Bedder Believeit
 

We all agree that runway changes are a pain and any sane professional appreciates the challenges HK presents in both deciding and administering a runway change.

You called for suggestions. How about warning of an impending runway change on the ATIS with an expected time of change?

I have no doubt you will reply that you do this in any event. The reality in my experience is that I have never seen it on the ATIS and often we are taxi-ing for 07 and then told that we will be for 25 (or vice-versa). However, when we look out the window or at TCAS we can see aircraft on the 25 approach. We, not unreasonably, conclude that someone in the "ATC world" both knew and auctioned a runway change a long time ago, but that information was not communicated down the line.

Perhaps the answer lies in the person who decides runway changes, sets off a series of dominoes that results in a new ATIS containing a warning of impending change and expected time. This should also be backed up by a combine call on Gnd and Del along the lines, " new ATIS x, expected runway change at ......".

This will reduce cockpit workload during a dynamic phase and hopefully reduce the amount of radio calls on these freqs. Whether or not combine calls are made on the various radar freqs for inbound traffic, I'm not so sure......

Just sayin like....innit...

Austalian ATC is the second best ATC on the planet. One thing they do well is to broadcast when the ATIS has changed, or about to change, with the actual changes, e.g. 'New Brisbane information bravo, the changes, the wind now 160 at 12'. Saves work for everybody.

Also, it seems to be an Asian thing not to advise when things are about to change; only when they have changed, e.g. runway change in HKG, runway closures in TPE. And these robotic ATIS changes every half hour, even with little or no change in conditions, that you get in Taiwan and Japan... what's the point?

ORD and ATL are some of the best controllers in the world.

Hi Liam

You come up with some useful observations. What happens now:

1. The two AMC's (N and S) will be watching things and trying to get a feel for the best option. EIther to change runways or stay put.
2. They'll discuss with the Tower supervisor that a Runway change is either: (a) A good idea, or (b) a necessity.
3.If it's the latter, then it happens immediately and everyone just has to live with it. If there's some flex in it, the tower supervisor will ring to Approach supervisor and say: "wind seems to be favouring (new runway) let me know what you want".
4. At this point the tower co-ordinator will generally give a heads up to the Delivery person and the Ground controllers along the lines of "Hey guys, (possible/definite) runway change (likely/imminent).
5. THe Approach cell are the major determinants of when the last landing will occur. This may be in 10 minutes (a quick change) or in 40 minutes.
6. Meanwhile, the delivery person will generally give a heads up to possible effectees. This is not always possible because of the unknown time frame from the Approach cell.
7. ATIS reflecting the new runway will be prepared but often not actioned until the last minute. Bear in mind that it takes time to prepare the ATIS and for the tower assistant to record same. This is even more time consuming during periods of particularly inclement weather when many changes are taking place.
8. The Approach cell will advise the tower co-ordinator, of a "Last lander on old runway" along with an expected landing time.
9. FRom this, a clearance expiry time for the last departure off the "old" runway will be agreed normally about 6 minutes before the last landing takes place.
10. Meanwhile the GMS (Ground South) pretty much has a final say as to who will be the last "old runway departure" though often there will be mutual discussion between the AMS/Supervisor and GMS.
11. When it's been decided, then Delivery and the relavant GMC's will give updated SID's.
12. Me personally, as soon as I hear of an impending runway change and I'm on Ground, I like to give out what I think is a good guess to impending departures as to what to expect. THis is not always possible due to the variable time frame that Approach may take to decide the "last landing".
13. Worse case scenario's are an immediate change with little or no lead in time, such as mentioned by the Baron man, and we just have to turn everyone around and go to the new runway. This is bound to happen, when due to weather deviations in Departures airspace and we have say 4 minutes departure flow, there will invariabaly be a long queue at the old threshold that will need the new runway...and yes...sometimes with a downwind component at the start point.
Sorry to be so long "winded"

Mate, that wasn't long winded at all, just a clear depiction of the steps involved. There are obviously aspects about some ATC occurence that we are not going to understand, sometimes there are good reasons, for which we are unaware, other times there appears to be no sensible reason for what presents as an inefficient stuff-up.
You may well be old gravel-voice who takes no prisoners with China Southern calling 3 times in 5 minutes for a clearance, it gives us a laugh, but your sensible outlook appears to sadly be a dying breed. What concerns us drivers is that when the last of you guys who can think outside of the box are eased out of ATC, the remnants as evidenced are poorly placed to take up the reins.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a race thing, but there have been some woeful local controllers on the radio of recent, and it won't take much of a combination of weather and blocked runways for the airspace to rapidly degenerate into a cluster-f@ck of mammoth proportions, where crew eventually decide they'll just tell the max'd-out local controller what they are doing, once they realize the controller has lost the plot.

