Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Heavy-Heavy" Callsign For The A380?  
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14638 times:

Since the beginning of commercial operations of the A380, hopefully late this year, which in my understanding will need an even more wider separation from other aircraft, what would be your message to ATC -- "heavy," or "super heavy," or something like that, that would identify your aircraft.

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14595 times:

I don't think there will be any special callsign for the A380.

Honestly, It puzzles me how 'freaked out' people seem at the size and weight of the A380...as if it's bigger than anything that's graced the skies...when clearly it's not.

It's in the same league as the 747, C-5 Galaxy, An-124, and An-225.

Do any of those aircraft get special weight designations? No.

So why should the A380?

My guess is separation for the A380 won't be terribly greater than any other such loaded aircraft in the pattern.

We really aren't going to know until they actually take to the skies, but I don't think the A380 is going to see as many special considerations compared to the 744 as we think.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14529 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 1):
It puzzles me how 'freaked out' people seem

People made a big deal about it because Airbus stated that the A380 would have the same separation as the 747. It was just another reason for A bashers to jump on the A380 and say "A-ha, I knew that plane sucked!"

But really the separation info came at point when Airbus was struggling with PR in general (the A350 in particular). The one bright spot for Airbus at the time was the A380. It was a chance to drag that program down too. Airbus said the initial separation would be decreased. Time will tell. I hope for Airbus sake that it is. If not, their reputation for missing promises will continue.

WorldXplorer


User currently offlineBBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14529 times:

With the invention of TCAS, eveyone should know that theres a GREAT BIG B***ard in the area .... and ATC will be only to aware of the aircraft type.



 wave 



Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
User currently onlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8268 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14499 times:

The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14419 times:

I don't want to get into a flame fender about this one. It was just a simple question to the experts that might know. Cheers!

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14386 times:

It doesn't look like there will be enough flying to seriously impact operations anywhere.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14356 times:

I think it will be handled like the 757 (excluding those actually heavy enough to carry a "Heavy" callsign) and the callsign will still be heavy, but the controller will know from the flightplan that it is an A380 so they can apply any special spacing.

User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14209 times:

The term heavy doesn't mean that the plane has to be heavy. It's just added to the ATC ID to recognize the plane as one which produces heavy turbulences behind and other, especially smaller planes, have to keep a big distance to avoid problems. That's why the not so heavy 757 is called heavy on ATC. Don't know the exact figures of the A-380 but imagine a plane with lighter weight as the A-380 can produce mor turbulences than the A-380 itself. So no extra heavy or something else to be added to the ATC ID.

Georg


User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14184 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8):
The term heavy doesn't mean that the plane has to be heavy.

The heavy callsign is based off MTOW. Most 752s are not over the FAA definition of "heavy" at 255,000 lbs, only the heaviest 752s have a MTOW over that. All 757s get special spacing by ATC regardless of whether or not they are over 255k (FAA) MTOW.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14124 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

Actually, the A380 is substantially larger than the C-5 and AN-124 in terms of takeoff weight, which is important when dealing with wake turbulence.

Requiring more seperation is a big deal, as a major selling point of the A380 is to allow more flights into slot-restricted or other congested airports. An increase in spacing could negate that advantage.

Of course, how the A380 will impact operations is yet to be seen. It may be that smaller aircraft must increase their spacing from it, but that a 747 could use the same spacing as with another 747 (which would be a boost at those congested airports). Untill the final procedures are out, no one can really say how big of an impact the wake of the A380 will have.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14105 times:

Well, a little off-topic.

If the A380 will get "Heavy heavy" or "Super Heavy", does An-225 have "Heavy heavy heavy" or "Over-super heavy"?



"Uniform-Romeo-eight-two-O-six-O heavy heavy heavy, cleared for landing."  Wink

[Edited 2006-05-28 03:34:01]

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14065 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11):
"Uniform-Romeo-eight-two-O-six-O heavy heavy heavy, cleared for landing."

Huh???


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14057 times:

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 2):
People made a big deal about it because Airbus stated that the A380 would have the same separation as the 747. It was just another reason for A bashers to jump on the A380 and say "A-ha, I knew that plane sucked!"

But really the separation info came at point when Airbus was struggling with PR in general (the A350 in particular). The one bright spot for Airbus at the time was the A380. It was a chance to drag that program down too. Airbus said the initial separation would be decreased. Time will tell. I hope for Airbus sake that it is. If not, their reputation for missing promises will continue.

