Near miss
 

Why no info here on another near miss between CX and KA a couple of days ago?
Another ATC breakdown due to weather, missed approach and CX calling low fuel therefore leaving controllers with less options.:ugh:

After the missed approach, the CX crew declared that they did not have enough fuel for another approach and made a 180 turn to the opposite direction RWY07 for a visual approach.

That left ATC had little room to recover the situation.

Did the crew follow the rule with that kind of fuel reserve?

hmmm not that uncommon on long haul flights to come in with less than planned fuel especially if ATC is not providing optimal service

OK, I can understand a crew getting into such a situation, especially with the pretty lengthy HKG GA and approach procedures.

If it is as reported, I would have thought it more professional (thinking NUTA - Notice, Understand, Think Ahead) to have advised ATC of the situation so that they could build in an extra couple of miles in the approach spacing or whatever to help avoid the GA in the first place.

TOPBUNK.....

QUOTE "I would have thought it more professional to ... Blah Blah ..." UNQUOTE

Do you base that on having knowledge of the crew having been less than professional?
Otherwise I would have thought it more professional of you to keep hold of ones wise council 'til ya have. Apologies if I've missed something though, just sounded like a comment made by all the non-pilots who have lack the big picture the experience, the details and like to jump to conclusions - we know how none of us like those guys.

I believe there was some bad weather involved on finals with a sudden 30Kts tail wind.
I think the question to ask is why are we declaring a low fuel state if we know there is a chance of a GA. Why not divert early and get more fuel?

Are we not taking too much risk for the company by even operating in low fuel situations?

White None

Thanks for your selective quoting:hmm:

If you re-read my post, the second paragraph begins, "If it is as reported, I would have thought ....."

I also said, subject the above qualifier, " .... I would have thought it more professional..." , ie I didn't say that they weren't professional, but that there was maybe a better way.

However, you are correct in that their actions only need to be justified, if the need arises, to the appropriate authorities (ie not PPrune).

Speculation is something that is bound to occur on internet forums, no-one will ever stop that. I was merely making an observation as to how the near miss may have been avoided by best practise on he flight deck, and yes, I fully understand that sometimes a commander has to make very quick decisions. Was this one of them? I would suspect not necessarily, the expected fuel remaining on landing would have been known, together with its consequent ramifications if a GA was required.

As to my qualifications to comment

TopBunk
Captain B747-400 (retd)

Un-frikken-believable

Is that was happened? Surely, a widebody Airliner at a regular destination (not on a diversion) with a shyteload of (enroute)-alternates around should never end up in a situation like that. :=

Now, if that had happened to Hong Kong Airlines, though, then the media and also this forum would be in high gear again :rolleyes:

Glad it had a lucky outcome.

It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day. I've listened to the tapes and they were a pretty appreciative crew that landed on 07L during/after most unusual circumstances. Forget about all the Monday morning quarterback stuff, the **** hit the fan big time! By the way, the wind change that went through, went from a 10 knot Westerly (RWY 25L/R) to a plus 30 knot Easterly in the space of a couple of minutes.

Really? I don't know all the details, but with fine weather forecast at destination, no expected ATC delays and enough fuel for an alternate such as Macau, would you really divert to an enroute alternate to top up the tanks?

Even if they were running low on fuel at the end of an ULH flight and had to drop the alternate, I'd suggest it would be perfectly reasonable to continue to destination if the forecast & actual weather was fine and there were no expected delays. If you then throw in an ATC delay followed by a go-around then it is not at all surprising they had to call low fuel.

Well done to the quick thinking controller.

Agreed
 

I agree with Buzzbox,

I was number 5 for approach when the wind swung around making r/w 25 out of limits. A lot of orbits in position before landing on 07. The forecast for HK was fine and I would think 90% of flight coming in were on flt plan fuel as I was. The storm over the field was particularly bad and caused some go arounds and a few pilots squawking (cx and Dragon) about fuel. The controllers did a great job fitting them in and we landed with sufficient fuel. Macau was wide open so there wasn't a problem and people are making a big deal out of a normal day at the office.

