Third Runway

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.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1772131/letters-editor-april-21-2015

During the presentation the Airport Authority was giving to the Town Planning Board on April 10, Wilson Fung Wing-yip, the authority’s executive director of corporate development, broached a future master plan being drafted wherein a study would be carried out into the need for a fourth runway or even a replacement airport.

Better late than never, this planning work.

But it is hoped the logistics of the planning work will not be “cart before the horse” this time, so that the need for a fourth runway or otherwise will be identified before resources are committed to add the third runway to Chek Lap Kok. For it is patently obvious that there is no possibility of adding a fourth runway at Chek Lap Kok.

The crux of the “third runway at Chek Lap Kok” airspace cloud we’re under is simply whether the mainland authorities had given the specific blessing for traffic from the third runway to turn north so that at least two of the three runways can be operated independent of each other, to enable a total capacity of 102 movements to be achieved.

The rest is empty talk. This is by no means an easy concession to grant, considering the criss-crossing between each other’s traffic, as can be seen on the diagram attached to the report “Airspace conflict could hold back third runway” (January 23).

If it was easy, it would have been granted for traffic from the present north runway to turn north, to enable the present two runways to operate independent of each other, achieving far more than the 68 movements an hour projected for later this year.

The quest for this concession is what started the umpteen tripartite meetings, starting before 1997.

Peter Lok, Chai Wan

The building of the third runway is expected to be cause for public pride for Hong Kong and an engineering marvel. I want to add my voice of opposition to it.

Hong Kong enjoys an enviable geographic location and is an international business centre attracting

multinational corporations which utilise our aviation hub. It is, therefore, important for Hong Kong to maintain its hub status which helps drive our economic growth.

I do not doubt that the airport in its current form will eventually be overwhelmed by the steady growth in both passenger and cargo traffic. But it seems that the building of the third runway is a piecemeal strategy, building a new runway whenever capacity is reached.

Hong Kong International Airport has not fully utilised the two existing runways.

Instead, the airport management should better plan the efficient use of the runways. Take Heathrow as an example: it operates its two runways at 80 aircraft movements per hour. This should be evidence enough for the government to improve management of aircraft movements.

The central issue is airspace in the Pearl River delta.

There are five airports clustered around the delta, making the airspace in the region one of the most congested in the world, limiting routes for all air traffic. This arrangement places a finite limit on flight movements into or out of Chep Lap Kok, regardless of the number of runways.

It is not a small piece of land the authorities are reclaiming, and the location of the proposed third runway is in the heart of three Chinese white dolphin hotspots.

Reclamation will also cause a lot of solid and water pollution during construction.

Suspended solids and other pollutants released during the construction process will directly affect marine animals and those of us who eat fish.

Some claim to have solutions, such as using deep cement mixing and building dolphin parks but these will only add to costs I doubt revenue will cover.

Simply put, Hong Kong does not need a third runway. What Hong Kong needs is better management and utilisation of its existing two runways.

Nazreen Banu, Wong Tai Sin

Source URL (modified on Apr 19th 2015, 12:01am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1768591/why-hong-kongs-third-runway-not-needed

Technology allowing jets to land closer could squeeze more capacity from Chek Lap Kok

Chek Lap Kok airport could use a new method to space out aircraft landings to cut delays and allow additional flight movements, said the UK-based consultant that carried out analysis of Hong Kong’s airspace and runway capacity in 2008.

National Air Traffic Services (NATS), which also provides air traffic control services to aircraft flying in British airspace, said the use of a system called Time Based Separation (TBS) at London’s Heathrow airport could cut arrival delays on windy days by half. It allows aircraft to be brought in closer together according to wind speeds rather than maintaining a constant distance.

This comes as controversy over the construction of a third runway at Chek Lap Kok airport grows, with critics arguing that the current two runways have not been fully utilised and amid fears an unwillingness by Shenzhen to give up its airspace would undermine the performance of the new HK$140 billion runway.

