HKG ATC out of control
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 66
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is a third runway going to work?,or is this enormous large sum of money for a service runway.There's no way all 3 can be used simultaneously or can they?
If the present system is chaotic, why build a third.??
If the present system is chaotic, why build a third.??
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bridge too far.
You are right DD, it is needed about as much as the bridge to Macau.
They are building a third runway at ZGGG wouldn't it make more sense to use that white elephant train they are building and fly from there? Or build a link to ZGSZ. Craziest idea I heard was to dig a tunnel through Lantau to shift pax to an airport extension on Lantau south side.
They are building a third runway at ZGGG wouldn't it make more sense to use that white elephant train they are building and fly from there? Or build a link to ZGSZ. Craziest idea I heard was to dig a tunnel through Lantau to shift pax to an airport extension on Lantau south side.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craziest idea I heard was to dig a tunnel through Lantau to shift pax to an airport extension on Lantau south side.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In front of the PC
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it will force some of the District 9 crowd to move and actually assimilate into the Hong Kong community.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where else?
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Technique
What is it with HKATC lately?- track shortening, followed almost immediately by speed reduction, followed by 'expedite descent!'.
Doesn't the resultant = should have left us on the STAR? Would have ended up in the same place, at the same time, at the same altitude!
Not a lot of forward planning going on - Last Friday, At Murry, Approach gives "Descend to ....No speed restriction". Great.
4, yes four, miles later "reduce to 220 knots".
Doesn't the resultant = should have left us on the STAR?
Would have ended up in the same place, at the same time, at the same altitude!Not a lot of forward planning going on - Last Friday, At Murry, Approach gives "Descend to ....No speed restriction". Great.
4, yes four, miles later "reduce to 220 knots".
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..Approach gives "Descend to ....No speed restriction". Great. 4, yes four, miles later "reduce to 220 knots".
Flexibility, my dear chap. It's the key to "air power", don't you know?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nfa
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish ATC would stop blaming the ridiculous delays in and out of CLK lately on aircraft volume. "Expect 45 to 50 minute delay due to high number of departing aircraft". There has been the same number of aircraft scheduled to depart every afternoon for months. It's not additional aircraft that is the problem. The second any aircraft leaves the magenta line, the lack of competentence from the controller staff is immediate and unmistakable. It's not additional aircraft that is causing emergency fuel calls. You used to be able to relax and feel comfortable flying into Hong Kong. Very quickly it's becoming too much like some of the scarey places everyone has stories about.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooh, I do love reading well researched comments from second officers.
Statistics
I'll just pick 2 relevant stats for your edification.
Departures May 2011 13,925
Departures May 2012 14,615
So, that's an increase of 690 departures over last year in just 31 days, which equals an increase of 22 departures per day or an increase of 1 departure every hour for 22 out of every 24 hours. I won't even mention the increase in arrivals and certainly won't mention any increase in overflights.
Now, what was that you were saying about same number of aircraft blah, blah, blah?
OTB
"I wish ATC would stop blaming the ridiculous delays in and out of CLK lately on aircraft volume".
I'll just pick 2 relevant stats for your edification.
Departures May 2011 13,925
Departures May 2012 14,615
So, that's an increase of 690 departures over last year in just 31 days, which equals an increase of 22 departures per day or an increase of 1 departure every hour for 22 out of every 24 hours. I won't even mention the increase in arrivals and certainly won't mention any increase in overflights.
Now, what was that you were saying about same number of aircraft blah, blah, blah?
OTB
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents worth
Okay as far as I am concerned ATC in HKG does a pretty good job. There are some ATC controllers that are much better than others but that applies in all aspects of life.
I have to agree that the climb "to" or descend "to" should NEVER be used by ATC or pilots. I make a point of never using it but ATC HK does on a regular basis .
One suggestion to remove a lot of the frustration .
Any aircraft approaching top of descent should be given descent clearance together with any speed requirements imposed by ATC or use the terminology no speed requirements, this should be done as a matter of standard procedure . As it stands I always have to go back and ask about speed control to plan my descent.
Nothing infuriates more than ATC requesting 320kts or greater in descent only to be told to slow to 220kts not 20nm later. This screws up the descent profile totally and is unnecessary . I understand that there are always unforeseen circumstances that will interfere with aircraft control but surely it cannot happen that often in HK.
Alternatively What about placing some waypoints equidistant from touchdown and instruct each aircraft to cross that fix at a certain time and leave us to sort it out . From there only minor speed or track variations should be required .
