Att HKG ATC, a question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Att HKG ATC, a question
my q is not about hkg in particular.
Our new sim assessment involves a takeoff with an atc required level off at 1500' which is about 1400' above airfield and close in terrain.
Is there an established minimum alt at which atc can radar vector aircraft at a close to sea level airport. My understanding is that in the above situation, atc cannot ask an aircraft to maintain less than 1500' agl during radar vectors.
anybody? Bueller?
Our new sim assessment involves a takeoff with an atc required level off at 1500' which is about 1400' above airfield and close in terrain.
Is there an established minimum alt at which atc can radar vector aircraft at a close to sea level airport. My understanding is that in the above situation, atc cannot ask an aircraft to maintain less than 1500' agl during radar vectors.
anybody? Bueller?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Taiwan
Age: 73
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio
I flied in today at around 6:30pm, I heard a controller said::
report your beep
report your level
report your squall code
what is your request level
why he said `your` xxxx, is it standard?
I think if he called my call sign I will know all the communication is about me. Just I feel a bit unprofessional. we do not speak very good english but we are trained to follow standard radio.
report your beep
report your level
report your squall code
what is your request level
why he said `your` xxxx, is it standard?
I think if he called my call sign I will know all the communication is about me. Just I feel a bit unprofessional. we do not speak very good english but we are trained to follow standard radio.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur12
Here is the radar minimum altitude chart from the AIP. As you can see, for all intents and purposes 3000' is the minimum level at which a departure would be vectored.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-101.pdf
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-101.pdf
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 76
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven11
To answer raven11, if you look at the chart in the link provided by bekolblockage, which is the Minimum Vectoring Altitude chart, when you are vectored to 07R/L, you are descended on the base leg in accordance with the MVA, hence down to 1500'. If you are departing 25L, as soon as you rotate, you are in the 4100' MVA, then 3000' MVA, then 1500' MVA as you follow the SID.
If you depart 07R, again you are in the 4100' MVA and then you fly into the 3,000' MVA as you follow the SID. As bekolblockage says, you effectively end up with 3,000' being the lowest altitude you can be radar vectored. The only time you are safe around Hong Kong Airport with regard to terrain is if you are on an instrument approach, missed approach, SID or being vectored in accordance with the MVA chart.
If you depart 07R, again you are in the 4100' MVA and then you fly into the 3,000' MVA as you follow the SID. As bekolblockage says, you effectively end up with 3,000' being the lowest altitude you can be radar vectored. The only time you are safe around Hong Kong Airport with regard to terrain is if you are on an instrument approach, missed approach, SID or being vectored in accordance with the MVA chart.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the info. I should have been more clear - the exercise was not in HKG.
On another topic, I have never really heard a logical answer to this question.
Can any hkg atc person explain why we cant stay on the star for 07l. Surely workload is lower if we simply track the star via sokoe etc and descend in accordance with published alts and speeds.
anybody?
On another topic, I have never really heard a logical answer to this question.
Can any hkg atc person explain why we cant stay on the star for 07l. Surely workload is lower if we simply track the star via sokoe etc and descend in accordance with published alts and speeds.
anybody?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, if you want the arrivals spacing all over the place like the proverbial mad woman's ****, do as you say. Unfortunately for you, the companies (your employer??) like the aircraft to land in the most expeditious manner. This is what vectoring to final achieves. You have a bit of a cheek really thinking that your views on this supersede all the thousands...no call that hundreds of thousands of hours that professional Air Traffic Controllers have spent doing exactly this, expeditiously spacing the aircraft on final. You have asked this before and I remember replying, maybe not to your satisfaction. And please don't listen to Throw a dyce, he hasn't worked here for a long time, and never worked in the Approach area anyway.
Last edited by Bedder believeit; 8th Feb 2009 at 07:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bedder,
Thank you for your courteous, professional response.
I do apologize if I gave the impression that I am dissatisfied with the quality of ATC service in HKG. This is not the case. I have re read my previous post but it is unclear to me which part led you to draw such a conclusion.
“Unfortunately for you, the companies (your employer??) like the aircraft to land in the most expeditious manner.”
I am fully aware of the companies desire but thanks for clarifying it.
“You have asked this before and I remember replying, maybe not to your satisfaction”
Yes, I probably did, however, as is often the case, I either forgot to chase up the response or could not find the thread weeks later when I remembered my query. I apologize if I have inconvenienced you and wasted your time.
I fully appreciate that when there is a gap preceding our arrival that the most logical course of action is for the controller to turn us onto a westerly heading, often about 270, followed by a close turn to finals. Bravo, fuel saved, AEL caught, all happy.
