Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

about wake turbulence separation

Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

about wake turbulence separation

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 27th Nov 2011, 06:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: beijing
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
about wake turbulence separation

Hey, guys, in icao doc 4444 (15ed), item 8.7.3.2 says: The radar separation minimum in 8.7.3.1 may, if so prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority, be reduced, but not below:
b) 4.6 km (2.5 NM) between succeeding aircraft which are established on the same final approach track within 18.5 km (10 NM) of the runway end. A reduced separation minimum of 4.6 km (2.5 NM) may be applied, provided:
…….
v) distance-based wake turbulence separation minima in 8.7.3.4, or as may be prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority (e.g. for specific aircraft types), do not apply;
.....
and 8.7.3.4 specifies the distance based wake separation between some aircraft categories.
What does it mean by “do not apply” ? does it mean the reduced separation only apply to the aircraft categories combinations not include in 8.7.3.4, such as heavy behind light?
By the way, in 8.7.3.4 .1 , the situations in which the wake separations apply are pointed out one of which is :
b) both aircraft are using the same runway, or parallel runways separated by less than 760 m (2 500 ft); what does it mean? Does the separation between an A/C departing and an AC landing on the same runway also fit for this rule?
mxwbuaa is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 08:34
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,678
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
POST 2 (just in case)

v) distance-based wake turbulence separation minima in 8.7.3.4, or as may be prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority (e.g. for specific aircraft types), do not apply;
Not that well written, is it?
It means you have to apply the wake turbulence separation, if required, or where not required and approval is given to use 2.5 miles, you may use 2.5 miles.

As for the parallel runways, I'll leave that for someone who knows. I suspect that if the rwys are less than 760M apart, they are to be treated as one rwy for separation purposes.
Tarq57 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 09:52
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: beijing
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hi, does you mean that the wake turbulence may not be enforced? in my opioion, the wake turbulence separation must always be enforced between the aircraft categories listed in item 8.7.3.4. am i wrong?
mxwbuaa is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 19:16
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,678
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
No, quite the opposite. Any wake turbulence separation must be enforced, unless the pilot reports visually able to follow another aircraft.

(That's why I thought it could be worded better.)

Where there is no requirement for a wake turbulence spacing, (eg medium following light) the space may be reduced to 2.5 miles, where 2.5 miles is approved for your unit and equipment.

So your opinion is the correct one.
Tarq57 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2011, 16:45
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: beijing
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
oh,that sentence is an excerpt directly from icao doc 4444. it is certainly correct.
mxwbuaa is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2011, 19:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Both the senctence and Tarw57 are right (as I read it), they say the same but in different words.
Crazy Voyager is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2011, 19:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,678
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Perhaps I should have written "Your interpretation is correct".
Tarq57 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.