Aviation

The High Court has accepted an application for judicial review over the government’s plan to build a third runway at the airport.

The application was jointly submitted by a member of the Land Justice League and a Tung Chung resident.

They are seeking to overturn a decision by the Environmental Protection Department to approve an environmental impact assessment report and issue a permit for the expansion project in November last year.

The Executive Council gave the final go-ahead for the HK$140 billion project in March.

Airport work will face rising construction costs and legal issues over airspace, opponents warn

The cost of expanding Terminal 2 at Chek Lap Kok airport to support the proposed third runway could soar to HK$14 billion by the time work begins in 2019 – 47 per cent up on the original prediction, a veteran engineer says.

The Airport Authority plans to shut down the terminal, which opened in 2007, for construction work to improve arrival and transit facilities. The building currently houses 56 passenger check-in counters, restaurants and shops, but no arrival hall.

Greg Wong Chak-yan, a former president of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, said his estimation was based on construction costs rising 5 to 6 per cent per year until 2019. The original prediction by the authority was HK$9.5 billion in 2010 prices.

The expansion work will involve extensive excavation and will see the terminal out of service until 2023.

Wong’s estimate came as opponents of a third runway warned yesterday the runway project could run into the same troubles as the new high-speed rail link to Guangzhou, which has been dogged by legal and constitutional issues involved in arranging immigration checks.

Opponents say the capacity of a third runway would be affected significantly by the ability of local authorities to coordinate airspace with mainland authorities.

“The problems will be similar to those seen with the planned joint immigration checkpoint at West Kowloon for the high-speed rail terminus,” said Roy Tam Hoi-pong, from Green Sense, and environmental group. “We don’t want to see Beijing interpreting the Basic Law to decide who should control the airspace.”

Hong Kong is responsible for providing air traffic services within its flight information region, according to Article 130 of the Basic Law.

Engineer Albert Lai Kwong-tak, from think tank Professional Commons, said if the third runway project ran into trouble, the problems would be even worse than those of the over-budget and delayed rail link.

He said construction projects across the Pearl River Delta requiring reclamation could jack up sand prices significantly, adding further uncertainty to the cost of land formation for the airport.

Wong believed the layout of the terminal building would be completely changed and that “only steel beams would be left” after the installation of additional facilities.

However, a spokesman for the authority would not say how far the basic structure of the building would be altered.

“The [authority] has analysed the structural limits and potential impact on the existing building, including the related modifications and addition works,” he said.

Source URL (modified on May 13th 2015, 3:21am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1794615/cost-work-terminal-2-third-runway-hong-kong-airport-may-rise

Difficulties finding route for aborted landings put third runway in doubt

Further doubts have been cast on the running of Chek Lap Kok airport’s proposed third runway, after the Civil Aviation Department said it would abandon a key flight path planned for aborted aircraft landings on the strip.

Routing planes over a firing range used by the People’s Liberation Army and police in Castle Peak, Tuen Mun, situated under the proposed missed- approach route, proved too challenging.

The department announced on Monday it had given up on this route – recommended by its British consultants – due to “technical issues”.

The Post revealed last month how the firing range posed a hazard to planes and that frequent shooting threatened to reduce the airspace available and limit the number of aircraft that can land.

At present, the airport’s two runways can handle 67 planes an hour. A third runway would see that capacity increase to 102.

In a statement, Hong Kong’s aviation regulator said: “Since the implementation of this flying procedure poses technological limitations to flight operations, such as on the requirement on the climb gradient, the Civil Aviation Department earlier decided not to adopt this procedure.”

A spokeswoman denied the issue was directly related to the firing range but reiterated it would comply with International Civil Aviation Organisation rules.

One of the few alternative flight paths for aborted landings would force planes arriving from Macau to make a sharp U-turn, coming immediately into conflict with planes approaching Shenzhen airport.

Michael Mo Kwan-tai, spokesman for the Airport Development Concern Network, said: “The CAD has taken a huge gamble in assuming the Shenzhen authorities would give way to missed-approach aircraft in order to give maximum capacity to the three-runway system.

“If Shenzhen will not give way, or in any circumstance the Pearl River Delta [airspace] integration plan does not include approval of this U-turn missed approach, the third runway will be screwed up,” he added.

Former aviation department chief Albert Lam Kwong-yu said to enter Shenzhen’s airspace, the department “must have agreement and consult its authorities”.

The sharp U-turn into mainland airspace is the only other flight path offered by the National Air Traffic Service that complies with global aviation laws.

Consultants carved out the “escape route” after assuming airspace would be merged with the Pearl River Delta and that the firing range would be shut down.

Source URL (modified on Apr 30th 2015, 3:01am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1781110/doubts-grow-over-hong-kongs-third-runway-aviation-department

Thomas Chu Ka Wa, writing on April 24, says that “we must recognise that the future demand on the airport is strong and can be met only with new hardware” (“No basis for opposing third runway”). He goes on to suggest that the arguments of the opponents do not stand up to scrutiny as “we can all analyse the data and information available”.

Mr Chu’s “strong demand” and “data available” springs from past figures and trends to project a hypothetical future. The same approach was adopted in 2004 in the Port 2020 study – a projection which showed that we needed an additional container terminal.

The reality is, of course, vastly different – our once great port has succumbed to external market realities which were even then apparent to anyone with a less partisan view – and it is indeed fortunate that sane heads prevailed in this rare case and we were not saddled with another costly white elephant infrastructure project.

Our airport business is particularly vulnerable. If the one-third that stems from transit passengers is replaced by direct flights through new air service agreements with mainland China – as is a distinct probability – then we lose this leg of the stool. If the one-third that derives from air cargo falls away upon the decline of manufacturing in the Pearl River Delta – as is already happening – then another leg becomes shaky.

