ATC DELAYS
 

Can someone from ATC in Hong Kong explain to everyone why are the delays out of control?

First contact with HK ATC reduce speed 250 kts at FIR boundary. Why? If we all do 300 knots we get out of your airspace faster.

If speed reduction is not sufficient the zig zag arrival is the next option, why?

Why is speed not mandated at FIR boundary ensuring all aircraft are at 300 knots. Then 280 knots at SLP with further reductions as per chart.

Why are we vectored off the arrival, sometimes we are less than a 1/2 mile off the arrival, being micro managed?

Captainbusdriver: You'll be lucky to find anyone that is qualified to answer your questions, and to come up with what you want to hear....an explanation that suits you!

I no longer work within the terminal radar environment, just the tower. HK ATC has evolved (?) to the point where the number of expats is fast dwindling to zero. It will only be interested expats that may care to answer you, but I can only think of one, and he probably no longer wishes to comment. The locals are just not interested in sticking their head above the parapet.

In terms of the direct operation of an airliner (placing aside ancillaries such as Flight attendants, Engineers, refuellers, honey-cart operators etc) we have four institutions:
1. The Company
2. The Aircraft Commander (and his tech crew)
3. The authority/company that runs (owns) the airport
and
4. The ANSP (basically ATC)

The interests of (1) are manyfold, but in the long term is to operate (under the mandate of the state licencing authority) an airline that provides safe, efficient and profitable airline services over various parts of the Earth's surface, but to abide by the rules of the licencing authority.

The interests of (2) is to command the aircraft in all it's various permutations and combinations - but to basically, do what he is told (within limits for the safe operation of the plane).

The interests of (3) is to try and make a profit out of the aviation activity that takes place at it's airport, and to this end (apart from endless shops in airport terminals) is reliant on (4) to provide the fiscal fallout, whereby one aeroplane after another (at a busy airport) descends to land, and likewise, one aeroplane after another departs for distant places. How (4) achieves this is of little relevance to (3).

The interests of (4) is to (firstly) try and keep (3) happy; (secondly) to try and keep (1) happy; and unfortunately, (2) is restricted to ..well being the aircraft Commander. In order for (4) to protect itself, it institutes what at times seems like draconian procedures (dictated by people like ICAO) to achieve the safe, orderly and expeditious movement of air traffic through it's airspace. In order to achieve this, people called controllers are employed, but they are a bit like (2) above, sort of along for the ride, and to do what they are told.

So the prime aim of the ATC group as a whole, is to get one aeroplane after another comfortably and safely through it's area and airport. As traffic increases, it is of little concern to the controller(s) whether or not (2) above is inconvenienced or p****d off as to how this is achieved.
Different issues are thrown into the equation, which includes personalities, competence, weather etc.

You asked in your brief: "Can someone from ATC...." Well, I do (partially) quallify, but do not have the recent experience with terminal radar to answer in depth your concerns. I doubt that anyone else will. I do know that after some 42 years as a controller, the only real thing that has changed in that time, is that far more traffic is now handled per individual, than was the case 30 or 40 years ago. People come up with all sorts of fancy ideas like free flight, Continuous Descent Procedures etc, but they are only practical in lightly travelled airspace. The one thing that amazes me is that since the carriage of R/T equipment in aircraft, and people on the ground to talk to the crews, R/T per-se has not changed since it's inception.

Anyway, I'm out of here in the not too distant future, so I don't think you will hear too much from HK ATC. Apologies for boring you.

ps "delays out of control" is a subjective assessment, but I'm sure that if any of your mates wish to add to this discussion, then this description will
see further light of day.
ps(2) Nearly all of the locals recruited for ATC training in HK have little or no background/interest in aviation. This doesn't mean though that most aren't capable of performing their tasks with dilligence and competence. Many have barely been exposed to flight deck operations.......So think about it!

Thanks BB

Good post my friend.

CX Pilot

Thanks
 

Thanks for the post.

I am guessing none of the newer crop will stand up then.

