Since the beginning of commercial operations of the A380, hopefully late this year, which in my understanding will need an even more wider separation from other aircraft, what would be your message to ATC -- "heavy," or "super heavy," or something like that, that would identify your aircraft.

I don't think there will be any special callsign for the A380.

Honestly, It puzzles me how 'freaked out' people seem at the size and weight of the A380...as if it's bigger than anything that's graced the skies...when clearly it's not.

It's in the same league as the 747, C-5 Galaxy, An-124, and An-225.

Do any of those aircraft get special weight designations? No.

So why should the A380?

My guess is separation for the A380 won't be terribly greater than any other such loaded aircraft in the pattern.

We really aren't going to know until they actually take to the skies, but I don't think the A380 is going to see as many special considerations compared to the 744 as we think.

Quoting JBo (Reply 1): It puzzles me how 'freaked out' people seem

People made a big deal about it because Airbus stated that the A380 would have the same separation as the 747. It was just another reason for A bashers to jump on the A380 and say "A-ha, I knew that plane sucked!"

But really the separation info came at point when Airbus was struggling with PR in general (the A350 in particular). The one bright spot for Airbus at the time was the A380. It was a chance to drag that program down too. Airbus said the initial separation would be decreased. Time will tell. I hope for Airbus sake that it is. If not, their reputation for missing promises will continue.

WorldXplorer

With the invention of TCAS, eveyone should know that theres a GREAT BIG B***ard in the area .... and ATC will be only to aware of the aircraft type.



  

The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

I don't want to get into a flame fender about this one. It was just a simple question to the experts that might know. Cheers!

It doesn't look like there will be enough flying to seriously impact operations anywhere.

I think it will be handled like the 757 (excluding those actually heavy enough to carry a "Heavy" callsign) and the callsign will still be heavy, but the controller will know from the flightplan that it is an A380 so they can apply any special spacing.

The term heavy doesn't mean that the plane has to be heavy. It's just added to the ATC ID to recognize the plane as one which produces heavy turbulences behind and other, especially smaller planes, have to keep a big distance to avoid problems. That's why the not so heavy 757 is called heavy on ATC. Don't know the exact figures of the A-380 but imagine a plane with lighter weight as the A-380 can produce mor turbulences than the A-380 itself. So no extra heavy or something else to be added to the ATC ID.

Georg

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8): The term heavy doesn't mean that the plane has to be heavy.

The heavy callsign is based off MTOW. Most 752s are not over the FAA definition of "heavy" at 255,000 lbs, only the heaviest 752s have a MTOW over that. All 757s get special spacing by ATC regardless of whether or not they are over 255k (FAA) MTOW.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

Actually, the A380 is substantially larger than the C-5 and AN-124 in terms of takeoff weight, which is important when dealing with wake turbulence.

Requiring more seperation is a big deal, as a major selling point of the A380 is to allow more flights into slot-restricted or other congested airports. An increase in spacing could negate that advantage.

Of course, how the A380 will impact operations is yet to be seen. It may be that smaller aircraft must increase their spacing from it, but that a 747 could use the same spacing as with another 747 (which would be a boost at those congested airports). Untill the final procedures are out, no one can really say how big of an impact the wake of the A380 will have.

Well, a little off-topic.

If the A380 will get "Heavy heavy" or "Super Heavy", does An-225 have "Heavy heavy heavy" or "Over-super heavy"?



"Uniform-Romeo-eight-two-O-six-O heavy heavy heavy, cleared for landing."  

[Edited 2006-05-28 03:34:01]

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11): "Uniform-Romeo-eight-two-O-six-O heavy heavy heavy, cleared for landing."

Huh???

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 2): People made a big deal about it because Airbus stated that the A380 would have the same separation as the 747. It was just another reason for A bashers to jump on the A380 and say "A-ha, I knew that plane sucked!" But really the separation info came at point when Airbus was struggling with PR in general (the A350 in particular). The one bright spot for Airbus at the time was the A380. It was a chance to drag that program down too. Airbus said the initial separation would be decreased. Time will tell. I hope for Airbus sake that it is. If not, their reputation for missing promises will continue.

