(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
1
1
Brussels
Brussels
,
,
1
1
6
6
S
S
e
e
pt
pt
e
e
m
m
b
b
e
e
r
r
2
2
0
0
0
0
8
8
Presented by
Presented by
Cl
Cl
au
au
de
de
LE
LE
LA
LA
I
I
E
E
Ex
Ex
pe
pe
ri
ri
me
me
nt
nt
al
al
te
te
st
st
pi
pi
lo
lo
t
t
Se
Se
ni
ni
or
or
Vi
Vi
ce
ce
Pr
Pr
es
es
id
id
en
en
t
t
Pr
Pr
od
od
uc
uc
t Saf
t Saf
et
et
y
y
A380 wake vortex working processe
A380 wake vortex working processes
s
and status
and status
S S . . A A . . S S . . A A l l l l r r i i g g h h t t s s r r e e s s e e r r v v e e d d . . C C o o n n f f i i d d e e n n t t i i a a l l a a n n d d p p r r o o p p r r i i e e t t a a r r y y d d o o c c u u m m e e n n t t . .
Stakeholders and their roles
Stakeholders and their roles
•
•
C
C
re
re
at
at
ed
ed
in
in
20
20
03
03
•
•
Pr
Pr
ov
ov
id
id
es d
es d
ir
ir
ec
ec
ti
ti
on
on
& task perimeter
& task perimeter
to the WG
to the WG
•
•
A
A
g
g
r
r
e
e
e
e
s o
s o
n
n
recommendations
recommendations
and submits them
and submits them
to ICAO
to ICAO
Observer
Observer
A
A
380 WV
380 WV
S
S
tee
tee
rin
rin
g Grou
g Grou
p
p
A
A
380 WV
380 WV
W
W
orki
orki
ng Group
ng Group
ICAO
ICAO
•
•
A
A
n
n
a
a
l
l
y
y
s
s
e
e
s
s
recommendation
recommendation
•
•
Is
Is
su
su
es S
es S
ta
ta
te L
te L
et
et
te
te
rs
rs
to all member
to all member
states for interim
states for interim
guidance
guidance
•
•
Su
Su
bm
bm
it
it
ch
ch
an
an
ge
ge
s
s
to
to
current rules
current rules
(PANS-ATM) to all
(PANS-ATM) to all
member states
member states
R
R
e
e
c
c
o
o
m
m
m
m
e
e
n
n
d
d
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
s
s
•
•
A
A
g
g
r
r
e
e
e
e
s o
s o
n
n
methodology
methodology
•
•
A
A
ir
ir
bu
bu
s pe
s pe
rf
rf
or
or
ms
ms
flight tests
flight tests
•
•
A
A
na
na
ly
ly
se
se
s
s
te
te
st
st
results and steers
results and steers
safety analysis
safety analysis
measurements
measurements
•
•
De
De
li
li
ve
ve
rs
rs
da
da
ta
ta
an
an
d
d
analyses to the
analyses to the
Steering Group
Steering Group
T
T
e
e
s
s
t
t
r
r
e
e
s
s
u
u
l
l
t
t
s
s
Me
Me
mb
mb
er states
er states
aviation
aviation
authority
authority
•
•
Is
Is
su
su
e
e
wa
wa
ke
ke
vo
vo
rt
rt
ex
ex
separation
separation
guidance to local
guidance to local
ATM
ATM
•
•
IC
IC
AO
AO
St
St
at
at
e
e
Le
Le
tt
tt
er
er
and PANS-ATM
and PANS-ATM
applied , adapted
applied , adapted
or not applied
or not applied
S
S
t
t
a
a
t
t
e
e
L
L
e
e
t
t
t
t
e
e
r
r
,
,
P
P
A
A
N
N
S
S
--A
A
T
T
M
M
JAA/
JAA/
EASA
EASA
3
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .International A380 wake vortex Steering Group
In place since mid-2003, co-chaired by EUROCONTROL and JAA.
Involves FAA, EUROCONTROL, JAA/EASA and AIRBUS. ICAO participates as
observer.
Tasks:
Select methodologies for evaluation of A380 wake turbulence
Make necessary funding and resources available to perform the work
Assess A380 wake turbulence in comparison to other aircraft of the Heavy
category (to provide a relative basis for comparison)
Establish recommendation for A380 wake turbulence separation to ICAO.
Recommendations are based on a Safety Case and Safety Assessment
Report produced by the Working Group, in accordance to EUROCONTROL
Safety Regulatory Requirement 4 (ESARR 4).
