I’ve heard this before elsewhere, and I’ll repeat it here. Perhaps the word “clear(ed)” should only be used for takeoff and landing clearances. Otherwise it’s “push, taxi, cross, hold,...” Thoughts?

How about ‘vacate’ or ‘vacated’ instead of ‘clear’ for the appropriate context?

etops330

i agree there is a nasty incident coming to Hong Kong. in this latest incident there was a buffer of 3700m. i personally witnessed an incident a few years ago where the buffer was 8 feet! it involved a Cathay 747 holding on j8 as both twy H and J were blocked with tows and taxying aircraft. the tail was over the edge of the runway. duty runway 07R for take off and landings. A departing Cathay 747 for London was cleared for take off and rolled. He had to come off the centreline 8 feet as he rotated to miss the tail of the 747 at j8. the pilot of the departing aircraft would remember the event as he submitted an incident report on arrival London. There was no investigation by CAD.
the time has come for a completely independent investigation department, completely seperate from CAD.

Is everyone positive the person transmitting with ‘questionable English ’ was part of the CX 071 crew? I’ve looked at the crew list and the accent does not match. Am I missing something?

Agree. I noticed the same. Confused...

Agree 100%. “Runway vacated” is MUCH more appropriate, but should only be necessary if asked. Otherwise, look out the window!

How ironic that a major incident with potentially disastrous consequences was averted by the only one not to receive a Xmas bonus this year. The CX Captain.

It is of course of great concern that this has happened for the second time in a few months. Let's not forget though that even if HKA had continued the take off it would have easily cleared the jumbo by maybe a 1000ft. Even with an engine failure it should have cleared it.
In China I've noticed that crossings tend to be done at the runway ends now following the near miss in SHA in order to reduce the risk when a conflicting clearance is given.

GMEDX,

The end result is you get horrible taxi distances and for what? Protecting yourself from your own incompetence and even then do we think that guaranteed 35/15ft at the end of the runway is enough!! If they are not up to doing the job they shouldn't be there .... not making daft mitigations that don't pass scrutiny.

744, horrible taxi distances for what? More EFP that's what, I love PEK 36L and then taxi round the top of 36R, it is a real money spinner.
Also, if HKG ATC is going to keep making mistakes then the risk must be mitigated.

the holes are aligning

I think he/she intended to Google it...


Pass the Swiss cheese, dear.

Your suggestion is as per ICAO phraseology cxorcist.

“Cross runway .....at...” is the correct phrase.

On the airfield, “Cleared” shall only be used when issuing landing or takeoff instructions. (Airways Clearance on the blocks excepted)

Not ok in any country! Better than a midfield cross? Sure, but not in any instance acceptable. It could easily have been a max weight jumbo taking off.

I notice how some busy airports like ORD and ATL, the crossings are being reduced significantly by running the arriving traffic behind the departures after landing. They are even using intersection departures to facilitate this in some cases.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

No telling how this could have turned out. Perhaps the -8 would have cleared before the other jet came roaring by, perhaps the other jet would have tried to abort and collided with the -8 at high speed, perhaps he would have stopped at low speed, perhaps the other jet would have tried to yank the jet off the runway (ala KLM) overrotated and stalled, perhaps he saw the other jet and was delaying his roll a bit until it cleared, perhaps he would have cleared it just fine--you name it. In any case it's a serious incident and runway incursions are a very big deal. US controllers use a great deal of judgment in crossing and landing clearances (which is good and efficient), but no one I know of clears a jet for takeoff until crossing traffic is clear. So it was obviously an error and some quick and positive thinking (with good SA) and unambiguous communication by the -8 skipper prevented a bad situation from developing.

Aircraft need to cross runways at whatever intersection works. And operating efficiently with the concrete you have to work with is important. So this is and will be the deal worldwide. No amount of procedural 'stuff' can account for all contingencies. You can minimize traps, but something will always come up which is outside the box and you don't want to hamstring yourself excessively in making an airport 'work.'

Like I said this is what pilots (and controllers) get paid for and why experience and judgment is WAYYYYYY important. Doing the right thing at the right time. Realizing that mistakes are going to happen and being able to solve situations to mitigate the risk and damage caused by them. And knowing what the right thing and the right time is. And you get what you pay for. Something the bean counters should take note of.

The last paragraph of that post is the message management needs to hear over and over.

Need to look at originating date of flight at origin dep place, not date in HKG

The voice that tries to communicate that 071 is still on the RWY is the same voice that acknowledges the clearance to cross albeit in a slightly more agitated tone. It sounds European to me which matches the name.

Is this an issue that only afflicts cargo / GA? How is it going to work when the third runway opens, is 07R/25L going to be given over? I hope ATC can sort themselves out before then.

Doesn't GFS affect it too? Though admittedly less often