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

Another Wrong Turn at HKG..?

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

Another Wrong Turn at HKG..?

Old 30th Sep 2017, 19:48
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
Originally Posted by jrmyl View Post
I just landed in HKG and was thinking about this as we came in. I am wondering if they put in the runway but failed to load the departure in the FMS. That would explain the turn. I imagine their first waypoint on their flightplan was Ocean. Arm LNAV prior to departure and at 400' it turns direct to Ocean. Would just about put them right into the mountain.
Looks like the filed route started out with OCEAN V3 ENVAR:

Cathay Pacific (CX) #86 24-Sep-2017 HKG / VHHH - PANC FlightAware

Since RASSE is on V3 and the B-748 has radius-to-fix capability my guess for the departure off 07R after 15Z was the RASSE1E:

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/A...RASSE%20EF.pdf

However, I've guessed wrong many times in my own plane in HKG and other exotic departure points.

Note that PORPA is not a fly-over point on the RF departure.

I can't imagine even a cargo crew not briefing and setting a departure out of Hong Kong. Did they guess the wrong departure or runway, catch the mistake when the picture didn't look right lining up on the runway and try to hurriedly patch the route at the wrong point dropping PORPA?

Originally Posted by jrmyl View Post
Can't wait to see a report on this.
Will there be a report? Or, since it's a freighter maybe only a company ASAP mea culpa filed and a note two months later in the company safety bulletin?

And maybe a noise violation fine for Cathay or Atlas/Polar?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 00:28
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kentucky/Tokyo
Posts: 195
You could be correct about no report.

I can definitely see this happening though. You get busy, it's late, you're tired, fatigued, rushed. You make mistakes. You load a runway, not sure what departure, so you think, "I'll wait to put that in." Then when things start happening you completely forget to go back and load it.

Fatigue is a terrible thing that is hard to recognize by one self. If both pilots are fatigued then it becomes even worse.
jrmyl is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 04:36
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
Over the years I've seen two philosophies about setting up the departure before you get the clearance.

One school of thought is to put the most likely departure in the box then change it later if you get something different. That way mileages, ETA's and fuels can be roughly crosschecked against the flight plan assuming the winds are loaded.

The other idea is to not enter a departure until you are actually cleared and leave a discontinuity as a reminder that something needs to be done.

Also, the HKG departures used to be coded with a departure plus a departure transition. A common trap was to forget to select the transition and heal the discontinuity to an initial point like OCEAN or ENVAR.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 05:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 243
Why do "commercial jets", even the newest ones, with tripple multi million dollar IRS systems, lack synthetic vision on their PFD.

On my crummy little 2017 Cessna 182, I have dual GPS navigators, I also have a flight director and a Magenta Line just like the big guys. Only difference is, I can see the hills around me, the big jet crew can't. I can see the hills on my PFD with Synthetic Vision, and I can see them on a 2nd, independent system...EVS and it's only really a budget system, not like the units fitted to G650's but it does work. I always know where the hard stuff is in relation to my magenta line.

So why should I have better SA in a 400,000 Cessna than the guys in a $300 Million 748.
Guptar is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 09:03
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 121
Any new equipment to be fitted to multi-million dollar commercial aircraft unfortunately requires very lengthy and expensive certification by the manufacturer, for each aircraft type. Consequently, they will then charge a whole more to offer it to operators.

As long as the current avionic fit meets legislative demands, operators are not usually at all keen to spend millions more fitting fancy kit, which the purse-string holders often consider as little more than 'pilot toys'.

It sounds like you have plenty of disposable income to throw at your "crummy little 2017 Cessna 182", so perhaps you should be very grateful?
Stuart Sutcliffe is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 09:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kentucky/Tokyo
Posts: 195
So here is a photo prior to departure today. I put in the Ocean 2A 07R departure which would be very similar to the Rasse departure that they would have been doing. Then I selected direct to Ocean to see what type of track that would have from the runway end. That is the white dashed line headed out to about a 120 heading. You can see that it just clips the high terrain to the south of the aircraft.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_0993.jpg (875.3 KB, 206 views)
jrmyl is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:17
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
How can you figure out what all those lines mean?

Looks like a B-763 near gate 24 to me, thanks for posting this.

I believe the hill that CX 86 flew near is the yellow highlighted area abeam SMT on the right side of the 07R departure track, not the red area on the terrain display. But, they should not have been anywhere near any of that terrain on the departure.