Exactly! If Airbus had said from the beginning something like "Our goal is to keep the WhaleJet's wake turbulence the same or less than that of the JumboJet but, given the significant increase in MTOW, it will be a challenge." then the Airbus bashers wouldn't have the opportunity that Airbus have handed them. In the end, it doesn't matter what Airbus say or what the Airbus bashers say about wake turbulence. What will matter is separation spacing.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 10): It may be that smaller aircraft must increase their spacing from it, but that a 747 could use the same spacing as with another 747 (which would be a boost at those congested airports).

This is plausible. It shouldn't be difficult for Airbus to persuade the authorities to let a JumboJet follow a WhaleJet with the same separation as between JumboJets. Any airport with scheduled WhaleJet service will have enough JumboJets operating that ATC can slot a JumboJet behind a WhaleJet and save the WhaleJet from needing two landing slots. It's a bit of extra work for ATC and may mean that a WhaleJet occasionally needs to circle for a few minutes until the next JumboJet arrives, but it would save slots. It would be even better if it were found that other heavies could safely follow a WhaleJet at the same separation distance that they would follow a JumboJet.

Quoting JBo (Reply 1): I don't think there will be any special callsign for the A380.

But "Quantas/LH/Air France, Flight # WhaleJet" has such a sweet ring to it.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 17): The mods just recently backed off this whole "whale" thing

OK, I'm outta the loop here. We can say "WhaleJet" again? (FYI mods, I mean no disrespect)

WorldXplorer

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): A heavy is a heavy is a heavy.

"Singapore 23 OPRAH heavy, cleared to land"

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

How many an-225's are there flying? One...

How many AN-124's are there flying? A handful...

How often to C-5's grace civilian airports? Not that often...

The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces. ATC at these facilities don't just have to worry about making a little extra room for the one flight an AN-225 makes into an airport, they will have to worry about it every few aircraft...

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15): It's remarkable to me that folks perceive the spacing issue as some sort of "Airbus Bashing".

The spacing issue in and of itself is not bashing. However several members have used that topic as a spring-board to "talk-up" the negatives of Airbus and the A380 in particular. A fact is a fact and does not constitute bashing in its own right. But couple that fact with a skewed "the sky is falling" attitude and you have the making of an overblown situation. Yes the seperation of the A380 is greater than the 747, but that may change, and even if it were, unitl the details are finalized, all else is speculation. Speculation that member have a tendancy to skew to absurb proportions.

WorldXplorer

Generally, when ATC provides information to one airplane relative to another aircraft's size/weight, the type of aircraft is specified as well.

Example:

"Delta 123, you're following a heavy 767 on a six mile final..."

Saying "heavy A380" will get the point across. ATC will give at least minimum separation (whatever that ends up being) and a "caution wake turbulence from a heavy A-380" will, you bet, be heeded by any flight crew behind it.

Wake Categories (or weight categories - never seen anyone actually referring to it in ops) are determined by ICAO. The FAA or JAA or anyone indeed cannot change those standard categories on their own. If a change is required it will have to go through all the normal ICAO rule change procedures.

NATS/CAA however operates modified categories in the UK in that mediums are split into upper and lower mediums. But they are still medium types. Upper mediums are there to categorise types like B752 where in the rest of the world causes confusion as to what wake category it should "really" be in (NO they are NOT categorised according to the factory spec MTOW). An unbinding ATC convention is that if the B752 is the leading aircraft it is a HEAVY. If it is the trailing aircraft it is a MEDIUM. (FAA follows this convention as well as most countries.) Since this is an odd ball exception that is non standard to the 4x4 "wake separation grid" it is only listed as a footnote to the grid and is prone to error by inexperienced SATCOs alike. That's why the NATS/CAA have decided to formalise it and use a 5x5 grid.

Another thing is very few places in the world actually suffix callsigns with HEAVY. It's only use is to remind controllers it's a heavy so he should exercise caution or give extra spacing. The wake category is written on the strip anyway. It's only being communicated to the pilot in the aircraft trailing the heavy only if he's a little too hot and may lead to a loss of separation, particularly on final. Otherwise we shift heavies just like any other aircraft.

In ATC research our primary goal is to devise ways to increase capacity to cope with increasing demand while maintaining safety. This can be done partly by reducing the amount of RT. It's a different world today since they first devised the categories and these peculiar rules to suffix callsigns. Knowing the callsign/type/wake cat in your sector is now part of ATCO's basic situational awareness. With 20% of all aircraft being heavies (up to 60% in some asian airports) instead of 2% when it all started, suffixing heavies doesn't mean as much any more as before. Omitting unnecessary phrases on RT may give you that little bit more to shift an extra aeroplane.

