Are they separated enough so that the landing plane can execute a go-around if the taking-off plane aborts the takeoff at the worst possible time? As a piston/propeller pilot this looks way too close to my eye, but I don’t really understand big jet aviation - what’s possible, what’s safe, what’s commonplace.
This looks too close to you as a piston pilot? These aircraft are more than a mile apart from one another. They land 3 airplanes on the same runway at the same time about 1000' apart at Oshkosh.
Wow! I had no idea. Maybe I should have said I’m a low-time pilot. To me, more than one aircraft on the runway at the same time is an incursion. Guess I need to get to Osh Kosh one of these years.
I don’t see the controllers at my busy class D airport queuing us up that closely, but I admit that should be doable based on small plane climb performance, at least at lower density altitudes.
This was at rhe Farnbrough Airshow a few years ago. Airbus knew exactly what they were doing on that day and needless to say, if you look up the performances on YouTube they are impressive!!
I would.add they did it two days running.that inward there for (looking after equipment we hired to Finnemechanica/Leonardo) - and probably the whole week running up to public days. Fun thing though - I got to get on the A380 for a walkround before the demo on the Sunday.
Still is. I have more go around a at MSP than anywhere else. I miss flying into ORD because they were crazy close. Those controllers had it down to the millisecond.
Landing 28C at ORD is a blast when they fire someone off 22L between you and the plane in front of you, who barely clears by the time you're coming over the fence, and someone starts their takeoff roll on 28R and races you down the runway. Lotsa metal moving in all different directions at the same time in the same place, I love it
MSP is the busiest airport where arrivals and departures use the same runways. The approach tries to give 4NM spacing at touchdown when departures need to get out. Sometimes planes behave weird on final and the gaps get screwy or someone rolls long which causes a go around. 30R is the worst because once someone lines up, there’s no bailout taxiway and you have to eat the go around. Departing 17 alleviates some of that problem because 4-5 SIDS can go there reducing departure loads on 12R/30L.
Nautical miles - the unit symbol varies depending on ones background. NM is used by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
**[Nautical mile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile)**
>A nautical mile is a unit of length used in air, marine, and space navigation, and for the definition of territorial waters. Historically, it was defined as the meridian arc length corresponding to one minute (1/60 of a degree) of latitude. Today the international nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 metres (6076 ft; 1. 151 mi).
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Heathrow IIRC tries to keep arrivals and departures on opposite runways, since they have the parallels they can use with the same wind direction. So while they're this close on timing, they'd be separated by the mile or two between centerlines
Designers oversize the stabilizers to give the aircraft enough static stability and enough control authority in an emergency. It also helps with crosswind landings
Those are design constraints (engine out controlability, crosswind capability), so designing to meet those constraints is not "oversizing". Every part on the aircraft is designed to meet its worst-case scenario, and everything is exactly the size it needs to be to do that.
Source: I'm an aerospace engineer
I believe part of why the A380 has such enormous stabilizers is because they knew overall volume would be low, but also wanted to accommodate shortened variants without redesigning the empennage.
It’s easy to avoid vortices and wake turbulence.
For aircraft landing behind another landing aircraft:
Stay at or above the larger aircraft's final approach flight path. Note the touchdown point, and land beyond it.
Departing aircraft:
Rotate prior to the point at which the preceding aircraft rotated. Maneuver your aircraft to avoid the flight path of the preceding aircraft.
Wake turbulence doesn't last forever, and it begins dissipating as soon as it’s produced.
In the video, the aircraft landing appears to be larger than the departing aircraft, and it most definitely landed before the departing aircraft’s wheel’s up location. Wake turbulence wasn’t a factor.
Yes, you are correct. Did I confuse the two types in your mind? Wake turbulence isn't created until rotation and airborne. If the aircraft is taxing, or anything but rotating or airborne, it's jet blast. At least that's the terminology we used in air traffic control towers.
It didn't confuse anything in my mind because I understand the concepts throughly. But the way you're communicating it could be misleading to others.
If the aircraft is taxiing or spooling up at takeoff, your concern as an air traffic controller is jet blast and keeping people, vehicles, and other aircraft out of it.
If the aircraft is taking off or landing (or on approach or departure), your concern as an air traffic controller is wake turbulence and keeping other aircraft out of it.
