Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 10:19:28 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  An-225 callsign with ATC
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An-225 callsign with ATC  (Read 10720 times)
rsiano
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: April 04, 2007, 03:50:30 PM »

Hi, I just became aware the A-380 must append to its callsign the word "super" that indicates to ATC that it requires additional separation for wake turbulence reasons.  Does anyone know if the An-225 is required to append a word other than "heavy"?
Thanks!
Dick Siano
rsiano@mac.com
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2007, 06:18:57 PM »

Hi, I just became aware the A-380 must append to its callsign the word "super" that indicates to ATC that it requires additional separation for wake turbulence reasons.  Does anyone know if the An-225 is required to append a word other than "heavy"?
Thanks!
Dick Siano
rsiano@mac.com

Nope. Should just be heavy. There was an order put out by the FAA that only mentioned the A380 to be defined as "Super". It doesn't apply to the other Beast.

BL.
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2007, 12:47:22 PM »

Im willing to bet that this is much more of a "ploy" by Airbus than anything else. While Im sure the A380 generates a significant amount of wake turbulence I would have to wager there are aircraft that do in fact generate equally disruptive amounts of WT for their approach speeds. For example any of the Antonovs since they have such a large wing footprint.

So I have a feeling that the folks at airbus said "Hey... lets try and get SUPER approved by the FAA so that other people hear that and know that its an Airbus"

Too bad the plane will never make anyone any money.

~DAVE
LOL
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2007, 12:57:21 PM »

Im willing to bet that this is much more of a "ploy" by Airbus than anything else. While Im sure the A380 generates a significant amount of wake turbulence I would have to wager there are aircraft that do in fact generate equally disruptive amounts of WT for their approach speeds. For example any of the Antonovs since they have such a large wing footprint.

So I have a feeling that the folks at airbus said "Hey... lets try and get SUPER approved by the FAA so that other people hear that and know that its an Airbus"

Nope, not at all:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7110.464.pdf

There's the NOTAM for it.

Quote
Too bad the plane will never make anyone any money.

~DAVE
LOL

From a US perspective, you may be right, because the market here is geared towards LCCs, and filling up that size of a plane creates too much overhead for an airline. But Europe's, Japan's, Australia's, or MidEast/FarEast market, that plane will be much more suitable. This could rival the 747SP for domestic flights. We all know what Dubai has in store for everyone coming up, so that plane will be a goldmine for there. Oz already has the LAX / SFO - SYD route which will use this WELL (to the point that VOZ had to order 773s to compete).

When you're dealing with lots of people and not enough land (like Japan) where lots of people have to be flown in to a single mecca/business center (like Tokyo), a single plane with lots of people is a lot cheaper than multiple small planes with multiple crews and multiple routes fitting smaller numbers of people. Simple logic and economics there.

Think outside the US and outside the box with the A380. It's viable, and has the potential to make lots of money in the right markets; just like the A320, B737, E170, and E190 have in their markets.

BL.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 01:05:45 PM by tyketto » Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2007, 01:36:59 PM »

BL I disagree with you 100%. I see your points where you're taking large amounts of people from point A to point B. But this aircraft will never be to modern aviation what a 747 or even the 747SP's have been. Why? Because plain and simple the airline industry is changing. Rising fuel prices and poor service are causing MANY more customers to look at private aviation. Asia is a perfect example. Right now the regulations there are setup very poorly for GA but just the other month alot of steps were taken to try and open this market up. A good friend of mine works for a company called EXECUJET and he's based in Dubai's "Airport Free Zone". He's flying Global Express' however while there will be a high demand for people going from say LAX to Dubai, or London to DUBAI the simple fact remains that you have to get your 500 passengers TO those airports. Thats where your much smaller more efficient airliners come into play. No one is going to take an A380 and fly it from MSP to DFW to SFO to JFK to LAX and THEN to Dubai. So while these planes will more than likely fly full, they are much more of a charter system than an airline system. Companies like SATSair based out of South Carolina flying Cirrus SR22's have proven... well "proven" that the market here has changed. The airlines have horrible customer service, they know it. They can't afford to fill the routes with their fleets so they switch around, they end up flying aircraft from point A to point B half empty just so that they can fill their A380's. On top of that, while the A380 MIGHT stand a chance of proving to be a profitable Aircraft for the airlines, I doubt very much that it will be a profitable business model to operate it. Furthermore as far as Airbus is concerned, we've all heard this and that. Bottom line in my opinion is that this is an airplane built for a pre-9/11 industry. Meaning that the airlines business model was built so fragile that an incident such as has forced not only small airlines but the LARGE PROFITABLE airlines into bankruptcy. While they have "worked hard" to recover, I strongly feel that the ones that are turning the profits now are doing so because they have a smart business model. Ask any pilot, myself included which airlines are the best to work for and they're probably going to have something like Southwest, UPS, FEDEX at the top of their list. Why? Because SWA can turn a profit because they fly 73's, and ONLY 73's. THAT is smart business, flying a tried and true model, having mechanics train on one type of system, having pilots be able to fly any plane in the fleet. Why would the freighters be up there? Because there's no passengers, so they won't EVER stop. People are ALWAYS going to ship packages, and people are ALWAYS going to have a need for them to get their sooner rather than later. Who do they not want to work for? Delta, United... and the such. Why? Delta still refuses to file bankruptcy, causing thousands of pilots to be furloughed or laid-off. Just so Delta can maintain their fleet and their routes. Are they flying full planes at their prices? Doubtfull. United is the same setup. Companies like US AIR which charge $100 to fly across the country in a dash 8 (ok im exaggerating here) are the ones making the money. Well... thats an exaggeration too.

