Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK - New "super" Wake Vortex Sep For A380  
User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13615 times:

Just in.... CAA putting in new classification for A380 separation on take-off and approach. Article here.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ke+vortex+category+for+Airbus.html

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13454 times:

Interesting that the UK-CAA is keeping the arrival separation between two A380's at 4nm, the same as two existing heavies. The Steering Group findings would have allowed the trailing A380 to close to 3nm.


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5758 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13452 times:

Well this is more bad news for the A380.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

So Three Minutes after A380 take off. That should really speed things up at LHR.


    Minimum radar separation during approach and departure will be 6nm (11km) for a trailing ‘heavy’ aircraft, 8nm for a ‘medium’ or ‘small’, and 10nm for a ‘light’ aircraft.

    While the steering group concluded that the A380 itself did not need to be subjected to wake constraints while in trail, the CAA will impose a minimum 4nm separation between two A380s.

    Non-radar separation for aircraft arriving behind an A380 will be kept to 3min for ‘medium’ and ‘small’ types, and 4min for ‘light’. Departure separations will be 3min for ‘medium’, ‘small’ and ‘light’, reduced to 2min for non-A380 ‘heavy’ aircraft.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13387 times:

The interesting question is how many slots a WhaleJet will need at LHR. Will it be 1.5 or 2?

User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13364 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2):
Well this is more bad news for the A380.

The is the same bad news as the last bad news and the previous one re:wake vortex separation.

This same piece of information is being disseminated from the ICAO steering group to CAAs around the world and every time a CAA publishes its own guidelines based exactly on ICAO's findings it is being rehashed here as more bad news.

There is actually no news here on this thread. Please move on.



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 offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13316 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The interesting question is how many slots a WhaleJet will need at LHR. Will it be 1.5 or 2?

Disappointingly enough for you, just 1.

Runways capacity at any airport is counted in movements per hour, not in cumulative separation distance and just like BA hasn't gained a SINGLE slot from downgrading much of their European routes from Boeing 757 to Airbus A320 (which has lower separation minima for the UK CAA) no operator will require more than one slot because they'd upgrade from Boeing 747 Boeing 777 or Airbus A340 to Airbus A380.

The A380 will thus fit in flawlessly and unproblematicly as promissed. bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The interesting question is how many slots a WhaleJet will need at LHR.

1 slot. Whether the required separation is 2.5Nm or 10Nm it will be counted as 1 slot. We adjust the hourly runway capacity we declare according to demand taking into account various factors one of which is aircraft type. Airlines schedule accordingly. You bet BAA/airlines will complain if capacity drops significantly.

There are operational tricks to get round the issue. There will be little loss of capacity because of the A388. Laymen should not worry.



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 offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
Laymen should not worry.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13102 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 5):
The is the same bad news as the last bad news and the previous one re:wake vortex separation.


There is actually no news here on this thread. Please move on.

Isn't the UK-CAA decision on approach separation distance between A380's new news?

Doesn't this make the A380 approach situation worse than the 3nm between A380's allowed by the Steering Committee? Admittantly, this will hardly be a problem until there are many A380's in service, but it can't be good news.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12976 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
There are operational tricks to get round the issue. There will be little loss of capacity because of the A388. Laymen should not worry.

"Yes indeed, AA Flight 578, all you have to do is stay out of the wake vortex of that 747 and you should be just fine! Cleared for take off, have a good day!"


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12898 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The interesting question is how many slots a WhaleJet will need at LHR. Will it be 1.5 or 2?

The question is how many take offs and/or landings can occur per hour during rush hours if the A380 and/or B748I are flying around the circuit. And as OldAeroGuy points out, it gets worse as more and more A380s show up at LHR.

It seems to me that this should be relatively simple to model on a computer given the time separation.

The next question is what is the time seperation after a 787 takes off? Is it one minute or two or three? If one minute, then you move more people per unit time with the 787 than with the A380.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12557 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 5):
There is actually no news here on this thread. Please move on.

