarded as
confidential and locked in a confidential file and demand silence from staff?? Unless the
media is alerted to an incident, things are kept quiet and "brushed under the carpet". There is a lack of transparency at CAD and things need to change. The American 777 that had the loading fire some weeks ago, it was reported in the media that the fire originated in the vehicle. Why did CAD send a memo to airline operators in Hong Kong within 48 hours re the carriage of lithium batteries within cargo pallets?? The fire would have caused a catastrophe
if it had occurred a few hours later in flight. Jeremy Tam from Legco has been tracking CAD for a long time, perhaps you should contact him for further details about the mode of operation of CAD.

good luck.

[BIGSTU1]

Thanks for that Mr Balus.

Also getting disturbing reports that with manning levels and safety under threat due to cost cutting and pilot shortages at Cathay and other airlines, CAD is not sticking up for passenger safety but colluding with airline management by allowing them to interpret their own AFTLS and not participating in FRMS.

Anyone got any views or facts on this?

Or any examples of the regulator not defending safety in the light of cost cutting?

Apologies if it's a stupid question.

[BIGSTU1]

With thanks to those aviation professionals who made contact to help with the piece I was writing for the SCMP on aviation safety and HKCAD.

I am not permitted to post URLs on this site but its online in the Post Magazine section of the SCMP.com website and will appear in print this week-end.

Quite a struggle to get it published and somewhat watered down but its there now if anyone is interested,

[JammedStab]

Flaws threaten Hong Kong air safety, claim aviation experts | Post Magazine | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2125123/flaws-threaten-hong-kong-air-safety-claim)

Several recent incidents mentioned. But I am not sure what the CAD can do to ensure that foreign carriers don't make some of the mistakes that have been made in these incidents.

[joblow]

At last a well written article that partially opens the lid to expose what is underneath .
The CAD does need an investigation unit that is unbiased and independent and not controlled by special interest groups

[JulieAndrews]

Jammedstab
For starters they could actively and vigourously follow-up investigations with the foreign carriers involved in these incidents - rather than a letter sent Second Class post to some PO Box somewhere - or at least that seems to be as effective as it gets.
If the airline is Chinese then forget it - more a case of sorry for not having SIDs to your liking .....
When such requests for information fail to provide any credible response then, rather than getting tough, the process that failed to ellicit a response in the first instance is repeated again. However, the second letter appears productive so CAD is content; kidding itself that it is being proactive....

[Scoreboard]

Great article well done on getting something out but SCMP is in CX drinking circle....so they would water down anything that was too close. Publish the full article in any other place that will take the unedited version. Embarrass them. Story goes during the 49ers that they started getting bad press from SCMP and old CX CEO called them up and reminded them of how many papers we put on our flights daily. SCMP went meekly to its corner.

But dont give up the fight. When an accident (and its coming) finally happens with a smoking hull and deaths anyone who was covering up this regulators failings will be for jail. Better to out in front and start exposing this as often as you can.

You barely scrapped the incident pile of how bad it is ...CX lives on the reputation that was made over the decades by highly experienced crew. Atm its gutted and incidents are only mentioned in rumors....”did u hear about.....” Our old safety updates are a joke. The Training department passes pilots who cant achieve a landing. I have had a number of them...and when you take it upstairs they say ..”.oh they just a work in progress”. Its not at all funny when there is a junior pilot on the roster referred by the nickname of a terrible accident. Its not just here but most airlines experience way less capable crew with way less handling experience. Ever wonder why FAA and other regulators are mandating jet upset recovery now? Cause the hull losses that are occurring are because the pilots cant actually fly. Something I do instinctively in early days of training has to be now taught in sims to pilots who carry around 300 pax. Sitting and watching it and then think your family could be aboard with this person who couldnt find his way out of a paper bag.

Safety is their top priority is a throw away line from CX and CAD(Cathay Authorizing Department)......they say it like it happens but it isn't. Makes me sick to the stomach when I hear those words.

[Liam Gallagher]

Just looking at the Polar incident and asking how can we prevent repetition, purely from a Flight Safety aspect, perhaps a change in style of ATC Is required.

I am by no means an ATC specialists, but stealing some ideas from elsewhere; FRA, SIN in particular, I propose the following.

The AIP and all charts need to inform operators to contact departures passing 500 feet and to state altitude passing and cleared to and cleared SID on first contact with departures.

