HK ATC ---/5000B
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HK ATC ---/5000B
I'm sure many have of you noticed the departures in the FMC containing ---/5000B apparently this is a result of ATC requesting it.
Now this appears like the tail wagging the dog as usual so could everyone please add "confirm unrestricted" when cleared to 7000/9000 etc as the airwaves in HK could always do with more chat
Oh and ATC could you please remind us 30sec after we've been cleared to 7000 to "maintain 7000" and also after we've been cleared to 9000 I'd like to hear it again, actually could you do it all the way to the FIR it's really helpful.
Now this appears like the tail wagging the dog as usual so could everyone please add "confirm unrestricted" when cleared to 7000/9000 etc as the airwaves in HK could always do with more chat
Oh and ATC could you please remind us 30sec after we've been cleared to 7000 to "maintain 7000" and also after we've been cleared to 9000 I'd like to hear it again, actually could you do it all the way to the FIR it's really helpful.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In front of the PC
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agreed,,,these things are normally a result of someone cocking it up.
Besides, is it really such a big deal for you, all you have to do is just fly the friggin aeroplane without crashing,
if its not under your control, don't get your knickers in a knot.
Besides, I quite like 300+kts at 5000'
Besides, is it really such a big deal for you, all you have to do is just fly the friggin aeroplane without crashing,
if its not under your control, don't get your knickers in a knot.
Besides, I quite like 300+kts at 5000'
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does everyone call established on the ILS? This is not required; unless requested, but it seems to be convention here because we did it at Kai Tak. More unnecessary radio clutter.....
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
"Oh and ATC could you please remind us 30sec after we've been cleared to 7000 to "maintain 7000"
Okay, how about first, you stop telling ATC "Approaching 7,000" and check your TCAS.
OTB
Okay, how about first, you stop telling ATC "Approaching 7,000" and check your TCAS.
OTB
4Driver-----some calls have been in place for years and years. I thought you were supposed to call established? The only debate was whether to call established on the LLZ or the LLZ and GS??
In fact there have been times where ATC have indeed asked me "confirm established"? ( and they didn't request it beforehand )
If you can show me a reference in the RT manuals where we don't have to say it then I'll stop.
Until then.........WHO CARES ANYWAY...
In fact there have been times where ATC have indeed asked me "confirm established"? ( and they didn't request it beforehand )
If you can show me a reference in the RT manuals where we don't have to say it then I'll stop.
Until then.........WHO CARES ANYWAY...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and ATC could you please remind us 30sec after we've been cleared to 7000 to "maintain 7000" and also after we've been cleared to 9000 I'd like to hear it again, actually could you do it all the way to the FIR it's really helpful.
Okay, how about first, you stop telling ATC "Approaching 7,000" and check your TCAS.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of pilots at Cathay that lack common sense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you I'm not climbing at a rate thats about to set off a TCAS and I completely understand the reasons for the 5/7/9000' level off, I don't go wasting air time hinting we want a climb by saying "maintaining 7000'"
It's the double calls to do what we've just read back, including being level at 7000 and being told to maintain 7000 as if we're going to start climbing? Perhaps crews are reading back "maintaing 7000" as they are preempting the inevitable "maintain 7000".
If carriers are out there screwing this up so drastically lets hear who they are rather than fix it with a politically correct treat everyone the same technique.
How many carriers are using PDC in HK? Perhaps because the PDC doesn't have a stop altitude on it. (I know its on the chart) Are crews are not setting 5000 initially???
How many TCAS events are we getting around TD these days?
It's the double calls to do what we've just read back, including being level at 7000 and being told to maintain 7000 as if we're going to start climbing? Perhaps crews are reading back "maintaing 7000" as they are preempting the inevitable "maintain 7000".
If carriers are out there screwing this up so drastically lets hear who they are rather than fix it with a politically correct treat everyone the same technique.
How many carriers are using PDC in HK? Perhaps because the PDC doesn't have a stop altitude on it. (I know its on the chart) Are crews are not setting 5000 initially???
How many TCAS events are we getting around TD these days?
