Why is the ILS approach not specified?
Thread Starter
Why is the ILS approach not specified?
Operating into Hangzhou tonight and the ATIS says 06. Not ILS 06 Z or X or Y. Yeh take your pick. We get cleared for a STAR and ILS 06. No mention of which one. Surely its easy to put that letter on the ATIS. And yeh there are some big differences. Missed approaches go completely the opposite way. This phenomena is not unique to this airport either. Wake up China.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not familiar with Hangzhou but Shanghai is similar. And that is one of the easiest airports I know. When you get cleared for the RNAV arrival (which is always) it's the Z (RNAV) ILS approach, so if it's the non RNAV arrival you'll probably get the non RNAV ILS Y approach. 
That X-approach I don't know..
And when I go to the market the Chinese outsmart me every time
That X-approach I don't know..
And when I go to the market the Chinese outsmart me every time
Thread Starter
Another example is that they assume all altitudes are cancelled on a SID or STAR when it would otherwise restrict you when giving an altitude above or below said restrictions. ICAO has made concerted efforts to get a common understanding of this globally but China still makes you pull teeth every time by asking if restrictions are cancelled.
Wake up I say again.
Thread Starter
I am aware of that convention but that sort of assumption could get you into trouble here. Ponder this then if you havnt been to Hangzhou; 06 is to the left of 07. ILS Z 06 has a missed approach turning right into the path of 07 the takeoff runway!! The 06 Y approach has the missed approach turning left. Which one would you choose considering TEM? Put it in the ATIS like the rest of the world. Simple
Thread Starter
Not familiar with Hangzhou but Shanghai is similar. And that is one of the easiest airports I know. When you get cleared for the RNAV arrival (which is always) it's the Z (RNAV) ILS approach, so if it's the non RNAV arrival you'll probably get the non RNAV ILS Y approach.
That X-approach I don't know..
And when I go to the market the Chinese outsmart me every time
That X-approach I don't know..
And when I go to the market the Chinese outsmart me every time
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another example is that they assume all altitudes are cancelled on a SID or STAR when it would otherwise restrict you when giving an altitude above or below said restrictions.
Ask 10 pilots a question and get 11 different answers.
In China you are not supposed to make go-arounds. Hence the lack of X/Y/Z in the atis.
This phenomena is not unique to this airport either.
Basic IFR stuff, study your plates, check your ending point of the STAR which usually links to the IAF. If not happy, query APP or TWR.
And don't call anybody stupid
6 miles on the ILS into SHA, we are asked to make left orbit "for separation" (traffic in front still 5 miles ahead on TCAS). We're going down on the glide at this point. Whilst we're busy with our "WTFs" for 3 seconds, the instruction is repeated with "expedite". Skipper at the time, pushes to level off and completes the turn in heading. In the debrief we discuss how stupid this was due to uncertainty about obstacles.
60 miles into Nanning, we get asked to reduce speed to 180Kts and make 2 orbits. Flaps go out. After completion of orbits, resume normal speed, retract flaps, fly for another 30 miles then sequence for landing.
At Wenzhou, we get asked to line up with an aircraft on short finals (2-3 miles). We protest, and are met with "aaah ok, hold, hold, confirm holding short!". Two days later exact same thing happens at the same airport.
Cruising at circa 30k, told to hold position. "How long is the delay?", answer: "Undetermined". 30 minutes later, "Undetermined". We asked to go back, "OK, resume course".
60 miles into Nanning, we get asked to reduce speed to 180Kts and make 2 orbits. Flaps go out. After completion of orbits, resume normal speed, retract flaps, fly for another 30 miles then sequence for landing.
At Wenzhou, we get asked to line up with an aircraft on short finals (2-3 miles). We protest, and are met with "aaah ok, hold, hold, confirm holding short!". Two days later exact same thing happens at the same airport.
Cruising at circa 30k, told to hold position. "How long is the delay?", answer: "Undetermined". 30 minutes later, "Undetermined". We asked to go back, "OK, resume course".
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been flying in China for almost 4 years and I can confirm that: There is no such thing as altitude constraint during a SID or STAR. If they clear you to descend or climb to an altitude, don’t bother asking “ confirm unrestricted?”. You are just wasting your time and jamming the frequency. It’s ALWAYS unrestricted unless specified by ATC.
Most of the airports in China used RNAV STAR/SID. And it’s always ILS Z unless informed otherwise.
For Hangzhou, the ILS “X” is by ATC as written on the chart. The “Y” is conventionnal only and won’t connect to the RNAV Star. = )
Most of the airports in China used RNAV STAR/SID. And it’s always ILS Z unless informed otherwise.
For Hangzhou, the ILS “X” is by ATC as written on the chart. The “Y” is conventionnal only and won’t connect to the RNAV Star. = )
Last edited by pineteam; 10th Apr 2018 at 16:39. Reason: Added info.
I'll take a wild guess and say that on the balance of probability I have been flying there longer than you. My point is that after 20 years flying there, they still make stupid mistakes like this and have not seen the light.
Agreed , flying in China has always been a challenge , but it's a darn sight better than it used to be .
And then there's the Italians......
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew in to Hangzou yesterday, ATIS specified RNAV ILS Z 06.
That said, the controllers are incapable of controlling traffic flow without reducing speeds to 250 knots at 150+nm then incrementally down to 180kts at 40nm. When that didn’t work they had us (and the preceding aircraft) make orbits.
This followed a low and slow flight (their choice, not ours) from Beijing.
That said, the controllers are incapable of controlling traffic flow without reducing speeds to 250 knots at 150+nm then incrementally down to 180kts at 40nm. When that didn’t work they had us (and the preceding aircraft) make orbits.
This followed a low and slow flight (their choice, not ours) from Beijing.
