Author Topic: Heavy planes and frequencies  (Read 12553 times)

Offline Ragwing

  • Rooster
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2008, 05:26:59 PM »
The 757 was designed during one of the gas crises.  Airlines were wanting fuel efficiency even at higher price.
It has a very unique wing that provides lots of lift but also generates vortexes.

As soon as it was released, the price of fuel dropped and the interest in the higher cost aircraft wained.
The production line was closed because the 737NG was carrying the same number of passengers (but not even close on the weight carrying capacity).

She is a great airplane.   I wish Boeing had allowed a few derivatives to be designed.
That wing has so much more potential.

Offline undatc

  • Alpha Rooster
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • Standby, I have your request......
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2008, 06:57:34 AM »
There are several series of 757's.  This is the reason you are getting some conflicting information if a 757 is a heavy or not.  In the air traffic world, the 757 depending on the series falls into its own special category for wake turbulence separation or if it falls into the heavy category.

If the model in question is a 757-200 it falls into the special category which requires the following radar wake turbulence separation in a terminal environment:

Heavy behind a 752: 4 miles
752 behind a 752: 4 miles
Large behind a 752: 4
Small behind a 752: 5

If the model in question is a 757-300 it falls into the normal heavy category which requires the following radar wake turbulence separation in a terminal environment:

Heavy behind a Heavy: 4 miles
752 behind a Heavy: 4 miles
Large behind a Heavy: 5 miles
Small behind a Heavy: 5 miles, except on final where 6 miles is required.  More info can be found in section 5-5-4f of the 7110.65

This only applies in a terminal environment, ie within class B/C/D airspace or if you are utilizing TRACON services.  In an enroute environment, the rules completely change and you throw all those numbers out the window.

And to your frequencies question from the 7110.65;

Quote
2-4-1. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

Use radio frequencies for the special purposes for which they are intended. A single frequency may be used for more than one function except as follows:

TERMINAL. When combining positions in the tower, do not use ground control frequency for airborne communications.

NOTE-
Due to the limited number of frequencies assigned to towers for the ground control function, it is very likely that airborne use of a ground control frequency could cause interference to other towers or interference to your aircraft from another tower. When combining these functions, it is recommended combining them on local control. The ATIS may be used to specify the desired frequency.
-the content of the previous post does not represent the opinions of the FAA or NATCA, and is my own personal opinion...

airtac

  • Guest
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2008, 02:51:32 AM »
I was wondering how long it would take the guys to catch on. . . .  and then get all worked up about it . . . .

5 hours and a few minutes it was  ;)

Haaaa, so you were counting, Mike??!??!??!!  Too funny......    ::rofl::

I must say, I've been called a GIRL more in this thread than I have in the last 30+ years......    :D

Does that mean things are looking up??     ::whistle::

Can I quit counseling now??!!??!??!??    ;)

 ::loony::
Just don't quit your meds too--remember what happened last time you skipped them ::eek:: ::loony::

Offline Oddball

  • Chicken Farmer
  • Alpha Rooster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • I crash better than anybody I know
    • Myspace profile
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2008, 09:42:29 AM »
what you mean the incident where s'Mom turned into a werewolf or the time when she thought she could fly a decent plane like a Britten Norman islander  (oh I'm going to get it now)
"You can teach monkeys to fly better than that!"and "spring chicken to sh**e hawk in one easy lesson"

airtac

  • Guest
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2008, 03:42:23 PM »
Islanders are decent airplanes--they have their own market niche but being fast, comfortable, or sexy is not included ;D

Offline TheSoccerMom

  • Chicken Farmer
  • Alpha Rooster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2008, 03:51:04 PM »
Ah Ian, how'd you hear about the werewolf incident?!!  I'd have thought that could have at least stayed THIS side of the Atlantic....   ::loony::

As for the Islander.....  Hmmm....   ::thinking::

I'd bet one would make a good place to store parts on the side of the runway...?  And perhaps the beer cooler..??    ;D

 8)
Don't make me come back there!!!!

Offline Oddball

  • Chicken Farmer
  • Alpha Rooster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • I crash better than anybody I know
    • Myspace profile
Re: Heavy planes and frequencies
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2008, 04:24:33 PM »
heard the howl from over here thought it was the silencer falling off one of my models  ::rofl::
"You can teach monkeys to fly better than that!"and "spring chicken to sh**e hawk in one easy lesson"