I don't think Burger boy flys large airliners for a living. Either that or he forgot to engage brain before typing.
I can certainly think of a scenario which would make what the crew did look like a good idea, try this:

He's on minimum gas, ie. enough for Macau. He's first across the threshold as the tailwind hits 30kts. He can then divert straight to Macau but realises that with a 30kt tailwind no one else is going to land behind and they're going to have to change the runway so asks the controller if it's possible to teardrop back on to 07.

Quick thinking by the crew equals 1 saved diversion, less fuel, less time. Pat on the back for quick thinking and big pat on the back to ATC for enabling.

Call me old school, but I don't think I would start my Take Off for a LR Flight with an alternate, which is a stone throw away from my destination. Especially for a sub-tropical destination during a summer day and given the "strange" air space arrangement in HK.

Even if the unfortunate crew encountered some unlucky circumstances during their flight, I find the idea that a Widebody Aircraft had to do a 180 on a go-around agains the traffic and came close to another aircraft, really really uncomfortable.

Without wanting to start a fight or finger pointing, I just sincerely hope that CX and KA start to look into their fuel policy and chose a maybe slightly more conservative (and given the event described above) a safer alternate. Just like many other airlines do.

CX Line Ops keeps a close eye on the weather patterns around Hong Kong and if the forecast is marginal they would normally plan a more distant alternate such as Kaohsiung or Taipei rather than Macau. At the very least the CFP would call for extra holding fuel, which is not subject to payload. The captain also has the discretion to take more fuel if he or she thinks it is necessary, and unlike some airlines, CX does not normally question the captain's decision.

Holding Taipei as an alternate on an ULH flight imposes a significant payload penalty as it requires an uplift of at least an extra 9-10 tonnes of fuel. If CX did that on every single flight regardless of the weather forecast, they would forgo a huge amount of revenue. Consequently, if the weather forecast is good they would normally plan a closer alternate such as Macau or Shenzen.

CX has been operating out of Hong Kong for a long time and they are very familiar with the peculiarities of the weather and airspace, etc. Nothing's ever perfect, but Line Ops are pretty good at adding extra fuel to CFPs when they think it is necessary.

Burger Thing,

How close is Loopdeloop? Very close I think.

Your comments on here must be the reason you don't fly for CX or any other ULH outfit for that matter.

For Long Range flights most companies will plan on the closest alternate possible, providing it is sensible and legal. Merely due to the cost of carrying extra fuel for a more conservative alternate.

Additionally, as you correctly point out, at this time of year in the tropics the weather can be a variable and difficult to forecast beast. For that reason alone, where would you suggest? Because all the possible airfield could be in weather at the moment they are required. That said, if there is a very large cell over HKG, what is the likelyhood of there being one over MFM at the same time? Low, I would suggest.

There are international regulations that cover this type of thing, perhaps you should cast your eye over them before posting on here again.

Additionally, I think you would find it hard to find a CX pilot who has a problem with our fuel policy. We are one of the more conservative and generous outfits when it comes to fuel. Also the Captain has the discretion to add more fuel or to change the filed alternate if he so wishes, even at the expense of offloading payload.

Ask a BA pilot how much contingency he will be given on an HKG-LHR sector. It's a lot less than we get and then we will very often have a recommended extra on top of that. I am reliably informed that BA drop the alternate on many of their ULH flights. I've had to do it once in 17 years.

Before you shoot off about something that you have absolutely no knowledge of engage your brain and STFU!

I have been operating widebodies into HK for years on 3 different airlines. Neither of them had VMMC as a primary alternate EVER. Secondary, yes. Most of the time, ZGGG or as you said, RCKH. In fact, under one aviation authority we operated in the past, VMMC would have not even been legal (too close to the destination).

