Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In  
User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 30804 times:

Fellow A-netters,
Reference (ICAO report "Wake Vortex aspects of the Airbus A380 aircraft" 11/10/2005: T 13/3-05-0661.SLG) Preliminary data from A380 wake turbulence test are in, and it looks like Airbus predictions are totally outside the ball park with regards to the A380 wake. Flight test data shows that the A380 wake vortices will descend further and are significantly stronger at 1000ft (300m) below the generation altitude than for any other aircraft in its weight category (747 etc). On occasions the A380 wake vortices may descend 2000ft (600M) below the aircraft and pose possible passenger comfort issues, but not a hazard.

Initial ICAO guidance is as follows:
1) one additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft.
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft.
3) vertical spacing to be no less than 2000ft when following behind the A380.


I believe that the A380 regulations will clearly exceed the current 747-400 ones. So what happen to Airbus predictions of 747 like or better wake vortex performance, and what will the existing A380 customers say about these new regulations for their aircraft. What will be the impact on airport operations?


A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
207 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30752 times:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
one additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft.
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft.

This could complicate air traffic control at certain airports pretty seriously. If I recall correctly, the horizontal separation between a 747 and trailing aircraft is 6NM.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30696 times:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
1) one additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft.
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft.
3) vertical spacing to be no less than 2000ft when following behind the A380.

A lot worse than our predictions but not unexpected.

I suppose 1 is for departure spacing and 2 for arrival spacing.

I can say categorically it is going to be a pain to work it as an air traffic controller. If 10Nm is the case for every A380 arrival you lose up to 3 other slots (2.5Nm). It actually reduces capacity at congested airports like Heathrow. One way round is to TEAM the A380 onto the departure runway. But that adds complications for the GMC. No workaround but reduce capacity on mixed mode airports though.

It will also be a pain to work it enroute for the requirements in vertical separations.

[Edited 2005-11-14 22:26:08]


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30681 times:

Quote:
N799969: This could complicate air traffic control at certain airports pretty seriously. If I recall correctly, the horizontal separation between a 747 and trailing aircraft is 6NM.

Very interesting indeed, what happen to the Airbus prediction of vortex strength below the 747 due to exotic control surface manipulations??

The airports could end up charging significantly increased landing fees for A380 operators?



A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30641 times:

I figured that was the cause of the deformed exhaust trails in the "contrail" pic, posted yesterday, but I did not want to start another war.

Big plane = Big wake .... it's physics.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30629 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 2):
It actually reduces capacity at congested airports like Heathrow.

That's true and that could be a serious problem especially at LHR. I am sure the Narita airport authority will not be thrilled either. What is the sensible and fair way of dealing with that effect?


User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30618 times:

Bigger plane = bigger wake. How is the A380 wake compare to the wake of, say, An-124? Are there any special approach/departure separations for that plane?

Also, how much trouble would it be to do a side-by-side landing/approach of two A380s provided that the airport is capable of sucha operation?



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30599 times:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
Reference (ICAO report "Wake Vortex aspects of the Airbus A380 aircraft" 11/10/2005: T 13/3-05-0661.SLG)

Is this a public report? I fail to find it on the ICAO website.

[Edited 2005-11-14 22:28:07]

User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4513 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30577 times:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
1) one additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft.
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft.

Oh dear oh dear. What a pain in the @$$...now we're going to be experiencing delays whenever the whale jet is due to land or take off. Nightmare...



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30540 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 5):
What is the sensible and fair way of dealing with that effect?

My guess would be to allow A380 landing followed by two takeoff operations from the same runway A380 is landing on, once the runway is cleared. This way there would be enough separation Between the A380 landing and the next plane on approach without constraining the flow of operations at given airport...



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2432 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30525 times:

Can anyone provide us with the exact 747 data? It would be interesting to compare these two aircraft.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30518 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 6):
Bigger plane = bigger wake.

Fair enough. But if traffic separations have to be increased by 66% to accomodate A380s, that poses a serious problem for congested airports particularly those that expect to have multiple A380 flights per day. It may also require modifications to terminal airspace and procedures.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30459 times:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
Initial ICAO guidance is as follows:

Is that 1 additional minute on top of the separation currently used for 747's?

