Author Topic: A380  (Read 16237 times)

Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
A380
« on: May 31, 2008, 07:22:52 PM »
Does anyone know if the A380 is referred to anything different than "heavy"?



Offline Hollis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
Re: A380
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2008, 08:23:04 PM »
I've heard that the word 'jumbo' might be a possibility, but I rather doubt it.

Offline cessna157

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
    • facebook
Re: A380
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2008, 08:30:10 PM »
Does anyone know if the A380 is referred to anything different than "heavy"?

No, it is not considered "heavy" if you're talking about callsigns.  The FAA (and I believe JAA?) realized that putting this aircraft in the same category as the 757-300 and 767 did not provide adequate seperation standards.  A new "super" category and seperation standards were created.  So , to answer your question, when it comes to callsigns, they use the identifier "super" as in "Speedbird 420 Super, cleared to land" as opposed to "speedbird 420 heavy..."
CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent

Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: A380
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2008, 08:51:23 PM »
Does anyone know if the A380 is referred to anything different than "heavy"?

No, it is not considered "heavy" if you're talking about callsigns.  The FAA (and I believe JAA?) realized that putting this aircraft in the same category as the 757-300 and 767 did not provide adequate seperation standards.  A new "super" category and seperation standards were created.  So , to answer your question, when it comes to callsigns, they use the identifier "super" as in "Speedbird 420 Super, cleared to land" as opposed to "speedbird 420 heavy..."

That is cool.  Hard to not imagine ATC not clearing everything out of the way of the new "King" (sorry for the hyperbole).  I look forward to hearing it live.

Offline Canadian eh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: A380
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2008, 10:05:47 PM »
yeah it's a super in canada too. the new wake turb standards for super's are:
super behind a super= 4NM
heavy behind a super= 6NM
med behind a super= 8NM
light behind a super= 10NM

from what we have been told, it's gives off a crazy amount of wake turb, hence the new standards.

Offline NAplaya16-ATC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: A380
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 11:35:42 PM »
now to go along with this "super" category that the A380 is in, is the Antonov 225 (the 6 engine beast used to transport the shuttle) also in the category?  I ask this because just looking at it, id figure that it would give off some hellish wake turb too!

-NAplaya

Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: A380
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2008, 12:39:54 AM »
I will have to find a website that tracks the current A380s out there; both for visual spotting and live atc.

Offline tyketto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
Re: A380
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2008, 01:07:08 PM »
now to go along with this "super" category that the A380 is in, is the Antonov 225 (the 6 engine beast used to transport the shuttle) also in the category?  I ask this because just looking at it, id figure that it would give off some hellish wake turb too!

-NAplaya

For some odd reason, the Antonov is not in this category, at least according to the FAA. When it landed here in Vegas a year or so back, they gave it the same separation standards as heavy aircraft (they had a SWA B737 following 5 in trail of it). Why, I have absolutely no idea.

BL.

Offline mhawke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: A380
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2008, 08:33:28 PM »
now to go along with this "super" category that the A380 is in, is the Antonov 225 (the 6 engine beast used to transport the shuttle)

-NAplaya

The shuttle is flown piggy back on a converted 747 not the Antonov..

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/ferryflight.html

Offline athaker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: A380
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2008, 08:47:01 PM »
I look forward to hearing it live.

I have some clips from when it was on approach, tower, and ground at JFK that i'll post soon...it was really funny hearing these new yorkers. they couldnt believe they were actually calling the thing "super."

Offline NAplaya16-ATC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: A380
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2008, 10:42:05 PM »
they use both the Antonov and the converted 747.

Offline Teller1900

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • Journey in Flight
Re: A380
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2008, 10:07:41 AM »
they use both the Antonov and the converted 747.

The Russians used the Antonov during their short lived Space Shuttle program.  The American shuttle has always been carried on the 747.

Offline mhawke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: A380
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2008, 10:24:02 AM »
they use both the Antonov and the converted 747.

According to NASA, the US Space Shuttle has only ever flown piggy back on the two converted 747's that were built for that purpose.  Those 747's are currently flown by a NASA test pilot and former shuttle pilot.  I highly doubt that NASA (even as screwed up as they are sometimes) would trust the shuttle to anyone other then themselves.

Offline Hollis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
Re: A380
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2008, 12:52:02 PM »
 Just to clear the air on this (so to speak!).


'The Buran spacecraft (Russian: Буран, "Snowstorm" or "Blizzard"), serial number 11F35 K1, was the only fully completed and operational (Russian) space shuttle vehicle.

Like its American counterpart, the Buran, when in transit from its landing sites back to the launch complex, was transported on the back of a large jet aeroplane. It was piggy-backed on the Antonov An-225 Mriya aircraft, which was designed for this task and remains the largest powered aircraft in the world.'

Source: Wikipedia

Offline NAplaya16-ATC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: A380
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2008, 05:56:03 PM »
oh my bad,  i saw the shuttle on the back of the Antonov on a youtube video, and assumed it was American, just because i didnt know that the Russians ever had a working shuttle.  lol

-NAplaya

Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: A380
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2008, 06:42:15 PM »
Is the 757-300 a Heavy? Its MTOW surely cant be enough to push it up from a Medium

Offline tyketto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
Re: A380
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2008, 06:44:18 PM »
Is the 757-300 a Heavy? Its MTOW surely cant be enough to push it up from a Medium

It is indeed heavy. the B752 was exactly 255,000lbs MTOW (except for those flown by ATA). The B753 definitely exceeds that.

BL.

Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: A380
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2008, 08:05:41 PM »
Cheers chap.

Just wondering cos our wake vortex catagories our slightly different from the ICAO standard. And then in the London TMA its changes again lol. Take it FAA stuffs diferent from ICAO standard aswell??

C

Offline WhatAirspace

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: A380
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2008, 09:03:07 PM »
I could very well be mistaken, but I’ve heard that the 757 and 767 for some reason put off a massive wake (advanced aerodynamics are a ways over my head :?).  Is this taken into account in the separation standards?  I wonder how the wake of a 767 series aircraft compare to the 747 or even the A380.

Offline Casper87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: A380
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2008, 09:38:55 PM »
Yea the A380 is in a new cat. "Super" Light behind an A380 taskes 10 miles! In the UK 757s are M, 767 are H. But i think thats based on the 757-200. Not sure bout the 757-300. But we have H, M, S, L cats in the UK as apose to just H, M ,L.

C

Offline Saabeba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: A380
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2008, 10:36:56 PM »
I look forward to hearing it live.

I have some clips from when it was on approach, tower, and ground at JFK that i'll post soon...it was really funny hearing these new yorkers. they couldnt believe they were actually calling the thing "super."


Curiosity meter ticking up.  Can't wait.  Thanks.

Offline aviator_06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • FSFlightSchool.com - Student Pilot Resources | Aviation Videos
Re: A380
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2008, 09:22:58 AM »
I think there is a Post on here that has an A380 coming in to land at Boston maybe. If I find it i'll be sure to post it here.  :wink:

Offline kkania

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: A380
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2008, 07:02:02 PM »
I look forward to hearing it live.

I have some clips from when it was on approach, tower, and ground at JFK that i'll post soon...it was really funny hearing these new yorkers. they couldnt believe they were actually calling the thing "super."

I remember the first visit. General siliness ensued on the tarmac, with a regional also signing in as XXXX super. Good times.

Offline fholbert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • 160knots.com
Re: A380
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2008, 12:27:57 AM »
they use both the Antonov and the converted 747.

I don't think so but have a picture of the modified 747 going under me. Empty of course.
Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com