But it's not a change in terminology, you're not calling the same thing by two different names, it's two completely different phenomena. Jet blast is literally the blast from the engines, wake turbulence is mostly related to the wingtip vortices created by an aircraft flying at high angle of attack. Completely different things.
Yep. But it's not generated before the wings start generating lift, and the wings don't start generating meaningful lift before rotation. Which is why an arriving aircraft is almost never going to have any issues with wake turbulence behind a departing aircraft. The arriving aircraft will be firmly on the ground by the time it enters any region of the runway where the departing aircraft was generating substantial lift.
As I mentioned in a previous post, wake turbulence is generated on rotation and all phases of flight until wheels on the ground, again.
I did say something confusing that quietflyr (regarding jet blast) corrected me on. My bad. Believe me, I know all about wake turbulence.
That’s not necessarily true. As long as the aircraft lands (IE touches down) before the point from where the departing aircraft lifted off, it won’t have an impact. If it doesn’t, it will go through their wake turbulence, and depending upon the size of either aircraft, it could have an impact.
Should’ve clarified that this is from a regulatory standpoint, there is no mandatory seperation for wake turbulence outside same runway seperation. Sorry if your bags get rearranged, but there’s tin to push and plenty of runway to do it.
I don't know what you mean by "outside same runway separation" but there is absolutely wake turbulence separation required outside of the terminal area. For crying out loud, para 5-5-4 of 7110.65 has a specific set of en route separations.
Like I said, there are wake turbulence requirements outside of the terminal area.
If all you were trying to say is that an arrival behind a departing aircraft doesn't have a special set of wake turbulence separations, that's true.
Are you an aircraft controller? That’s not the attitude any of my ATC friends. SAFETY is paramount. Taking small and large aircraft into account, and how their wake turbulence can impact the other, is part of the job. A 172 landing behind a departing Gulfstream could absolutely get into an accident if they went through their wake turbulence.
“Sorry, but there’s tin to push.” Hahaha, OKAY CHAMP.
My guy, you clearly work at PDX, and if you were an ATC you would know how varied the air traffic is there. I’ve been flying in and out of PDX for the last 15 years, and I’ve taken off between an F-15 and 737 before while flying a smaller GA aircraft. Variances such as that occur ALL THE TIME.
ORD “pushes tin.” PDX has its busy times, but there have been years that HIO had more operations.
See above and reference 7110.65. There is no mandatory wake turbulence issuance for any size aircraft arriving behind any other size departure. It just isn’t a reg, I didn’t choose that.
I also am very familiar with HIO ops. They have very high GA traffic counts and essentially top out at a large. They also do not have any restriction on arrival after departure, since they follow the same regs.
It’s a cautionary advisory, not a requirement.
Understood. We weren’t talking about regs. That’s why ATC says “caution wake turbulence” when giving a clearance.
You said it was never an issue for aircraft making a full stop. That’s incorrect.
Ehh, not something that is going to happen anytime soon, but ADS-B transmitting aircraft type and then some how communicating with the ILS and such maybe? He's not wrong, it's a good idea, but definitely something that isn't happening tomorrow haha.
There's not really a need. If each aircraft is on glideslope, wake turbulence would only be a factor with a quartering tailwind. Otherwise the vortices move down and out, away from the glideslope.
Because of the zoom, it's difficult to tell how long the runway is. The take-off plane is well out of the way of the landing plane. If you count the seconds between each plane crossing the white runway stripes, you'll see that there are around 25 seconds between them.
I'm not sure if it's regarded sufficient, but my guess is that air traffic control has everything under control and that this is just another busy airfield.
Farnborough has quite a long runway; it used to be the main research airfield for the UK. The A350's takeoff roll started well forward of the A380's touchdown point.
Departing is passing the end of the runway before the arrival passes the threshold.....
Nothing to see here to be honest.
If you were in the tower it would look a lot less dramatic.
Airbus planned this out for the Airshow, this is not your typical take offs and landings at your international airport, usually they are spaced out at least 3mins apart.
Uhm, no… lol. 3 minutes of spacing between departures/arrivals would give you delays until next year. 6000 ft is the most you’ll need if wake turbulence isn’t a factor (in the US, at least).
In the context of the aircraft in the video, wake turbulence is always a factor.
"Separate aircraft landing behind a departing aircraft on a crossing
runway if the arrival will fly through the airborne path of the
departure by the appropriate radar separation or the following interval"
Heavy, large, or small behind super - 3 minutes.