Captainbusdriver.
Long time out of HKATC but I'll try and I was in the tower so it's a bit of a guess.
250kts is probably to achieve in-trail spacing from TM-Sectors into approach.Basically streaming the flow.

Zig-Zag was used for approach.If there were too many aircraft it often was a big conga round the south of HK.I would prefer to take 2 or 3 and stick them in an inner hold,to lessen work-load,and it's what I taught in the UK.Basically keeping the spacing to hand-off to Fin director to fine tune it.

Speed control is an art.Every aircraft has different speed,and airlines have different SOPs for the same aircraft.Try putting turboprops and helis into the mix.But this is HK so that the way they do it:ok:

1/2 mile off track.well that's just vectoring to achieve accurate final approach spacing.On most radar screens you would be hard pressed to spot that,but the Fin director has to get the spacing right.Either min vortex,or min radar/arrival spacing.If CLK were on single runway that could be 8 miles.

BB has a very relevant point about the expats leaving.Most of them are late 50's and 60's so the experience level is huge.With the locals doing a lot more,then that experience is lost as they retire.This has been shown when the operation comes off the rails mainly in bad weather.
I heard an interesting one about locals taking over in a certain middle east country.They are passed because they don't have much traffic,got good weather,and TCAS.(AND GOD as the last last defence:ugh::ugh:)
HK has traffic,crap weather,and TCAS has saved the day more than once.Not saying that the locals can't do the job.Just that when the experience is needed they are lacking.
Do you think that all the HK airlines will ever have local only pilots.:hmm:

We departed HKG two days ago after an unprecedented "4 minutes delay per aircraft" on calling delivery. Some aircraft were 30 or 40 in sequence with associated 2 to 3 hour delays for start clearance...

As we have a number of active HKG ATC on this board, can anyone comment?

The weather wasn't that extreme, apart from an isolated (small) cell at RUMSY. China flow control, I understand. Single runway ops in TPE I get too. Across the board, I don't get.

Sounded like the day to avoid CDC.
The whole area needs a CFMU a'la Brussels.The company then gets the slot and a CTOT is produced for ATC.It is then up to ATC to get that aircraft airborne in the slot.
The present system is one controller often inexperienced trying to figure out all this crap while 40 aircraft fume on frequency.You might have no delay but at number 35 you are going to have to wait until there is time to figure that out.It was a relic 30 years ago,and the CAD should be ashamed that this stone age ATC still exists.:=

Bedder believeit,

Thank you very much for your post which is fully backed up by your 42 years experience as a controller. Trying to find that elusive balance between all the stakeholders and yet unable to communicate effectively with anyone but the front-end operational workers must have had it's frustrations.

We appreciate your lifetime efforts to improve the system and safety of aviation.

And I am sorry that you missed out on your Mirage ride all those many years ago..!

Hi Bedder,

Great post. But first, I've enjoyed all your posts over the years and I sincerely hope you enjoy your retirement. It took me about 2 years to clean my lungs after leaving CLK.

I'm too long gone from HK now to comment on the current practices, but what most of the flying community are unaware of is the level of traffic movements at HK. I was amazed to see the latest aircraft movement statistics for April 2013.

Civil Aviation Department - Hong Kong International Airport , Civil International Air Transport Movements of Aircraft, Passenger and Freight (2001 - 2013) - Aircraft

An increase of nearly 50% since I left HK and what still amazes me is that the rate of monthly increase in traffic is still c.5%.

So, just to break the latest April statistic down a little. 30,530 movements, and let's not forget this is just Hong Kong Airport movements, it doesn't include all those overflights into Macau, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and the rest.

30,530 movements for April breaks down to roughly 1,017 movements a day or 42 movements for every hour of the 24 hours for every day of the month. That's landings and take offs. Well, the maximum number of movements that can be scheduled every hour is determined by the HK Scheduling Committee.