Unlike the OCEAN 2A the nighttime departures to OCEAN like the RASSE 1E continue the right departure turn at PORPA to the south to avoid overflying Kowloon and Hong Kong Island.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:02
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 446
Airbubba, as you say, after 1500Z (in fact after about 1430), the aircraft would be issued the noise mitigating SID via the West Lamma Channel.

That crossover period is a hazard in that aircraft cleared much earlier (particularly cargo whose off block time has a large degree of variance) may be initially issued the normal OCEAN SID, which subsequently is changed to the RASSE SID if they will then depart after 1500. I haven't heard the CDC playback so that would be interesting to confirm that as a first point of possible confusion.

The RF SIDs were designed to mitigate the spread of noise around the Ma Wan area, however ATC is not aware of all the different company's FMS capability. We have an agreement with CX, that all 777 and -8 will automatically be issued the RF SID by default. (there may be a couple of others now as well but not 100% sure). It is available to other operators on request as well and several do so.

The rub here is that to Clearance Delivery, this is a Cathay callsigned flight and the fact that it is being operated by Polar/Atlas is not differentiated.

Is there a common understanding with the wetlease crews that they will receive this automatically and is it a foregone conclusion that ALL 74-8's are RF capable?? (I presume so but are there different user-spec available?)

As you also indicate, the correct charting format of PORPA as fly-by is used in the RF chart. The path terminator coding for RF is necessarily different as the requirement to fly a fixed radius from a centre takes over immediately at the fix which actually requires the aircraft to commence roll-in just prior to PORPA.

Just looking at the initial track after the first turn, it does appear to be direct to RASSE, which makes me ask the question if the aircraft was RF capable and coded with the RF SID.
bekolblockage is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 12:21
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle KBFI
Posts: 110
Atlas/Polar -8's are all RF capable.

Authorized for Departures, but not for Arrivals or Approaches.

So the automatic assignment of an RF SID is not an issue, as it is preferred.
bigduke6 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 18:09
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
Originally Posted by bekolblockage View Post
That crossover period is a hazard in that aircraft cleared much earlier (particularly cargo whose off block time has a large degree of variance) may be initially issued the normal OCEAN SID, which subsequently is changed to the RASSE SID if they will then depart after 1500. I haven't heard the CDC playback so that would be interesting to confirm that as a first point of possible confusion.
I went back and scrubbed the LiveAtc.net tapes again and found the clearance for CX86 at about 15:40 into this clip:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/vh...2017-1500Z.mp3

CX86 calls for clearance to ANC with information O at stand C26.

They are cleared to ANC, flight plan route, RASSE 1E, squawk 3543.

The CX86 readback was RASSE 1, then 1A and the controller corrected it to RASSE 1E.

Originally Posted by bekolblockage View Post
The rub here is that to Clearance Delivery, this is a Cathay callsigned flight and the fact that it is being operated by Polar/Atlas is not differentiated.

Is there a common understanding with the wetlease crews that they will receive this automatically and is it a foregone conclusion that ALL 74-8's are RF capable?? (I presume so but are there different user-spec available?

Originally Posted by bigduke6 View Post
Atlas/Polar -8's are all RF capable.

Authorized for Departures, but not for Arrivals or Approaches.
Whether a plane, crew or callsign is legal for some new-fangled published departure or approach is a familiar trap in international flying in my experience. For example, I've flown planes with RNP-1 procedures in the database that were not RNP-1 certified. And, even some aircraft on the same fleet may have different capabilities depending on whether some obscure software mod or engineering order has been accomplished. Even if the aircraft is capable, there is normally crew training that must be accomplished before using the new procedure.

Trying to figure out whether a B-748 flight with a Cathay callsign operated by Polar which is owned by Atlas using U.S. Op Specs is legal for an RF departure out of VHHH is kinda like trying to find a lost bag on a codeshare ticket.