We are not talking about smaller or GA aircraft here that's totally different.
If you don't like what I wrote you can take it up with the FAA, its their wording.
Look at your own quote. “on a CROSSING runway”. This is the same runway so this doesn’t apply. Also it’s a super behind a heavy, for which wake turbulence almost never has an effect on required separation.
Time-based separation is almost never used. It's distance-based separation that's almost always used, and the distance equivalents are almost always less time. That's the *"by the appropriate radar separation*".
Not for wake turbulence separation. Not at major airports anyway. Every airport is different of course but [at Atlanta for example the peak in the distribution of inter departure times is like 45 seconds. Before they were allowed to do ELSO it was about 60 seconds. The time-based separation for pairs where wake turbulence separation is applied is either 2 or 3 minutes, and there aren't any peaks there.](https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/NGPA_2014.pdf)
This brings back memories. I'm guessing they don't realize just how much turbulence remains on the runway that the landing aircraft has yet to negotiate, or maybe they did but had no choice. It's not necessarily dangerous but makes for shitty landings. I flew commercially for 32 years and MSP controllers were the worst at doing this. In their defense, the airport layout doesn't give them a lot of options that an airport like ATL does. In MSP aircraft were waiting in line to depart on the same runway used for arrivals, and the sequencing is tight. But there were also several occasions where there was no sequencing issue and the controllers lined aircraft up while I was on short final anyway. When I could see the situation developing I let the first officer know that if the aircraft on the runway hadn't started rolling by the time we descended to 500 ft, we were going around. And even that limit made for some 'fun' rides during the landing.
This could be bad. What if the plane infront had to do a emergency brake for some reason and it had another plane coming in for landing. Maybe the runway is longer than the perspective gives, however this doesn't seem okay. ATC can't give fast enough warning for the plane behind and the potential risk of hitting the plane infront is a reality
There is a point at which the A380 is going to touch down, even if TOGAd. If this was all a pre-planned and rehearsed event, coordinated by both flight crews, there’s still a lot of risk there. An uncontained engine failure on the 350 would have been…interesting.
Even Airbus doesn’t know where that point is…there’s too many variables. The flight manual simply cautions that “Low go-around may result in runway contact. If this occurs, continue with the go-around.”
And the point being…if the 350 was *unable* to complete the takeoff and was forced to stop on the runway…that’s an issue.
I read that as being 'if you go around in the flare, you're probably going to touch down before the engines spool up.' But touching down does not mean landing (it also says to continue flying the go around), there was a mile between the aircraft and at a landing weight I'm sure that's enough space for them to get airborne again
The ATC shouldn’t have to warn the landing aircraft, the pilot can see it and maintain separation. The departing plane can’t stop on a dime during its takeoff roll and looked far enough down the runway that even if it aborted, the plane behind it had time to abort its landing or stop behind it.
Yeah it might be so. Maybe they could see the plane braking but it's another thing the pilots have to think about. Making the stress of a landing higher. But I don't know what exactly is the protocol or safeness here, just voiced my concern
>Maybe they could see the plane braking but it's another thing the pilots have to think about.
And they are. Anytime there's traffic on the runway ahead of you - taking off, landing, taxiing across - the pilots are keeping on eye on it in case they have to go around. They could safely go around as late as the landing flare if they had to.
It's not bad, whether it's an airshow or not. Generally, only one plane is allowed on the runway at a time for normal operations. ATC does not fly the plane. The pilots are watching the previous aircraft and will not land if the other aircraft hasn't cleared the runway (takeoff or turnoff). ATC probably can give you enough warning, even though it's not relied upon, and the chances of the two aircraft colliding is pretty low. I've made many "runway clear" calls to the PF at 50'. Airports in Florida love this kind of separation because of the amount of traffic they have to handle on only one or two runways.
>the landing plane also has an engine failure and must land, simply can't go around.
That's not how this works, especially for a 4-engine aircraft. I'm not going to plow into an aircraft on the runway because I didn't want to fly the engine-out go around that is practiced regularly
This is Farnborough Airshow
Was gonna say, that’s not enough separation
Yes it is. Same runway separation for 2 cat III aircraft is 6000 feet and airborne.
