Airbus 380 - Economically unviable??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: southeast
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus 380 - Economically unviable??
Anyone else seen an ICAO Doc (in the public domain) that recommends 10 nm spacing behind an A380 for ANY aircraft following it on final approach.
This is a space on final equal to 2 and a half B747s !!
So - as long as the A380 carries about 1,200 passengers the numbers will stack up for the airports which are operating to capacity.
I also believe ICAO recommend nothing less than 2000ft below the A380 for 15 nm ( makes the holding stack interesting then!)
Ho Hum - I thought Airbus had been fully consulted in regard to vortex wake and were engineering out such a large requirement for avoidance of this hazard!
Maybe ICAO are being ultra cautious or is there a bit of US influence here.
Am I just paranoid?
This is a space on final equal to 2 and a half B747s !!
So - as long as the A380 carries about 1,200 passengers the numbers will stack up for the airports which are operating to capacity.
I also believe ICAO recommend nothing less than 2000ft below the A380 for 15 nm ( makes the holding stack interesting then!)
Ho Hum - I thought Airbus had been fully consulted in regard to vortex wake and were engineering out such a large requirement for avoidance of this hazard!
Maybe ICAO are being ultra cautious or is there a bit of US influence here.
Am I just paranoid?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being discussed by the Tech-heads in this thread . We will have to see what comes from testing.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have not been given any special instructions relating to A380 ops. We get them regularly, but always en-route. Often have traffic 1000ft below and closer than 15nm.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YVRAPPROACH, it may not be that long before you see an A380 in your parts as Etihad are getting one of the test planes given to them, and they have just started flying to Toronto. Emirates are getting a heap of them and they are planning to start flying to Canada in the not too distant future as well. Just not sure if Toronto has done the runway chnages to allow them to fly that route. Either way, working in UAE, I think we will be one of the first units to regularly handle them.
A question I do have is, will the 10 NM be just on arrival or also when flying in cruise, and will that only be 10 NM longtitudinally, or will you need 10 NM laterally ie. when running them on headings parrallel.
I know one thing, I will be interested to see how they climb out of Dubai in the Summer, when its pushing 50 degrees and they need to meet vertical requirements prior to entering Iranian airspace. If the A340 going Dubai to JFK is any indication it could be pretty ugly, but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
A question I do have is, will the 10 NM be just on arrival or also when flying in cruise, and will that only be 10 NM longtitudinally, or will you need 10 NM laterally ie. when running them on headings parrallel.
I know one thing, I will be interested to see how they climb out of Dubai in the Summer, when its pushing 50 degrees and they need to meet vertical requirements prior to entering Iranian airspace. If the A340 going Dubai to JFK is any indication it could be pretty ugly, but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Guest
Posts: n/a
We have to provide an additional mile or two for the A340-600 due to the fact they take the full length of runway to exit and cannot ake any highspeeds.....anyone else have this issue?
We've never had any feedback that I'm aware of from the tower that they'd like any extra room behind them.
WF.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I also believe ICAO recommend nothing less than 2000ft below the A380 for 15 nm."
If the A380 needs all other a/c separated from it by more than 1000ft, does this mean it will not be allowed to operate in RVSM airspace.
I wonder how much more fuel it will burn at FL280.
If the A380 needs all other a/c separated from it by more than 1000ft, does this mean it will not be allowed to operate in RVSM airspace.
I wonder how much more fuel it will burn at FL280.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere seditious
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2000FT minima also had the effect of closing secondary airports under the approach path to the main airport due less than 2000FT clearance. And then add 15 miles! Can't see that being applied for very long.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The paper I saw from ICAO for the en-route segment said 15nm when operating directly behind and that the wake turbulence could be greater than other heavy classed aircraft at 1000ft below, and greater vertical seperation is advised !!!
So as usual the situation is as clear as mud!
The final decision won't be made until early next year after further tests and trials, but with the FAA being part of the evaluation panel maybe they will try and damage the A380 politically. Or am I being too cynical?
So as usual the situation is as clear as mud!
The final decision won't be made until early next year after further tests and trials, but with the FAA being part of the evaluation panel maybe they will try and damage the A380 politically. Or am I being too cynical?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still trying to see the link between increased separation and the A380 being economically unviable 
When it converts $$$ to noise enabling it to fly, it is not aware of separation standards and the fuel doesn't burn in a different way.
It might provide operational problems for ATC but presumably the beancounters will have a raft of plans to ensure that incomes are not affected.
