HKG ATC out of control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess Edmund forgot to read the Foreword of CAP413:
My emphasis added. So all you radio police, the aim of communication is to get the message across safely. There are many guides, and they all contain good and useful info. But every local area has their own rules and how they play. If there is a potential for issues, fine, bring it up. Otherwise, you are just being a pedantic prick.
1 Document Description
1.1 Document Purpose
1.1.1 The aim of the United Kingdom Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) is to provide pilots, Air Traffic Services personnel and other ground personnel, both civil and military, with a compendium of clear, concise, standardised phraseology and associated guidance, for radiotelephony (RTF) communication in United Kingdom airspace.
1.1 Document Purpose
1.1.1 The aim of the United Kingdom Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) is to provide pilots, Air Traffic Services personnel and other ground personnel, both civil and military, with a compendium of clear, concise, standardised phraseology and associated guidance, for radiotelephony (RTF) communication in United Kingdom airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Island
Age: 72
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bigger picture
The "ATC" problems are not just ATC alone. The industry as a whole has not prepared themselves ready for such traffic levels. Inexperienced and insufficient ATC personnel (both front line controller and management), inadequate equipments, inexperienced air crews, insufficient gates at the airport, inaccurate weather forecast, etc etc. I hope people will not point their fingers to a small group of people who are actually suffering themselves. Have a look at the bigger picture and see for yourselves what the real problems are.
Also, how can you expect to operate a full schedule when the operating capacity of the airspace and/or the airport has been reduced significantly !?
Also, how can you expect to operate a full schedule when the operating capacity of the airspace and/or the airport has been reduced significantly !?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to ICAO Doc. 4444 Pans-ATM, the following is shown in 12-2 "Phraseologies" 12.3.1.2 "Level changes, reports and rates"
"CLIMB (or DESCEND)
followed as necessary by:
1) TO" (level)
"CLIMB (or DESCEND)
followed as necessary by:
1) TO" (level)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would some of you keen F/Os stop asking me to request lower every time we reach our flight level during step descents in a busy airspace..
There is a reason why the controller has given us that flight level.....we're not the only airplane in the sky!!!! Let him/her get on with his/her job without nuisance and stupid requests....if you end up slightly high big ****!ng deal....I kid you not this one guy was like an automated altitude alerting system, at every 1000' above our cleared flight level..."request lower"....hey Chuck Yeager....you see that crossing traffic on TCAS 2000' below us right????? 
There is a reason why the controller has given us that flight level.....we're not the only airplane in the sky!!!! Let him/her get on with his/her job without nuisance and stupid requests....if you end up slightly high big ****!ng deal....I kid you not this one guy was like an automated altitude alerting system, at every 1000' above our cleared flight level..."request lower"....hey Chuck Yeager....you see that crossing traffic on TCAS 2000' below us right?????
Last edited by Flap10; 27th May 2012 at 09:52.
Would some of you keen F/Os stop asking me to request lower
Suggest taking it up with the training department and get a fleet notice out.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetset
What we have to consider about UK is the low transition level. Having been holding at LAM at FL70 it makes good sense to include the word "altitude" in the descent instruction along with the QNH as this will (should) minimise the chance of error. I can't recall what would be a typical number of step descents below the holding level but I seem to recall it's not that many - standing by to be corrected.
In other parts of the world, Hong Kong for example, the number of step clearances below the (high) transition level tends to be more than LHR from memory. If "altitude" were to be included in each of these step clearances it would equate to over 100 minutes worth of RT usage based on 40 movements an hour for 16 hours and 5 step climb/descent instructions/movement (assuming no repeat instructions) - this in an already busy RT environment.
I tend to use the 'if the controller says "altitude" in an instruction then I'll read back "altitude"' method - it seems to work fine.
STP
What we have to consider about UK is the low transition level. Having been holding at LAM at FL70 it makes good sense to include the word "altitude" in the descent instruction along with the QNH as this will (should) minimise the chance of error. I can't recall what would be a typical number of step descents below the holding level but I seem to recall it's not that many - standing by to be corrected.
