So who is the smarty pants?
 

Yesterday afternoon (Friday 16th) at about 3.30, CX B773 for KL taxying out on "J" for 25L. I (ground 122.55) gave him J9 as there was a JAL B747 taxying out H8 followed by a Vietnam A320 both for J10. When I switched CX to 118.4 (Tower South) where there was a newly rated female ATCO, this guy asks for J10, I (through her) knocked it back. He insists, so I said to my newly rated colleague, "well he can follow Vietnam", of course there is then a big change of heart, and he is now ready for an immediate from J9 as there was a landing freighter at about 6 miles from touchdown on 25L. I know that some of you have a pretty fair idea when there are newly rated controllers (or trainees) occupying positions. I think generally we (ATC) and the various HK airlines enjoy a pretty high level of mutual respect and understanding, but I can assure you that we can all do without this sort of stuff. My personal philosophy is that I will try and accomodate what you want (if practical), however when confronted by this sort of thing, then ones desire to help tends to go down hill a bit. This is not a generalisation, just directed at the people on that particular flight. There are lot's of times when we stuff up, or could have done things better, and I will be the first to concur/apologise, however, I see this as a blatant case of wasting our time and resources needlessly.

On a different note, can I bring up something that I think needs discussion.

ATC delays to PEK/PVG.

I understand that a clearance cannot be coordinated through ZGGG until the aircraft reports ready in HKG. BUT, why can ATC (often a female who goes out of her way to unhelpfull) often not give an estimate "until you call ready" when there are other aircraft waiting for the same destination and have been for hours in some cases. Surely if the previous aircraft has been waiting 2 hours then we will be waiting a similar length of time but she never offers this info - "you have to report ready" . Also, why isnt there any communication between ATC and KA wrt delays. I am perplexed that a KA crew can call for a clearance with "any delays today?" when previous aircraft have been sitting for hours. This info is something that should have been disseminated back at briefing. Also, I have seen Dotmi restrictions of 11400m only, not accepting other levels (rare I know but it has happened). A 321 with return fuel for PVG cannot get to 1140 by dotmi even with rocket assitance so why dont atc and KA coordinate this sort of stuff and maybe go single sector fuel. KA have telephones, atc have telephones - is there a line that connects the two. This rant is against the system - KA are equelly to blame but its pathetic the lack of coordination that occurs day in and day out and never really gets any better.

Also, does anybody know which aircraft were flying around HKG yesterday with callsigns of "shepard xx" and "jackpot xx" both american accents.

Bedder believeit:

I wasn't there, I also would ask for a dept from j10, unless there is an aircraft blocking me. Runway behind us on takeoff is undesirable. If the cx was nr1, what would be the problem with letting the cx go first on j10 and let the others wait?
I am not challenging you, just trying to understand...

cheers and keep up the good work.

Firstly Oasis, Cx may well have been number 1 (just), however, if we had let him go to J10 it would have caused two things, firstly, I (as ground) would have had to instruct the JAL 747 to adjust speed abruptly to fit behind the 777. It is then highly unlikely that the 777 would have then been released ahead of the rapidly approaching 747 freighter, as it was, an immediate departure from J9 only just allowed the 777 to depart. If we had done as you suggest, then the 777 would have departed after the landing (2 to 3 minutes delay?) and this would have then washed on to the next two aircraft to depart. Let's say between the 3 aircraft that they cost on average in the vicinity of USD$15000 per hour to run (my guess with a B777, B747 and A320) multiply 3 acft by 3 minutes is 9 mins, so let's say USD$2 500 incurred? Now I don't want to lower this discussion to one of pure $'s and cents, and there are lot's of situations where we can better utilise our resources to serve our clients. My complaint is, that the B777 should have addressed his request to me (ground), but me being the "known, experienced sounding expat", compared to this "non experienced sounding local", one wonders. Whilst I am not a pilot and I have heard many times the "uselessness of runway behind ethos" I am well whitted enough to know that a B777 going on a regional flight of less than 4 hours is not really that critical, well not when we are talking about the difference between J9 and J10 - maybe 50 metres? I will bend over backwards to insist that A340's and B747's flying long haul depart J10 when ever possible, my complaint is...well you know what my complaint is.

oicur12: Sorry, I have to dash off to work, I will get back to you.

In the air wishing.....
 