The Working Group is a group of experts put in place to validate the
methodology, perform the work, and report their assessment to the Steering
Group
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Discussion of analysis methods
Initial common proposal based on simulation models
A combination of FAA and Airbus tools (ASAT and VESA).
Working Group determined that level of validation for these tools was
insufficient.
Specific flight tests were finally required
Approach, take-off and holding: Lidar flight test measurements were used
to establish current separation standards.
Cruise: Wake encounters and Lidar allowed to conclude.
Approach, take-off: In order to further reduce the separation, Airbus
performed wake encounters flight test. Data are currently under review by
Working Group
Flight test requirements and analysis methods agreed upon
Specific atmospheric conditions required.
Tests to be conducted back-to-back with representative reference aircraft.
Choosing the right methods to analyze the data without being
5
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .A380 wake vortex flight test campaign - overview
May 2005 – December 2007
77 total flights (all aircraft)
308 total flight hours
627 ground based LIDAR runs
Airborne LIDAR measurements in cruise
167 actual wake encounters at cruise
874 actual wake encounters during approach
1041 total wake encounters
This is the largest campaign ever conducted to
investigate all aspects of the wake vortex
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Spacing > 5 min
LIDAR
B747-400
A380
In ground effect
260 ft
7
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Example of LIDAR data analysis
Basic assumption: separation for heavy aircraft is today’s reference and has proven to be safe
Time after LIDAR over-flight = distance
between generator and follower
Vortex
circulation
[m²/s]
Mean vortex circulation for
Heavy aircraft derived from
LIDAR measurements
Current separation after a
Heavy
1.
Reference level of
vortex circulation
2.
Distance for which th e A380 vortex
circulation i s the same
3.
=
separation to apply behind the A380
Mean vortex circulation for
A380-800 derived from
LIDAR measurements
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Comments on Lidar tests
Numerous back to back runs have been performed at Istres end 2005
with A380, B777 and B747. But, after analysis, the Working Group
could not agree to use B747 runs due to the light turbulence which
could have hide the worst case. Therefore, for the first ICAO letter,
B777 tests were used, which was more penalizing for Airbus due to
lighter weight and smaller size of the B777 compared to the B747.
Some more comparative runs between A380 and B747 were performed
later on at Tarbes (some runs have even been eliminated by lack of
turbulence due to stratification!).
Similar back to back runs have been performed to validate take off and
holding separations.
9
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Approach: applicable separations for Heavy aircraft
Heavy foll owing a
Heavy
747: 4 nm
ICAO State letter
Nov 05
A380: 10 nm
+ 6 nm
ICAO State letter
Oct 06
A380: 6 nm
+ 2 nm
Potential reduction pending current Working Group
analysis of th e Airb us wake encounter flig ht test data
ICAO State Letter
Jul y 08
A380: 6 nm
+ 2 nm
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Approach: applicable separations for Medium aircraft
Medium following
a Heavy
747: 5 nm
ICAO State letter
Nov 05
A380: 10 nm
+ 5 nm
ICAO State letter
Oct 06
A380: 8 nm
+ 3 nm
A380: 7 nm
ICAO State letter
July 08
+ 2 nm
Potential reduction pending current Working Group
analysis of th e Airb us wake encounter flig ht test data
11
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Approach: applicable separations for Light aircraft
+ 4 nm
ICAO State letter
Nov 05
A380: 10 nm
+ 4 nm
ICAO State letter
Oct 06
A380: 10 nm
Medium following
a Heavy
747: 6 nm
A380: 8 nm
ICAO State letter
July 08
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Encounter test consists of physically flying an aircraft through the wake of
another to measure specific parameters.
The probe aircraft flies encounters alternatively behind A380 and a suitable
reference aircraft, with both wake generators flying side by side.
Many parameters recorded with focus on the following flight parameters:
Technique used and agreed for cruise, now also proposed by Airbus for
further reduction of separations in approach and take off.
