Why so many bad landings at Kai Tak?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why so many bad landings at Kai Tak?
Been a real anorak and popped over to airliners.net for a browse of the piccies following a link on another thread.
I was absolutely amazed by the number of hair-raisingly shocking landings/approaches being made by the wide bodies there. Is it really that prone to what are probably more accurately called lucky escapes than bad landings, or is it just down to the number of spotters pointing cameras down the runway at this particular airport?
I understand the geography of the place means it is subject to windshear and turbulence from the hills alongside the runway, but is it so much worse here than anywhere else?
Sorry if it all sounds a bit critical or morbid.
I was absolutely amazed by the number of hair-raisingly shocking landings/approaches being made by the wide bodies there. Is it really that prone to what are probably more accurately called lucky escapes than bad landings, or is it just down to the number of spotters pointing cameras down the runway at this particular airport?
I understand the geography of the place means it is subject to windshear and turbulence from the hills alongside the runway, but is it so much worse here than anywhere else?
Sorry if it all sounds a bit critical or morbid.
bat fastard
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back home in Alba
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably something to do with the checkerboard approach they had. I dunno if you heard of it but because of the geography of the place the aircraft could not come straight in, instead they approached at almost 90degrees to the runway and then at a few hundred feet turned almost 90degrees on to finals and had to straighten up very quickly and land on the numbers. Not too hard for something small and quite nimble like a 737 but murder for the big heavies!
.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere hot, hot, hot
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No brainer really, all of the above:
Nasty winds at Kai Tak certain times of the year, Lots of spotters all waiting with Polaroids waiting for a scrape and a very short Final Approach Fix.
Nasty winds at Kai Tak certain times of the year, Lots of spotters all waiting with Polaroids waiting for a scrape and a very short Final Approach Fix.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that's bad (and I've seen worse!), you should have seen some of the AZ M11 landings. How they managed to fly 4 or 5 years into Kai Tak without losing one, I don't know. Some of those landings were humdingers - sterile area, too high, too low, winglet scrapes, the lot ...
Ah, grazie por the memories!
Ah, grazie por the memories!
Paxing All Over The World
Yes, I too have a collection of pics and movies from various web sites. 
The distance between getting the wings level and the pointy end lined up with the black stuff, was so short as to be very, very difficult. On the very short final, the a/c was between tower blocks - you could look out of the window at 300 feet and be looking people in the eye as they hung their washing on the balcony. So the wind slipping around those buildings would probably have chopped up a fully stabilised approach, leave alone when they were still trying to line up!
I'm sure that even in the days of the 707 and VC10, it must have been tricky. I have only been into Kai Tak in heavies, DC-10, 767 various 74's and 340s, the skill of the flight crew was wonderful to behold. It is no surprise that they needed a special endorsement to operate HKG.
From a saftey point of view, the move to the new field (built on a specially extended island at Chep Lap Kok) was overdue. Also, the old terminal was ghastly and zero fun.
The climb out over Hongkong island was wonderful - if you were on the starboard side. Equally, the departure towards the Chequerboard was dramatic with a 'turn on the wing tip' feel.
The distance between getting the wings level and the pointy end lined up with the black stuff, was so short as to be very, very difficult. On the very short final, the a/c was between tower blocks - you could look out of the window at 300 feet and be looking people in the eye as they hung their washing on the balcony. So the wind slipping around those buildings would probably have chopped up a fully stabilised approach, leave alone when they were still trying to line up!
I'm sure that even in the days of the 707 and VC10, it must have been tricky. I have only been into Kai Tak in heavies, DC-10, 767 various 74's and 340s, the skill of the flight crew was wonderful to behold. It is no surprise that they needed a special endorsement to operate HKG.
From a saftey point of view, the move to the new field (built on a specially extended island at Chep Lap Kok) was overdue. Also, the old terminal was ghastly and zero fun.
The climb out over Hongkong island was wonderful - if you were on the starboard side. Equally, the departure towards the Chequerboard was dramatic with a 'turn on the wing tip' feel.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks folks,
Obviously a great deal more difficult than I appreciated. Never been there or seen it other than on photos, so difficult to know exactly what goes on. Sorry if you thought I was having a go.
Still seems unfortunate though that almost every picture of Kai Tak on that website shows a poor landing - doesn't really do justice to the crews who (as has quite rightly been mentioned) make many more excellent landings.
