dk
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:48 pm

ATC "Heavy"

Tue May 23, 2000 11:03 pm

I am curious to know why ATC calls the Concorde "heavy", I always thought that
that was given to widebody jets only. Is it a matter of engine size and not plane size?
 
DEN-HNL
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:38 am

RE: ATC "Heavy"

Wed May 24, 2000 12:11 am

The use of the "heavy" designator is a matter of an aircraft's capable take-off weight. If an aircraft is capable of take-off weights of 300,000 pounds or more, the word "heavy" is part of the identification. I believe the Concorde has a max take-off weight of over 400,000 pounds. Wow!
John Hancock
 
dk
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:48 pm

RE: ATC "Heavy"

Wed May 24, 2000 12:26 am

Thanks DEN-HNL, that puts it in better perspective for me and makes a lot of sense! (Wow! is right for the Concorde take-off weight!!)
 
Guest

RE: ATC

Wed May 24, 2000 3:58 am

I think the term 'heavy' relates not to the weight of an aircraft, but to the size. If an aircraft is designated heavy it denotes that increased seperation must be allowed for following aircraft due to the vortices generated.

Although Concorde indeed has a MTOW of around 400,000 lbs, it is very compact in realtionship to a widebody a/c, however in the case of Concorde, the delta wing and high nose up attitude on approach generate considerable vortices. For safety reasons, these must be allowed to disperse before a smaller aircraft can follow.

Can somebody confirm this and maybe get a little more technical with the answer.

 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: ATC "Heavy"

Wed May 24, 2000 4:11 am

Heavy does infact relate to the weight not the fuselage size. The 757 is the first aircraft that does not fit into the weight catagory yet develops significant wingtip vortices. Hence, often they will specifically site aircraft following a 757 and offer expanded distances between aircraft.

It will be interesting in the next few years as improved wing designs start popping up to see if other aircraft slide into the no-mans land between heavy and standard operations.
 
calpilot
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 1999 5:16 am

RE: ATC "Heavy"

Wed May 24, 2000 4:14 am

I don't belive thats correct DEN-HNL. I'm on the road right now, and I don't have my AIM with me. But I belive the MGTOW is 255,000 lbs to be classified "Heavy".
 
Guest

Ok, Please Answer This Then...

Wed May 24, 2000 4:24 am

I've enjoyed all the conversations surrounding this topic however I was wondering, despite being a "widebody", would the A330 and A340 be classified as heavies?

The only reason why I ask is that I have a scanner tracking activity at Logan International here in Boston. Several weeks ago I heard Aer Lingus' transmission as it was approaching runway 4R.

I could have sworn that the the Aer Lingus pilot's response to the Boston Air Traffic commands was "Shamrock 133" and not "Shamrock 133 heavy" which I know it used to be when they flew the 747-100's years ago.

Could anyone who is on the ball with this kind of information please tell me if I was just hearing things or if in fact an A330 is not considered a "heavy"!

Thanks!!!  
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: ATC "Heavy"

Wed May 24, 2000 4:25 am

A "heavy" is a classification of an plane that weighs over 250,000 lbs. The 757 is almost a heavy but the MTOW is 250,000 and it has to be over 250. Concorde weighs i think around 325,000 lbs. Maybe less, i cant remember. I know these heavy questions!  

AA61hvy
Go big or go home
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Ok, Please Answer This Then...

Wed May 24, 2000 4:26 am

A330-200/300, a340-200/300 are all heavies
Go big or go home
 
Guest

RE: ATC

Wed May 24, 2000 4:40 am

A typical ATC system would display for correlated tracks (aircrafts correlated to a flight plan) an information called WTC (Wake Turbulence Category), which is H, M, L (Heavy, Medium, Light) depending on the aircraft.

There used to be an interesting page explaining Wake Turburlence, of the Denver ARTCC web site, but I can't get it anymore, you can have a look in the meantime at this fun one :

http://www.travis.af.mil/60amw/maca/waketurbulence.html

E.
 
Buff
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:29 pm

RE: 250K Vs 300K

Wed May 24, 2000 4:57 am

For wake turbulence purposes, in Canada the weight category starts at 300,000 lbs GTOW; in the USA and most other parts of the world, it's 250,000 lbs.

The max take-off weight for Concorde is 408,000 lbs (185,070 kg) for the purists in this thread! Max landing weight 245,000 lbs (111,130 kg).

Best Regards,

Buff
 
Guest

RE: Ok, Please Answer This Then...

Wed May 24, 2000 8:05 am

So I must have been hearing things, or should I say "not hearing things!"  

What I thought I heard was "Shamrock 133", instead it must have been "Shamrock 133 heavy". The pilot probably said it very quickly and I didn't pick it up...it must have been that "Irish brogue"!  
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Ok, Please Answer This Then...

Wed May 24, 2000 11:55 am

A lot of times the simply forget to add " the heavy " , i.e I flew to FRA on SIA in Dec 99 and on the approach and landing I was sitting up front and the ATC Controller called us Singapore 025 heavy, but the response from the the first officer was .............Singapore 025 ....without the heavy...............another example LH 423 ( Which definitely is a " heavy " ) took off today and the captain only responed as LH 423 heavy on the ground, once they took off without the " heavy " but as far as I know widebodies are all called " heavy " b/c if a small aircraft gets into the flight path take off or landing , weight turbulence could be severe for this small aircraft.

Vasco Garcia

Boston, MA

 
Guest

Are They Required To Say Heavy?

Wed May 24, 2000 12:06 pm

I know saying "heavy" will give smaller planes a "heads up" that there is a larger plane out there.

Is it a requirement for pilots to say that or is it more of a courtesy? I would imagine it would have to be required!

By the way, I too am familar with LH423, 747-200 correct? I would defintely agree with you that she is a "heavy"!  

Do you think that Beatles were big airplane fans? They must have been. For you Beatle followers, the last song on side 1 of "Abbey Road" is "She's So Heavy!"  
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Are They Required To Say Heavy?

Wed May 24, 2000 12:53 pm

I would say yes, this can not be just courtesy, I will ask me neighbor, licensed pilot, he should know, will advise tomorrow.

Vasco
 
Guest

RE: Are They Required To Say Heavy?

Wed May 24, 2000 1:45 pm

In the Pilot/Controller Glossary section of the Aeronautical Information Manual aka AIM, Aircraft Classes for the purposes of wake turbulence separation by ATC, a Small aircraft is one with less than 41000lbs. , between that and 255000lbs. it is a Large aircraft, and beyond 255000lbs. it is a Heavy, all these weights are based on maximum takeoff weight. If you have an AIM nearby you will find interesting separation distances used by ATC on 7-3-9, if not, then http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html#7-3-9
 
DEN-HNL
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:38 am

RE: CALpilot, Buff, HP-873

Fri May 26, 2000 1:09 am

Hey, guys!
Does anybody know, has the weight for a heavy been decreased to 255k pounds recently? (Within the last 3 years?) All the reference material I've got says 300k pounds and it was the first figure to come to my mind when I opened the thread. BUT, my most current AIM is from 1997!  

Thanks, Chuck
John Hancock

Who is online