I know airlines are squeezing every penny out if their ops and putting lots of pressure at time at the crew. It is a shame. :*

I too have been operating widebodies into HK for years on 3 different airlines. All of them would use VMMC as the alternate when conditions warrant it. Which alternate is closer to HKG ZGGG or VMMC? Which aviation authority would not have accepted VMMC as a legal alternate (too close to the destination) but would accept ZGGG which is exactly the same distance from HKG as MFM

As several others have stated above CX fuel policy is conservative and very suitable for purpose. You appear to be talking out of your rear.

The continuing and overriding problems are:

1. The stupid 'glass wall' of 'mainland Chinese' airspace just north of HKG that severely restricts options for vectoring and weather avoidance

2. Inaccurate forecasts from the Hong Kong Observatory. I have been trusting them less and less over the years.

Dart what a load of unmitigated clap trap.
You are a drama queen.
HTFU

One military outfit I am familiar with would not allow an alternate within 25nm of the destination. I always thought that to be reasonable. Of course, an alternate was not required at all unless the forecast weather was below 3000' ceiling or 3 miles visibility. This resulted in a four-ship tear dropping opposite direction on a runway we had all just gone missed off. Good thing all those jets made a hole to land in coming back the other way!

Dart,

In acknowledgement of your edit, I shall do the same.

You make 3 (now 2) really valid observations.

cxorcist,

The Original Air Force had no hard and fast rules in that regard IIRC. The Cottesmore/Wittering and Lossiemouth/Kinloss pairs being cases in point.

If you had read my post properly, I didn't specify any particular airline in the worst case scenario (my iPad won't do 'roll eyes'). In fact those of us with local knowledge are at a distinct advantage. Scenario deleted anyway.

There has already been a multiple TCAS incident involving restricted airspace and weather, now this incident. IF post #2 is correct, my scenario was on the cards...'no more fuel for another approach'.


Damn lucky he was visual.

Burger Thing
 

Old School- surely not.

You have to remember that us "modern pilots" are, frankly, just not as good as the previous generation. The equipment we fly is just a lightweight, inferior, version of what you flew. We overly rely on Autoland, Satcoms and Computer Generated Flight Plans and FMCs to hide the stark truth that we really don't have a clue what we are doing. It is truely amazing that of the many "8 series" call signs (meaning they are coming from the US) we operate every day, not one has splashed into the sea. All considered, this succcess can only be put down to utter luck?

CX and KA are relatively new at operating into this part of the world and to have the ability to tap into your knowledge from 3 different airlines would be of immense benefit. You are correct, RCKH is a rock solid div, open 24/7 with multiple runways and ILS's to burn. However, it is about another 8 Tonnes over VMMC, which equates to about 80 passengers. So my question to you is, when dispatching from NY for a 15+ hour flight at Max Take-off weight, how did you decide which of the passengers you were going to offload to allow for the extra weight of the RCKH fuel? Did you off load, every 3rd passenger, or did you offload the fattest ones or just the cheapskates at the back-end of economy?

As an aside, did any of your 3 airlines go bust by any chance?

Editor's note. Some, if not all, of the above is an attempt to extract urine.

Too much choice!
 

And of course the problem with taking too much fuel over flight plan is that you just end up with too much choice as to what to do. In fact you could just burn it while working out the multiple solutions as you are able to hold for longer and end up in exactly the same situation you could have dealt with an hour or more earlier!

So, Liam, do you think the FAA would give ou a pad on your back for carrying an extra 80 passengers if you did a go around in, let's say O'Hare on RW 10 and swung around during a go around and land with a near miss on RW 27L?

Or maybe the LBA in Germany, if you did the same in FRA?

@SQC 7991 ZGGG is the same distance from HKG as MFM? Really? Man, I never noticed that. I probably need to tell that to my dispatch guys next time. They seem to have their CFPs in error then. BTW, crack pipe much? :yuk:

Burger Thing
 

How about you maintain a modicum of professional courtesy here?