And to assume that a city of but 7 million people will of itself fill the gaps thus lost in aircraft movements is extreme folly.

There is indeed a role in analysis of past trends, but it is unwise to adopt this without due rigour. The Port 2020 study demonstrated how a failure to examine the wider picture could have led us into a very costly blunder indeed.

I have read the detailed official analysis and justification for the third runway, and it is this case made that does not stand up to the scrutiny that Mr Chu suggests we all take.

Clive Noffke, Lantau

Source URL (modified on Apr 29th 2015, 5:07pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1780208/letters-editor-april-30-2015

SCMP Letters to the Editor

The assistant director of civil aviation tells us that our airport will reach its upper limit of 68 air movements at the end of the year (“UK air traffic system not useful here”, April 27).

However, my understanding is that the limit of our two runways is actually about 80 but this cannot be reached because the central government has not sanctioned northward routes for departing aircraft. This limitation has been in place since the days of planning and has shown no signs of being lifted.

Does it not seem to be unwise to commit HK$140 billion on what is still only hope that this decision will be reversed to allow for full use of three runways: about 120 movements?

It will, of course, conform with the degree of foresight applied before government projects proceed in Hong Kong. We already have a cruise ship terminal with no cruise ships, so why not a third runway with no aeroplanes?

SP Li, Lantau

http://multimedia.scmp.com/third-runway-mountain/

Hong Kong is set to build a third runway for Chek Lap Kok airport, but there are some stubborn physical constraints.

Sitting under airspace required for Chek Lap Kok’s proposed third runway, a firing range used by the Chinese army and the police is considered a threat to planes flying overhead. If the firing range isn’t removed by the time construction finishes, then the number of flights arriving on the new landing strip looks set to be cut. The South China Morning Post explains the latest issue to overshadow one of the world’s most congested international airports.

Recommended escape route for jets on third runway

Around 10km north of Chek Lap Kok near Tuen Mun lies Castle Peak. It is a vast area of greenbelt land in the northwest New Territories, one of the few undeveloped areas of land in Hong Kong not classified as a country park nor earmarked for development.

This land contains the site of a vast firing range used by China’s People’s Liberation Army and the Hong Kong police. The site is so active that aircraft overhead cannot fly below 914 metres. Security exercises take place every Monday to Friday throughout the year in this, one of the remotest and most deserted areas of the city. A flight path for jets aborting landings on the proposed third runway sits in the crosshairs of this no-fly zone. The firing activity poses a hazard to planes. A plane approaching the runway needs a certain amount of airspace in case it needs to abort the landing at the last minute. Planes will have to climb much steeper to avoid the no-fly zone, increasing the risk of the manoeuvre.

Frequent firing by troops at the Castle Peak site threatens to reduce such airspace and limit the number of planes that can land. The distance gives commercial jets clear altitude to avoid the ammunition firing and Castle Peak itself – which stands 583 metres high. Atop of that is a broadcast tower for television satellites which stretches up to 590 metres. These three things are a problem for the third runway, say the government’s airport consultants.

Almost all of the airspace above Castle Peak sits within restricted airspace. It’s officially known as “Danger Zone 5”. Pilots are expected to navigate a narrow flight path that can fly high enough to reach at least 914 metres before entering the danger zone to avoid the terrain and the flight restrictions. In a worst-case scenario, aircraft aborting a landing would enter the firing range at a height as low as 526 metres.

Panoramic view taken in 2012 from Lantau Island of the Hong Kong International Airport with Castle Peak in the background. Photo: Nora Tam/SCMP

What does the government say about Danger Zone 5?

Britain’s National Air Traffic Services (NATS), the government’s airport consultants, recommended relocating the firing range, known as Danger Zone 5, in 2008. They said the third runway would risk being little used otherwise.

A Civil Aviation Department source said the government remained open to its consultant’s warning and that the firing range could be moved before the third runway was completed – but this would mean the PLA having to cede control of a key resource.

“The missed approach procedure has been operating smoothly since its implementation and an effective communication mechanism is also in place with the firing zone and the PLA,” the source said. “We are considering all possible options and will take necessary action during detailed procedure design.”

However, the department’s official response insisted it would comply with UN aviation safety rules when planning the third runway and that Hong Kong’s existing two runways managed to operate aborted landings above the danger zone “safely and efficiently at all times”.

But the consultants say there is not enough space for planes to safely climb over Castle Peak and the firing range with the third runway in place. If a jet attempted to fly above the firing range, it would need to climb at a minimum gradient of more than 10 per cent, which NATS branded as “operationally unacceptable”.

Seven per cent is considered the maximum limit.

Negative outlook

What did the former civil aviation chief, pilots, air traffic controller, and anti-third runway campaigner have to say?

“If NATS says it has to be addressed, it has to be, otherwise that procedure cannot be used, which will affect the airport capacity,” said former department chief Albert Lam Kwong-yu. “But first the PLA must agree to remove it.”

Michael Mo Kwan-tai, the spokesman for the Airport Development Concern Network, said the newly created missed approach flight path “is clearly very close to” to the danger zone. “The broadcast tower would become a threat if the firing zone isn’t relocated,” Mo said, because planes would have to avoid two major obstructions in close proximity. NATS says the tower would need to be removed.

A senior air traffic controller in Hong Kong said: “I can’t see how the firing range survives.”

Consultants carved out the escape route after assuming airspace would be merged with the Pearl River Delta and the firing range would be deactivated.

The Hong Kong Airline Pilots Association warned that older aircraft were not capable of such manoeuvres. The PLA did not respond to repeated requests for comment.