What I don’t understand is this scenario: Numerous aircraft flowing in on downwind for 07L. 250 kts, spacing appears fine. Then ATC begin vectoring ON THE STAR. I.e.: radar headings that follow the exact STAR legs to within .03nm as advised by Honeywell’s finest. Spacing to preceding traffic does not change, touchdown time does not change. Its almost like the controller does not trust our tracking. I have flown the approach with radar vectors from south of CLK without moving more than a nats gonad from the tracks as published. It just seems odd to me, surely the workload is higher with all of the minor heading changes required when we could simply track the STAR.
This doesn’t happen all of the time, but often enough to raise my interest level as to why it does.
Once again, thanks for your patient reply above. I look forward to your informative response.
Thank you for your courteous, professional response.
I do apologize if I gave the impression that I am dissatisfied with the quality of ATC service in HKG. This is not the case. I have re read my previous post but it is unclear to me which part led you to draw such a conclusion.
“Unfortunately for you, the companies (your employer??) like the aircraft to land in the most expeditious manner.”
I am fully aware of the companies desire but thanks for clarifying it.
“You have asked this before and I remember replying, maybe not to your satisfaction”
Yes, I probably did, however, as is often the case, I either forgot to chase up the response or could not find the thread weeks later when I remembered my query. I apologize if I have inconvenienced you and wasted your time.
I fully appreciate that when there is a gap preceding our arrival that the most logical course of action is for the controller to turn us onto a westerly heading, often about 270, followed by a close turn to finals. Bravo, fuel saved, AEL caught, all happy.
What I don’t understand is this scenario: Numerous aircraft flowing in on downwind for 07L. 250 kts, spacing appears fine. Then ATC begin vectoring ON THE STAR. I.e.: radar headings that follow the exact STAR legs to within .03nm as advised by Honeywell’s finest. Spacing to preceding traffic does not change, touchdown time does not change. Its almost like the controller does not trust our tracking. I have flown the approach with radar vectors from south of CLK without moving more than a nats gonad from the tracks as published. It just seems odd to me, surely the workload is higher with all of the minor heading changes required when we could simply track the STAR.
This doesn’t happen all of the time, but often enough to raise my interest level as to why it does.
Once again, thanks for your patient reply above. I look forward to your informative response.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a frequent user of CLK I know that ATC vectors are always better than a disparate bunch of pilots let loose on their own.
If you let pilots follow the star their speeds would be all over the place and they would be either up each others' chuff or with 15 mile separations, there would be enough per hour getting lost that SZX tower would have to keep shooing them back across the border, and a fair few would try to take the top off Sunset Peak. The only advantage I can see is that it would cause immense merriment in tower and approach and brighten for them what can be a rigorous day.
The workload is certainly higher for ATC but the result is very effective. You'd Bedder believe it...
If you let pilots follow the star their speeds would be all over the place and they would be either up each others' chuff or with 15 mile separations, there would be enough per hour getting lost that SZX tower would have to keep shooing them back across the border, and a fair few would try to take the top off Sunset Peak. The only advantage I can see is that it would cause immense merriment in tower and approach and brighten for them what can be a rigorous day.
The workload is certainly higher for ATC but the result is very effective. You'd Bedder believe it...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OIC, I do apologise for my rather intemperate message to you. You did seek a fairly straight forward answer to you point hoping for a reasonable reply, and I guess I was a bit snotty. I sometimes get a bit frustrated when, what I see as being a fairly straight forward operation, is questioned (often?) as to why it is so, my response is often thus! To put down in words the art of spacing streams of arriving aircraft from differing directions, subject to varying pilot operations, and subject to the vagaries of the tides of wind that swirl around Lantau Island, is far to difficult a subject for me to elucidate here in simplistic terms. Suffice to say that you have often had a 50 plus knot tail wind on base, and then turning on to final only to meet a 20 knot headwind, then a tail wind and (hopefully) for landing a headwind! These are amongst the frisbees that come the way of the poor buggars trying to get those aeroplanes 4 to 5 miles apart.
Anyway, I have just been watching the news on the terrible fires in Victoria, so who really gives a s**t about whether you and I are in dispute as to how aeroplanes are spaced on final at HK? Good luck Mate!
Anyway, I have just been watching the news on the terrible fires in Victoria, so who really gives a s**t about whether you and I are in dispute as to how aeroplanes are spaced on final at HK? Good luck Mate!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anyway, I have just been watching the news on the terrible fires in Victoria, so who really gives a s**t about whether you and I are in dispute as to how aeroplanes are spaced on final at HK? Good luck Mate!"
I couldn't agree more.
Good luck to you also.
Peace
I couldn't agree more.
Good luck to you also.
Peace
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bedder,
I decided to delete my posts on this subject,since anything I think is not worthy of inclusion.I was talking about Aberdeen UK,Not HK.I am a valid radar controller/OJTI with 29 years experience,but you seem to have ignored that.Didn't do HK radar so is the lowest level of pondlife.
