If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
Yee-hah! Don't get too close to this whale...
Change in Rules Needed for Wake Of Big New Jet By ANDY PASZTOR and DANIEL MICHAELS Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL November 22, 2005; Page B1 Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. The standards released to the industry by the International Civil Aviation Organization earlier this month are tentative and almost certainly more cautious than the formal rules expected next year. But if the final air-traffic procedures end up close to ICAO's initial proposal, they could undermine one of Airbus' top selling points for the largest passenger plane ever built: greater efficiency at congested hub airports. Interim air-traffic control guidance from ICAO says the mammoth plane, scheduled to go into service next year, produces "significantly stronger" air turbulence than the largest jetliners now in use. Because flight tests and data analyses "have raised concerns" about potential safety issues, according to the guidance, it calls for minimum separations of 10 nautical miles for all aircraft following a landing A380, versus the typical five-mile mandatory buffer behind today's largest aircraft. For aircraft flying the same route directly behind an A380 at cruising altitude, the recommended minimum spacing is tripled to 15 nautical miles. The interim rules are "very conservative" and will remain effective "until conclusive guidance is issued mid-next year," said Paul Wilson, a senior European air-traffic control official who is helping lead the study. Initial plans called for the effort to be completed around January, but now "there's a feeling more work needs to be done," Mr. Wilson said yesterday in an interview. "What we want to do is get it right" and rely on hard data, he added, because "we are leading the way for all future aircraft" operating criteria. The ICAO is a global aviation regulator whose standards and rules are almost always accepted by individual governments. Airbus, which touts the 555-seat A380 as "the economical solution for heavily traveled routes," has sold it as a way to carry more traffic without adding aircraft. The twin-deck jetliner can carry at least 35% more passengers than Boeing Co.'s largest model, the 747-400. In some configurations, the plane can handle more than 850 passengers. The preliminary rules are already grabbing notice from Airbus customers. A spokesman for Germany's Lufthansa, which has ordered 15 A380s, said "it is crucial for us that the separation is the same as for a 747" because "we operate at congested airports." The two-page ICAO advisory not only deals with the safety aspects of air turbulence at low altitudes near airports but even raises questions about potential hazards for nearby aircraft in midflight. The guidance says the so-called wake vortices produced by the A380 -- twin cones of turbulent air fanning out from its wingtips -- "will descend further and be significantly stronger" than those from other large jets, potentially even affecting jets traveling in the opposite direction some 2,000 feet below. "Because it has not yet been possible to establish the level of hazard" from such turbulence, the guidance recommends "offset tracks or additional vertical spacing" for added protection. When an airborne aircraft runs into such turbulence, the impact can jostle the trailing plane. In extreme circumstances, the result can even be loss of control, though there haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to such encounters. Many years ago the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had to lengthen spacing requirements for planes flying behind Boeing 757 jetliners, following a fatal crash of a business jet that ran into a 757's wake. Airbus has said the four-engine plane, with a maximum takeoff weight in excess of a million pounds, is designed to fit seamlessly into air-traffic systems world-wide without requiring greater spacing than existing models or needing any other special handling by controllers. An Airbus A380 marketing brochure in 2003, for example, said: "there is no need to introduce any changes in separation standards" for the A380 because the aircraft's wake "is similar to that of the 747-400." A spokesman for Airbus, which is owned 80% by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20% by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, declined to comment, citing the ongoing studies. Despite the success Airbus has had using computers to precisely predict handling and other characteristics of the new plane, "we are still in the Stone Age for modeling" wake turbulence, said Robert Lafontan, the A380's chief engineer, in an interview several weeks ago. The interim guidelines also recommend an additional wait of one minute -- on top of today's typical two-minute spacing -- for smaller jetliners taking off directly behind the giant A380. Once the A380 reaches cruising altitude, the guidance suggests that on "rare occasions" its wake may be strong enough to shake planes flying nearly half a mile below it and end up creating a "comfort issue" for passengers in those jets. With less than 160 orders and commitments for the A380, Airbus needs about 90 more to break even. But the market is becoming more competitive with Boeing's announcement that it is offering a larger 747 version. The FAA, while particularly sensitive about any perception that it is discriminating against the European planemaker, has been quietly pushing for additional testing and more restrictive rules, industry officials say. At the beginning of the year, an internal FAA report projected that the A380's wake may result in fewer arrivals at some airports; that the plane may require extra time or distance to execute a missed approach to a runway; and it "may have an adverse impact" on general airport operations. Air-traffic control officials, the report concluded, are "uncomfortable" with the A380 and need answers quickly. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
Jay Honeck wrote:
Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. -- Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Peter R." wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. And other IFR aircraft, including jets, for that matter. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
by "Matt Barrow" Nov 22, 2005 at 11:30 PM
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. That would be cool, just like the stunt pilots' planes. Those jets would look very cool doing hammerheads and loops to entertain the passengers and crowds below. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
In article
outaviation.com, "Skylune" wrote: by "Matt Barrow" Nov 22, 2005 at 11:30 PM "Peter R." wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. That would be cool, just like the stunt pilots' planes. Those jets would look very cool doing hammerheads and loops to entertain the passengers and crowds below. Who needs smoke when Mother Nature provides miles and miles (kilometers and kilometers) of stratus clouds. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
[...] Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. - FChE |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. Not to disagree with the fact that putting smoke systems on heavies would be a bad idea, but I do wonder about how much smoke would have to be used. I remember a few years ago at OSH, there was an older jet trainer (don't remember which type) that had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. Anyone else remember the details? -- Jim in NC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. Not to disagree with the fact that putting smoke systems on heavies would be a bad idea, but I do wonder about how much smoke would have to be used. I remember a few years ago at OSH, there was an older jet trainer (don't remember which type) that had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. That's actually what keeps the plane in the air. See http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils...ation-vortices rg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Morgans" wrote in message news:hschf.50 .....had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. Anyone else remember the details? Not that, but many times over the years I've crossed paths or trailed with other a/c at a cruise altitude that generated contrails. Never saw the other a/c, but could see their contrail still rotating as we passed. A wingtip vortex starts out tighter, so may well last longer. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turbulence | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 19 | October 17th 04 06:53 AM |
Wake Turbulence Question | HankPilot2002 | Piloting | 11 | July 14th 04 04:49 AM |
caution - wake turbulence | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | June 4th 04 04:40 PM |
Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC | Peter R. | Piloting | 24 | December 20th 03 11:40 AM |
How much turbulence is too much? | Marty Ross | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 21st 03 05:30 PM |