Obviously a great deal more difficult than I appreciated. Never been there or seen it other than on photos, so difficult to know exactly what goes on. Sorry if you thought I was having a go.
Still seems unfortunate though that almost every picture of Kai Tak on that website shows a poor landing - doesn't really do justice to the crews who (as has quite rightly been mentioned) make many more excellent landings.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
I see that my collection has a 'photocopy' of the Instrument Approach Chart for Kai Tak, on the ILS for Rwy 31. This was the approach from the sea, with climb out over the land. This is dated 1996 from the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department. Also another for the approach under discussion on to Rwy 13. 
When I was on a project in Hong Kong, I was working near to Stonecutters Island at the international container port and was under the approach for '13' as they headed for the hill. Great fun.
I do not have access to a web site at the moment to display these images, if anyone does, please contact me with a PM and I will send copies so that they can be shown here. Otherwise, I can send them to folks who PM me with the request. That said, I am about to be away from my desk for a few days will not be able to reply immediately.
When I was on a project in Hong Kong, I was working near to Stonecutters Island at the international container port and was under the approach for '13' as they headed for the hill. Great fun.
I do not have access to a web site at the moment to display these images, if anyone does, please contact me with a PM and I will send copies so that they can be shown here. Otherwise, I can send them to folks who PM me with the request. That said, I am about to be away from my desk for a few days will not be able to reply immediately.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that even in the days of the 707 and VC10, it must have been tricky.
Oh yes, you also had to be prepared to admit when it was NOT going well - some airlines/pilots displayed a certain flair for "press-on-itis".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does the old 13 approach into Kai Tak compare with the present curved Canarsie approach into JFK's 13L or 13R ? While not as scenically dramatic, it seems to be about the same technically, with a turn of about 90 degrees on short finals...... In turbulent conditions this too can be quite a ride.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnarsie ! Me Arsie! Kai Tak 13.. piece of wee wee. T-shirts 'n all!
Now Bait-al-Falaj (up t'road from Muscat) R/W 13 on a hot hazy early morn was a real good Rack-It, Hack-It, F**k-It Missed-It type of approach!!
Now Bait-al-Falaj (up t'road from Muscat) R/W 13 on a hot hazy early morn was a real good Rack-It, Hack-It, F**k-It Missed-It type of approach!!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
The IGS inbound track was 088 degrees and the runway track was 136, so the RH turn on was 48 degrees, not nearly 90 degrees as someone quoted. The MDA was 675ft amsl, with the runway elevation at 15ft.
However, with a southerly component in the wind, the aircraft had to over-bank to to the right in order to line up with the runway. Getting the bank off again at the bottom was the tricky part for the big stuff, that is generally how the engine pod scrapes occurred.
We used to be based just north of the 31 threshold. Some of the 13 arrivals were interesting to see even from that end, especially when you know it's yourself who is going to be involved in any rescue.
The worst (heart stopping) one I saw was a 747 which appeared out of cloud just on approach minima, well to the left of track. As they went around, re-entering cloud, they were turning LEFT towards the 2300 ft hill just to the north side of the runway. ATC were yelling at them to turn right, away from the hills; fortunately they got it sorted out but it must have been very close to the side of the hill.
As the WARNING note on the plate said, "Continued flight on the Instrument Guidance system flight path after passing the MM (middle marker) will result in loss of terrain clearance".
However, with a southerly component in the wind, the aircraft had to over-bank to to the right in order to line up with the runway. Getting the bank off again at the bottom was the tricky part for the big stuff, that is generally how the engine pod scrapes occurred.
We used to be based just north of the 31 threshold. Some of the 13 arrivals were interesting to see even from that end, especially when you know it's yourself who is going to be involved in any rescue.
The worst (heart stopping) one I saw was a 747 which appeared out of cloud just on approach minima, well to the left of track. As they went around, re-entering cloud, they were turning LEFT towards the 2300 ft hill just to the north side of the runway. ATC were yelling at them to turn right, away from the hills; fortunately they got it sorted out but it must have been very close to the side of the hill.
As the WARNING note on the plate said, "Continued flight on the Instrument Guidance system flight path after passing the MM (middle marker) will result in loss of terrain clearance".
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf Charlie Charlie
I've done both.. IMHO a fair way to compare them is how well rested the crew is for the approach. Flying into JFK is a domestic flight for us and the crews tend to be younger and better rested because of the domestic factor.