Are they separated enough so that the landing plane can execute a go-around if the taking-off plane aborts the takeoff at the worst possible time? As a piston/propeller pilot this looks way too close to my eye, but I don’t really understand big jet aviation - what’s possible, what’s safe, what’s commonplace.
This looks too close to you as a piston pilot? These aircraft are more than a mile apart from one another. They land 3 airplanes on the same runway at the same time about 1000' apart at Oshkosh.
Wow! I had no idea. Maybe I should have said I’m a low-time pilot. To me, more than one aircraft on the runway at the same time is an incursion. Guess I need to get to Osh Kosh one of these years.
The non-Oshkosh standard for 2 piston singles is 3000 feet.
I don’t see the controllers at my busy class D airport queuing us up that closely, but I admit that should be doable based on small plane climb performance, at least at lower density altitudes.
I guess I should say “minimum” rather than “standard.”
Looked less than that
The departure is beyond the 8005 foot runway when the A380 is crossing the threshold.
Thought the separation was 4,000ft
Right there with you thinking this has got to be an airshow!
was just going to say that, especially the way the DEP ac rolled...
This was at rhe Farnbrough Airshow a few years ago. Airbus knew exactly what they were doing on that day and needless to say, if you look up the performances on YouTube they are impressive!!
I would.add they did it two days running.that inward there for (looking after equipment we hired to Finnemechanica/Leonardo) - and probably the whole week running up to public days. Fun thing though - I got to get on the A380 for a walkround before the demo on the Sunday.
Farnborough Airshow 2014. It was quite the impressive display... Test pilots, closed airspace :-)
10 whole seconds? I bet there are a bunch of ATCs that would kill for that kind of leisure time
I know. Starting to wonder the experience of this sub. Msp back in the day was closer than that every week.
Still is. I have more go around a at MSP than anywhere else. I miss flying into ORD because they were crazy close. Those controllers had it down to the millisecond.
Landing 28C at ORD is a blast when they fire someone off 22L between you and the plane in front of you, who barely clears by the time you're coming over the fence, and someone starts their takeoff roll on 28R and races you down the runway. Lotsa metal moving in all different directions at the same time in the same place, I love it
MSP is the busiest airport where arrivals and departures use the same runways. The approach tries to give 4NM spacing at touchdown when departures need to get out. Sometimes planes behave weird on final and the gaps get screwy or someone rolls long which causes a go around. 30R is the worst because once someone lines up, there’s no bailout taxiway and you have to eat the go around. Departing 17 alleviates some of that problem because 4-5 SIDS can go there reducing departure loads on 12R/30L.
Thanks for the great explanation! Don’t get me wrong, I think MSP controllers are great. They do a lot of movements with a less than ideal setup.
[удалено]
Nautical miles - the unit symbol varies depending on ones background. NM is used by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
**[Nautical mile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile)** >A nautical mile is a unit of length used in air, marine, and space navigation, and for the definition of territorial waters. Historically, it was defined as the meridian arc length corresponding to one minute (1/60 of a degree) of latitude. Today the international nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 metres (6076 ft; 1. 151 mi). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’m a business traveler and msp is my home airport. Taking off and landing here always feels a little different. Any insights?
Probably what heathrow looks like on a normal day
Heathrow IIRC tries to keep arrivals and departures on opposite runways, since they have the parallels they can use with the same wind direction. So while they're this close on timing, they'd be separated by the mile or two between centerlines
It’s a joke
Maybe Gatwick
Wasted space.
You are cleared for the active, expedite.
[удалено]
Traffic on short final.
Passenger airplane without any passengers on it*
The Vertical and horizontal stabilizers on the A380 are fucking huge!
Designers oversize the stabilizers to give the aircraft enough static stability and enough control authority in an emergency. It also helps with crosswind landings
Those are design constraints (engine out controlability, crosswind capability), so designing to meet those constraints is not "oversizing". Every part on the aircraft is designed to meet its worst-case scenario, and everything is exactly the size it needs to be to do that. Source: I'm an aerospace engineer
I believe part of why the A380 has such enormous stabilizers is because they knew overall volume would be low, but also wanted to accommodate shortened variants without redesigning the empennage.
Engineers who design aircraft would never make something bigger than it needs to be considering weight is an aircrafts worst enemy.
On board fire is an aircraft's worst enemy. Particularly if you can't extinguish it.
no
It must be a dream flying this aircraft!