I just wish the gov't would re-assess their localization policy and temper it with a degree of common sense to ensure continued safety, and that's only achieved with good experienced controllers.

Bedder, many thanks for the informative post. May I ask why is it HK ATC's ATIS is never updated? So many times we get the ATIS on arrival and its often 90-120 minutes old :ugh:

Longtimeincx, sadly as often is the case in aviation, governing bodies, companies etc. are reactive rather than proactive. It always comes down to the $$$. I just hope that it won't be the usual case of making the change once a serious incident has occurred.

Why update it if there are no changes? It's just more work for pilots and ATC.

Precisely what I was griping about in my post no. 44.

Dart, on the flight deck with ATIS which is 2 or may be 4 hours old (assuming ATC knows condition remained more or less the same), how do you know its reflecting the current condition? :confused:

If anyone from hkg atc is reading this.....

Please can you stop saying decend "TO" 3000 ft....do not say TO.

Actually, it's not correct for the UK situation, at least for the first paragraph. 'Cadets' in the UK ATS provider (NATS) are put straight in to busy units after completing their basic training. It's a case of sending people from the courses to where they are needed. We don't operate a system of building people up and moving them around the country. It would be expensive and time consuming and waste a lot of time. Provision of adequate training at the unit they are posted at is the only chance these guys in the UK get to hack it at a busy unit which, more often than not, is their first posting. The vast majority of them succeed.

@10W

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. As a moderator you should know better than to let facts get in the way of a good story! :)

Joking aside, I personally feel that the HK controllers generally do a pretty good job in often trying circumstances. I think that Bedder beliveit's description of some of the factors that ATC have to contend with on an operational level go a long way to explain the frustrations that we face as pilots. There's no doubt that the controlling could be better at times but this applies to most places I fly to.

STP

Badairsucker

With my fair and balanced hat on. ATC can either say descend 4000' / climb 5000' or if they use the word "to" then they should add either Altitude or Flight Level before the numbers. Descend to Altitude 2500' which is supposed to remove any confusion over 2 or "to".

As much notice as possible
 

I'm with Jizzmonkey on this. Tell us in advance what the requirements are. Changing the descent speed changes our TOD, and changing our speed after commencing descent destroys fuel inefficiency in the profile management. On the odd occasion where we try to be proactive & ask if there are any restrictions on the arrival, the response "next sector will advise" is simply not good enough. (I blame the system, not the controllers).

Can someone also please explain to the controllers that we are more than capable of managing our own profiles to achieve their requirements, all they need to do is tell us what they want to achieve. (I assume the less experienced ones are in this mindset). For example, give us a time to be at MURRY/MANGO/MELEN, FLxxx, speed from there xxx kts. And give it to us as soon as possible. Then, let us do the speed management stuff. The end result is less R/T transmissions, and more fuel efficient descent. If we can't make it, we will tell you as soon as possible, to allow you to vector us for the extra track miles.

And BTW, I don't mean tell us our planned time when we get to the FIR boundary, we should be able to get that at TOPC. The ATC system has our EET for each FIR boundary & our take-off time. Start planning as soon as we are airborne. Ok, maybe things might change a little bit during the flight, especially a long haul, but keep us updated. Losing 10 minutes between Sydney & NOMAN is easy. Losing 10 minutes between CARSO & MANGO is not.

This can all be fixed by instituting a position of "Flow Controller". I assume there is no such position at the moment. (Or, if there is, then it ain't working!).

Like I said, I blame the system and the managers, not the controllers.

Actually, Iceman, the correct terminology is "climb/descend to altitude 4000 feet" and "climb/descend flight level 240"!
ES

Badairsucker, Iceman50 and Edmund Spencer, check ICAO Doc4444, 15th edition 2007, 12.3.1.1 and 12.3.1.2.

