Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Technical
FAA Requires 10 Miles Behind 747-8 >

FAA Requires 10 Miles Behind 747-8

Search
Notices
Technical Technical aspects of flying

FAA Requires 10 Miles Behind 747-8

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-05-2010, 06:44 AM
  #1  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
vagabond's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Default FAA Requires 10 Miles Behind 747-8

I remember my flying days in the Mighty C-172. We were behind a corporate jet at BFI and I got a little too close behind it during taxi. I could feel the heat blasting our way. Never sweated so fast, so hard before. Behind a 787, I would be toast (literally and figuratively).

Boeing news | FAA requires extra distance behind Boeing's 787 and 747-8 | Seattle Times Newspaper

As of Tuesday, October 5, 2010:

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday rescinded an order issued just last week that mandated 10 miles of separation for aircraft landing behind either of Boeing's two new jets.

"It was issued prematurely," said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown. "There were a number of errors."

The order applied to the 787 Dreamliner and the new version of the jumbo jet, the 747-8. Brown said the two aircraft should not have been included in a single order.

A new order giving the necessary separation distances for the 747-8 will be issued in the next few days, she said. A new order for the 787 Dreamliner will not be ready for more than a week.

The 747-400 jumbo jet now in service requires separation of only 4 to 6 miles from following aircraft, depending on the size of the airplane behind it.

The FAA document issued last week said studies showed the 747-8 and "possibly" the 787 created more turbulence spiraling backward from the wingtips than comparable aircraft. It therefore instructed air traffic controllers to increase the spacing between the Boeing jets and planes following behind.

Brown said the order was intended to apply only to Boeing's flight-test airplanes, although that qualification was omitted from the order. Boeing has six Dreamliners and four 747-8s in flight tests.

"We're gathering data on these test flights," Brown said. "There are likely to be modifications as we get more data along the way."

Another error was that the title of the FAA order used an incorrect name for one of the jets, referring to the 747-800 instead of the 747-8.

Separately, the document included incorrect data about the weights of the two planes relative to the Airbus A380 and to each other.

The 747-8 jumbo jet is 21 percent lighter than the A380, not 27 percent as the document stated. And the maximum takeoff weight of the 787 Dreamliner is just over half that of the 747-8, not one-third as the order stated.

Last edited by vagabond; 10-05-2010 at 08:49 PM. Reason: news flash!
vagabond is offline  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:42 AM
  #2  
Flying Farmer
 
Ewfflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Default

Maybe true, but this is all cautionary since they don't know what it's actually going to be like. Nothing like the old Gov't to suprisingly be overbearing, controlling, and most likely wrong
Ewfflyer is offline  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:42 AM
  #3  
pants on the ground
 
mmaviator's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: back seat
Posts: 1,358
Default

So 4-6 miles is normal, once the 787/748 aircraft are close to majority in the air that will mean a number I can't calculate of empty airspace.
mmaviator is offline  
Old 10-05-2010, 05:45 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2StgTurbine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Default

Originally Posted by Ewfflyer View Post
Maybe true, but this is all cautionary since they don't know what it's actually going to be like. Nothing like the old Gov't to suprisingly be overbearing, controlling, and most likely wrong
Are you suggesting that the FAA is being too preemptive? Would you rather have them to wait for an accident/incident before they do something? Once these start flying regularly we have more information, but for now I welcome the FAAs cautionary stance.
2StgTurbine is offline  
Old 10-06-2010, 04:32 AM
  #5  
Flying Farmer
 
Ewfflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
Are you suggesting that the FAA is being too preemptive? Would you rather have them to wait for an accident/incident before they do something? Once these start flying regularly we have more information, but for now I welcome the FAAs cautionary stance.
Flame-bait much? I didn't think there was any doubts about my post. I posted that I think it's obviously cautionary, but I disagree with the terms. I just find it odd that they can impose these "restrictions" when they aren't even a certified airframe yet, and assuming upon it's certification they should, IMO, have this information in place by then. Out of all the things the Fed's require, it seems that this type of info would be one of those requirments on the heavy airframes
Ewfflyer is offline  
Old 10-20-2010, 06:06 PM
  #6  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
vagabond's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Default On Again, Off Again, On Again

FAA reinstates requirement to stay back from Boeing 747-8
As expected, the Federal Aviation Administration has reinstated a requirement for airplanes to stay at least 10 miles behind Boeing's 747-8 aircraft, in most cases.

The new order (pdf), signed Monday, is effective for one year from Nov. 1.

Earlier this month, the FAA said it planned to require aircraft to remain 10 miles behind the 747-8 and 787 Dreamliner when the new jets enter service, because studies show the jets may create more substantial wakes than existing wide-bodies.

The agency then reversed itself, saying the order had errors and was intended to apply just to flight-test aircraft, and new ones would come soon.

The new order applies just to the 747-8, notes that the FAA has not issued final standards for the aircraft and says: "The analyses of computational models suggest that the (747-8) wake vortices are similar to those generated by the (747-400). The separation standards and procedures contained in this notice are conservative. Flight test data is currently being collected for the B748. Final guidance will be issued once the flight test data have been evaluated."
vagabond is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Boogie Nights
Union Talk
22
04-14-2009 09:10 PM
BIGBROWNDC8
Cargo
7
10-22-2007 03:33 PM
Freightbird
Cargo
9
04-26-2007 04:31 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices