Greetings from Beijing ACC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid whilst greenwindshield may be a little harsh, he is 100% on the money.
China is responsible for possibly the worst pollution in the world, which is a huge shame as it is a beautiful country, and I believe they are also responsible for some of the biggest waistage of jet fuel I have ever encountered, anywhere.( and by association, greenhouse gases )
There is busier airspace elsewhere in the world, that does'nt have the restrictions China does, including HK.
I personally think RVSM will make little difference apart from maybe on the longer sectors you will get somewhere within 10000' of your planned level, flying around in a jet at 21-25000 feet is just plain ridiculous and waistful, not too mention very bad for passengers when you're getting the
beaten out of you in mid level cloud.
China is going to have to do something about the military dominance of the airspace, for christs sake, how much air do they need ??
How on earth are they going to cater for the forecast increase in air traffic over the next 10 years?? are we going to get to the stage where we call for a clearance and get told, matter of factly, that the delay will be 3 hours?? because thats exactly where it is heading ( 1 hour is already becoming the norm for some destinations )
China is responsible for possibly the worst pollution in the world, which is a huge shame as it is a beautiful country, and I believe they are also responsible for some of the biggest waistage of jet fuel I have ever encountered, anywhere.( and by association, greenhouse gases )
There is busier airspace elsewhere in the world, that does'nt have the restrictions China does, including HK.
I personally think RVSM will make little difference apart from maybe on the longer sectors you will get somewhere within 10000' of your planned level, flying around in a jet at 21-25000 feet is just plain ridiculous and waistful, not too mention very bad for passengers when you're getting the
beaten out of you in mid level cloud.China is going to have to do something about the military dominance of the airspace, for christs sake, how much air do they need ??
How on earth are they going to cater for the forecast increase in air traffic over the next 10 years?? are we going to get to the stage where we call for a clearance and get told, matter of factly, that the delay will be 3 hours?? because thats exactly where it is heading ( 1 hour is already becoming the norm for some destinations )
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATIS Broadcasts
Nintendi,
Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..
This is done all over Europe for this very reason..
Thanks
Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..
This is done all over Europe for this very reason..
Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canton,China
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's your problem?
Where are you NINTENDI and Scbsli? Did you say you would answer all the questions?
Your pretended show is over. F off!
Your pretended show is over. F
off!
Are you really a controller? I means,are you really an adult who graduated from university and has accepted advanced education?
Extremely doubtful...
Mind your words!Jerk!
BTW,thanks for your f
ing reply!
Absolutely no need for that sort of language AGNES. Thanks for probably ensuring we don't get any meaningful response from NINTENDI to our somewhat harsh, but legitimate questions. 
I'm not intend to offending you,seriously.You're a good guy who knows how to talk properly.But do you understand what are sovereignty and territory?
To come back to the subjects.Most flights from HKG to Europe would maintain their cruise altitude through out Russia.So why don't you just cancel all Russian FIR and tell those crews to contact their destination ATC by using shortwave radio?
I'm going to pay for the ticket of your great performance.That's pretty exciting,you know!What's more,Sanya AOR is absolutely not just an intermediary between Ho Chi Minh and HongKong as you deem.It in charge of the airspace of Southern part of Hainan Province,where flights from mainland China to Australia and Southeast Asia have to pass through everyday.Moreover,flights between Sanya Airport (ZJSY) and Chinese inland cities are also under the control of Sanya ACC.Did you just said no level changes in Sanya AOR and we could cancel it undoubtedly?
Almighty God!I'm full of ggratitude to you for reminding me how to spell "Ridiculous"...I've almost forgot it just like someone has forgot to tell you guys that flow control has been cancles!Damn!
I have to reiterate:We're here because we want to exchange and comunicate more with each other,but not provoke or quarrel!My FRIENDS!
Perhaps you guys are running out of excuses...
You do NOT know the situation in China at all!...That's my conclusion!Out.
Last edited by JrYOUNG; 30th Oct 2007 at 11:38. Reason: wrong spelling...sorry
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STAR and SID in PRC
HI
Can someone more informed than me - one of you PRC ATC people only please - explain the logic and requirements for complying with STAR and SID i.e. arrival and departure procedures, as assigned by ATC to aircraft. Read below for more details!
Altitudes on SID/STAR in PRC
On Descent more so than climb, this may be critical, with respect to
going below an altitude on a STAR considering terrain clearance
implications. It is unclear whether the altitudes are mandatory for
airspace, flight path crossing points or terrain considerations. On
departure to gain clearance for "Confirm no restriction" may be
satisfactory, but to go below on arrival is questionable without adequate
supporting documentation such as Jeppesen LSALT or PORT page
guidance. It is also not qualified in CAAC AIP.
The point is - if you cleared to descend, and the clearance for Lateral
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.
An example
ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"
Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?
Thanks
Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?
Can someone more informed than me - one of you PRC ATC people only please - explain the logic and requirements for complying with STAR and SID i.e. arrival and departure procedures, as assigned by ATC to aircraft. Read below for more details!
Altitudes on SID/STAR in PRC
On Descent more so than climb, this may be critical, with respect to
going below an altitude on a STAR considering terrain clearance
implications. It is unclear whether the altitudes are mandatory for
airspace, flight path crossing points or terrain considerations. On
departure to gain clearance for "Confirm no restriction" may be
satisfactory, but to go below on arrival is questionable without adequate
supporting documentation such as Jeppesen LSALT or PORT page
guidance. It is also not qualified in CAAC AIP.
The point is - if you cleared to descend, and the clearance for Lateral
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.
An example
ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"
Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?
Thanks
Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canton,China
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx all you guys...
The point is - if you cleared to descend, and the clearance for Lateral
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.
An example
ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"
Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?
Thanks
Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?
tracking was a STAR, do you have to observe the vertical constraints.
This does not seem to be the case in China. The problem is that it is
unclear whether consideration has been given to terrain clearance,
descent gradients to remain in controlled airspace or flight path
crossing points separation with respect to other aircraft. Put simply,
who is responsible for maintaining this when the clearance is passed.
An example
ATC "China Eastern Cleared VYK22 Arrival, descend flight level 4200
metres"
Do you have to observe the STAR altitude constraints or can you
descend immediately to 4200 metres safely with respect to terrain,
airspace and other traffic? Should clarification be requested from ATC
or if the altitude is passed then it should be taken as a given?
Thanks
Can this be clarified in some way? Maybe a statement by ATC
to the effect of "Descend to 4500m not below the steps" would be more
appropriate?
As the matter of fact.These two instructions have no contradiction at all if you could truly understand what does it mean.This is a standard terminology pattern for mainland controllers.Whlie initial contact has established between Pilots and Controller,our approach controllers will have to issue STAR、runway in use、ATIS Code and so on...
For example:''China Southern 3102,Guangzhou approach,good evening,radar contact.Expect ATAGA 01A arrival,runway 02 right,infomation Charlie.Now descend to 3600 metres on standard.''
In that case,it means you're cleared for descend to FL118 right now.Our controller has already considered about the terrain altitude.He's just telling you which STAR and runway you should use first...STAR altitude constraints on your charts are just a consultation.There is no need to worry about if the altitude he've told you is below the MSA.Just comply with what controller says,and everything will be fine...
It's a difference between English cogitation and Chinese one...
Thanks for the insight JrYOUNG, Nintendi and the rest, try to ignor these uptight captain moonlights........
Nintendi,
Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..
This is done all over Europe for this very reason..
Thanks
Would it be possible to broadcast your ATIS on two different frequencies... One in Chinese, the other in English...
This would reduce the amount of time that one pilot has to be "off frequency" - often at the stage of the flight where radio calls and level changes start affecting us.. It would enhance flight safety..
This is done all over Europe for this very reason..
Thanks
I have to say i'm also agree with you...
But unfortuntely,just a controller and i can't make any promises to you.
Anyway,I'll try to refer this advise to our leaders.That's what can i do...So sorry...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 7th Floor
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agnes, your attitude is an embarassement to us all. You think China is the only ACC in the world that impose restrictions? Go to Europe, America, and Middle east. Take a look over there and see what it's like. China have a complex airspace structure, far more complex than in HK. You are lucky you are working under a simple and small airpace.
Who, every morning, imposes a 10 mins flow control to TPE ACC for traffic fm Kaohsiung to Macao, and 5 mins fm Taipei to Macao? HK ATC.
Who imposes 3 mins flow for all Bekol departures? and if DEP can't cope, 5 mins.
To mainland controllers, agnes is a typical HK controller. Rude, loud, unfriendly, arrogant, over confident, over-rated......... but fortunately is only a minority. (may be he's/she's from the management)
Who, every morning, imposes a 10 mins flow control to TPE ACC for traffic fm Kaohsiung to Macao, and 5 mins fm Taipei to Macao? HK ATC.
Who imposes 3 mins flow for all Bekol departures? and if DEP can't cope, 5 mins.
To mainland controllers, agnes is a typical HK controller. Rude, loud, unfriendly, arrogant, over confident, over-rated......... but fortunately is only a minority. (may be he's/she's from the management)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Near the MTR
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rude, loud, unfriendly, arrogant, over confident, over-rated
agnes is a typical HK controller
but fortunately is only a minority.
P.S. AGNES- you are the weakest link.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jr Young,
I also think it's great that we're getting this information and thanks to all the PRC controllers for their contributions. I think the last discussion is important with regard to altitude clearances on SID and STARS.
We use a very conservative approach because the PRC AIP defines 'radar service' for lots of airports in PRC. However there are ports that we visit where controllers apparently give 'radar control' but are not (apparently) approved to do so because they are not listed in the AIP for 'radar service'.
Also in the past we have had 'close encounters' with military traffic that are not visible to us on TCAS when descending below constraints on SIDs and STARS.
Finally whilst you offer the advice that we can descend immediately to the cleared altitude given by the controller, I personally have experienced GPWS alerts when doing so! HGH is a classic for this and CKG another.
We have asked Beijing for the documentation to support what you say (ie that 'radar contact' means that a 'radar service' is now being offered) but so far this confirmation has not been forthcoming. This is not to doubt you, but perhaps you can give us the reference in your manuals where we can find this confirmation.
Many thanks once again for the inputs.
I also think it's great that we're getting this information and thanks to all the PRC controllers for their contributions. I think the last discussion is important with regard to altitude clearances on SID and STARS.
We use a very conservative approach because the PRC AIP defines 'radar service' for lots of airports in PRC. However there are ports that we visit where controllers apparently give 'radar control' but are not (apparently) approved to do so because they are not listed in the AIP for 'radar service'.
Also in the past we have had 'close encounters' with military traffic that are not visible to us on TCAS when descending below constraints on SIDs and STARS.
Finally whilst you offer the advice that we can descend immediately to the cleared altitude given by the controller, I personally have experienced GPWS alerts when doing so! HGH is a classic for this and CKG another.
We have asked Beijing for the documentation to support what you say (ie that 'radar contact' means that a 'radar service' is now being offered) but so far this confirmation has not been forthcoming. This is not to doubt you, but perhaps you can give us the reference in your manuals where we can find this confirmation.
Many thanks once again for the inputs.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MSP
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great discussion.
Thank you all for taking part in this mind exchange
We hope both side can understand each other better instead of blaming each other.
But for some of the HKATC folks, would you please keep your mouth clean?
I am wondering why many Hong Kong people are so uptight when talking about mainland...
Many HK people that I encountered in my life showed me that they were very self-confident and they were very proud of themselves being high educated... But unfortunately, I could hardly agree with many of them. And I believe most people here cannot agree with them either, as we can see what they Posted above (although some posts were being deleted but you can still find some of them in JrYoung's quote).
Once again, this is a topic for mind exchange. Not a topic that you express your internal fire!
Thank you all for taking part in this mind exchange
We hope both side can understand each other better instead of blaming each other.
But for some of the HKATC folks, would you please keep your mouth clean?
I am wondering why many Hong Kong people are so uptight when talking about mainland...
Many HK people that I encountered in my life showed me that they were very self-confident and they were very proud of themselves being high educated... But unfortunately, I could hardly agree with many of them. And I believe most people here cannot agree with them either, as we can see what they Posted above (although some posts were being deleted but you can still find some of them in JrYoung's quote).
Once again, this is a topic for mind exchange. Not a topic that you express your internal fire!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Beijing,China
Age: 42
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Friends,
I am sorry that I am too busy recently that I do not have time to visit this forum and reply to your questions, please accept my apologies.
Well, I am pretty glad to see that we have some folks with their high excitements recently in our topic. One said, “Descent with -2500ft/min” was stupid. Yeah, I agree, but I think the word “stupid” should not refer to us, instead, you should refer it to the airplanes manufactures – HOW THE HELL that they can make the aircraft descend with 2500ft/min in normal performance range and HOW THE HELL that they can allow you set the V/S with -2500ft/min on MCP.
Another friend said that “in 1 month we have more than 15000 minutes of delays into China”. Woow, that’s really lurid! But for Beijing Capital Intl. Airport, we have more than 30,000 flights per month, and divide by that number, the average delay time per flight is only half a minute, statistically.
I’ve heard that Hong Kong people are very fond of Offbeat News, well, would you please keep your fancies out of here?
I am sorry that I am too busy recently that I do not have time to visit this forum and reply to your questions, please accept my apologies.
Well, I am pretty glad to see that we have some folks with their high excitements recently in our topic. One said, “Descent with -2500ft/min” was stupid. Yeah, I agree, but I think the word “stupid” should not refer to us, instead, you should refer it to the airplanes manufactures – HOW THE HELL that they can make the aircraft descend with 2500ft/min in normal performance range and HOW THE HELL that they can allow you set the V/S with -2500ft/min on MCP.
Another friend said that “in 1 month we have more than 15000 minutes of delays into China”. Woow, that’s really lurid! But for Beijing Capital Intl. Airport, we have more than 30,000 flights per month, and divide by that number, the average delay time per flight is only half a minute, statistically.
I’ve heard that Hong Kong people are very fond of Offbeat News, well, would you please keep your fancies out of here?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Beijing,China
Age: 42
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello D.B.er
About the squawk change that you mention in your topic, I think you should follow your company’s procedures when encountering the situation that you mentioned. From OUR perspective, we SUGGEST you DO change your squawk code to 7700 when doing an emergency descent. By doing so, all our controllers in Beijing can see you on our radar, no matter how they set their radar filter.
In addition, the radars we (Beijing ACC Enroute Control, Shanghai ACC Enroute Control, Guangzhou ACC Ernoute Control) use are THALES company’s Eurocat System.
About the squawk change that you mention in your topic, I think you should follow your company’s procedures when encountering the situation that you mentioned. From OUR perspective, we SUGGEST you DO change your squawk code to 7700 when doing an emergency descent. By doing so, all our controllers in Beijing can see you on our radar, no matter how they set their radar filter.
In addition, the radars we (Beijing ACC Enroute Control, Shanghai ACC Enroute Control, Guangzhou ACC Ernoute Control) use are THALES company’s Eurocat System.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: disco bay
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all you PRC ATCers for contributing! Great thread.
I have a question regarding QNE vs QNH altimeter settings. In many areas of China, on departure we're frequently told to climb to a level 'on standard' which is actually below your published transition altitude.
Can you please explain what is happening from your perspective, that makes this practice necessary? Why do you not simply comply with your promulgated standard transition levels at all times?
I have at times been held down for 10-15 minutes, on QNE, and below the transition level. This is an uncomfortable situation for us to be in, particularly when the area QNH differs considerably from ISA.
The risk of ATC or pilot errors resulting in a loss of vertical separation is probably increased with these clearances, so I'm hoping one of you could help me understand how this practice works from the ATC perspective?
Thanks for any advice you can offer!
I have a question regarding QNE vs QNH altimeter settings. In many areas of China, on departure we're frequently told to climb to a level 'on standard' which is actually below your published transition altitude.
Can you please explain what is happening from your perspective, that makes this practice necessary? Why do you not simply comply with your promulgated standard transition levels at all times?
I have at times been held down for 10-15 minutes, on QNE, and below the transition level. This is an uncomfortable situation for us to be in, particularly when the area QNH differs considerably from ISA.
The risk of ATC or pilot errors resulting in a loss of vertical separation is probably increased with these clearances, so I'm hoping one of you could help me understand how this practice works from the ATC perspective?
Thanks for any advice you can offer!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canton,China
Age: 42
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh...
Thanks to all you PRC ATCers for contributing! Great thread.
I have a question regarding QNE vs QNH altimeter settings. In many areas of China, on departure we're frequently told to climb to a level 'on standard' which is actually below your published transition altitude.
Can you please explain what is happening from your perspective, that makes this practice necessary? Why do you not simply comply with your promulgated standard transition levels at all times?
I have at times been held down for 10-15 minutes, on QNE, and below the transition level. This is an uncomfortable situation for us to be in, particularly when the area QNH differs considerably from ISA.
The risk of ATC or pilot errors resulting in a loss of vertical separation is probably increased with these clearances, so I'm hoping one of you could help me understand how this practice works from the ATC perspective?
Thanks for any advice you can offer!
I have a question regarding QNE vs QNH altimeter settings. In many areas of China, on departure we're frequently told to climb to a level 'on standard' which is actually below your published transition altitude.
Can you please explain what is happening from your perspective, that makes this practice necessary? Why do you not simply comply with your promulgated standard transition levels at all times?
I have at times been held down for 10-15 minutes, on QNE, and below the transition level. This is an uncomfortable situation for us to be in, particularly when the area QNH differs considerably from ISA.
The risk of ATC or pilot errors resulting in a loss of vertical separation is probably increased with these clearances, so I'm hoping one of you could help me understand how this practice works from the ATC perspective?
Thanks for any advice you can offer!
If that's ture...It's absolutely a stuip mistake.
But that's nearly impossible to make such a weak mistake...sir.
Would you pls tell me which airport is it?Or which Tracon?
However,the only reasonable explain is the airport which you were going to land,it's QNH is below 979HPa or above 1031Hpa...I guess...
Or you are flying on the Transition Layer altitude...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: BeiJing ,China
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answers to your flight procedure
I am the approach controller from BeiJing , I think i can answer your questions about the flight procedure so that you can have a preparation about it next time .
For 36L/R:
KM-11A is used very often for the aircraft which will come into our space from KM ,KM-13A will be used also ,but not very common unless you are very high (MAYBE higher than 5100M,because there will be a conflict with the one who will depart with CD-13D).
LR-21A is used often , there is only one STAR for LR.
It is very hard to tell you when we use JB-11A or JB-13A ,that depends on the position of the traffic on the KM-11A ，because we ATC know some position where will take the same time to land from the different STAR,but I suggest you to load JB-11A before we tell you the STAR ,because there is enough space to turn to the final with that STAR .
As for the VYK , we seldom use the VYK-21A OR VYK11-A unless there is not many traffic .We always vector the plane heading to northeast after VYK.Our pattern is indenpendent ILS approach ,there are 4 "GATE" on the final of 36L/R ,the west final use the altitude higher than 1200m(exclusive) ,and the east final use the altitude lower than 1200m to intercept the localizer ,and the plane's altitude is high in the east but low in the west ,we have to ask the pilot to make a manuver after VYK and always require them to have a high rate of descend.
18L/R
the STAR is easy to remember and load when we operated from north to south
JB : JB-12 A
KM: KM-12 A
LR : LR -22 A
VYK: VYK -22 A OR DOXAS -22A (DOXAS -22A IS SELDON USED)
One thing need to remind you is that some ATC will prefer to say "after LR heading 230（when use 36L/R） or 250(when use 18L/R)" that is their habit,the track will be similar as the STAR
HOPE THESE COULD BE USEFUL FOR YOU
For 36L/R:
KM-11A is used very often for the aircraft which will come into our space from KM ,KM-13A will be used also ,but not very common unless you are very high (MAYBE higher than 5100M,because there will be a conflict with the one who will depart with CD-13D).
LR-21A is used often , there is only one STAR for LR.
It is very hard to tell you when we use JB-11A or JB-13A ,that depends on the position of the traffic on the KM-11A ，because we ATC know some position where will take the same time to land from the different STAR,but I suggest you to load JB-11A before we tell you the STAR ,because there is enough space to turn to the final with that STAR .
As for the VYK , we seldom use the VYK-21A OR VYK11-A unless there is not many traffic .We always vector the plane heading to northeast after VYK.Our pattern is indenpendent ILS approach ,there are 4 "GATE" on the final of 36L/R ,the west final use the altitude higher than 1200m(exclusive) ,and the east final use the altitude lower than 1200m to intercept the localizer ,and the plane's altitude is high in the east but low in the west ,we have to ask the pilot to make a manuver after VYK and always require them to have a high rate of descend.
18L/R
the STAR is easy to remember and load when we operated from north to south
JB : JB-12 A
KM: KM-12 A
LR : LR -22 A
VYK: VYK -22 A OR DOXAS -22A (DOXAS -22A IS SELDON USED)
One thing need to remind you is that some ATC will prefer to say "after LR heading 230（when use 36L/R） or 250(when use 18L/R)" that is their habit,the track will be similar as the STAR
HOPE THESE COULD BE USEFUL FOR YOU
RVR for CATI, CATII, and CATIII
During a CAAC simulator eval, we were told that CATI visablity is not 2400 feet (730 meters) but another value. I looked at the Jepp plate for Beijing, and did not see anything there.
If this is true, what are the ceilings and vis for CATI, CATII, and CATIII in China?
Thanks for the help
If this is true, what are the ceilings and vis for CATI, CATII, and CATIII in China?
Thanks for the help
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks NINTENDI and JrYoung,
I find yr posts informative and full of good stuff. I will keep it short and sweet. I regularly fly through China, both B330 and A461, although I'm not a regular into ZBAA so I am not qualified to comment on that.
I did read JR's earlier post, however I just want to ask , when asking for a Direct ( yes, in order to cut some minutes and save some fuel) why do the Controllers instantly reply NO, without even thinking about it? There is often no traffic, ( when asked about it) no other response is given except " FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE" it would be better if we were told to STANDBY, then declined. Even though the airspace is managed by the Military, what is the reason for not approving direct tracking, through clear airspace with no traffic???
One other thing....... Why , with the new Yet not improved RVSM in China, why are we constantly told to OFFSET from our tracks??
Thanks guys......
------ Is used to work well now I hang like Sleeve of Wizard----------
I find yr posts informative and full of good stuff. I will keep it short and sweet. I regularly fly through China, both B330 and A461, although I'm not a regular into ZBAA so I am not qualified to comment on that.
I did read JR's earlier post, however I just want to ask , when asking for a Direct ( yes, in order to cut some minutes and save some fuel) why do the Controllers instantly reply NO, without even thinking about it? There is often no traffic, ( when asked about it) no other response is given except " FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE" it would be better if we were told to STANDBY, then declined. Even though the airspace is managed by the Military, what is the reason for not approving direct tracking, through clear airspace with no traffic???
One other thing....... Why , with the new Yet not improved RVSM in China, why are we constantly told to OFFSET from our tracks??
Thanks guys......
------ Is used to work well now I hang like Sleeve of Wizard----------
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also like to add the Question....
With all the changes in STARs and RWYs into ZBAA, why don't you provide a D-ATIS (digital ATIS)? Would make planning the approach a whole lot easier! The range of the ATIS transmission (and the fact that it is broadcast in 2 languages) make planning the approach very hard!
With all the changes in STARs and RWYs into ZBAA, why don't you provide a D-ATIS (digital ATIS)? Would make planning the approach a whole lot easier! The range of the ATIS transmission (and the fact that it is broadcast in 2 languages) make planning the approach very hard!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These new stars, a whole new level of dangerous... Stars being assigned for runways that they are not designed to serve. How do you justify this?
Atis.... How many times do you hear calm, only to be confronted with 10kts plus of breeze? Have you ever considered that you anemometer might be broken? A rule of thumb... If the flags are blowing, its not calm. Dont get me started on your innacurate vis reporting. What about that rubbish on the end of your atis? Congested taxiways? Intersection departure distances? Put it out on notam.
Also when we are switched to approach, and state the atis we have, it is never acknowledged, never updated on frequency, never challenged. We could say any identifier. Simply doing this would save a number of gpws incidents if you listened to what atis/qnh we readback. Catch 22, if the information is not accurate, don't bother updating it...
Atis.... How many times do you hear calm, only to be confronted with 10kts plus of breeze? Have you ever considered that you anemometer might be broken? A rule of thumb... If the flags are blowing, its not calm. Dont get me started on your innacurate vis reporting. What about that rubbish on the end of your atis? Congested taxiways? Intersection departure distances? Put it out on notam.
Also when we are switched to approach, and state the atis we have, it is never acknowledged, never updated on frequency, never challenged. We could say any identifier. Simply doing this would save a number of gpws incidents if you listened to what atis/qnh we readback. Catch 22, if the information is not accurate, don't bother updating it...
