It's probably been asked before but do ATC ever ask A/C to increase speed especially the A/C that can go fast. For example the other day OCEAN dept of 07 told to maintain a max of 250kts and 7000 due traffic ahead. This ended up being traffic 7000 feet above us from Macau? (A320) who was actually behind us on TCAS but no doubt had a higher TAS/GS we got a stepped climb & acceleration all the way to ENVAR, we ended up getting there 2min before the said traffic. Now we were in a 744 and could have easily been asked to go fast and simply get out in front.

Weather was not a factor and there wasn't much traffic it was surprisingly quiet.

It just appears that slowing traffic is always the answer for spacing. With the NOTAM regarding slow speed climbs (M0.78) I'd imagine the A320 is one of the A/C for which it's applicable, do ATC consider the A/C type when considering performance a short vector or speed control applied to a 320 would allow the majority of wide body A/C to accelerate away. It's much better for us to have the potential energy of 350kts held low than trying to accelerate from 250kts and also climb.

I still wish ATC would join us on flights around the region so we can hear from you while it's happening.

Cheers.

I felt for the clearance guy the other day he was doing a good job. Unfortunately many crews weren't listening to the fact that the delay was due to HK weather (nothing to do with China) and the fact that it was approximately 2min per A/C delay, so once informed of their number in the sequence they then wasted a call to ask how long the delay was. :ugh:

Speed Control
 

SMOC

Yes we do use speed control including speeding up and consider aircraft type in order to get the job done.

In the case you mentioned against the VMMC Departure I am not sure if it is the only factor which limited your climb with speed control.

However I would like to point out that according to the standard procedure regardless if you are departing from VMMC or VHHH if you are going on the same route e.g. via OCEAN to ENVAR the departure controller shall give 10NM in trail and no catch up to the next sector at OCEAN.

As you mentioned the VMMC departure is probably much higher then those from HK the TAS/GS would be significantly different and that adds complexity to how to achieve the requirement stated above.

The alternative is to step climb you below the VMMC Departure which requires agreement between the Departure Controller and the Area Controller in the next sector. This doesn't not always work as the VMMC DEP may need a lower level while you need higher. (the planned cruise level going into to TPE control in your case; note there is always level restriction going on different route downstream and destination) in this case the area controller may vector or give direct track to create "space" for the one below to out climb the one above.

Now to put this into reality the area controller may be controlling 20 or 30 aircraft at the same time this would be easier said then done.

Here is my question regarding using TCAS to displaying traffic on your ND, how much do you see and how do you interpret ? I always have a feeling that pilots would use them to guess what cause a restriction however in some case what cause a restriction may have nothing to do with what you see.

I don't use TCAS as reliable location laterally, regarding the Macau A320 traffic, we assumed it couldn't of been him initially as he "appeared" to be behind us a fraction however during the climb and all the instructions it became obvious he was the traffic and we saw him eventually. We got a stepped 250/270/280/300/300+/M0.83+ accel and stepped climb, plus only got a direct once above the traffic, he got all the directs and no speed control, I suspect he was as I said basically doing an Econ climb into around M0.78, she was determined that he was first and we would be the ones to create the required separation.

Apologies if it comes across as nagging I'm just interested in the process so when the discussion ends up on the flight deck of "why" hopefully I can have a clearer picture.

A good example on a different occasion would be we were cleared high speed (not requested) but held at 9000 as usual so we accelerated to 350kts (smooth nil weather) ATC then requested our speed, and traffic behind us an airbus was also cleared high speed and told maximum 350kts by the controller, the airbus guy had a double take assuming he said 250kts it was resolved and the airbus saying he couldn't go that fast, anyway we both got plenty of directs and unrestricted climbs. Now we could have done an Econ accel to say 303kts so restricting the A/C behind us to 300, he may have wanted 310 for all I know but the point being ATC could ask us for max speed if he wanted while we were held low it may not work for us every day but it seems like an opportunity for ATC to use high speed as a tool rather than just cleared high speed.