Where in this thread, or anywhere else, is there any evidence to validate the unsubstantiated suggestion that a CX aircraft performed a manoeuvre that caused an airmiss, with the implication they performed such a manoeuvre without clearance and/or due regard for other aircraft?

There is no evidence, is there? Thought not.

BT,
In technical aviation terms you would be referred to as a "Dumbass".

Professional aviation is all about (has always been about) balancing the risk between commericlal expediency, & cutting one's margins too fine. Despite the absolute c**t managers in CX (of which the new GMA is the latest,& biggest!), the crews in CX walk this tightrope better than most, & they do it everyday with no fanfare.

BTW, if you load an extra 10 tons of fuel on a 15hr sector did you know that you will get to destination with only 3 tons of that 10. You knew that already right?..... Dumbass.

Burger King
 

Well done you spotted my mistake - I was thinking of ZGSZ which is the alternate CX uses when VMMC is not suitable (RW16 in use for example) I can't remember the last time ZGGG was filed because if the HKG forecast is poor then we will be using MNL, KHH or TPE. Why would anyone file ZGGG as a HKG alternate when the forecast for HKG is OK? I apologise for assuming you were referring to ZGSZ when you did say ZGGG but still think you're a prat. The days of carrying extra fuel for comfort are long gone and rightly so. In CX if the commander thinks extra fuel is required he loads it and knows he will be supported unless, of course, he is just being a prat!

Indeed. Let's not forget that a great many long haul operators throw away their alternates almost as a matter of course.

Curiously, BT; do the FAA pat United on the back, as a consequence of their comical quantity of 'minimal fuel' arrivals into HKG?

Liam, this must be categorized as "procuring the urine," right? What are the flight numbers from Vancouver and Toronto? 889, 837, 829... last I checked Vancouver and Toronto were not in the US.

Why on Earth would one of these flights have the propensity to splash into the sea any more than any other Cathay flight, because the pilots are American?

I find it unfortunate that so many of us look to company policy or regulations to determine appropriate fuel. For true visual conditions in Hong Kong, Macau or Shenzen alternate fuel is quite adequate. For ****e weather, so little fuel causes unnecessary suction on the seat cushion because you know Hong Kong ATC will be behind the curve getting airplanes in. At least an extra half hour is always warranted if the forecast leaves one wondering. If I know it's going to be really bad, I want enough fuel to go somewhere other than the Chinese mainland. You don't want to have to rely on Chinese ATC. Taiwan is a much better option, and the fuel to get there should be onboard IMO.

It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day.

Having worked at both Kai Tak and Chek Lap Kok as an ATCO (now retired) it still amazes me that there is so much flak directed towards Hong Kong ATC when something out of the ordinary happens in the skies surrounding Hong Kong.

It seems to me, that when a crew makes a miscalculation of fuel requirements, based, admittedly, on their available knowledge, and an unusual manoeuvre ensues because of the miscalculation, then Hong Kong ATC end up with the blame for a situation which is outwith their ability to foresee.

It is also a complete shame, to me, that the contributors to this thread seem solely interested in "Company policy" and so called "professionalism" or otherwise of the pilots concerned and trying to shift the blame, whilst completely ignoring the professionalism of the controllers who rescued the situation and the reputation of an airline.

landrecovery "Another ATC breakdown" due to weather, missed approach and CX calling low fuel.[/B]

Okay, perhaps landrecovery you would like to explain to ATC why they had "another" breakdown? What were all the other "breakdowns" and did you report them to the CAD? Should we report you to the CAD if you didn't report them?

TopBunk "OK, I can understand a crew getting into such a situation, especially with the pretty lengthy HKG GA and approach procedures.

Okay, TopBunk if you understand a crew getting into such a situation, why haven't you voiced your concerns to the safety section of Hong Kong CAD, let alone your own company?