Oh and ATC could you please remind us 30sec after we've been cleared to 7000 to "maintain 7000" and also after we've been cleared to 9000 I'd like to hear it again, actually could you do it all the way to the FIR it's really helpful.
I, in response, advised that I was PIC and dealt with the conflict as I saw fit. No further action.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let's set a few things straight.
No, ATCs didn't request it. Not operational controllers at least.
This was something inserted in the FMS coding by the PANS-OPS procedure designer to (supposedly) mitigate the risk of conflict with Macau departures over the top of CLK (which enter HK airspace not below 6,000 ft) in the event of you having a radio failure after becoming airborne and climbing in accordance with the procedures in the AIP (ie after the next waypoint unless there is a restriction).
The reality is most Macau departures are well above 6,000ft and up up and away before any HK departure could hope to get near them.
Now, I agree that there is some degree of ambiguity (for the controllers as well) in that the coding and the text description on the SID plates does not line up. There is no mention on altitude restrictions at waypoints other than the "climb initially to 5,000 ft".
Despite considerable discussion both internally and with the major carriers, the decision has been made, rightly or wrongly, to keep the coding as is.
Personally I think it needs tidying up.
On the subject of "maintain .....", the practice is what is taught and expected of operational controllers in ensuring separation is maintained when there is the likelihood of a breakdown occurring if the aircraft were to continue on their current trajectory. It is referred to as Separation Assurance.
Just as you receive TCAS TA/RAs, our controllers receive Predicted Conflict Alerts (PCAs) and Conflict Alerts (CAs) from the radar system, if a potential or actual conflict is detected based on the current trajectory. This causes the aircraft labels to turn red on the radar screen and highlight the level at which a breakdown will occur.
Just as you have procedures/call outs when you get a TA/RA, our controllers are taught to follow standard practice and reiterate the assigned level as a risk mitigation measure. It is also a double check for the controller that they have not inadvertently assigned a wrong level which has gone unnoticed.
Given the amount of crossing traffic within the FIR (we have a total of about 1,700 flights per day now) it is inevitable you will receive these calls several times on the way to the FIR boundary from different controllers.
One would hope you appreciate it's done for a reason, not shear bloodymindedness or controller ammusement.
.....apparently this is a result of ATC requesting it.
This was something inserted in the FMS coding by the PANS-OPS procedure designer to (supposedly) mitigate the risk of conflict with Macau departures over the top of CLK (which enter HK airspace not below 6,000 ft) in the event of you having a radio failure after becoming airborne and climbing in accordance with the procedures in the AIP (ie after the next waypoint unless there is a restriction).
The reality is most Macau departures are well above 6,000ft and up up and away before any HK departure could hope to get near them.
Now, I agree that there is some degree of ambiguity (for the controllers as well) in that the coding and the text description on the SID plates does not line up. There is no mention on altitude restrictions at waypoints other than the "climb initially to 5,000 ft".
Despite considerable discussion both internally and with the major carriers, the decision has been made, rightly or wrongly, to keep the coding as is.
Personally I think it needs tidying up.
On the subject of "maintain .....", the practice is what is taught and expected of operational controllers in ensuring separation is maintained when there is the likelihood of a breakdown occurring if the aircraft were to continue on their current trajectory. It is referred to as Separation Assurance.
Just as you receive TCAS TA/RAs, our controllers receive Predicted Conflict Alerts (PCAs) and Conflict Alerts (CAs) from the radar system, if a potential or actual conflict is detected based on the current trajectory. This causes the aircraft labels to turn red on the radar screen and highlight the level at which a breakdown will occur.
Just as you have procedures/call outs when you get a TA/RA, our controllers are taught to follow standard practice and reiterate the assigned level as a risk mitigation measure. It is also a double check for the controller that they have not inadvertently assigned a wrong level which has gone unnoticed.
Given the amount of crossing traffic within the FIR (we have a total of about 1,700 flights per day now) it is inevitable you will receive these calls several times on the way to the FIR boundary from different controllers.
