SECTION 2

2
Pilot and Air Traffic Controller
Guide to Wake Turbulence

(This page intentionally left blank)

2.ii

SECTION 2

Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Guide to

Wake Turbulence
Table of Contents
Section

Page

2.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.0.3

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2.1

Preview .......................................................................................................................... 2.1
The Goal........................................................................................................................ 2.1
Participants and Review Process ................................................................................... 2.1

2.1

Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2.2

2.2

Historical Examination of the Wake-Turbulence Hazard ..................................................... 2.3

2.3

Review of Accidents and Incidents ...................................................................................... 2.5

2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7

Description/Characteristics of the Wake-Turbulence Hazard .............................................. 2.8

Wake-Turbulence Formation ......................................................................................... 2.8
Velocity Flow Field ....................................................................................................... 2.9
The Hazard .................................................................................................................. 2.10
Vertical Motion of the Wake ....................................................................................... 2.14
Horizontal Motion of the Wake ................................................................................... 2.15
Decay Process ............................................................................................................. 2.16
Gaps in Our Knowledge .............................................................................................. 2.16

2.5

Future Wake-Turbulence Detection Technology ................................................................ 2.16

2.6
Air Traffic Control Responsibilities for Maintaining Aircraft Separation ......................... 2.17
2.6.1
Wake-Turbulence Cautionary Advisories ................................................................... 2.17
2.6.2
Radar/Approach Controllers ....................................................................................... 2.18
2.6.3
Tower Controllers ....................................................................................................... 2.18
2.6.3.1
Wake-Turbulence Separation for Departing Aircraft ........................................... 2.18
2.6.3.2
Wake-Turbulence Departure Separation Criteria ................................................. 2.18
2.6.4
Visual Separation ........................................................................................................ 2.19
2.6.4.1
Visual Separation-Terminal Area ......................................................................... 2.19
2.6.4.2
Visual Separation - En Route ............................................................................... 2.19
2.6.4.3
Visual Separation - Nonapproach Control Towers .............................................. 2.19
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2

Pilot Responsibilities for Maintaining Wake-Turbulence Separation ................................ 2.19

Who Does What and When ......................................................................................... 2.19
Communications ......................................................................................................... 2.20

2.8
Wake Turbulence Recommended Visual Avoidance Procedures ....................................... 2.21
2.8.1
Specific Procedures ..................................................................................................... 2.21
2.8.1.1
Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft - Same Runway ............................................. 2.21
2.8.1.2
Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft - Parallel Runway
Closer Than 2500 Feet ......................................................................................... 2.22
2.8.1.3
Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft - Crossing Runway) ...................................... 2.22

2.iii

SECTION 2

Table of Contents (continued)

Section
2.8.1.4
2.8.1.5
2.8.1.6
2.8.1.7
2.8.1.8
2.8.1.9
2.8.2

Page
Landing Behind a Departing Larger Aircraft - Same Runway ............................ 2.23
Landing Behind a Departing Larger Aircraft - Crossing Runway ....................... 2.23
Departing Behind a Larger Aircraft ..................................................................... 2.24
Intersection Takeoffs - Same Runway ................................................................. 2.25
Departing or Landing After a Heavy Aircraft Executing a
Low Approach, Missed Approach or Touch-and-Go Landing ............................. 2.26
En Route Within 1000 Feet Altitude of a Large Aircraft's
Altitude ................................................................................................................ 2.26
Avoiding Helicopter Outwash Vortices ....................................................................... 2.27

2.9
Pilot Difficulty in Visually Maintaining Separation ........................................................... 2.28
2.9.1
Flightpaths................................................................................................................... 2.28
2.9.1.1
Use of ILS Glideslope ......................................................................................... 2.29
2.9.1.2
Visual Illusions .................................................................................................... 2.29
2.9.1.3
Darkness/Reduced Visibility ................................................................................ 2.29
2.9.2
Instrument to Visual Situation ..................................................................................... 2.29
2.10
Pilot Techniques for Visually Maintaining Separation ....................................................... 2.29
2.10.1
General ........................................................................................................................ 2.29
2.10.2
Visual Cues for Estimating Leaders Flightpath ......................................................... 2.30
2.10.3
Using ILS Glideslopes for Vertical Separation ........................................................... 2.31
2.10.4
Using ILS Localizer for Lateral Separation ................................................................ 2.31
2.10.5
Longitudinal Separation .............................................................................................. 2.32
2.10.5.1
Air Traffic Control Assist .................................................................................... 2.32
2.10.5.2
On-board Radar ................................................................................................... 2.32
2.10.5.3
Time and Distance Methods ................................................................................ 2.32
2.10.6
Establishing Longitudinal Separation ......................................................................... 2.32
2.10.7
Radio Communications ............................................................................................... 2.32
2.10.8
Estimating Movement of Wake Turbulence ................................................................ 2.33

