Is the Big Bhudda a Big Magnet?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Not over the Rockies anymore.
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Big Bhudda a Big Magnet?!
It seems the big smiling fella on top of the hill is attracting chinese airliners like honey is bees!!
Here's another one:
Air China flight has near miss with mountain on Hong Kong?s Lantau Island | South China Morning Post
Here's another one:
Air China flight has near miss with mountain on Hong Kong?s Lantau Island | South China Morning Post
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: hong kong
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the buddha isn't the problem
including the united 777 that turned right heading 130 climbing 5000 off 07L in recent weeks, this is the third incident with aircraft turning towards high terrain below 1000 feet. CAD currently have a requirement for helicopters to squawk standby within 5 miles of CLK which is counter to ICAO requirements. It is more of a problem than the buddha and CAD continues to refuse to address the matter.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: No longer in Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
including the united 777 that turned right heading 130 climbing 5000 off 07L in recent weeks, this is the third incident with aircraft turning towards high terrain below 1000 feet. CAD currently have a requirement for helicopters to squawk standby within 5 miles of CLK which is counter to ICAO requirements. It is more of a problem than the buddha and CAD continues to refuse to address the matter.
With regard to helicopters turning off their transponders, It was pointed out strongly by the more experienced controllers to ATC Management at the time this was brought in, that it was not only illegal in accordance with ICAO and Hong Kong Regulations, but dangerous. The decision was made by CAD due to very strong pressure from Cathay Pilot Management after a number of Cathay pilots put in MORs because they got TCAS 'Traffic' alerts when rotating or just after rotate from inbound helicopters. This happens because of the predictive nature of the way TCAS works, which doesn't know the track a helicopter is going to take.
All departing traffic is given traffic information on these helicopters, so it should come as no surprise that there may be an occasional traffic alert. By getting CAD to get the helicopters to turn off their transponders, they have now deprived pilots of seeing said helicopters on their TCAS. All because they are annoyed by a TCAS 'Traffic' call. It also deprives controllers from seeing the helicopter on their radar, depending on the radar configuration.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting SeeMyToe. Didn't know this was happening.
Any reports been filed outside CAD jurisdiction? Did the CAD make this a rule or are ATCos simply requesting this via voice? If they are, they would be liable in case of a collision.
I won't be calling helo traffic in sight anymore then. Could be taking possession of a ball I don't want to hold.
Any reports been filed outside CAD jurisdiction? Did the CAD make this a rule or are ATCos simply requesting this via voice? If they are, they would be liable in case of a collision.
I won't be calling helo traffic in sight anymore then. Could be taking possession of a ball I don't want to hold.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: No longer in Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No reports filed as far as I know Sqwak 7700.
This was just a requirement that all controllers had to comply with. As 99% of helicopter operations at CLK are the GFS, it was simply arranged between CAD and the GFS that this was what was going to happen. Very poor 'Threat & Error Management'.
A controller, who had a friend who was a a senior lawyer, ran this CAD requirement past him and was advised that CAD and the controller would not have a leg to stand on if there was ever an accident.
As I said, CAD were pressured by Cathay Management and didn't have the guts to say NO to them.
No need to report sighting a helicopter unless you are basing your flight path on that of the helicopter, which should never happen. They are a VFR operation that base their flight path on what you are doing. Also, ATC are relying on a standard called 'Reduced Separation Minima in the Vicinity of an Airport' which requires the controller to see both aircraft involved.
This was just a requirement that all controllers had to comply with. As 99% of helicopter operations at CLK are the GFS, it was simply arranged between CAD and the GFS that this was what was going to happen. Very poor 'Threat & Error Management'.
A controller, who had a friend who was a a senior lawyer, ran this CAD requirement past him and was advised that CAD and the controller would not have a leg to stand on if there was ever an accident.
As I said, CAD were pressured by Cathay Management and didn't have the guts to say NO to them.
No need to report sighting a helicopter unless you are basing your flight path on that of the helicopter, which should never happen. They are a VFR operation that base their flight path on what you are doing. Also, ATC are relying on a standard called 'Reduced Separation Minima in the Vicinity of an Airport' which requires the controller to see both aircraft involved.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: hong kong
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are correct SeeMyToe that there have been a number of these incidents over the years and the travelling public never gets to know about it. Many are not aware that CAD management has ruled this procedure to be the normal despite it being illegal under ICAO requirements.
There was an incident in non vfr conditions some years ago where a helicopter with transponder off was crossing the runway at the wrong end as a 747 rotated. A close near miss eventuated and still the procedure remained in place with no reports filed outside CAD. The time is long overdue for a completely independent Air Safety Department to investigate incidents and forward conclusions and recommendations directly to the Transport Minister and by pass CAD altogether.
if there is a collision one day and a helicopter with transponder turned off is a contributing factor, CAD management over the last 5 years will not be saved from jail time. The Hong Kong Government may also be liable for massive compensation payments when the insurance companies refuse claims due to an illegal helicopter transponder procedure.