HKG Schedule Coordination Office - Capacity Declaration

If you add all the runway movement numbers up it comes to 1,320. Therefore, there is unused capacity of 303 movements per day. Or, if you look at it another way, if there were an extra 303 movements per day, Hong Kong would have reached absolute capacity.

Now, if all pilots arrived at their scheduled time, then, in theory no holding would be required. Unfortunately, life isn't quite so accommodating and if some airlines arrive early or some late, then delay is inevitable.

Returning to the statistics briefly. A 5% increase on the current movement rate of 30,530... well, I'll let you do the maths, but you can see where we're going here.

"Zig-zagging" and "speed control" are tactical flow control measures used for sequencing and only work when the movement numbers allow its implementation. Beyond a certain point it is easier for everyone to just enter the hold. So, as a general rule of thumb, if you are being vectored or speed controlled, the controller is working his best to avoid you going into the hold. Once you're in the hold it's 6 minutes to get back to where you started (time it if you don't believe it). An orbit will take you 4 minutes. If ATC require a 3 minute loss of time.....well, again you get the picture.

captaindbusdriver, whilst I appreciate your frustrations, do take the time to visit the ATC Centre, before it moves off-airport, if you haven't already and see for yourself the "whole picture" and have a chat to the remaining Gweilos. But the bottom line is that CLK wasn't built in an ideal location and hasn't got nearly enough runways, but the controllers do their level best to make the best of a bad situation.

Bedder believeit Have a great retirement :ok: and if you are ever in Northern Europe look me up.

All the best, On the beach (and staying here)

P.S. Had another ex-HK Ozzie ATCO from Perth drinking me out of house and home last week! :{

Any idea how I can organize a trip to the ATC center??

this is a Hong Kong "local" area controller here

[this post is edited to take back an offending statement to an honourable colleague 'bedder believeit. cause was a misunderstanding to his post above, this is my sincere apology to this experienced and kind-hearted controller.]

I hate to distinguish controller here by local and expats, I distinguish dull and smart controller, and in my career, although not very long I've been in this just five to six years, I've seen lots of good expats and local controllers, and I've also seen lot of reckless and cocky ones on both sides too. So let's face it, there're good ones and bad ones, but there're not a necessary correlations.

for the delay in HK, I don't understand why people could imagine flying into TMA all the way with 300kts or 280kts while there're already holdings in the TMA. According to my communications with pilots on the frequency, they like to reduce the speed and make the entry gate time (e.g. MUSEL/MANGO) rather than spending long time in the holding pattern, not to mention being given a cardiogram-style doglegs. And I believe everyone here accept the fact that yes, there is traffic jam and the runway is already being fully utilized, so micromanagement as mentioned must be done to achieve such a fine-tuned results. Any of us think we could just let the aircraft fly on the STAR on their own and by just giving speed ATC could achieve the same landing rate as today?

Will write more when I have time, meal time now.

For a start bhead.....
Get rid of the stupid procedure of "first to the FIR boundary is first in the sequence". Ridiculous speed control on 777's and 747's when a much slower tiny little plane is 2 miles ahead of it, is the cause of half the problems in HK. :ugh:

there is no such procedure, first to boundary is nothing. appreciate discussion but not assumption here.

"half the problems", it is a very brave assumption either, don't mind discuss particular case, but it doesn't help saying thgs with such attitude. and it would be a super easy job to work if this tiny little problem is really "half the problems".

so i try to be concrete regarding the example u raise here,

say, if the ground speed is close by 20kts only, it takes 6 minutes to close the 2 miles, and for area controller they need 10 miles separation to let traffic descend through each others' level. this is JUST an example, and I am sure if there are no delay for all traffic, bigger aircraft like u said 777 and 747s are to overtake smaller "tiny little plane" , to me tiny means anythg other than Boeing, Airbus, russian made aircraft, private jet, we can see in hk.

BUT, if there are delay, without that tiny flight in front, you have to be delayed no matter what and the speed control is not really a control solely for sequencing the traffic but also for delay, which is not as easily to be comprehensible as on the TCAS than on the radar screen in the control centre I am sure.


