Wake RECAT

R

RobertB

Well-Known Member
Any of you guys (pilots or controllers) have any experience with the new (starting June 1st here) wake turbulence separation? It has been in effect at MEM, SDF, and CVG so far... Here are some links giving you basic background for anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/safo/all_safos/media/2012/SAFO12007.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=70804
http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sites/volpe.dot.gov/files/docs/Wake_Turbulence_Infographic_508.pdf
https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cTuAys1J2eg=&tabid=4536
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
Damn, now I know I never want to work TRACON.
Click to expand...

I spent the last two days vectoring off of our long range aching for sweet, sweet divergence and feel exactly like you, only the complete opposite. Those insanely long updates also make it nearly impossible to hit 3 MIT or Wake Sep within a tenth to a quarter mile. I mean how do you know when to turn base?
 
ahw01 said:
why does the 757 have its own category, pencil profile and large engines?
Click to expand...
Because for years it was considered a heavy and then it was changed to a "large" because of its weight, but had additional separation requirements to follow it because of wake turbulence. Under wake RECAT, you can run a CRJ2 at minimum radar separation (3 miles outside of a ten mile final), 2.5 inside of ten, and runway separation (if the tower sees them at say the marker) behind a B757 without the CRJ2 ever seeing or told to follow the B757.
 
genot said:
I spent the last two days vectoring off of our long range aching for sweet, sweet divergence and feel exactly like you, only the complete opposite. Those insanely long updates also make it nearly impossible to hit 3 MIT or Wake Sep within a tenth to a quarter mile. I mean how do you know when to turn base?
Click to expand...

Within a tenth to a quarter mile? Ha!

Your extra rules help with efficiency, but that is one long spreadsheet to memorize for wake recat.
 
I can't seem to figure out when it'll go into effect in CVG (where I'm based). I'll give some pilot-side thoughts when I see it in action.
 
dasleben said:
I can't seem to figure out when it'll go into effect in CVG (where I'm based). I'll give some pilot-side thoughts when I see it in action.
Click to expand...
We were briefed that it is already in effect, but CVG doesn't have enough traffic to "test" it with the aircraft the work each day.
 
RobertB said:
We were briefed that it is already in effect, but CVG doesn't have enough traffic to "test" it with the aircraft the work each day.
Click to expand...
There are the usual DHL pushes a couple times a night, but yeah, it's not MEM or SDF.
 
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
 
wbauman1217 said:
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
Click to expand...
Well so does your story to me. I've seen 757's get pushed around pretty good with the wake of a 767. That was normal separation going into DTW.
 
wbauman1217 said:
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
Click to expand...
I hope you're not teaching your students that the above is good practice. Very dangerous.

I fly a 767 and we occasionally get waked by another 767; can be a rough ride even for us.
 
wbauman1217 said:
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
Click to expand...
You've obviously been both lucky and meticulous about following best practices behind a large aircraft. I've been rocked hard enough just by a Caravan's wake to think twice about the big iron,
 
Before we call the guy out too much I suspect his experience is two miles in trail and level or above or with the 767 in sight landing beyond. These rules are going into place when you don't see the heavy/757/large on an instrument approach. A skyhawk vectored in low behind a large vectored in slightly high will feel the pain on an ILS. When I first started as a controller I heard B1900 pilots screaming about turbulence when a 737 they had visual with was descending through them 2 miles ahead.
 
Ok ok, before I get further crucified. I just come in above their flight path anytime a big airplane is out front, not following the EXACT flight path, and I'm talking about VFR into PHOG which always has pretty good winds, so the turb gets blown downwind pretty quickly. so my post is a bit inaccurate. Definitely wouldn't want to follow right behind them.
 
wbauman1217 said:
Ok ok, before I get further crucified. I just come in above their flight path anytime a big airplane is out front, not following the EXACT flight path, and I'm talking about VFR into PHOG which always has pretty good winds, so the turb gets blown downwind pretty quickly. so my post is a bit inaccurate. Definitely wouldn't want to follow right behind them.
Click to expand...
I getcha. We used to do similar stuff into BOS in the 402 when it was VMC. Can't really apply the same techniques to heavier stuff though, mostly due to stabilized approach criteria. We're also trying to stay on a standard lateral/vertical path to permit you guys to maneuver accordingly for wake avoidance.
 
wbauman1217 said:
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
Click to expand...
We are supposed to give you six miles behind a 767, in a C172, if you don't see him. Heck, I had a MD88 the other night ask what he was following because he was getting moderate to severe turbulence. He was NINE miles behind a B757!
 
RobertB said:
We are supposed to give you six miles behind a 767, in a C172, if you don't see him. Heck, I had a MD88 the other night ask what he was following because he was getting moderate to severe turbulence. He was NINE miles behind a B757!
Click to expand...

75 must've had a few fat ladies in the back
 
wbauman1217 said:
If I can follow 2 miles behind a 767 in a 172 and not have any problems with wake turbulence, I highly doubt it would be an issue for anything larger. Seems a bit stupid to me..
Click to expand...
I'd be shocked to know that you actually were 2 miles in trail of a 76 on his path and didn't notice anything. Hell, I've been banged up by a 717 in the 1900 before.


Edit. Just saw your most recent response. That changes things 100%. Can't really do 172 techniques in larger airplanes though. (The 1900 and Hawker aren't large though.....)
 
RECAT changes again 4/1, at least here in ATL. An F now only has to be 4 behind a D or E (CRJ/B717/MD90,etc) instead of 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top