Bedder :

You cannot stress the catch all "runway behind", "fuel in the bowser" and 'air above you" enough in our business. As a proffesional pilot you try and have everything going for you. I would ask. If it was not possible I would then choose. It is always better to ask.

As a re-enforcement read the recent threads on the two rnwy incidents in the last few days. Firstly an Air Canada A320 rejected in LAS and took a long time to stop. Secondly a Biman a310 aborted rather spectacularily after starting to rotate (speculation). The end result is found here:

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles.../10110582.html


Check out where they stopped. The keys would indicate they are within 1500' of the end. The A310 is alot lighter than a loaded 777 or 747 and so similar inciident with a larger airplane would have put the aircraft off the runway. Maybe by 200 - 300 feet who knows ! This of course without arguing the merits of this particular reject. At the very least if you do have to reject due to catastrophic problem (bird strike + multiple flame out etc.) at or close to V1 with older brakes, tires, rubber deposits etc., that extra length means you will be going slower if you off or you will stay within the runway length.

Guys, give me a break!

The "runway behind" argument is a bit of a stretch in this case. We are talking about less than 200 feet on a 12500 foot runway!

We calculate takeoff data for departure on J9 and there is a pad built in. I have no problem taking off on either J9 or J10. Hong Kong is getting busier and busier, let's be practical here.

That is all well and good if you are a light twin or something. At heavier weights (390t and up) the 400 will use max epr at J9 AND J10.

So why not use all the runway ? V1 is still a long way down that 12500'.

If it is busy sure use J9 or A11 but if we can be given J10 or A12 ,then we should be given it.

I have been given J9 and A11 when using J10 or A12 would have caused no delay to anyone.

As for this crew being rude or picking on the new controller, bollocks !!! We will usually accept the clearance and then taxi out and see, if it looks like there is room we will ask, if not we will continue as cleared.

I seem to recall that Hong Kong ATC called the CAD on a CX a/c for using A9 when cleared A10, and there was only one other a/c in the vicinity, no landing aircraft and no conflict. In most airports around the world this would have warranted a mention on the freq. Not here though. I think the crew got bollacked but where let off for good behaviour.

FG

How is this for a possible scenario:
The Capt. of the 777 was told J9, didn't like that, it suggested to him that ATC was telling him all the R/W he needed. Had the ATCO asked him if he could accept J9 to expedite he may have been happy to take it? But he asked for J10 and when it became clear that it would delay him he was then prepared to accept J9.
Possibly a bit of ego creeping in here?

Just a thought.

(36 years flying, mainly LH, including HK and the 747).

Methinks this is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
I would ask for J10 because it is longer. Okay only about 1.6% longer, but longer! Put another way, I certainly wouldn't volunteer 1.6% more to the tax man...
Put another, another:rolleyes: way, as I approach V1 I'm doing around - lemme see - Oh; 200ft/sec. Every second counts.

We have a job to do.
ATC have a job to do.

We each shouldn't interfere in in the other's operation, but we each should be mindful of the constraints that the other team player faces.

In the old days when there were a few "finer points" to be resolved between us, we sorted it out in the Cathay Club or more likely the Aviation Club (Kai Tak). If in doubt, the grandfather of HKG and China ATC Phil Parker, use to kick a few arses and take a few names, and we would come to a negotiated agreement.

All HKG ATC staff should be jump-seated around the region on a regular basis to observe our problems up close and personal, as was the case in times of olde. But these days you can't expect non-pilot f*ckwit Company Directors to even be able to frame the question as to why this should be.

