Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 Wake Tubulence Question  
User currently offline777DadandJr From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1516 posts, RR: 12
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2578 times:

While returning to IAD on Sunday aboard a UA 777, I was listening to channel 9. There was an RJ second in line to land behind us, and ATC warned them of the wake turbulence from the 777 in front of them.

My question is this:

How long does the wake turbulence last? Must the separation be farther in this scenario?

Thanks in advance!

Russ


My glass is neither 1/2 empty nor 1/2 full, rather, the glass itself is twice as big as it should be.
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting 777DadandJr (Thread starter):
While returning to IAD on Sunday aboard a UA 777, I was listening to channel 9. There was an RJ second in line to land behind us, and ATC warned them of the wake turbulence from the 777 in front of them.

My question is this:

How long does the wake turbulence last? Must the separation be farther in this scenario?

The normal separation is about two minutes. This varies widely depending on the conditions. Wake vortices sink and dissipate slowly.

In this particular case, you have a huge disparity in size between the planes. The effect of wake turbulence (and any other kind of turbulence) is dependent on the mass of the object affected and the intensity of the turbulence. If you have a large aircraft with big wings generating lots of lift, the wake vortices will be correspondingly large. Another 777 following after it could ride it out easily since its mass can absorb the bumps (inertia is your friend), but a much lighter RJ might face serious problems.

That's one of the reasons ATC cares about the plane type. So they can adjust out the separation accordingly.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSkyman From Germany, joined May 2006, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Here is a wake turbulence seperation list from Germany:
Heavy to Light 6NM
H to Medium 5NM
H to H 4NM
M to M 3NM
M to L 3NM
L to L 3NM
Otherwise aircraft are effected when flying less than 2 min behind the aircraft at ssame level or less than 1000ft below.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

In the US here is what the controller handbook requires unless the second aircraft is on a visual approach following the preceeding:

WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION


e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:

NOTE-
Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.

1. Heavy behind heavy- 4 miles.

2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles.

3. Small behind B757- 5 miles.

4. Small/large behind heavy - 5 miles.

WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION


f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:

NOTE-
Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.

1. Small behind large- 4 miles.

2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.

3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.

The vorticies are supposed to sink at around 1,000' per minute but most US approach controls with RADAR don't use the minutes for separation they use the mileage rule.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

IAHFLYR knows his stuff...so my question, what 737 model causes you guys the most problems?

Cheers- formerjlincolndood...askhimhowstheracekar!
(your guys' label, our namesake!!)


User currently offlineSkyman From Germany, joined May 2006, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 4):
what 737 model causes you guys the most problems?

Was that question for me? If so I don`t quiet get it. In Germany approach also allmost only uses milage seperation due to the high traffic. Other things wouldn`t be practicable. So IAHFLYR must be an approach controller since he noes everything so good by heart. Or he had the handbook around. biggrin 
We don`t really have big problems with the B737 but if you want to know the B737-200 allmost doesn`t fly here anymore due to the old engines. For noise abaitment rules and high fuel flow as well. Personally I like the B737-800 the best . A modern aircraft with a very good climbing performance.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 4):
IAHFLYR knows his stuff...so my question, what 737 model causes you guys the most problems?

I know nothing and can prove it....just watch your TCAS for abit!!!  Smile
.65 is always available but thanks for the kudos, and after that comment what you think you're gonna get direct REDOC or something special?

Hey he says the rackar is excellent and I will pass along a howdy to him today when I see him.

That model question for me or for SKYMAN??



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 777 Wake Tubulence Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
777 Cargo Door Question posted Sun Oct 3 2004 04:37:41 by DfwRevolution
Wake Turbulence Question posted Thu Jul 22 2004 04:47:03 by Hardkor
777/767 Aileron Question posted Tue Jun 15 2004 16:03:58 by Worldoftui
777 Gear Retraction Question posted Fri Feb 13 2004 16:29:29 by USAFHummer
Boeing-777 Flap Angle Question? posted Wed Sep 18 2002 21:53:54 by Mr Spaceman
Boeing 777/737 Ground Spoiler Deployment Question posted Fri Sep 1 2006 03:29:11 by Aaron747
Question About 777 posted Tue Mar 15 2005 12:00:07 by 9V-SVC
Question About 777 posted Mon Oct 11 2004 14:20:49 by 9V-SVC
Boeing 777-200 Question posted Thu Feb 7 2002 18:08:45 by 777-200
777 Engines Question posted Sun Jan 13 2002 23:55:47 by DC10Tony

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format