Not being a Hong Kong approach radar skygod was actually quite pleasant.Most of the Tower guys had no desire to go down to the bearpit.We heard a lot of stories.We also watched what was going on.
Anyway keep thinking you are the creme de la creme.Maybe you been there too long.
I decided to delete my posts on this subject,since anything I think is not worthy of inclusion.I was talking about Aberdeen UK,Not HK.I am a valid radar controller/OJTI with 29 years experience,but you seem to have ignored that.Didn't do HK radar so is the lowest level of pondlife.
Not being a Hong Kong approach radar skygod was actually quite pleasant.Most of the Tower guys had no desire to go down to the bearpit.We heard a lot of stories.We also watched what was going on.
Anyway keep thinking you are the creme de la creme.Maybe you been there too long.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northern Half
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OIC12 your points on flying the approach are valid and I, and other ATC's, share your conclusions.
Some ATCs in HK do clear aircraft to fly the approach from the IAF's but experience has shown that this is only practical when arrival volume is low. It simply is not safe when an arrival sequence is running because of aircrew's differing interpretation of the published chart speeds - it certainly makes me sit up and pay attention sometimes.
Additionally, when ATC are trying for maximum economy by achieving minimum final spacing, we really do need to strictly control headings and speed to achieve the desired result.
Another consideration is that the STARs terminate at GUAVA (07) and TD (25) and state that arrivals are to Expect ILS approach. Stringently, aircraft cannot proceed beyond the STAR termination points without a clearance to fly some sort of approach, thus we either have to clear arrivals for an appoach before they reach the IAF's ( which gives us problems because we lose direct control of the spacing [speed] and vertical safety [published descent profile] ) or we have to vector and control the descent. We choose to vector, speed control and descend because it is simpler and safer.
Now if you can understand that, then please decipher this for me
:
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC18-07.pdf
Some ATCs in HK do clear aircraft to fly the approach from the IAF's but experience has shown that this is only practical when arrival volume is low. It simply is not safe when an arrival sequence is running because of aircrew's differing interpretation of the published chart speeds - it certainly makes me sit up and pay attention sometimes.
Additionally, when ATC are trying for maximum economy by achieving minimum final spacing, we really do need to strictly control headings and speed to achieve the desired result.
Another consideration is that the STARs terminate at GUAVA (07) and TD (25) and state that arrivals are to Expect ILS approach. Stringently, aircraft cannot proceed beyond the STAR termination points without a clearance to fly some sort of approach, thus we either have to clear arrivals for an appoach before they reach the IAF's ( which gives us problems because we lose direct control of the spacing [speed] and vertical safety [published descent profile] ) or we have to vector and control the descent. We choose to vector, speed control and descend because it is simpler and safer.
Now if you can understand that, then please decipher this for me
:http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC18-07.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur12
It boils down to maintaining control rather just monitoring and hoping that that everyone does the right thing.
As good as modern FMS are, I can tell you for a fact that everyone does not follow the published ground track as accurately and in the same way as you might like to think. I can't give you a techinical explanation but there are obvious differences to us on radar in the way different types of FMS interpret and (try to) achieve the desired flight path which can also depend to a large extent on how the coding suppliers have interpreted the published procedure and coded the path terminators to the system.
So rather than sweating on whether somone will turn base or onto the final intercept at exactly the right moment to achieve the spacing we are after, controllers would rather control and ensure the right result.
For info, losing just 0.2 NM between each aircraft on final loses us about 2 arrivals per hour. Somethng that the Airlines and AAHK are never happy about.
Hope that finally answers your question.
As good as modern FMS are, I can tell you for a fact that everyone does not follow the published ground track as accurately and in the same way as you might like to think. I can't give you a techinical explanation but there are obvious differences to us on radar in the way different types of FMS interpret and (try to) achieve the desired flight path which can also depend to a large extent on how the coding suppliers have interpreted the published procedure and coded the path terminators to the system.
So rather than sweating on whether somone will turn base or onto the final intercept at exactly the right moment to achieve the spacing we are after, controllers would rather control and ensure the right result.
For info, losing just 0.2 NM between each aircraft on final loses us about 2 arrivals per hour. Somethng that the Airlines and AAHK are never happy about.
Hope that finally answers your question.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Storm Girl,
Well you're entitled to your opinion.
Oicur 12,
I have looked up a procedure which we can use in the UK ref the terrain clearance.We call it keyhole but it may answer your question.
Basically the phase of flight in within 30 miles of a radar antenna associated with the unit providing the service.
1000ft above any fixed obstacle within
(a) 5 miles of the aircraft and
(b) 15 miles ahead and 20 deg either side of the aircraft track.
When the aircraft is within 15miles of the antenna and provided a Surviellance Minimum Altitude Area or approved procedure has been notified the 5 miles in (a) and 15 miles in (b) may be reduced to 3 miles and 10 miles.