[Edited 2006-05-28 06:22:05]

"Whale Jet" sorry had to say it. I personally love the name and the A/C. I dont see why people take it as a bash. I thought Airbus did some tests with a 777 and 747 along with the 380 to figure this out awhile ago

Quoting MesaMXORD (Reply 25): "Whale Jet" sorry had to say it. I personally love the name and the A/C. I dont see why people take it as a bash.

Some people just look for opportunities to claim offense -- even when there is clearly none to be taken.

Quoting MesaMXORD (Reply 25): I thought Airbus did some tests with a 777 and 747 along with the 380 to figure this out awhile ago

Yes, quite a bit of testing has been done. Analyses are still being done on the data. The initial analyses have produced results that were not what Airbus had hoped for, therefore more analyses and perhaps more testing.

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 21): The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces. ATC at these facilities don't just have to worry about making a little extra room for the one flight an AN-225 makes into an airport, they will have to worry about it every few aircraft...

But most airports that will be seeing the A380 already see 747s on a regular basis. Most of them, anyway. The A380 is NOT much larger than a 744, thus I doubt it would make any significant difference.

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 2): It was just another reason for A bashers to jump on the A380 and say "A-ha, I knew that plane sucked!"

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13): then the Airbus bashers wouldn't have the opportunity that Airbus have handed them.

Oh cry me a river........

You are so desperate for some clout against anyone who is not blatantly pro-Airbus that you turn an insignificant comment into some sort of "A-380 insult". Now matter how much you'd like the A-380 to be the king of the skies, the fact remains IT IS NOT THE BIGGEST AIRCRAFT THERE IS!!!

C-5, AN-124, AN-225.

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 21): How many an-225's are there flying? One... How many AN-124's are there flying? A handful... How often to C-5's grace civilian airports? Not that often...

So???????????????????

The fact remains, they are all STILL BIGGER THAN THE A-380!!!

We are not insulting your beloved A-380, we are just pointing out the simple fact that it IS NOT THE BIGGEST AIRCRAFT THERE IS!!

-Max

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 21): The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces.

First of all, it's the same issue, why would this a/c require any special regonition when there are aircraft that are bigger and heavier?

Hundreds?? They have barely sold 150 (if that) and well, yes, while you will see them in LAX, JFK, CDG, LHR...I would hardly call MEM, DXB or SYD congested airports or belonging in compressed airspace...and this is where around 60% of the A380's in the world will be based.

[Edited 2006-05-28 08:55:39]

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 21): there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying

That remains to be seen. There have been 159 WhaleJets ordered, zero delivered, and 26 deferred (by AF, UPS, and VS) with rumors of possible cancellations. Until and unless there is a flood of WhaleJet orders after EIS, it would be optimistic to predict that there will be hundreds flying. Since Boeing announced the SuperJumbo, the only VLA orders have been freighters. It may be that both Airbus and Boeing overestimated the VLA market and that the real widebody action will be A350s and B787s.

Quoting 767-332ER (Reply 29): First of all, it's the same issue, why would this a/c require any special regonition when there are aircraft that are bigger and heavier?

Using the term Heavy is a non-standard term used in RT mainly by the FAA controllers or operators. Most controllers world wide dont need to be told this little bit of information in every radio call, they can see from the flight strip the aircraft type and ICAO wake turbulence category.

FAA carrier pilot sounds like armatures on the radio when they use the term outside the area they are required to, it just clearly shows they are not familiar with the rules of the airspace they are in.

The other problem is that the heavy category is the FAA heavy category is not the same as ICAO, or the UK CAA, so some operators incorrectly say they are heavy on the radio when they are not.

Is the "heavy" designation used anywhere outside the US? I've only ever head it used by US pilots flying in UK airspace. I have never heard UK ATC use the expression. There really doesn't seem to be the need.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 10): Requiring more seperation is a big deal, as a major selling point of the A380 is to allow more flights into slot-restricted or other congested airports

MORE FLIGHTS???

