HK AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL BLOG
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's probably been asked before but do ATC ever ask A/C to increase speed especially the A/C that can go fast. For example the other day OCEAN dept of 07 told to maintain a max of 250kts and 7000 due traffic ahead. This ended up being traffic 7000 feet above us from Macau? (A320) who was actually behind us on TCAS but no doubt had a higher TAS/GS we got a stepped climb & acceleration all the way to ENVAR, we ended up getting there 2min before the said traffic. Now we were in a 744 and could have easily been asked to go fast and simply get out in front.
Weather was not a factor and there wasn't much traffic it was surprisingly quiet.
It just appears that slowing traffic is always the answer for spacing. With the NOTAM regarding slow speed climbs (M0.78) I'd imagine the A320 is one of the A/C for which it's applicable, do ATC consider the A/C type when considering performance a short vector or speed control applied to a 320 would allow the majority of wide body A/C to accelerate away. It's much better for us to have the potential energy of 350kts held low than trying to accelerate from 250kts and also climb.
I still wish ATC would join us on flights around the region so we can hear from you while it's happening.
Cheers.
I felt for the clearance guy the other day he was doing a good job. Unfortunately many crews weren't listening to the fact that the delay was due to HK weather (nothing to do with China) and the fact that it was approximately 2min per A/C delay, so once informed of their number in the sequence they then wasted a call to ask how long the delay was.
Weather was not a factor and there wasn't much traffic it was surprisingly quiet.
It just appears that slowing traffic is always the answer for spacing. With the NOTAM regarding slow speed climbs (M0.78) I'd imagine the A320 is one of the A/C for which it's applicable, do ATC consider the A/C type when considering performance a short vector or speed control applied to a 320 would allow the majority of wide body A/C to accelerate away. It's much better for us to have the potential energy of 350kts held low than trying to accelerate from 250kts and also climb.
I still wish ATC would join us on flights around the region so we can hear from you while it's happening.
Cheers.
I felt for the clearance guy the other day he was doing a good job. Unfortunately many crews weren't listening to the fact that the delay was due to HK weather (nothing to do with China) and the fact that it was approximately 2min per A/C delay, so once informed of their number in the sequence they then wasted a call to ask how long the delay was.
Last edited by SMOC; 13th Apr 2014 at 02:05.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Control
SMOC
Yes we do use speed control including speeding up and consider aircraft type in order to get the job done.
In the case you mentioned against the VMMC Departure I am not sure if it is the only factor which limited your climb with speed control.
However I would like to point out that according to the standard procedure regardless if you are departing from VMMC or VHHH if you are going on the same route e.g. via OCEAN to ENVAR the departure controller shall give 10NM in trail and no catch up to the next sector at OCEAN.
As you mentioned the VMMC departure is probably much higher then those from HK the TAS/GS would be significantly different and that adds complexity to how to achieve the requirement stated above.
The alternative is to step climb you below the VMMC Departure which requires agreement between the Departure Controller and the Area Controller in the next sector. This doesn't not always work as the VMMC DEP may need a lower level while you need higher. (the planned cruise level going into to TPE control in your case; note there is always level restriction going on different route downstream and destination) in this case the area controller may vector or give direct track to create "space" for the one below to out climb the one above.
Now to put this into reality the area controller may be controlling 20 or 30 aircraft at the same time this would be easier said then done.
Here is my question regarding using TCAS to displaying traffic on your ND, how much do you see and how do you interpret ? I always have a feeling that pilots would use them to guess what cause a restriction however in some case what cause a restriction may have nothing to do with what you see.
Yes we do use speed control including speeding up and consider aircraft type in order to get the job done.
In the case you mentioned against the VMMC Departure I am not sure if it is the only factor which limited your climb with speed control.
However I would like to point out that according to the standard procedure regardless if you are departing from VMMC or VHHH if you are going on the same route e.g. via OCEAN to ENVAR the departure controller shall give 10NM in trail and no catch up to the next sector at OCEAN.
As you mentioned the VMMC departure is probably much higher then those from HK the TAS/GS would be significantly different and that adds complexity to how to achieve the requirement stated above.
The alternative is to step climb you below the VMMC Departure which requires agreement between the Departure Controller and the Area Controller in the next sector. This doesn't not always work as the VMMC DEP may need a lower level while you need higher. (the planned cruise level going into to TPE control in your case; note there is always level restriction going on different route downstream and destination) in this case the area controller may vector or give direct track to create "space" for the one below to out climb the one above.
Now to put this into reality the area controller may be controlling 20 or 30 aircraft at the same time this would be easier said then done.
Here is my question regarding using TCAS to displaying traffic on your ND, how much do you see and how do you interpret ? I always have a feeling that pilots would use them to guess what cause a restriction however in some case what cause a restriction may have nothing to do with what you see.