2.iv

2.11

Pilot Responses Upon Encountering Wake Turbulence ..................................................... 2.33

2.12

Cooperative and Efficient Management of Capacity ......................................................... 2.33

2.13

Air Traffic Considerations When Applying Separation ..................................................... 2.34

SECTION
SECTION22

Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Guide to

Wake Turbulence
2.0

Introduction

The Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Guide to

Wake Turbulence is one part of the Wake
Turbulence Training Aid. The other parts
include Section 1, Wake Turbulence - Overview for Training Aid Users; Section 3, Example Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Wake
Turbulence Training Program; Section 4, Wake
Turbulence Training Aid - Background Data,
and a video.
2.0.1

Preview

This Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Guide to

Wake Turbulence is a comprehensive document covering all the factors leading to a
shared awareness and understanding of wake
turbulence. A review of the history of waketurbulence studies, from the introduction of
turbo-jet aircraft to todays environment, is
the starting point. A description of typical
accidents and incidents allows a look at trends
and lessons learned from history. With history as a basis, a thorough description is given
of the wake-turbulence hazard. This includes
the formation, effects, and dissipation of the
wake vortex phenomenon. A description is
given of our ability to predict, detect, and
measure the wake-turbulence hazard. This
includes future planned improvements in
these areas.
Given our knowledge of wake turbulence, the
best solution is to avoid the wake-turbulence
hazard. This document reviews the existing
avoidance guidance and both air traffic control and pilot responsibilities. A discussion is
offered regarding the difficulty for pilots to
visually maintain separation and offers rec-

ommended techniques. A brief discussion of

pilot responses to encountering wake turbulence precedes a section that stresses the necessary cooperation of pilots and air traffic
controllers to safely and efficiently manage
the busy airport environment and avoid waketurbulence encounters. Lastly, the importance of air traffic control considerations
associated with assisting pilots in avoiding
wake turbulence is discussed.
2.0.2

The Goal

The goal of the Wake Turbulence Training

Aid is to reduce the number of wake-turbulence related incidents and accidents by improving the pilots and air traffic controllers
decision making and situational awareness
through increased and shared understanding
and heightened awareness of the factors involved in wake turbulence. This can be accomplished by the application of knowledge,
techniques and training applied to everyday
operations.
2.0.3

Participants and Review Process

The Wake Turbulence Training Aid is the

result of many hours of effort on the part of a
large industry team. This team consisted of:
Air Line Pilots Association, Air Traffic Control Association, Airbus Industrie, Airbus Service Company, Inc., Allied Pilots Association,
American Airlines, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Air Transport Association,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Delta
Air Lines, Inc., Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Safety Foundation, General Avia-

2.1

SECTION 2

tion Manufacturers Association, Hydrolin Research Corporation, Independent Pilots Association, International Civil Aviation
Organization, McDonnell Douglas Aircraft
Company, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Inc., National Air Traffic Services (CAA), National Air Transportation
Association, Inc., National Business Aircraft
Association, National Transportation Safety
Board, Regional Airline Association, Southwest Airlines, The Communications Company, U.S. Department of Transportation, and
United Airlines.

The Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Guide to

Wake Turbulence will:

The team worked on this project over a period

of nine months. During this period the Wake
Turbulence Training Aid and associated video
was developed. In all, a total of four review
cycles were conducted, during which the comments and recommendations of all participants were considered for inclusion in the
final material. Three industry review meetings were held along with a final draft/final
video industry buy-off process. The Federal
Aviation Administration is responsible for
the final reproduction and distribution of the
Wake Turbulence Training Aid. As significant material is developed and changes are
required to this document, a review will be
conducted by the industry team and appropriate updating of the material will be developed and distributed.

provide usable information to develop a

ground training program.

