Buddha's Close Shave.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Those clouds look nasty, let's head for the hills instead..."
No no no no. Demerit point only apply to foreign carriers as they are the only ones who ever f*ck up. Local carrier can do no wrong and have impeccable records.
This is just the Beijing-approved missed approach for HK. They won't give it to us because we're not good enough to fly it.
How many demerit points for this little stunt?
This is just the Beijing-approved missed approach for HK. They won't give it to us because we're not good enough to fly it.
its�5perworddammit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the foxhole
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: smogville
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing "skills" by the flight crew, from the photo they even managed to do a normal cleanup/acceleration before clearing Big Buddha. Would have been interesting if they started the missed approach just a little lower down the slope.
As for presuming the crew were mainlanders, a bit premature many expats at Shenzhen Airlines.
As for presuming the crew were mainlanders, a bit premature many expats at Shenzhen Airlines.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
In all seriousness, this is completely inexcusable, and an indicator of the race to the bottom.
But the travelling public morons, in China, in Hong Kong, and eventually worldwide, want cheap tickets. This is what you get.
And CX, KA and all the big players aren't far behind.
Well done
In all seriousness, this is completely inexcusable, and an indicator of the race to the bottom.
But the travelling public morons, in China, in Hong Kong, and eventually worldwide, want cheap tickets. This is what you get.
And CX, KA and all the big players aren't far behind.
Well done
STP
What makes this even more puzzling is that, judging by the photo, it was a nice sunny day, so they could see there's a big hill there.
I do recall on previous occasions in China I have been instructed by ATC to make an orbit on final for various reasons (which I politely declined), so perhaps this is standard procedure in that bizzaro world north of the invisible wall?
I do recall on previous occasions in China I have been instructed by ATC to make an orbit on final for various reasons (which I politely declined), so perhaps this is standard procedure in that bizzaro world north of the invisible wall?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem here is the flight path. If VFR, all the worse to have no intervention. This would not happen at CX with our current crew compliment. No guarantees on that in the future.
When I was new here, I did a missed approach off raw data that was procedurally all wrong, but the flight path was 100% correct. TOGA was not pushed, almost none of the standard calls were made, but the aircraft flew around the radar pattern precisely. The after takeoff checklist was accomplished, and the next approach was more automated to a CX standard landing.
It was certainly a learning scenario for me but never could or would the aircraft have been flown into high terrain by me nor allowed by the cool and calm captain that day. There is a difference between "us and them" and to pretend there is not is disingenuous.
When I was new here, I did a missed approach off raw data that was procedurally all wrong, but the flight path was 100% correct. TOGA was not pushed, almost none of the standard calls were made, but the aircraft flew around the radar pattern precisely. The after takeoff checklist was accomplished, and the next approach was more automated to a CX standard landing.
It was certainly a learning scenario for me but never could or would the aircraft have been flown into high terrain by me nor allowed by the cool and calm captain that day. There is a difference between "us and them" and to pretend there is not is disingenuous.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist, presumably you're accusing me of being disingenuous? With all due respect, I really don't like your "us and them" distinction because you imply, despite your go-around story, that "we" are better than "them". Given your assertion that something like this wouldn't happen with our current crew compliment (sic) but with no guarantees for the future, I assume you include our more junior pilots in the "them" category?
As I've said in previous threads, it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when people state, almost categorically, that incidents like this couldn't happen to "us" because "we" are so much better than "them" as it smacks of ego and superiority complex, two of the most dangerous things in aviation, in my humble opinion.
STP
As I've said in previous threads, it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when people state, almost categorically, that incidents like this couldn't happen to "us" because "we" are so much better than "them" as it smacks of ego and superiority complex, two of the most dangerous things in aviation, in my humble opinion.
STP
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STP,
You are right that ego and a superiority complex are dangerous in aviation. However, those are nowhere near as unsafe as rogue incompetence and a lack of inexperience. I have flown with maybe one pilot at CX on my fleet who might not have manually intervened in this scenario. Perhaps there are more on your fleet, and you don't want to disparage them. That's admirable, to a degree. In fairness, I am not that familiar with the current CX cadet JFO product, but the SOs are highly variable from totally worthless to very sharp.
I really don't care what the scenario is.. FMC sequence, misunderstood ATC instruction, a system failure.. when the aircraft starts pointing itself towards high terrain, I intervene. If we can't at least do that, then the airlines might as well have no pilots in the flight deck. Right?
PS - The ground has a PK of 100%.
You are right that ego and a superiority complex are dangerous in aviation. However, those are nowhere near as unsafe as rogue incompetence and a lack of inexperience. I have flown with maybe one pilot at CX on my fleet who might not have manually intervened in this scenario. Perhaps there are more on your fleet, and you don't want to disparage them. That's admirable, to a degree. In fairness, I am not that familiar with the current CX cadet JFO product, but the SOs are highly variable from totally worthless to very sharp.