Last edited by The Bald Innocent; 13th Apr 2014 at 11:05. Reason: TYPO
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't use TCAS as reliable location laterally, regarding the Macau A320 traffic, we assumed it couldn't of been him initially as he "appeared" to be behind us a fraction however during the climb and all the instructions it became obvious he was the traffic and we saw him eventually. We got a stepped 250/270/280/300/300+/M0.83+ accel and stepped climb, plus only got a direct once above the traffic, he got all the directs and no speed control, I suspect he was as I said basically doing an Econ climb into around M0.78, she was determined that he was first and we would be the ones to create the required separation.
Apologies if it comes across as nagging I'm just interested in the process so when the discussion ends up on the flight deck of "why" hopefully I can have a clearer picture.
A good example on a different occasion would be we were cleared high speed (not requested) but held at 9000 as usual so we accelerated to 350kts (smooth nil weather) ATC then requested our speed, and traffic behind us an airbus was also cleared high speed and told maximum 350kts by the controller, the airbus guy had a double take assuming he said 250kts it was resolved and the airbus saying he couldn't go that fast, anyway we both got plenty of directs and unrestricted climbs. Now we could have done an Econ accel to say 303kts so restricting the A/C behind us to 300, he may have wanted 310 for all I know but the point being ATC could ask us for max speed if he wanted while we were held low it may not work for us every day but it seems like an opportunity for ATC to use high speed as a tool rather than just cleared high speed.
High speed for most crews I suspect is to accelerate to Econ climb speed anywhere between 270-340 depending on A/C type and weight. Most if not all should be able to at least do 320kts so ATC could ask for 320 or greater if they want and release the guy later I hope. The guy at the front doing 280kts high speed still stuffs everyone else wanting 310 for example.
Understood however the next sector may have an issue.
Cheers
Apologies if it comes across as nagging I'm just interested in the process so when the discussion ends up on the flight deck of "why" hopefully I can have a clearer picture.
A good example on a different occasion would be we were cleared high speed (not requested) but held at 9000 as usual so we accelerated to 350kts (smooth nil weather) ATC then requested our speed, and traffic behind us an airbus was also cleared high speed and told maximum 350kts by the controller, the airbus guy had a double take assuming he said 250kts it was resolved and the airbus saying he couldn't go that fast, anyway we both got plenty of directs and unrestricted climbs. Now we could have done an Econ accel to say 303kts so restricting the A/C behind us to 300, he may have wanted 310 for all I know but the point being ATC could ask us for max speed if he wanted while we were held low it may not work for us every day but it seems like an opportunity for ATC to use high speed as a tool rather than just cleared high speed.
High speed for most crews I suspect is to accelerate to Econ climb speed anywhere between 270-340 depending on A/C type and weight. Most if not all should be able to at least do 320kts so ATC could ask for 320 or greater if they want and release the guy later I hope. The guy at the front doing 280kts high speed still stuffs everyone else wanting 310 for example.
Understood however the next sector may have an issue.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Control - (reply)
Thanks for the reply SMOC.
Being a 747 may have advantage over other types but sadly as you are normally faster then others types and can possibility slow down late you will always find more scenarios which we requires you to slow down rather then speed up.
With the number of traffic we handled these days and internal procedures we tend to generalize everything, and we may not cater well enough for all the differences between types and airlines.
Example would be sending you right after an A340 going the same route on DEP which means you will get speed restriction for quite a while after departure. Remember that 10NM in trail requirement... we also have users who refuse to speed up below 10000ft... company SOP they say.
In contrast we also have cases with those airbus going to China via BEKOL/DOTMI who are reluctant to speed up too much to trade for climb rate and meet various restrictions...
I understand your reason to speed up during a level restriction to trade speed for climb rate later on... yes we would try to help if possible, however it may not be the solution the controller have in mind to deliver the spacing required.
Having said that doesn't mean we can't do better, I would certainly agree that the more we understand each other's OPS we would be able to deliver more efficient services to the public.
Being a 747 may have advantage over other types but sadly as you are normally faster then others types and can possibility slow down late you will always find more scenarios which we requires you to slow down rather then speed up.
With the number of traffic we handled these days and internal procedures we tend to generalize everything, and we may not cater well enough for all the differences between types and airlines.
Example would be sending you right after an A340 going the same route on DEP which means you will get speed restriction for quite a while after departure. Remember that 10NM in trail requirement... we also have users who refuse to speed up below 10000ft... company SOP they say.
In contrast we also have cases with those airbus going to China via BEKOL/DOTMI who are reluctant to speed up too much to trade for climb rate and meet various restrictions...
I understand your reason to speed up during a level restriction to trade speed for climb rate later on... yes we would try to help if possible, however it may not be the solution the controller have in mind to deliver the spacing required.
Having said that doesn't mean we can't do better, I would certainly agree that the more we understand each other's OPS we would be able to deliver more efficient services to the public.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply, didn't know about the restrictive SOPs used by some carriers which would go a long way to explaining "why", can you "sin bin" them and send them off on some wild vector? 
Nothing like a good bit of nepotism for us locals
Thanks again.
