A380 Wake Vortex Steering Group Findings - Aircraft of World War II

Matt308 · 09-29-2006, 12:03 PM

ATW Daily News

A380 wake vortex study provides some good news for Airbus

Friday September 29, 2006

A380 wake turbulence is not as serious an issue as ICAO has feared, based on the findings of the Airbus Wake Vortex Steering Group, which the manufacturer released yesterday.

ICAO, in an interim recommendation, called for 10 nm. of separation between an A380 on approach and a following aircraft (ATWOnline, June 15). However, the Steering Group, which comprised representatives from the European JAA, Eurocontrol, US FAA and Airbus, will recommend that this distance "only be applied to light aircraft." The current standard is 6 nm.

In situations where the A380 is followed by a "heavy" aircraft, the group will recommend spacing be increased from 4 nm. under the existing rule to 6 nm. and from 5 nm. to 8 nm. for a medium-sized aircraft. However, Airbus said, "the A380 can land as close as practicable to the preceding aircraft," even another A380, "and this can compensate for the additional spacing required for the following one."

For departures, a heavy aircraft following an A380 will have to wait 2 min. and medium-sized and light aircraft will have to wait 3 min. Airbus noted again that the A380 can take off "as close as possible to any preceding airliner."

For cruise and when flying in a holding pattern, the A380 is "very similar to the 747" and "is considered to be identical to any other aircraft both for vertical and horizontal spacing." ICAO had recommended separation of 10 nm.

Airbus said further that while not specifically addressed by the Steering Group, "flight tests provided no indication of impact on parallel runway operations for runways separated by more than 760 m. (2,500 ft.)," although it added that "this should be monitored in operational service for verification."

the lancaster kicks ass · 09-29-2006, 12:44 PM

that's good news as i knew a while back there were fears few would be wanted because it'd slow down operations at airports so much................

Matt308 · 09-29-2006, 01:00 PM

The 2500ft parallel spacing restriction seems interesting too. Initially probably not problem, but I wish I had airport stats on parallel runways. That seems like quite a space and is not likely a problem for most. But...

syscom3 · 09-29-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

...For departures, a heavy aircraft following an A380 will have to wait 2 min. and medium-sized and light aircraft will have to wait 3 min. Airbus noted again that the A380 can take off "as close as possible to any preceding airliner."...

Thats hardly good news as it will add to already congested taxiway's.

Airports have to accomdate everyone who is allowed to operate from the airport.

FLYBOYJ · 09-29-2006, 04:18 PM

that's about consistent with a B747

pbfoot · 09-29-2006, 04:42 PM

6 minutes spacing between a light and a heavy is a long 6 minutes without parrallel runways your rwy acceptance rate or the number of movements an hour you can accept will drop . Thats a pretty big whale floundering out in that concrete maze of an airport

the lancaster kicks ass · 09-29-2006, 05:18 PM

most of the airports big enough to take this beast deal mostly with larger aircraft anyway, and the A380's ability to immediatly follow other planes will make up some time.........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-01-2006, 03:40 PM

I cant wait to actually see one of thise 380s.

Matt308 · 10-02-2006, 01:04 PM

I hope I never have to fly on one. I can't imagine the queueing necessary to embark/disembark. A frigging nightmare. 747 is bad enough.

syscom3 · 10-02-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

I hope I never have to fly on one. I can't imagine the queueing necessary to embark/disembark. A frigging nightmare. 747 is bad enough.

Just imagine a couple of those arriving at the same time with a full load of passangers, and inundating the immigration and customs counter

Matt308 · 10-02-2006, 02:43 PM

...and now with increased security, queueing for baggage. Ugh! I friggin hate traveling and have to do too much of it for work. I need a new job.

09-29-2006, 12:03 PM	#1
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	A380 Wake Vortex Steering Group Findings ATW Daily News A380 wake vortex study provides some good news for Airbus Friday September 29, 2006 A380 wake turbulence is not as serious an issue as ICAO has feared, based on the findings of the Airbus Wake Vortex Steering Group, which the manufacturer released yesterday. ICAO, in an interim recommendation, called for 10 nm. of separation between an A380 on approach and a following aircraft (ATWOnline, June 15). However, the Steering Group, which comprised representatives from the European JAA, Eurocontrol, US FAA and Airbus, will recommend that this distance "only be applied to light aircraft." The current standard is 6 nm. In situations where the A380 is followed by a "heavy" aircraft, the group will recommend spacing be increased from 4 nm. under the existing rule to 6 nm. and from 5 nm. to 8 nm. for a medium-sized aircraft. However, Airbus said, "the A380 can land as close as practicable to the preceding aircraft," even another A380, "and this can compensate for the additional spacing required for the following one." For departures, a heavy aircraft following an A380 will have to wait 2 min. and medium-sized and light aircraft will have to wait 3 min. Airbus noted again that the A380 can take off "as close as possible to any preceding airliner." For cruise and when flying in a holding pattern, the A380 is "very similar to the 747" and "is considered to be identical to any other aircraft both for vertical and horizontal spacing." ICAO had recommended separation of 10 nm. Airbus said further that while not specifically addressed by the Steering Group, "flight tests provided no indication of impact on parallel runway operations for runways separated by more than 760 m. (2,500 ft.)," although it added that "this should be monitored in operational service for verification." __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

09-29-2006, 12:44 PM	#2
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	that's good news as i knew a while back there were fears few would be wanted because it'd slow down operations at airports so much................ __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

09-29-2006, 01:00 PM	#3
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	The 2500ft parallel spacing restriction seems interesting too. Initially probably not problem, but I wish I had airport stats on parallel runways. That seems like quite a space and is not likely a problem for most. But... __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

09-29-2006, 04:18 PM	#5
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,051	that's about consistent with a B747 __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

09-29-2006, 05:18 PM	#7
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	most of the airports big enough to take this beast deal mostly with larger aircraft anyway, and the A380's ability to immediatly follow other planes will make up some time......... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

09-29-2006, 04:42 PM	#6
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,586	6 minutes spacing between a light and a heavy is a long 6 minutes without parrallel runways your rwy acceptance rate or the number of movements an hour you can accept will drop . Thats a pretty big whale floundering out in that concrete maze of an airport

10-01-2006, 03:40 PM	#8
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,152	I cant wait to actually see one of thise 380s. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-02-2006, 01:04 PM	#9
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	I hope I never have to fly on one. I can't imagine the queueing necessary to embark/disembark. A frigging nightmare. 747 is bad enough. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

10-02-2006, 02:43 PM	#11
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	...and now with increased security, queueing for baggage. Ugh! I friggin hate traveling and have to do too much of it for work. I need a new job. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SENTA A PÚA - The 1st Brazilian Fighter Group in Italy	Douglas Jr.	Aviation	17	08-21-2009 09:29 PM
RAF Bomber Command Diary... Jan 1945......	lesofprimus	Aviation	54	01-28-2007 02:29 PM
The 9th FS Unit History... Nov 1944 - Sept 1945....	lesofprimus	Stories	12	12-10-2006 07:06 PM
A380 wake turbulance issues	syscom3	OFF-Topic / Misc.	17	04-10-2006 12:55 PM
The Story of Charles Hoffman	Crazy	Stories	4	06-19-2004 08:50 PM