More A380 turbulence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More A380 turbulence
Airbus A380 hits turbulence
Jet's wake could ignite safety, trade rift between U.S., Europe
By Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, The Wall Street Journal
THE AIRBUS A380 superjumbo jet, which already has left a trade dispute in its wake, may spark a new trans-Atlantic rift over potential safety hazards created by the actual wake from its engines.
The latest disagreement brewing between U.S. aviation officials and their European counterparts is focused on international standards under discussion concerning how far other airliners should fly behind the superjumbo during takeoffs and landings. Such rules are intended to provide adequate protection from the powerful turbulence churned up by the A380's huge wings and four mammoth engines. The A380 -- slated for delivery to its first customer in late 2006 -- is designed to carry about 800 passengers and represents Airbus's bid to dominate the market for long-haul travel.
In addition, officials at Airbus, which is 80% owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20% owned by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, are privately fuming about separate U.S. moves aimed at spelling out how fast the A380 will be permitted to maneuver while on the ground -- restrictions never imposed before on any commercial aircraft.
The debate is supposed to be entirely about safety, but industry officials and even some participants worry that ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and Europe threaten to escalate the matter. The two sides are sparring over aircraft subsidies before the World Trade Organization, sparked in part by European aid for the A380. Some European aerospace officials suspect the proposed rules could be used to discourage purchases of the A380. Some U.S. officials, meanwhile, fear that perception could complicate negotiations over both the trade dispute and the aviation safety issues.
Some tension is expected whenever new aircraft are introduced. Scrutiny of wake-turbulence issues has prompted "some sporty discussions" with U.S. regulators, said Charles Champion, Airbus's chief operating officer and the head of the A380 program. "In some areas, they can make life difficult. If you ask Boeing, I'm sure they would say the European authorities make their life difficult."
The A380 has a maximum takeoff weight in excess of one million pounds, nearly one-third more than the heaviest 747s. Even an additional minute or two of spacing behind some planes can affect traffic flows during peak periods at large airports. Extra time getting the largest Airbus model to and from gates, or slightly longer waits for aircraft following it on the same runway, eventually could make the big planes economically less appealing.
When an airborne aircraft runs into another plane's wake -- the twin cones of turbulent air that fan out from the wingtips of a big jet -- the impact can jostle the trailing plane. In extreme circumstances, the result can even be loss of control. There haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to such wake encounters, though over the years some business and private planes have experienced serious incidents and even crashed after following a larger aircraft too closely near an airport.
Another plane's wake was initially suspected as the cause of the crash of an American Airlines flight out of John F. Kennedy International Airport four years ago, killing 265, but U.S. safety officials ultimately blamed pilot error and aircraft design issues.
Some U.S. regulators are advocating international standards that include separation limits of as much as 40% or 50% greater than the maximum distance of five nautical miles required for aircraft taking off behind Boeing Co.'s 747 wide-body jumbo. >
Using different computer models, European representatives on a joint blue-ribbon working group studying the matter are advocating limits much closer to those now in place. "We have to demonstrate that the A380 is not different from any other aircraft," says Robert Lafontan, the superjumbo's chief engineer and a test pilot.
The No. 1 consideration for U.S. officials is safety, says George Greene, a senior scientist heading up the Federal Aviation Administration's wake-turbulence assessment effort. "Fairness is probably second," he adds, because the agency doesn't want to be "overly conservative so that [it] penalizes capacity." Mr. Greene declined to comment on any of the specifics under discussion.
The Europeans, for their part, point out that the initial separation standard for the Boeing 747 was set at an unduly restrictive 10 nautical miles, only to be ratcheted downward as a result of operational experience.
"It's quite obvious that the wake vortex will be bigger than the 747; you can't escape from physics," according to Jean-Pierre Nicolaon, an official with Eurocontrol, the European air-traffic services provider, who also is a member of the study group. "We can't say yet [by] how much."
All of the current proposals are still informal and preliminary and haven't been vetted by higher-level U.S. policy makers, and it is likely to take several months for recommendations to become firm and be accepted as international standards.