High speed for most crews I suspect is to accelerate to Econ climb speed anywhere between 270-340 depending on A/C type and weight. Most if not all should be able to at least do 320kts so ATC could ask for 320 or greater if they want and release the guy later I hope. The guy at the front doing 280kts high speed still stuffs everyone else wanting 310 for example.

Understood however the next sector may have an issue.

Cheers

Speed Control - (reply)
 

Thanks for the reply SMOC.

Being a 747 may have advantage over other types but sadly as you are normally faster then others types and can possibility slow down late you will always find more scenarios which we requires you to slow down rather then speed up.

With the number of traffic we handled these days and internal procedures we tend to generalize everything, and we may not cater well enough for all the differences between types and airlines.

Example would be sending you right after an A340 going the same route on DEP which means you will get speed restriction for quite a while after departure. Remember that 10NM in trail requirement... we also have users who refuse to speed up below 10000ft... company SOP they say.

In contrast we also have cases with those airbus going to China via BEKOL/DOTMI who are reluctant to speed up too much to trade for climb rate and meet various restrictions...

I understand your reason to speed up during a level restriction to trade speed for climb rate later on... yes we would try to help if possible, however it may not be the solution the controller have in mind to deliver the spacing required.

Having said that doesn't mean we can't do better, I would certainly agree that the more we understand each other's OPS we would be able to deliver more efficient services to the public. :ok:

Thanks for the reply, didn't know about the restrictive SOPs used by some carriers which would go a long way to explaining "why", can you "sin bin" them and send them off on some wild vector? :} Nothing like a good bit of nepotism for us locals :ok:

Thanks again.

Big thank you to ATC last night, all calls seemed to be "cancel speed control maintain 290kts or greater" allowing us to acelerate to enroute climb speed and more while held low, behind an earlyer departed A320. Worked perfectly for us.

We arrived at ELATO about 5nm behind a much slower aircraft the other night 4000ft above us. I was already dreading the speed reductions and zig zags but thanks to the controller who wisely told us to maintain high speed, quick pass the traffic then let both planes descend normally. It is obviously the most logical way to do it but the first time I have experienced it. Usually it seems to be 'whoever is in front wins' with us having to zig zag all over the place and slow down and totally screw up the descent just to appease a slow 737 or A320.

Hope the sensibility continues!

How do you feel about being told to fly 290+kts through CU?
My passengers seem to dislike it.:hmm:

What's your turbulence penetration speed killaroo? Plus you know about weather radars right? :ugh:

:bored:
Do you know WHY we have a turbulence penetration speed? Do you understand what it is for?
Hint: The turbulence penetration speed has NOTHING to do with PASSENGER COMFORT.

The passengers pay your wages.
Turbulence is to be avoided where possible, not exacerbated by accelerating in it.

Weather radar does not display small CU. it displays CBs. However I have a pair of eyes, and I look out the window. When I see CU ahead of me I will ask for a deviation. Sometimes I get it in time, on other occasions I won't. HK is busy and constrained airspace. More often than not I'm just forced to plow through stuff. Small CU can be very rough. Even a layer of ST can cause significant bumping around. I'd be a fool to accelerate in that.

Likewise at night, if my lights show I'm entering cloud, and can't tell what it is, or what might be embedded in it, I do not want to accelerate to 290kts, and I will not do so.

Thank you.

So killaroo I take it you never accelerate at night then :ugh:

Simple, I don't do it.

Y'know, its hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who wants to be a dick.

Did you figure out the real purpose of your turbulence penetration speed yet?
Ask a Training Captain if you aren't sure.

Killaroo, I suppose the reason for turbulence penetration speed, is the same as the reason I have a max. rudder input when flying a Piper 28 in turbulence?

Otherwise I would like to hear the reason :o) Just trying to learn a little more here ;o)

To my understanding the sun has a great deal of influence on turbulence? Not that it doesn't exist at night....

