Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

RYR depart 1 min 20 behind a heavy.....

Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

RYR depart 1 min 20 behind a heavy.....

Old 17th Mar 2010, 07:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
RYR depart 1 min 20 behind a heavy.....

Yesterday I heard someone warn a RYR that he was starting his take off just 1 min and 20 secs after an Iberia A-340. Then a second warning, but he continued anyway!

I know that the Spanish class the -800 as HVY for landing separation, but is this the case for take-off; surely not??
kick the tires is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 07:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Then it was an ATC error in clearing him for take-off too soon.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 08:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel

Wake can kill.
Eventually they will find out the hard way.
Henri737 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 08:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are right about the xwind, imho, but, where is that pilot discretion written?
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 08:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having instructed GA (PPL / CPL) pilots at a busy international airport (in the good old days when they encouraged GA at the same airfield) you become accutely aware of wake turbulence both on takeoff and landing. Its rate of disipation does vary according to external factors (wind strength, direction, ground features) and yes sometimes you would be offered a takeoff earlier than you might expect, but it is always the pilots discretion as to accepting that clearance.

The thread does bring back memories of doing "clover leaf" circuits when the wind was light so as to avoid the turbulence (takeoff 33, touch and go onto 24 back to 05 - keeps a student mentally active !!)
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 09:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here and there
Age: 49
Posts: 645
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Several times from non uk airports i have been given take off clearance with the
" caution wake turbulance, cleared take off"

i take this to mean i am cleared to go but separation is down to me. if i want to wait, i say and tell them when im rolling, dont take it to mean you have to go regardless!!
Serenity is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 09:23
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,789
Received 112 Likes on 54 Posts
You are right about the xwind, imho, but, where is that pilot discretion written?
I know Unhooked, at 61N, isn't in Australia but the Australian regs allow a pilot to "accept a waiver" on the separation. I have to say I never heard a single pilot use that particular rule in many years operating there!
Checkboard is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 09:25
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hundred Acre Wood
Posts: 264
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At a major European airport that I go to frequently, they often clear you to line up in sequence and if the preceding aircraft is a heavy, once it's airborne they say something like, "take all the time you need for the wake turbulence, cleared for take off". This puts the onus on us to decide when we will start the take off roll but as it is common practice for us to start a stopwatch when the preceding aircraft is a heavy, it seems a reasonable practice to me. After all, we are trusted to do plenty of other things ourselves.
Doug E Style is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:03
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 509
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My understanding is that the wake separation is " recomended" not compulsory.
If the air is unstable or there is a strong wind / cross wind wake is unlikely to be a problem. I did read that a system for detecting wake is being developed and I would assume it will increase the departure flow rate when wake is not an issue
b b
bad bear is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Between EGGP and EGCC
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the end of the day guys - covering your ar*e is the nature of the beast - so that when for that inexplainable reason you find the aircraft has smacked down on the ground - the lawyers are not going to be able to point the finger at wake separation rules.

Waiting an extra 40 seconds (in this case) is it really going to screw up the on time performance for the day?

The other scenario certainly would.

Fly Safe...

WM
WaterMeths is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:13
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
wind was calm, slight tailwind when airborne.

I've taken off behind a heavy at +2 mins and still had some uncomfortable encounters.

Madrid ATC weren't interested, they even acknowledged the 1.20 warning!
kick the tires is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could have been a case of a very heavy A340 rotating a long way down the runway and RYR not so heavy and knowing he was going to be airborne way before where the A340 rotated,and would be above the 340's flight path during the climb out - its called exercising one's discretion!!!
arem is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Could have been a case of a very heavy A340 rotating a long way down the runway and RYR not so heavy and knowing he was going to be airborne way before where the A340 rotated,and would be above the 340's flight path during the climb out - its called exercising one's discretion!!!
Unless, of course, one has a donk stop apres V1
Yes, I know, I must be getting to be a boring old woman.

Not wishing to teach egg sucking but remember that a slight x-wind could hold the vortex on the runway.

I posted on another thread about tiles being removed from roofs that we'd been having a beer close to an airport one evening when a vortex arrived on the terrace - quite invigorating.

Last edited by Basil; 17th Mar 2010 at 10:33.
Basil is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:25
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just cos he rotated a long way down the runway doesn't necessarily mean the A340 is very heavy.
Zoso is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:27
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Zoso, Don't be cruel!
Basil is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you heard?

'i heard' ....

it starts right there!

how about some more specific information before coming to any conclusions!

did you hear it? you were on the frequency? the same runway? they have parallels don't they?

who gave the clearance? who gave the warnings? same controller-pilots are starting now to add in some information on the frequency? sounds questionable.
stator vane is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:32
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in some mud
Age: 89
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a total non event.
If he was CLEARED for take off after 1.20, then give or take a few seconds, he would have become airborne exactly 2minutes behind the heavy. Which is correct.

What some pilots fail to understand is that vortex is timed from rotation of the 1st departure to the rotation of the 2nd. So the take off roll is included in this calculation. Of course you may want extra time in certain situations which is never a problem, as long as you tell us before you line up.

I speak only for the UK, but this is how controllers here are trained.
General_Kirby is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And do you start the watch when the preceeding aeroplane begins it's take off roll, or at it's rotation point?
Firestorm is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>What was the wind at the time? With a strong x-wind the time seperation may be reduced at the pilots discretion. >>

Where I worked ATC provided the time separation, which was rigidly enforced even if a pilot said "we're happy to go".
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2010, 10:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in some mud
Age: 89
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"vortex is timed from rotation of the 1st departure to the rotation of the 2nd"

And yes, thats where we use our judgement of the length of the 2nd's take off run.
General_Kirby is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.