Exactly! If Airbus had said from the beginning something like "Our goal is to keep the WhaleJet's wake turbulence the same or less than that of the JumboJet but, given the significant increase in MTOW, it will be a challenge." then the Airbus bashers wouldn't have the opportunity that Airbus have handed them. In the end, it doesn't matter what Airbus say or what the Airbus bashers say about wake turbulence. What will matter is separation spacing.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 10):
It may be that smaller aircraft must increase their spacing from it, but that a 747 could use the same spacing as with another 747 (which would be a boost at those congested airports).

This is plausible. It shouldn't be difficult for Airbus to persuade the authorities to let a JumboJet follow a WhaleJet with the same separation as between JumboJets. Any airport with scheduled WhaleJet service will have enough JumboJets operating that ATC can slot a JumboJet behind a WhaleJet and save the WhaleJet from needing two landing slots. It's a bit of extra work for ATC and may mean that a WhaleJet occasionally needs to circle for a few minutes until the next JumboJet arrives, but it would save slots. It would be even better if it were found that other heavies could safely follow a WhaleJet at the same separation distance that they would follow a JumboJet.


User currently offlineTbnist03 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 106 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14014 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 1):
I don't think there will be any special callsign for the A380.

But "Quantas/LH/Air France, Flight # WhaleJet" has such a sweet ring to it.



-Mike
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13990 times:

It's remarkable to me that folks perceive the spacing issue as some sort of "Airbus Bashing". Bottom line is that, at least for now, based solely upon an engineering, data-driven analysis of the wake turbulence that the still-experimental aircraft currently produces, the thing requires more spacing than a 747. Ultimately, more permanent rules will be drawn up in various jurisdictions, based on an analysis of the aircraft as certified (and hopefully not too much politics) as to just how much spacing is required under various circumstances from various aircraft, which it will be up to the controllers to learn, remember and implement.

I think that the original poster's question was a fair one, because he apparently didn't know the answer. And until the new rules come out, either will we. I suspect that as far as how the controller addresses the aircraft over the radio and the aircraft addresses the controller over the radio, which is what the poster is asking, it will be handled just like any other heavy, e.g. "Speedbird 101 Heavy". The aircraft crew knows it's a 380, the controller, perhaps reminded by the designation, can look and see that it's a 380, the controller is required to give speeds and vectors (e.g. instructions) to maintain the spacing, so what's the big deal? Certainly when speaking to surrounding aircraft, he can identify the kind of a/c, as in "Clear to land Runway 4L, you're number 2 following a heavy A380." I don't suspect that there is a need for anything else, but if so, they could do what they did with another special aircraft: "Speedbird Concorde 193, New York Departure, Radar Contact, Climb and Maintain 5000." See, no biggie.


User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13949 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 17):
The mods just recently backed off this whole "whale" thing

OK, I'm outta the loop here. We can say "WhaleJet" again? (FYI mods, I mean no disrespect)

WorldXplorer


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5673 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13901 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
A heavy is a heavy is a heavy.

"Singapore 23 OPRAH heavy, cleared to land"



Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13805 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

How many an-225's are there flying? One...

How many AN-124's are there flying? A handful...

How often to C-5's grace civilian airports? Not that often...

The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces. ATC at these facilities don't just have to worry about making a little extra room for the one flight an AN-225 makes into an airport, they will have to worry about it every few aircraft...


User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13646 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15):
It's remarkable to me that folks perceive the spacing issue as some sort of "Airbus Bashing".

The spacing issue in and of itself is not bashing. However several members have used that topic as a spring-board to "talk-up" the negatives of Airbus and the A380 in particular. A fact is a fact and does not constitute bashing in its own right. But couple that fact with a skewed "the sky is falling" attitude and you have the making of an overblown situation. Yes the seperation of the A380 is greater than the 747, but that may change, and even if it were, unitl the details are finalized, all else is speculation. Speculation that member have a tendancy to skew to absurb proportions.

WorldXplorer


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4490 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13494 times:

Generally, when ATC provides information to one airplane relative to another aircraft's size/weight, the type of aircraft is specified as well.

Example:

"Delta 123, you're following a heavy 767 on a six mile final..."

Saying "heavy A380" will get the point across. ATC will give at least minimum separation (whatever that ends up being) and a "caution wake turbulence from a heavy A-380" will, you bet, be heeded by any flight crew behind it.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13348 times:

Wake Categories (or weight categories - never seen anyone actually referring to it in ops) are determined by ICAO. The FAA or JAA or anyone indeed cannot change those standard categories on their own. If a change is required it will have to go through all the normal ICAO rule change procedures.