Five Green, could you please point out where I said/suggested that the crew were being "rude". Don't put words in my mouth. As for your intersections that you quote in your second post, well, you're way off there. In all my time in HK I have never seen a departure from A9 or A10...maybe a jetsream. I think you are confused with A1/A2 for 07L and A11/A12 for 25R. And while we are on that subject, 07L is only used as a single runway operation 3 or 4 times a week at night from 12.30 am, virtually all the departures are long haul pax or heavy freighters, and we (ATC) give them all the start point intersection, ie A1.
The point that most seem to miss is that if you require J10, then ask for it at a reasonable point, and then if necessary, expect to be shuffled in order to make it fit. Don't come out saying "I require...." and then try to push/barge your way in front of other traffic.
Further to this discussion, between 12.30 and 2.00pm each day, we have an in house rule whereby all departures on same SID and transition need to be 3 minutes apart, for this reason the ground controller has to do quite a bit of shuffling on 25L to try and create a departure sequence/flow that will best suit the circumstances. There are other times during the day when this rule, or even more draconian intervals ,are instigated by the system.
I understand that the EOL for Runway 25L is measured from the J9 intersection.
Further to what I have just said above, it is easier for GMC (HK Ground), (not taking anything else mentioned above into account), to process 25L departures from the South apron via H7/H8/H9 to "J10", and other departing traffic taxying via "W" onto "J" and then "J9". No cross overs that way, however, we then have to accommodate long haul and requests.
By the way, we will soon have a new departure intersection serving the threshold of 07R (our most used departure point) so I guess I had better gird my loins for further "requests".
2 cents, thanks for the support, you can go to the front of the line anyday!
PS 5 G, what is this stuff at the end of your post about "I seem to recall... etc". What a load of unsubstantiated garbage. If I got a buck for every little minor event (people taking wrong turns etc) that I witness, I would be a wealthy person.

One other fact that might be of interest is that the 777 scrubs its tyres doing 90 degree turns and if the performance data is calculated for the 2nd point (J2 or J9) you then can take a more gradual turn to your T/O position.:ok:

Convention on the 777 is to request RTOW for J9 on Rwy 25L. It is never a problem for departure.
It is also good airmanship to request “full length” on contact with Tower. I fully see your point Bedder b. but there is also a “diplomatic game” or some CRM going on in the cockpit, especially on a check where the person under check try to show an awareness of the advantage or benefit of J10.
I have been in the position where as Pilot Flying, I ask the captain to request J10. I found the best way to resolve this is during briefing the departure to mention “ We would request J10 for departure, but as the RTOW is legal for J9 we can except it to avoid delays”.
From where I sit this sound like training / checking environment where the crew need that extra confirmation / input.
I have respect and understanding for both side and agree with a previous post that jump seat ( fan flight’s as we use to call them ) would help a lot to promote understanding.

;) St. Patrick’s day

A great thread. The suggestion on flight deck famils has been brought up many times. 9/11 put the stoppers on the limited famils we had prior to then. CX have already agreed to ATC famils, however it’s taking time to get the program up and running. Apart from the usual nuggets of security and fuel charges, there is the logistics of ticketing & insurance. Is the requested flight a training flight? Is it a day return and is the flight to be done during duty hours or in the controllers own time? As we have a shortage of controllers and they are at the airport 22 to 23 days out of every month, I can see problems on arranging famil flights on what is possibly their only day off in 9 days of duty. Having said that, we do have many who would do it if available.
At the moment, we have a program in place with Dragonair for our student ATCs only. They do a famil when about half way through their on-the-job training for their rating validation and are required to write a report and submit it to me on what they learned from the famil that will assist them in their ATC duties. This is working well and we thank Dragonair for their help and arrangements. We hope to extend this to other controllers when we can. (Without the report writing)
You have to remember, as FlexibleResponse said, we both have a job to do. Your priorities are different to ours. You want the best possible operation and least delay for your aircraft whereas we want the best operation and least average delay for all aircraft.
I know that Bedder believit, like me, has probably a couple of hundred hours on flight decks. How many hours have you all had sitting next to an Approach controller or Tower controller to see what their problems are? I’ve been in ATC for nearly 39 years & the longest I have ever had a pilot sit with me plugged in with a headset is 10 minutes.
I see that this as a two way operation. The only pilots we have visit us is the CX command courses. This is great, but we need your Check & Training Captains to visit. Only that way are we going to get a better understanding of OUR problems filtering through the system. As notified before, the HKATCA has a visit program on the 3rd Saturday of each month. Volunteers, (in their own time), will give a briefing and show you around ATC for about 3 hours. There should be a notice on the crew notice board with my email address. Just contact me and I will make the arrangements. Much better than slagging it out on pprune.

Bedder:

The point I was trying to make about runway behind you in regard to the Biman reject is this : In the biman example an A300 ( lighter than a 777 ) used almost all of DXB's rnwy to bring a badly dammaged airplane to a stop. Nobody was killed. If that had been an intersection takeoff they would have gone off the end. The reason : RTOW data is all based on a flyable airplane ie any failure after V1 you can fly away. Any failure before and you can stop in the confines of the rnwy (stopway etc.) This is also based on assumed aircraft performances ie max braking, reverse, ground spoilers etc. ) There are numerous reasons that the a/c might not stop as predicted. Amongst them are : mechanical dammage in excess of that predicted in certification stopping distance calculation, rubber deposits on the runway, blown tires and associated dammage, older aircraft with worn brakes, hot brakes (or warmer than normal but within limits) shifting cargo (on a freighter) and I am sure there are more. So to have more runway is ALWAYS good. If it is not there then you can't have it.

Having said all that I fully understand the need for expedience, shuffling of departures and the pressures ATC controlers are under. If what you want is a request on ground for full length then put that in the Jep charts. Or ask the local airlines to include it in briefing pages. Problem solved.

I apologise for insinuating that you thought they were rude. I was responding to the statement :

As a cockpit being a busy place on push back and departure there is a possibility that they just got to it when they checked in on tower.

Now regarding my comments (and you are right I meant A11 and A12). There was a 744 crew who were dobbed in to CAD for using A12 when cleared A11. One other airplane around well clear and the 744 taxied to A12 and took off. Clear sunny day no conflict etc. So in a case like this A12 SHOULD have been offered but was not. It certainly should not have ended up on the CADs desk. It is incidents like this that might account for some of the reactions you are getting from the aircrew.

I think in the HKG ATC you do a fantastic job. (Yes I know I am sucking up but I mean it). However with the number of new controllers you are putting through ,you could add some common sense training to anticipate these scenarios and try to provide the full length (when available, reasonable expeditious etc.)

My 2cents

Cheers
FG

Lets get real
 

First of all it's a bit late requesting an intersection change approaching the hold. ATC have put out notices stating that you should take the hold you are given to allow proper flow of traffic. If you have an issue with the instersection (J9) the planning stage is the time to state that you require full length or at the very least organise it with Clearance Delivery. I can't help thinking that this is a poor display of airmanship

HKG ATC is getting busier and flow control into China is becoming difficult. ATC are training new controllers adding to the problems. So a little more understanding is required.

There is absolutley no problem safety or otherwise operating from J9. If you think there is a problem submit an ASR or a confidetial report. The runway behind you thing is a thing of the past. The runway is over 12,000 feet. It's strange to think that we're quibling over 200 feet and then go and operate into a 10,000 foot strip elsewhere with less facilities or even somewhere like DXB 12R WIP. Amazing!!!!

For you guys in ATC you need to understand that, slowly but surely, experience levels in the airlines are reducing and training systems are being cut to the bone. Aviation is becoming more prescriptive and there is a genuine ignorance when it comes to some aspects of aircraft operations especially aircraft performance. I believe that aircrew are being placed under an enormous amount of commercial pressure. I have heard some of these exchanges between ATC and aircraft captains and have felt extremely embarassed to be part of the aircrew fraternity.

Given the mixture of the two above points it can make for a tense time.

One important thing to note here is (as someone mentioned CRM) CRM is not a cockpit centric concept (as much as we would like to think it is) and that we are not the centre of aviation. We as aircrew have to remember that we are part of a larger system and that we must display CRM principles with all the relevent parts of that system, noting that if any one part of the system fails it is the public who will suffer.

So I would like to make an appeal to all of you before getting on the radio to make a request; ask yourself what am I really going to achieve and if I don't get my request am I going to stand on ceramony and argue my case taking up ATC's time which could be better utilised for more important things

Cheers:ok::ok::ok:

Don't Think, Don't Think

Thank God you're back 5 Green, I thought I might have frightened you away! By the way, I keep having to correct you on little items. It was an A310 in Dubai, not an A300. Would you like me as your personal "spell check"?
I don't wish to belabour the point, but I don't (really) see J9 as an "intersection" departure, as has been ascribed to by a number of contributors here. But then I totally understand the philosophy and concern for the "runway left behind" issue.
I would just love to be able to add the "common sense" aspect into the training of new controllers here, but as I noted in a previous post many moons ago, that is beyond my resources. My second last sentence in my second posting should indicate to you that I have concern for, in particular, long haul departures from 25L, and their desire to utilise all of the runway that is available. However, not everyone that works in the tower here has the same attitude. Maybe some that read these words may be influenced? I try to teach my trainees to get into the cockpit, without getting into the cockpit. If that makes sense!
Cheers BB