- as far as I remember (may be wrong), the ICAO findings were just "recommendations", while this one is a strict rule. I mean, ICAO might say anything, but UK-CAA decision is the way it will work in practice.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
We adjust the hourly runway capacity we declare according to demand taking into account various factors one of which is aircraft type. Airlines schedule accordingly.

- the way I understand it, whatever the separation is, it can be "leveled" combining different aircraft types appropriately... then, the airlines will have to adjust... meaning, it is going to be a problem, and despite there is a known way to resolve it, it may be far from smooth for everyone. Plus, this or that way, more time (between departures/arrivals) is more time, whichever way you combine it. Hence,

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 6):
Disappointingly enough for you, just 1.

- indeed, just one. But 1.5 to 2 times bigger than regular one Big grin...


User currently offlineThegooddoctor From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12476 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
"Yes indeed, AA Flight 578, all you have to do is stay out of the wake vortex of that 747 and you should be just fine! Cleared for take off, have a good day!"

Laymen should not worry - I love that! Doctors usually pull that one out before they stick you with something sharp or uncomfortable  Wink



The GoodDoctor
User currently offlineEisman From Canada, joined May 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12397 times:

While this might not relate to the thread, what effect will the A380 taxi and manuever speeds have on airport operations?

User currently offlineShowerOfSparks From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12344 times:

This is the first positive news in a while for the Bloatjet, everywhere it goes it will be referred to as "Super"  Smile

User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11795 times:

Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 15):
This is the first positive news in a while for the Bloatjet, everywhere it goes it will be referred to as "Super"

Not to be confused with AA's Super 80s, which are anything but...


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11742 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
Laymen should not worry.

"0913:27.6
TWR American five eight seven heavy, wind three zero zero at
niner, runway three one left, cleared for takeoff.
0913:31.7
RDO-1 cleared for takeoff, American ah, five eight seven heavy.
0913:35.3
HOT-2 you happy with that distance?
0913:38.5
HOT-1 aah, he's.... we'll be all right once we get rollin'. he's supposed
to be five miles by the time we're airborne, that's the idea.
0913:45.5
HOT-2 so you're happy. lights?
0913:47.1
HOT-1 yeah, lights are on.
0913:47.8
HOT-2 takeoff check's complete, I'm on the roll. thank you sir.
0913:53.5
HOT-1 thrust SRS, runway.
0913:54.7
CAM [sound similar to increase in engine RPM]
0914:03.8
HOT-2 you got throttles."


[Edited 2006-11-07 02:34:01]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11469 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
Not to be confused with AA's Super 80s, which are anything but...

Speak for yourself buddy..those MadDogs rock.. bigthumbsup 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10094 times:

Quoting Eisman (Reply 14):
While this might not relate to the thread, what effect will the A380 taxi and manuever speeds have on airport operations?

New airports with more space and more runways than today.


User currently offlineFlylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9885 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 5):
The A380 will thus fit in flawlessly and unproblematicly as promissed.

Flawlessly? Perhaps. But, it will not deliver on the big productivity gains it was intended to in terms of passengers per hour. This is problematic.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9545 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
There will be little loss of capacity because of the A388.

With the UK-CAA regulations, I did a simple model to determine the possible passenger through put change due to the A380. It is not clear from the FI article if the approach separation with a Heavy leading and an A380 trailing is 3nm or 4nm so I ran the model for both.

Basic assumptions:

- Single Runway used for Approach
- 744 Pax @ 416
- A380 Pax @ 555
- 150 kt approach ground speed used for both airplanes
- 37.5 744 operations per hour saturates the single runway using 4 nm separation.
- Replace 774's with A380's incrementally.
- A380's added are either grouped together in a block or are interspersed among the 774's.
- Observe pax through put change.

Note that the A380 pax count is 33.4% higher than the 744.

