B757 Wake cat?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep I've had it too. Took off in a 757 1 min behind a good old 75 and guess what!!?? 20 degree roll to the right, not nice at 300ft agl!
The 75 has given the fastest ever for commercial anyhow, wake spins of any airliner. (Or so I believe!)
The 75 has given the fastest ever for commercial anyhow, wake spins of any airliner. (Or so I believe!)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who is familiar with flying in Spain, knows that ATC considers the
B738 and B739 as heavy. Is this only Spain or are there more places in the world where this is practise?
B738 and B739 as heavy. Is this only Spain or are there more places in the world where this is practise?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look a short story to tell but one immediate observation: surely what individual countries think is irrelevant as the aviation world moves to ICAO, the ICAO figures define the requirements so why all this talk about "..in XX, YY, ZZ.."etc??
Happy to be corrected but the POTENTIAL wake turbulance of an aircraft is based on the maximum takeoff weight the airplane STRUCTURE can support - correct or not??
It is the STRUCTURE capacity that determines wake catagories.
The story - in Japan the JCAB (the regulator in charge of safety?) allowed that, as the local airlines had reduced the T/O and Land max weights to reduce AirNavCharges then, magically, the wake turbulance criteria also changed.
Having seen 737's and MD81'S take off 40 sec behind a 767-200 makes one think; they have been very, very lucky that an aircraft has not turned over and ended up in Tokyo Bay.
The safety regulator favouring increased movements over safety - dumb, dumb, dumb, a question just begging an answer: "who's going to gaol when an aircraft DOES spear in??"
In fairness things have improved markedly.
Cheers
Happy to be corrected but the POTENTIAL wake turbulance of an aircraft is based on the maximum takeoff weight the airplane STRUCTURE can support - correct or not??
It is the STRUCTURE capacity that determines wake catagories.
The story - in Japan the JCAB (the regulator in charge of safety?) allowed that, as the local airlines had reduced the T/O and Land max weights to reduce AirNavCharges then, magically, the wake turbulance criteria also changed.
Having seen 737's and MD81'S take off 40 sec behind a 767-200 makes one think; they have been very, very lucky that an aircraft has not turned over and ended up in Tokyo Bay.
The safety regulator favouring increased movements over safety - dumb, dumb, dumb, a question just begging an answer: "who's going to gaol when an aircraft DOES spear in??"
In fairness things have improved markedly.
Cheers