Nothing like a good bit of nepotism for us locals Thanks again.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We arrived at ELATO about 5nm behind a much slower aircraft the other night 4000ft above us. I was already dreading the speed reductions and zig zags but thanks to the controller who wisely told us to maintain high speed, quick pass the traffic then let both planes descend normally. It is obviously the most logical way to do it but the first time I have experienced it. Usually it seems to be 'whoever is in front wins' with us having to zig zag all over the place and slow down and totally screw up the descent just to appease a slow 737 or A320.
Hope the sensibility continues!
Hope the sensibility continues!
SMOC
Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.
Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.
My passengers seem to dislike it.
Do you know WHY we have a turbulence penetration speed? Do you understand what it is for?
Hint: The turbulence penetration speed has NOTHING to do with PASSENGER COMFORT.
The passengers pay your wages.
Turbulence is to be avoided where possible, not exacerbated by accelerating in it.
Weather radar does not display small CU. it displays CBs. However I have a pair of eyes, and I look out the window. When I see CU ahead of me I will ask for a deviation. Sometimes I get it in time, on other occasions I won't. HK is busy and constrained airspace. More often than not I'm just forced to plow through stuff. Small CU can be very rough. Even a layer of ST can cause significant bumping around. I'd be a fool to accelerate in that.
Likewise at night, if my lights show I'm entering cloud, and can't tell what it is, or what might be embedded in it, I do not want to accelerate to 290kts, and I will not do so.
Thank you.
So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night
Did you figure out the real purpose of your turbulence penetration speed yet?
Ask a Training Captain if you aren't sure.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know WHY we have a turbulence penetration speed? Do you understand what it is for?
Otherwise I would like to hear the reason :o) Just trying to learn a little more here ;o)
So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night then
Join Date: May 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silber,
Apologies for causing the angst and I'll desist immediately.
"Unrestricted climb" appears perfectly sensible but it can have upstream implications, so its use causes controller angst. Accordingly, we have instructions not to use "unrestricted climb" but to rather use the correct ICAO procedure. The ICAO requires that each SID restriction must be specifically cancelled (although in reality this problem is RNAV coding and not SID restrictions). There's nothing wrong with the ICAO but its very cumbersome if the airspace is not well integrated. For expedience, some Departure controllers do use "unrestricted climb" but this causes the majority of non-local operators to, correctly, challenge with, "Confirm the XX **** foot restriction is cancelled?" All this challenging creates a lot of RTF traffic.
Anyway, some of this should all be cleaned up in a few weeks time.
Of interest, I understand, ICAO intended to introduce "open climb/descent" in January 2013 but this was questioned by the FAA who were using "Descend via STAR" and introducing "Climb via SID". Here is video of how the FAA explains their change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrPzv96VBp8
Apologies for causing the angst and I'll desist immediately.
"Unrestricted climb" appears perfectly sensible but it can have upstream implications, so its use causes controller angst. Accordingly, we have instructions not to use "unrestricted climb" but to rather use the correct ICAO procedure. The ICAO requires that each SID restriction must be specifically cancelled (although in reality this problem is RNAV coding and not SID restrictions). There's nothing wrong with the ICAO but its very cumbersome if the airspace is not well integrated. For expedience, some Departure controllers do use "unrestricted climb" but this causes the majority of non-local operators to, correctly, challenge with, "Confirm the XX **** foot restriction is cancelled?" All this challenging creates a lot of RTF traffic.
Anyway, some of this should all be cleaned up in a few weeks time.
Of interest, I understand, ICAO intended to introduce "open climb/descent" in January 2013 but this was questioned by the FAA who were using "Descend via STAR" and introducing "Climb via SID". Here is video of how the FAA explains their change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrPzv96VBp8
Last edited by Zual; 11th May 2014 at 02:48.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Geostationary Plaza
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was flying on the 9th and 10th in really shxx weather around HK and I have to say my FO and me were really impressed about how well HK ATC was handling the stack of traffic, Wx deviation, etc.
Well done
Well done
Thanks
Yep, Thanks guys,
....but no thanks to the turkeys who decided it was a good idea to shut an engine or two down in the que to depart without telling anyone because they were so tight on fuel
Caused no end of problems and delays for the unsuspecting stuck behind.
I hope ATC have a way of ensuring the offenders think about that effort before they try it again.
....but no thanks to the turkeys who decided it was a good idea to shut an engine or two down in the que to depart without telling anyone because they were so tight on fuel
Caused no end of problems and delays for the unsuspecting stuck behind.
I hope ATC have a way of ensuring the offenders think about that effort before they try it again.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also want to express thanks to the Guangzhou ACC. Some very testing weather conditions over the past few days and it was a pleasure to work with the ZGGG SIERA Sector guys who were really switched on. By pushing HK arrival traffic West of SIERA rather than East, your efforts made life so much easier for HK.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Somewhere in the Four Corners
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 25L Flight Check
I'm curious.... who is responsible for making the call of when to do an ILS flight check? Is it ATC, HKCAD or the Airport? Whoever makes that decision, why did they decide to do it during the morning rush on Thursday 15th resulting in lengthy delays for all departures? 