Near miss
Dart,
In acknowledgement of your edit, I shall do the same.
You make 3 (now 2) really valid observations.
cxorcist,
The Original Air Force had no hard and fast rules in that regard IIRC. The Cottesmore/Wittering and Lossiemouth/Kinloss pairs being cases in point.
In acknowledgement of your edit, I shall do the same.
You make 3 (now 2) really valid observations.
cxorcist,
The Original Air Force had no hard and fast rules in that regard IIRC. The Cottesmore/Wittering and Lossiemouth/Kinloss pairs being cases in point.
Last edited by Max Reheat; 18th Sep 2012 at 10:19.
If you had read my post properly, I didn't specify any particular airline in the worst case scenario (my iPad won't do 'roll eyes'). In fact those of us with local knowledge are at a distinct advantage. Scenario deleted anyway.
There has already been a multiple TCAS incident involving restricted airspace and weather, now this incident. IF post #2 is correct, my scenario was on the cards...'no more fuel for another approach'.
Damn lucky he was visual.
There has already been a multiple TCAS incident involving restricted airspace and weather, now this incident. IF post #2 is correct, my scenario was on the cards...'no more fuel for another approach'.
Damn lucky he was visual.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 18th Sep 2012 at 09:10.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burger Thing
Old School- surely not.
You have to remember that us "modern pilots" are, frankly, just not as good as the previous generation. The equipment we fly is just a lightweight, inferior, version of what you flew. We overly rely on Autoland, Satcoms and Computer Generated Flight Plans and FMCs to hide the stark truth that we really don't have a clue what we are doing. It is truely amazing that of the many "8 series" call signs (meaning they are coming from the US) we operate every day, not one has splashed into the sea. All considered, this succcess can only be put down to utter luck?
CX and KA are relatively new at operating into this part of the world and to have the ability to tap into your knowledge from 3 different airlines would be of immense benefit. You are correct, RCKH is a rock solid div, open 24/7 with multiple runways and ILS's to burn. However, it is about another 8 Tonnes over VMMC, which equates to about 80 passengers. So my question to you is, when dispatching from NY for a 15+ hour flight at Max Take-off weight, how did you decide which of the passengers you were going to offload to allow for the extra weight of the RCKH fuel? Did you off load, every 3rd passenger, or did you offload the fattest ones or just the cheapskates at the back-end of economy?
As an aside, did any of your 3 airlines go bust by any chance?
Editor's note. Some, if not all, of the above is an attempt to extract urine.
You have to remember that us "modern pilots" are, frankly, just not as good as the previous generation. The equipment we fly is just a lightweight, inferior, version of what you flew. We overly rely on Autoland, Satcoms and Computer Generated Flight Plans and FMCs to hide the stark truth that we really don't have a clue what we are doing. It is truely amazing that of the many "8 series" call signs (meaning they are coming from the US) we operate every day, not one has splashed into the sea. All considered, this succcess can only be put down to utter luck?
CX and KA are relatively new at operating into this part of the world and to have the ability to tap into your knowledge from 3 different airlines would be of immense benefit. You are correct, RCKH is a rock solid div, open 24/7 with multiple runways and ILS's to burn. However, it is about another 8 Tonnes over VMMC, which equates to about 80 passengers. So my question to you is, when dispatching from NY for a 15+ hour flight at Max Take-off weight, how did you decide which of the passengers you were going to offload to allow for the extra weight of the RCKH fuel? Did you off load, every 3rd passenger, or did you offload the fattest ones or just the cheapskates at the back-end of economy?
As an aside, did any of your 3 airlines go bust by any chance?
Editor's note. Some, if not all, of the above is an attempt to extract urine.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much choice!
And of course the problem with taking too much fuel over flight plan is that you just end up with too much choice as to what to do. In fact you could just burn it while working out the multiple solutions as you are able to hold for longer and end up in exactly the same situation you could have dealt with an hour or more earlier!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Liam, do you think the FAA would give ou a pad on your back for carrying an extra 80 passengers if you did a go around in, let's say O'Hare on RW 10 and swung around during a go around and land with a near miss on RW 27L?
