Well I for one, would like to thank the large numbers of guys in ATC who are shortly to retire, for giving me that feeling of 'Its nice to be home' as I get back to the HK FIR.
It is a shame such a wealth of experience is about to walk out of the door, the last few years have already shown a decline in the overall ability of the system to manage an increasingly busy airspace. This is evidenced moreso when bad weather puts a spanner in the works, and the new local controllers relevant lack of experience becomes glaring in the cluster f@ck that often ensues.
It is a great shame that the govt has not, and still does not, appreciate the value of experienced expat controllers, and has been content to let this experience pot slowly empty.
Like many situations, it's only when someone goes to the cupboard and sees that it's bare, will they realise their error.
I'll certainly miss ol' gravel voice whose tolerance with Chinese carriers stuffing up always gives us a laugh when he gives them a serve.
Enjoy retirement guys.

On the subject of crew not managing timings, I'm not sure about the 777, but for the CX Airbus', lack of making an allocated time would be pure laziness, apathy or don't know how to do it accurately-itis. In general, with free range of speed and/or the clearance to adjust the hold to say pass over Mango at 55, the 'bus can if some cerebral effort is put towards the task, easily make a TOT of +\- 5 secs. The -400 can often do the same, so I would have thought 777 should be better/easier to make an exactly on time Time over fix.

The 'bus and triple can. The -400 can't.

They're too busy working out 3x tables.

Savin' 250 Kg of gas while the hold chews 2000

Go senior fleet.

Woohoo!!

Can somebody in ATC explain why we continuously get the sort of handling we've had in the last 2 days?

1. Approaching MANGO, 280 knots, FMS says landing time 44.
Approach controller: Track Direct Limes. :ok: Landing time now 42
5 miles later, reduce to 230 for sequencing :confused: Landing time back out to 44
10 miles later Turn left 290 for sequencing Reduce to 210

Why were we ever given dierct Limes in the first place?????

2. Approachng Siera. Given Siera 6 C arrival - long one.
After tracking to Borda for about 8 miles - Track direct Murry :confused:
Call Approach at Murry. Track direct Limes. :confused::confused:
Next transmission just leaving F120: Reduce speed to 220 knots! :confused::confused::confused:

Can somebody explain the logic going on there in those two cases? Or is there no logic???

Cafe
There could be 50 different reasons for what you say and got. But I doubt that any explanation would satisfy you. Hundreds of words have been written in various threads about sequencing, but the same old s**t keeps coming up. All I can say to you is:" How far ahead (both in time and distance) did the preceding aircraft land before you, and how far behind (in time and distance) did the following aircraft behind you land?" You're not the only bird in the sky and sequencing is not the only issue here.

I vote for Mach to IAS..
Youd fit perfectly in a Cathay flight deck..oh wait a sec..you are one of them:rolleyes:

Jungle Drums......really? If you were so confused i hope you put in an ASR!

My vote's with de facto!

Bedder
 

Yes, We landed between 4 and 5 miles behind the preceding I recall but HOW that was achieved is the problem.
You can't just point aeroplanes at the runway at 12,000 ft and 35 miles to run and then bark a speed reduction at them. The laws of physics just don't allow that. i thought that's the sort of thing you guys/girls are taught? Maybe not any more.
Its just the totally incoherent and incongruous combination of thinking that has me baffled sometimes. It often feels like we are just pointed at the tail of the aeroplane in front without regard to really how far in time/distance we really need to travel.
Please, i'm all ears. Feel free to add to the thousands of words that have already been written. I simply don't believe some controllers are thinking logically from an aircraft performance point of view sometimes.

Yep Cafe, I see your point. Sorry, you will just have to wear the "frustrated" label for the rest of your HK flying career. Can't see things changing a lot. It's a bit troubling to read commments like "Jungle's" which point to a lack of appreciation by some of the differences between the various ways in which the speed of an aeroplane (jet) through the air/over the ground can be measured, and the effect that these speeds have on aeroplane manoeuvreability (I never could spell that word). Goodnight

In my humble opinion, ATC takes direct control over you with speed, height and routing instructions to reduce the number of variables that would otherwise come into play when a pilot conducts his own version of a standard STAR.

Yes there are many different ways to skin a cat and we inventive pilots just love to experiment with every variation...there are enough problems of standardization in our own airline let alone with every other International visiting airline,

ATC's job is to maintain safe traffic separation and satisfy a myriad of different parameters whilst getting you to land at a specific time and distance from other traffic.

Our job as pilots is to comply as accurately and quickly as possible with ATC instructions. That makes both ATC's job and our job easier.

If you don't like the way ATC do it, consider transferring from piloting to air traffic.

This is the problem, you think everything is fine as you got the arrivals spaced as you wanted. Our goal as pilots is to fly efficiently and when you get a big shortcut you have to get rid of a lot of energy, this is not an issue if it is a true shortcut but to then be given vectors or other time increasing instructions it is just a huge waste of fuel. It annoys a lot of us as it appears to be an incompetent method of ATC, simple as that. The end result may be ok for you but it always leaves us thinking WTF was that all about, why a shortcut then a vector, why increase speed then a vector, why slow down then a shortcut, why speed up to enter a hold.

Cafe City,

The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good ****. Carrying out a night landing at Chek Lap Kok in a T10 with a 30knot crosswind and all your alternates outside limits allows you one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time.

