Get out of my way I'm bigger than you

[NorthSouth]

CAA has just issued a new ATSIN with the wake vortex separation figures for the A380. So just when you thought you were packing them in nicely you'll have:

- an extra minute for any aircraft departing behind an A380
- minimum 10 miles behind an A380 on final approach for ANY aircraft type
- minimum 15nm behind for ALL other phases of flight at same altitude or less than 1500ft below
- min 1500ft en route vertical spacing below for following/crossing/reciprocal traffic

That should concentrate some minds.

NS

[LXGB]

That'll be a pain in the arse then! Here's a link to the ATSIN (pdf format)...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATS079.pdf

LXGB

[panjandrum]

Good Grief!
So is the CAA also ensuring that A380s will fly a minimum of 1500 feet ABOVE the base of CAS? (Or are aircraft Outside CAS expected to fly 1500ft below the base of CAS!)

[Radar]

Does this also mean 380 operators are going to get stung for multiples of landing / en-route charges since the increased landing / take off separation minima adversely effect runway utilization? En-route sector capacity will also be impacted.

[mattcarus]

Surely that means that controllers will just make them wait until they can be slotted in without affecting anyone else too much. Sounds like 380 crews are going to have to get used to delays...

just my 2cents worth

[Bucking Bronco]

10 mins separation on finals? In that space then you could fit 2 B747s which will have more seats than 1 A380 - when space becomes even more of a premium this will be a factor.

[kookabat]

So much for the increase in capacity!!

[Carbide Finger]

Working two A380s at once in an enroute environment is a automatic overload!

[Gonzo]

This ATSIN is in response to an ICAO bulletin which was required because the A380 is 'going on tour'. The main flight research into the 380's wake vortex is to be completed later this year. I'd be very surprised if the spacing requirements stayed the same.

[Eva San]

As gonzo said, it's supposedly a temporary precaution...
As a matter of fact do you guys use a special separation for the big Antonovs ? But still, their weight is over the one from the "infamous" A380. Does that make sense ?:}

[AlanM]

This ATSIN is in response to an ICAO bulletin which was required because the A380 is 'going on tour'. The main flight research into the 380's wake vortex is to be completed later this year. I'd be very surprised if the spacing requirements stayed the same.
Until it wants to fly in the USA.
Remember Concorde!!!?!?! :bored:

[chevvron]

Gonzo said 'the ATSIN is in response to an ICAO bulletin' = knee jerk

[Hootin an a roarin]

It's never going to be 10 miles, how would Heathrow cope? They already use reduced vortex separation compared to some other units around the country between certain aircraft, as do Manc I believe ( been told in the past it is an alledged trial but has been going on for years).

The air down there must be more dense.

[Point Seven]

The spacing requirements are for A380s on PROVING flights only. The final ICAO decision is to be made in Montreal in late Feb/early March pending the ongoing tests in South of France.

p7

[Gonzo]

Hootin', it's actually less dense, all the hot air coming out of our 4th floor!

Oh, Hi P7!:E

[Regular Cappuccino]

As a matter of fact do you guys use a special separation for the big Antonovs ? But still, their weight is over the one from the "infamous" A380.

No we don't, we treat them like every other 'Heavy', (& we've had both the AN124s and the AN225 operate onto our piece of real estate) but (& please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't the severity of the vortex also a function of wing design, not just overall size / weight? I'm assuming that the Airbus wing is more 'state of the art' than Mr Antonov's (I sincerely hope the engines are, too!).:E
Like Gonzo I too expect a reduction (or at least, a change) in the requirement eventually - this was hinted at in the ATSIN.
RC

[3 slips and a gully]

Eva San

the big Antonovs ? But still, their weight is over the one from the "infamous" A380
AN124 MTOW is around 400,000kg
AN225 is around 630,000 (not to many flying around)
A380-800F is said to be 590,000kg:ok: :ok:

[Eva San]

Eva San
AN225 is around 630,000 (not to many flying around)
A380-800F is said to be 590,000kg:ok: :ok:
That's the one I'm talking about, and I agree that there aren't many flying around but you can probably say the same thing about the A380 for now.
The only difference is that you have some special requirement for spacing when the A380 is concerned and not for the Mriya (http://www.aeronautics.ru/an225.htm)( at least to my knowledge) ...
That's all I'm saying !

[headsethair]

Get the pdf here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=detail&id=2110)

[CamelhAir]

10 miles on final? So taking up the space of 2 747's thus less passengers per 10 miles. Sounds like the answer to airport congestion. Not.

[lord Montford]

What about holding? Do i understand correctly that there should be 1500ft min between an A380 and another a/c below it in the hold? If so we loose an additional level in the stack if one A380 is holding (god help us if there is more than one A380 in the hold). And how about reciprocal traffic? am i to be vectored miles out of the way of an A380 when i am heading north up the bay of biscay at FL360 and an A380 is heading south at FL370?

[Daysleeper]

Its just ICAO advanced standard, Airbus will undoubtedly be appealing against this spacing and are supposed to be doing comparative trials at Istres this year with a A319, A340, 747 and 777 as well as the whale.