Results in terms of percent through put change for Interspersed A380's using 3nm 744-A380 Separation:
Incremental A380's ; Through Put Change
1 ; 0.1%
5 ; 1.0%
10 ; 2.2%
15 ; 3.2%
20 ; 9.8%
37.5 ; 33.4%

Results in terms of percent through put change for Interspersed A380's using 4nm 744-A380 Separation:
Incremental A380's ; Through Put Change
1 ; -0.4%
5 ; -2.2%
10 ; -4.4%
15 ; -6.3%
20 ; 1.5%
37.5 ; 33.4%

Results in terms of percent through put change for Grouped A380's using 4nm 744-A380 Separation:
Incremental A380's ; Through Put Change
1 ; -0.4%
5 ; 3.1%
10 ; 7.6%
15 ; 12.0%
20 ; 16.5%
37.5 ; 33.4%

Conclusions:

With UK-CAA Approach Separation rules, interspersed A380's will degrade the airplane's potential for increased passenger through put.

Loss of through put is increased if the 744-A380 separation is 4nm.

Grouping A380's for Landing will allow nearly the full through put potential to be realized, especially as the percentage of A380 operations increases.

[Edited 2006-11-07 09:02:10]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

No surprises here. Poor wing design, IMO. They should have gone with a more Super Critical Design and higher thrust engines.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8370 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
37.5 744 operations per hour saturates the single runway using 4 nm separation.

I for sure wouldn't want to be on that halved 747 on final....  pray 

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Basic assumptions:
- Single Runway used for Approach.

Care to do the same excercise with dual runway configuration as is actually the case, assuming a flexible attribution of landing and departing runways?

What I see from your calculation is that even in the most UNFAVOURABLE situation of unflexible single landing runway operations and only when combined with a a certain range of randomly interspersed A380s, you manage to produce theoretical negative numbers of through put.

Logic then dictates that in real live operations and with some clever planning, through put will not suffer and will indeed be higher than currently is the case.

BTW, it better be, since it seems like the idea of the UK-CAA is to use this class of separation not only for A380, but also for other larger than 744 planes. Maybe we should do this calculation for 748 ops in LHR too to see what the numbers of through put are then, just to put it in perspective?


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7801 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 9):
Isn't the UK-CAA decision on approach separation distance between A380's new news?

This is being blown way out of proportion - how often is it 2 A380s will follow each other on approach? Why do we have approach controllers? They optimise the sequence to shift the maximum number of aeroplanes with the minimum overall separation. This is an insignificant piece of regulation.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
"Yes indeed, AA Flight 578, all you have to do is stay out of the wake vortex of that 747 and you should be just fine! Cleared for take off, have a good day!"

Come on - operational tricks will be within what the book says can be done. Are you implying NATS controllers are going to break wake turbulence separation to achieve increased performance?

Quoting RIX (Reply 12):
- the way I understand it, whatever the separation is, it can be "leveled" combining different aircraft types appropriately... then, the airlines will have to adjust... meaning, it is going to be a problem, and despite there is a known way to resolve it, it may be far from smooth for everyone. Plus, this or that way, more time (between departures/arrivals) is more time, whichever way you combine it. Hence,

Different airport uses different methods to determine runway capacity. Some simply declare based on experience, some like NATS operated ones utilise simulation tools which takes into account a whole bunch of parameters. I am not going to elaborate what those parameters are here but it is a tried and tested piece of software. What it does is it gives you hourly capacity figures that will result in acceptable levels of system delay.

There are busy hours and there are slack hours even at Heathrow. The effect of a particular event in the day (an A380 landing for example) may have a localised impact for some minutes but is unlikely to perturb the daily overall by much.

That is a theoretical approach to preempt excessive delays but operationally many things can be done to alleviate any potential problems - we have a whole team of people on it.

Quoting Flylku (Reply 20):
Flawlessly? Perhaps. But, it will not deliver on the big productivity gains it was intended to in terms of passengers per hour. This is problematic.

I did not write the things you quoted me on.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Single Runway used for Approach

That's the problem. It's only statistical correct with all those given assumptions. Heathrow has 2 runways, can TEAM and will TEAM to reduce delay. Your calculations did not take that into account

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 22):
No surprises here. Poor wing design, IMO.

The wing is well designed. Except that it's optimised for the A389 - too much lift for the A388 and thus too big a wake turbulence. Do you know what a super critical aerofoil is? Do you know what the differences are between a conventional aerofoil and a super critical one? Can you tell me if a super critical aerofoil is always better than a conventional one?