Silber,

Apologies for causing the angst and I'll desist immediately.

"Unrestricted climb" appears perfectly sensible but it can have upstream implications, so its use causes controller angst. Accordingly, we have instructions not to use "unrestricted climb" but to rather use the correct ICAO procedure. The ICAO requires that each SID restriction must be specifically cancelled (although in reality this problem is RNAV coding and not SID restrictions). There's nothing wrong with the ICAO but its very cumbersome if the airspace is not well integrated. For expedience, some Departure controllers do use "unrestricted climb" but this causes the majority of non-local operators to, correctly, challenge with, "Confirm the XX **** foot restriction is cancelled?" All this challenging creates a lot of RTF traffic.

Anyway, some of this should all be cleaned up in a few weeks time.

Of interest, I understand, ICAO intended to introduce "open climb/descent" in January 2013 but this was questioned by the FAA who were using "Descend via STAR" and introducing "Climb via SID". Here is video of how the FAA explains their change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrPzv96VBp8

Was flying on the 9th and 10th in really shxx weather around HK and I have to say my FO and me were really impressed about how well HK ATC was handling the stack of traffic, Wx deviation, etc.

Well done :ok:

Very accommodating today, also, dare I say it, so were ZGGG ATC.

Thanks
 

Yep, Thanks guys,

....but no thanks to the turkeys who decided it was a good idea to shut an engine or two down in the que to depart without telling anyone because they were so tight on fuel :=
Caused no end of problems and delays for the unsuspecting stuck behind.:ugh:

I hope ATC have a way of ensuring the offenders think about that effort before they try it again.

I also want to express thanks to the Guangzhou ACC. Some very testing weather conditions over the past few days and it was a pleasure to work with the ZGGG SIERA Sector guys who were really switched on. By pushing HK arrival traffic West of SIERA rather than East, your efforts made life so much easier for HK.

ILS 25L Flight Check
 

I'm curious.... who is responsible for making the call of when to do an ILS flight check? Is it ATC, HKCAD or the Airport? Whoever makes that decision, why did they decide to do it during the morning rush on Thursday 15th resulting in lengthy delays for all departures? :confused:

Yeah I can, how about 05:00 - 06:00? Other airport works are done between the hours of 01:00 - 06:00 to minimise the impact on operations, why not an ILS flight check?

Sounds like typical Hong Kong nonsense. An obscure rule is written somewhere which makes little sense in present day, however instead of questioning it, we'll blindly follow as if we are robots.

Is it a daylight only requirement to do the flightcheck?

Correct geh065. And in VMC. Its not just a matter of flying down the ILS. A lot of it is off scale laterally and vertically checking for course reversal etc. Visual positioning for the next run cuts down the time a lot as well.

You think its not relatively busy then? A quick check shows every morning this past week there were ~25 arrivals between 0530 and 0630.

R/T and SPEED CONTROL QUESTIONS
 

1. During busy periods when HK Director (119.5) is in use, it seems implied that we check in with our call sign only (no altitude, speed, heading). Is this officially published anywhere or is it simply local knowledge?

The HK AIP doesn’t differentiate between checking in on Director as opposed to any other HK sector; ie., AIP ENR 1.1.2 requires: callsign, level and cleared level in all cases. Operational FAD controllers are in favour of the change to callsign only and it was recommended some years ago but was not taken forward. The HKATCA will approach the officer in charge for his consideration.

2. On approach to RWY 07L we are typically assigned 220 kts at around 30 nm to touchdown. For the 'procedural approach' to RWY 07L there is a speed of 180 kts at Tonic. When being vectored for the approach (non-procedural) are we able to automatically ignore the previously assigned 220 kts and reduce to 180 kts when on base?

