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!

You drive on the interstate to get home at 110 km/hr , you get to the city limits and you don't expect to maintain 110 km /hr to your suburban drive way ? We divert around weather but its ok to fly through cloud .

When I was in HKATC in 3.3years I never saw any inner hold used once,despite almost hourly the great conga line forming to the south.It seemed that to use an inner hold was a failing of some sort.No we can give 3 million headings,confuse the pilots,get an overloaded frequency,but isn't HKATC doing a great job.Well not really.
The likes of Heathrow operate the way they do because the airspace is very tight.If they operated a great conga to the south then they would be in Gatwick airspace,which operating 50+ an hour on a single runway.:uhoh:
HK operate in their way because that's how they have always done it,not because it's the most efficient.
Also inside 50 miles most turboprops will always beat a jet,so small aircraft aren't necessarily slower.
Back to my garden in the fresh air to use a HK luxury item.A lawnmower.:ok:

Thanks all
 

Thanks for the information everyone.

CAD must stop issuing slots then. If the airport is almost at capacity.

Every working day I am in and out of HK. So I have to endure delays caused by Weather, China, Chinese airforce, and more recently HK ATC flow management because the CAD are issuing too many slots. Maybe someone in the office should be looking at the overall delays being experienced here. I personally think it is out of control.

The FIR bounday speed I suggested earlier was to have all aircraft at the same speed and mandate it as such. I do observe both mainlan carriers and carriers from the Phillipines at lower speed then most other operators.Subsequently all following aircraft are slowed down. Without the corporate aircraft, all other jet aircraft have similar decent speeds. I have flown both Boeing and Airbus aircraft in Hong Kong and would say without turbulent days these aircraft can all do 300 kts on descent. Tis wouls have aircraft move through all sectors faster, allow us to stay at the higher speed longer. Then a speed limit point for starting the star and one for starting the approach. This would seriously reduce congestion and stacking of flights. If you can have us at 250 kts all the way in, I am sure the extra speed would just make everything move faster.

The zig zag delay manoeures need to stop. The amount of controlling required for this manouvring is crazy. What happens if we do have a radio failure? 10 aeroplanes dancing in the sky on zigs and zags.

Give us a time to leave mango etc and EAT issue this information at first contact at FIR. Adjust speed as reuired hold etc and ensure your aircraft is at point on time.

These delays are going to cause more problems for Airlines. Inefficiency fuel cost lost crew times compensation paid to passengers. etc etc etc.

Maybe the slot person needs to start considering these things before issuing new slots. Redsign airspace around HK as well.

Thanks for posting here bhead. I think one of the main reasons pilots who operate into HKG a lot think the ATC is not that great is because the instructions given often make no sense to us at all. Today we were asked to reduce ground speed by 20kts which we did our best to achieve. We were then given a vector about 60 degrees off our track for spacing, from this vector we were cleared into the hold with an expected departure time 20 minutes from the current time. To a pilot this reeks of incompetence, why not just clear us into the hold higher than the aircraft we are following rather than spacing us from it to enter the hold? I know I don't have the whole picture but no matter how hard I try I cannot figure out why we need to slow our groundspeed and be vectored just to enter the hold.

Question.
Do HKATC operate inbound delays less than 20 mins is regarded as no delay and no EATs are issued.Only delays in excess of 20 mins then you get an EAT.
If not,why not?
If they do then the delays that seem to be experienced with 250kts and a bit of vectoring is less than 20 mins,so that's no delay.
Where's the strimmer.:cool:

Interesting thread...

Even though I've been knocked about by HK ATC many a times...often with no logic at all, it is still seamless compared to much of the globe. Try delays with certain Arab countries with not even a tenth the traffic of HKG. Having to reduce speed and get vectored around with no known traffic making it look like the controllers taking you on some desert tour or using you for future separation practice!

I take my sandy dishdash off to you HK towerboys! :ok:

Visit to HK ATC
 

Early in this thread, "flapsdown" asked about a visit to ATC. It's my opinion that a visit should not be a fleeting rush through the centre/tower but should include sitting in and listening to the controllers for at least an hour. As there are three main areas of activity: Tower, En-route and Terminal (Approach) the visit should cover at least 4 hours (one hour each in each area), not counting travel. I would have to do it on a day off, and due to the limitations of the shuttle bus timetable from the terminal to ATC, you would need to lay aside a minimum of five hours. I have PM'd flapsdown to contact me but as yet he has not done so. I will give him until midnight tomorrow (Tuesday) and he has a spot. The priority (first in), if there is any interest for two more spots would be: captaindbusdriver; aislinn; Cpt. underpants; silberfuchs; flexible response; crwkuntroll; jizzmonkey; Mr Claus; 744 dry and sloppy joe. If flapsdown does not come back to me, then three from the above are welcome. If the three spots have not been filled by midnight Thursday 23rd, offer will then be open to any one else that might be interested. You can pm me and I'll pass my contact details

Just re-confirming, only show an interest if you're prepared to spend at least 4 to 5 hours for the total trip. If there is a response, I will return to this thread and advise status.