Tighter restrictions for the A380 would contradict longstanding Airbus assurances that the plane was designed to seamlessly fit into existing global air-traffic patterns, without requiring special handling by controllers or greater spacing than today's jetliners. But the short-term impact would be limited, since relatively few A380s will be flying in the first few years.
But the longer-term impact on air traffic could be significant, specially at destinations such as London's Heathrow airport, Charles DeGaulle in Paris, Tokyo's Narita, Los Angeles International Airport and others slated to handle the largest number of A380 flights. A spokesman for the union representing U.S. air-traffic controllers had no immediate comment.
Jet's wake could ignite safety, trade rift between U.S., Europe
By Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, The Wall Street Journal
THE AIRBUS A380 superjumbo jet, which already has left a trade dispute in its wake, may spark a new trans-Atlantic rift over potential safety hazards created by the actual wake from its engines.
The latest disagreement brewing between U.S. aviation officials and their European counterparts is focused on international standards under discussion concerning how far other airliners should fly behind the superjumbo during takeoffs and landings. Such rules are intended to provide adequate protection from the powerful turbulence churned up by the A380's huge wings and four mammoth engines. The A380 -- slated for delivery to its first customer in late 2006 -- is designed to carry about 800 passengers and represents Airbus's bid to dominate the market for long-haul travel.
In addition, officials at Airbus, which is 80% owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20% owned by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, are privately fuming about separate U.S. moves aimed at spelling out how fast the A380 will be permitted to maneuver while on the ground -- restrictions never imposed before on any commercial aircraft.
The debate is supposed to be entirely about safety, but industry officials and even some participants worry that ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and Europe threaten to escalate the matter. The two sides are sparring over aircraft subsidies before the World Trade Organization, sparked in part by European aid for the A380. Some European aerospace officials suspect the proposed rules could be used to discourage purchases of the A380. Some U.S. officials, meanwhile, fear that perception could complicate negotiations over both the trade dispute and the aviation safety issues.
Some tension is expected whenever new aircraft are introduced. Scrutiny of wake-turbulence issues has prompted "some sporty discussions" with U.S. regulators, said Charles Champion, Airbus's chief operating officer and the head of the A380 program. "In some areas, they can make life difficult. If you ask Boeing, I'm sure they would say the European authorities make their life difficult."
The A380 has a maximum takeoff weight in excess of one million pounds, nearly one-third more than the heaviest 747s. Even an additional minute or two of spacing behind some planes can affect traffic flows during peak periods at large airports. Extra time getting the largest Airbus model to and from gates, or slightly longer waits for aircraft following it on the same runway, eventually could make the big planes economically less appealing.
When an airborne aircraft runs into another plane's wake -- the twin cones of turbulent air that fan out from the wingtips of a big jet -- the impact can jostle the trailing plane. In extreme circumstances, the result can even be loss of control. There haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to such wake encounters, though over the years some business and private planes have experienced serious incidents and even crashed after following a larger aircraft too closely near an airport.
Another plane's wake was initially suspected as the cause of the crash of an American Airlines flight out of John F. Kennedy International Airport four years ago, killing 265, but U.S. safety officials ultimately blamed pilot error and aircraft design issues.
Some U.S. regulators are advocating international standards that include separation limits of as much as 40% or 50% greater than the maximum distance of five nautical miles required for aircraft taking off behind Boeing Co.'s 747 wide-body jumbo. >
Using different computer models, European representatives on a joint blue-ribbon working group studying the matter are advocating limits much closer to those now in place. "We have to demonstrate that the A380 is not different from any other aircraft," says Robert Lafontan, the superjumbo's chief engineer and a test pilot.
The No. 1 consideration for U.S. officials is safety, says George Greene, a senior scientist heading up the Federal Aviation Administration's wake-turbulence assessment effort. "Fairness is probably second," he adds, because the agency doesn't want to be "overly conservative so that [it] penalizes capacity." Mr. Greene declined to comment on any of the specifics under discussion.
The Europeans, for their part, point out that the initial separation standard for the Boeing 747 was set at an unduly restrictive 10 nautical miles, only to be ratcheted downward as a result of operational experience.