2.1

Objectives

The objectives of the Pilot and Air Traffic

Controller Guide to Wake Turbulence are to
summarize and communicate key wake-turbulence related information relevant to pilots
and air traffic controllers. It is intended to be
provided to air traffic controllers and pilots
during academic training and to be retained
for future use.

2.2

educate pilots and air traffic controllers

on wake turbulence and avoidance of the
phenomenon.
increase the wake turbulence situational
awareness of pilots and air traffic controllers (situational awareness being defined
as an accurate perception by pilots and air
traffic controllers of the factors and conditions currently affecting the safe
operation of the aircraft and the crew).

The most important success tool available

today to pilots and air traffic controllers to
reduce wake-turbulence accidents and incidents is awareness and education. One of the
objectives of this training aid is to educate
pilots and air traffic controllers on wake turbulence and avoidance of the phenomena.
This can be done by updating the basic understanding of wake turbulence to help reduce
and clear up common misconceptions and
generate respect for the hazard. This education will expand the awareness of pilots and
air traffic controllers of their mutual involvement in the avoidance of wake turbulence.
Additionally, education will generate baseline knowledge for instructors and those
people involved with developing training
programs.
Another clear objective is to increase the waketurbulence situational awareness of pilots and
air traffic controllers. This aid will provide
recommendations to improve situational
awareness involving wake turbulence and
techniques for detection, avoidance and recovery. This should lead to shared awareness
and cooperation among air traffic controllers
and pilots. Improved situational awareness

SECTION 2

will better prepare pilots and air traffic controllers for future improvements and new
tools to cope with wake turbulence.

towers were also used to observe the wake

turbulence generated by aircraft as they flew
by. Several observations were made.

Lastly, this Pilot and Air Traffic Controllers

Guide to Wake Turbulence aims to provide
usable information for the development of
ground training programs. There are many
sources of information about wake turbulence. This aid attempts to compile those
sources to provide information for training
developers. Since simulation capability is
limited, the ground training material is developed into written modules, exams, and a
stand-alone video.

The strength of the wake turbulence is

governed by the weight, speed and wingspan of the generating aircraft.

2.2

Historical Examination of the WakeTurbulence Hazard

Wake turbulence is a natural by-product of

powered flight, but was not generally regarded
as a serious flight hazard until the late 1960s.
Upsets or turbulence encounters associated
with other aircraft were usually accredited to
propwash and later on, with jet wash.
Interest in this phenomenon greatly increased
with the introduction of large, wide-body turbojet aircraft during the late 1960s and a concern about the impact of greater wake
turbulence. This was the impetus to conduct
research to gain additional information and
determine what safety considerations were
necessary as more and more large aircraft
entered the industry fleets.
An investigation of the wake-turbulence phenomenon, conducted by Boeing in mid 1969
as part of the FAA test program, included
both analysis and limited flight test and produced more detailed information on wake
vortices. The flight tests provided a direct
comparison between the B-747 and a representative from the then current jet fleet, a B707-320C. The smallest Boeing jet transport,
the B-737-100, was used as the primary waketurbulence probing aircraft along with an F86 and the NASA CV-990. Smoke generating

The greatest strength occurs when the

generating aircraft is heavy, at slow speed
with a clean wing configuration.
Initial flight tests produced sufficient information about the strength, duration and movement of wake turbulence to come to
conclusions and recommendations on how to
avoid it. The wake was observed to move
down initially and then level off. It was never
encountered at the same flight level as the
generating aircraft or more than 900 feet below the generating aircraft. Therefore, a following aircraft could avoid the wake
turbulence by flying above the flightpath of
the leading aircraft. While this can be accomplished in visual conditions, an alternative
was developed for instrument meteorological conditions. Aircraft were placed into categories determined by their gross weight. It
was noted that a division based on the wingspan of the following aircraft was a more
technically correct way to establish categories; however, it did not appear to be an easily
workable method. Since there is a correlation
between aircraft gross weight and wingspan,
gross weight was selected as a means of categorizing aircraft and wake-turbulence
strength. Minimum radar-controlled waketurbulence separation distances were established for following aircraft. The separation
distances depend on the weight of both the
leading and following aircraft. Adjustments
in separation distances were made as more
information on the wake-turbulence phenomenon was gained during the 1960s, 1980s and
1990s, but the basic concept of using aircraft
weights remained constant.