When it converts $$$ to noise enabling it to fly, it is not aware of separation standards and the fuel doesn't burn in a different way. It might provide operational problems for ATC but presumably the beancounters will have a raft of plans to ensure that incomes are not affected.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere seditious
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Radar,
If this extensive standard turns out to be permanent (which I doubt), the economic penalty. it will be argued, should be borne by the A380 operator. Along the lines of the 'significant economic benefit' argument.
Those operating Medium / (Normal Size) Heavy will argue they should not wear the delay.
The jealousies or economic rivalries will mainfest themeselves beyone the maturity one would hope for in an aerospace industry, but what one would anticipate in an airline industry. Remember Concorde? And it's first forays in to the US?
If you are lucky enough to have parallel runways the solution is obvious and easy (assuming a dedicated DEP RWY in use).
Not sure how often that will be the case however.
As mentioned elsewhere, US/EUR - Boeing / Airbus politics will be a factor as well.
If this extensive standard turns out to be permanent (which I doubt), the economic penalty. it will be argued, should be borne by the A380 operator. Along the lines of the 'significant economic benefit' argument.
Those operating Medium / (Normal Size) Heavy will argue they should not wear the delay.
The jealousies or economic rivalries will mainfest themeselves beyone the maturity one would hope for in an aerospace industry, but what one would anticipate in an airline industry. Remember Concorde? And it's first forays in to the US?
If you are lucky enough to have parallel runways the solution is obvious and easy (assuming a dedicated DEP RWY in use).
Not sure how often that will be the case however.
As mentioned elsewhere, US/EUR - Boeing / Airbus politics will be a factor as well.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one25six
Do operators of light and medium aircraft argue today that 'heavy' operators should compensate them for increased wake separations ??
Do jet operators ask for compensation if a light prop ahead means they need more delaying action ?
Do turboprop operators ask for compensation because the jet ahead causes them to slow down on final and intermediate approach ?
Of course not. They just accept that ATC will try and make the system work to its maximum safety and efficiency with the tools and standards they are given to play with. I think it's a false argument.
The problems will be purely operational ones, not monetary.
Do operators of light and medium aircraft argue today that 'heavy' operators should compensate them for increased wake separations ??
Do jet operators ask for compensation if a light prop ahead means they need more delaying action ?
Do turboprop operators ask for compensation because the jet ahead causes them to slow down on final and intermediate approach ?
Of course not. They just accept that ATC will try and make the system work to its maximum safety and efficiency with the tools and standards they are given to play with. I think it's a false argument.
The problems will be purely operational ones, not monetary.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrowinnit
No special regs for the An-225, and that is 50 tonnes heavier. Never had a problem when it flies in UK airspace, but then again the laws of physics are different here....hence the rest of the world has one set of wake vortex spacings and our tiny little bit of air has a completely different set?????
The air around Heathrow is different again, allowing an extra layer of wake vortex sub-groups to aid landing rate.
The air around Heathrow is different again, allowing an extra layer of wake vortex sub-groups to aid landing rate.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The dark side
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 2c
Seeing as this Doc is from ICAO, and those of us living & operating under ICAO rules only have 3 weight categories, it makes sense that extra consideration should be given to any aircraft following an A380 - especially on final approach.
The A380's aerofoils generate some very powerful vortices at slow speeds & dirty configuration, just the way it will be in the intermediate and final approach phases.
Sure, it's hassle. It's not as expeditious as it could be. Aircraft will encounter delays. But at least we will maintain a safe environment until the system adapts to the A380's requirments. And soon, following extensive studys and research, the separation standards will be revised downwards, and it will no longer be hassle. It will just be the way it is.
The A380's aerofoils generate some very powerful vortices at slow speeds & dirty configuration, just the way it will be in the intermediate and final approach phases.
Sure, it's hassle. It's not as expeditious as it could be. Aircraft will encounter delays. But at least we will maintain a safe environment until the system adapts to the A380's requirments. And soon, following extensive studys and research, the separation standards will be revised downwards, and it will no longer be hassle. It will just be the way it is.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServices
Since the etihads are operating through BRU, it's highly unlikely YVRApproach will see them - and unless BRU can handle them I doubt YYZApproach will either.
Since the etihads are operating through BRU, it's highly unlikely YVRApproach will see them - and unless BRU can handle them I doubt YYZApproach will either.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Altitude TO Performance
It will be interesting to see if the A380 can negotiate Bangdag Airport in Tibet if it is ever upgraded for this type. A chiken and egg problem I guess.