I thought the deal was to bring MORE PEOPLE on (potentially) LESS FLIGHTS
into slot-restricted airports really.

The disignation "Heavy" is only used on intial contact With ATC units.
So it would be:

Initial contact:
"Schiphol Tower, Singapore 380 HEAVY Holding point rwy 24, ready for departure"

while further contacts would be without the "heavy":
"singapore 380 passing 2000'"

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 12): Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11):"Uniform-Romeo-eight-two-O-six-O heavy heavy heavy, cleared for landing." Huh???

Well, the flying An-225 is registered UR-82060, so, I thought: Uniform = U. Romeo = R. Eight-Two-O (= zero)-Six-O heavy-heavy-heavy.

Or, UR-82060 heavy-heavy-heavy.

Regards,
David

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): The A380 isn't the biggest jet out there. The Antonovs are still bigger, as is the C-5... why would the A380 be special? A heavy is a heavy is a heavy. Sure, it may require more seperation than a 747, but so do the big Antonovs. No big deal.

As a pilot yourself you should know that the reason for the suffix "heavy" is so that ATC knows to apply extra separation without having to refer to data strips all the time to check a/c types. If the A380 falls requires more separation that aircraft currently in the heavy category then it will require a new suffix. This is likely to suit the makers of the aircraft anyway as it will put them in a class by themselves and they will be elite once more just like Concorde.

Quoting 767-332ER (Reply 29): First of all, it's the same issue, why would this a/c require any special regonition when there are aircraft that are bigger and heavier?

I'm not saying it needs special recognition, but it will require special attention in the same way that Antonov's receive...

Take here at EWR for example. We see the AN-124 maybe 6 times a year. Each time it comes in it forces ATC to alter the spacing to provide a little more room for the trailing a/c. When it leaves it requires a little extra time to do the same. Of course no one makes a big deal about it because it happens so few times a year and the controllers can deal with just one plane.

Now, when all is said and done with the regulatory agencies and they conclude that the A380 will indeed require greater separation minima, imagine the headache this will be at places like LHR and LAX that are expected to see A380's all day long. Imagine the delays if a/c following an A380 to land requires 10nm in trail, and every 3rd or 4th plane is an A380... You can see why people are making "a big deal" about it.

I'm not saying it should be referred to with the suffix "super heavy" or something, but you can see how if the A380 has wake turbulence as predicted it poses a greater headache than a handful of current "super heavies" already flying.

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 42): Now, when all is said and done with the regulatory agencies and they conclude that the A380 will indeed require greater separation minima, imagine the headache this will be at places like LHR and LAX that are expected to see A380's all day long. Imagine the delays if a/c following an A380 to land requires 10nm in trail, and every 3rd or 4th plane is an A380... You can see why people are making "a big deal" about it.

You are taking two assumptions for granted. One is that the WhaleJet will need greater minima than the JumboJet. The other is that WhaleJets will be common. I'll take very long odds that WhaleJets will not be "every 3rd or 4th plane" at any airport in the world. I don't think there is an airport anywhere in the world at which the JumboJet is the 3rd or 4th airliner.

From my purely British point of view, the conversation from the A/C to the tower would be along the lines of....

"Oh hello tower. This is xxx airways A380 hea oh, heavens knows, you must know we're in the vicinity because, we just must be filling your radar screens. Now would you be so awfully kind as to point us in the general direction of...."

53   

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 18): The big deal is that there are going to be hundreds of A380's flying into the most congested airports in the most concentrated airspaces. ATC at these facilities don't just have to worry about making a little extra room for the one flight an AN-225 makes into an airport, they will have to worry about it every few aircraft...

That doesn't even make sense. An airplane behind a giant like the AN-225 is in the same situation as an airplane behind an A380, regardless of how many there are in the world. They don't base callsign suffixes on #s built.   

If you're talking about the seperation problem, sure... but it has nothing to do with callsigns.

Actually C-5's "Grace" alot of civilian airports... probably more than they do military bases. So, my friend you are wrong.

Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 33): As a pilot yourself you should know that the reason for the suffix "heavy" is so that ATC knows to apply extra separation without having to refer to data strips all the time to check a/c types.

Well, the other main purpose is to warn other pilots. ATC knows what kind of planes they're working, they have to. It's either on their screens or in their heads, they aren't gunna rely soley on a callsign to tell them something. Besides, plenty of heavies neglect to use the "heavy" callsign except when checking on.