There was an incident in non vfr conditions some years ago where a helicopter with transponder off was crossing the runway at the wrong end as a 747 rotated. A close near miss eventuated and still the procedure remained in place with no reports filed outside CAD. The time is long overdue for a completely independent Air Safety Department to investigate incidents and forward conclusions and recommendations directly to the Transport Minister and by pass CAD altogether.
if there is a collision one day and a helicopter with transponder turned off is a contributing factor, CAD management over the last 5 years will not be saved from jail time. The Hong Kong Government may also be liable for massive compensation payments when the insurance companies refuse claims due to an illegal helicopter transponder procedure.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol. Hong Kong Airport blatantly disregard safety and rules that affect pax everyday. Case in point being those airport buses for away gates. They are clearly stated max capacity being 70ish people, but regularly stuffed to double that amount. These are old ppl and children with bags. Has the HK govt been liable for any resulting injuries or being fined for willingly disregard a stated limitation?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they commenced the turn, deviating from SID, were they not above 3000'? Apparently 3060'? In that case they were already above their MSA for that sector from TD VOR. Media stating, "ATC controller averted collision with mountain", or "had they have been heavier they wouldn't have cleared the terrain".
hoop dreams
Nope. Sector MSA for VHHH airport is 4300ft. MSA isn't referenced to VHHH. It is referenced to TD VOR which is considerably east of VHHH. I assume this aircraft was conducting the BEKOL 2B departure. Have a look it. Now it could be argued that where the turn started is outside the 25nm MSA so 4300ft doesn't apply. The chart though stipulates a warning of "must not turn before PRAWN" due terrain. PRAWN is 29nm from TD. Also if you look at the Radar Chart the turn was commence in the 4100 minimum radar vector sector. Lastly if you look at all the approach charts the MSA is referenced to CH VOR which is considerably closer to VHHH than TD and the relevant MSA is 4300ft.
Nope. Sector MSA for VHHH airport is 4300ft. MSA isn't referenced to VHHH. It is referenced to TD VOR which is considerably east of VHHH. I assume this aircraft was conducting the BEKOL 2B departure. Have a look it. Now it could be argued that where the turn started is outside the 25nm MSA so 4300ft doesn't apply. The chart though stipulates a warning of "must not turn before PRAWN" due terrain. PRAWN is 29nm from TD. Also if you look at the Radar Chart the turn was commence in the 4100 minimum radar vector sector. Lastly if you look at all the approach charts the MSA is referenced to CH VOR which is considerably closer to VHHH than TD and the relevant MSA is 4300ft.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hoop dreams
Nope. Sector MSA for VHHH airport is 4300ft. MSA isn't referenced to VHHH. It is referenced to TD VOR which is considerably east of VHHH. I assume this aircraft was conducting the BEKOL 2B departure. Have a look it. Now it could be argued that where the turn started is outside the 25nm MSA so 4300ft doesn't apply. The chart though stipulates a warning of "must not turn before PRAWN" due terrain. PRAWN is 29nm from TD. Also if you look at the Radar Chart the turn was commence in the 4100 minimum radar vector sector. Lastly if you look at all the approach charts the MSA is referenced to CH VOR which is considerably closer to VHHH than TD and the relevant MSA is 4300ft.
Nope. Sector MSA for VHHH airport is 4300ft. MSA isn't referenced to VHHH. It is referenced to TD VOR which is considerably east of VHHH. I assume this aircraft was conducting the BEKOL 2B departure. Have a look it. Now it could be argued that where the turn started is outside the 25nm MSA so 4300ft doesn't apply. The chart though stipulates a warning of "must not turn before PRAWN" due terrain. PRAWN is 29nm from TD. Also if you look at the Radar Chart the turn was commence in the 4100 minimum radar vector sector. Lastly if you look at all the approach charts the MSA is referenced to CH VOR which is considerably closer to VHHH than TD and the relevant MSA is 4300ft.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They never clear you to FL130 after take off do they? I thought FL130 was for descending traffic on the STAR. They might clear to 9000' or FL110, but I've never been cleared straight to FL130 after Take Off.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or use the UK terminology of 130 DEGREES.
In my experience, the 5000' stop altitude is very rarely cancelled until on track to TD. The MAX ALT is then usually limited (during the day) to 9000' until the inbound tracks are cleared. HKG controllers are good at standard phraseology and will emphasise when cleared to a FL; shame some of our brethren are not.
In my experience, the 5000' stop altitude is very rarely cancelled until on track to TD. The MAX ALT is then usually limited (during the day) to 9000' until the inbound tracks are cleared. HKG controllers are good at standard phraseology and will emphasise when cleared to a FL; shame some of our brethren are not.
