Look a short story to tell but one immediate observation: surely what individual countries think is irrelevant as the aviation world moves to ICAO, the ICAO figures define the requirements so why all this talk about "..in XX, YY, ZZ.."etc??
Happy to be corrected but the POTENTIAL wake turbulance of an aircraft is based on the maximum takeoff weight the airplane STRUCTURE can support - correct or not??
It is the STRUCTURE capacity that determines wake catagories.
The story - in Japan the JCAB (the regulator in charge of safety?) allowed that, as the local airlines had reduced the T/O and Land max weights to reduce AirNavCharges then, magically, the wake turbulance criteria also changed.
Having seen 737's and MD81'S take off 40 sec behind a 767-200 makes one think; they have been very, very lucky that an aircraft has not turned over and ended up in Tokyo Bay.
The safety regulator favouring increased movements over safety - dumb, dumb, dumb, a question just begging an answer: "who's going to gaol when an aircraft DOES spear in??"
In fairness things have improved markedly.
Cheers