Is this a very conservative initial guidance which will likely be eased later in service?


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4131 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30457 times:

NOTAM: "All aircraft departing BOS Logan are required to hold on taxiway pending takeoff of heavy A380 in Australia. Wake advisory."

 duck 


User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30431 times:

Quoting GBan (Reply 7):
Is this a public report? I fail to find it on the ICAO website.

I don't know if it is public already. I got the report on Satuday evening and it is indeed like already written in the thread starter.

Patrick


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8320 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30427 times:

If this is a serious problem for airports like LHR you will see significant increases in landing fees and/or changes in the time slots when the 380 can land or take off.

It appears that Airbus has some work to do.


User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30422 times:

Quote:
GBan: Is this a public report? I fail to find it on the ICAO website

The report is just been made public, but not yet on the ICAO web site. Hopefully we should see or hear something about it this week.



A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30418 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 9):
My guess would be to allow A380 landing followed by two takeoff operations from the same runway A380 is landing on, once the runway is cleared.

At airports with parallel runways, they often dedicate runways for takeoffs or landings for a period of time. A 10 NM separation would really screw up a place like Narita which only has one runway suitable for the A380, B747, and other intercontinental flights.

You have take into account the effects of compression that occurs as an aircraft slows and lands while trailing aircraft maintain minimum separations.

The solutions that come to mind are blunt:

1. Force A380 operations into particular time bands to minimize disruption.

2. Add additional surcharges for A380 flights to account for capacity loss

3. Require that airlines have two slots for one A380 flight if they choose to upgauge from a smaller airplane.

None of these are particularly palatable but #2 seems to be the least crude.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30411 times:

Just hang on for a bit before we slag it off any more. They maybe able to add bits to the wing fences to change the wv characteristics on the production version.


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineTrent900 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30274 times:

It'll certainly be interesting to see what Airbus has to say about this. They did seem confident it would be no greater then a 747's wake. Could they demand a re-test?

D.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30262 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 18):
They maybe able to add bits to the wing fences to change the wv characteristics on the production version.

That's no easy solution either. It would set back their delivery schedule if they have to go back to the wind tunnel, design modifications, and redo any completed certification testing. If you change the wing, it could change the flying characteristics of the airplane in many ways.

[Edited 2005-11-14 23:10:17]

User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 30171 times:

I fail to understand how so large differences between wind tunnel experiments and reality can occur. Sure, the wind tunnel experiment is a scaled down model, but I'm convinced they have done a decent work at it. Perhaps the WhaleJet will end up with winglets as ugly as those of the 737NG  confused 

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 30129 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 12):
Is that 1 additional minute on top of the separation currently used for 747's?

No. Departure separations are rather complicated. It's time based. Most types are 1min apart when a left turner is followered by a right turner or vv. Same direction SIDs are usually 2min. Anything smaller than a heavy following a heavy can add 30s to 1min to the separation. But then you also have to take into account of performance, eg props and jets, to make sure they wont catch up with each other.

Arrival separations are distance based in Nm and are much simpler. We have a 5x5 matrix of WV categories/separations. So medium/medium is always 3Nm (or 2.5Nm on a good day) etc. No exceptions. Well except the Concordes...



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineMilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 869 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 30059 times:

So what! If it reduces the amount of traffic by taking on more passengers, then that's good. What's one minute anyway?  Wink
-Milan320



I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 30055 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):

Thanks for the detailed reply.