Basically... the A380 will serve its purpose. 2 of them will fly back and forth between the 2 biggest airports that could afford to house them filled to the brim all day long. While their operators struggle to get people to those airports on empty planes all day long. Not to mention its going to put Airbus completely under or at least put them in a position (if they aren't already) from which they won't be able to recover any ground on Boeing.

While companies like SATSair fly their SR22's to exactly where you need to go for $525 an hour and turn a HUGE profit.

~DAVE
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2007, 01:41:58 PM »

Also regarding the NOTAM. I still maintain its a ploy by Airbus. Im sure that the NOTAM is warranted but a 757 requires different wake turbulence seperation than a 737. There is no difference in the callsigns there? So while Im sure that this is warranted, I still maintain that Airbus rang the F double A and said hey we want to use the callsign tag "SUPER" and they said why? and Airbus said look at the wake turbulence.

Furthermore, there are potentially going to be large numbers of A380s operating at very common major airports. How many Antonov's do you see flying in US airspace? I know there is one of the smaller 4 engined versions that does a regular hop into KCLT as I see it on the taxi out.

NOTAM justified, SUPER callsign justified. Requested by Airbus for publicity and recognition for a monstrosity? More than likely. In my book at least.

~DAVE
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2007, 02:29:10 PM »

Also regarding the NOTAM. I still maintain its a ploy by Airbus. Im sure that the NOTAM is warranted but a 757 requires different wake turbulence seperation than a 737. There is no difference in the callsigns there? So while Im sure that this is warranted, I still maintain that Airbus rang the F double A and said hey we want to use the callsign tag "SUPER" and they said why? and Airbus said look at the wake turbulence.

There actually was at one time for the B757. It is the fact that the "heavy" designation is for aircraft whose MTOW are heavier than 255,000lbs. in a normal configuration the B757-200 comes in at 255,000lbs (unless you have it configured to exceed that weight; ATA has their B752s configured to be heavier, so theirs will be termed 'heavy'). B753s exceed that limit, so they are given 'heavy'.

The FAA did not know how much wake the A380 would give off, because it hasn't been flown with anything in trail of it, plus is heavier than the An-225, so they did not know what limits would be needed. The FAA gave these designations, limits, and in trail spacings, not Airbus. Documentation for that is on the FAA's website.

Quote
Furthermore, there are potentially going to be large numbers of A380s operating at very common major airports. How many Antonov's do you see flying in US airspace? I know there is one of the smaller 4 engined versions that does a regular hop into KCLT as I see it on the taxi out.

NOTAM justified, SUPER callsign justified. Requested by Airbus for publicity and recognition for a monstrosity? More than likely. In my book at least.

~DAVE

Definitely not publicity. Why create limits that will further congest airports, routes, and NATs for the sake of publicity? That would make no sense, and create delays at every airport it intends to fly to when it enters commercial service.

Also, you can expect the in trail spacing to decrease as soon as the tests are done to determine how much wake turbulence the A380 creates. That wasn't tested in the US until they arrived here. Now that they have data on that, the FAA can go to work on that.

Publicity? doubt it.

BL.
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2007, 02:47:07 PM »

BL I disagree with you 100%. I see your points where you're taking large amounts of people from point A to point B. But this aircraft will never be to modern aviation what a 747 or even the 747SP's have been. Why? Because plain and simple the airline industry is changing. Rising fuel prices and poor service are causing MANY more customers to look at private aviation. Asia is a perfect example. Right now the regulations there are setup very poorly for GA but just the other month alot of steps were taken to try and open this market up. A good friend of mine works for a company called EXECUJET and he's based in Dubai's "Airport Free Zone". He's flying Global Express' however while there will be a high demand for people going from say LAX to Dubai, or London to DUBAI the simple fact remains that you have to get your 500 passengers TO those airports. Thats where your much smaller more efficient airliners come into play.