Guys, please tell it like it is. You do your airline and your profession no good by all this "blame game" mentality.

It would be nice if the crew of CPA 8?? could get on here and thank the (expat) controller on AMN (118.2) for pretty much saving their day.

I wonder if they ever did?

OTB

P.S. When I worked at CLK a certain airline used to phone every day to say "unofficially" that they would be "on minimum fuel" when they made first contact.

My legal response when that airline first called was to ask "Are you declaring a fuel emergency?" And when the halting answer came, "Er, yes". The follow up question was: "How much fuel do you have?" And the answer was, normally: "Well, we don't have enough fuel for a missed approach".

The moral: Everything you say is taped. Even phone calls.

"For ****e weather, so little fuel causes unnecessary suction on the seat cushion because you know Hong Kong ATC will be behind the curve getting airplanes in".

Okay cxorcist perhaps you would like to enlighten us why "****e weather and so little fuel" results in Hong Kong ATC "being behind the curve", as you so eloquently put it?

And if you are suffering from"suction on the seat cushion" perhaps you should move back to the rear of the aircraft!

In the meantime, awaiting amplification, I will elect to travel on another "safer" airline.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll pass it on.

SF

I never blamed HKG ATC for anything. IMO, HKG ATC does not handle bad weather very well. That's just the way it is. The extra half hour's fuel I referenced is for what often amounts to unnecessary holding and vectoring. It is not meant to compensate for an inability to land in said weather, but to delay an unnecessary divert decision. Those who don't carry extra gas fly into their divert fuel once the contingency fuel is gone, some of which will have already been used enroute. That's when the seat cushion sucking starts because you are committed to one airport at that point.

PS - We sometimes show up with little gas on top of our divert fuel because the forecasting is not all that accurate in the summer months.

The weather at the airfield can be fine all day (forecast & actual) however if there is weather in the HKG FIR you can now expect delays. I've blown over 45mins of fuel after entering HK airspace, didn't divert around any weather and could see VHHH from before TD all the way around including VMMC to 07L, after landing I asked the ground staff about the weather they said it hadn't rained all day:confused: If the company hadn't loaded the flight plan with the extra gas, I wouldn't have loaded extra based on the forecast. So it's 45mins extra for me now when there are clouds in the sky in the HK FIR :ugh:

And neither do a lot of pilots. I think a lot of the delays are caused by pilots deviating around "weather" when it's really not that bad.

You mean green returns on the radar? Never deviated around THEM at any airline or operation other than Cathay. I think Cathay pilots are scared of ANY radar return.

I'm sorry O.T.B., but unless you retired in the last 18-24 months, you wouldn't be aware of the downward slide in ATC service in the HK FIR.

Not that I blame the controllers - quite simply the system within which they operate is broken. No co-ordination between sectors - 300kt or greater, only to then change frequencies & be told 230kt. Or even worse for fuel economy, 250 kts at 150 miles to touchdown, to then be told on the subsequent frequency to speed up to 300kt.

Add to that, most of the experienced controllers have left, to be replaced by graduates straight out of training. The result is a rapid lowering of total experience. Other than recruiting experienced controllers from outside HK, only time will raise the experience level.

I don't think the bravado of flying through certain radar returns is something to boast about. No-one suspects that their aircraft is going to suffer structural failure if they fly through a bit of green or yellow but that does not mean we should be flying through it. I thought passenger comfort ranked fairly high in running a good airline. Speak to the average joe down the back and many of them are nervous flyers. I have spoken to many people over the years who prefer one airline over another because they say those airlines are 'less bumpy' and at the end of the day, passenger comfort and satisfaction is important. I think that is often forgotten amongst us pilots and fair enough, with that bulletproof door closed it is easy to forget that it isn't just the pilots going on a bit of a fly but actually that there is quite a bit of fuselage full of people also going along for the ride.