[Edited 2006-11-07 14:23:17]


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
25 LHRspotter : Did you mean AA Flight 587? The fifth anniversary is this week (NOV 12th). R.I.P.
26 Khobar : Interestingly enough, in a previous thread, that exact accusation was made of LHR controllers (they ignore separation standards). Sounded absurd to m
27 Cloudyapple : Somebody timed 2 arrivals to land about a minute apart and cried foul. I explained in that thread that was totally within reason. 3Nm spacing, 5kt ta
28 VV701 : I am not a 'professional' and am not therefore well qualified to comment on the affect of mixing 380s into the current mix of arrivals and departures.
29 Aviateur : Wake turbulence did not bring down AA 587. The A300 crashed because the crew -- the first officer in particular -- overreacted when encountering the v
30 Poitin : According to some, SFO, which has narrow spacing between runways and taxi ways will be 50% shut down for as long as 15 minutes while a A380 is moving
31 Cloudyapple : See reply above yours.
32 OldAeroGuy : It becomes a halved A380 in the all A380 case. The model does indicate the situation at LHR where one of the dual runways is used for departures and
33 Poitin : So, the wake vortex was still a major contributing issue. As I noted.
34 OldAeroGuy : Your observations indicate my modeling is essentially correct. The model used 96 sec as the 4nm Heavy to Heavy separation time vs your observed 103 s
35 Slz396 : You provided a theoretical model for which you certainly deserve some credit, but sadly it does not fit reality and is suitable for a purely intellec
36 Jacobin777 : Actually VV701's data might prove OldAeroGuy's theoretical modeling to be correct...of course, more numbers are needed....but it certainly doesn't di
37 OldAeroGuy : The model does not assume that the saturation extends over the entire day. The situation that exists at LHR is that there are times in the day when a
38 OldAeroGuy : After thinking about your response a bit more today, I suggest that if you want to continue with your line of reasoning above, you might consider eng
39 ShowerOfSparks : There is in fact a repair visible to one of the attachment points which can be clearly seen in the photographs of the wreckage. You can see in the pi
40 Post contains links NAV20 : Thanks, ShowerOfSparks, new information to me. In return, you may not have seen this urgent Safety Recommendation issued last March by the NTSB. It a
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...
New York JFK International Will Be Ready For A380! posted Wed Mar 24 2004 02:31:52 by AvObserver
"New" Aircraft (a BT-67) For German Polar Institut posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:04:30 by Columba
"New" 747 For Iran Air posted Mon Sep 18 2006 21:54:37 by NA
"New" DC-3 Arrives..... For CX. posted Mon Feb 20 2006 14:58:32 by N754PR
Tenth A318 For AF With "new" Logo And Titles posted Wed Nov 9 2005 11:51:25 by FlySSC
TPA-open House For "new" Airside C posted Thu Mar 31 2005 02:46:09 by 727LOVER
New "Brasil" Decal For Varig MD-11 (PP-VQK) posted Mon Mar 28 2005 23:50:04 by Msh744
B6 Goes For New "Advanced Range" E190 posted Tue Jan 25 2005 18:25:47 by Planemaker
New "Airline" City For SWA posted Wed Oct 27 2004 22:44:26 by Planespotting
Airport Operator: "Lax Ready For A380 By 2006" posted Tue May 18 2004 16:06:36 by Teahan
First "New" A320 For EasyJet Pic posted Mon Feb 16 2009 16:53:04 by EZYAirbus
2 "new" 737-700s For Sun Country? posted Sat Feb 14 2009 21:35:59 by Falcon flyer
"Ongoing" Training For A380's posted Thu Feb 14 2008 07:10:35 by Manfredj
Next "new" Customer For B787 posted Tue Apr 3 2007 19:45:43 by Mptpa
"New" Aircraft (a BT-67) For German Polar Institut posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:04:30 by Columba
"New" 747 For Iran Air posted Mon Sep 18 2006 21:54:37 by NA
"New" DC-3 Arrives..... For CX. posted Mon Feb 20 2006 14:58:32 by N754PR