One would hope you appreciate it's done for a reason, not shear bloodymindedness or controller ammusement.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this why I was given "unrestricted climb" out of Hong Kong a few weeks ago? Asked the controller what restriction she was referring to and never got an answer we could understand......................If there's no published restriction on the SID charts there is no restriction, therefore it shouldn't be in the FM coding - clear it out. Isn't that why we check the FM against the published procedures? Or do we blindly follow whatever has been (rightly or wrongly) coded into the FM?
Seems pretty simple to me............
Seems pretty simple to me............
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.If there's no published restriction on the SID charts there is no restriction,
Still, no one seems to have any idea what these restrictions are and where they came from, or whether they are to be legally followed.
At least ATC seems to be proactive in saying 'unrestricted' every time, not that it changes anything apart from mobilizing already scarce VHT time...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's no published restriction on the SID charts there is no restriction, therefore it shouldn't be in the FM coding - clear it out.
Both are based on the HK AIP. So if you have any doubts as to what the chart should really say, you need to look in the HK AIP website and you will clearly see that our Navtech charts are currently WRONG. The FMC database is correct (Jeppesen), hence why the new restriction is at TD to cross 5000 or below. Because Jeppesen have once again done their job, while Navtech hasn't.
I urge all of you to file ASRs when serious omissions like these pop up. A paper trail is the only way to make sure that the stooge that made the choice to switch to Navtech gets some of the blame when this charting experiment all goes pear-shaped. Forget the Navtech form, file an ASR. Navtech forms are not safety related, while a stack of ASRs looks really bad should an incident happen (i.e., they can't ignore ASRs, especially if they all point to one culprit and begin to stack up).
Hence why the Navtech form exists - to prevent ASRs from making the Navtech switch look like a terrible idea. Trust me, if you want to go back to a quality product, this is the only way to do it.
Remember it is your licence at stake when the next omission comes down from Navtech
You have to remember that the master document is the AIP and in the event of an incident, any CAD investigation will want to know why the published procedure in the AIP wasn't followed. Whose fault that will be is a matter of conjecture. But it's not just Navtech - there are plenty of errors in the Jepp database as well!
Be careful out there, and if in doubt - ask!
Be careful out there, and if in doubt - ask!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bekolblockage,
Thanks for the info.
Can you provide more information on the Predictive Conflict Alerts? i.e. what parameters set it off, most guys intervene to slow the ROC of the last 1000' to avoid TCAS "traffic" alerts, would this still set off a PCA?
Sqwak7700
Just looked at a few plates on the AIP. Hong Kong Air Traffic Control
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/A...OCEAN%20AC.pdf
Couldn't find a TD 5000 restriction, most charts just say initial climb 5000 expect further by ATC.
I did manage to find that there is no requirement to read back the SID when first contacting departures, just the call sign, passing and assigned altitudes.
Thanks for the info.
Can you provide more information on the Predictive Conflict Alerts? i.e. what parameters set it off, most guys intervene to slow the ROC of the last 1000' to avoid TCAS "traffic" alerts, would this still set off a PCA?
Sqwak7700
Just looked at a few plates on the AIP. Hong Kong Air Traffic Control
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/A...OCEAN%20AC.pdf
Couldn't find a TD 5000 restriction, most charts just say initial climb 5000 expect further by ATC.
I did manage to find that there is no requirement to read back the SID when first contacting departures, just the call sign, passing and assigned altitudes.
Sqwak7700-----I don't know which plate you refer to but looking at the CAD 07R Ocean 2A plate nicely linked above there is nothing about crossing TD -5000'??
So probably the JEPP DB in the FM is wrong?? We usually spot errors in it from time to time that Jepp code incorrectly.
In the mean time simply confirm "unrestricted climb"
Easy
So probably the JEPP DB in the FM is wrong?? We usually spot errors in it from time to time that Jepp code incorrectly.
In the mean time simply confirm "unrestricted climb"
Easy
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMOC
I'll get back to you a bit later on the PCA/CA parameters.