I know what their supposed to say iceman,

But they are increasingly saying descent TO 8000 ft etc. Listen out on your next arrival.

Apparently there was an ATC briefing in the soup slurping cafeteria at Dragonair 6 months ago. From what I heard in was very informative as to the ATC problems in HK and what they expect from us.

Unfortunately only Level 2 went and the actual users of the system ie the line-drivers were not invited.
Must of been a lot of commercial or more likely checking secrets because no-one from level 2 has ever told the line-drivers what went on. :mad:

I agree, ATC always says "Climb to 9000" on departure when we contact them. There is going to be a problem someday! I have written MOR's on this and asked for a reply from ATC, but have never heard anything in response.

I don't care what ICAO says, STOP SAYING CLIMB TO X THOUSAND!!

Caspar,

I looked up 12.3.1.1 and 12.3.1.2 and there it is in black on white: A requirement to use the word "To" and no requirement to use the word "Altitude" though "Flight Level" is required, the only part has always been clear to everyone, it seems.

I had never heard of the "altitude" prefix until I came to CX, and something always seemed fishy about it.

Thanks.

CAP 413
Chapter 3 - General Phraseology

1.2.3
"However, care must be taken to ensure that misunderstandings are not generated as
a consequence of the phraseology employed during these phases of flight. For
example, levels may be reported as altitude, height or flight levels according to the
phase of flight and the altimeter setting. Therefore, when passing level messages,
the following conventions apply:
a) The word 'to' is to be omitted from messages relating to FLIGHT LEVELS.
b) All messages relating to an aircraft’s climb or descent to a HEIGHT or ALTITUDE
employ the word 'to' followed immediately by the word HEIGHT or ALTITUDE.
Furthermore, the initial message in any such RTF exchange will also include the
appropriate QFE or QNH."

ES

I'm sorry but is this CAP 413 a HKCAD regulation?

I guess Edmund forgot to read the Foreword of CAP413:

My emphasis added. So all you radio police, the aim of communication is to get the message across safely. There are many guides, and they all contain good and useful info. But every local area has their own rules and how they play. If there is a potential for issues, fine, bring it up. Otherwise, you are just being a pedantic prick.

:oh:

The bigger picture
 

According to ICAO Doc. 4444 Pans-ATM, the following is shown in 12-2 "Phraseologies" 12.3.1.2 "Level changes, reports and rates"

"CLIMB (or DESCEND)
followed as necessary by:

1) TO" (level)

Would some of you keen F/Os stop asking me to request lower every time we reach our flight level during step descents in a busy airspace..:mad::mad: There is a reason why the controller has given us that flight level.....we're not the only airplane in the sky!!!! Let him/her get on with his/her job without nuisance and stupid requests....if you end up slightly high big ****!ng deal....I kid you not this one guy was like an automated altitude alerting system, at every 1000' above our cleared flight level..."request lower"....hey Chuck Yeager....you see that crossing traffic on TCAS 2000' below us right????? :ugh::ugh:

Sounds to me like some trainers (&/or line captains) are pushing that. Why else would the FOs be asking?
Suggest taking it up with the training department and get a fleet notice out.

"Clear right"

Jetset

What we have to consider about UK is the low transition level. Having been holding at LAM at FL70 it makes good sense to include the word "altitude" in the descent instruction along with the QNH as this will (should) minimise the chance of error. I can't recall what would be a typical number of step descents below the holding level but I seem to recall it's not that many - standing by to be corrected.

In other parts of the world, Hong Kong for example, the number of step clearances below the (high) transition level tends to be more than LHR from memory. If "altitude" were to be included in each of these step clearances it would equate to over 100 minutes worth of RT usage based on 40 movements an hour for 16 hours and 5 step climb/descent instructions/movement (assuming no repeat instructions) - this in an already busy RT environment.

I tend to use the 'if the controller says "altitude" in an instruction then I'll read back "altitude"' method - it seems to work fine.

STP

Jetset

Another issue in Hong Kong is that we (ATC and flight crews) are mixing conflicting traffic, some using "Imperial feet" and others using (Chinese) Metric altitudes.
Has your "UK" threat and error management group taken this particular issue into consideration? I doubt it.