No, you cannot slow as the current ATC clearance applies (in this case 220 kts). Half the guys I fly with request speed reduction and half simply start slowing down. Yes, I would too, as a stable-approach would be foremost in my mind and the principle of aviate, navigate and communicate applies - but I would certainly advise the Director that I’m slowing down. From the HKATCA perspective, stable-approaches are a safety issue and the HKATCA strongly supports air traffic management’s efforts to drastically reduce the amount of vectoring inside of the IAF’s.

Thanks again for the blog.
It's a great source of knowledge.

Answers courtesy of APP Control

EXPAT Positions in HK
 

Several enquiries, but no positions and not likely to be any. Comprehensive localisation policy now in place.

Can "HKG Radar" controllers please stop slowing down aircraft 15nm before CYBER expecting us to make the FL260 restriction...

We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.

How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."

Thanks,
AB

Or you could simply accept the clearance and state that you will now be unable FL260 at CYBER. I do this regularly and ATC has always been accommodating.

SPEED and LEVEL RESTRICTIONS INBOUND
 

Can "HKG Radar" controllers please stop slowing down aircraft 15nm before CYBER expecting us to make the FL260 restriction...

We descent at about 280kts or faster to reach CYBER at exactly FL260 - any reduction at short notice will screw up this profile and require more speed and/or speed brake.

How about "CX... reduce speed 250kts, CYBER FL260 cancelled..."

Thanks,
AB

Terminal South (HK Radar 126,3) is the affected sector in the instance you’ve cited but the fundamental principle of “aircraft cannot slow down and get down” is universal.

Tactical

The Terminal controllers presiding over CYBER, SONNY & MAPLE are trained to address this issue with either of two simple methods:

1) The speed restriction should only be applied at the way-point (not before); eg., “At CYBER; reduce speed to 250 kts and descend to reach FL130 by MANGO.”

2) If a speed restriction is imperative, the level restriction at the affected way-point must be cancelled; eg.,”Reduce speed to 250 kts, cancel CYBER level restriction.”

Strategic

When the HK Flow Manager requires arrivals to reduce speed to absorb delay, the controlling sectors prior to MAPLE, CYBER and SONNY shall be responsible for issuing the requirement; eg., “Arrange your descent to be 230 kts by CYBER, when ready descend to reach FL260 by CYBER.”

The Association understands your frustration as we view this as a failure by individuals to understand the basics of managing an aircraft’s energy condition. If aircrew do not experience service as advised above, then they should immediately advise the responsible controller that they cannot comply with the affected way-point level restriction.

Just to add to Psycho a bit.
I wouldn't blame the outer "HK Radar" controller or the Flow Controller too much for this late notice reduction.

As described in an article in Crew News last year, the problem is our sequencing "horizon" is pretty much exactly where you talk about being slowed.

The Flow (and the AMAN system) are holding off waiting to see the SIERA traffic (almost 30% of our arrivals). The problem is the limited time before SIERA that we get your SSR into the flight data processor from Guangzhou and hence your target correlates and starts accurately processing in the AMAN. Usually that happens around 15 minutes from SIERA (if we are lucky), which is only 28 mins from touch on 07. Guess where you are 28 from touch when coming from the south? Exactly where you say you were.
There is no point second guessing who is number 1 before we see them and even if the SIERA is judged to be 1 second ahead at the runway, you will suddenly jump back almost 2 minutes on the timeline. Put a stream of European flights there as happens in the afternoon and you suddenly can go backwards 4 or 5 spots. So flow controllers are told not to "set" the sequence too far out and en-route controllers are told not to slow aircraft (except for within their own group of aircraft to spread them out) until the stabilized point on the timeline is reached.

Of course the counter arguement is, well just make the ones we can see number 1 and bugger the others for a couple of extra minutes. Thats ok if you are CX/KA with 42% of flights and its swings and roundabouts but if it happens to be your airline's only flight into HK for the day you jump up and down wanting to know why you were delayed just for controller "convenience".