NATS/CAA however operates modified categories in the UK in that mediums are split into upper and lower mediums. But they are still medium types. Upper mediums are there to categorise types like B752 where in the rest of the world causes confusion as to what wake category it should "really" be in (NO they are NOT categorised according to the factory spec MTOW). An unbinding ATC convention is that if the B752 is the leading aircraft it is a HEAVY. If it is the trailing aircraft it is a MEDIUM. (FAA follows this convention as well as most countries.) Since this is an odd ball exception that is non standard to the 4x4 "wake separation grid" it is only listed as a footnote to the grid and is prone to error by inexperienced SATCOs alike. That's why the NATS/CAA have decided to formalise it and use a 5x5 grid.

Another thing is very few places in the world actually suffix callsigns with HEAVY. It's only use is to remind controllers it's a heavy so he should exercise caution or give extra spacing. The wake category is written on the strip anyway. It's only being communicated to the pilot in the aircraft trailing the heavy only if he's a little too hot and may lead to a loss of separation, particularly on final. Otherwise we shift heavies just like any other aircraft.

In ATC research our primary goal is to devise ways to increase capacity to cope with increasing demand while maintaining safety. This can be done partly by reducing the amount of RT. It's a different world today since they first devised the categories and these peculiar rules to suffix callsigns. Knowing the callsign/type/wake cat in your sector is now part of ATCO's basic situational awareness. With 20% of all aircraft being heavies (up to 60% in some asian airports) instead of 2% when it all started, suffixing heavies doesn't mean as much any more as before. Omitting unnecessary phrases on RT may give you that little bit more to shift an extra aeroplane.

[Edited 2006-05-28 06:22:05]


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 offlineMesaMXORD From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12969 times:

"Whale Jet" sorry had to say it. I personally love the name and the A/C. I dont see why people take it as a bash. I thought Airbus did some tests with a 777 and 747 along with the 380 to figure this out awhile ago

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12891 times:

Quoting MesaMXORD (Reply 25):
"Whale Jet" sorry had to say it. I personally love the name and the A/C. I dont see why people take it as a bash.

Some people just look for opportunities to claim offense -- even when there is clearly none to be taken.

Quoting MesaMXORD (Reply 25):
I thought Airbus did some tests with a 777 and 747 along with the 380 to figure this out awhile ago

Yes, quite a bit of testing has been done. Analyses are still being done on the data. The initial analyses have produced results that were not what Airbus had hoped for, therefore more analyses and perhaps more testing.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12821 times:

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 21):
The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces. ATC at these facilities don't just have to worry about making a little extra room for the one flight an AN-225 makes into an airport, they will have to worry about it every few aircraft...