I have to agree that the climb "to" or descend "to" should NEVER be used by ATC or pilots. I make a point of never using it but ATC HK does on a regular basis .
One suggestion to remove a lot of the frustration .
Any aircraft approaching top of descent should be given descent clearance together with any speed requirements imposed by ATC or use the terminology no speed requirements, this should be done as a matter of standard procedure . As it stands I always have to go back and ask about speed control to plan my descent.
Nothing infuriates more than ATC requesting 320kts or greater in descent only to be told to slow to 220kts not 20nm later. This screws up the descent profile totally and is unnecessary . I understand that there are always unforeseen circumstances that will interfere with aircraft control but surely it cannot happen that often in HK.
Alternatively What about placing some waypoints equidistant from touchdown and instruct each aircraft to cross that fix at a certain time and leave us to sort it out . From there only minor speed or track variations should be required .
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the inner holds at Limes and TD get used at all.Never saw them used at all in my day,hence sometimes the conga line in the South China Sea,when too many aircraft were in the airspace.Different countries have different techniques I guess.Might save a lot of wectors.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bm330
OTB's stats tell one side of the story - increased demand. Not a huge amount admittedly, but enough.
The other side of the coin is capacity.
Even you would know that April and May were terrible months, for both you and us, in terms of convective wx in the HK FIR. Not only at the airport itself but in the surrounding airspace.
With departure demand normally around the 35 mark per hour during the core hours of the day, it doesn't take long for delays to build up to 45-50 minutes if your mates ahead of you want to line up for 60 seconds to assess the weather on the departure path.
Factor that in with us guessing where you want to go in the next 50 miles when you don't even know yourself yet, and of course our airspace capacity becomes significantly restricted.
From recollection, our 3 busiest days in April were between 1,040 and 1,060 movements.
For comparison, Heathrow handles about 1,290 per day.
Our traffic mix is almost the reverse of Heathrow's- they have a Heavy:Medium mix of about 35:65 while ours is 65:35. I'll let you do the math on wake turbulence impact.
It would be disingenuous to discount the fact that they have a curfew, but the overnight stats at Hong Kong are not hugely significant-yet.
Now, take away BNN and LAM and see how they go.
Yes, we can do better. We're working on it.
I'll come back to you after we overtake them in about 5 years. (OTB might up the ante on that).
The other side of the coin is capacity.
Even you would know that April and May were terrible months, for both you and us, in terms of convective wx in the HK FIR. Not only at the airport itself but in the surrounding airspace.
With departure demand normally around the 35 mark per hour during the core hours of the day, it doesn't take long for delays to build up to 45-50 minutes if your mates ahead of you want to line up for 60 seconds to assess the weather on the departure path.
Factor that in with us guessing where you want to go in the next 50 miles when you don't even know yourself yet, and of course our airspace capacity becomes significantly restricted.
From recollection, our 3 busiest days in April were between 1,040 and 1,060 movements.
For comparison, Heathrow handles about 1,290 per day.
Our traffic mix is almost the reverse of Heathrow's- they have a Heavy:Medium mix of about 35:65 while ours is 65:35. I'll let you do the math on wake turbulence impact.
It would be disingenuous to discount the fact that they have a curfew, but the overnight stats at Hong Kong are not hugely significant-yet.
Now, take away BNN and LAM and see how they go.
Yes, we can do better. We're working on it.
I'll come back to you after we overtake them in about 5 years. (OTB might up the ante on that).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gripe:
Being vectored to final during the last 20NM to run before final intercept.
The problem/consequence:
RWY 07. How to establish a continual landing sequence on final so that all aircraft are approx 4 to 5NM in trail and still on the STAR
RWY 25. See above.
ATC Issues:
RWY 07. If the first aircraft in a sequence of maybe 20 to 50 aircraft is from the East and is not vectored North of SOKOE/LIMES for track shortening, then an opportunity to save maybe 7 to 8NM (track miles) is lost and this will have a knock-on effect to each and every arriving aircraft for the remaider of that stream. To say that aircraft can be given a time to cross an APP fix at a certain time is fine, but impracticable when a flow line is established. There is a very narrow base leg gate on to RWY 07 that allows very little or no leeway in allowing aircraft to "do their own thing".
The Gripe:
Aircraft intercepting final above the glidepath
The problem/consequence:
Aircraft possibly being unable to establish in a configured and company acceptable situation so that a safe approach can be made to the runway.