Flying into Kai Tak on the -340 regardless of the crew bunk there is a certain degree of time lag tiredness associated with the approach. Perhaps you are not as sharp as you would be flying domestic both because of the fewer landings and lack of rest associated with long haul flying.
As a matter of interest pilots always found the 13 approach into Kai Tak so exciting that the two jump seats were always occupied by the cruise pilots..
There was one enterprising local fellow that took pictures of every landing which he then sold to whoever was interested..
I've done both.. IMHO a fair way to compare them is how well rested the crew is for the approach. Flying into JFK is a domestic flight for us and the crews tend to be younger and better rested because of the domestic factor.
Flying into Kai Tak on the -340 regardless of the crew bunk there is a certain degree of time lag tiredness associated with the approach. Perhaps you are not as sharp as you would be flying domestic both because of the fewer landings and lack of rest associated with long haul flying.
As a matter of interest pilots always found the 13 approach into Kai Tak so exciting that the two jump seats were always occupied by the cruise pilots..
There was one enterprising local fellow that took pictures of every landing which he then sold to whoever was interested..
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
"not nearly 90 degrees as someone quoted"
Perhaps they were refering to the CH NDB approach which was the standard approach before the IGS was introduced. Flew this approach many times in VC10s and 747s in the '60s and '70s. It was still used right up to the end when the IGS was U/S.
Perhaps one of our Cathay brethren can remember the track difference between the CH NDB approach track and the runway?
Airclues
"not nearly 90 degrees as someone quoted"
Perhaps they were refering to the CH NDB approach which was the standard approach before the IGS was introduced. Flew this approach many times in VC10s and 747s in the '60s and '70s. It was still used right up to the end when the IGS was U/S.
Perhaps one of our Cathay brethren can remember the track difference between the CH NDB approach track and the runway?
Airclues
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Cap'n A,
I have my last copies of the Kai Tak approach plates (Jepps) in front of me now; they were still current in 1998, just before the move to CLK.
There wasn't a CH NDB, it's actually a VOR / DME! This is on the north end of Cheung Chau Island.
CC was the NDB, on the south end of Cheung Chau, but it was used for a lead-in to the IGS RWY 13 (tracking west then north over Lantau towards the SL / Sha Lo Wan NDB). It was also used for a "visual step-down" to 13. Unless I have a plate missing, which I don't think is the case, that was it.
However!
The CH outbound track for RWY 13 was 045 degrees, turning right onto 131 degrees for the runway 13 so that WAS about 90 right, abeit the MDA being higher at 1040 ft which gave a bit more scope for judging the turn. This approach put the aircraft almost perpendicular to the steep hills ahead, so it was potentially also a bit dicey, with a warning on the plate about the possibility at night of mistaking the lights on HK Island for the correct lights further north. If the pilot made this mistake he would probably finish up in Ocean Park with the dolphins!
BTW, I was based at KT for 4 years and NEVER heard the ATIS give a cloudbase below IGS minima, although it sometimes most certainly was WELL below it! Those tourists needed to keep on rolling in.....
I have my last copies of the Kai Tak approach plates (Jepps) in front of me now; they were still current in 1998, just before the move to CLK.
There wasn't a CH NDB, it's actually a VOR / DME! This is on the north end of Cheung Chau Island.
CC was the NDB, on the south end of Cheung Chau, but it was used for a lead-in to the IGS RWY 13 (tracking west then north over Lantau towards the SL / Sha Lo Wan NDB). It was also used for a "visual step-down" to 13. Unless I have a plate missing, which I don't think is the case, that was it.
However!
The CH outbound track for RWY 13 was 045 degrees, turning right onto 131 degrees for the runway 13 so that WAS about 90 right, abeit the MDA being higher at 1040 ft which gave a bit more scope for judging the turn. This approach put the aircraft almost perpendicular to the steep hills ahead, so it was potentially also a bit dicey, with a warning on the plate about the possibility at night of mistaking the lights on HK Island for the correct lights further north. If the pilot made this mistake he would probably finish up in Ocean Park with the dolphins!
BTW, I was based at KT for 4 years and NEVER heard the ATIS give a cloudbase below IGS minima, although it sometimes most certainly was WELL below it! Those tourists needed to keep on rolling in.....