This I agree with. You do have to get your passengers to those airports.

Quote
No one is going to take an A380 and fly it from MSP to DFW to SFO to JFK to LAX and THEN to Dubai.

You just hit my point. Airbus isn't expecting an airline to fly that single plane to each airport, pick up passengers, and head out to the next city and do the same. They are looking at major ports of call; DLH and VIR flying it to JFK or LAX from Germany. Qantas from Sydney. Singapore from SIN. You still will need to have some feeders getting passengers to those airports. That's where your LCCs come in.

Quote
Bottom line in my opinion is that this is an airplane built for a pre-9/11 industry. Meaning that the airlines business model was built so fragile that an incident such as has forced not only small airlines but the LARGE PROFITABLE airlines into bankruptcy. While they have "worked hard" to recover, I strongly feel that the ones that are turning the profits now are doing so because they have a smart business model. Ask any pilot, myself included which airlines are the best to work for and they're probably going to have something like Southwest, UPS, FEDEX at the top of their list. Why? Because SWA can turn a profit because they fly 73's, and ONLY 73's. THAT is smart business, flying a tried and true model, having mechanics train on one type of system, having pilots be able to fly any plane in the fleet.

This though is where land mass and population density come in. With the A380, Airbus is banking on the more dense population wanting to get from one major market to another, and land mass not being so grand. In the US, LCCs are running circles around legacy airlines. So of course, they're going to say SWA or FFT or JBU. Tell that to Japan, and you'll see that JAL and ANA are flying either the 747SP or 777s on domestic flights, getting those people to major business destinations. SIN flies a B777 from SIN to HKG for the same thing, and that plane is PACKED. The tell of the tape: Large numbers of people in small land masses getting from one major city to another.

What is a profitable business model for the land mass the US and Canada have with the more spread out population may not be profitable in different land masses and more crowded populations.

Quote
Basically... the A380 will serve its purpose. 2 of them will fly back and forth between the 2 biggest airports that could afford to house them filled to the brim all day long. While their operators struggle to get people to those airports on empty planes all day long. Not to mention its going to put Airbus completely under or at least put them in a position (if they aren't already) from which they won't be able to recover any ground on Boeing.

This should have been their main purpose for this to begin with. Either the carrier uses their smaller planes to get the passengers to the airport that will get them to the A380, or LCCs do the same.

Quote
While companies like SATSair fly their SR22's to exactly where you need to go for $525 an hour and turn a HUGE profit.

~DAVE

I'd love to be on the SR22 that could get me from LAX to Sydney nonstop! Smiley

BL.
Logged
Check Airman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2007, 01:10:30 PM »

i too think it's admirable to make a page for our fav. ATCO's, but I think that may be taking it a bit too far.
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2007, 01:05:58 PM »

Ok first. If you're going to tell me that the FAA went right ahead and said "well, this plane is SO huge that we need to make a new special callsign for it" I say no way. I understand where the heavy comes from, I understand that this plane definitely needs to be flying with a weight tag on it. But if you want to sit here and tell me that Airbus had nothing to do with the phraseology?

I completely understand delays, I understand why the FAA would do it, I understand why Airbus wouldn't do it. But it seems to me being that there was no data in the US for this aircraft that they would have just tagged it with a heavy. Not super. Of course this plane will create substantial wake turbulence. Of course they're going to give it unnecessary spacing initially until data can be retrieved. But what would make them say that a 777 would give off more wake turbulence than a 747, or vice versa. SO why did none of those develop a "special" callsign? Considering that some variations of the 777 have a larger wingspan than the 747 and that the wing on the triple 7 was a much "better" design why would the FAA not have said... let's tag THIS plane with a super? In my head its simply based on hype. The A380 is in the public eye MUCH more than ANY aircraft in recent memory with the exception of the 747. The trouble is most of this is bad publicity. Airbus is losing their CEO's, Airbus is going bankrupt, French governmnet steps in to help Airbus... blah blah blah blah.

Im not saying it doesn't require more spacing. Im saying that a 777 and a 747 might require different spacing as well, yet no one decided that a new "super" callsign was needed there.
 afro
To the point of money. Im DEFINITELY not meaning to suggest that the A380 won't fly and itself be profitable. Not by any stretch. Because your so right. This plane along with a number of other ER's and LR's are going to be flying those routes from sydney to LAX and such. What I am saying is that I don't expect the airplane to be profitable for Airbus... I would argue for maybe even as much as 10 years AFTER the first one hits an airline. This is simply because so much has gone wrong with the plane. People will attribute this to swimming in uncharted waters but I call shenannigans. Plain and simple, Airbus did a horrible job with this plane. All the way around. They were lucky that it got to fly the other week in the US. (meaning I thought it was going to take them another year to sort it out). But having one plane that sort of works well enough to fly reporters on it is a far cry from having a fleet ready to deliver.

