quick question about "heavy"

[specialk1213]

When I listen i will hear the ATC refer to the plane plane by the tail number and the the word heavy. What does this mean? Does it refer to the size of the plane?

Thanks

[Jason]

When I listen i will hear the ATC refer to the plane plane by the tail number and the the word heavy. What does this mean? Does it refer to the size of the plane?

Thanks

It indicates the aircraft is over 255,000 lbs.

[Scrapper]

Also, for some planes it's tail numbers but for airlines it's FLIGHT number... so Air Canada flight 232, if it's a Boeing 767 with Tail number C-FKRR, will be called Air Canada 232 Heavy

[Runhog]

The term "heavy" used in conjunction with the callsign provides a cue to the controller to let him know how much wake turbulence seperation he needs to apply. Kind of like a last line of defence.

A light aircraft requires 3nm radar seperation between another light aircraft whereas a light behind a medium is 4nm and a light behind a heavy is 5nm. I'm sure there might even be another reason behind it as well.

[MIAMIATC]

I was always under the impression that HEAVY meant over 300,000 Lbs. Also learned yaers ago that HEAVY was added to the 757 family due to said wake turbulence generated. Heavies other than the 757 family are commercial aviation wise are the 747 and 767 families,A300,A310,A330,A340 families,DC-8,DC-10,MD11 planes,L-1011(tristars) miss those immensely personally and the soon to grace us the heavy of all heavies the A-380 and I dont know about the 787 dreamliner if that is going to be classified as a heavy if someone can advise of such

[JetScan1]

This is one of my pet peeves. In this day and age of computer technology why do we have to use the "heavy" prefix ? The controller should know the aircraft type already from the flightplan. It seems to me that it is just redundant and a waste of bandwidth. Any controllers care to comment ?

DJ

[Swiss_flight]

The 787 will indeed have a MTOW of over 255k, and will thus be called "heavy".

Isaac

[Jason]

I was always under the impression that HEAVY meant over 300,000 Lbs. Also learned yaers ago that HEAVY was added to the 757 family due to said wake turbulence generated. Heavies other than the 757 family are commercial aviation wise are the 747 and 767 families,A300,A310,A330,A340 families,DC-8,DC-10,MD11 planes,L-1011(tristars) miss those immensely personally and the soon to grace us the heavy of all heavies the A-380 and I dont know about the 787 dreamliner if that is going to be classified as a heavy if someone can advise of such

Cited from the Pilot/Controller Glossery found in the AIM:

AIRCRAFT CLASSES- For the purposes of Wake Turbulence Separation Minima, ATC classifies aircraft as Heavy, Large, and Small as follows:

    a. Heavy- Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.

    b. Large- Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000 pounds.

    c. Small- Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.

(Refer to AIM.)

[Lexxx]

This is one of my pet peeves. In this day and age of computer technology why do we have to use the "heavy" prefix ? The controller should know the aircraft type already from the flightplan. It seems to me that it is just redundant and a waste of bandwidth. Any controllers care to comment ?DJ

I would assume it's for the benefit of the aircraft following or crossing beneath, most probably on the same frequency.

I hear there will be a new weight category for the new Boeing and Airbus.

[mkreilein]

Even MORE important is the part in red...

    a. Heavy- Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.[/color]

So an aircraft that CAN weigh 255,000+ at takeoff that is empty and only happens to weigh 250,000 at takeoff is STILL a heavy.

[Scrapper]

Even MORE important is the part in red...

a. Heavy- Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.

So an aircraft that CAN weigh 255,000+ at takeoff that is empty and only happens to weigh 250,000 at takeoff is STILL a heavy.

Affirmative, as far as I know, a 747 is always called heavy, no matter how heavy or light it happens to be at the time...

[Scrapper]

This is kind of a ridiculously simple question, but how do you guys quote other people by putting their quote in a nifty little box, making it easy for the rest of us to read it?

[Jason]

This is kind of a ridiculously simple question, but how do you guys quote other people by putting their quote in a nifty little box, making it easy for the rest of us to read it?

It's a phpBB software glitch that I'm sure Dave is aware of.  Normally to quote you put

"[quotes]blahblahblah[/quotes]" tag's around the text, which is automatically done for the text of someones reply if you hit 'quote' on someone's reply.

NOTE:The tags for quote does NOT include "s" at the end of it, that was done so it would show up and not make it a quote.

[n57flyguy]

Interesting subject. I often hear it at Philly and especialy with Fed-Ex cargo. I never did Know that though, and considering I havn't started flight training though.

[Tomato]

Even MORE important is the part in red...

a. Heavy- Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.

So an aircraft that CAN weigh 255,000+ at takeoff that is empty and only happens to weigh 250,000 at takeoff is STILL a heavy.

Affirmative, as far as I know, a 747 is always called heavy, no matter how heavy or light it happens to be at the time...

This would make sense to me... the fact that an aircraft can weigh so much would imply that the size of the aircraft is big!  With that in mind, even if it has zero load, the aerodynamics of it would still create a considerable wake requiring the required 5nm (?) of seperation.

[KSYR-pjr]

I would assume it's for the benefit of the aircraft following or crossing beneath, most probably on the same frequency.

Exactly!  Not only is there a greater separation requirement, but the term is also used as situational awareness by ALL aircraft on the same frequency.

As a pilot of a light, single engine GA aircraft who often flies into Boston Logan airport, I am very appreciative of hearing the suffix, "heavy," included in those monsters' call signs.   A wake turbulence encounter with a heavy's wing-tip vortices would really be a bad day for any small aircraft, unless of course, the pilot were a very skilled aerobatic pilot.

[Jonathan_tcu]

Here in northbound Ontario, you often hear Access 1, 2, 3, 4 and up to Access 5 .  I assume they are cargo aircraft.  As I know now, there is an aircraft, Access 4 Medevac on his way to CYTZ beacon (Toronto City Ctr )  and many of them fly to CYHF (Hearst) CYYU Kap, CYMO Moose, CYAT Attawapiskat and along the Hudson bay shoreline.

[Jason]

I normally don't bring back old topics, but in a recent AOPA ePilot, a small blurb described "heavy" further...

Advisory Circular 90-23F, titled Aircraft Wake Turbulence, helps answer your questions. Pilots and controllers are to use the "heavy" designation if the airplane they are flying is capable of a takeoff weight greater than 255,000 pounds. This classification is important for air traffic controllers in providing appropriate wake turbulence separation to aircraft receiving traffic advisories. The other classes of aircraft are large and small. An aircraft whose potential takeoff weight is greater than 41,000 pounds but not more than 255,000 pounds is considered large. An aircraft whose takeoff weight is equal to 41,000 pounds or less is considered a small aircraft. For additional information on wake turbulence and how to avoid it while flying, view Chapter 7 of the Aeronautical Information Manual. Also, view AOPA Online for more information on the dangers of wake turbulence.

If you are reading this post as a result of a search, thanks!  We appreciate your use of the search function, rather than duplicating older topics.

Jason

[mdl21483]

Was there any truth in a rumor i heard that a 727 once carried the heavy tag?