25 Glom : If they soup up the wing fences, what will this mean for certification, schedule etc?
26 Cloudyapple : 1 minute departure separation, time lag between 2 departures. So whoever departing behind the A380 will need 1 extra minute on top of whatever it sho
27 Ikramerica : Not exactly a great "hub-hub" aircraft if a 50% increase in capacity inside creates a 66% negative impact in capacity on the outside. Hopefully this
28 Post contains images NYC777 : Boy Airbus has a lot of 'splaining to do.I don't think operators particularly SQ and QF are going to be pleased. EK will probably just build a A380 de
29 StuckInCA : Isn't what you're implying here only even possibly the case if the only factor in airport capacity were runway slots (Nothing to do with gates, etc)?
30 AirFrnt : Can anyone confirm these numbers? If so this will be a huge hit at airports like NRT, LHR, JFK (in short, the only airports that the A380 would make
31 Glom : This does cause concern for availability of runways slots rather than ground capacity, but target airports such as LHR aren't suffering from a major
32 PPVRA : What if Airbus managed to reduce some weight? Wouldn't that have some impact on the vortex (less power on the engines)? Easier said than done I guess,
33 WAH64D : This could be a problem! This is a very good idea. It would not be feasible at airports like LHR though as the runways are too close to each other to
34 AirFrnt : It's not the details, it's the fundamentals. You would have to reduce the weight of the plane by a good 13-20 percent (as I understand it, Wake is in
35 Post contains images Ikramerica : In most cases, slot restriction is due to runways and curfews, not gate space. exactly. it is not too difficult to build additional gates as new term
36 Cloudyapple : We can do limited mixed mode at Heathrow (up to 6 an hour) in the form of TEAMing (tactically enhanced arrivals managment) in special circumstances o
37 AirFrnt : Ignoring the issues of the engines for a second, as I understand it, that's backwards. Bigger wings decrease wake.
38 Cloudyapple : Except that the engines have nothing to do with wake. It's a by product of lift production, a fucntion of weight and span.
39 Post contains images PPVRA : True. But at least is something they can look at, at least as part of the whole thing. What about blended wingtips, a la B777? My thoughts exactly Bu
40 Post contains images BoomBoom : That would be an improvement over those ugly Airbus wing fences.
41 Zeke : Seems strange to me, ICAO is a standards organisation, not a certification organisation.....European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA are th
42 Glom : ICAO do publish guidelines of wake turbulence seperation. The final say goes to the applicable regulating body of course.
43 Post contains images Astuteman : Hence the HUGE wings.... (Interestingly, A engineers wanted to make the wings even bigger - now we know why ) I wonder if this is Round 1 of an itera
44 Zeke : Yes from memeory this is in ICAO doc 666, Air Traffic Control, its a standards document. My question still stands, "How does ICAO get the data if the
45 AeroPiggot : The FAA, JAA, and ICAO all are collaborating on the certification and rule making process, with respect to the A380, as it should be.
46 RedFlyer : You're joking, right? Winglets make any aircraft look sleek and racy. Given the 380 has the most elegant wings around, a set of winglets would make i
47 Glideslope : Why is this news????? Did people ACTUALLY believe Airbus' claims!!!! This is just the tip of the 380 iceberg. Sit back and watch all the other John L
48 Ikramerica : but the A380 wings aren't just greater in span, they are huge in surface area. how does surface area contribute to wake vortex?
49 RedFlyer : Mmmm...not sure what iceberg you're referring to but as far as I know the 380's only black eye is the delay in deliveries. Weight and interior fittin
50 Zeke : Thats not my understanding of what ICAO is, they are an international organisation without any legal frameowrk behind them like EASA, FAA, Eurocontro
51 MarshalN : I'm impressed it took 47 posts before a real "I told you so, Airbus always sucks" post to show up. This is indeed a problem for Airbus though. I wond
52 ContnlEliteCMH : Don't predictions = expectations? They do in my line of work. If I tell my client that his MOLAP database can process 15 MB/sec, and it actually proc
53 Areopagus : I just looked at all the pictures that came up as a result of querying for A380 in the last 7 days, and didn't see any with contrails. Could you (or
54 N79969 : Have any of the news services or aviation publications wrote about these results?
55 Post contains links and images MD80fanatic : In this image I think you can see where some of the problems are originating from. View Large View MediumPhoto © French Frogs AirSlides The outboard
56 Post contains links RedFlyer : http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=413198