ATC Issues:
A number of "excuses" can be alluded to here:
1. Frequency congestion
2. Poor adherance to standard phraseologies, and a large number of re-requested readbacks.
3. Training on ATC positions that is allowing the on the job training of new Approach controllers.
4. Concern by APP and or FAD over catch up situations due to non compliance by aircraft of what is being expected of them.
5. Great wind variations that are to be experienced on base for RWY 07 and the final APP path.
6. Great variations in complianace with speeds by different aircraft types and different companies.
The Gripe:
Delays in Push-back clearance
The problems/consequences:
Frustrations abound from a number of areas, these include inability to make a pushback when it appears clear behind. Anger by passengers towards crew when unreasonable Delivery delays are advised. Changes to previously advised departure slots when already taxiing. Juggling of aircraft at the South RWY holding points, which at times seems "unfair".
ATC Issues:
1. The issue of deciding when to allow an aircraft to start/push are many and complex. CLK has (particularly on the North apron) a complex bay pattern that at times allows only one pushback at a time when numerous aircraft are seeking the same. This is further complicated by at times onerous time restrictions placed on our aircraft by third parties.
2. Towing aircraft. Many pilots (and some controllers) are of the opinion that tows have little or no priority. However, if the tows are not moved from active bays awaiting your arriving aircraft, we end up with a c#ck-up. ATC (in English) do not directly issue tow instructions to towing aircraft. I (GMC) will issue an instruction in English, to a Cantonese Assistant, who will in turn relay a translated version of my instruction to the tow captain. This means that we have to provide some fat into the equation and times do not always run as smoothly as we would like. Any towed aircraft needing to cross an active runway needs to have an English competent tug captain to take appropriate instructions. Please note that we handle about 160 towing operations per day with this number likely to rise in the coming months. Many of the tow paths conflict with our major taxy routes.
3. Prioity for departure. It's our goal (though not always successful) to stream departures of the relevant runway in as usefull an order as is practicable. This sometimes means aircraft behind you but with stringent departure issues, need to be released ahead of you. Likewise we will fiddle with M's (A320s) H's (biggies) and J's (F*cking biggies) to get what we think will be the best order for departure. You can take it from me that it is the intent of most of the more competent tower controllers that (if you are heavy) we will endeavour to depart you from the threshold that affords the most runway length. Sometimes it will be in your interest to be offerred a J2 in lieu of a J1 to stay out of a bevy of time limited heavy European departures.
4. Why are departure restrictions put on?: ie 4 minutes beween V1 and V5? The only way I can answer this is that the DEP's radar chap (or lass) can become snowed under very quickly when aircraft get airborne and start to zig-zag randomly all over the sky. If the weather issues are further from the airport, then it may be that the en-rout controlles dictate the terms of the rate at which they safely want to receive aircraft in their airspace.
The Gripe:
"I'm going hurtling up towards 9,000' on an OCEAN SID and there's some ******** hurtling back at me at FL110, bloody TCAS bitching, FO filling me with crap....why the f*ck?
The problems and consequences:
1 Having to level off
2 Causing concern on the flight deck.
3 Consideration being considered to taking evasive action.
4 Capt to FO: "can you see that bastard yet?"
5 Worse case level bust and potential incident
6. Worser case....worse than "5".
ATC Issues:
1 In previous posts I've noted somewhat coyishly that TD is about the best place for the ARR/DEP streams to cross when 07 is in use. Airplanes (aeroplanes for my English readers) take up a hell of a lot of room to be vertically separated. Bear in mind that because of the fact that HKIA is wedged as a North-Western blob up against Chinese airspace, the only way "out" for basicaly all departures off RWY 07 is generally to the East, South East and South. So on RWY07, just about all aeroplanes (airplanes for my American friends) are going to cross over with each other. Now the closer in the aircraft will be, the slower they will be. The slower they are , the less room they take up. The less room, the more that can be handled.
2. It could be at this point that we go way back to the openning hoo-haa about vectoring aircaft:
An overview:
Departures from Hong Kong conflict with: Hong Kong ARRivals, Macau ARRivals, Macau DEPs, Shenzen arrivals from the South, Shenzen Departures to the South, Guangzou Arrivals from the South. At times the numbers of "Non" Hong Kong aircraft in the area exceeds Hong Kong bound traffic.