Encounter test principle
Generator
Follower
Al ti tud e los s
Verti cal acceleratio n
Wa ke
Roll rate
13
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Overview of flight tests performed for cruise
Flight tests to develop the flight test techniques:
C1: 11 JAN 2006: A380, A318 for wake encounters
C2: 23 FEB 2006: A380 and A346 side-by-side,
A318 for wake encounters
C3: 07 MAR 2006: A380 and A346 side-by-side,
DLR LIDAR on-board Falcon,
A346 encounters in trail of A380
C4: 09 MAR 2006: A346, DLR LIDAR on-board Falcon
Comparison evaluation flight tests:
C5: 23 JUN 2006: A380 and A346, A318 for encounters,
simultaneously DLR LIDAR
on-board Falcon
C6: 25 JUN 2006: A380 and B744, A318 for encounters,
simultaneously DLR LIDAR
on-board Falcon
Follower aircraft
Generator airc raft
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
15
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Cruise: applicable separations for all aircraft
Any aircraft
following a
Heavy
747: 5 nm
1,000 ft
1,000 ft
Separation apply to all categories aircraft
ICAO State
letter Nov 05
A380: 15 nm
+ 10 nm
1,000 ft wit h precauti ons
1,000 ft wit h precauti ons
ICAO State
letter Oct 06
1,000 ft
1,000 ft
A380: 5 nm
Work completed. No difference with existing aircraft in cruise
The A380 is fully RVSM capable
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Limitations when using LIDAR data for separation
standards
Vortex circulation was used to provide an indication of the
severity of a wake encounter.
Limitations of this approach:
Vortex circulation represents the
maximum static rolling moment on a encountering aircraft, assuming
the aircraft axis is aligned with the vortex axis and centered in the
vortex core
This is a theoretical situation
Current LIDAR technology has its own specific limitations
What are the effects of the vortices considering weight, roll
inertia, wingspan and roll capability of the follower?
17
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Approach encounter tests
A380: 14 flights, 53 hours
A340-600 (reference Heavy aircraft): 5 flights, 21 hours
A300 (lightest in the Heavy category): 3 flights, 10 hours
A320 (typical Medium aircraft): 8 flights, 26 hours
In total: 30 flights, 110 flight hours
Including side to side tests:
A320 behind A380 side-to-side with A346
A300B2 behind A380 side-to-side with A346
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
Encounters in approach: flight test procedure
Figure referenced to wake generating aircraft
Z
Z
~1,000 ft
A346
and A380 as wake generator
Constant track, speed and altitude
4 NM
(A300)
5 NM
(A300,
A320)
6 NM
(A320)
A346
A380
A320, A300
A380
and A346
wakes
made visible by
oil injection
Follower relative
flight path
A320, A300 as encounterer
usually horizontally through the wakes
at 10°-15° lateral encounter angle
19
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Approach: wake encounters flight tests analysis
Airbus has identified a benefit of using wake encounters in
addition to LIDAR measurements to set separation
standards for approach and take off.
The encounter test data have been delivered by Airbus to
the A380 wake vortex Working Group.
Working Group currently assessing feasibility of using the
encounters data for a revision of the separation standards.
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
A380 wake vortex: status of ICAO recommendations
ICAO recommendations for the A380
Nov 2005
A380 tou r
Asia &
Au stral ia
ICAO int erim State Letter
(Ref. 05-0661-EN, November 10
th
2005)
- A380 is a Heavy with Special Conditions
- Very conservative separation requirements
- Not based on data
Oct 2006
ICAO State Letter
(Ref. ES AN 4/44 - 0750, October 9
th
2006)
- Supersedes the previous ICAO State Letter
- Based on 2005/2006 LIDAR data and 2006 cruise tests
- No different separation requirements for A380 than other Heavies in En-Route
- Reduced but still conservative separation requirements in approach and take-off
behind A380
Oct 2007
A380 En try
Into
Service
Jul 2008
ICAO State L etter
(Ref. TEC/OPS/SEP – 08-0294.SLG, July 8
th
2008)
- Supersedes the previous ICAO State Letter
- Based on 2007 LIDAR data
- Separation requirements in approach and take off behind A380 further reduced but
still conservative
Au g 2008
Second
A380
operator
Time
Time
21
A I R B U S S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .Conclusion
The A380 wake vortex flight test campaign is an unprecedented effort on this
subject.
Separations in approach behind A380 have already been reduced twice since the
first ICAO State Letter, based only on LIDAR data.
This is the result of the tremendous work performed by the analysis of all the data
by the international team of experts of the Working Group: Eurocontrol,
JAA/EASA, FAA and Airbus.
Encounters flight tests have been performed in approach with Heavy and Medium
followers and first Airbus analysis indicates that further reductions should be
possible with respect to separations from Lidar analysis. The Steering Group has
requested a feasibility study which is ongoing within the A380 Working Group to
assess the possibility to validate further reduction. Results will be transmitted in
the coming weeks to the Steering Group.
S . A . S . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . C o n f i d e n t i a l a n d p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t .