We are expecting with ADS-B in the new radar system that our horizon will be greatly increased as we will not be reliant on the transfer of SSR code data but the unique 16-bit ADS-B code of your aircraft on the FPL. We should be able to see you around 250NM northwest.

While I'm here, here's one for you guys.

We recently introduced some revised level restrictions on the SIERA/CANTO STARs to alleviate some problems with the steep descent profile from MURRY on 07.

This is an opportunity for a bit of an education process for both sides.

ICAO has faffed around on and off again over the past few years with the need for the controller to reiterate altitude requirements/restrictions, where we are at the pojnt where nobody knows what they are meant to do.

PANS-ATM has now clarifed that altitude restrictions on SIDs/STARs must be adhered to unless explicitly cancelled by the controller.
The whole objective is to cut down on the R/T.

Unfortunately, nobody in their right mind will trust aircraft to follow the published steps and base separation on them now, given the to-ing and fro-ing from ICAO.

The new SIERA/CANTO STARs are a good opportunity to at least gain some confidence that aircraft can simply be descended to FL110 without saying anything else and you will cross CANTO at or above F130 and MURRY between 130 and 110.
Again, I would say no controller would issue such an instruction if there is a Shenzhen departure immediately beneath you at F120. They would be mad to at this stage.

But you guys can start to do your bit by not asking "is that unrestricted?" when you are given descent to F110 outside CANTO on the STAR. I know most controllers will come back with "affirm" but that just reinforces the whole uncertainty again.

Please just follow the published restrictions. We know its actually not a restriction- you never get near F130 before CANTO, so just don't say anything and leave it in the box.

Gradually I hope both sides will start to trust that these type of procedures can work and we can introduce in other areas to cut down immensely on R/T.

Thanks!

RUNWAY CHANGES
 

Several taxying aircraft have had to return to the gate due to weight issues following a runway change or failed to meet a departure restriction enabling them to arrive prior to curfew at destination.

Runway changes for ATC and airport operations are not always predictable, but involve many factors. For instance if an aircraft is taxiing for departure with a critical departure slot time and the runway changes, there is every possibility the aircraft will miss that slot. We will endeavour to stretch the system to accommodate but HK ATC can't operate with the primary focus on a very small number of aircraft. ATC must consider the majority. In the case of a forced runway change, there will be no leeway available.

How do we change runways?

A PLANNED CHANGE

We do two types of runway changes. General criteria is that if downwind exceeds 10KT dry, 5kt wet runway, TWR will initiate a 'change at your convenience' to APP. They'll assess the traffic to see if there is an advantageous gap or least disruption point in the sequence. Sometimes it can be rapid within 10-15 minutes, but more commonly 30-45 minutes. TWR is then issued a clearance expiry time for the old runway. With an absolute minimum of exceptions, it is hard and fast. We are very conscious of the fact that if an aircraft is at the hold and needs to be changed, it will be a considerable delay till departure is possible. This is especially the case for 07. It the aircraft is an eastbound departure, converting to RWY25 will involve an 8 minute taxi, probably 10 minutes of delay at the opposite end until the change is complete and add about 30 track miles or more once the aircraft is airborne to be in a similar point to had it departed 07. So we push the traffic as much as possible. This is one area we'd like to highlight to aircrew regarding the time they waste during the last portion of taxy on to the runway and to eventually roll. Crews think they are expeditious, but they waste significant time. It is simply an awareness issue. If we were to have a 10 aircraft queue to depart off the old runway, every crew must play their part to ensure number 10 gets away. A lot of misses come from the poor actions of number 2, 3 or 4 in the sequence. It's not just down to the last aircraft being expeditious.

A FORCED CHANGE

A very quick change due to the passage of weather where the selected runway is just no longer suitable. They are usually preceded by one or two missed approaches.