The vast majority of times you'll even hear the term heavy is when the controller is talking to another aircraft. For example, "caution wake turbulance, heavy 767 5 west of the field." They won't say "no, seriously, really use caution... heavy heavy heavy A380 departed previously."

Simple fact of the matter is that there's no need for a new suffix. Controllers can give extra spacing based on a/c type, pilots knows what an A380 is... there's no problem here.

Does it really matter what kind of call-sign the A380 will get?

Cheers

Peter

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 40): Does it really matter what kind of call-sign the A380 will get?

   Nope! And the fact of the matter is this whole topic is worth nothing because it's just conjecture and bantering amongst the ultimately ill-informed.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 25): The fact remains, they are all STILL BIGGER THAN THE A-380!!! We are not insulting your beloved A-380, we are just pointing out the simple fact that it IS NOT THE BIGGEST AIRCRAFT THERE IS!!

Do you even bother to read through the rest of the thread before posting? I already pointed out the AN-124 and C-5 BOTH have lower takeoff weights than the A380.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 25): Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13): then the Airbus bashers wouldn't have the opportunity that Airbus have handed them. Oh cry me a river........

Zvezda, by the way, is certainly not a die-hard airbus supporter. I've found his analysis to be fairly unbiased, ensuring he offends members from both sides of the pond!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 30): MORE FLIGHTS???

I think I phrased that wrong. The goal is to allow more people with the same number of flights that currently visit a slot restricted airport--BUT, if the increase in spacing reduces the number of flights, then you really can't increase capacity.

The main reason for the A380 is to allow for growth in air travel with what amounts to a minimum change in infrastructure (compared to additional runways, the A380 improvements are small!).

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 40): Does it really matter what kind of call-sign the A380 will get?

44 replies seem to point that out 

Georg

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 43): Do you even bother to read through the rest of the thread before posting? I already pointed out the AN-124 and C-5 BOTH have lower takeoff weights than the A380.

Perhaps a slightly less takeoff weight has almost nothing to do with landing seperation. Think of the 757.....it is not classified as a "heavy", but controllers almost always give smaller aircraft greater seperation if they are following a 757, even though it is not a "heavy" aircraft!! If you are in a 737, the controllers are going to give you the same (or close to it) seperation whether you are following a An-124 or an A-380........so to get back to the original thread question, why would it need a different callsign???

Wingtip vorticies do not vary in magnitude by the weight of a specific aircraft. They will vary by speed, but not by weight. A 777 at MGTOW will produce the same vorticies it does at landing weight (if at the same speed....)!!! So, weight has very little to do with the vorticies produced....it is the wing that has everything to do with it. Until the A-380 enters in service, we won't really know how much seperation it will require.....but the fact still remains:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): A heavy is a heavy is a heavy.

-Max

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 44): 44 replies seem to point that out

I guess not...
Maybe someone needs to say this, the A380 will get nothing special! The only aircraft that will are the ones stacked behind it. As already posted, its not like it is going to tie up airports or anything. Not every airport in the US will see the A380. So, in sum...there is no and will be no brand new special callsign for the A380.

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 46): So, in sum...there is no and will be no brand new special callsign for the A380.

Thats what I said here.

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8): The term heavy doesn't mean that the plane has to be heavy. It's just added to the ATC ID to recognize the plane as one which produces heavy turbulences behind and other, especially smaller planes, have to keep a big distance to avoid problems. That's why the not so heavy 757 is called heavy on ATC. Don't know the exact figures of the A-380 but imagine a plane with lighter weight as the A-380 can produce mor turbulences than the A-380 itself. So no extra heavy or something else to be added to the ATC ID.

A shame that this isn't the last senseless thread on the A-380. Maybe I start Will the A-380 get special runways/flightpaths/terminals/airports? soon  

Georg

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 47): Thats what I said here.

Yes you did sir, I was just repeating you  

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 47): A shame that this isn't the last senseless thread on the A-380. Maybe I start Will the A-380 get special runways/flightpaths/terminals/airports? soon

Hahahaha, didn't you know that Denver is building a brand new airport just for the A380....

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 9): Most 752s are not over the FAA definition of "heavy"

So, just out of curiosity do 753's get the heavy call sign?