Radar Separation for the A388
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar Separation for the A388
The FAA has recently told US ATCO's that approved radar separation for two A388 is three miles. My employer (The FAA) believes that an A388 following an A388 on a localizer should be spaced 3 miles apart but if the A388 is following a B757 it should be 4 miles in trail 
. We are being told this separation minima is the ICAO standard. What does the rest of the world use? Thanks
. We are being told this separation minima is the ICAO standard. What does the rest of the world use? Thanks
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM79,
Are you talking about radar separation, in which case it does not matter what type of aircraft it is, or wake turbulence separation?
In the UK, A380 followed by;
i) A380 is 4nm,
ii) Heavy (747, 777, 340, 330) is 6nm,
iii) Medium (757, 737, A320 family) and is 7nm.
and so on.
Are you talking about radar separation, in which case it does not matter what type of aircraft it is, or wake turbulence separation?
In the UK, A380 followed by;
i) A380 is 4nm,
ii) Heavy (747, 777, 340, 330) is 6nm,
iii) Medium (757, 737, A320 family) and is 7nm.
and so on.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rest of the world are shaking their heads about the obvious absence of common sense in your management....but then, why should yours be any better than ours.
SKYbrary - Airbus A380 Wake Vortex Guidance
Interesting to see that the 757 is still considered MEDIUM in England, in Germany itīs HEAVY.
SKYbrary - Airbus A380 Wake Vortex Guidance
Interesting to see that the 757 is still considered MEDIUM in England, in Germany itīs HEAVY.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, the 757 is Upper Medium, so some separation standards do differ, but in the case of it following a Heavy/Super it receives the same separation as other Mediums, hence why I lumped them all together in the earlier post.
My employer (The FAA) believes that an A388 following an A388 on a localizer should be spaced 3 miles apart but if the A388 is following a B757 it should be 4 miles in trail. We are being told this separation minima is the ICAO standard.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has 6/7/8 for H/M/L behind Super. Super has no wake turbulence standard applicable as the following aircraft. B757 is medium but treated as H if lead aircraft.
Currently applying wake turbulence separation behind super on parallel runway at YSSY when following aircraft is <25,000kg mtow as a result of this...
Fright in wake: Airbus in scare with turbo-prop at Sydney | Crikey
Currently applying wake turbulence separation behind super on parallel runway at YSSY when following aircraft is <25,000kg mtow as a result of this...
Fright in wake: Airbus in scare with turbo-prop at Sydney | Crikey
Just for completeness since nobody has mentioned it yet but a Heavy followed by a Super (in the UK) requires 4nm too.
I'm still trying to understand how that will work.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry to say it must be an error on Chevvron's part.
I think I'm right in saying that ICAO gives no minimum wake separation for an A388 following any other traffic, be it another A388 or a Heavy. Chevvron may have heard that the UK plans to drop the current UK requirement for wake separation when the A380 is the following aircraft but it would be news to me.
Frankly, it wouldn't be particularly helpful since current A380 runway occupancy would dictate that an A380 3nm behind another would 90% of the time (opinion!) result in a go around. An A380 following a Heavy at 3nm wouldn't be foolproof either...
I think I'm right in saying that ICAO gives no minimum wake separation for an A388 following any other traffic, be it another A388 or a Heavy. Chevvron may have heard that the UK plans to drop the current UK requirement for wake separation when the A380 is the following aircraft but it would be news to me.
Frankly, it wouldn't be particularly helpful since current A380 runway occupancy would dictate that an A380 3nm behind another would 90% of the time (opinion!) result in a go around. An A380 following a Heavy at 3nm wouldn't be foolproof either...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the SAFO from the FAA. http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO12007.pdf
Current Wake Sep at Threshold. Super to Super is 2.5nm
Under RECAT Super to Super is MRS (which for most airports in the US is 3nm)
Perhaps ICAO is following the FAA RECAT in which case, Chevron would be correct if the MRS is 3nm.
EDIT: Looking at the proposed tables, it is strange that the FAA used the opposite CAT designation for wake than for other aircraft CAT designations. ie A380 is CAT A for wake, while a Dash8 is CAT E.
Current Wake Sep at Threshold. Super to Super is 2.5nm
Under RECAT Super to Super is MRS (which for most airports in the US is 3nm)
Perhaps ICAO is following the FAA RECAT in which case, Chevron would be correct if the MRS is 3nm.
EDIT: Looking at the proposed tables, it is strange that the FAA used the opposite CAT designation for wake than for other aircraft CAT designations. ie A380 is CAT A for wake, while a Dash8 is CAT E.
Last edited by underfire; 13th Aug 2013 at 21:37.