"It's quite obvious that the wake vortex will be bigger than the 747; you can't escape from physics," according to Jean-Pierre Nicolaon, an official with Eurocontrol, the European air-traffic services provider, who also is a member of the study group. "We can't say yet [by] how much."
All of the current proposals are still informal and preliminary and haven't been vetted by higher-level U.S. policy makers, and it is likely to take several months for recommendations to become firm and be accepted as international standards.
Tighter restrictions for the A380 would contradict longstanding Airbus assurances that the plane was designed to seamlessly fit into existing global air-traffic patterns, without requiring special handling by controllers or greater spacing than today's jetliners. But the short-term impact would be limited, since relatively few A380s will be flying in the first few years.
But the longer-term impact on air traffic could be significant, specially at destinations such as London's Heathrow airport, Charles DeGaulle in Paris, Tokyo's Narita, Los Angeles International Airport and others slated to handle the largest number of A380 flights. A spokesman for the union representing U.S. air-traffic controllers had no immediate comment.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MANCHESTER
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its getting rather dull to read another
American rant over the A380.
The seperation of aircraft argument is
another example of American small minded-
ness (A new 'quality' for Americans).The
recommendations of Airbus will be interesting.
Subsidies by the Americans or the
Europeans for their respective aircraft
builders will not end.
The success or failure of a design is
measured by sales.
The AA A300 crashed as a consequence
of the turbulance from a departing
B747 and the 'over' reaction of the pilot
at the time - or was it European bad
design?
Remember too the trouble Boeing had a
few years ago with the B737's falling
out of the sky!- due to rudder 'sticking'.
Or do we not over-react to that because
we all trust Americans......the greatest
country in the world!
MM
American rant over the A380.
The seperation of aircraft argument is
another example of American small minded-
ness (A new 'quality' for Americans).The
recommendations of Airbus will be interesting.
Subsidies by the Americans or the
Europeans for their respective aircraft
builders will not end.
The success or failure of a design is
measured by sales.
The AA A300 crashed as a consequence
of the turbulance from a departing
B747 and the 'over' reaction of the pilot
at the time - or was it European bad
design?
Remember too the trouble Boeing had a
few years ago with the B737's falling
out of the sky!- due to rudder 'sticking'.
Or do we not over-react to that because
we all trust Americans......the greatest
country in the world!
MM
Perhaps someone should remember that the An-225 has been operating for years - and it has a MTOW of 1322750lb......
Rather more than the A380.
What wake separation have the Yanks assumed for the 'goddam Rooski' An-225 aeroplane? Or the An-124? Or the Lockheed C-5B...?
Rather more than the A380.
What wake separation have the Yanks assumed for the 'goddam Rooski' An-225 aeroplane? Or the An-124? Or the Lockheed C-5B...?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell the Yanks to take a hike! The tit-for-tat approach would be to insist that EVERY over flying Boeing is to land for safety checks - and mean it! However, the slimy toad Blair will probably just drop his kaks and take it up the RR's.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until Toulouse provides some solid data on the turbulence our new super-jumbo creates - we are all guessing as to separation issues.
A few links about WT:
From the USAF - Travis AFB on the C-5:
http://public.travis.amc.af.mil/publ...Turbulence.htm
Great WT study from NASA:
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concep...ke_vortex.html
Federal Aviation Administration's Power Point presentation on US Airports A380 Readiness and concerns:
http://www.aci-na.org/docs/NLA%20FAA%20ATC.ppt
The above FAA presentation seems to be cautious regarding the new super-jumbo - maybe Boeing funded the research.
The final word on A380 Wake testing: (as far as I know)
http://www.awgnews.com/shownews/05paris/aircraft01.htm
The laws of aerodynamics are physics in action - and physics laws are immutable. So unless there are radical things going on with WT suppression - it stands to common reason that the super boy (A380) will make a bigger wake than the plain old big boy. (747).
That being said - we have learned to live with the original jumbo just as we'll be able to cope with his bigger brother - or should I say 2nd cousin - twice removed
A few links about WT:
From the USAF - Travis AFB on the C-5:
http://public.travis.amc.af.mil/publ...Turbulence.htm
Great WT study from NASA:
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concep...ke_vortex.html
Federal Aviation Administration's Power Point presentation on US Airports A380 Readiness and concerns:
http://www.aci-na.org/docs/NLA%20FAA%20ATC.ppt
The above FAA presentation seems to be cautious regarding the new super-jumbo - maybe Boeing funded the research.
