A380 wake turb.

This forum has been developed to discuss ATS related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Raydar
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:36 pm
Location: on a break

A380 wake turb.

#1 Post by Raydar » Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:11 am

Anyone know the knew wake turbulense separation standards for the 380 :?: I heard it was 15 miles...that would be hell in a terminal environment... :twisted:
---------- ADS -----------
The people who gave us golf and called it a game are the same people who gave us bagpipes and called it music

User avatar
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

#2 Post by CD » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:05 am

ICAO has some initial guidance out on the subject. You can find it starting in Part 2, Section 10.7 in the following document:

REPORT OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE (ATFM/TF/4) AND BOBCAT WORKSHOP ~ BANGKOK, THAILAND, 7 – 11 NOVEMBER 2005
---------- ADS -----------

Pygmie
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 11:49 pm

#3 Post by Pygmie » Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:43 pm

There was a paper that went around the center that said 10NM on approach and 15nm and 2000ft vertical enroute.

With wake turbulance requirements like that, I can't see how the A380 will be at all economically viable at the busier airports that are already near capacity. Airbus better hope these requirements will be lowered with more testing.
---------- ADS -----------

...
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:18 pm

#4 Post by ... » Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:14 pm

And this is the reason why Boeing pulled out of co-engineering with Airbus any aircraft of the sort.

Boeing knew that the 747 was the ultimate maximum design that would be feasable in all aspects of operations...

This is why...Boeing rocks...Airbus sucks... :wink:

Drive Imported...
Fly Domestic.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

#5 Post by CD » Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Airbus A380 Wake Turbulence

10.7 As the new Airbus A380 large aircraft would commence regional demonstration flights from approximately 10 November, ICAO had received a number of requests from States in respect of the wake turbulence separation minima to be applied. ICAO State Letter AP108/05 (ATM) dated 3 November 2005 had been transmitted in this respect, advising caution in respect of wake turbulence spacing with the A380.

10.8 On 10 November 2005, additional ICAO State Letter AP111/05 (ATM) was transmitted by the Regional Office in respect of this issue. In view of the size/weight of the aircraft, an ad hoc group of experts under the auspices of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), EUROCONTROL, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and the manufacturer is examining the wake turbulence aspects of the aircraft in comparison with other large aircraft. The final report of the working group is expected to be available in early 2006.

10.9 In the meantime, analyses and flight test data available to the group have raised concerns about horizontal and vertical wake turbulence spacing criteria for approach, landing, departure, and enroute operations of the A380 relative to other aircraft. Current data analyses indicate that A380 wake vortices will descend further and be significantly stronger at 300 m (1 000 ft) below the generation altitude than for other aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category. On rare occasions, A380 wake vortices may descend 600 m (2 000 ft) and possibly pose a passenger comfort issue, but not a hazard. It is not clear at present what level of hazard A380 wake vortices pose at 300 m (1 000 ft) to other aircraft.

Guidance is presented as follows:

1. Departure spacing:
a) one additional minute to be added to all separations listed in Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444), paragraph 5.8, when an A380 is the leading aircraft;
b) one additional minute to be added to the separation in PANS-ATM, paragraph 5.8.5.

2. Horizontal spacing:
a) where both aircraft are established on final approach, 10 NM between an A380 and any other following aircraft;
b) 15 NM minimum radar spacing for all other phases of flight, including enroute, between an A380 and all other aircraft operating directly behind at the same altitude or less than 300 m (1 000 ft) below. (See also paragraph 3 below.)

3. Vertical spacing:
Vertical spacing guidance will not be completed for several months. There are indications, however, from the initial analysis of data that wake vortex from an A380 may be encountered by aircraft flying 300 m (1 000 ft) below at greater strengths than from current aircraft of the heavy wake turbulence category. Because it has not yet been possible to establish the level of hazard associated with these wake vortices, offset tracks or additional vertical spacing is advised until the final vertical spacing guidance has been established.
---------- ADS -----------

zzjayca
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 6:06 am

#6 Post by zzjayca » Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:08 am

A380 and A320 in conflict. If I turn the A320 behind I need a minimum of 15nM. If I turn the A380 behind I need a minimum of 5nM. Who do you think I will be vectoring?
---------- ADS -----------

flyinhigh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2338
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: my couch

#7 Post by flyinhigh » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:34 pm

ummm, wow.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Yoyoma
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1467
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:01 am
Location: Somewhere in time...

#8 Post by Yoyoma » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:16 am

the 747 started with extreme distances as well. Boeing, NASA and other bodies researched and recommended various approach power/flap and gear settings which in turn reduced the distance.

I believe the same will happen to the A380. No testing has yet been performed so this is pure speculation. The A380's wing is an engineering miracle compared to the 747 so I would be very surprised if they weren't able to cut down the distance after proper flight testing.

Yoyo
---------- ADS -----------
Image In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield...W. Buffett

Post Reply

Return to “ATS Question Forum”