Bedder,
I still think the controller vs pilot thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, however thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. I appreciate where you're coming from and the flow and training problems. As well, I agree that a light weight twin engined aircraft probably doesn't need to factor in 200ft on a long runway; after all, twins generally only use the first half of the runway with both motors turning.
Notwithstanding, In a 2 or 4 eng aircraft, I would still request "full length" on any runway if the reasons for it not being offered weren't readily apparent.
I have nearly a 100% record of getting airborne after setting takeoff thrust.:sad: The limited occasions when I have remained on terra firma I have been most appreciative of the groomed real estate out front! I am convinced that I would be even more happy with having the max available runway remaining should I have to continue the takeoff - even dare I say at a speed above Vr with reduced thrust/controlability. [herein lies a discussion for another day]. It is about managing real and apparent risk, with the benefit of experience.

Don't think,
Yeah I hear what you are saying as well. However, I think the very real Macro and Micro commercial and [dare I say it -] CRM pressures should be tempered with a mature and cognicent responsibilty for a safe and efficient operation. A part of this is maximising take off run available. Balanced field/ WIP/intersection departure/TORA [6000ft to 14000ft], these slew the risk but make no difference to my general philosophy.
Cleared IGS,
Good post. The problem with C&T is the same as yours with days "off". Regional flights tend to be C&T to maximise the sectors - especially the long haul fleet[s].
Answer is - don't hold your breath. I suppose we can keep trying though:ugh:

Spleener, may be a storm in a teacup, but a possible advantage is that quite a few local (and expat) controllers will have read opinions expressed here from tech crew re the available use of runway length, and they may now be a bit more sensitive as to what the crews of heavy jet transports want. Also people from your side of the fence may be more inclined to put in requests a little earlier! Thanks for you input, cheers, BB.

Hi all.
There have been times where I have asked for J10 on the tower freq when approaching J9, we most likely didn't have time to ask on gnd freq as we were too busy on a short taxy doing the pre t/o checks. So what? no big deal, if I think I see a gap allowing me to use J10 then I will ask.
Have a look how much runway a 777-300 uses going to TPE, we use huge de-rates these days resulting in absolute minimum thrust to give a balanced field length. The other day in TPE I swear we used nearly 10,000 ft to rotate!! at a very light weight.
Hong Kong ATC have some of the best controllers in the world, keep up the good work. ( and thanks for the super dooper high speed direct Limes approach from Bkk last week!! saved us 15 mins and put us only 10 mins late, really appreciated. )
Cheers.

CAN-NOT..........removed your reply to my post hey?
Just so the rest of you know what he said "used the 15 mins to read the Vol2 Pt2 did you" or words very close to that.
What can I say Can-not????????????? ah....................
I actually got home to my family a bit quicker, which was nice:ok: And the Pax connecting to North America hopefully got home on time to theirs too. It's not about kissing the companies ass you know.

So who is the smarty pants
 

In answer to your original question -sounds like you are. :rolleyes:

Great Thread

This is just the sort of pilot/controller interaction that leads to everyone having a greater understanding of the job. Can I point everyone towards another great co-operative initiative through this link:

"Free up the runways" written by pilots for pilots, sponsored by Eurocontrol.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/airports/...Runway/ROT.htm

On the beach

Bedder,
Well did the CPA get away in front of the freighter? Maybe the tower controller did not have the right response.A big fat no taxi to J9 is the right answer,with the others going to J10.
It always puzzled me that J9 and J10 were regarded as the same TORA.OK it's about 50m less,but it is different.:E
I offered a medium J8 once.God that was funny.Ah I've only got 3000+ m Cannot Cannot.

On the beach: Thanks, but there has only been 2 controller's currently in HK making their views known, IGS and Moi. However we are both just about the oldest people here, so in my case I will claim partial (?) senility and keep bashing my head against the wall.:ugh:

Throw a: We now have a procedure here "Reduced Runway Separation Minima" (RRSM) which fortunately was in action, and allowed the 777 to get away on an immediate from J9 ahead of the freighter. If we had been non RRSM (which is the usual case) and the 777 had gone to J10 then definitely NO.

Some people responding to this still seem to think that I am squawking about aircraft requesting J10. This is not the case at all. I will say it now once and for all to you drivers out there, I don't give a stuff where you ask to depart from, just a bit of well mannered notification in advance is all I want. And to add to that, if it is going to upset our (ATC) applecart, then expect to be delayed!!