57 Areopagus : MD80fanatic and RedFlyer: Thank you.
58 TaromA380 : If the report if official, this is the end of the first A380 legend. But is it official ?
59 PyroGX41487 : I hope this doesn't take away from the conversation, but a bit of humor: If one of these things managed to land and take off again at SXM, the beach a
60 BoeingBus : ditto... I hope this all works out at the end for Airbus. Afterall, Leahey just mentioned the other day or so that the Airbus is meeting all performa
61 Jalto27R : Yeah, but talk about one big pain in the a$$ for air traffic controllers. Mike
62 Jasond : I guess it will be dealt with like many other things in this industry, some form of compromise between money and safety.
63 Abba : MD80fanatic - thank you for a very good and informative post! How do you interpret that observation? And what do you make of the fact that there seem
64 BG777300ER : I saw a show on The Learning Channel that talked about the wake turbulance thing for like 10 minutes. They said that the new "walled" wing tips on th
65 RichardJF : How much of an issue will the cross runways used by much smaller planes such as Dash 8's be at Sydney and Melbourne. I'm assuming the A380's travelli
66 Post contains links and images MD80fanatic : The contrail image is with "clean wings" (no flaps/slats deployed)....so what you are seeing is probably the wake field at it's smoothest (this cannot
67 Post contains images Iwok : CFD is good, but its really a "garbage in-garbage out type of excersize. Your results are only as good as your assumptions, which it appears in this
68 Abba : Thank you again! The first item (as I understand you) is that the slats do not extent to the fuselage - eh what is the second reason in your "wild gu
69 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : This is exactly part of the reason I will adopt a 'Wait and See' attitude with A380. Sure I have been quick to critisize A380 but then I don't blindly
70 Ikramerica : I noticed this on the picture in the high altitude thread, and it struck me as strange to look at, like something was wrong and I couldn't figure out
71 Zvezda : Make it wait until no other traffic are predicted to need to use the runway for 10 minutes. Y3 will probably be about 100,000 lbs (OEW) lighter than
72 Post contains links and images Oly720man : Interesting that everyone's getting so excited about ATC difficulties with the A380. How many airports is this going to affect? If an airport gets 10
73 Sabenapilot : Indeed, plane manufacturers will do every thing possible to make the flow over the wing turbulent by means of putting small wings (called vortex gene
74 RJ111 : Well, isn't this catastrophical for Airbus' "A380 needed for slot resticted airports" slogan?
75 Oly720man : These are to stop flow separation at higher incidences. Ideally manufacturers wouldn't want them because they increase the cruise drag.
76 Post contains images Alasdaironeil : Oly720man. I've seen that F18 photo before. I watch it on a video. I believe that the vortex from the front actually causes excitation in the vertical
77 MD80fanatic : Ideally, the top surface of any wing should be as smooth as possible. The more the air is churned the higher it's pressure will be. People should not
78 Post contains images Mark_D. : Sabenapilot -- Was it really necessary to blow this out of proportion??? For a lot of the gang here, absolutely it is! The societally-induced xenophob
79 Post contains images BoogyJay : Well, these are recommendations only. I'll wait for the final certification and real-life ATC practices. In TLS, the A380 already flies with the regul
80 Abba : So is this to say that there realy is no major problem related to this? I ask the question due to the fact that I have no knowledge of this field and
81 RayChuang : I agree at this point--someone should try to fly a jet fighter behind the A380-800 and actually measure its wake turbulence. I wonder does Airbus hav
82 Trent900 : If someone could clear a thought for me: If the wake falls away after the aircraft has passed (be it an A380 or 737) how can the aircraft following on
83 Oly720man : Aircraft are not designed so that a block of air is chopped in 2 by a wing and then joined up again after the wing has gone past. Aerodynamics doesn'
84 GeorgiaAME : Is this really bad news? The physics may not be pretty, and it might be a great point for bashing, but if I were sitting with some 800 other people, I
85 Post contains images Keta : I'm disappointed. I believed Airbus would get an airplane with weaker vortices. But well, maybe they can fix the problem a little bit, let see what h
86 Slarty : A380 traffic will reduce overall airport aircraft movements. The increases in pax loads on A380 will be reduced by decreased flight movements. Net re
87 Glom : This is really not particularly useful at all. First of all, we can't overlook the FUD loaded into your statement where you imply that spacing as it
