Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
y.net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any
notions as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?

The 757 was classified as a heavy for a while for wake seperation, but that
was rescinded a few years back. Still a good idea not to nuzzle up behind
one. It's wing is kind of unique in that the center section has a critical
foil and this causes a particularly strong spanwise flow.
The latest 737s have the same wing, BTW.


Bertie

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?


No. The B757 is the only aircraft specified by type in wake turbulence
procedures.

I had ONE experience with wake turbulence and I am determined not to
have another.

It the case that the PIC can decline ATC clearance to take off (or
land) if the PIC believes wake turbulence will be a problem.

If ATC cleared me to take off (or land), and I felt wake turbulence
might be an issue, I'd ask for an amended clearance. It's the smart
thing to do. You don't want that big invisible fist hitting your plane
on short final or rotation. No way. I'll take the abuse from ATC if I
have to.

Wake turbulence is the devil.