In other parts of the world, Hong Kong for example, the number of step clearances below the (high) transition level tends to be more than LHR from memory. If "altitude" were to be included in each of these step clearances it would equate to over 100 minutes worth of RT usage based on 40 movements an hour for 16 hours and 5 step climb/descent instructions/movement (assuming no repeat instructions) - this in an already busy RT environment.
I tend to use the 'if the controller says "altitude" in an instruction then I'll read back "altitude"' method - it seems to work fine.
STP
Last edited by Steve the Pirate; 28th May 2012 at 00:02.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetset
Another issue in Hong Kong is that we (ATC and flight crews) are mixing conflicting traffic, some using "Imperial feet" and others using (Chinese) Metric altitudes.
Has your "UK" threat and error management group taken this particular issue into consideration? I doubt it.
Another issue in Hong Kong is that we (ATC and flight crews) are mixing conflicting traffic, some using "Imperial feet" and others using (Chinese) Metric altitudes.
Has your "UK" threat and error management group taken this particular issue into consideration? I doubt it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WONDERAND
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phraseologies
3.3 The use of metric altitudes and levels in some airspace adjacent to Hong Kong
FIR requires the use of both Standard (feet) and Metric (metres) units within Hong Kong
airspace. To avoid any confusion with level information the following standard
phraseology shall be applied :
a) when referring to an ALTITUDE the unit shall always be specified,
e.g. ‘descend to six thousand feet’ or ‘climb to two thousand seven
hundred metres’;
b) when referring to FLIGHT LEVELS only the METRIC unit shall be
specified, e.g. ‘descend to Flight Level one five zero’ or ‘climb to Flight
Level eight thousand four hundred metres’.
FIR requires the use of both Standard (feet) and Metric (metres) units within Hong Kong
airspace. To avoid any confusion with level information the following standard
phraseology shall be applied :
a) when referring to an ALTITUDE the unit shall always be specified,
e.g. ‘descend to six thousand feet’ or ‘climb to two thousand seven
hundred metres’;
b) when referring to FLIGHT LEVELS only the METRIC unit shall be
specified, e.g. ‘descend to Flight Level one five zero’ or ‘climb to Flight
Level eight thousand four hundred metres’.
Some better standardisation of terminolgy would have prevented an exchange on the RT I heard about 18 months ago that went something like this:
Connie 123: "Departure, this is Connie 123 with you climbing five".
ATC: "Connie 123, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Climb twenty nine thousand feet Connie 123".
ATC: "Negative, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Roger, climbing to twenty nine thousand".
ATC: "I say again, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Ok, we're climbing to two niner thousand feet, Connie 123."
CX456: "Connie 123, this is CX456. She means climb to altitude nine thousand feet".
Connie 123" "Ah, now we've got it!. Climbing nine thousand feet".
The CX voice was a Brit who was crossing TD inbound at FL110 who obviously didn't want an RA! Admittedly, the Connie aircraft was pretty dull not realising that he shouldn't be cleared to an altitude above transition level, but the whole situation and the threat could have been negated by using standard terminology.
Connie 123: "Departure, this is Connie 123 with you climbing five".
ATC: "Connie 123, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Climb twenty nine thousand feet Connie 123".
ATC: "Negative, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Roger, climbing to twenty nine thousand".
ATC: "I say again, climb to niner thousand feet".
Connie 123: "Ok, we're climbing to two niner thousand feet, Connie 123."
CX456: "Connie 123, this is CX456. She means climb to altitude nine thousand feet".
Connie 123" "Ah, now we've got it!. Climbing nine thousand feet".
The CX voice was a Brit who was crossing TD inbound at FL110 who obviously didn't want an RA! Admittedly, the Connie aircraft was pretty dull not realising that he shouldn't be cleared to an altitude above transition level, but the whole situation and the threat could have been negated by using standard terminology.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MCO (occasionally)
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post is turning to the ridiculous!
For a pilot to not realize that "Climb to" is an instruction, not an altitude seems much more than a "little dull"... When are you ever cleared to climb 25,000 feet upon departure (or arrival) from a busy international airport? Around HK, arrivals are more often descended 2,000 meters at a time starting 150 miles out...