Or maybe the LBA in Germany, if you did the same in FRA?
@SQC 7991 ZGGG is the same distance from HKG as MFM? Really? Man, I never noticed that. I probably need to tell that to my dispatch guys next time. They seem to have their CFPs in error then. BTW, crack pipe much?
Or maybe the LBA in Germany, if you did the same in FRA?
@SQC 7991 ZGGG is the same distance from HKG as MFM? Really? Man, I never noticed that. I probably need to tell that to my dispatch guys next time. They seem to have their CFPs in error then. BTW, crack pipe much?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burger Thing
How about you maintain a modicum of professional courtesy here?
Where in this thread, or anywhere else, is there any evidence to validate the unsubstantiated suggestion that a CX aircraft performed a manoeuvre that caused an airmiss, with the implication they performed such a manoeuvre without clearance and/or due regard for other aircraft?
There is no evidence, is there? Thought not.
Where in this thread, or anywhere else, is there any evidence to validate the unsubstantiated suggestion that a CX aircraft performed a manoeuvre that caused an airmiss, with the implication they performed such a manoeuvre without clearance and/or due regard for other aircraft?
There is no evidence, is there? Thought not.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloudcuckooland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BT,
In technical aviation terms you would be referred to as a "Dumbass".
Professional aviation is all about (has always been about) balancing the risk between commericlal expediency, & cutting one's margins too fine. Despite the absolute c**t managers in CX (of which the new GMA is the latest,& biggest!), the crews in CX walk this tightrope better than most, & they do it everyday with no fanfare.
BTW, if you load an extra 10 tons of fuel on a 15hr sector did you know that you will get to destination with only 3 tons of that 10. You knew that already right?..... Dumbass.
In technical aviation terms you would be referred to as a "Dumbass".
Professional aviation is all about (has always been about) balancing the risk between commericlal expediency, & cutting one's margins too fine. Despite the absolute c**t managers in CX (of which the new GMA is the latest,& biggest!), the crews in CX walk this tightrope better than most, & they do it everyday with no fanfare.
BTW, if you load an extra 10 tons of fuel on a 15hr sector did you know that you will get to destination with only 3 tons of that 10. You knew that already right?..... Dumbass.
Last edited by 1200firm; 18th Sep 2012 at 15:52.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burger King
Well done you spotted my mistake - I was thinking of ZGSZ which is the alternate CX uses when VMMC is not suitable (RW16 in use for example) I can't remember the last time ZGGG was filed because if the HKG forecast is poor then we will be using MNL, KHH or TPE. Why would anyone file ZGGG as a HKG alternate when the forecast for HKG is OK? I apologise for assuming you were referring to ZGSZ when you did say ZGGG but still think you're a prat. The days of carrying extra fuel for comfort are long gone and rightly so. In CX if the commander thinks extra fuel is required he loads it and knows he will be supported unless, of course, he is just being a prat!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed. Let's not forget that a great many long haul operators throw away their alternates almost as a matter of course.
Curiously, BT; do the FAA pat United on the back, as a consequence of their comical quantity of 'minimal fuel' arrivals into HKG?
Curiously, BT; do the FAA pat United on the back, as a consequence of their comical quantity of 'minimal fuel' arrivals into HKG?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is truely amazing that of the many "8 series" call signs (meaning they are coming from the US) we operate every day, not one has splashed into the sea.
Why on Earth would one of these flights have the propensity to splash into the sea any more than any other Cathay flight, because the pilots are American?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it unfortunate that so many of us look to company policy or regulations to determine appropriate fuel. For true visual conditions in Hong Kong, Macau or Shenzen alternate fuel is quite adequate. For ****e weather, so little fuel causes unnecessary suction on the seat cushion because you know Hong Kong ATC will be behind the curve getting airplanes in. At least an extra half hour is always warranted if the forecast leaves one wondering. If I know it's going to be really bad, I want enough fuel to go somewhere other than the Chinese mainland. You don't want to have to rely on Chinese ATC. Taiwan is a much better option, and the fuel to get there should be onboard IMO.