The final word on A380 Wake testing: (as far as I know)
http://www.awgnews.com/shownews/05paris/aircraft01.htm
The laws of aerodynamics are physics in action - and physics laws are immutable. So unless there are radical things going on with WT suppression - it stands to common reason that the super boy (A380) will make a bigger wake than the plain old big boy. (747).
That being said - we have learned to live with the original jumbo just as we'll be able to cope with his bigger brother - or should I say 2nd cousin - twice removed
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 engine, Trent 900 at 80,000 Ib thrust is less powerful than the GE90 115b 115000 Ib output, and tested at a world record 127900. OK so there are only two of these on a 77 but I reckon it would still be quite breezy behind one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complex_Type, it's not the engines that create the wake turbulence (not directly, anyway...)
It's the wingtip vortices, which are GW-dependent. The separation rules apply during approach (with engines at 15-20% thrust) just as they do during departure.
It's the wingtip vortices, which are GW-dependent. The separation rules apply during approach (with engines at 15-20% thrust) just as they do during departure.
Boy for a group that is supposed to be about rational evaluation of available information you have to hope there are a lot of none pilots/ATC posting here.
The FAA pp was interesting - really seemed to be saying we need to know more. Almost every line starts with a may or ends with a question mark. The ATC guy is saying - be nice to sort this before the planes arrive. Strange attitude but what can you do.
BEAGLE - suggest you look at slide show pages 32 and 33 re AN 124 and C-5 operations. At MEM C-5 operations do cause significant ground taxi restrictions. Bet you C-5 ops are not welcome during the FEDEX rushes!
It’s not just the new boys. I was on a 777 in EWR that had to be stopped/taxied around to avoid another 777 coming the other way on the parallel.
Does anyone know where the 15 mph taxi limitation is coming from? How does this compare to existing wide bodies?
Like most other things there will be a few surprises on opening night but the show will go on.
The FAA pp was interesting - really seemed to be saying we need to know more. Almost every line starts with a may or ends with a question mark. The ATC guy is saying - be nice to sort this before the planes arrive. Strange attitude but what can you do.
BEAGLE - suggest you look at slide show pages 32 and 33 re AN 124 and C-5 operations. At MEM C-5 operations do cause significant ground taxi restrictions. Bet you C-5 ops are not welcome during the FEDEX rushes!
It’s not just the new boys. I was on a 777 in EWR that had to be stopped/taxied around to avoid another 777 coming the other way on the parallel.
Does anyone know where the 15 mph taxi limitation is coming from? How does this compare to existing wide bodies?
Like most other things there will be a few surprises on opening night but the show will go on.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complex_Type, it's not the engines that create the wake turbulence (not directly, anyway...)
trans-Atlantic rift over potential safety hazards created by the actual wake from its engines.
powerful turbulence churned up by the A380's huge wings and four mammoth engines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I neglected to dig further. I had posted the first item as a "quote without comment" and I wasn't expecting anyone to take seriously the flakier bits of the story.
But all the subsequent posts are "on target" about jet blast being no worse (per engine, anyway) than current types.
(However, taxing an A380 with two shut down might be a bit worse than the 777 case...)
But all the subsequent posts are "on target" about jet blast being no worse (per engine, anyway) than current types.
(However, taxing an A380 with two shut down might be a bit worse than the 777 case...)
Jeez, let's get some of this terminology sorted!
Turbulent Wake - Created by any moving object, especially blunt ones - e.g. a lorry stonking down the highway.
Vortex Wake - a direct consequence of an aerofoil generating lift.
Jet Blast - that's the hot stuff coming out the rear of a jet engine.
Turbulent Wake - Created by any moving object, especially blunt ones - e.g. a lorry stonking down the highway.
Vortex Wake - a direct consequence of an aerofoil generating lift.
Jet Blast - that's the hot stuff coming out the rear of a jet engine.