Many crews seem perplexed that we are operating on a downwind runway. A case in point during recent bad weather. 8 kts of tailwind on RWY 25 for about an hour and we persisted without changing. If a change had have been initiated, it would have caused a double change as the wind eventually returned to a westerly. The average holding at the time was 20 minutes +. To accommodate a double change under those circumstances in a relatively short space of time, would have incurred a dramatic increase in holding. It really is a considered compromise. Sometimes traffic operating in downwind conditions may just be one of a number in the queue to operate on the old runway and a change is already in the pipeline. As a general rule, ATC considers the impact of a runway change on the performance of departure traffic more than the arrivals.

What latitude is there extend the use of a runway to get one or two away on the old runway to avoid a significant time/ cost penalty to those aircraft.

Regarding the expiry times issued to the TWR, we've been instructed not to hassle APP for alterations and it is consistent practice worldwide. If you have an inbound flow and HKIA is at capacity, a runway change severs the flow and the terminal controllers workload spikes significantly trying to delay traffic and create a new sequence for the next runway in the most expeditious and fair manner. So the dictum is that traffic in the air should always have priority to those on the ground. This will impact many sectors and they are all sequencing with each other. It's as if there are many many cogs and you create a plan to merge them, if you alter the timing it has a huge impact not just on time, but safety. Naturally by favouring one or two you will incur a much greater delay to the inbound sequence and the overall traffic handling of the airport.

Questioning Clearance Delivery on future developments

Putting questions to clearance delivery on expected delays or what runway will be in use in 20-30 minutes, has a very low accuracy value. This position can get overwhelmed with workload. It is most commonly volume of traffic and the extensive co-ordination requirements that obviously are not reflected on the frequency. This position has no control over airspace and therefore no jurisdiction. Final approval comes from the relevant sector that the aircraft will depart in. A restriction may be an existing flow on a specific route, minutes in trail of a specific callsign, or a clearance expiry time to allow the blending of that aircraft with through-area traffic. Aircraft request an update where they'll be ready in 5 minutes, then report ready in 30 and vice versa. From the time a call is made questioning departure restrictions they almost certainly will change. Guangzhou may impose a very restrictive departure flow without warning. If you return to call ready to start and you are now number 5 with 15 minutes between departures, your previous request serves no purpose other than for you to consider that ATC has no idea of what we are doing.

It is common during summer for the terminal controllers to be unable to process traffic in an efficient manner. i.e. they get overloaded and for safety reasons, will quickly restrict the flow of traffic to maintain control. For routes V1-V5 are commonly restricted due to deviations shortly after departure. For V10-V12 it may be a separation requirement departing our airspace.

And the red light for the terminal controllers is "stop departures". All combinations of HKATC, Guangzhou, neighbouring FIR requirements or purely traffic unable to depart due CB's on our very restrictive initial departure tracks.

During adverse weather, delays are caused because aircraft can't or won't fly in accordance with their clearance. Remember this the next time you are in weather and you ask to deviate simply for ride comfort through cumulus cloud or rain. Deviating off track will always have consequences. ATC can have a high volume of traffic prepared to maintain track and a small minority not. The impact on airspace capability varies with the number of deviations. So ATC don't delay aircraft, it is always weather or other traffic delaying aircraft. A small anomaly that often gets overlooked.

The person working clearance delivery usually does not have the time to accurately track the weather conditions nor the intentions of the controllers around them that will make that call. Many people working this position are very junior and many have not yet attended an ATC course. They have limited understanding of the complex interactions surrounding a runway change, other than being directed by the supervisor, coordinator or ground controller.

Delays at HKIA can be ad hoc with little warning. So please before you ask the question of clearance in the future, just be warned the answer you get will most likely have so many variables involved that it is not useful. We contend it is not worthwhile asking. Yet many times on this frequency, the workload is dominated by endless calls of this nature. In effect you are only delaying yourself and others by occupying the one person who can get you moving when it counts.