But most airports that will be seeing the A380 already see 747s on a regular basis. Most of them, anyway. The A380 is NOT much larger than a 744, thus I doubt it would make any significant difference.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
25 MaxQ2351 : Oh cry me a river........ You are so desperate for some clout against anyone who is not blatantly pro-Airbus that you turn an insignificant comment i
26 767-332ER : First of all, it's the same issue, why would this a/c require any special regonition when there are aircraft that are bigger and heavier? Hundreds??
27 Zvezda : That remains to be seen. There have been 159 WhaleJets ordered, zero delivered, and 26 deferred (by AF, UPS, and VS) with rumors of possible cancella
28 Zeke : Using the term Heavy is a non-standard term used in RT mainly by the FAA controllers or operators. Most controllers world wide dont need to be told t
29 Scbriml : Is the "heavy" designation used anywhere outside the US? I've only ever head it used by US pilots flying in UK airspace. I have never heard UK ATC use
30 Slz396 : MORE FLIGHTS??? I thought the deal was to bring MORE PEOPLE on (potentially) LESS FLIGHTS into slot-restricted airports really.
31 Ph-tvh : The disignation "Heavy" is only used on intial contact With ATC units. So it would be: Initial contact: "Schiphol Tower, Singapore 380 HEAVY Holding p
32 Aero145 : Well, the flying An-225 is registered UR-82060, so, I thought: Uniform = U. Romeo = R. Eight-Two-O (= zero)-Six-O heavy-heavy-heavy. Or, UR-82060 hea
33 ShowerOfSparks : As a pilot yourself you should know that the reason for the suffix "heavy" is so that ATC knows to apply extra separation without having to refer to
34 Corey07850 : I'm not saying it needs special recognition, but it will require special attention in the same way that Antonov's receive... Take here at EWR for exa
35 Zvezda : You are taking two assumptions for granted. One is that the WhaleJet will need greater minima than the JumboJet. The other is that WhaleJets will be
36 Post contains images 53Sqdn : From my purely British point of view, the conversation from the A/C to the tower would be along the lines of.... "Oh hello tower. This is xxx airways
37 Post contains images N766UA : That doesn't even make sense. An airplane behind a giant like the AN-225 is in the same situation as an airplane behind an A380, regardless of how ma
38 C5onknees : Actually C-5's "Grace" alot of civilian airports... probably more than they do military bases. So, my friend you are wrong.
39 N766UA : Well, the other main purpose is to warn other pilots. ATC knows what kind of planes they're working, they have to. It's either on their screens or in
40 Maersk737 : Does it really matter what kind of call-sign the A380 will get? Cheers Peter
41 Post contains images N766UA : Nope! And the fact of the matter is this whole topic is worth nothing because it's just conjecture and bantering amongst the ultimately ill-informed.
42 Corey07850 :
43 Dw747400 : Do you even bother to read through the rest of the thread before posting? I already pointed out the AN-124 and C-5 BOTH have lower takeoff weights th
44 Post contains images Jorge1812 : 44 replies seem to point that out Georg
45 MaxQ2351 : Perhaps a slightly less takeoff weight has almost nothing to do with landing seperation. Think of the 757.....it is not classified as a "heavy", but
46 Phelpsie87 : I guess not... Maybe someone needs to say this, the A380 will get nothing special! The only aircraft that will are the ones stacked behind it. As alr
47 Post contains images Jorge1812 : Thats what I said here. A shame that this isn't the last senseless thread on the A-380. Maybe I start Will the A-380 get special runways/flightpaths/
48 Post contains images Phelpsie87 : Yes you did sir, I was just repeating you Hahahaha, didn't you know that Denver is building a brand new airport just for the A380....
49 RMD11 : So, just out of curiosity do 753's get the heavy call sign?
50 Post contains images Jorge1812 : Read about this last week...guess in which forum Georg
51 Post contains images Solnabo : Antonov 124/225 and C-5 Galaxy are all freighters/cargo craft and A388 is a passanger a/c and it will be the biggest pax a/c to date. I dont see An 22
52 Aero145 : Why do we have you "live with it"? All aircraft are aircraft, why have bigger aircraft to get no heavy and smaller heavy? IMO, it doesn't matter if i
53 Phelpsie87 : I beg to differ....http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0304052/L/ But i do agree here.
54 N766UA : Yes. I've also seen it in CLE, last I checked we were a passenger airport. Who cares what it's hauling? That doesn't even enter into it. A C-32 follo
55 Post contains images Mikehobley : The 225 came to UK - Nottingham East Midlands the other month, we get 124's at LPL frequently ..........Easy!!!
56 Mir : Well, it depends. If a 757 is heavy enough to be classified as "heavy", then it gets spacing as befits a heavy. If not, then it gets treated as a 757
57 OldAeroGuy : Sorry, this is wrong. Weight, span and speed are three of the important parameters that determine wake strength. Sorry, this is really wrong. If the
58 Zvezda : OldAeroGuy is correct, however, MaxQ2351's mistake is understandable. For those who do not understand induced drag, the fact that wake turbulence var
59 Abba : as well as that it increases as speed gets lower... Abba
60 Zeke : LHR/LGW already has 5 wake separation categories and longer separation distances than ICAO (LHR/LGW 8nm compared to the ICAO 6nm). It is common pract
61 Post contains images Zvezda : I did not imply mass only. You made that up. You quote me and then either don't even bother to read or deliberately misrepresent what you quoted. I w
62 Post contains links Zeke : Quoting Zvezda (Reply 61): I did not imply mass only. Quoting Zvezda (Reply 58): wake turbulence varies with weight What did you imply then ? As a pil
