Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ATC "Heavy"  
User currently offlineDk From France, joined Jan 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4924 times:

I am curious to know why ATC calls the Concorde "heavy", I always thought that
that was given to widebody jets only. Is it a matter of engine size and not plane size?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDEN-HNL From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

The use of the "heavy" designator is a matter of an aircraft's capable take-off weight. If an aircraft is capable of take-off weights of 300,000 pounds or more, the word "heavy" is part of the identification. I believe the Concorde has a max take-off weight of over 400,000 pounds. Wow!


John Hancock
User currently offlineDk From France, joined Jan 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4381 times:

Thanks DEN-HNL, that puts it in better perspective for me and makes a lot of sense! (Wow! is right for the Concorde take-off weight!!)

User currently offlineRobin27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

I think the term 'heavy' relates not to the weight of an aircraft, but to the size. If an aircraft is designated heavy it denotes that increased seperation must be allowed for following aircraft due to the vortices generated.

Although Concorde indeed has a MTOW of around 400,000 lbs, it is very compact in realtionship to a widebody a/c, however in the case of Concorde, the delta wing and high nose up attitude on approach generate considerable vortices. For safety reasons, these must be allowed to disperse before a smaller aircraft can follow.

Can somebody confirm this and maybe get a little more technical with the answer.



User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

Heavy does infact relate to the weight not the fuselage size. The 757 is the first aircraft that does not fit into the weight catagory yet develops significant wingtip vortices. Hence, often they will specifically site aircraft following a 757 and offer expanded distances between aircraft.

It will be interesting in the next few years as improved wing designs start popping up to see if other aircraft slide into the no-mans land between heavy and standard operations.


User currently offlineCALPilot From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 998 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

I don't belive thats correct DEN-HNL. I'm on the road right now, and I don't have my AIM with me. But I belive the MGTOW is 255,000 lbs to be classified "Heavy".

User currently offlineAerLingus A330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

I've enjoyed all the conversations surrounding this topic however I was wondering, despite being a "widebody", would the A330 and A340 be classified as heavies?

The only reason why I ask is that I have a scanner tracking activity at Logan International here in Boston. Several weeks ago I heard Aer Lingus' transmission as it was approaching runway 4R.

I could have sworn that the the Aer Lingus pilot's response to the Boston Air Traffic commands was "Shamrock 133" and not "Shamrock 133 heavy" which I know it used to be when they flew the 747-100's years ago.

Could anyone who is on the ball with this kind of information please tell me if I was just hearing things or if in fact an A330 is not considered a "heavy"!

Thanks!!!  


User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

A "heavy" is a classification of an plane that weighs over 250,000 lbs. The 757 is almost a heavy but the MTOW is 250,000 and it has to be over 250. Concorde weighs i think around 325,000 lbs. Maybe less, i cant remember. I know these heavy questions!  

AA61hvy



Go big or go home
User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

A330-200/300, a340-200/300 are all heavies


Go big or go home
User currently offlineBOS-CDG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

A typical ATC system would display for correlated tracks (aircrafts correlated to a flight plan) an information called WTC (Wake Turbulence Category), which is H, M, L (Heavy, Medium, Light) depending on the aircraft.

There used to be an interesting page explaining Wake Turburlence, of the Denver ARTCC web site, but I can't get it anymore, you can have a look in the meantime at this fun one :

http://www.travis.af.mil/60amw/maca/waketurbulence.html

E.


User currently offlineBuff From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

For wake turbulence purposes, in Canada the weight category starts at 300,000 lbs GTOW; in the USA and most other parts of the world, it's 250,000 lbs.

The max take-off weight for Concorde is 408,000 lbs (185,070 kg) for the purists in this thread! Max landing weight 245,000 lbs (111,130 kg).

Best Regards,

Buff


User currently offlineAerLingus A330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

So I must have been hearing things, or should I say "not hearing things!"  

What I thought I heard was "Shamrock 133", instead it must have been "Shamrock 133 heavy". The pilot probably said it very quickly and I didn't pick it up...it must have been that "Irish brogue"!  