ATCers thanks for contributing.

I have to agree with what's been said, the zig zagging has to stop purely for the amount of wasted radio chatter the amount of missed calls, stepped on calls, wrong call signs, miss understood instructions, repeats etc etc is nuts, and throw in weather and then the multiple read backs for minor heading changes, it's endless chatter.

Can we not all just be sent to the hold at whatever speed descend one at time and leave the hold, London amazes me it's constant in order instructions that are almost identical for every aircraft, which we like as we can plan ahead.

However tonight would not have worked the hold at abbey was basically shut down by passing thunderstorms (luckily the lightning allowed a good visual definition of the cb's) we self adjusted a little before getting ATC approval from a 10nm leg to 8 to 5 to almost an orbit before being unable to hold, then the TCAS looked like someone had dropped a box of cockroaches planes were literally crossing in all directions doing left/right orbits south of abbey.

Would it be possible to fly to a different hold as the weather from the north made the abbey arrival very chaotic?

On the topic of speed control, we descended at 340-350kts the other day to try and put distance between us and a company Airbus, I doubt he had to do any zig zagging and he landed straight after us even though we arrived on top of each other at ELATO. Is there any way to accelerate the earlier arrivals away from the rush behind ie if the rush kicks off at 1pm can the 1200 arrivals be sped up to 330+ kts to create a buffer to last as long as possible? It worked that day, and I understand it wasn't busy however we did this of our own accord ATC didn't ask us to fly 340kts, had we done nothing I imagine we would have both got the zig zag, undoubtedly we would have been put behind.

Rgds.

Thanks for posting some good information bhead. You've obviously thought about the big picture here rather than just looking at a bunch of blips on a screen. Well done. Us pilots (well, most of us) appreciate the ATC inputs here.

A few things you said caught my eye

Probably true, but the other factor involved here in HK could also be experienced and inexperienced.

Absolutely!! Give me a target time for a gate. Doesn't have to be MUSEL/MANGO/CANTO, any point will do (ABBEY/BETTY/GUAVA/MURRY/LIMES etc etc). You can even give me an expected touchdown time to help me to help you. Pretty much every aircraft arriving in HK has a modern FM that tells us estimates for each waypoint. Give me a time, and I'll be there. If it's unachievable, then it becomes my responsibility to tell you so, then you have the opportunity to hold or zig-zag me. Assuming everyone arrives at their gate +/- 1 minute, the approach or director controller can fine-adjust with vectors (either cut the corner, or send us a little wider), or speed control, or even give us a further gate time at LIMES.

Much simpler, much less radio chatter, much less workload for both us and controller, much more fuel efficient.

Nice seeing all the sensible replies and questions, pretty tired after working on a weather day but Sloppy Joe raised a very common questions among pilots, this was also a question when I was first started working ATC and hold, why care to do so much (speed control, vector for spacing) before we send traffic into holding pattern?

there is a point,

because when we (ATC) give level clearance, the separation we think is ATC separation is 10nm/5nm depends on how far away u are from the radar head. so very often even when pilots reports visual and clear from a traffic, we still have to wait until we got 10 or 5 lateral nm to issue a clearance.

an example here,

traffic A and B inbound via ELATO, A preceding, B follows by 6nm, B catches up by 20kts. So one of the way to do it is, once B inbound, i reduce it by 20kts, then the 6nm gap can be maintained, but only maintained (not widening)

If I wana descend both traffic to FL260 reach by MAGOG which is the waypoint I hand off the traffic to the controller who do the holding, I cannot give the clearance to them in one go, i have to do step descent, i.e. the clearance to the traffic at higher level only to be cleared above the traffic at lower level, which is not very ideal for pilot and controller. so ideal way is put them 10nm in sequence with similar speed similar profile (talk about profile after this paragraph), all reach FL260 by MAGOG, hand off to another controller, then the next controller can clear all traffic all the way down to the level for holding say FL160 by ABBEY, second FL170 by ABBEY, at abbey join the hold.

About profile, we all knows same speed (IAS) at higher level means higher ground speed. So if we are to sequence traffic of very significant vertical profile it is a headache, coz for example if A is at FL300, be given 250kts, B at FL360 be given 250kts, B would still be catching up A until B gets down to a certain lower level, and bcoz lower IAS is no good for rate of descent the aircraft will be high and drifting down and always catching up the lower traffic in front. So for that we have to do speed control and vector, my principle is, vector for spacing, speed control to maintain the gap.