Now what was that you were saying about vectoring and speed control - Yawn.

On the beach

Sloppy
That's the point of the exercise for ATC, stop whining and just do as you are told and save us the "we are trying to fly efficiently" bull.

Anyone would think from the self-righteous indignation here that some of the pilots complaining about ATC delays were substantial shareholders of the airline they work for.

Even the thread's title has an angry red emoticon.

Who cares about an issue which is essentially between the Hong Kong government and the 'mill owners'? You haven't had a pay rise for years, management-flight crew relations have been dreadful since the mid 1990's, new pilots are being recruited on appalling terms and conditions, and the only bonus you get these days is your overtime.

To the Hong Kong ATCO's, I personally prefer 'min clean' from the boundary then twice around the hold, one for the tax bills and the other one for myself.

Ta,

C.D.

What happened to ATCers joining us on famil trips?

I like those because magically that particular flight number gets the perfect arrival :}

I'm joking for those that don't get it!

However a TPE or Manila turn arriving during a peak time into HK would be useful to both parties and perhaps then published in some sort of "company magazine" :ok:

Quite agree Capt Dart. We don't get any cost of living rises for years and watch the Team Leaders take 35-55% pay rise in one year alone. One hold earns about HK$250 if in overtime ( or should I say EFP). Couple of those each inbound flight adds up. And one can always look forward to a re-fuel in VMMC if the flight plan was too mean.

Famil flights and ATC visits
 

A few weeks ago I offered to conduct a number of groups (maximum of three per group) of flight crew around the ATC complex, on what I hoped would be, more than a casual walk through, to see operations in the tower and radar centre. This was to be conducted in my own time. I received about 10 expressions of interest and finally was able to gather together a small group (three) of CX pilots, who fitted into my time frame and theirs. As it was, the three that came along got a pretty good look at ATC in Hong Kong. I think we were together for about 4 hours all told. Not too many flight crew are prepared to put in the effort to use that much of their spare time. The ten past ten AEL (after a quick dash from bay E17) beckons.
LIkewise, it can be difficult for controllers to get the famil trips that would be so advantageous. The issues involved include time, apathy, red tape, a feeling of insecurity/uneasiness - particularly among the more junior controllers, and just no one to give them that "push". Well my apologies to "IGS" as he has done a hell of a lot to get young controllers on to flights over times past, but he is effectively "gone". Part of the problem is that famil flight excursions are required to backed by a report, and in my mind, this should be scrapped. It would be good if rated ATC's were "forced" to join the flight deck, but that's not happening. Quite a few of the very junior controllers that go on a trip are either not yet rated and thus have (with due respect) not a great deal to offer you. It's good to see young people like b-head (who has contributed on this thread) to be showing so much enthusiasm for flight deck travel. I know some crews resent having a "visitor" on board, and I recall my own feelings of uneasiness when I was a 20 year old trainee controller and told by some grumpy Ansett 727 -100 Captain to "sit there and shut up" all the way from Brisbane to Darwin and back. A bad example, I know, as I don't think that sort of mentality is prevelant these days.

My advice to ATC Management:
1. Introduce a system whereby ATC's need to go on a famil trip annually.
2. Does not have to submit a report.
3. It's fine for Student controllers to ride, but the emphasis should be on rated controllers
4. If at all practical, the controllers should be in pairs, so that a feeling of "S**t I'm all alone against these guys" doesn't erode their confidence.
6 The flight needs to be in CAD's time, not the Controllers own.
7. I've heard from some recent (junior) controllers on famil trips that they have been forced to stand and wait clear of the aerobridge (by groundstaff) to board after the pax. To me this is bull****. The flight starts (well it should) when the cockpit master switch is turned on, and much of the interesting part of the flight is taken up by preflight preparation. The visitor should be a part of this.

Sorry...too many words, in the space of a few words "It's the bureaucracy"

As a long time CX pilot I just want to thank all ATC controllers for the good job they have done. The majority of CX pilots dont really care whether you speed us up or slow us down, vector us left or right, as long as we land safe. I don't give a sh.t if I arrive 2 minutes late or 2 minutes early. The days of straight in, high speed are over.

From 99% of CX pilots I thank you and keep up the good work under difficult circumstances. :D

Seconded!, good job chaps!

I agree with Panza - for the most part the job done by Hong Kong ATC is top-notch. Has there been a decline in the general experience level - undoubtably - but they are still getting the job done safely and efficiently in some of the most complicated airspace on this planet. I have been flying your skies for many, many years and I thank you for your service and professionalism. I also agree that ninety percent of my fellow aviators feel exactly as I do. I have conducted thousands of sectors into and out of Hong Kong - both airports - and never a single accident or serious incident. To me it feels safe to come home.

I managed to get a pilot who I knew into the radar simulator in the UK,and he had a go at radar.We then simulated exactly what his airline does,free call in Class G in a Saab 340 FL80 250kts.The one that throws the plan you had in the bin.
The beads of sweat were forming when Gweilo Regional XXX called up,so all he could think of was ''Gweilo XXX Bug**r off''.The sim guy readback ''Gweilo XXX bug**ring off'' but let the contact continue inbound right up to the zone boundary.
Then the sim guy said ''Gweilo XXX bug**ered off but now were back''.
My friend learned a great deal about being a radar controller that day,and was as good as gold from that day on.