88 N79969 : This issue will create tension between A380 operators and non-operators at airports. Some in the "non-" category have already made clear that they wou
89 Slarty : I had been following the delays associated with the vortex data, and suspected something might be amiss. Clearly, this is not the result that Airbus
90 N1120A : Usually true, and certainly true here, but how do you explain the disproportionately large wakes of the 757 and the DC-10?
91 TAP340 : Not hard at all. Fluid mechanics is one of the most complex areas of physics, if not the most. For instance, mathematics are not developed enough for
92 Asteriskceo : Take out the bar. The gym. The Library. The lounge. The restraunt. The Liquor Store. The onboard farmer's market, and I'll bet It'll be as light as t
93 RedFlyer : Not that I'm disputing what you're saying (hardly, since I'm no aeronautical engineer); however, I thought Kruegers were used on thicker wings? Hence
94 Ikramerica : It only really effects the airports it is designed to increase traffic flow at. Potential, repeat potential, to offer no value to an airport, now tha
95 Ken777 : I think Airbus will work out the problems, but it's really poor timing since the 747ADV was released right after this news hit. The main challenge Air
96 BoomBoom : Actually it's been quite an informative thread. Nothing blown out of proportion. And please spare us to the pop-psychology...
97 DAYflyer : Guess that effectively kills off any hope of a BA order, eh?
98 Slider : Both good points- I'm sure the details will all shake out as time goes by and the practical considerations of flying the 380 take shape, but yes, on
99 Tockeyhockey : not to bash airbus, but this is all further proof to me of how amazing the 747 is. boeing seems to have gotten the jumbo jet right the first time 30 y
100 Astuteman : Question - hasn't the A380 has been engineered to be so quiet, so that it can operate before/after the other operators have been required to "stand d
101 N79969 : They have to work out the problems post haste. The question is how, how much, and how long it will take. I am still surprised to see that Flight Inte
102 Mikkel777 : 757-200 has wings that are pretty normal for it's size in terms of wing area, close to 763ER in wingloading. Planes like 739 and 321 have small wings
103 Trent900 : But did Boeing have the same problems back then? Separation distances must have been increased when the 747 first entered service compared to the goo
104 Mariner : Okay, I'm confused. I'm not technically minded, so I've read it all and I am seriously confused. The thread starter gives a list of data, but then say
105 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article327108.ece
106 Ikramerica : That's what I meant. It is a short wingspan design to fit into narrow slots, but obviously it has to create enough lift to keep it flying, though it
107 StuckinMAF : I'm sure that Airbus Industries appreciates all of the suggested solutions presented so far in the thread and will carefully analyze them to select th
108 Sebolino : You are sorry for what ?
109 Post contains images StuckinMAF : Sorry to be the one to break the news to A380 lovers that Airbus won't be able to break the laws of physics to appease the "wake turbulence police".
110 Glom : You're asking for it if Airbus sort out the wake turbulence problem of the ICAO recommendations are lowered.
111 StuckinMAF : Don't misunderstand me, I'm really not trying to take a swipe at anybody. I hope that they are able to make improvements, but like I said in my first
112 AeroPiggot : Mariner, at the time I started the thread I did not know the exact 747 horizontal following distances, but I remember that they were below 10 NM..so
113 Post contains images Lumberton : Nice post, AeroPiggot. That clarified it for me, but I'm not flying any of these things. We can debate all we want here, but I will be interested to
114 Coa747 : If the A380 wingtip fences are redesigned to be more like the blended winglets found on the 737 NG and 757 then it would have to be recertified. That
115 Startknob : This wake turbulence thingie isn't really a show stopper for the A 388, but it's a real pain in the *** and a serious, serious problem from the wake t
116 BoomBoom : Aren't a lot of these fixes like squeezing a balloon? You fix one bulge and another one pops up somewhere else. Aren't blended winglets heavier than
117 VV701 : And at LHR we would have 380s dropping out of the skies like flies as they ran out of fuel while waiting! But seriously there is a real problem. It w
118 NoUFO : When the A380 landed in FRA, the next aircraft followed maintaining a 18 km (9.7 NM) distance. According to a local newspaper, airport officials claim
119 Mariner : Thank you, your explanation is very welcome, although being non-technical, I get careful, as I assume I may have misinterpreted. eg: I assume that ve