Ideally they should be going off before you get an RA to avoid the sort of conflicting advice from ATC and TCAS that we have seen in past incidents/accidents.
From memory the lookahead time is 60 seconds and the minimum lateral and vertical closest point of approach values vary depending on the distance from the radar head and the applicable separation standard, but I need to check what they are now as we changed them a little while back.
As far as the plate is concerned, that is basically the crux of the matter that others are complaining about.
The chart and text do not indicate a restriction at 5,000 but the coding table attached (not shown in the AIP for some reason) does include hard altitude constraints.
It is normal practice these days for the procedure designer to attach an FMC coding table to remove any ambiguity for the coding companies (Honeywell etc) as to what the procedure designer actually meant.
In the past we saw a lot of different nav behaviour as different coding companies would interpret the procedures differently. For instance, sometime they would use a "Direct to Fix" path when the procedure called for a "Track to fix" to be flown.
Unfortunately, for the controllers, they do not normally see the coding table, only the chart, so for quite a while were berating pilots for asking if the restrictions could be cancelled. As far as they were concerned, there were no restrictions.
Although it has now been explained to them and they normally cancel the restictions when climb is given, it is still not fixed properly.
As a further example, If you look at AIP ENR 1.5(http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/ENR/HK_ENR1.5.pdf) and go to pages 27/28, you will see the segment of a Macau SID within the HK FIR.
Here you can see the coding table that is produced and sent to the coding companies to produce the procedure in your FMC.
Apart from the normal alt/speed/flyover/flyby restrictions, the Path Terminator is the code that tells the FMS how the track from one waypoint to the next should be flown. Its not as simple as just "DCT". Watching Airbus and Boeing aircraft flying supposedly the exact same coding is quite instructive sometimes.
I'll get back to you a bit later on the PCA/CA parameters.
Ideally they should be going off before you get an RA to avoid the sort of conflicting advice from ATC and TCAS that we have seen in past incidents/accidents.
From memory the lookahead time is 60 seconds and the minimum lateral and vertical closest point of approach values vary depending on the distance from the radar head and the applicable separation standard, but I need to check what they are now as we changed them a little while back.
As far as the plate is concerned, that is basically the crux of the matter that others are complaining about.
The chart and text do not indicate a restriction at 5,000 but the coding table attached (not shown in the AIP for some reason) does include hard altitude constraints.
It is normal practice these days for the procedure designer to attach an FMC coding table to remove any ambiguity for the coding companies (Honeywell etc) as to what the procedure designer actually meant.
In the past we saw a lot of different nav behaviour as different coding companies would interpret the procedures differently. For instance, sometime they would use a "Direct to Fix" path when the procedure called for a "Track to fix" to be flown.
Unfortunately, for the controllers, they do not normally see the coding table, only the chart, so for quite a while were berating pilots for asking if the restrictions could be cancelled. As far as they were concerned, there were no restrictions.
Although it has now been explained to them and they normally cancel the restictions when climb is given, it is still not fixed properly.
As a further example, If you look at AIP ENR 1.5(http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/ENR/HK_ENR1.5.pdf) and go to pages 27/28, you will see the segment of a Macau SID within the HK FIR.
Here you can see the coding table that is produced and sent to the coding companies to produce the procedure in your FMC.
Apart from the normal alt/speed/flyover/flyby restrictions, the Path Terminator is the code that tells the FMS how the track from one waypoint to the next should be flown. Its not as simple as just "DCT". Watching Airbus and Boeing aircraft flying supposedly the exact same coding is quite instructive sometimes.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 driver
Why does everyone call established on the ILS?
This is the only way they can be sure that they can relinquish responsibility for your nav below the MVA.
If you have been cleared for the procedural approach from say LIMES, then they should not request, and there is no need for you to report, "established", as you have been on your own nav the whole time.
I'm guessing this is what you may be referring to.
P.S. Controllers will sometimes say they can "see you are established, contact the tower...".
Bollocks.
While we can tell you appear to be on centreline and captured the G/S, there is no way we can tell you are within the required tolerences on your display to know for sure you are established.