But what if there are more than A and B in the sequence....and what if they are not in-trail, what if we have to consolidate two streams into one for example in HK we've to consolidate DOTMI and ELATO traffic into one stream, where the westerly wind has so much effect on ELATO inbound and not really much effect on DOTMI traffic until they make the right turn? And for the vertical profile, even if I work nicely like 5 traffic from ELATO , 10miles in trail no catch up all going to MAGOG reaching FL260 by MAGOG, and then a DOTMI traffic comes up at a position which is better be inserted into number 3 or 4 in the ELATO sequence? and remember HK has no control until the traffic pass DOTMI and that traffic is at FL320, which by profile is always higher than it should be (i.e. always way higher than all the ELATO traffic)......................................all these and that....

Maybe a bit messy on this post, not very organized, but happy to clarify.



Or to make it more "first-hand", try this,

just all ELATO traffic inbound to HK, 5 aircraft A B C D E

All 3 miles apart

A - A322 FL320
B - A322 FL360
C - B744 FL300
D - A333 FL400
E - B744 FL380

need 10 miles at MAGOG, reach FL260 by MAGOG, speed at MAGOG has to be 250kts

ATC separation 10nm

how can u do it? (for simplicity we have omitted all overflight traffic north and southbound to and from DOTMI, no VHHH departure, no weather) I think that's enough to reflect a little bit of complexity here.


Afterall, really nice seeing we have a discussion going on here rather than finger-pointing.

"Probably true, but the other factor involved here in HK could also be experienced and inexperienced."

Know what u mean.

But I just couldn't agree that expats means the only experience here in hk and when they leave it means "oh all the experience is leaving and Hong Kong ATC is going to collapse". To my knowledge, local controllers are not the minority in HK ATC for decades, i.e. there are many locals who are experienced, been working for over 15 yrs, so to say the "experience" has been relied on the expats for all these years is unfair.

But having said that, if we put too big an equal sign between experience and competency, we're also very unscientific/unrealistic. Who was the main cause of the Tenerife (forgive my spelling) accident? The captain.

For this "out of control" feeling , "expats leaving and hk gona collapse feeling", my feeling is that the exponential traffic growth is the main killer in recent years, the growth is not only about hk airport movements, but also the growth of overflight traffic into china and from china,which is always not mentioned or identified by any bodies, with all the metric levels and chinese-standard english speaking pilots.

But also having said that, I agree with the saying that " local controller are not as interested in aviation as expats".

Broadband Circuit, in case if you are unaware of, in HK, when we talk about delay/holding/sequencing, we talk about the time over entry gates which are MUSEL (in the east),MANGO (in the south),CANTO(in the west), we feed aircraft into approach sector with reference to the enroute clearance time of those gates. so very rarely we will mention a time over other fixes to inbound traffic.


will explain more later about how flow control computer works...

I've visited HK ATC a few times and its always a good experience.:ok:

Must go gain soon.

I've also been in Centers and Towers all over the world, from KLAX to EGLL to nearly all in Oz. ( yes I know, but after you've been to these Airport hotels 20 times what else could you do )

Gives you a good idea about the other side..

Best I've seen was EGLL without a doubt, bloody impressive stuff.

Today's crap weather
 

Good job today you guys. I did three sectors in and out of CLK with aircraft diverting around weather everywhere. You guys were on top of it all and handled it well I thought.
It was pretty wild too. Was at the holding point for 25 L when the big storm went thru. The predictive windshear was going crazy.
Well done

Start with track offset, 10 nm left or right. At high altitude aircraft maintaing 250 kias will equal out fairly quickly.

330

Must agree with you about EGLL, they certainly turn a sows ear into a silk purse better than anywhere else I have been in the past 30 years.

The Japanese, however, do conga lines better than anyone. On a clear night Haneda approach is a sight to behold.

As a footnote, some stacking at CLK might help with C&T.:}

You think there aren't aircraft off to your left and right not much more than 10 miles??? The Macau arrival transition route runs basically 10 miles north and parallel to you and the DOTMI departures are coming out 15 south of you opposite direction. Throw in a few overflights from TAMOT to ENVAR at the same level as you and you have about 75% of the situation.Don't think your TCAS shows the whole picture.
I'd post a screen capture here that would probably scare you if allowed.
1,025 flights per day on average last month at HKIA. Plus 600 overflights. Over 3,000 flights through the PRD every day now.

EGLL vs VHHH
 

quote: "A good example is LHR".

EGLL = ORANGES

VHHH = APPLES

I was talking about the zig zag vectoring, these tracks you mention don't seem to be an issue when each vector places us 10nm left and right of the arrival.