120 OldAeroGuy : The vertical separation in cruise for all RVSM qualified aircraft is 1000' when on opposing courses. RVSM rules were initially applied about ten year
121 Ikramerica : yes, but raked wingtips aren't, which is why B, even though they work closely with the blended wingtip company, went with raked tips for the 788, 789
122 Mariner : I understand all this. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. My point is buried in your response that these are preliminary numbers. My question rem
123 Post contains links Zeke : This is called RVSM, been around in many parts of the world for ages, the USA have just caught up with best practice and implemented it. A lot of old
124 Post contains images Lightsaber : Mostly, but there are many aerodynamic tricks to turn the "Karman Vortices" (Proper scientific name of the wingtip wake vortices) energy into somethi
125 Mariner : Thanks for the offer, but I'm giving up trying to sort it out. The 747 numbers did change without structural changes to the aircraft, but the A380 nu
126 Post contains links Wiggidy : I posted this in another thread, but it equally applies here. Heres what I find interesting... According to this PDF: http://wwwe.onecert.fr/projets/W
127 Lightsaber : IIRC, NASA paid to study the 747 wake turbulence back when it was the heaviest aircraft in US airspace. Their findings found that the 747 turbulence
128 Mariner : But - the thread starter said: He says "recently been reduced". Call me a pedant, but to me that means "changed". cheers mariner
129 Glacote : I will put it straight: - there is no link to any hard data. No news agency has jumped on this. Airbus has said nothing of that kind. Nor any customer
130 RedFlyer : Don't take it too hard. It's human nature. Just like the hordes of people who stop and gawk at a gruesome automobile accident. There is some internal
131 Post contains images NAV20 : International Civil Aviation Organisation. And they get their information from an international working group. And yes, Airbus is part of the group.
132 Atmx2000 : But - the thread starter said: He says "recently been reduced". Call me a pedant, but to me that means "changed". I am not sure what the issue is her
133 Echster : I'm a controller and this really doesn't seem to make the recommendations any more difficult for me - except the 2000 foot vertical separation. One ad
134 Post contains images Lehpron : If the wing were elliptical, the wake would be significantly less due to an evenly distributed downwash pattern. But we don't have that situation. CF
135 Mikkel777 : How many others are there exept -200 and 300? The -300 is regarded as heavy in terms of MTOW and wake, the -200 only because of wake. I find it very
136 Abba : True enough - only that the Boeing people often are the worst by a BIG margin. Abba
137 Atmx2000 : Based on what?
138 Ikramerica : It's why I did those words in ALL CAPS, because it is not final. Very similar to why there are "more recorded tropical storms" in the last few years.
139 Zeke : You have missed the point, if its a 380 following a 380, no change. If a 380 lands, you can clear another jet to takeoff on the same runway without a
140 Cricket : I think (and I only think) this would really impact airports where one runway is dedicated to landings and the other dedicated to take-offs and there
141 Mariner : Excuse me for being stupid. You did several words in all caps. I found the meaning, in context, obscure. It is - for me - hard to imagine a thread of
142 Sebolino : You're right.Welcome to the realm of NAV20 and friends. They really managed to screw up this forum. You can find however some very interesting posts
143 RedChili : Now, I'm really not an expert in these things, so forgive me if I say something which is total nonsense. If I understand correctly, airplanes are clas
144 Joni : I fail to see what the fuss is about. Ok, if a minute is added to the cooldown time before a new take-off or landing, that is peanuts. The turnaround
145 PlaneDane : Well, congratulations to you then, Abba. You singlehandedly have been able to more than even the score against those Boeing people with your pugnacio
146 Abba : I'd never said anything negative about Boeing. I like Boeing products very much and I am truely happy that the 747 is getting a new lease of life. I
147 Post contains images Lightsaber : Thank you. Well said. Ok, where is this in the press? The 2,000 vertical isn't minor... Lightsaber
148 N79969 : RVSM applies to all aircraft in certain airspace regardless of size. It is an enroute concept and not a terminal airspace concept. While RVSM has bee
149 Post contains links Squirrel83 : Here is another link that might work! http://wwwe.onecert.fr/projets/WakeNet2-Europe/
150 Slider : I agree- very thought provoking. Thanks for your expertise Echster. Question for you, however: If an airport has an arrival rate of 80/hour, and main