I remember years ago over the NOPAC a controller asking me if I was CPDLC equipped. When I hesitated to reply he said (correctly) that if I didn't know, I probably wasn't.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 18:10
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
It is said that ATC are responsible for terrain clearance when under radar guidance. However the captain remains responsible at all times for safety of a/c. Hence situational awareness has to be alive & well at all times; even if ATC give a radar instruction there should always be questions asked internally; is it safe & is it acceptable to what I want to do?
A clearance is not an instruction and so a couple more questions might be added, but those two should always be forefront. It helps one's survive to be aware of where the hard stuff is to avoid ATC or not. Thus, as in most cases of doubt, you ask again and check. The magenta line does not know about concrete nimbus. EGPWS should, but as is always the edict of airmanship, "do not take your a/c to a place your brain has not already visited a few moments earlier."
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 20:40
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,132
Trying to figure out whether a B-748 flight with a Cathay callsign operated by Polar which is owned by Atlas using U.S. Op Specs is legal for an RF departure out of VHHH is kinda like trying to find a lost bag on a codeshare ticket.
Not quite...

The key is "operated by Atlas Air". Atlas crews operate under Atlas/Polar OpSpecs, which are essentially identical. Radius-to-fix SIDs are explicitly allowed.

OTOH, IIRC an RTF SID in HKG must be explicitly requested by the crew. If the crew is unfamiliar, they may not bother with the request.
Intruder is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 21:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
Originally Posted by bekolblockage View Post
The rub here is that to Clearance Delivery, this is a Cathay callsigned flight and the fact that it is being operated by Polar/Atlas is not differentiated.

Is there a common understanding with the wetlease crews that they will receive this automatically and is it a foregone conclusion that ALL 74-8's are RF capable?? (I presume so but are there different user-spec available?
Originally Posted by bigduke6 View Post
Atlas/Polar -8's are all RF capable.

Authorized for Departures, but not for Arrivals or Approaches.

So the automatic assignment of an RF SID is not an issue, as it is preferred.
Originally Posted by Intruder View Post
OTOH, IIRC an RTF SID in HKG must be explicitly requested by the crew. If the crew is unfamiliar, they may not bother with the request.
So maybe the RASSE 1E was automatically assigned or perhaps it was requested?

Whatever the case, when the controller assigned the RASSE 1E, the pilot reading back the clearance had difficulty getting it right.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 00:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 446
I assume, under the agreement with Cathay, that we will automatically assign the RF SID to anybody (777 or -8 ) who calls up for clearance as "CPA086". While an extremely diligent and not so busy CDC might look across to the cargo apron and see that it's actually a Polar aircraft and query whether RF is suitable, there's no requirement.
That's why I was querying if Cathay has made their wetlease operators aware of this agreement.
As you say, the crew does sound a little wrongfooted on receiving the 1E clearance.
bekolblockage is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 02:39
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 446
Yes, thanks also.

Having listened, I note that there was a long delay to readback after the initial clearance was issued, which prompts the CDC to reiterate it.
From experience, that is a pointer to being given something they perhaps were not expecting in my opinion. The wrong readback further amplifies this. I do wonder if they ever did get the actual SID in the box.
bekolblockage is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 03:54
  #36 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by GMEDX View Post
This is the third attempt in a little over a year to hit Lantau island. Atlas 748, Air China A320 and Shenzhen A320. I guess if you have an airport right next to a 3064ft hill then eventually someone will hit it.
There was also Gemini's DC-10, about 1999. I talked to the flight engineer on that plane. They got a GPWS pull up warning, then the shaker.....
Huck is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2017, 08:16
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Airbubba,

Just had a look at the RASSE 1E in my company (biggest 777 operator...works us like the slaves we are) and it most certainly shows PORPA as a flyover before turning on the arc to PORSH.
Monarch Man is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2017, 09:39
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Guptar View Post
Why do "commercial jets", even the newest ones, with tripple multi million dollar IRS systems, lack synthetic vision on their PFD.

On my crummy little 2017 Cessna 182, I have dual GPS navigators, I also have a flight director and a Magenta Line just like the big guys. Only difference is, I can see the hills around me, the big jet crew can't. I can see the hills on my PFD with Synthetic Vision, and I can see them on a 2nd, independent system...EVS and it's only really a budget system, not like the units fitted to G650's but it does work. I always know where the hard stuff is in relation to my magenta line.