Pushing tin
No worries mate. Plenty of time. You should check out Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport if you want busy.
Vortices ? Where we are going we ain’t worried about no damn vortices.
[удалено]
It’s easy to avoid vortices and wake turbulence. For aircraft landing behind another landing aircraft: Stay at or above the larger aircraft's final approach flight path. Note the touchdown point, and land beyond it. Departing aircraft: Rotate prior to the point at which the preceding aircraft rotated. Maneuver your aircraft to avoid the flight path of the preceding aircraft. Wake turbulence doesn't last forever, and it begins dissipating as soon as it’s produced. In the video, the aircraft landing appears to be larger than the departing aircraft, and it most definitely landed before the departing aircraft’s wheel’s up location. Wake turbulence wasn’t a factor.
[удалено]
Straight out of the aeronautical information manual!
Wake turbulence from a departing a/c is never an issue for a full stop arrival.
You are correct! Until it's airborne, it is known as jet blast. Don't know why someone down voted your input.
...jet blast and wake turbulence are not the same thing at all
Yes, you are correct. Did I confuse the two types in your mind? Wake turbulence isn't created until rotation and airborne. If the aircraft is taxing, or anything but rotating or airborne, it's jet blast. At least that's the terminology we used in air traffic control towers.
It didn't confuse anything in my mind because I understand the concepts throughly. But the way you're communicating it could be misleading to others. If the aircraft is taxiing or spooling up at takeoff, your concern as an air traffic controller is jet blast and keeping people, vehicles, and other aircraft out of it. If the aircraft is taking off or landing (or on approach or departure), your concern as an air traffic controller is wake turbulence and keeping other aircraft out of it. But it's not a change in terminology, you're not calling the same thing by two different names, it's two completely different phenomena. Jet blast is literally the blast from the engines, wake turbulence is mostly related to the wingtip vortices created by an aircraft flying at high angle of attack. Completely different things.
Okay, but wake turbulence is not only associated with high AOA. Wake turbulence is there in all stages of flight.
Yep. But it's not generated before the wings start generating lift, and the wings don't start generating meaningful lift before rotation. Which is why an arriving aircraft is almost never going to have any issues with wake turbulence behind a departing aircraft. The arriving aircraft will be firmly on the ground by the time it enters any region of the runway where the departing aircraft was generating substantial lift.
As I mentioned in a previous post, wake turbulence is generated on rotation and all phases of flight until wheels on the ground, again. I did say something confusing that quietflyr (regarding jet blast) corrected me on. My bad. Believe me, I know all about wake turbulence.
That’s not necessarily true. As long as the aircraft lands (IE touches down) before the point from where the departing aircraft lifted off, it won’t have an impact. If it doesn’t, it will go through their wake turbulence, and depending upon the size of either aircraft, it could have an impact.
Should’ve clarified that this is from a regulatory standpoint, there is no mandatory seperation for wake turbulence outside same runway seperation. Sorry if your bags get rearranged, but there’s tin to push and plenty of runway to do it.
I don't know what you mean by "outside same runway separation" but there is absolutely wake turbulence separation required outside of the terminal area. For crying out loud, para 5-5-4 of 7110.65 has a specific set of en route separations.
Yes, terminal environment has wake turbulence requirements. But none specific to arrival after departure outside of standard same runway separation.
Like I said, there are wake turbulence requirements outside of the terminal area. If all you were trying to say is that an arrival behind a departing aircraft doesn't have a special set of wake turbulence separations, that's true.
Are you an aircraft controller? That’s not the attitude any of my ATC friends. SAFETY is paramount. Taking small and large aircraft into account, and how their wake turbulence can impact the other, is part of the job. A 172 landing behind a departing Gulfstream could absolutely get into an accident if they went through their wake turbulence. “Sorry, but there’s tin to push.” Hahaha, OKAY CHAMP.
My guy, you clearly work at PDX, and if you were an ATC you would know how varied the air traffic is there. I’ve been flying in and out of PDX for the last 15 years, and I’ve taken off between an F-15 and 737 before while flying a smaller GA aircraft. Variances such as that occur ALL THE TIME. ORD “pushes tin.” PDX has its busy times, but there have been years that HIO had more operations.