151 VV701 : Airports like LHR are slot limited. That is to say every arrival and departure slot is in use except during times like Saturday afternoon and Sunday
152 Mariner : The issue was very simple: can the guidelines change - for better or worse - without modifications - major or minor - to the actual aircraft. Since t
153 N79969 : I think it is conceivable that these recommendations could be relaxed at some point in the future. I think prudence requires that regulators adopt con
154 Post contains images StuckInCA : So... just because the results are preliminary they should not be discussed? Other than the relative few people who are really jumping all over Airbu
155 Post contains images Mariner : Why would you think that? I said: I was merely trying to clarify the situation so that I, illiterate in technical matters, would understand it. I am
156 StuckInCA : Indeed you did say that it is an interesting thread... but that was not until I had posted my response. I am not, and was not, offended. I generally
157 BoomBoom : I find your posts to be much more inflammatory than NAV20s. You are as guilty as anyone.
158 Aeropiggot : I will just ignore Glacote and Zeke's comments, as NAV20 have already address them. Thanks to Lightsaber for explaining why it is not a good idea to r
159 Post contains images Mariner : Concerns? No, merely interest - it is what it is. And education - I know things now I did not know before. Suffice to say that after over 100 posts,
160 Sebolino : I suppose it was ironic, as you probably understood that what I wrote meant: I'm still looking for posts that are not only an attempt to express a pr
161 Atmx2000 : The issue is not the aircraft utilization, but rather is runway utilization. Given that there are only 60 minutes in an hour, adding a minute here or
162 Sebolino : That's your opinion. Guilty of what exactly ?
163 PlaneDane : Yes, it is conceivable that the recommendations might be relaxed at some point but not so likely, in my opinion. I believe that minimums for the A380
164 Post contains images Lightsaber : You're welcome. This is where I would like to see the data. While the A380 has more weight to deal with (more energy in the vortices), it is possible
165 Post contains images Ikramerica : Never said or meant to imply you were stupid. All I was responding to was that you said it was "buried" in my post, and I stated that's why I put it
166 StuckInCA : I 100% did NOT understand that you meant what you now describe. With clarification, I'd tend to agree for the most part!
167 Sabenapilot : Before we all get too excited by this news, what should be well understood is the reason of issuing of this ICAO document. Several members have alread
168 Byrdluvs747 : Could we end up having two sets of recommendations? One in the US and one in Europe.
169 Abba : And this is another air traffic controller's view: I still find it difficult to really understand what the impact might be should these very initial
170 Art : Sorry not to have read all 169 replies so far, so I could be repeating someone else here. Would an engineer care to answer my question? Would reducing
171 N79969 : Airbus has been arguing with the FAA that the A380 be treated like the 747 in terms of wake separation. I think in that context, ICAO involvment is n
172 NAV20 : I didn't get the impression that Sabenapilot was implying 'wrongdoing', N79969. He made the point that it was advisable to give ATCs some guidance bef
173 Post contains links TrevD : Am constantly amazed how some of the spin artists here look for conspiracy or 'wrongdoing' at anything slighting their dearly beloved A380. Rather tha
174 N79969 : I do not think that is a conclusion rather it is a desire to know more.
175 Aeropiggot : I agree more information is needed, Airbus is very nervous about the preliminary data, and as a result are very paranoid about letting this data out
176 GBan : True. As this document was written in January it cannot reference any real data.
177 NYC777 : So long and short of this entire discussion (I didn't read all the replies) is that this can be a major concern for A380 operators. But more data is n
178 Abba : It is difficult to say. Read through - most of what is written is nonsense. However there are some gold here and there written by people who know wha
179 AeroPiggot : It all depends on how you propose to reduce the wake vortex strength. By reducing the wake by using winglets and to a lesser extent fences, you can r
180 Amy : The DC-10 was initially designed for a twin engine layout as was the L10-11 Tristar, however AA's product requirement was for an aircraft with a high
181 Glacote : Hi all, some quick points: - still no news from any reputable source on this issue. A shame as it would be a real problem if confirmed. EDIT: "Because
182 MarshalN : I agree with you Glacote! While there are a lot of threads on here that are A v B, I have to say in the few months I've been reading this forum, the