So why should I have better SA in a 400,000 Cessna than the guys in a $300 Million 748.
Suggest find and read this article;

What Is The Certification Tipping Point?
Aviation Week & Space Technology Apr 07, 2017
John Croft Washington

IMHO, you are exactly right, it is crazy that good modern tech is stifled and unavailable where it could be beneficial. Many accidents could be avoided with more appropriate timelines and constraints for equipment. Imagine if you tried to roll out the compass or gyro today.
omnis is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2017, 15:41
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,291
Originally Posted by Monarch Man View Post
Airbubba,

Just had a look at the RASSE 1E in my company (biggest 777 operator...works us like the slaves we are) and it most certainly shows PORPA as a flyover before turning on the arc to PORSH.
Thanks for taking a look, is it coded flyover in the FMS or on the chart in the tablet? Do you have RF capability in all of your Triples? Is your database in error perhaps? I found a miscoded constraint on a SID the hard way a few years ago.

As bekoblokage said:

Originally Posted by bekolblockage View Post
As you also indicate, the correct charting format of PORPA as fly-by is used in the RF chart. The path terminator coding for RF is necessarily different as the requirement to fly a fixed radius from a centre takes over immediately at the fix which actually requires the aircraft to commence roll-in just prior to PORPA.
The chart linked on the Hong Kong Aerodromes site definitely has PORPA charted as a fly-by waypoint:

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/A...RASSE%20EF.pdf

The Hong Kong AIS bulletin announcing publication of the RASSE 1E and the other RF noise mitigating SID's has this:

2.2 The new SIDs mainly overlay the existing noise mitigating SIDs except Radius-toFix (RF) turn is used (instead of a Direct-to-Fix (DF) turn) at PORPA and ROVER.

2.3 With the RF leg, the coding of waypoints PORPA and ROVER of these new noise mitigating SIDs are fly-by waypoints.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/supp/A19-11.pdf

Originally Posted by Intruder View Post
OTOH, IIRC an RTF SID in HKG must be explicitly requested by the crew. If the crew is unfamiliar, they may not bother with the request.
That is indeed what the book says. From the pub linked above:

2.6 For those capable and approved aircraft planning to fly the RF SID procedure, voice request for the RF SID via radio frequency from aircrew is required before sending the Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) request to ATC via data link.

Recommended R/T phraseology from aircrew: ‘Request Radius-to-Fix SID’.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2017, 16:03
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Thanks for taking a look, is it coded flyover in the FMS or on the chart in the tablet? Do you have RF capability in all of your Triples? Is your database in error perhaps? I found a miscoded constraint on a SID the hard way a few years ago.

As bekoblokage said:



The chart linked on the Hong Kong Aerodromes site definitely has PORPA charted as a fly-by waypoint:

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/A...RASSE%20EF.pdf

The Hong Kong AIS bulletin announcing publication of the RASSE 1E and the other RF noise mitigating SID's has this:



http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/supp/A19-11.pdf



That is indeed what the book says. From the pub linked above:
And that is my point; has this ‘agreement’ with the company been fully thought through in respect of the possibility that another operator using the CX callsign will be given the RF SID unexpectedly?

I found a miscoded constraint on a SID the hard way a few years ago.
That is why it is good procedure design/charting practice these days (not an ICAO requrement tho I don't think) to include the correct FMS coding, as the procedure designer intended, on the back of the chart (2nd page in the PDF). In the past it was left up to the FMS encoders to interpret what they thought the designer wanted the aircraft to do purely from the chart. Often Direct to Fix or Course to Fix were confused or fly-over/fly-by were not clear.
Even ignoring the PORPA symbol on the chart, you will see that the correct coding in the table on page 2 is Fly-by in the RF procedure. If Monarch Man's 777 really does show fly over, then their encoders have done it incorrectly.

As an aside, as the original AIP SUP noted, the nominal tracks for the RF SID "mainly" overlay the normal RNAV SID but there are subtle differences. The nominal track for the normal RNAV will make allowance for the along-track error of the PORPA fix and the roll in time and radius based on 15 degrees AOB.
On the other hand, the RF is basing that turn purely on a radius from a centre (as in the coding table) and the RF-capable FMS will automatically determine the roll-in point and bank angle to make good the arc, whether or not it has "reached" PORPA. Hence why it needs to be fly-by.

When flight testing it in the sim in OEI conditions it was a little unnerving for crews who were used to the normal roll-in point relative to the terrain on the right compared to the earlier roll-in of the RF, despite they both provide the same obstacle clearance. [ Before I get jumped on, I should clarify that PAN-OPS obstacle clearance presumes normal operations. The sim trials on OEI were for contingency planning only.]

Last edited by bekolblockage; 5th Oct 2017 at 17:45.
bekolblockage is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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