This would allow ATC to use 1500ft if it met the above criteria in the UK.
Having had a situation similar to the US airways bird strike,thankfully on just one engine it is something that we bear in mind.We can go to the east of the airfield IMC at low level because the terrain is suitable,and it's something we would do in an emergency where the aircraft has poor climb performance.Again this is in the UK not HK.
Well you're entitled to your opinion.
Oicur 12,
I have looked up a procedure which we can use in the UK ref the terrain clearance.We call it keyhole but it may answer your question.
Basically the phase of flight in within 30 miles of a radar antenna associated with the unit providing the service.
1000ft above any fixed obstacle within
(a) 5 miles of the aircraft and
(b) 15 miles ahead and 20 deg either side of the aircraft track.
When the aircraft is within 15miles of the antenna and provided a Surviellance Minimum Altitude Area or approved procedure has been notified the 5 miles in (a) and 15 miles in (b) may be reduced to 3 miles and 10 miles.
This would allow ATC to use 1500ft if it met the above criteria in the UK.
Having had a situation similar to the US airways bird strike,thankfully on just one engine it is something that we bear in mind.We can go to the east of the airfield IMC at low level because the terrain is suitable,and it's something we would do in an emergency where the aircraft has poor climb performance.Again this is in the UK not HK.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur 12,
What bekol says is correct.Also from a radar controller viewpoint,if you have 2 aircraft on minimum radar separation,you need to be sure that they will not do anything that will errode that separation.Lock them on headings is 100% safe.
Leaving aircraft on their own navigation,in this situation is an absloute no no when radar training.People have failed validation boards,because not locking them on headings is seen as fail dangerous.Applies to all airports,not just HK.
What bekol says is correct.Also from a radar controller viewpoint,if you have 2 aircraft on minimum radar separation,you need to be sure that they will not do anything that will errode that separation.Lock them on headings is 100% safe.
Leaving aircraft on their own navigation,in this situation is an absloute no no when radar training.People have failed validation boards,because not locking them on headings is seen as fail dangerous.Applies to all airports,not just HK.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northern Half
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OIC12, to discuss your original question regarding terrain clearance responsibility, which I believe has now become muddled by discussion of UK procedures, considering your question was to HKG ATC.
ICAO validated ATC designers of SIDs ( and STARs and Approach Procedures ) comply with ICAO formulas which address obstacle clearance criteria. Obviously, when a procedure is flown as published the obstacle clearances are achieved. Your question pertains to a, "What if?" whilst flying such a procedure.
As HK ATC is ICAO compliant I can best answer you by giving you my ICAO authority (click the hyperlink for full text):
Sissy
This essentially means that HK tactical ATC is only responsible for ensuring clearance from obstacles under two conditions : when they are vectoring an IFR flight and when providing direct routing off an ATS route. The second criteria is ambiguous ( depending on one's interpretation of "off" ) and I choose to interpret this as being any direct routing, as my interpretation does not adversely affect safety.
As ClrIGS stated in their post, ATC's vector in strict compliance with the published MVA chart ( http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-101.pdf ) and will not allow diversion off a SID until they are satisfied that the MVA altitudes won't be breached. ( In severe weather you may have heard TWR refuse take-off to a flight that has requested to divert off a SID immediately after departure - the same rule is in play ).
Also for consideration here is, what if an IFR flight inadvertently diverts off course towards high terrain? Again I refer to my ICAO authority : Sissy. Common law dictates that I provide every assistance but I shall choose my words very carefully.
ICAO validated ATC designers of SIDs ( and STARs and Approach Procedures ) comply with ICAO formulas which address obstacle clearance criteria. Obviously, when a procedure is flown as published the obstacle clearances are achieved. Your question pertains to a, "What if?" whilst flying such a procedure.
As HK ATC is ICAO compliant I can best answer you by giving you my ICAO authority (click the hyperlink for full text):
Sissy
This essentially means that HK tactical ATC is only responsible for ensuring clearance from obstacles under two conditions : when they are vectoring an IFR flight and when providing direct routing off an ATS route. The second criteria is ambiguous ( depending on one's interpretation of "off" ) and I choose to interpret this as being any direct routing, as my interpretation does not adversely affect safety.
As ClrIGS stated in their post, ATC's vector in strict compliance with the published MVA chart ( http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-101.pdf ) and will not allow diversion off a SID until they are satisfied that the MVA altitudes won't be breached. ( In severe weather you may have heard TWR refuse take-off to a flight that has requested to divert off a SID immediately after departure - the same rule is in play ).
Also for consideration here is, what if an IFR flight inadvertently diverts off course towards high terrain? Again I refer to my ICAO authority : Sissy. Common law dictates that I provide every assistance but I shall choose my words very carefully.