User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

A lot of times the simply forget to add " the heavy " , i.e I flew to FRA on SIA in Dec 99 and on the approach and landing I was sitting up front and the ATC Controller called us Singapore 025 heavy, but the response from the the first officer was .............Singapore 025 ....without the heavy...............another example LH 423 ( Which definitely is a " heavy " ) took off today and the captain only responed as LH 423 heavy on the ground, once they took off without the " heavy " but as far as I know widebodies are all called " heavy " b/c if a small aircraft gets into the flight path take off or landing , weight turbulence could be severe for this small aircraft.

Vasco Garcia

Boston, MA



User currently offlineAerLingus A330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

I know saying "heavy" will give smaller planes a "heads up" that there is a larger plane out there.

Is it a requirement for pilots to say that or is it more of a courtesy? I would imagine it would have to be required!

By the way, I too am familar with LH423, 747-200 correct? I would defintely agree with you that she is a "heavy"!  

Do you think that Beatles were big airplane fans? They must have been. For you Beatle followers, the last song on side 1 of "Abbey Road" is "She's So Heavy!"  


User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 14, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4283 times:

I would say yes, this can not be just courtesy, I will ask me neighbor, licensed pilot, he should know, will advise tomorrow.

Vasco


User currently offlineHP-873 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

In the Pilot/Controller Glossary section of the Aeronautical Information Manual aka AIM, Aircraft Classes for the purposes of wake turbulence separation by ATC, a Small aircraft is one with less than 41000lbs. , between that and 255000lbs. it is a Large aircraft, and beyond 255000lbs. it is a Heavy, all these weights are based on maximum takeoff weight. If you have an AIM nearby you will find interesting separation distances used by ATC on 7-3-9, if not, then http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html#7-3-9

User currently offlineDEN-HNL From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

Hey, guys!
Does anybody know, has the weight for a heavy been decreased to 255k pounds recently? (Within the last 3 years?) All the reference material I've got says 300k pounds and it was the first figure to come to my mind when I opened the thread. BUT, my most current AIM is from 1997!  

Thanks, Chuck



John Hancock
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airport Closure "atc Zero"? posted Tue Oct 25 2005 03:51:47 by SHUPirate1
752 (ATC Always A "Heavy") posted Thu Aug 18 2005 00:43:43 by AV8AJET
ATC "Heavy" posted Tue May 23 2000 16:03:11 by Dk
ORD ATC "fatigued" - Ntsb posted Wed May 24 2006 10:53:39 by ORD14R
Supposed ATC "Hiring Spree" posted Sat Dec 25 2004 07:29:43 by ERAUPilotATC
ATC: "Lifeboat" posted Sun Nov 7 2004 19:17:10 by Geg2rap
Term "Heavy" In ATC Communications posted Wed Apr 21 2004 06:27:52 by AirSean
IAD: What Does ATC Mean By "The Swan" Area? posted Wed May 15 2002 00:13:47 by Bobcat
"Cactus" And Other ATC Call IDs posted Thu Apr 18 2002 04:29:23 by JOliver
ATC "brawl" Angry Over A United Express In GA. posted Sat Mar 9 2002 17:34:48 by Gocaps16
ATC "Guard Dog" posted Fri Sep 5 2008 21:16:11 by RDUDDJI
ATC Calling ERJ's "Brazil Jets"? posted Sun Jun 17 2007 19:09:12 by Hawaiian717
ATC Question On " Eagle Flts Only" posted Wed Feb 14 2007 19:57:43 by Stevev1000
ORD ATC "fatigued" - Ntsb posted Wed May 24 2006 10:53:39 by ORD14R
Supposed ATC "Hiring Spree" posted Sat Dec 25 2004 07:29:43 by ERAUPilotATC
ATC: "Lifeboat" posted Sun Nov 7 2004 19:17:10 by Geg2rap
Term "Heavy" In ATC Communications posted Wed Apr 21 2004 06:27:52 by AirSean