Wake Turbulence behind an A-380

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

And this is a surprise? Did they think an airplane that size would have
the wake turbulence of a 737?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

And this is a surprise? Did they think an airplane that size would have
the wake turbulence of a 737?

Not a 737, but Airbus was claiming it would be comparable to a 747, which is
a "heavy" aircraft. If you read the article, you might have noted that

"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.""

Jonathan wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


And this is a surprise? Did they think an airplane that size would have
the wake turbulence of a 737?


Not a 737, but Airbus was claiming it would be comparable to a 747, which is
a "heavy" aircraft. If you read the article, you might have noted that

"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.""

I missed that part. Shame on Airbus then. Either they really believed
this and are thus stupid, or they were outright being deceptive.

I can't believe that their customers actually believed that though.
That is pretty amazing as well.


Matt

Matt,

I missed that part. Shame on Airbus then. Either they really believed
this and are thus stupid, or they were outright being deceptive.


BS! I strongly suggest you read that report again. Nowhere does it say the
wake turbulence measurements have been completed and/or published. These
are "tentative" and "over-cautious" preliminary/interim standards issued
by ICAO as a suggestion. No one knows what wake turbulunce is causes - and
we will know before final ruling.

The problem is: The A380 is flying around as we speak, so ATC has to have
some guidance right now. That's what this does. It says NOTHING about the
actual wake turbulence caused.

But, anything for some cheap shots at Airbus, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

But, anything for some cheap shots at Airbus, right?


Here here!

The fact is that when Boeing launched the 747, the separation had to be
changed. No one seemed to mind to much that that happened at the time -
probably because of increased passenger volume.
With that in mind, what makes you think that airlines are going to mind too
much if the separation behind a 380 has to be increased? If the airbus
carries twice as many passengers, that effectively means less Boeings in the
sky and if there is less requirement for Boeings that means less a/c
pollution, more efficient ATC, and safer flying!

I shouldn't be cheering just yet if I were you...





G

I shouldn't be cheering just yet if I were you...

Who was cheering?

I think the A-380 is very cool!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


I missed that part. Shame on Airbus then. Either they really believed
this and are thus stupid, or they were outright being deceptive.



BS! I strongly suggest you read that report again. Nowhere does it say the
wake turbulence measurements have been completed and/or published. These
are "tentative" and "over-cautious" preliminary/interim standards issued
by ICAO as a suggestion. No one knows what wake turbulunce is causes - and
we will know before final ruling.

The problem is: The A380 is flying around as we speak, so ATC has to have
some guidance right now. That's what this does. It says NOTHING about the
actual wake turbulence caused.

But, anything for some cheap shots at Airbus, right?

Well, if you are right, and I doubt it, that Airbus has no data on wake
turbulence either from CFD or wind tunnel tests, they they should not
have given ANY guidance to their customers about what it would be until
they did have some data.

Then again, you'll say anything if it takes a cheap shot at me.

Matt

In article , says...


Matt Whiting wrote:

And this is a surprise? Did they think an airplane that size would have
the wake turbulence of a 737?

Not a 737, but Airbus was claiming it would be comparable to a 747, which is
a "heavy" aircraft. If you read the article, you might have noted that

"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.""



Yes, that has been the contention of the European consortium all along.
They claim that to be viable, the aircraft must be able to operate without
introducing any modification at all in spacing, and very little in runway or
ramp specifications. They will brand this press release suggesting the
contrary as Yankee anti-Airbus propaganda, spurred by the less technologically
advanced US aviation industry, who are fearful because they cannot compete
with the superior European industry.

GF