Next, as far as airlines making money with it. I still say no way. I think airlines are run HORRIBLY inefficient and for an airline to consider purchasing this aircraft over say... a 747-800 (is boeing still building this?), or the 777 would be crazy. Those platforms are tried and true. They are from a company that has firm ground in the market and therefor seem a wiser choice.
 afro

Quickly regarding the NOTAM. The NOTAM would stand regardless of the callsign. Just as the NOTAM for following heavy aircraft is in there. Im not saying that this spacing isn't required. Just as it is very likely that a 747 needs more spacing than a 757,767 or 777. I agree wholeheartedly that the A380 does and WILL generate more wake turbulence than anything out there. Im simply inquiring as to why they decided not to use Heavy? Again, the ONLY reason I can see for this is for controllers to know not to use the 4,5,6nmi scale and switch to the 6,7,8nmi scale. But controllers will know aircraft type, and just as they would decide to space a 737 6nm behind a fat dumb and happy 747 I would have to assume they would know to change the spacing for the A380 without knowing its super.

Oh man...

~DAVE

PS- I tried separating my comments with afroman
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2007, 02:44:37 PM »

Yep. The FAA actually did that, because they did not know how much wake it could produce. They wouldn't have known it until it flew into their airspace. Then they could find out. So they errored on the side of caution to make sure it has enough separation between the A380 and other planes, and make sure the other planes knew what they were following. So yes, the FAA did it.

Strange that NavCanada had done the same thing when it landed at CYVR... There's clips of that on this forum too.


NOTAMs can easily be cancelled, as we all know. The FAA could either issue a new order cancelling the NOTAM, or issue a new NOTAM that supercedes the previous. I think that with more research into the the mechanics (wake turbulence/jet blast - separation), that separation will be reduced. If you've noticed, the same amount of separation is used between the 747, 757, 767, and 777. With more research and more of the planes built and in use, They (FAA and Airbus) may determine that it doesn't produce as much wake as they initially thought, and reduce the separation minimums. Only time will tell that.

BL.
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2007, 03:29:25 PM »

BL, are you sure the same amount of separation is used between all the "heavy" airplanes? I don't have anything regarding the specific data used but I do know that there are "tiers" for planning purposes. ie. ATC has a 4nm, 5nm, or 6nm option for spacing. I had thought this was regarding only the aircraft tagged as "heavy" but Im not an ATC. So I suppose 4nm separation could be for a 150 following a warrior. There is also however, in the planning phase a way for these aircraft to be listed as light, medium or heavy (not the correct terminology im sure) but its regarding their landing weight. If they would be landing heavy then they would require more separation as the plane would create more wake turbulence than if it were light. I would assume this would be similar to some 75's making the heavy tag and some not, although that is based on them meeting the heavy callsign tag. This is simply a mark to be used for separation.

~DAVE
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2007, 03:31:24 PM »

PS - Ill digress to you on the FAA putting up the "super" tag. Although I still maintain that the FAA knew what it was up against while they were testing it with the EU and the ICAO. Regardless, I have no more information to argue my case so I'll just be spinning my tires.

~DAVE
Logged
Pygmie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2007, 04:10:26 PM »

BL, are you sure the same amount of separation is used between all the "heavy" airplanes? I don't have anything regarding the specific data used but I do know that there are "tiers" for planning purposes. ie. ATC has a 4nm, 5nm, or 6nm option for spacing. I had thought this was regarding only the aircraft tagged as "heavy" but Im not an ATC. So I suppose 4nm separation could be for a 150 following a warrior. There is also however, in the planning phase a way for these aircraft to be listed as light, medium or heavy (not the correct terminology im sure) but its regarding their landing weight. If they would be landing heavy then they would require more separation as the plane would create more wake turbulence than if it were light. I would assume this would be similar to some 75's making the heavy tag and some not, although that is based on them meeting the heavy callsign tag. This is simply a mark to be used for separation.

~DAVE

Here is the wake turb separation we must use (at least here in Canada)

Heavy behind a Heavy - 4nm
Medium behind a Heavy - 5nm
Light behind a Heavy - 6nm
Light behind a Medium - 4nm

Heavy -777, 747, 767, A330, A340, A310, etc.
Medium - 737, A319, CRJ2/7/9, etc.
Light - C150/172, PA31, SW4, etc.

757 is considered a medium by weight, but it is consitered a heavy if it is the preceeding aircraft.
Logged
NL_SPS_twr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


My office, SPS tower


« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2007, 06:31:23 PM »

According to everything iv been taught and what it says n the 7110.65 there is a set amount of separation required. The only way i can see there being variance is if the airport has a letter of procedure to adjust the seperation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!