My Gripe:
I see ATC as having relatively simple goals. Under normal circumstances, I try and keep the bulk of the troops happy. If anyone is stupid enough on my watch to complain and I don't consider the blatant/criticism relevent, well, I will just about always give out an earfull. I work maybe a two hour stint on one of the more difficult jobs (Ground North) and I think out of about 700 or 800 instructions that I give, maybe 5 to 10 need correcting. Aircraft of certain unnamed carriers will open a dialogue with me and I reckon out of 5 instructions I pass whilst they're on my frequency, 4 will be stuffed up.
So, there are many questions raised by this thred. I could attempt to address more of them, but I'm no longer a terminal APP controller, so I have to be careful with my opinions.
Not all Controllers are good and even the aces have their bad days. People as a group are working within a team where personalities come into play, and yes,....this includes bidirectional rasicm. We have a lot of very inexperienced people here, but their hearts are in the right place, most of them do their best, and I can't even begin to relay to you what a difficult job this can be.
Sorry to be (twice)long winded .....................................!
Being vectored to final during the last 20NM to run before final intercept.
The problem/consequence:
RWY 07. How to establish a continual landing sequence on final so that all aircraft are approx 4 to 5NM in trail and still on the STAR
RWY 25. See above.
ATC Issues:
RWY 07. If the first aircraft in a sequence of maybe 20 to 50 aircraft is from the East and is not vectored North of SOKOE/LIMES for track shortening, then an opportunity to save maybe 7 to 8NM (track miles) is lost and this will have a knock-on effect to each and every arriving aircraft for the remaider of that stream. To say that aircraft can be given a time to cross an APP fix at a certain time is fine, but impracticable when a flow line is established. There is a very narrow base leg gate on to RWY 07 that allows very little or no leeway in allowing aircraft to "do their own thing".
The Gripe:
Aircraft intercepting final above the glidepath
The problem/consequence:
Aircraft possibly being unable to establish in a configured and company acceptable situation so that a safe approach can be made to the runway.
ATC Issues:
A number of "excuses" can be alluded to here:
1. Frequency congestion
2. Poor adherance to standard phraseologies, and a large number of re-requested readbacks.
3. Training on ATC positions that is allowing the on the job training of new Approach controllers.
4. Concern by APP and or FAD over catch up situations due to non compliance by aircraft of what is being expected of them.
5. Great wind variations that are to be experienced on base for RWY 07 and the final APP path.
6. Great variations in complianace with speeds by different aircraft types and different companies.
The Gripe:
Delays in Push-back clearance
The problems/consequences:
Frustrations abound from a number of areas, these include inability to make a pushback when it appears clear behind. Anger by passengers towards crew when unreasonable Delivery delays are advised. Changes to previously advised departure slots when already taxiing. Juggling of aircraft at the South RWY holding points, which at times seems "unfair".
ATC Issues:
1. The issue of deciding when to allow an aircraft to start/push are many and complex. CLK has (particularly on the North apron) a complex bay pattern that at times allows only one pushback at a time when numerous aircraft are seeking the same. This is further complicated by at times onerous time restrictions placed on our aircraft by third parties.
2. Towing aircraft. Many pilots (and some controllers) are of the opinion that tows have little or no priority. However, if the tows are not moved from active bays awaiting your arriving aircraft, we end up with a c#ck-up. ATC (in English) do not directly issue tow instructions to towing aircraft. I (GMC) will issue an instruction in English, to a Cantonese Assistant, who will in turn relay a translated version of my instruction to the tow captain. This means that we have to provide some fat into the equation and times do not always run as smoothly as we would like. Any towed aircraft needing to cross an active runway needs to have an English competent tug captain to take appropriate instructions. Please note that we handle about 160 towing operations per day with this number likely to rise in the coming months. Many of the tow paths conflict with our major taxy routes.
3. Prioity for departure. It's our goal (though not always successful) to stream departures of the relevant runway in as usefull an order as is practicable. This sometimes means aircraft behind you but with stringent departure issues, need to be released ahead of you. Likewise we will fiddle with M's (A320s) H's (biggies) and J's (F*cking biggies) to get what we think will be the best order for departure. You can take it from me that it is the intent of most of the more competent tower controllers that (if you are heavy) we will endeavour to depart you from the threshold that affords the most runway length. Sometimes it will be in your interest to be offerred a J2 in lieu of a J1 to stay out of a bevy of time limited heavy European departures.
4. Why are departure restrictions put on?: ie 4 minutes beween V1 and V5? The only way I can answer this is that the DEP's radar chap (or lass) can become snowed under very quickly when aircraft get airborne and start to zig-zag randomly all over the sky. If the weather issues are further from the airport, then it may be that the en-rout controlles dictate the terms of the rate at which they safely want to receive aircraft in their airspace.
