MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 5992 posts, RR: 53 Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20644 times:
My coworker was telling me stories yesterday of his experiences dealing with wake turbulence over the years, and so of course our talk evolved into discussing 757 wake turbulence, and the subsequent related disasters caused by it. One story in particular caught my attention...it was the first time I've heard of it:
"On December 15, 1993, In-N-Out's president, Rich Snyder, son of the founders, and four other passengers died in a plane crash on approach to John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, California after opening store #93 in Fresno.[12] Snyder was aboard a charter plane. The charter aircraft followed in a Boeing 757 for landing, became caught in its wake turbulence, rolled into a deep descent and crashed near the intersection of California State Route 55 and Edinger Avenue. The crash investigation led to the FAA requirement for an adequate period between heavy aircraft and following light aircraft to allow wake turbulence to diminish. As a result of this crash Rich's brother, Guy, assumed the presidency."
That company seemed to have a streak of bad luck to say the least in the 90's,as Guy died in 1999 from an overdose.
I am drawing a blank here...what are some other incidents related to the 757 wake? I know back in the 90's that aircraft received a lot of press regarding it.
PYP757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20601 times:
Quoting MSYtristar (Thread starter): The crash investigation led to the FAA requirement for an adequate period between heavy aircraft and following light aircraft to allow wake turbulence to diminish
Why is 757 described as a "heavy" aircraft? Of course everything is relative, but I thought this terminology was used only for wide-bodies.
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20557 times:
Several incidents but I think this was the only accident/crash with that as a significant contributing factor.
Thought the B757 does not meet the normal requirements to be identified as a "Heavy" by it's weight, in the US it is identified as a Heavy so that trailing pilots know of the possibility of increased wake turbulence..
Europe and most of the rest of the world does not identify the B757 as a Heavy, relying instead upon controller and trailing pilots to realize the wake issue may exist and increase separation.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7209 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20524 times:
Quoting PYP757 (Reply 1): Why is 757 described as a "heavy" aircraft? Of course everything is relative, but I thought this terminology was used only for wide-bodies.
It's based on gross weight, and under certain weights the 757 can be considered a heavy. The 757-300 usually carries the heavy designation.
757s are notorious for having very bad wake vortices and turbulence behind them. They are worse than larger airplanes.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2861 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 20481 times:
Quoting PYP757 (Reply 1): Why is 757 described as a "heavy" aircraft? Of course everything is relative, but I thought this terminology was used only for wide-bodies.
IIRC it's used for 757-300's and one particular airline's 757-200's that are over the weight requirement, though I forget which airline that is.
"Heavy" refers to a specific weight (IIRC a specific MTOW), not girth or potential for wake turbulence.
Just to clarify, most 757-200's are not referred to as "heavy" by ATC. If you hear it in relation to a 757, it's a 757 that's over the weight limit.
Someone else can fill in the details, because I've forgotten at this point what the weight in question actually is or which 757-200's are over the limit.
[Edited 2007-08-24 17:50:40]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Flyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20390 times:
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 4868 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20339 times:
SansVGs From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20327 times:
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 5):
"Heavy" refers to a specific weight (IIRC a specific MTOW), not girth or wake turbulence.
Yes, however, the main reason for using the term "Heavy" in an ATC context is for special spacing requirements to avoid wake turbulence. So if the bird "quacks like a heavy...call it a heavy" This is an example of not letting overly literalistic definitions get in the way of safety or common sense.
Winglets on a Falcon are "over-painting" a great work of art.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20049 times:
This was one of the reasons why the worries over the A380 wake turbulence. No one at the time of these 757 turbulence accidents had any clue that the 757 would cause such problems.
Aerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4599 posts, RR: 53 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20043 times:
It was a tragic crash that Dec. evening, I was in a Sunrise Aviation C152 that evening on a pleasure flight out to CNO and back from SNA. I was 3 aircraft behind the fallen jet, just handed off to Tower and lined up for 19R over Anaheim Hills, moments later I saw a fireball at my one o'clock and was immediately handed back to SoCal approach which had me vector over to Mile Square park and do some 360's. A few minutes later I was directed to overfly the airport at midfield and enter the pattern for 19L. It was only after landing and talking to ground frequency did I find out what happened.
