Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2014, 04:16:51 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  What planes are regarded as heavies?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: What planes are regarded as heavies?  (Read 6896 times)
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2009, 06:47:45 PM »

Very good point PT9. Hang out at Willow Run long enough and you'll see some crazy stuff! grin Kalittia operated airplanes from several former operators. A "747" is not just a "747". There are several variations, even in say just the 747-200 series! So who knows...

Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
pilot221
Guest
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2009, 06:50:56 PM »

Well, everything in the .65 simply says "B757", here's an example:

e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:

2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles.

3. Small behind B757- 5 miles.


In the aircraft information area (appendix) of the .65 they have them listed as:

757-200 (C-32)
B752
2J/L (this means 2 engines, Jet, large weight class)

757-300
B753
2J/H (2 engines, Jet, Heavy)

All the .65 wake turbulence crap just says B757 so I apply it to ALL B757's.
Logged
rob3000
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2009, 06:58:31 PM »

Hi everyone,

First post here but have been enjoying your site for a while now! Found these specs on the web for the 757-200:

 Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

So it seems that although all 757s are treated as heavies due to their inherent wake turbulence, the only one that can be officially classified as such is one of the two extended range versions (w RB211s?).  Anyone know who flies this particular version?  
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2009, 07:51:53 PM »

Rob,

All B757s are treated as heavy, whether designated as one or not. It wouldn't depend on engine type.

And no it wasn't a tour of LAS tower (I wish!!). I've spent many a day sitting at the parking area with a scanner tuned to Final, and my car stereo tuned to Tower. I saw just about all of ATA's fleet fly in and out (B722, B752, B753, DC10, L1011, B738.

The only aircraft I heard on frequency of theirs that weren't designated heavy were the B722s and B738s.

BL.

Logged
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2009, 08:07:30 PM »

Wow I really created a bit of commotion when I said B-757.  The 7110.65, as stated above, only references the B 757-300 series as a Heavy, the B 757-200 is a large.  If you ever see a B 757-300 as a passenger aircraft, let me know.. all are freighters.

For wake turbulence, the B 757 (either the -200 or -300) is considered as a a Heavy, not designed as one.  It is considered that due to the wake turbulence the aircraft produces, as it is similar to that of a heavy aircraft, and probably due to the weight of the 757.

I definitely do not want to mislead anyone, a B 757-200 is a large by definition but controllers must treat this aircraft like they would a heavy in certain situations due to wake turbulence separation requirements.  I believe this was also addressed in a prior post.
Logged

Mark Spencer
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2009, 08:19:29 PM »

Hey, Mark..

COA flies B753s. In fact they just received one of theirs again with winglets. NWA flies them too (pretty sure DAL is going to keep them). Condor, Monarch, and Thomas Cook do as well.

BL.


Logged
jmcmanna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2009, 08:20:06 PM »

Actually, I've flown in a couple B753s . . . NWA operates them, as well as Continental, and ATA had a handful of them.

The .65 says "B757", but if it's a B753, it's considered a heavy, so really "B757" means "Non-heavy B757".  

If you treat a Boeing 757-200 as a heavy all the time, don't have an OE when the B752 is the trailing aircraft because of the extra mile needed because it's NOT a heavy (only a large, so it still needs the same in-trail separation as a CRJ or B737 when behind a heavy or another B757).

There are some air traffic controllers out there who generalize like that, and there are some who don't generalize and use their airspace more efficiently.  Sometimes an extra mile here and an extra mile there makes a difference and sometimes it doesn't.

Remember: Small behind heavy = 6 miles; Small behind B752 = 5 miles.
B752 behind heavy = 5 miles; B752 behind B752 = 4 miles
Logged
pilot221
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2009, 08:34:07 PM »

That's fine, never needed to worry about that extra 1 mile myself. You only need the distance when the first one crosses the threshold anyway.
Logged
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2009, 09:39:09 PM »

Hey, Mark..

COA flies B753s. In fact they just received one of theirs again with winglets. NWA flies them too (pretty sure DAL is going to keep them). Condor, Monarch, and Thomas Cook do as well.

BL.


Guess you learn something new every day... thanks for the info!  smiley
Logged

Mark Spencer
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2009, 09:44:34 PM »

There are the joke "heavies" too.  When I worked in the ramp tower for my airline, we had 2 types of aircraft.  50 seat and 70 seat.  The 50s were just RJs, the 70s were either stretches or heavies.  We didn't get the super stretches until after I had started flying.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2009, 03:30:23 AM »

Well I didn't mean to stir things up I was only relaying what I knew. I've worked several H/752's. They were military charters from PHIK to PGUA. The fact that they were filed as heavies is what makes them stick out. It caused much head scratching at first until a letter was put out in the R&I about certain operators having 757's capable of a MTOW of greater then 255k lbs. It's up to the operators to file their flight plans with the H weight class. I don't blame anyone for not simply taking my word for it, so I'll try and track down some official info.

I did come across this discussion on another site.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/97610/1/#1
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
rpd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2009, 09:22:17 PM »

Here is an example of a H/B753 enroute to DTW.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NWA419
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 09:28:05 PM by rpd » Logged
jmcmanna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2009, 07:31:04 AM »

It's the H/B752's that we're interested in
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2009, 12:23:13 PM »

The A.net link sykocus mentioned pretty much backs up what I saw. I'm still trying to find more on it though. There is nothing at FA (obviously). What is funny is that I can find the 752s that AMT used; current registration, line number, the entire lot! I'm just not finding how they were configured MTOW wise.

If there were someone here from MDW tower, or someone at C90, who had to get them into and out of  MDW, they'd have more information on them, as they would have seen the flight strips..

BL.
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!