183 Zvezda : My first proposal was flawed. Here's a better one: Require the WhaleJet to have two slots. Each arrival requires two landing slots and each departure
184 Glacote : Hi Zvezda, have you read my post? You may then contemplate moderating your provocative, out-of-sync with reality posts - may you not? As I mentionned
185 Post contains images A360 : Yes, in the end, that's the final and true conclusion. But A380 haters will never accept that... it's so much nice for them to imagine that the 380 w
186 RedChili : That's what I suspected all along. This is only a preliminary precaution during the flight testing and does not mean anything for the final certifica
187 Zvezda : Relax. I think we all understood from the beginning that the data are preliminary and the separation rules are subject to change. I still find intere
188 Sabenapilot : You just don't seem to (be willing to) understand the concept of a 'slot restricted airport', do you? In your view LHR and some others are so busy th
189 AirFrnt : With a brand new T5, and excess capacity at some of the other gates because of T5 (hence leading to the massive rebuilding project that looks set to
190 Glacote : I a quite relaxed, thank you. This is not what most of the thread is about. It is about actual, real data being there and being bad. Then many jumping
191 Sabenapilot : The bottle neck at LHR are the lay out of all those gates (extremely interwoven) and the problem of the short overall distance of its taxiway network
192 Sebolino : It was a big disappointement for some people when they realized that Airbus (which they were laughing at some years before) sold more planes than Boe
193 N1786b : I will - I have gotten this document from several sources. Here is the text in full: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reference : T 13/3 – 05-
194 Sabenapilot : We already HAVE seen that letter, dude, so what exactly is your point, other than bring us back around 50 posts in time??? check NAV20s reply in post
195 Leelaw : Not in its entirety with attribution, without editing, at least not in this thread. Where does it say that in the letter? Was this the subject of the
196 N1786b : Thank you, but I posted the entire letter - his post was an extract. My point is to prove to Glacote and Sebolino that this thread is not part of som
197 OldAeroGuy : True enough about weight, but wing area doesn't have a strong influence on wake strength. Maybe you mean wing span.
198 N1786b : Please see Reply #193. - n1786b
199 Leelaw : Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant we (i.e., readers and participants in the thread) hadn't seen the full text of the letter, without editing, prior to
200 Post contains images AeroPiggot : Thanks N1786b for taking the time and effort to post the entire document, I wish I could have found a way to post the official PDF document with the I
201 Sebolino : Conspiracy ? What a strange word. No no. First I was not talking especially about this thread, and I was not talking about the subject, but the way s
202 Post contains links RedFlyer : Well, the ICAO report is finally getting mainstream media attention, with additional quotes from the airline industry corroborating the findings. The
203 Leelaw : I found this part of today's WSJ article interesting as well: "...The FAA, while particularly sensitive about any perception that it is discriminating
204 Post contains links Leelaw : Apparently the French Press doesn't appreciate the WSJ's reportage on this matter (at least that's what the headline indicates): "New Accusations Agai
205 Post contains links Gkirk : http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=22231
206 Echster : Right now, we are not talking about a large number of A380s out there flying around. AFAIK, the large portion of airports the A380 will be flying to/
207 Glacote : Thank you for your post. I understand that we now have more precise information - althought the 3rd letter is still not available to most of us (me i
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...
A380, Wake Turbulence & Patrouille De France posted Sun Nov 27 2005 10:51:31 by A3EDU
A380 Wake Turbulence posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:58:56 by Mas777
Validity Of A380 Wake Data Questioned. posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:50:46 by AeroPiggot
Wake Turbulence Suspected In DC EMS Helo Crash posted Mon Jan 24 2005 09:52:44 by OPNLguy
A380, Slots .... And Wake Turbulence posted Mon Apr 5 2004 05:31:41 by Bd1959
A380 To Fly To China In November posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:46:19 by PlaneHunter
A-380 Wake Turbulence Seperation posted Mon Oct 9 2006 23:38:36 by KC135TopBoom
DOT 2Q06 Results Are In: Domestic Is Where It's At posted Wed Sep 27 2006 15:57:25 by WorldTraveler
Citation Severe Wake-turbulence Encounter At SFO posted Mon Sep 25 2006 05:22:43 by Wave882
A380 Wake Database Grows posted Tue Sep 19 2006 02:07:33 by Leelaw