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
It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day.
Having worked at both Kai Tak and Chek Lap Kok as an ATCO (now retired) it still amazes me that there is so much flak directed towards Hong Kong ATC when something out of the ordinary happens in the skies surrounding Hong Kong.
It seems to me, that when a crew makes a miscalculation of fuel requirements, based, admittedly, on their available knowledge, and an unusual manoeuvre ensues because of the miscalculation, then Hong Kong ATC end up with the blame for a situation which is outwith their ability to foresee.
It is also a complete shame, to me, that the contributors to this thread seem solely interested in "Company policy" and so called "professionalism" or otherwise of the pilots concerned and trying to shift the blame, whilst completely ignoring the professionalism of the controllers who rescued the situation and the reputation of an airline.
landrecovery "Another ATC breakdown" due to weather, missed approach and CX calling low fuel.[/B]
Okay, perhaps landrecovery you would like to explain to ATC why they had "another" breakdown? What were all the other "breakdowns" and did you report them to the CAD? Should we report you to the CAD if you didn't report them?
TopBunk "OK, I can understand a crew getting into such a situation, especially with the pretty lengthy HKG GA and approach procedures.
Okay, TopBunk if you understand a crew getting into such a situation, why haven't you voiced your concerns to the safety section of Hong Kong CAD, let alone your own company?
Guys, please tell it like it is. You do your airline and your profession no good by all this "blame game" mentality.
It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day.
I wonder if they ever did?
OTB
P.S. When I worked at CLK a certain airline used to phone every day to say "unofficially" that they would be "on minimum fuel" when they made first contact.
My legal response when that airline first called was to ask "Are you declaring a fuel emergency?" And when the halting answer came, "Er, yes". The follow up question was: "How much fuel do you have?" And the answer was, normally: "Well, we don't have enough fuel for a missed approach".
The moral: Everything you say is taped. Even phone calls.
Having worked at both Kai Tak and Chek Lap Kok as an ATCO (now retired) it still amazes me that there is so much flak directed towards Hong Kong ATC when something out of the ordinary happens in the skies surrounding Hong Kong.
It seems to me, that when a crew makes a miscalculation of fuel requirements, based, admittedly, on their available knowledge, and an unusual manoeuvre ensues because of the miscalculation, then Hong Kong ATC end up with the blame for a situation which is outwith their ability to foresee.
It is also a complete shame, to me, that the contributors to this thread seem solely interested in "Company policy" and so called "professionalism" or otherwise of the pilots concerned and trying to shift the blame, whilst completely ignoring the professionalism of the controllers who rescued the situation and the reputation of an airline.
landrecovery "Another ATC breakdown" due to weather, missed approach and CX calling low fuel.[/B]
Okay, perhaps landrecovery you would like to explain to ATC why they had "another" breakdown? What were all the other "breakdowns" and did you report them to the CAD? Should we report you to the CAD if you didn't report them?
TopBunk "OK, I can understand a crew getting into such a situation, especially with the pretty lengthy HKG GA and approach procedures.
Okay, TopBunk if you understand a crew getting into such a situation, why haven't you voiced your concerns to the safety section of Hong Kong CAD, let alone your own company?
Guys, please tell it like it is. You do your airline and your profession no good by all this "blame game" mentality.
It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day.
I wonder if they ever did?
OTB
P.S. When I worked at CLK a certain airline used to phone every day to say "unofficially" that they would be "on minimum fuel" when they made first contact.
My legal response when that airline first called was to ask "Are you declaring a fuel emergency?" And when the halting answer came, "Er, yes". The follow up question was: "How much fuel do you have?" And the answer was, normally: "Well, we don't have enough fuel for a missed approach".
The moral: Everything you say is taped. Even phone calls.
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
"For ****e weather, so little fuel causes unnecessary suction on the seat cushion because you know Hong Kong ATC will be behind the curve getting airplanes in".