What's spooky about this is that I often underflew the wake of many 757's while bugging out of SNA, on an Orange departure(330 heading), while they were entering their downwind to base turns over central orange county - been bumped around a few time. Now I strictly watch where I am in relation to any 757, and ATC does a decent job of warning people.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2346 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 19745 times:
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 5): "Heavy" refers to a specific weight (IIRC a specific MTOW), not girth or potential for wake turbulence.
Back in the early days they thought the wake was directly proportional to the weight. Hence the use of the weight categories as the wake categories. This has been true for most aircraft types. Until the B752 came into service and blew a few lighties out of the sky that was.
Some studies ensued and somehow it was not recommended that the wake and weight categories to be delinked. So we still have the weight/wake categories and a few exceptions listed separately. It's a mish mesh what different countries are doing to accommodate the B752 but the general principle is to apply extra spacing to the following aircraft on final.
Faustino927 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 19667 times:
Quoting Zrs70 (Reply 2): Is it possible to change the thread title? I read it and thought that this just happened, as no date was associated with it!
It clearly says 1993. Hello!!
Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated.
MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 5992 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 19525 times:
Cbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1251 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 19438 times:
Actually 757-200s are commonly referred to as heavy when a smaller aircraft is entrail of a 757 on approach. The Heavy designation that are used for the 255,000 MGTW use the "heavy" in their call sign. ATC often will let a smaller aircraft behind a 757 know that they are following a "heavy" 757 in regards to the wake turbulence that is produced behind it. This is what I observed and found out whiles working at the MSP tower. Now, unless the MSP tower does different practices then the rest of the country, that seems to be what they mean by a "heavy" 757. So if you hear tower call "Northwest 110 Heavy" you know its a 757-300. but if you hear tower say "N12345 your following a heavy 757" it does not necessarily mean they are following a 757-300!!"
Wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 468 posts, RR: 23 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 18635 times:
Quoting Etops1 (Reply 18): usairways uses the "heavy " designator on their etops 757's. and so does ATA on both their 200's and 300's
I believe US has just instituted a new policy for filing as a "Heavy" regarding their 757s. I heard a Pilot/ATC conversation at PHL (also confirmed by a friend who works for US at PHL) that weight limits are 250,000 lb MTOW for domestic flights, and 300,000 lb MTOW for International. I didn't think the airline got to decide on that matter, but sure enough none of the ETOPS 757s from Europe that day used the Heavy appendix on the callsign.
For the record, this was last week. I assume it to be a recent change as well, since the controller seemed confused as to why aircraft he was used to seeing were no longer filed as "Heavy".
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 4868 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 18513 times:
Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 10): A Citation was following a B757 into Billings; 8 fatalities.
Yes, but had nothing to do specifically with the 757 or regulations... simply because he was flying too close. One of the last comments by the pilot was "..almost ran over a 757".
Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 13): Now I strictly watch where I am in relation to any 757, and ATC does a decent job of warning people.
Well, in a C152, I'm not getting as close as 4 OR 5 miles behind a 757 or a 737, or a 717... regardless of whether it's 'heavy' or not
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2416 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 18513 times:
The aircraft weight is not as culpable as the sweep of the wing. Heavy aircraft with shallow wing sweep create more redical vortices than do more streamlined sweeps.This is a negative by product of a high lift wing design.
Acey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1061 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 18449 times:
One of my professors at school used to fly Beech 1900s for Skyway. She was coming into CLE following a 757 in IMC. The controller was in training and had everyone stacked perfectly 2 miles in trail, but didn't know or forgot about the added separation for 757s. Just as she popped out of the clouds she got stuck in the wake and the 1900 was rolled 120 degrees with a full load of pax. She said she's never been so scared in her entire flying career, and the outbound flight was delayed because they had to call a mechanic in to inspect the airframe, etc. Ironically enough, she ended up flying 757s for UA before being furloughed after 9/11.
Wow, that is extremely sad. Its bad enough to hear of any aviation disaster let alone being this close.