Bedder B,
most of us here have been around long enough to know when someone on the other end of the radio is being narccy....tone, intonation, brevity etc. So I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. I cannot remember the last time ATC screwed something up in HKG that I witnessed but I am sure it happens. I have seem many times when we screw it up...fortunately not too many of brushoff and wiggley worm colleagues!

It is always nice coming back to HKG airspace. Today it was incredibly busy on approach etc but all handled with the usual business like fair and impartial controlling...like a happier London control. Must be the predominance of us Aussies and those so polite Canucks that make it better here than Heathrow:-)

You guys have your aims in ensuring an efficient airport operation, we have our own. So far I haven't found that incompatible, though I wouldn't mind some home port favouritism sometime like they enjoy in KL etc!

cheers guys, keep up the good work.

Bedder,
Thanks for that.Is your RRSM allowing the landing to touch down while the departure is past the point of no return,or allowing less than a runway length but airborne.
In the single runway days at CLK,we all had a few tight situations with slow vacaters,or departers and ''Management'' took a very dim view of it.I saw people suspended for moving traffic(legally in the UK).Even go-arounds could get you in trouble.Suspended for trying to be safe.
Numero,
I saw plenty screw ups at HK ATC,including 2 of the most dangerous things in 28 years.Maybe the London guys seem less happy because they have to stick to standard phraseology and they are a damn sight busier.There is no standard phraseology in HK because all the expats think they are doing and saying the right thing.What they do at home.:uhoh:

Throw a, I can't go into too much detail (I might get fired!) but between two landers, the following can be cleared to land if the the preceding is beyond a certain point on the runway and assured of vacating, and between an arrival with a departure, likewise the departing needs to be beyond a certain point (still on ground) before lander crosses fence. There are other limiting aspects, such as weather, wind shear, turbulence, wet runways, daylight etc. In both cases the landing should be informed of the situation. Now if I get sacked, can I have a job at your place?

Ah the good old Land after and Land after the departing with a few twists throw in.I did one of those in single runway days,with a CPA 343 who took for ever to roll,and a China something Fokker100.Only 4km between them but highly dangerous:= .Tower sup was really twitching.:p
I think that you're public enemy number one for letting the cat out of the bag.I'll put a good word in for you here at ISZ if you get invited to the 4th floor for tea and congee.Pack your thermals it's snowing today.:ok:

Rather poorly interpreted and written in the AIP Supplement by CAD, however the ICAO PANS-ATM requirement is that the departure is airborne at the time when the arrival crosses the threshold.

Throw a dyce, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear that CAD couldn't help themselves but add another 500m to the ICAO standard on 07R/25L - coz this is Hong Kong. You remember. :hmm:

.....landing clearance may be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that there is reasonable assurance
that the following separation distances will exist when the landing aircraft
crosses the runway threshold:
(a) RWY 07R/25L
(i) Landing following departure –
The departing aircraft is/will be airborne and has passed a point at
least

for RWY 07R or TWY K2 for RWY 25L).

There is no need for the extra "/will be" in the separation standard. The condition that must exist is that the aircraft is airborne. The application of the standard allows the controller to forecast that that condition will exist.

Throw a and bedder b,
just to make it a bit clearer....
I LOVE COMING BACK TO HKG AIRSPACE
I dont know if it is as simple as just being home? Having travelled a bit further afield I dont think so. London is very efficient but maybe due to so many non confirming misfits they are always quite gruff.
Whatever the reason I personally think the ATC is great here and I am basing that on many trips to all continents except South America! It just seems so easy and efficient once I get back into our airspace even if I have to be ridiculously low at mango!

I get no special treatment here, no preferential landing time or taxy, just absolute professionalism! I am happy to criticise what is worth criticism....but from my biased, myopic line driver's point of view, you guys are doing great. Some of my multi bar colleagues may have secular viewpoints that are more critical.