[Max Angle]

Crossing the path of an A380 that has past a 1000ft above is also going to be interesting. I have had several scary encounters with 747 wakes when the traffic has passed accross our track about 20nm ahead 1000ft above. By the time you get there a few minutes later the wake has sunk 1000ft and you run right into it. Not nice.

[jonesthepilot]

I'm sure commercial considerations will take priority. Seat belts on and flight attendants sat down will become the rule if an A380 is in the vicinity. Maybe TCAS will give you a special indication if it detects an A380:ooh:

[sarah737]

Took off from Toulouse in a 737, 2 minutes behind the A380, on one of its first flights, no wake at all...

[ATC Watcher]

Be careful with drawing too many conclusions, these are precautionary measures , similar to those taken in 1968-69 when the 747 was being test flown , for those old enough to remember, ( gosh ! age shows :uhoh: )

These value apply to the 3 prototypes being currently flowm , and as Daysleeper said, the current tests in Istres will be interesting to watch.
I was told Airbus believes the A380 behaves better than the 777 and has chartered one from AF to compare.

[Spitoon]

Took off from Toulouse in a 737, 2 minutes behind the A380, on one of its first flights, no wake at all...Well if the 380 is anything like a 340 you'll have outclimbed it easily in your 737!!!

[notdavegorman]

.....and? A lightly loaded s/haul twin (sarah737 from the UK, flying from TOU probably to the UK) will ALWAYS out climb a l/h aircraft (assuming the l/h aircraft is being used for what it's designed for), whether it's an A340, A380 or any of Boeing's bigger products for that matter. To paraphrase Rodney Marsh, what's your point?

[KLMer]

Some of you guys make very valid points and other of you seem to be going off the beaten track. None of us are experts at wake vortex nor should even try to be but we can go on your experiences. One example i can think of is lets look at the vortex seperation differences between the 757 and the A321 same size aircraft yet different catagory in the UK. could this be down to new technology and not just weight.

Come on guys why do us brits always slagg of new technology especially when were invloved in producing it.

[ionagh]

Took off from Toulouse in a 737, 2 minutes behind the A380, on one of its first flights, no wake at all...

Ditto, with A320.

Nada, nothing.

Oh, and the climb profiles look remarkably similar as the 380 is not exactly overloaded......

[chornedsnorkack]

.....and? A lightly loaded s/haul twin (sarah737 from the UK, flying from TOU probably to the UK) will ALWAYS out climb a l/h aircraft (assuming the l/h aircraft is being used for what it's designed for), whether it's an A340, A380 or any of Boeing's bigger products for that matter. To paraphrase Rodney Marsh, what's your point?
Perhaps the point was that the light s/h twin may have taken off before the rotation point of the A380 and therefore never have encountered the vortex, however dangerous it could have been?

[ionagh]

I doubt that the 380 even used a third of the runway, so rotated around 1000m. I expect that a full 320 was probably longer.

[ukatco_535]

I work in the London TMA, believe me, if that is the separation required, then we are scr*&*d. Our job is hard enough.

Point of note

These are NOT the final wake vortex spacing requirements, they are the temporary ones until further testing is done, which is, I believe, in March.

The A380 will be at Farnborough 2006... if that is the spacing that is required, it will not be flying - the temporary restricted airspace is already a big enough headache to us when controlling Heathrow SIDS... I can't see anything being allowed to depart if the A380 is displaying at EGLF

[LXGB]

Double Thread. This is already being discussed here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206035

LXGB

[Spitoon]

Irony is obviously in short supply on this thread! But if I wanted to make a serious point I would probably have started talking about relative rotation points too. If only ..........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NorthSouth]

Took off from Toulouse in a 737, 2 minutes behind the A380, on one of its first flights, no wake at all...It was EMPTY for chrissake! Try a full one then tell us

NS

[LittleATSA333]

One example i can think of is lets look at the vortex seperation differences between the 757 and the A321 same size aircraft yet different catagory in the UK. could this be down to new technology and not just weight.

Isn't wake vortex determined by things like wing size/angle/flexing, and also another massive factor is whether it is wide or narrow body isn't it? (Hence 767 - Heavy and 757 - Medium maybe?)

Am i kind of right in thinking the above, or am i imagining this... (Corrections will be greatly appreciated)

[Scott Voigt]

I was looking at this very thing this week... It appears that ICAO is looking at the LIDAR data that has been taken from the A380 tests. I am sure that there will be more testing and such, but if it is found that the new super efficient wing is going to create a LARGE vortex that makes these separation standards needed, this is going to destroy the business case for the aircraft. No 1000 ft. separation standard to be able to comply with, no RVSM... Intersting thoughts... Curious to see what is going to happen.

regards

Scott

[3 slips and a gully]

I doubt it.

Worked an AN124 (no 'winglets' to dissipate vortices) today with a Saab 340 5nm behind, no big deal. Asked if I had an AN225 what standard (no winglets, heavier than A380)? The same. If the aircraft gave off lots of wake it would be inefficient hence why new 737s have winglets the size of 172 wings - fuel efficiency by dissipating votices (interferes with lift at wing tips).

The 747 intro had ridiculously wide standards in the interest of flight safety until testing. Give it time and testing.

Please note above - no rules especially for the world's heaviest aircraft the 225.