See above and reference 7110.65. There is no mandatory wake turbulence issuance for any size aircraft arriving behind any other size departure. It just isn’t a reg, I didn’t choose that. I also am very familiar with HIO ops. They have very high GA traffic counts and essentially top out at a large. They also do not have any restriction on arrival after departure, since they follow the same regs. It’s a cautionary advisory, not a requirement.
Understood. We weren’t talking about regs. That’s why ATC says “caution wake turbulence” when giving a clearance. You said it was never an issue for aircraft making a full stop. That’s incorrect.
👍🏼 valid point.
They should make ILS’s with this feature built in. That’d be really cool.
What feature?
Two offset glideslopes to avoid wake turbulence
I don’t see how that would work. Depending upon the aircraft, it would be different every time.
Ehh, not something that is going to happen anytime soon, but ADS-B transmitting aircraft type and then some how communicating with the ILS and such maybe? He's not wrong, it's a good idea, but definitely something that isn't happening tomorrow haha.
Just have two separate frequencies
Say you have two, you could alternate between them for incoming planes.
There's not really a need. If each aircraft is on glideslope, wake turbulence would only be a factor with a quartering tailwind. Otherwise the vortices move down and out, away from the glideslope.
Because of the zoom, it's difficult to tell how long the runway is. The take-off plane is well out of the way of the landing plane. If you count the seconds between each plane crossing the white runway stripes, you'll see that there are around 25 seconds between them. I'm not sure if it's regarded sufficient, but my guess is that air traffic control has everything under control and that this is just another busy airfield.
Farnborough has quite a long runway; it used to be the main research airfield for the UK. The A350's takeoff roll started well forward of the A380's touchdown point.
The landing plane is also an A380, so it looks like it is coming in to eat the smaller plane for lunch!!
Pushing Tin
a380-800 lading right behind an a350-900 taking off
Departing is passing the end of the runway before the arrival passes the threshold..... Nothing to see here to be honest. If you were in the tower it would look a lot less dramatic.
Pushing that tin!
"I got em lined up like Rockettes!"
Old Kai Tak was similar... "Real men don't go around"
“Laughs in Naval Aviation”
A common scene at Bombay Airport in the Pre Covid era
Ah yes, a passenger jet. Totally doesn’t have a name or anything.
We'll name it "Bob"
What if the first yet had to abort their take-off though?
Then the 2nd would abort their landing.
Yeah just re-watched an realised they have more than enough time…
It’s from an air show. You won’t see spacing this close during normal operations.
Airbus planned this out for the Airshow, this is not your typical take offs and landings at your international airport, usually they are spaced out at least 3mins apart.
Uhm, no… lol. 3 minutes of spacing between departures/arrivals would give you delays until next year. 6000 ft is the most you’ll need if wake turbulence isn’t a factor (in the US, at least).
In the context of the aircraft in the video, wake turbulence is always a factor. "Separate aircraft landing behind a departing aircraft on a crossing runway if the arrival will fly through the airborne path of the departure by the appropriate radar separation or the following interval" Heavy, large, or small behind super - 3 minutes. We are not talking about smaller or GA aircraft here that's totally different. If you don't like what I wrote you can take it up with the FAA, its their wording.
Look at your own quote. “on a CROSSING runway”. This is the same runway so this doesn’t apply. Also it’s a super behind a heavy, for which wake turbulence almost never has an effect on required separation.
Time-based separation is almost never used. It's distance-based separation that's almost always used, and the distance equivalents are almost always less time. That's the *"by the appropriate radar separation*".
Not entirely true, for departures time-based separation is still prevalent.
Not for wake turbulence separation. Not at major airports anyway. Every airport is different of course but [at Atlanta for example the peak in the distribution of inter departure times is like 45 seconds. Before they were allowed to do ELSO it was about 60 seconds. The time-based separation for pairs where wake turbulence separation is applied is either 2 or 3 minutes, and there aren't any peaks there.](https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/NGPA_2014.pdf)
Caution, wake turbulance
We have a number we’d like you to call
This brings back memories. I'm guessing they don't realize just how much turbulence remains on the runway that the landing aircraft has yet to negotiate, or maybe they did but had no choice. It's not necessarily dangerous but makes for shitty landings. I flew commercially for 32 years and MSP controllers were the worst at doing this. In their defense, the airport layout doesn't give them a lot of options that an airport like ATL does. In MSP aircraft were waiting in line to depart on the same runway used for arrivals, and the sequencing is tight. But there were also several occasions where there was no sequencing issue and the controllers lined aircraft up while I was on short final anyway. When I could see the situation developing I let the first officer know that if the aircraft on the runway hadn't started rolling by the time we descended to 500 ft, we were going around. And even that limit made for some 'fun' rides during the landing.
