Wake

[clonecity1]

A heavy has just landed(09), we're next to take off but in opposite direction(27).
Is there separation to be applied?
Manuals talk about only if heavy did a go around or "low approach"..whatever that covers.

Also,medium behind a heavy, both take offs, can 5 mile in trail separation substitute the usual 2 mins?
Cheers
CC1

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

As the turbulence dies when the arriving aircraft touches down there is no requirement for wake turbulence separation in the first situation you mention.

Are you talking real life or some sort of sim game?

[adc123]

2 minutes sep for this scenario in aus

[clonecity1]

Real life.....Call me old fashioned if you will

[Crazy Voyager]

Yes, see page 77 of cap493.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Are you sure about that reference? Can't seem to find page 77 in my CAP493...?

[Eric T Cartman]

From CAP493, Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 13

9.7 Departures – Opposite Direction
9.7.1 A380. A wake turbulence separation minimum of 3 minutes shall be applied
between a Light, Small or Medium (Upper and Lower) aircraft and an A380-800
aircraft when the A380-800 aircraft is making a low or missed approach and the Light,
Small or Medium aircraft is:
a) utilising an opposite-direction runway for take-off; or
b) landing on the same runway in the opposite direction, or on a parallel oppositedirection
runway separated by less than 760 m.

9.7.2 Other aircraft categories. A wake turbulence separation of 2 minutes shall be
applied between a Medium (Upper and Lower), Small or Light aircraft and a Heavy
aircraft, and between a Medium (Upper and Lower) or Small aircraft and a Light
aircraft whenever the heavier aircraft is making a low or missed approach and the
lighter aircraft is:
a) utilising an opposite-direction runway for take-off; or
b) landing on the same runway in the opposite direction; or on a parallel opposite
direction runway separated by less than 760 m.

[Andy Mayes]

HD, I think Crazy Voyager refers to the Adobe page number if one were viewing the MATS Part 1 on-line, those of us who aren't try Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 13!

Edit: Eric T Cartmen beat me to it!

[Crazy Voyager]

That's correct, I was viewing it on my phone so wasn't sure what chapter etc it was but I could see it was page 77 in the online PDF, anyway, the reference has been posted above :)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thanks.... thought my copy was up to date.

[blissbak]

In 9.7.2 the heavier is making a low approach or missed, the question is about the heavier LANDING on the RWY by opposite direction.
9.7.1 on the same line gives no answer.

[Eric T Cartman]

As stated, no reference in the MATS when the first a/c is landing, so I'd go with HD & say not required....

[Crazy Voyager]

Ah, I should have read the question properly... :oh:

[Lissart]

The answer to this question lies - IMHO - in whether the flight paths are expected to cross. In the scenario as painted by the thread starter, no - therefore HD is correct. For an opposite direction go-around (as opposed to a landing) then clearly the flight paths will cross, there is the possibility of a VW encounter, and hence the requirement for VW separation to be applied. But, as a footnote, I find this section of MATS 1 to be badly written; I have come across a number of scenarios where departure VW is definitely an issue but which are NOT covered by the Holy Word. Therefore I return to the "are you certain that the flight paths will not cross?" point as the ultimate arbiter. If you cannot answer in the affirmative, then SOMETHING needs to be applied. Duty of care blah blah... And doubtless one needs to be able to justify that decision to the prosecution lawyer. "It's not in the book" is no defence and you'll see the writers of said book disappearing fast over the horizon.

Respectfully and humbly offered....

LISSART