Phraseologies
 

3.3 The use of metric altitudes and levels in some airspace adjacent to Hong Kong
FIR requires the use of both Standard (feet) and Metric (metres) units within Hong Kong
airspace. To avoid any confusion with level information the following standard
phraseology shall be applied :
a) when referring to an ALTITUDE the unit shall always be specified,
e.g. ‘descend to six thousand feet’ or ‘climb to two thousand seven
hundred metres’;
b) when referring to FLIGHT LEVELS only the METRIC unit shall be
specified, e.g. ‘descend to Flight Level one five zero’ or ‘climb to Flight
Level eight thousand four hundred metres’.

Some better standardisation of terminolgy would have prevented an exchange on the RT I heard about 18 months ago that went something like this:

Connie 123: "Departure, this is Connie 123 with you climbing five".

ATC: "Connie 123, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Climb twenty nine thousand feet Connie 123".

ATC: "Negative, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Roger, climbing to twenty nine thousand".

ATC: "I say again, climb to niner thousand feet".

Connie 123: "Ok, we're climbing to two niner thousand feet, Connie 123."

CX456: "Connie 123, this is CX456. She means climb to altitude nine thousand feet".

Connie 123" "Ah, now we've got it!. Climbing nine thousand feet".

The CX voice was a Brit who was crossing TD inbound at FL110 who obviously didn't want an RA! Admittedly, the Connie aircraft was pretty dull not realising that he shouldn't be cleared to an altitude above transition level, but the whole situation and the threat could have been negated by using standard terminology.

This post is turning to the ridiculous!

For a pilot to not realize that "Climb to" is an instruction, not an altitude seems much more than a "little dull"... When are you ever cleared to climb 25,000 feet upon departure (or arrival) from a busy international airport? Around HK, arrivals are more often descended 2,000 meters at a time starting 150 miles out...

Regarding the calls for standardization, everyone wants two standardize, but they all want everyone else 2 standardize in the manner they are accustomed too. I've watched a few Brits flip out when told "Ground .9 when off" yet Americans understand perfectly. Whose standard shall we pick?

Yes, I do understand the three variants of the word sounding "To" I trust you do two...

Count yourself lucky, Arriving two HK is a treat compared 2 here in DXB!

FR

I always thought Duxby was easy. CLK not too bad but just a little on edge wondering what would happen next - and what the CX board of enquiry would say if it got to that :rolleyes:

I do think the the word 'to' should be dropped.
( . . except when giving a QNH (altimeter) in inches ;) )

WoW:ok:Didn't expect such a response from this post....
Guess I'm not the only one:ugh::ugh::ugh:doing this!

Another comment...
Why does Arrivals and Departures all goto TD....??
Also...After being cleared to 9000 feet, the radio is cluttered enough but to be then told "maintain 9000 feet as traffic above!"...Like no ****!!,,How often do aircraft keep climbing??
Same goes for descent to FL110.....Not long after ATC jams the radio with another pointless call "Maintain FL110 as traffic below!"...Again..no ****!!.U cleared me to this, so I will be a good lil boy and do what u said:mad::mad:

"Emilates 9880, clear for takeoff 07 righ, win 050 at 3 knot, caution NO WINDSHEAR reported"

WTF? :bored: :confused:

All the while Bitching Betty is yelling at us "On RWY 07 right 3200 metres remaining"

halas

Didn't this all come about due to the CFIT near KL quite a few years ago by a cargo operator (Flying Tigers, I think)? Must have been late 80's or early 90's.
"Descend two four hundred feet" was mis-understood to be "Descend to four hundred feet!" If memory serves, it was a highly "experienced" crew who took the offer of an unexpected non-precision approach at the last minute without an adequate brief. Seems incredible that they would have descended to 400 feet QNH when they really had no idea where they were. I haven't revisited the accident report so I am not completely sure of my facts but I seem to remember that it was about then that the standard phraseology was completely re-written.
Hence the dreaded 'altitude' word.
Hardly ideal but is there a better standard we should use?
ES

The Flying Tigers 747 freighter hit the hill where the KL NDB is located on the way into Kuala Lumpur Subang. You can still see where it impacted. There were a lot of factors which led to the accident, but non standard terminology was significant among them.

How about ''Climb to maintain 9000 ft?

My 2c worth:

Climb altitude 9000

Climb FL150