Once in a while, I meet controllers who assume pilots are stupid, who assume what pilots are thinking and doing, I think that sucks. And likewise, the other way round sucks too. I believe both sides are well trained professionals, and both sides takes years to get trained up and it is not really easy to just say "look, they do this and that and that's wrong". Welcome discussion, but finger-pointing just for the sake of relieving is time-wasting.

Not to mention the absolute chaos that would ensue if the radar failed!!
Nightmare!!

Totally agree jizzmonkey. I understand that a hold takes at least 4 minutes when ATC may need a 2 or 3 minute adjustment. I also understand that ATC have to deal with the disaster of an airspace system that we call China. But once under radar vectors, profile management goes out the window as we now have no idea what ATC intentions are. Most of us will then hit v/s 500ft per min as we know we are going to get dragged in. I too am a big fan of EGLL ATC. Maybe a hold or two at lambourn and then in you go. You would never know you are at one of the busiest airports in the world. Before we get too overly critical of HK ATC though, just pause and remember your last arrival into Shanghai, where you've had 3 runway changes and ATC( I use the term loosely here) have just instructed you to descend at max rate to 3912ft with 30 NM DTG......

Thanks bhead for your example. I have ATC colleagues who assure me there is nothing they can do about the above mentioned practice. 20 knots closure will very easily become 40 or 50 knots when you a) slow the slower a/c and give it a heading, and b) accelerate the faster a/c...... As for what's happening on the other side of the FIR we don't know, granted, but I certainly agree with the idea of putting us all in a hold at LIMES for example. The new standard ATC phraseology at the FIR boundary 250-300 miles out " reduce to 250 knots", " reduce to minimum clean speed", is terribly inefficient and unnecessary.

Nice seeing all the replies here. Thanks for welcoming guys.

Don't have time to write a long one now, let me put it like this.

Agree with you guys, and this is also my ways of doing, putting aircraft in the hold and give'em an enroute clearance time, rather than vectoring them all over the sky, which i believe is way better for pilots and for controllers too coz it's more organized and systematic.

For me, I do it like this

I will check with pilots, if they can meet the entry gate time just by early descent and speed reduction, I will give an early descent and let pilot fly their own speed to hit the gate at the right time.

If they are unable to do so, I will plan to put'em into the hold, BUT, it doesn't mean 300kts all the way to enter the hold, and to my observation if I tell them they are going to be hold say at MUSEL, they are happy to slow down before entering the hold rather than rushing to join the hold. So guys here please let me know if I were incorrect?

Another thing to consider is, if the delay is 2 - 4 minutes, even an orbit is too much for the delay and imagine how a one minute unplanned delay for an aircraft from one sequence (Hong Kong has three sequence stream in TMA MUSEL,MANGO,CANTO) could ruin the plan of the overall flow. For four minutes, I would give an orbit, but more often than not tthe orbit is more than four minutes provided the wind and to my observation different airline operators. For 2 - 3 minutes, I will do it by early descent and speed reduction, more often than not it would be enough otherwise just a little dogleg would do and I think pilot wouldn't mind doing it.

For how the flow control computer work, would like to share my observation and idea later, it's a big topic and I am sure a pretty much same nuisance to controllers as to pilots. But meal time now again, laters guys.

before leaving for meal, some more,

hello, crwkunt roll

totally agree, if there are just two aircraft in the vicinity, yes I can slow down the one ahead and accelerates the one behind. what if there were few to follow and of different type mix? that's crazy workload sometimes, although sometimes it would also facilitate the overall plan.

i respect pilots, but, i really want to show pilots how we do it so they can understand more, likewise I like to sit in the cockpit just to observe.


and, delay is "inefficient" by its nature, reducing speed under optimum speed is inefficient we know about it, and we are talking traffic jam here, if we insist efficiency during significant traffic jam are we too Utopian-tic?

I would far rather go min clean at the FIR and then suffer 1 hold compared to charging in at the company standard, inefficient 300 kts and then sit in the hold for 2 laps!