Wake Turbulence Intersection Depature Loophole???

nmatc

Newcomer
Apr 11, 2012
8
0
1
I had a small + departing full length. Then a small approached an intersection and I said hold for wake turbulence. So I depart a different small full length directly after the small + (6000ft/airborne). Then I thought the preceding aircraft was a small, so the small at the intersection could roll directly after; there's no WT for 2 smalls. My interpretation of the 7110.65 3-9-7 states this is possible. Even if the intersection aircraft taxied to the intersection after the second small departs then calls ready, would you have to keep track of the three minutes from two departures ago or do you go by the preceding aircraft (previous departure)? Thoughts?
 

ajmezz

Epic Member
Apr 8, 2010
1,811
28
48
The WT doesn't just disappear because another aircraft took off. You would still need to wait the 3min unless the aircraft waived the WT hold.
 

nmatc

Newcomer
Apr 11, 2012
8
0
1
Yes wake is still there sure. But the .65 only refers to the preceding aircraft, so the second small is the preceding aircraft for the intersection aircraft. Seems like a gray area for different interpretation.
 

ajmezz

Epic Member
Apr 8, 2010
1,811
28
48
Yes wake is still there sure. But the .65 only refers to the preceding aircraft, so the second small is the preceding aircraft for the intersection aircraft. Seems like a gray area for different interpretation.
Yeah, I agree that it is a gray area, but I'm not willing to bet my ticket on that if something were to happen.

Haha NE yeah man, that's crazy to watch. I don't think the foreign trainee's I deal with really understand what WT is regardless. They'll follow just as close to a s+ as they will a 152/172.
 

nmatc

Newcomer
Apr 11, 2012
8
0
1
Somehow a BE20 that weighs 12,501 lb. creates enough wake for any small apparently. It's bogus but whatever, it's the rule.
I say if a small departs after the small +, that intersection is good to go. If an A380 departs, different story, jetpacks exempt.
 

ajmezz

Epic Member
Apr 8, 2010
1,811
28
48
I wholeheartedly agree, but that's the rule and you're probably better off just following it instead of testing the gray area. It's not going to kill him to wait a couple minutes and if it is that imperative he should know he can waive it or at least know he can request to waive it.
 

WatchThis

Trusted Contributor
Apr 29, 2010
561
0
16
Arizona
It says "a preceding aircraft" not "the preceding aircraft". It's not gray in my opinion. You start the clock and any intervening aircraft don't matter unless you do something to restart the clock.
 

Ram_Tough

Trusted Contributor
Jul 5, 2010
638
9
18
After watching the video of the dude in a jet pack flying formation with an A380 I call bullshit on all wake turbulence lol
[video]https://youtu.be/SCnCXAhPDts[/video]

That sure as hell ain't 5 miles or 3 minutes. I'd be surprised if they even had 6k and airborne. Spoiler Alert: No one dies.
 

KSDL

Rookie
Mar 23, 2015
58
4
8
I had a small + departing full length. Then a small approached an intersection and I said hold for wake turbulence. So I depart a different small full length directly after the small + (6000ft/airborne). Then I thought the preceding aircraft was a small, so the small at the intersection could roll directly after; there's no WT for 2 smalls. My interpretation of the 7110.65 3-9-7 states this is possible. Even if the intersection aircraft taxied to the intersection after the second small departs then calls ready, would you have to keep track of the three minutes from two departures ago or do you go by the preceding aircraft (previous departure)? Thoughts?

Lets say you have a large departure and three smalls in the down wind doing touch and goes. Do you get all three to maintain visual separation with the large? I know what I do, and the way we are trained, but just curious on your interpretation.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
21
38
Lets say you have a large departure and three smalls in the down wind doing touch and goes. Do you get all three to maintain visual separation with the large? I know what I do, and the way we are trained, but just curious on your interpretation.
I do for the most part. It's what I was trained.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
21
38
Same here but at some point you'll have the three minutes you need and can stop until the rule is triggered again.
I don't think I ever did it with three. Two sometimes. But it takes a long time for slower aircraft to go around the pattern on an 11,000' runway.
 

KSDL

Rookie
Mar 23, 2015
58
4
8
I don't think I ever did it with three. Two sometimes. But it takes a long time for slower aircraft to go around the pattern on an 11,000' runway.
Oh, the old "My runway is bigger than your runway" argument. :)
 

nmatc

Newcomer
Apr 11, 2012
8
0
1
It says "a preceding aircraft" not "the preceding aircraft". It's not gray in my opinion. You start the clock and any intervening aircraft don't matter unless you do something to restart the clock.
Yes at the beginning of the paragraph it does but at the end it says "the preceding aircraft" leaving it open for interpretation. Wake Turbulence is so fun to argue.
 

Genot

Trusted Contributor
Feb 7, 2010
534
10
18
A Dark Dark Room
i would argue that after one aircraft passes through the wake (with correct separation etc) that it disrupts the wake and is no longer a factor for the following aircraft.
I'd argue that you don't entirely understand how wake turbulence works.

One aircraft hitting wake will not disrupt it completely, especially if the pilot is flying properly to AVOID the wake. That's like saying I know there is a tsunami out there, but I tossed my kayak out in the water, so that'll disrupt the waves, lets go swimming.

I'd be interested to know though how an airplane flies through wake with correct separation routinely assuming the mileages are correct.