63 Zvezda : If you want to be picky about the distinction between mass and weight, then you're still wrong. You cannot change an aircraft's weight by turning. We
64 Iwok : I believe there was a discussion between OAG, Z and MaxQ regarding the impact of weight on wingtip vortecies: see the point was that weight is a fact
65 Zeke : I made some comments on that as well further above before someone went off the rails. Sorry my fault, missed the word landing from that sentance, yes
66 Iwok : OK gotcha, thanks for clearing things up for me. I was starting to get real confused. Makes sense to me now. Basically separation rules apply to a pl
67 Post contains images ShowerOfSparks : I still think "Bloated" would be a good term to use, but it seems if I post that I get censored, wonder if this post will vanish also   "Tower Qantas
68 OldAeroGuy : What part of "speed and airplane configuration are the same" don't you understand? You can add identical CG position to this if you like. If these co
69 Phelpsie87 : Not to be picky, but you would NEVER hear that ATC clearance, at least not in the U.S. After the landing aircraft passes the the departure aircraft o
70 Mir : I've heard it at FRA. -Mir
71 MaxQ2351 : Then of course, as a pilot, you would know that you'd never hear a clearance like that!!! "[...] you can takeoff immediately." Do tell me what countr
72 Post contains images Phelpsie87 : Thanks for the example, and now I know it is used in other countries. Just not in the U.S. [Edited 2006-05-29 19:04:54]
73 Post contains images CptSpeaking : MTOW doesn't change with weight...it's a fixed number. I think you might have put an extra "M" in there (accidentally I hope ) Your CptSpeaking
74 Mir : I heard it in a recording at LHR also. At LHR, a plane was told to line up behind a plane that would be taking off. At FRA, I'm pretty sure a plane w
75 Phelpsie87 : I agree, thanks for helping me clear that up!
76 MaxQ2351 : And since Zeke is from Canada (see flag....), then perhaps "position and hold" is the correct clearance!!! While I'm sure I'll take heat for saying t
77 Mir : It might be, I'm not sure. But nothing he said was incorrect. You just misinterpreted it. When he said: there was no phraseology in there, just descr
78 MaxQ2351 : "United 117 heavy, you are clear of my airspace, contact Denver Center on 135.60, have a nice day" You're right, those little additions must be incor
79 MaxQ2351 : I was not trying to draw a direct comparison, I was simply trying to reiterate the high degree of the USA's global influence. -Max
80 Phelpsie87 : But the problem is that "you are" is slang. Just like "good day, good night, etc." I can totally understand your mistake because once a controller is
81 Post contains images N766UA : I do, and I hear it all the time too. "So and so is finals for 24L." I'd say it's very common. No.    They're not incorrect. A controller simply ne
82 Mir : They're absolutely incorrect. Does the FAA make an issue out of it? Generally not. But if you're going to question someone's credibility based on wha
83 Post contains images MaxQ2351 : I understand it's hard to write emotions, I should have put one of those when I said that......I was being sarcastic!! I was just trying to make a po
84 N766UA : ooo, gotcha. Again, they're not incorrect. So long as a controller makes himself perfectly clear, the instruction is correct. Exact phraseology chang
85 XXXX10 : With respect, you may have a higher GDP than the rest of Europe, and the US may have invented aviation but you are using our language[Edited 2006-05-
86 Phelpsie87 : hahahahaha, love it! Touche!
87 Post contains images Zeke : Vortex crossover In theory yes for a theoretical wing with a theoretical lift distribution, and theoretical drag polar, with an aircraft that has dev
88 Post contains images Scoliodon : I'm sure that if the following aircraft heard about an A-380 in front, the PIC would know to keep his distance. Btw how does "Extra Heavy" sound? Slig
89 OldAeroGuy : And also quite different from any flaps extended configuration. The Velocity-Drag relationship you are showing here has nothing to do with terminal a
90 Zeke : Its just a drag polar, which is representative of a jet transport, it is not a lift/drag curve. The crow instability shown in my photos and the impac
91 OldAeroGuy : When I went to school, a drag polar was a lift/drag curve and I believe it still is. The 757 and 777 have a more continuous flap than previous Boeing
92 CptSpeaking : All 757s may not have the same MTOW, but won't all 752s have very close to the same? Engine package could change this, obviously, but I can't think o
93 Dw747400 : Almost all airliners are available in several takeoff weights. The 757, for example, is available in several weights ranging from 220,000 lbs to 256,
94 CptSpeaking : You learn something every day I guess...what are the variables that influence the change in MTOW?
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...
No Wake Constraints For The A380 posted Thu Sep 28 2006 19:24:57 by BoomBoom
Narita To The US: Not A Market For The A380 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:01:23 by Incitatus
If It Wasn't For The A380 Where Would Airbus Be? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 16:49:57 by Art
KLAX Getting Ready For The A380...Finally! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:15:05 by EK413
Breaking News: Another Delay For The A380 posted Thu Apr 6 2006 13:41:02 by NorCal
What Will SQ's Initial Routes Be For The A380? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 05:25:01 by KDTWFlyer
Johannesburg Airport Prepares For The A380 posted Fri Feb 17 2006 10:44:17 by Andz
Finding A Good Nickname For The A380 posted Thu Nov 24 2005 05:39:15 by GoldenArgosy
What Was The Chase Aircraft For The A380? posted Fri Apr 29 2005 04:13:01 by CitationJet
Airbus: Watch Our Webpage For The A380 1st Flight posted Mon Apr 25 2005 17:03:42 by Dsa