Ian,
LIDAR:
There are no working wake systems that use LIDAR. There are a few in development, but none are currently working. LIDAR has very little use in the real world, as it cannot work when the air is too clear, or too many particulates, too dry, fog, rain, snow, etc. Currently, in EUR, they are looking at adding Ku and X band radar to the system to get it to work, but that is just another few years and a few hundred million wasted.
The LIDAR algorithms are still in the infant stage or providing something, but between the scan rate and processing rate, you get a reading about every 20 aircraft...
While the FAA has been at SFO for years with measurements, and it is approved for crosswind parallel ops, I know that you will find very, very, very few times when there will be clearance for that operation to be used.
Crosswind:
Crosswind effect on wake studies have not been comprehensive enough to prove anything other than a guess if it will work. One significant item not accounted for was the effect of crosswind on the aircraft itself. If the aircraft starts to crab, or you have different flaps/brakes per wing, each wing will generate a different strength of vortex, and may even lose the couple and crow stablity. Lose the couple, and the vortex act independently, with the crosswind actually building (feeding) one of the vortex creating a stronger, longer lasting deathtrap. That potential has just been pointed out and realized as an issue, (and in fact, there has never been a model where the aircraft was in a crab or skewed configuration.
RECAT:
The FAA RECAT is actually not too bad, and with only 6 wake cats, was very easy for controllers to learn. It was pulled of quite well at KMEM.
The RECAT program at Memphis has some good success with FedEx during the night movement, but they have a good mix to work with, the normal ops at Memphis saw little benefit at Memphis. The FAA has some plans for implementation at other locations, but the FAA has no $$$.
ROT:
For the ROT, you will find very, very few airports with the high speed exits in the correct configuration or location. Most were designed with DC-9 parameters and are useless. While terminals have expanded, and runways improved, little has been done with exits.
Creating/optimizing the exits, in my opinion, creates the best bang for the buck. You can reduce wake and optimize the ARR queue, but if they cant get off the runway, there is little benefit.
Diverse DEP:
For DEP, the best short term solution is the diverse DEP, with turns as soon as possible. This way you can have a turn right, turn left, and straight config to get aircraft off the ground with little chance of wake encounter and little chance of running up on each other....
Fixing the RNAV DEP procedures with a few additional waypoints usually levels the field very well, and provides protection from a wake encounter...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 14th May 2013 at 15:05.