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
25 FlyHoss: Did they encounter wake turbulence from the 757 as a result of "flying too close?" My point in posting the link to the BIllings accident was that it
26 UN_B732: I'm not sure if this is right, but I was talking to a Continental pilot, and he said they could takeoff 1 minute after a normal aircraft, 1:30 after a
27 Aviateur: I am type rated in the 757 and I can tell you it is not designated with a "heavy" suffix in U.S. airspace. However, I believe the -300 model is. In a
28 Bond007: Yes. That was the NTSB conclusion ...even though it may well have been before the new regs ... and my conclusion, albeit my opinion, is when a pilot
29 Okierj: Just joined today, always enjoy reading everyones posts. It's interesting to read what pilots and avaition lovers have to say. From a controllers stan
30 Highflier92660: I would love to see them test a 757 with blended winglets to see if there is any appreciable difference. The In-N-Out Burger Westwind was closing quic
31 STJ: In MSP when I monitor the tower I only hear the 757-300's referred to as "heavy" and if someone is following a 757-200 on the approach I will hear the
32 Stitch: No disrespect, but you are both incorrect. Please see below: Correct. I've done enough flying on UA and listened to Channel 9 on approach that in alm
33 N1120A: Only the -300 and the -200s rated to the maximum 255,000 pounds are It isn't one airline. It is all airlines with 255,000 pound 752s. From what I kno
34 Bond007: Just so we don't argue this From the source ...7110.65 1. “Runway two seven left cleared to land, caution wake turbulence, heavy Boeing 747 departi
35 DeltaJet757: Whenever I'm listening to the Sea-Tac ATC live feed on iTunes the controllers often say something, something, something...757 heavy...caution wake tu
36 747400sp: I remeber that crash, I did not know that the president of In-N-Out Burgers was on that plane. I remeber Califorain 9 news ( now K-CAL 9), saying afte
37 FLY2HMO: Sorry, gonna have to be a smartass for once... Source?
39 Tdscanuck: That shouldn't be physically possible. Heaviest for its size I would accept, but it can't be more severe than a 747 or A380 or else you'd have a larg
40 OldAeroGuy: Wing sweep has very little impact on vortex strength. The primary factors are airplane weight, wing span, and speed. Vortex strength rises as weight
41 Stitch: I believe NW does fly some 753s out of SEA, which would explain why they are heavies. But being based out of SEA myself, everytime I am on a UA 752 o
42 UPS757Pilot: I fly 757-200s and 767-300ERs for UPS, and we are NEVER designated a Heavy with ATC with the 757s. ATC will often anounce to our following traffic tha
43 Bond007: Because as discussed, 757-200s are not 'Heavy' as per weight limits. You're a few years out of date, it's 255,000 lbs Jimbo
44 Cloudyapple: And outside of America no one appends any heavy suffix to anything. It's a difference from ICAO standard phraseology. The aircraft type is on our str
45 Bond007: I never did understand that! Presumably it was so you could, as in this example, have a B752 'Heavy', and a B752 not 'Heavy' depending on MTOW, but s
46 Soon7x7: Response...OldAeroGuy...Generally speaking you are correct...in the case of HEAVY transport aircraft all of what you say is true but the wing sweep on
47 Bond007: What I understand though, is that the 757 vortices dissipate more quickly than aircraft of a similar size. Jimbo
48 Charlienorth: I was riding cockpit jumpseat on an ATR42 going into ORD,the captain warned us that it was going to get rough because they pit us too close behind a 7
49 Tjwgrr: For what it's worth... I've monitored a few ATA 752 flights that were designated heavy by ATC.
50 ATCT: Alright everyone im going to clarify this once and for all (as I am a Controller who works with everything from Cessna 208's through 747-400's on a da
51 OldAeroGuy: Please explain what you mean in more detail. All models of the 737, all models of the DC9/MD80 and all models of the 757 have the same basic wing qua
52 Bond007: ATA would appear to be the exception. You probably just haven't worked any, but many of the ATA 752s do in fact file 'Heavy'. Jimbo
53 Soon7x7: Many people in these forums have the time and access to exact specs, data sheets,etc...All I know is that the wing tip to wing tip sweep is less radi
54 N1120A: It depends on the 757-200. The 255,000 pound ones are. [
55 Mason: Any info on the effect of the winglets on 757 wake vorticies?
56 OldAeroGuy: The 757 also has the highest landing weight of the airplane types you're comparing (DC9 MD80 727 737 & 757) while these types have early identical wi
58 OldAeroGuy: Correct Sweep Angles DC-9 MD80 717 - 24.5 degrees See this reference: http://www.angelfire.com/dc/douglasjets/MD81.html and Figure 12 in this referen
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 5992 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2346 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2005, 666 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 637 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