Okay cxorcist perhaps you would like to enlighten us why "****e weather and so little fuel" results in Hong Kong ATC "being behind the curve", as you so eloquently put it?
And if you are suffering from"suction on the seat cushion" perhaps you should move back to the rear of the aircraft!
In the meantime, awaiting amplification, I will elect to travel on another "safer" airline.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll pass it on.
SF
Okay cxorcist perhaps you would like to enlighten us why "****e weather and so little fuel" results in Hong Kong ATC "being behind the curve", as you so eloquently put it?
And if you are suffering from"suction on the seat cushion" perhaps you should move back to the rear of the aircraft!
In the meantime, awaiting amplification, I will elect to travel on another "safer" airline.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll pass it on.
SF
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never blamed HKG ATC for anything. IMO, HKG ATC does not handle bad weather very well. That's just the way it is. The extra half hour's fuel I referenced is for what often amounts to unnecessary holding and vectoring. It is not meant to compensate for an inability to land in said weather, but to delay an unnecessary divert decision. Those who don't carry extra gas fly into their divert fuel once the contingency fuel is gone, some of which will have already been used enroute. That's when the seat cushion sucking starts because you are committed to one airport at that point.
PS - We sometimes show up with little gas on top of our divert fuel because the forecasting is not all that accurate in the summer months.
PS - We sometimes show up with little gas on top of our divert fuel because the forecasting is not all that accurate in the summer months.
Last edited by cxorcist; 18th Sep 2012 at 22:48.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weather at the airfield can be fine all day (forecast & actual) however if there is weather in the HKG FIR you can now expect delays. I've blown over 45mins of fuel after entering HK airspace, didn't divert around any weather and could see VHHH from before TD all the way around including VMMC to 07L, after landing I asked the ground staff about the weather they said it hadn't rained all day
If the company hadn't loaded the flight plan with the extra gas, I wouldn't have loaded extra based on the forecast. So it's 45mins extra for me now when there are clouds in the sky in the HK FIR 
If the company hadn't loaded the flight plan with the extra gas, I wouldn't have loaded extra based on the forecast. So it's 45mins extra for me now when there are clouds in the sky in the HK FIR
IMO, HKG ATC does not handle bad weather very well.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean green returns on the radar? Never deviated around THEM at any airline or operation other than Cathay. I think Cathay pilots are scared of ANY radar return.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked at both Kai Tak and Chek Lap Kok as an ATCO (now retired) it still amazes me that there is so much flak directed towards Hong Kong ATC when something out of the ordinary happens in the skies surrounding Hong Kong.
Not that I blame the controllers - quite simply the system within which they operate is broken. No co-ordination between sectors - 300kt or greater, only to then change frequencies & be told 230kt. Or even worse for fuel economy, 250 kts at 150 miles to touchdown, to then be told on the subsequent frequency to speed up to 300kt.
Add to that, most of the experienced controllers have left, to be replaced by graduates straight out of training. The result is a rapid lowering of total experience. Other than recruiting experienced controllers from outside HK, only time will raise the experience level.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: HK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landrecovery "Another ATC breakdown" due to weather, missed approach and CX calling low fuel.[/B]
Okay, perhaps landrecovery you would like to explain to ATC why they had "another" breakdown? What were all the other "breakdowns" and did you report them to the CAD? Should we report you to the CAD if you didn't report them?
Okay, perhaps landrecovery you would like to explain to ATC why they had "another" breakdown? What were all the other "breakdowns" and did you report them to the CAD? Should we report you to the CAD if you didn't report them?
First of all 700' separation is a breakdown in ATC or pilot procedures. I apologize if it wasn't ATC and yes the other was reported then ATC tried to cover it up by blaming the pilots.
I am not say it is individual controllers but the ATC system that has problems in HK.
And they think another runway will solve problems, time to invade Guangzhou and take over the airspace.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean green returns on the radar? Never deviated around THEM at any airline or operation other than Cathay. I think Cathay pilots are scared of ANY radar return.