Regarding the calls for standardization, everyone wants two standardize, but they all want everyone else 2 standardize in the manner they are accustomed too. I've watched a few Brits flip out when told "Ground .9 when off" yet Americans understand perfectly. Whose standard shall we pick?
Yes, I do understand the three variants of the word sounding "To" I trust you do two...
Count yourself lucky, Arriving two HK is a treat compared 2 here in DXB!
FR
For a pilot to not realize that "Climb to" is an instruction, not an altitude seems much more than a "little dull"... When are you ever cleared to climb 25,000 feet upon departure (or arrival) from a busy international airport? Around HK, arrivals are more often descended 2,000 meters at a time starting 150 miles out...
Regarding the calls for standardization, everyone wants two standardize, but they all want everyone else 2 standardize in the manner they are accustomed too. I've watched a few Brits flip out when told "Ground .9 when off" yet Americans understand perfectly. Whose standard shall we pick?
Yes, I do understand the three variants of the word sounding "To" I trust you do two...
Count yourself lucky, Arriving two HK is a treat compared 2 here in DXB!
FR
Arriving two HK is a treat compared 2 here in DXB!
I do think the the word 'to' should be dropped.
( . . except when giving a QNH (altimeter) in inches
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WoW
Didn't expect such a response from this post....
Guess I'm not the only onedoing this!
Another comment...
Why does Arrivals and Departures all goto TD....??
Also...After being cleared to 9000 feet, the radio is cluttered enough but to be then told "maintain 9000 feet as traffic above!"...Like no ****!!,,How often do aircraft keep climbing??
Same goes for descent to FL110.....Not long after ATC jams the radio with another pointless call "Maintain FL110 as traffic below!"...Again..no ****!!.U cleared me to this, so I will be a good lil boy and do what u said
Didn't expect such a response from this post....Guess I'm not the only one
doing this!Another comment...
Why does Arrivals and Departures all goto TD....??
Also...After being cleared to 9000 feet, the radio is cluttered enough but to be then told "maintain 9000 feet as traffic above!"...Like no ****!!,,How often do aircraft keep climbing??
Same goes for descent to FL110.....Not long after ATC jams the radio with another pointless call "Maintain FL110 as traffic below!"...Again..no ****!!.U cleared me to this, so I will be a good lil boy and do what u said
"Emilates 9880, clear for takeoff 07 righ, win 050 at 3 knot, caution NO WINDSHEAR reported"
WTF?
All the while Bitching Betty is yelling at us "On RWY 07 right 3200 metres remaining"
halas
WTF?
All the while Bitching Betty is yelling at us "On RWY 07 right 3200 metres remaining"
halas
Last edited by halas; 28th May 2012 at 10:47.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't this all come about due to the CFIT near KL quite a few years ago by a cargo operator (Flying Tigers, I think)? Must have been late 80's or early 90's.
"Descend two four hundred feet" was mis-understood to be "Descend to four hundred feet!" If memory serves, it was a highly "experienced" crew who took the offer of an unexpected non-precision approach at the last minute without an adequate brief. Seems incredible that they would have descended to 400 feet QNH when they really had no idea where they were. I haven't revisited the accident report so I am not completely sure of my facts but I seem to remember that it was about then that the standard phraseology was completely re-written.
Hence the dreaded 'altitude' word.
Hardly ideal but is there a better standard we should use?
ES
"Descend two four hundred feet" was mis-understood to be "Descend to four hundred feet!" If memory serves, it was a highly "experienced" crew who took the offer of an unexpected non-precision approach at the last minute without an adequate brief. Seems incredible that they would have descended to 400 feet QNH when they really had no idea where they were. I haven't revisited the accident report so I am not completely sure of my facts but I seem to remember that it was about then that the standard phraseology was completely re-written.
Hence the dreaded 'altitude' word.
Hardly ideal but is there a better standard we should use?
ES
Last edited by Edmund Spencer; 29th May 2012 at 11:14.
The Flying Tigers 747 freighter hit the hill where the KL NDB is located on the way into Kuala Lumpur Subang. You can still see where it impacted. There were a lot of factors which led to the accident, but non standard terminology was significant among them.