Strength-5,
You'll probably find the answers to some of your questions here.....
http://www.ais.org.uk/Uk_aip/pdf/aic/4P188.pdf
TR3,
Sorry, will try and keep it relatively brief and make it my last word on the subject.
09L,
Apologies also that you seem to think I'm being obstructive. But if I cannot question methods/motives I'm not sure how I'm meant to form a valid opinion.
I recall your boasts that over in the tower you could accept traffic 2 miles apart down 23 on the basis that the strong wind made the interval comparable and safe. So I find myself asking, what are you really interested in here? The legitimacy of spacing? I think not.
I'll take your word for it but I don't remember boasting to anybody about the above.
All I would mention is that depending what the combination of aircraft types involved is, there may not be any vortex wake spacing requirement. Then you'd only have to justify some method of reducing the radar separation, but I suppose that's a different arguement
I'll continue to position appropriate traffic 4nm behind the 757, because it would appear that the research done has led to that distance being an acceptable compromise. And when it comes down to it
all wake vortex separation, like so many other factors in this business probably is just that, a compromise (see para 2.13.1 of the AIC mentioned above).
B.
Edited for out of control UBB code.
[ 03 August 2001: Message edited by: burp ]