I really don't care what the scenario is.. FMC sequence, misunderstood ATC instruction, a system failure.. when the aircraft starts pointing itself towards high terrain, I intervene. If we can't at least do that, then the airlines might as well have no pilots in the flight deck. Right?
PS - The ground has a PK of 100%.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 48
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to the ATC recording
Start listening at about 24 minutes if you are interested in what happened on the ATC frequency(Director):
ATC recording
Shenzhen 9041 called ATC and advised a go around (may have been for separation, but that is speculative). Later, in the climb to 5000, they read back another aircraft's(Saudia986) clearance to "Turn right heading 350" as "Right heading 340, Shenzhen 9041".
ATC didn't catch the mistake and then handed them off to another frequency.
Yes, a right turn instruction from ATC should probably have been queried by crew, but they had been climbing for about 45 seconds in a go around. Hard to tell what it looked like in the cockpit for that turn. But they were probably well above the terrain and climbing, so it might not even have looked very exciting. Doubt the TAWS/ground prox was yelling, but it may have been when they were briefly pointed at Lantau Peak.
As usual, the news reports and comments on the web are not really based on much fact.
Crew made a mistaken read back. ATC didn't catch it.
ATC recording
Shenzhen 9041 called ATC and advised a go around (may have been for separation, but that is speculative). Later, in the climb to 5000, they read back another aircraft's(Saudia986) clearance to "Turn right heading 350" as "Right heading 340, Shenzhen 9041".
ATC didn't catch the mistake and then handed them off to another frequency.
Yes, a right turn instruction from ATC should probably have been queried by crew, but they had been climbing for about 45 seconds in a go around. Hard to tell what it looked like in the cockpit for that turn. But they were probably well above the terrain and climbing, so it might not even have looked very exciting. Doubt the TAWS/ground prox was yelling, but it may have been when they were briefly pointed at Lantau Peak.
As usual, the news reports and comments on the web are not really based on much fact.
Crew made a mistaken read back. ATC didn't catch it.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Almost as exciting as the one I saw turn left on go-around from MDA at Rwy 13 at Kai Tak. About half of the left wing of that one briefly appeared out of the cloud, showing the aircraft a lot of left bank - they were turning left towards the hills beyond the checkerboard instead of turning right to fly the MAP.
ATC sorted that one very sharply, thank goodness because there is no way they could have climbed over.
At least this recent one appears to have been VMC.
ATC sorted that one very sharply, thank goodness because there is no way they could have climbed over.
At least this recent one appears to have been VMC.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STP-
It would never happen at CX! If it happened here it would be the pilots setting everything up for the right turn towards the mountain whilst verifying all FMA modes are stated. Meanwhile, the aircraft would continue flying straight as neither would've realized the autopilot was not on and nobody was flying the jet.
It would never happen at CX! If it happened here it would be the pilots setting everything up for the right turn towards the mountain whilst verifying all FMA modes are stated. Meanwhile, the aircraft would continue flying straight as neither would've realized the autopilot was not on and nobody was flying the jet.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Macau
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feilong,
There was another cross transmission before the one you mentioned. When SVA986 reported established, the Shenzhen9041 also reported going around at the same time. The controller only heard "established" and thought it was transmitted by the Shenzhen. He did not know the Shenzhen was going around and did nothing about it.
There was another cross transmission before the one you mentioned. When SVA986 reported established, the Shenzhen9041 also reported going around at the same time. The controller only heard "established" and thought it was transmitted by the Shenzhen. He did not know the Shenzhen was going around and did nothing about it.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
And there I was thinking that a lack of inexperience is a good thing 
(sorry, couldn't resist)
We all fly with pilots of differing abilities, many of whom perform differently on different days. The presumption of ability and/or expected performance is like walking on thin ice - it should be OK but you never know when the cracks might start to appear. As it happens, I think our operation is fundamentally sound due to strong SOPs (as much as some people like to disparage them) and our monitor/crosscheck philosophy. The vast majority of pilots I fly with are very good, regardless of experience, and I didn't make my point in the previous post trying to defend anyone.
Point taken about intervention.
STP
PS - the ground doesn't always have a PK of 1 but it's fair to say that the best way to make contact with it is wheels first from a stable approach
However, those are nowhere near as unsafe as rogue incompetence and a lack of inexperience.
(sorry, couldn't resist)We all fly with pilots of differing abilities, many of whom perform differently on different days. The presumption of ability and/or expected performance is like walking on thin ice - it should be OK but you never know when the cracks might start to appear. As it happens, I think our operation is fundamentally sound due to strong SOPs (as much as some people like to disparage them) and our monitor/crosscheck philosophy. The vast majority of pilots I fly with are very good, regardless of experience, and I didn't make my point in the previous post trying to defend anyone.
Point taken about intervention.
STP
PS - the ground doesn't always have a PK of 1 but it's fair to say that the best way to make contact with it is wheels first from a stable approach