Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air China CA428 Near-Miss CFIT at take-off in HK

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air China CA428 Near-Miss CFIT at take-off in HK

Old 2nd Jul 2017, 02:02
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,378
When flying airways in China, you are normally instructed to offset 3 or 6 miles right of track as the route is so congested the controller can't identify you.
Metro man is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 04:54
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 29
Not True. The offset is required to comply with RVSM requirements, as PRC uses metric altitudes/levels
Savage175 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 05:49
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,682
The offsets are one of the few things I like about flying in China. It's very safe and I wish other agencies would adopt it.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 09:48
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
bpp :

That remark is possibly true for expansion ( i.e opening new sectors or routes ) but does not stand when talking about releasing airspace around existing routes to allow proper efficient ATC and address safety related issues like CBs deviations.
I would like to ask: How can major Western airlines manage to have state approval and insurance for routine operation in PRC if ATC safety-related performance, such as inability to deviate due CB etc, is so poor? Is this just a terrible accident waiting to happen that no one will face?
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 20:04
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by Savage175 View Post
Not True. The offset is required to comply with RVSM requirements, as PRC uses metric altitudes/levels
RVSM is vertical, the offset is lateral. If you are assigned 10400 meters and (per the FLAS) fly FL341 and your opposing traffic is 10700 and flying FL351 there is one thousand foot separation. If the offset is critical to the vertical separation how come it varies from 2 miles to 8 miles right of track?
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 20:12
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification).
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 20:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,112
If the offset is critical to the vertical separation how come it varies from 2 miles to 8 miles right of track?
Oooh, just a guess.....but it maybe it mitigates some of the risk of poor level-keeping above or below.....or even by you.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 22:46
  #28 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,643
Onceapilot:
I would like to ask: How can major Western airlines manage to have state approval and insurance for routine operation in PRC if ATC safety-related performance, such as inability to deviate due CB etc, is so poor?
Good question but it is for the bean counters to address. But I would say if you want to fly to Country X you follow the rules of that country ,that said PRC non-deviation rules are not unique : look at the Afghanistan chart for instance . Deviate there and you risk to be shot down.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 09:33
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Nope. If you fail to operate the aircraft within its certification requirements and limitations you are liable. However, it is up to the State of registration to police these regulations. It will be up to the Courts to define which individuals are criminally liable.
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 12:29
  #30 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
You can deviate for weather in China.

You just have to declare an emergency to do it. Controllers are just waiting for the magic word.
Huck is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 12:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
But that is arse about face! Weather avoidance is not an emergency. Not avoiding weather routinely will cause an emergency.
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 14:36
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 36
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Just to reinforce for anyone who is unaware, CB's (CumuloNimbus, Thunderstorms, embedded Thunderstorms etc ) routinely include Severe turbulence that can destroy an Airliner. Severe turbulence is automatically assumed within a thunderstorm. For this reason, Airliners are not allowed to operate within known Severe turbulence, must avoid it where forecast and, must avoid Thunderstorms (by 10Nm per 10,000 feet of vertical extent). Additionally, airliners are not allowed to operate without weather radar where severe turbulence or TS are forecast or observed- because flying into one could cause loss of the aircraft and, the aircraft must be able to detect and avoid embedded TS. Personally, I do not see how a known inflexible ATC environment that denies deviations can satisfy the requirements of the aircraft operating limitations (and so, certification).
Ok, so how did my and hundreds of other flights fly over portugal on Friday when severe turbulence was forecast on the Signet maps? Same for the area west of Dublin? Planes from western airlines routinely fly into Jetstream related forecast severe turbulence. Something I've often wondered about actually as I thought what you said is true.
neila83 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 16:51
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Because many just risk it!
Severe turb associated with CB, TSRA etc can usually be avoided by Wx radar. Jetstream forecast severe CAT areas should be avoided by routing, level changes or delay. But don't ask me how all the transatlantic oceanic traffic that ploughs through forecast severe CAT areas clear that with their operating authority (they don't ).
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 17:22
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 98
Our "enthusiastic amateur" airline plans us through it routinely, as, I suspect many other flight planning departments do.

Also, I reckon LPPO is becoming a bit like the boy who cried wolf with sev turb forecasts.
farefield is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 19:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
So, God forbid, when a 300+pax airliner suffers a forecast severe turb big-nasty on the NATS, they are going to cite that "everyone has ignored it forever" as their mitigation? It should not be, some of us DO honour the limitations.
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 00:56
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 36
Posts: 100
Thanks for the info. I'm intrigued, are there really airlines making huge deviations round the forecast areas while everyone else takes the tracks through them?
neila83 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 22:01
  #37 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,643
Onceapilot :
Of course wx avoidance is not an emergency! But you do not seem to understand how the system works : ATC does not force you to go through it . ATC might refuse the diversion for various reasons and because of external factors :e.g military area, prohibited airspace even conflict zone (e.g Ukraine or Turkey , etc..) You then have the choice to divert to another destination , go back or possibly go through.
Just like Fog at your destination: Landing at intended planned destination is not mandatory under all circumstances. CBs are included in that.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 10:32
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
ATC Watcher, Thanks for your informative post. Actually, I have encountered all of your examples as Captain in my worldwide heavy flying career.
Tell me, do you just watch ATC? Maybe you misunderstand my view?
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2017, 08:09
  #39 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,643
Once a pilot : Sorry if I offended you , but there are too many people on this forum nowadays who are not who they are pretending to be .
No I am not only “watching ATC`’, I also fly my own aeroplane around and do since quite a while a few other aviation related things on the international field, that allowed me to gain a certain knowledge that I sometimes try to share here.
I think I got your point, I hope you got mine. Which basically was : No point bitching at Chinese ATC for not allowing deviations from routes. If you are retired and flew in Europe you surely remember the 3 Berlin corridors , a CB in one of them and it was 180 degr back . Well ,basically nothing has changed.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2017, 06:24
  #40 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,643
Absolutely correct Basil, and we both know a 180 is not the norm, but in some parts of the world it might be asked of you and then it is probably time to use the magic 7700 to open the doors. At least this is what I would do in this situation.
ATC Watcher is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.