Steer clear of that A380!

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB has released its report into a 34R final approach violent turbulence event affecting a SAAB aircraft into YSSY: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1287882/ao2008077.pdf

It concluded that the SAAB on 34R final approach encountered wake turbulence from an A380 that flew through the adjacent 34L glide path 72 seconds earlier. This occurred because strong cross winds caused the wake turbulence to drift across into the adjacent glide path.

In the result Air Services Australia has introduced a requirement that aircraft with a MTOW of less than 25,000kg should be wake turbulence separated from "super heavy" aircraft like the A380 on an adjacent parallel runway because the wake turbulence vortices from the larger a/c can drift across the adjoining runway's approach path

[Shameel Kumar]

Thanks Philip for the post.

Interesting occurence this! Reminds me of the American Airlines A300 which tragically crashed over Queens, NY after getting caught-up in the wake turbulence of the JAL B744 (although mainly attributed to pilot error).

I guess this is just another one of those issues of the A380 that can't really be uncovered during the test phase.

Although it doesn't have much to do with turbulence, I remember flying one of QF's A380's to LAX, when on final approach, I noticed a tiny spec flying parallel to us. At first I thought it was just some dirt residue stuck on the window, but after some serious squinting I realised it actually was an aircraft. Took a photo and zoomed in on the photo to confirm this.
Here's the shot.. SAAB prop flying alongside the massive A380.
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4412/adsc03898xh3.jpg


And just for the heck of it, here's another shot I took pitting the SAAB against the A380.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/754/adsc03732wx1.jpg

:D

[Nigel C]

The solution to this is simple. Move the regionals to Bankstown or Richmond.

Safe skies for all!

[Nigel C]

I should have added...

this also frees up many more slots for the big boys.

[Stephen B]

Won't work. Thanks to the management of NSW over the last 30 - 40 years, it's impossible to get from Bankstown to Sydney. It's generally impossible to get around Sydney at all. No-one would make their connections, and Bankstown also doesn't have the infrastructure and is not big enough.

The ONLY solution to the problems at YSSY is to buy the land around the existing airport and double it in size. Bankstown, Richmond, Newcastle or Canberra are not viable options.

[Adam P.]

Bankstown, Richmond, Newcastle or Canberra are not viable options.

I wouldn't call your solution viable either, to be honest....

[Stephen B]

No, it's not viable, I dont see that there is a viable solutoin that will suit all the requirements. But that's the only one I see that suits the requirements of the airport best. Unless you want to throw the greenies into the pot and fill in Bottany Bay? (Though greenies do make nice landfill..........)

Note for the future - Don't let people build houses right next to airports!

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Although it doesn't have much to do with turbulence, I remember flying one of QF's A380's to LAX, when on final approach, I noticed a tiny spec flying parallel to us. At first I thought it was just some dirt residue stuck on the window, but after some serious squinting I realised it actually was an aircraft. Took a photo and zoomed in on the photo to confirm this.
Here's the shot.. SAAB prop flying alongside the massive A380.
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4412/adsc03898xh3.jpg


I think you'll find that's a Brasillia, although same scale I guess.

The A380 was extesively tested for wake turbulence, and was found to be no worse than the 747 in flight testing both in cruise and approach/departure configs. It's just the certifying authorities that are dragging the chain in reducing it from the super-heavy to heavy category.

[Danny Rizk]

The solution to this is simple. Move the regionals to Bankstown or Richmond.

Safe skies for all!

Totally agree!!!

[D Chan]

No, it's not viable, I dont see that there is a viable solutoin that will suit all the requirements. But that's the only one I see that suits the requirements of the airport best. Unless you want to throw the greenies into the pot and fill in Bottany Bay? (Though greenies do make nice landfill..........)

Note for the future - Don't let people build houses right next to airports!

Perhaps a fact we tend to forget, people don't have rights to build houses next to airports wherever they want to live. It's the town planners, councils and people who zone lands who are responsible for making available the land for sale for residents. If you were referring to the flight path noise issues fair enough, but I'm more referring to the people who choose to live 1 or 2km away from the airport.....

[Stephen B]

Please refrain from quoting the entire previous post, thank you - mod

While I have no proof of this outragous statement, town planners, councils and people who zone land are people too! And they have proven all to often to be willing to bow to the de$ire$ of developer$ who want to make a buck by selling some of the nice flat land that usually surrounds airports.

Basically, Sydney Airport is probably the most important transport hub in this entire country. Sydney city has the greatest visibility to the rest of the world of any city in this country, if not almost the entire southern hemmisphere. How long are we going to persist with what is shortly going to turn into one of the worst jokes in the aviation/transport/freight/business/travel/tourist worlds?