4 Accidents in 5 Months - What’s wrong?
Over this past 5 months, there have been 4 serious accidents occurring in Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) involving commercial jets. Some have suggested that the replacement of new air traffic management system (ATMS) is the reason for these accidents. Is it really the case? And if so, is the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) responsible for that? I would like to analysis the causes of aviation accidents occurred in Hong Kong International Airport from May to September case by case, and find out the main culprit to these incidents.
24 MAY 2017: ( Airbus A321) Runway Excursion
Company: China Eastern Airlines
Aircraft: Airbus A321-211
Registration: B 6366
Person on board: 132 passengers, 9 crew
Meteorologic conditions
METAR weather reports at HKG during the time of incident, about 0250Z:
VHHH 240212Z 31013KT 280V340 1200 0600E R07R/P2000D R25L/P2000D R07L/1500D R25R/1400D +TSRA +SHRA FEW010CB SCT025 25/25 Q1007 TEMPO 1600 TSRA SHRA FEW010CB SCT020
(Wind 310 at 13 knots, varying from 280 to 340; Thunderstorm, Rain, Shower; Visibility 1600)
-
-
The Airbus A321 aircraft suffered from a runway excursion after landing on runway 25R. When the aircraft was abeam taxiway A3, it deviated from the runway centerline and veered off to the grass area on right-hand side. The aircraft subsequently stopped with its nose landing gear and right main landing gear rested on the grass off the right-hand side of Runway 25R. No one was hurt and single runway operation was enforced at the airport.
At that time, the pilot flying is the pilot-in-command seating on the left seat; while the ‘pilot monitoring’ is the co pilot on the right seat. Pilot-in-command has accumulated up to 5992 flying hours, with 5740 hours on that type.
Even though the final accident report has not been issued, it is observable that this accident may have been caused by pilot error and low visibility. The pilot was recorded telling the atc that the plane has gone ‘the wrong way’ for at least five times after it landed. With the plane seems to be turned 180 degrees, it can be seen that there’s some confusion going on inside the cockpit.
Low visibility may also be a reason to this accident. The visibility is only 3 km at the time of accident, with heavy rain further reducing the view of pilots. In addition, it is reported that low cumulonimbus clouds is at 1000ft at the time of accident.
It can be concluded that air traffic control is not a reason leading to this accident, as the ATC recording reveals that the instruction given by the tower is clear.
4 JUNE 2017: KLM ENCOUNTERS HEAVY TURBULENCE
Airline: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Aircraft: Boeing 747-406(M)
Registration: PH BFR
Meteorologic conditions
Active southwest monsoon, with the weather was mainly cloudy and showery. Moderate wind with conditions suitable to fly.
-
-
The passenger Boeing 747 was enroute at 8900 meters (FL291) when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence for a couple of seconds causing passengers to be thrown against the cabin ceiling. 9 people, including six passengers and two crew members suffered injuries in this incident.
The aircraft encountered this accident when it is about 30-40 minutes prior to landing in Hong Kong. About 15 minutes later, already descending towards Hong Kong, the crew advised ATC of injuries on board and requested emergency services and medical staff to meet the aircraft upon arrival. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Hong Kong's runway 25R about 30-40 minutes later.
No official reports of the accident was made; but unexpected turbulence can be a possible cause to this accident. A pilot report stated that they saw the Boeing 747 over-flying cumulonimbus clouds before the accident occurred. As turbulence are invisible to radars, it’s hard to avoid this accident.
6 JUNE 2017: A320 NEARLY HITS A MOUNTAIN
Airline: Air China
Aircraft: Airbus A320 200
Registration: B 6822
Meteorological conditions
VHHH 041400Z 14009KT 120V180 9999 FEW010 SCT028 30/26 Q1005 NOSIG=
VHHH 041300Z 15007KT 100V180 9999 FEW010 SCT028 30/26 Q1004 NOSIG=
(Wind 150 at 7 knots, ranging from 100 to 180 degrees. Visibility more than 10km)
-
-
An Air China Airbus A320-200 was in the initial climb out of Hong Kong's runway 25L about 1.8nm past the runway end when the crew, in the process of being handed off from tower to departure climbing between 2000 and 3000 feet MSL, began to turn left towards the terrain of Lantau Island (rising up to 3066 feet).