Strong headwinds cause delays and even flight cancellations because planes landing into the wind take longer to reach the runway even if they maintain a constant speed. The overall landing rate then drops.

Andy Shand, NATS general manager in charge of customer affairs, told the South China Morning Post that TBS simply moved aircraft closer together to regain some lost landings. This can be achieved because the spirals of air generated by aircraft dissipate quicker in strong headwinds and therefore the distance between aircraft can be reduced.

“Heathrow is probably the most heavily scheduled two-runway airport in the world, so if you get any impact on the landing rate then there could be a knock-on in terms of delay and airborne holdings,” he said, adding strong headwinds were the single biggest cause of delays at Heathrow.

Like Hong Kong, Heathrow has only two runways and is approaching maximum capacity.

But to ease current congestion, Heathrow last month adopted TBS, which was developed by NATS and US aircraft maker Lockheed Martin. The airport had previously used distance-based separation.

TBS will be installed at 17 other major airports in Europe by 2024.

NATS is now analysing the results of the first few weeks of operation. Shand said they were looking positive, with significant gains in operational resilience.

While Shand noted TBS was not a replacement for a new runway, he said: “By increasing the consistency of service to a degree, you may be able to see one additional movement an hour or something that’s scheduled … You get the maximum out of your runway capacity.”

Asked if Hong Kong could use TBS, Shand said: “It’s the air traffic control authority and the airport’s decision whether they want to or are interested in implementing that sort of tool.”

At Chek Lap Kok, about 51,900 passenger flights were delayed by more than 15 minutes on arrival last year, representing 13 per cent of total movements. However, the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) said it did not have a breakdown of reasons for flight delays. It said they were mainly caused by bad weather and airlines’ operational reasons.

The department sidestepped questions about introducing TBS to Hong Kong.

“CAD will continue to monitor the air traffic growth situation and work closely with the Airport Authority Hong Kong as well as airlines to enhance the efficient use of the remaining runway capacity of the existing two-runway system,” a spokeswoman said.

But Shand said as airlines used bigger aircraft such as the Airbus A380, runway capacity effectively declined as a bigger gap was required to accommodate them. “By delivering this sort of resilience measure [TBS] and also additional capacity we effectively mitigate the impact of additional A380 movements,” he said.

“The airport capacity is going up in terms of passengers, but airport punctuality is being kept where it is.”

Source URL (modified on Apr 20th 2015, 9:12am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1771637/new-uk-system-could-squeeze-more-capacity-out-chek-lap-kok

Danny Lee danny.lee@scmp.com

Planes performing emergency manoeuvres will have to avoid two major obstructions

A firing range used by the PLA and police poses a hazard to planes that would use the third runway at Chek Lap Kok, a government source has told the Post.

A plane approaching the runway needs a certain amount of airspace in case it needs to abort the landing at the last minute.

Frequent firing by troops at the Castle Peak site, which sits under an escape-route flight path earmarked for the planned new runway, threatens to reduce such airspace and limit the number of planes that can land.

The skies above Castle Peak are designated a no-fly zone under 914 metres during security exercises, which are often held from Monday to Friday throughout the year. Planes will have to climb much steeper to avoid the no-fly zone, increasing the risk of the manoeuvre.

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 [aborting the landing] 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.

In a worst-case scenario, aircraft aborting a landing would enter the firing range at a height as low as 526 metres.

“If NATS says it has to be addressed, it has to be, otherwise that [escape] 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.”

Castle Peak, at 583 metres, is itself a concern, particularly as a broadcasting tower atop the mountain extends it to 590 metres. Consultants said the tower would need to be removed.

Michael Mo Kwan-tai, the spokesman for the Airport Development Concern Network, said the newly created missedapproach 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. 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.

Planes landing on the third runway from the west are projected to have to pivot hard left and follow a missed-approach path that squeezes between Castle Peak and the danger zone.

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.

Source URL (modified on Apr 13th 2015, 8:10am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1765034/pla-firing-range-poses-threat-planes-using-hong-kongs-proposed-third