The initial ATC clearance should have the SID clearance as per normal, but the following phrase is added,
"Expect RNY Track, Climb 5000 feet and contact Departures passing 500 feet and say cleared SID". Assuming nothing unusual is happening, a typical take-off clearance becomes, "Callsign, maintain Runway track, climb 5000, contact departures passing 500 feet, cleared TO RNY 07R, good afternoon".

A few points that the purists may not like;

1. Runway Track. Usually they say heading. We don't want the wind pushing aircraft toward the terrain. Most aircraft now have track function. If they don't, then the pilot has to earn his grossly inflated salary ;-p
2. Four instructions in the clearance. However, it's all in the initial clearance, so shouldn't be a surprise. If we really want to get clever, it can be given when taxiing out to minimise chat on the runway.
3. Now I can hear a whirring noise and that's a few elder Checkers spinning before they get to their graves. How dare someone say "Good morning/afternoon/bye". The reality is, when not on check, we all do it. In this case, it's not just courtesy, it's a very efficient way of telling crew that it's an auto-change of frequency and Tower does not expect to hear from you again.
4. Passing 500, Departure is contacted, which is a quiet time on the Flightdeck if all is going well. This lower changeover gives ATC a chance to intervene should an aircraft be starting to turn early. When the departing aircraft checks-in, ATC replies,"Climb straight ahead to 7 miles and resume the SID." Assuming the SID is loaded, the pilot can select a lateral navigation mode at any stage up to 7 miles.
5. If things are not going well and at 500 there is no autochange, then the aircraft safely flies runway heading to 5000 or executes the EO departure, by which stage an emergency call has probably been made.

Despite reading somewhat complex, I believe this procedure is relatively simple. It utilises some established protocols (auto-changes, amended clearance, resume a SID), whilst allowing time for ATC to intervene should confusion arise.

Flame away......

[DropKnee]

I am a simple person. That is way to much blah blah blah. The sid that the Polor pilots failed to follow seems pretty straight forward to me. Don’t see the need to triple check the sid with departure. We asked for a clearance, they gave it, we acknowledged it and had two folks in the cockpit check it.
Who knows why the Polor guys turned early? But you can have the simplest idiot proof system in place and guess what? Someone will figure out a way to goof it. We don’t need more rules. We need more airmanship.

[raven11]

How about “Runway 07R, Wind___, Overfly Porpa, Cleared for Take Off”?

[cxorcist]

Or, God forbid it, like in the US...

“Rwy 07R, wind xxx/xx, RNAV to xxxxxx, cleared for takeoff.”

[cannot]

Look they screwed up for whatever reason , their procedures , fatigue , misunderstanding of ATC , who knows . The fact remains that there is a SID in place for terrain reasons . It’s totally unambiguous and very simple . If this crew were so unaware of the terrain surrounding the airport then they should not be coming to HK . Unfortunately until the findings of the report have been published we won’t know . But I see absolutely no reason to change ATC procedures for one screw up
As drop knee said we need more airmanship and situational awareness than rules

[bpp]

Heard it was a new pilot and
ATC canceled Porpa speed constraint. The pilot ended up deleting the constraint from the L 1 key rather than R 1 thereby deleting Porpa altogether.

[cannot]

It doesn’t matter , I have had lots of pilots make errors like that , even accidentally deleting the entire route .
As the Capt you go back to basic modes and follow the SID until you can reset the FMC . It’s not rocket science it’s a thing called airmanship .
What is needed is a pause for cross checking especially on a SID .

[Airbubba]

Heard it was a new pilot and
ATC canceled Porpa speed constraint. The pilot ended up deleting the constraint from the L 1 key rather than R 1 thereby deleting Porpa altogether.

That was one of my initial guesses on this thread:

Did some finger trouble drop out PORPA and perhaps LNAV was taking them direct PORSH? :confused:

It doesn’t matter , I have had lots of pilots make errors like that , even accidentally deleting the entire route .
As the Capt you go back to basic modes and follow the SID until you can reset the FMC . It’s not rocket science it’s a thing called airmanship .
What is needed is a pause for cross checking especially on a SID .

Sounds good to me. :ok:

[Busbuoy]

In a modern Airbus, if the TO WYPT is deleted the A/P goes into heading mode on the current heading....what will a Boeing do? Notwithstanding the fact that airmanship dictates not turning towards terrain no matter what the A/P might want to do...