IMC separations <-> VMC separations
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Walking the dogs along the Thames
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean two WT Mediums following each other, so no WT separation is required? Would reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome be applied in everyday operations?
If that is the question, the answer is yes. Providing you can in fact apply reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
If that is the question, the answer is yes. Providing you can in fact apply reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, just to make sure:
Two successive medium AC arrive on the ILS path. Usually, when I'm right, radar separation (2,5-3nm) has to be maintained. If the tower controller is able to see both aircraft, he is allowed (or the pilots?) to reduce the separation. Is this often deployed at airports like Heathrow, Frankfurt or Paris?
In the case of a heavy followed by a light aircraft, can the vortex separation be reduced as well?
Two successive medium AC arrive on the ILS path. Usually, when I'm right, radar separation (2,5-3nm) has to be maintained. If the tower controller is able to see both aircraft, he is allowed (or the pilots?) to reduce the separation. Is this often deployed at airports like Heathrow, Frankfurt or Paris?
In the case of a heavy followed by a light aircraft, can the vortex separation be reduced as well?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Walking the dogs along the Thames
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two successive medium AC arrive on the ILS path. Usually, when I'm right, radar separation (2,5-3nm) has to be maintained. If the tower controller is able to see both aircraft, he is allowed (or the pilots?) to reduce the separation. Is this often deployed at airports like Heathrow, Frankfurt or Paris?
This distance will invariably decrease as the first a/c reaches 4nm from touchdown and starts to reduce the speed. So yes, it more or less happens all day everyday.
But I wouldn't say that the controller (or pilot) "allows" the separation to be reduced. The controller, who is responsible for ensuring the separation, simply goes from applying one form of separation (3nm radar separation) to applying another form of separation (reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome).
Originally Posted by Spitfire01234
In the case of a heavy followed by a light aircraft, can the vortex separation be reduced as well?
The tower has no mandate/authorisation to reduce wake turbulence separation. That is the pilots responsibility.
In the case of moving to visual separation (without vortex separation) how it works is this: Controller sees no.1 aircraft, and also sees no.2 aircraft. Watches. Assesses. Sees there is no risk of collision. Has a plan B in case one (or both) should elect to overshoot for any reason. There is generally no action required.
What is termed "the Mk.1 eyeball" is simply verifying that the information provided by radar is indeed true, and that the aircraft are not in dangerous proximity.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on where you are at, the separation minima applies, but just as to where it applies is a different matter.
In the US, WT separation minima is applied at threshold, while at other locations in the World, the WT separation minima is applied to 4 or 5nm, and allowed to close up from there.
In the US, WT separation minima is applied at threshold, while at other locations in the World, the WT separation minima is applied to 4 or 5nm, and allowed to close up from there.
Last edited by underfire; 19th Aug 2013 at 23:14.
