IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4386 times:
Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter): "caution wake turbulence" due to a heavy taking of from a parallel runway. Is that really a concern?
It sure can be and always an advisory which is good to issue especially if the landing runway threshold is staggered a few thousand feet past the departure runway! Wake exists for every airplane as we know....I've even issue the advisory to departures 6-8 miles behind and a few thousand feet below a larger aircraft just to let them know they're following whatever it is making their ride bumpier in the climb....and that much loved B738 is some kind of wake maker!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
One fo the advatages of the WAAS and LAAS systems (as proposed) will be multiple glideslopes to the same runway. A heavy would use a standard 3.00 degree glidelsope and a 737/A320 could be placed on a steeper 3.10 to 3.60 degree glideslope with the same CAT I landing minimums with different threshold crossing heights keeping the smaller aircraft above the wake turbulence and reducing in trail separation. This however would only apply to airports that don't have any terrain issues. It's not quite there yet, but it's coming.
The same would apply to parallel runways. One at one slope, one at another allowing closer spacing (2,500' vs. 4,300' with terminals between the runways), unless of course you need both runways for all types of aircraft. But that just leaves a ton of wasted space between the runways when you figure the taxiways and terminals would increase the airport footprint to 4,300' anyway.