From the vast majority of us, keep up the unrewarded good work...most of us appreciate it:-)

Lap Sap, looks like you now assume the mantle of "smarty pants". You can have it! Your last bit "allowing the controller to forecast that the condition will exist" is the difficult part. Once the dye is cast you just have to wear it.
We don't actually get to utilise RRSM here a hell of a lot as the only time during daylight hours that the South runway (07R/25L) is in multi modal operations is between about 9 in the morning and 12.30PM and there aren't a lot of freighter arrivals then. As for the North runway, which is generally landings only, the rather large mix of heavies to mediums means that wake turbulence issues tend to cover most situations, that, and the fact that the high speed turn offs (A7 & A8 on 07L and A6 & A5 on 25R) are pretty conveniently placed and runway occupancy time on the North is pretty low.

Bedder, any thoughts on Oicur12's earlier post? Almost hesitate to ask after watching the mileage suggesting consideration has got!!

We at Cathays Poor Cousin House really get frustrated by the way our powers that (won't) be refuse to have any constructive input into managing/mitigating extended delays. Is there a better way other than loading 100/200/300+ pax and only then being informed of a long delay? I appreciate the limitation of unfathomable decisions from across the border, but shirley this mouse trap could be constructed differently.

ClearedIGS, Took a young lady for a trip to XMN late last year, hope she didn't tell to many tales out of school...

:ok: Hi gyro, Don't remember any tales, but she did write a good report. It'll cost you to read a copy.
Regarding more notice re delays to up north, we really do sympathise, but there's not a lot we can do about it. You have to remember that we're not just trying to get you going, there is also Macao departures and the thru area traffic which is already in the air. We simply don't get the required notice. We might tell you that there is a 1 hour delay only to find 2 minutes later that our friends up north have changed the enroute requirements and now there is only 5 minutes delay. I don't get up to the Tower very often these days, but I remember once last year where when an aicraft was handed over to me for a 07 departure, I was told that his departure release time was change 3 times from when he was cleared to start & push until the time at which he called me. They were only changes of a few minutes but it really screws us around. How do you even start to explain something like that?

Try the situation were you get a 2+ hr delay, so in a vain attempt to quell the obvious mutiny, you allow the inflight meal to be served on the ground while you wait.... no sooner had the congee bowls hit the tray tables ..."strangled lizard 666, good news!!". Won't make that mistake again. These type of stories have been occurring for years, and the frustrating part for me is that none of the tadpoles in the aeronautical gene pool i'm paid to swim in have evolved any strategies for dealing with them. Oh well. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Apologies for taking Bedders thread off track, albeit a well travelled one

As usual we get many Dotmi flow restrictions from the Mainland today. Pages and pages before lunch time. Some places 10 mins, some 20, some 30 with only 1 level avbl! Not accepting ANY level to some airport. I heard they are thinking of doing RVSM in the mainland later this year to get more levels. WHY BOTHER!!! Why do our boss want to increase movements at CLK when there is no where to go???!!!:{

Back to the original thread:

http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/pr/pr_881.html

Oh dear. Do hope they haven't wasted their money if nobody wants to risk going with 100 metres less TORA.
With bizarre BEKOL and DOTMI restrictions becoming more frequent and accepted as the norm now, it is doubtful that there will be enough aircraft taxying to warrant the dual holding point in any case.
Anyone got a pack of cards?

Will J1A be in intersection departure? (Or just somewhere to park).
With the 2008 Olympics coming Bekol and Dotmi could become a really big CANNOT.The Mainland will have to switch on the metal thing that spins round,invented in WW2.:}

oicur12 & gyro. Sorry to make hollow promises at the start of this thread to come back to you oic. Unfortunately I get so embarrassed at times with some of the stuff that I see, that I was hoping to ignore oic's question and that it would just go away. I really feel that only a concerted effort on the combined part of management of the affected airlines might, and I stress might have some effect. I doubt it though. The coastal route to Shanghai in particular tends to be very tricky with increasing overflights through there, and whenever tensions increase with the "non-aligned province", then things can unexpectedly tighten up. It is annoying not only for you, but for us to have time criteria changed so much when aircraft are already starting, pushing or taxying. Just the other day I had an A321 taxying out for the DOTMI route and 40 odd minutes was added to the airborne time as it was mid way down J to 07R holding point.
gyro, my recently checked out student flew with you to ZSAM, so thank you for looking after her. She came back full of beans after her flight with you. You aren't married by any chance are you?

Just smoothing the path, Bedder! I should now get "keep high speed; track shortening avail; 40 trk miles from siera; and no delays thru dotmi for you" Arhhh, what a world exists in my imagination!!

Suzi, you mean to say you get a list of expected delays/slots anticipated for the day?