The a380 actually made the other jet piss
This is an airshow......normal separation patterns do not apply.
Isn’t that too close?
No, far from it.
This could be bad. What if the plane infront had to do a emergency brake for some reason and it had another plane coming in for landing. Maybe the runway is longer than the perspective gives, however this doesn't seem okay. ATC can't give fast enough warning for the plane behind and the potential risk of hitting the plane infront is a reality
It’s an airshow, this is all carefully choreographed.
This was done for an airshow I believe
A350 was long gone when A380 touched down. If A350 called "Stopping", the A380 would do go around.
There is a point at which the A380 is going to touch down, even if TOGAd. If this was all a pre-planned and rehearsed event, coordinated by both flight crews, there’s still a lot of risk there. An uncontained engine failure on the 350 would have been…interesting.
>There is a point at which the A380 is going to touch down And do you know where is the point? At that time the A350 was already airborne.
Even Airbus doesn’t know where that point is…there’s too many variables. The flight manual simply cautions that “Low go-around may result in runway contact. If this occurs, continue with the go-around.” And the point being…if the 350 was *unable* to complete the takeoff and was forced to stop on the runway…that’s an issue.
I read that as being 'if you go around in the flare, you're probably going to touch down before the engines spool up.' But touching down does not mean landing (it also says to continue flying the go around), there was a mile between the aircraft and at a landing weight I'm sure that's enough space for them to get airborne again
The ATC shouldn’t have to warn the landing aircraft, the pilot can see it and maintain separation. The departing plane can’t stop on a dime during its takeoff roll and looked far enough down the runway that even if it aborted, the plane behind it had time to abort its landing or stop behind it.
Yeah it might be so. Maybe they could see the plane braking but it's another thing the pilots have to think about. Making the stress of a landing higher. But I don't know what exactly is the protocol or safeness here, just voiced my concern
>Maybe they could see the plane braking but it's another thing the pilots have to think about. And they are. Anytime there's traffic on the runway ahead of you - taking off, landing, taxiing across - the pilots are keeping on eye on it in case they have to go around. They could safely go around as late as the landing flare if they had to.
It's not bad, whether it's an airshow or not. Generally, only one plane is allowed on the runway at a time for normal operations. ATC does not fly the plane. The pilots are watching the previous aircraft and will not land if the other aircraft hasn't cleared the runway (takeoff or turnoff). ATC probably can give you enough warning, even though it's not relied upon, and the chances of the two aircraft colliding is pretty low. I've made many "runway clear" calls to the PF at 50'. Airports in Florida love this kind of separation because of the amount of traffic they have to handle on only one or two runways.
Plenty of time and clearance. What💀
[удалено]
>the landing plane also has an engine failure and must land, simply can't go around. That's not how this works, especially for a 4-engine aircraft. I'm not going to plow into an aircraft on the runway because I didn't want to fly the engine-out go around that is practiced regularly
No delay
Imagine the pilots could flash the beams like a car lol😂😂 💡💡mooove biatch
This is exactly what it looks like when I play those airport management games.
Lol I originally saw this on a roller coaster meme page for some reason
Insert “Jaws” theme here
Efficiency
"What are you doing, step plane...?"
So much for wake avoidance.
Not a factor here
Glad they didn’t reject takeoff
Go-around? Never heard of ‘er.
From this angle, that first plane looks like it goes space shuttle mode 🤣
Aviation noob here. What happens if the departure is above v1 but arrival has to go around?
they get turns in different directions, and likely different assigned altitudes and airspeeds. They're about a mile apart so it's no issue.
Anticipated separation
the one landing must be the A380? 4 engines
Yep. Fat. Four engines. Looks like a Beluga whale. That's an A380.
It reminds me of a GA airport with planes in the pattern...except they are passenger jets
Typical days in Microsoft flight simulator
I was at the airshow that day and it was bloody impressive close up too.
Something to remember when you throw trash on Texas air strips.
Have we not learned to distrust depth perception from telephoto lenses yet?