|
November 22nd, 2005, 13:30
| #1 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: May 2002 Location: Maryland
Posts: 15,323
   |  Speaking of the Extra Mile, Try Five or Ten That's the difference between ICAO's recommendations for traffic separation for an A380 (10 NM) and the 747 (5 NM). And in cruise, it's 15 NM versus five. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1132...us_marketplace Since the WSJ isn't free, here are some snippets. Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. The standards released to the industry by the International Civil Aviation Organization earlier this month are tentative and almost certainly more cautious than the formal rules expected next year. But if the final air-traffic procedures end up close to ICAO's initial proposal, they could undermine one of Airbus' top selling points for the largest passenger plane ever built: greater efficiency at congested hub airports. Interim air-traffic control guidance from ICAO says the mammoth plane, scheduled to go into service next year, produces "significantly stronger" air turbulence than the largest jetliners now in use. Because flight tests and data analyses "have raised concerns" about potential safety issues, according to the guidance, it calls for minimum separations of 10 nautical miles for all aircraft following a landing A380, versus the typical five-mile mandatory buffer behind today's largest aircraft. For aircraft flying the same route directly behind an A380 at cruising altitude, the recommended minimum spacing is tripled to 15 nautical miles. I don't know how widely accepted the 380's going to be if airports have to give up an extra slot for it. You're doubling the time required for wake turbulence avoidence but you're not doubling the capacity, and that isn't going to sell well in an environment where you're dealing with congestion. |
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 15:16
| #2 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 2,026
| well i dont think a lot of airports are down with expanding for that fat lard plane. we dont need huge transports, the 747 is pretty good right there. i dont think many airnlines are going to load the plane to full 800+ whatever seat capacity. and how much will a ticket cost to travel in one that is casino and restaurant equipped? i sincerely hope the dreamliner rocks airbus, along with the 748. |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 15:24
| #3 |
| Junior Member  Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 145
| Jeez. I wonder just how many Boeing employees are part of the ICAO. :P
__________________ Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 17:44
| #4 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,044
| These are initial numbers not based on anything more than the weight difference. There is a lot more research that will be completed before anything is final. As to who will fly it. You will, when your ticket is 20% less for the same route, that's who will! |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 18:22
| #5 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: May 2003 Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 813
| Baggage claim is gonna be a mess after one of those things land. Not to mention with all those people checking in for one flight, people will need to arrive 3+ hours early. |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 21:31
| #6 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Greenbow
Posts: 447
| come to think about wake turbulence....these planes are gonna rock some stuff during takeoff and landing.... "caution wake turbulence" takes on a whole new meaning!!!  -Seth |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 21:40
| #7 |
| Agent Smith  | Maybe. I've been minimum spacing behind a 777, a 747, and a 757. What whipped the heck out of the aircraft worst? A 737NG.
__________________ Doug Taylor http://76school.flyblog.com (old!) http://30west.flyblog.com (updated 11/28) |
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2005, 21:47
| #8 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,044
| All of these issues were claimed about the 747 before it started operating, and guess what? Virtually all turned out to be non-issues. Wake is worse behind a 757 than an MD11 (which is why the 757 lead to the "heavy" designation weight category to be lowered). No reason to think that the A380 will be all that bad, and if it was designed to minimize it, then it is likely it won't be. Much is a function of the configuration of the flaps/slats, how continuous they are, etc. |
|
|
|
November 23rd, 2005, 15:27
| #9 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ATL
Posts: 777
|  Quote:
Same here...the worst I ever got rocked was behind a 737-800 going into Cincinatti with 3 mile separation. It hit us right in the turn on the localizer. We went from about 30 degrees wing down to 85-90 degrees....then to about 45 degrees the other direction. I was in the middle of a radio call to tower and believe I let out a "Holy S***". They weren't too happy about that. | |
|
|
|
November 23rd, 2005, 21:04
| #10 | |
| Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,329
| Quote:
 | |
|
|
|
November 24th, 2005, 11:41
| #11 | |
| Junior Member  Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 142
| Quote:
My wife was on the flight, her first flight with me and she said that it scared quite a few people in the back. She said that she was glad that she hadnt told anyone that her husband was flying. Jeremy
__________________ I do what the voices in my wife's head tell me to do. | |
|
|
|
November 25th, 2005, 14:21
| #12 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone
Posts: 5,807
| Worst kick I ever got was from a Delta L-1011 turning on final for 35 at MCO one night (yeah before there was a 35L&R) - woke me and the captain up in that 'lil 1900!
__________________ "You know you're winning an argument with a liberal when they start calling you names" (insert any political group you want and stop calling me names) johntenney.com johntenneyracing.com Myspace |
|
|
|
November 26th, 2005, 10:20
| #13 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Southwest Asia...
Posts: 405
| As a pilot and a controller...i have the best of both worlds! Just keep in mind, the FAAO 7110.65 gives controllers minimum radar separation (http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/ATC/Chp5/atc0505.html#5-5-4) for controllers to use. It get's kinda difficult to give you 6 or 7 miles when you have pilots gripping about extended vectors and the airline management calling and gripping why their flight is late? So what do you do...let's keep them tight to keep management and the pilots happy...well, that won't work either! Just my two cents e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by: 1. Heavy behind heavy- 4 miles. 2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles. 3. Small behind B757- 5 miles. 4. Small/large behind heavy - 5 miles. f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold: 1. Small behind large- 4 miles. 2. Small behind B757- 5 miles. 3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles. Anything else would be three miles! Hopes this helps
__________________ Rick |
|
|
|
November 26th, 2005, 22:57
| #14 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,783
| Worst I had yet was by a B737 going into Houston... on an arrival. Had to separate from the arrival it was so bad. I've hit wake in cruise at the FL's too, after moving to RVSM. Three times now.
__________________ "We thought we had the answers, it was the questions we had wrong." - Bono, U2 |
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