The Gripe:
"I'm going hurtling up towards 9,000' on an OCEAN SID and there's some ******** hurtling back at me at FL110, bloody TCAS bitching, FO filling me with crap....why the f*ck?
The problems and consequences:
1 Having to level off
2 Causing concern on the flight deck.
3 Consideration being considered to taking evasive action.
4 Capt to FO: "can you see that bastard yet?"
5 Worse case level bust and potential incident
6. Worser case....worse than "5".
ATC Issues:
1 In previous posts I've noted somewhat coyishly that TD is about the best place for the ARR/DEP streams to cross when 07 is in use. Airplanes (aeroplanes for my English readers) take up a hell of a lot of room to be vertically separated. Bear in mind that because of the fact that HKIA is wedged as a North-Western blob up against Chinese airspace, the only way "out" for basicaly all departures off RWY 07 is generally to the East, South East and South. So on RWY07, just about all aeroplanes (airplanes for my American friends) are going to cross over with each other. Now the closer in the aircraft will be, the slower they will be. The slower they are , the less room they take up. The less room, the more that can be handled.
2. It could be at this point that we go way back to the openning hoo-haa about vectoring aircaft:
An overview:
Departures from Hong Kong conflict with: Hong Kong ARRivals, Macau ARRivals, Macau DEPs, Shenzen arrivals from the South, Shenzen Departures to the South, Guangzou Arrivals from the South. At times the numbers of "Non" Hong Kong aircraft in the area exceeds Hong Kong bound traffic.
My Gripe:
I see ATC as having relatively simple goals. Under normal circumstances, I try and keep the bulk of the troops happy. If anyone is stupid enough on my watch to complain and I don't consider the blatant/criticism relevent, well, I will just about always give out an earfull. I work maybe a two hour stint on one of the more difficult jobs (Ground North) and I think out of about 700 or 800 instructions that I give, maybe 5 to 10 need correcting. Aircraft of certain unnamed carriers will open a dialogue with me and I reckon out of 5 instructions I pass whilst they're on my frequency, 4 will be stuffed up.
So, there are many questions raised by this thred. I could attempt to address more of them, but I'm no longer a terminal APP controller, so I have to be careful with my opinions.
Not all Controllers are good and even the aces have their bad days. People as a group are working within a team where personalities come into play, and yes,....this includes bidirectional rasicm. We have a lot of very inexperienced people here, but their hearts are in the right place, most of them do their best, and I can't even begin to relay to you what a difficult job this can be.
Sorry to be (twice)
long winded .....................................!
Last edited by Bedder believeit; 14th Jun 2012 at 15:36.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'll come back to you after we overtake them in about 5 years. (OTB might up the ante on that)".
Oh, was that a pig just flew by the window?
If you think HKG ATC is out of control now, come back in mid 2016 and see the real fun!! Only joking. Or am I?
OTB
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oriental flyer
I have to agree that the climb "to" or descend "to" should NEVER be used by ATC or pilots. I make a point of never using it but ATC HK does on a regular basis .
IF you consider it good airmanship to conform to Internationally agreed standard phraseology (yes, the U.S. is a signatory to ICAO as well in the context of the example below) when at all possible and
IF you understand that ICAO Doc 4444 standard phraseology is explicitly stated as;
CLIMB TO (level), and
DESCEND TO (level) [my bolding]
then you cannot possibly be confused that a perfectly executed instruction
"Connie 123, climb to niner thousand feet"
"Climb twenty nine thousand feet Connie 123".
Edit:
BTW, the FAA standard phraseology is also
CLIMB TO (level), and
DESCEND TO (level)
The fact that so many people have bastardized it over the years doesn't make the use of "TO" wrong.
Last edited by bekolblockage; 14th Jun 2012 at 16:13.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nfa
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"an increase of 1 departure every hour for 22 out of every 24 hours"
One more sled per hour does not create 45 minute delays. Ground delays are being caused by weather and controllers either being restricted from dealing with or just not having the experience/ability to deal with anything but clear air and guys following the line.
Congested push backs or towed aircraft are certainly an issue for ground controllers but still doesn't add up to the delays that are being experienced lately.
One more sled per hour does not create 45 minute delays. Ground delays are being caused by weather and controllers either being restricted from dealing with or just not having the experience/ability to deal with anything but clear air and guys following the line.
Congested push backs or towed aircraft are certainly an issue for ground controllers but still doesn't add up to the delays that are being experienced lately.