By the time air traffic controllers have sent out terrain collision alert, the aircraft had already reached a southerly heading and was over the coastline of Lantau Island. The crew immediately turned right onto a heading 270 and increased climb reaching the minimum safe altitude of 4300 feet about 75 seconds later. The aircraft rejoined the departure route and continued to Chengdu for a safe landing without further incident.
Though no damage was made, this incident has violated the minimum safe altitude for that area, which is 4300 feet.
Below is the air traffic conversations at the time of the accident:
14:11 Officer: Air China 428, turn right immediately. Turn right immediately. Heading 0 caution 270. Terrain ahead, expedite climb.
14:20 Officer: Air China 428.
14:22 Pilot: [Inaudible].
14:24 Officer: Air China 428, expedite climb. Terrain ahead. Terrain alert. Expedite climb passing 5,000 feet. Expedite.
14:30 Pilot: [Inaudible]
...
31:43 Officer: Air China 428.
31:45 Pilot: Hey, here is Air China 428.
31:47 Officer: Um, we will have to file a report about the turn just now so, um, just to let you know.
31:53 Pilot: Um, sorry. OK, I got it.
With reference to previous audio, it has been suggested that while departure gave instruction "Climb FL130" , F/O misheard "Fly heading 130" and dialed in the turn. It can be concluded that communication error (static sounds of radio/ lack of english proficiency), combining human factors (lack of situational awareness) may have caused this accident.
22 SEP 2017: RUNWAY INCURSION OF AIR CARGO GLOBAL ONTO RUNWAY
Airline: Air Cargo Global ACG,
Hong Kong Airlines
Aircraft: Boeing 747 400F,
Airbus A330 300
Registration: OM ACB
B LNS
Meteorological conditions
VHHH 220100Z 09005KT 9999 FEW010 SCT028 27/25 Q1011 NOSIG=
VHHH 220030Z 06005KT 9999 -SHRA FEW005 SCT028 26/25 Q1011 TEMPO 4000 SHRA=
(Visibility more than 10 km. Clouds few at 1000ft)
-
-
The Boeing 747f had just landed on vhhh runway 07L and was taxing back to cargo apron. Crew reported that they were holding short of runway 07R and received taxi instruction to “taxi K, L2 to C12”
At the same time, the Airbus A333 was cleared for take off and was accelerating on runway 07R. About 50 seconds after receiving the takeoff clearance the crew radioed they were rejecting takeoff after seeing another aircraft on the runway.
Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department (HKCAD) reported the A330 was about 1000 meters away from the Boeing 747, when they applied brakes and rejected takeoff. The occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated, as a high risk of collision existed.
Even though the official investigation has not been published, one possible cause for this accident is the communication error between the crew of Air Cargo Global and Hong Kong’s air traffic controller. The air traffic control did not use the common phrases in the aviation industry. Have he used the phrased “cleared to cross runway 07R”, the instruction would have been clearer and the whole accident could have been avoided. Also, as this is only a charter freighter flight, it is understandable that the pilots on the 747 did not know the common practice of Hong Kong International Airport.
25 SEP 2017 : BOEING 747 WRONG TURN AFTER TAKE OFF
Airline: Atlas Air (wet leased by Cathay Pacific)
Aircraft: Boeing 747 800F
Registration: N856GT
Route: Hong Kong to Anchorage (CX86)
The Boeing 748 was climbing out of Hong Kong International Airport runway 07R. After it is handed off from tower to departure, the crew initiated a premature right hand turn towards Lantau Island climbing over terrain rising up to 1500 feet MSL below safe altitude.
The aircraft subsequently turned onto a heading parallel to the runway already past the island, then joined the departure route again and continued to Anchorage for a landing without further incident.
Even though no official reports were made, based on my knowledge and research, this incident may be caused by a inadequate FMC Nav database. Back in 2010, the POPRPA waypoint is 2 NM west to the current waypoint. The flight path of N856GT shows that it may have turned right to RAMEN close to the original PORPA position. However, this cause is yet to be verified, as the new AIRAC cycle began since September 13; which means that the FMC Nav Database shouldn’t be out of date.
To conclude, every accident that occurred between this five months has been caused by their own problems. Although the accident involving runway incursion of a Boeing 747 400f on runway 07R may seems to be the inadequate instructions given by air traffic controllers, it does not relate to the Air Traffic Management System newly installed to Hong Kong International Airport.
I’m sure everyone is hoping CAD to publish their investigation why 4 accidents can happen in an international airport in hardly 5 months. So am I. So if you have any questions about the blog above or anything you want to correct / add on, please feel free to comment or email us.
Comments