Aviation Specials – May 2018

Extreme Airports // 49

HONG KONG KAI TAK

Overcompensating for wind drift too late

on the fi nal approach also caught out many

pilots and resulted in engine pod scrapes

that were sometimes caught on camera.

Thankfully I wasn’t involved in any of the

spectacular incidents or accidents.

From the captain’s seat

We did a special pilot’s briefi ng before

we commenced our initial approach. It

always involved the location of the terrain

and the eff ects the wind direction might

have on the manual turn after the IGS, the

go-around and the turbulence that could

be expected. Actually, fl ying the IGS was

exactly like making a normal ILS approach,

but instead of looking for the runway when

we neared minimums we were looking out

for the checkerboard and then the lights

that would guide us onto the runway. Our

airline demanded that we were visual

with all three elements – checkerboard,

landing lights and the runway – in order

to continue the approach beyond the

decision point and land.

We monitored the IGS approach in the

same manner as we would a normal

ILS approach, but during the turn and

landing things became more intense

to say the least. The pilot fl ying was

mainly looking outside, relying on the

pilot monitoring to constantly advise

speed, altitude and bank angle. It could

be argued that the IGS segment was

the easy part but during a typhoon with

strong gusty winds, turbulence and li le-

to-no visibility in heavy rain, it could be

white knuckles all the way down.

I suppose I could have kept all the

automation on until we reached

the middle marker. But everyone

transitioned to manual control well prior

to that, to get a feel for the aircraft and

the effects of the wind, and to adjust

their scan and perspective. On the 747-

400 we disengaged both the autopilot

and autothrottle, while on the 777 we

kept the autothrottle on, which made life

a little easier.

The diffi culty of the turn to fi nal for the

runway mainly depended on the wind,

turbulence, our fatigue level, and our

competency. The curved row of lights

certainly helped provide an indication

of drift, even during the day as visibility

was often not great through the almost

incessant haze. As I banked into the turn

on my very fi rst Runway 13 IGS, I could

have sworn our winglet was going to snag

on a washing line strung across the top of

one of the buildings and we’d be trailing

freshly laundered clothes as we landed.

The buildings always looked much closer

than I expect they were, and I’m sure it was

far more nerve-racking for the passengers

than for us.

We didn’t have a particular procedure

for the manual turn to align with

the runway. Once visual with the

checkerboard, we looked for the landing

lights and commenced the manoeuvre

after taking the wind into account. To the

north and east of the airport, the terrain

was like a bowl and the wind could swirl

around unpredictably even if the airport

was reporting excellent conditions. We

had to bank and monitor for drift, and

constantly adjust as needed. The speeds

and heights we were fl ying at gave us

very li le time to make corrections. If

everything went well, we ended up less

than a mile from the touchdown point,

heading in the runway direction and right

on the PAPIs (precision approach path

indicator lights) that gave us cues as to

whether we were high, low or on the ideal

descent profi le. Assuming we were in the

right place the touchdown was the easier

bit, but it could be bumpy all the way down.

Kai Tak almost always used Runway 13

for landings, and most departures went

out to the southeast over the water and

through the Lei Yue Mun gap between

Hong Kong Island and the mainland.

Many pilots must have felt relief when a

‘normal’ ILS approach to the opposite

end, Runway 31, was off ered by ATC.

However, I encountered some of the

worst low-level turbulence of my career

fl ying through the gap. And I only took

off on Runway 31 once, due to a tail wind

restriction – departing northwest was

usually performance-limiting as it involved

climbing out over the city and the high

ground. Departing off 13, which was much

more usual, posed fewer diffi culties but

we always had to anticipate the wind and

the potential for turbulence.

Flying into Kai Tak had an upside – I

didn’t do it on a regular basis like the

Cathay guys [and gals] did, so when the

conditions hisan ideal and I got it just

right, I felt a real sense of achievement.

It’s the same today when I fl y a very

challenging approach and landing into

somewhere like Bogota. Kai Tak is a part

of my past – it’s been 20 years since I last

fl ew there, but I’ll never forget it.

I could

have sworn our

winglet was

going to snag on

a washing line

strung across the

top of one of the

buildings.

Bailey (not the captain’s real

name) has fl own with major airlines in

Europe, Asia and the Middle East during

his career. He has been type rated

on the Boeing 747-400, and currently

captains Boeing 777s. He is also a

prolifi c photographer and a contributor

to AviationImageNetwork (www.

aviationimagenetwork.com).

The procedures detailed in this feature

were specifi c to the airline Bailey

worked for and may have diff ered at

other carriers.

ABOVE: Home-

town carrier Air

Hong Kong fl ew

Boeing 707s and

747s on cargo

fl ights across

the region.

(AirTeamImages.

com / The Samba

Collection)

ABOVE LEFT:

Lockheed L1011

TriStars were

the mainstays of

Cathay Pacifi c’s

short-haul fl eet

during Kai Tak’s

fi nal years.

(AirTeamImages.

com / The Samba

Collection)

LEFT: An El

Al Boeing 767

passes over the

busy streets

of Kowloon.

(AirTeamImages.

com / Jeff rey

Schafer)

42-49_Kai Tak.indd 49 11/05/2018 12:29