AIRCREW MINIMISING DELAYS
 

From ATC: Not sure if aircrew are aware of the impact of not taxying into the line up position expeditiously and then rolling when take-off clearance is issued. If you lose 30 seconds in just one departure, in two departure slots ATC could have been able to release 3 aircraft instead of two. Seems insignificant, but if there are 10 or more in the outbound queue each aircraft is penalised by that amount. If you're arriving at the back of the queue it is feasible you've got 3-5 minutes of delay caused by poor anticipation and reaction time of those preceeding you. The delay is not restricted to only the following aircraft.

A suggestion is for the next departure to have the nose wheel coming onto the centreline as the preceding is rotating. It is only in this manner that we can significantly reduce departure delays just by changing entrenched bad habits.

Many crews complain about the uphill slope from intersection J2. However, just as many crews anticipate and are able to cope well by utilising better anticipation and a more suitable application of thrust for the gradient.

The other issue causing delays is that aircraft taxy and hold well short of the holding point. It is simply not possible to be in a position to use the runway should you get the call and you're stationary 200M from the holding point.

The next area to assist is to accelerate consistently after airborne. Even in the same airline, occasionally crews will delay to a much higher altitude than we expect. If TWR has to wait to see a consistent speed on climb out before releasing the next departure, instead of achieving roughly 4NM separation (it is possible to use the minimum of 3NM medium to medium or heavy following a medium), the result is 6-7NM. If you are following a business jet, please anticipate an early release.

The overall impact is astonishing if these two areas were handled consistently well. Anticipate a line up clearance if you have no aircraft between you and the holding point you'll greatly assist in reducing holding queues and fuel burn for all users. If we are forced to move more traffic we have to strive for efficiency.

Psychohk

Very valid points and thanks for bringing that up.

Send a copy of exactly what you wrote in your post to every company operating to HK advising them that HKATC is monitoring delays in line up, takeoffs and accelerations. Heathrow sent a nasty gram to a major HK carrier last year about slow line ups and it was issued to the pilots by a "notice to crew". It seems to have had the desired impact.

Stop landing aircraft on 07R with multiple departures waiting will do more for efficiency gains than promoting expeditious line up procedures.

Thanks psychohk, one of my pet peeves is people that dribble on to the runway at 2-3 knots, aiming to transition into a rolling take-off instead of stopping on the runway. More often than not they get cleared for take-off during the line-up and then take another 30 seconds to get going.

One possible reason for aircraft stopping short of the holding point at 07R is that larger aircraft (e.g. B777-300) have to make a very tight turn off taxiway J in order to stop at the holding point at J1. It can be done, but causes main wheel tyre scrubbing on the 777. I don't know what the current 'policy' is, but in the past we were urged to keep turns as wide as possible to avoid excessive tyre wear. I know it's not always possible due to sequencing, but one way of avoiding the problem is to allow the larger aircraft to enter J1 off H rather than J.

Bekol;
It's best for us to confirm restrictions because we fly to 42 different countries with different sets of rules, and local restrictions.
In many parts of the world if you are cleared to an altitude; it deletes previous altitude restrictions.
We do our best to remember the rules of the various countries but we are human.
Regards....

If any of you guys would want to listen to HK ATC for whatever the reason, I"m feeding the individual freqs listed here from my tung chung apt. Ground and tower sound the best.

Airport Detail: VHHH | LiveATC.net

Where does the previous traffic have to be for ATC to clear me for t/o (assuming heavy jet vs heavy jet for wake turb purposes)? It seems to be as the preceding g traffic reaches around 1000'......
That HKG taxi technique of racing to a red light only to have to abruptly brake and pumping the accelerator is far from comfortable

I'd rather not apply the park brake on the runway thanks, nor should we be cleared for immediate takeoff when the landing traffic is still at 7 miles.
Please pass onto local controllers that even though I have my 90 seconds separation from the A380 or 748F ahead, I still need wake turbulence separation if I ask for it. Don't respond with "you already have the required separation".........
On another note, I have recently experienced "nostalgia" with a couple of high speed direct LIMES. Thank you for that. :)