2.3

SECTION 2

Initially, the turbojets that were being produced fit cleanly into distinct categories with
logical break points. For example, heavy aircraft such as the Boeing B-747, Lockheed L1011 and the Douglas DC-10 were clearly in a
class by themselves. There were very few
regional or business support size aircraft.
Today, there is almost a continuum of aircraft
sizes as manufacturers developed the aircraft family concept and produced many
new transport and corporate aircraft. With

improved technology, heavier aircraft are produced with better aircraft performance allowing them the use of shorter runways that
previously could only be used by smaller
aircraft. Additionally, a hub and spoke mix of
regional aircraft with heavy jets, coupled with
an already active private and recreational aircraft population, results in a range of waketurbulence strengths produced and potentially
encountered by a large variety of aircraft, as
illustrated below (Figure 2.2-1).

3.00
Figure 2.2-1
Calculated initial
vortex strength

2.50

2.00
*Relative
strength

Max landing weight

1.50

1.00

0.50
Empty weight
0.00
B747 MD11 B777 A340 767ER A300 A310 B767 B757 B727 A320 MD80 B737 F100

Aircraft type
* Relative strength is the strength variation between maximum landing weight and empty weight
relative to a B-737 of a weight midway between its maximum weight and its empty weight.

2.4

SECTION 2

The wake-turbulence separation criteria, while

necessary, are currently a limiting factor in
several airport capacities. The FAA is working with NASA to develop and demonstrate
integrated systems technology for addressing
separation criteria. The thrust of the work is
to develop wake-turbulence prediction capability, sensors for detecting wake-turbulence
hazards on final approach and an automated
system to maximize operating efficiency while
maintaining safety standards.
The effort to gain more information about
wake turbulence continues.

2.3

Review of Accidents and Incidents

National Transportation Safety Board data

show that between 1983 and 1993, there were
at least 51 accidents and incidents in the United
States that resulted from probable encounters
with wake turbulence. In these 51 encounters,
27 occupants were killed, 8 were seriously
injured, and 40 aircraft were substantially
damaged or destroyed. Numerous other encounters have been documented in the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).
Since participation in ASRS is voluntary, the
statistics probably represent a lower measure
of the true number of such events which occurred. The following are accounts of real
events.
1. A pilot of a medium transport (60,000+
pounds) was told to expedite the takeoff behind a large transport (150,000+ pounds) on
runway 32L at Chicago. He began his takeoff
roll as the large transport rotated. The large
transport went straight ahead and the pilot of
the medium transport was instructed to turn
to 180 degrees. He started the turn at 300 feet
AGL with 15 degrees of bank angle. The bank
angle violently increased to 30 degrees from
the apparent wake turbulence of the large
transport.
The takeoff was initiated about 30 or 40 seconds after the first aircraft.

2. A Cessna Citation 550 crashed while on a

visual approach. The two crew members and
six passengers were killed. Witnesses reported that the aircraft suddenly and rapidly
rolled left and then contacted the ground
while in a near-vertical dive. Recorded ATC
radar data show that at the point of upset, the
Citation was about 2.78 nautical miles (about
74 seconds) behind a B-757. The flightpath
angle of the Citation was 3 degrees and the
flightpath angle of the B-757 was 4.7 degrees.
Standard IFR separation (greater than 3 nautical miles) was provided to the pilot of the
Citation.
About 4.5 minutes prior to the
accident while following the B-757 at a distance of 4.2 nautical miles, the pilot requested
and was cleared for a visual approach behind
the B-757. After the visual approach clearance was acknowledged, the speed of the
Citation increased while the speed of the B757 decreased in preparation for landing. The
controller informed the Citation pilot that the
B-757 was slowing and advised the pilot that
a right turn could be executed to increase
separation.
Although radar data indicate that, at any instant, the Citation was at least 600 feet higher
than the leading B-757 during the last 4 miles
of the approach, the flightpath of the Citation
was actually at least 300 feet below that of the
B-757.
3. The pilot of a Cessna 182 was executing a
visual flight rules approach to runway 32 at
Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah.
The pilot reported that he was instructed by
ATC to proceed direct to the numbers of
runway 32 and pass behind a Boeing that
was on final approach to runway 35. The
Cessna pilot reported that while on final approach, the aircraft experienced a burble,
and then the nose pitched up and the aircraft
suddenly rolled 90 degrees to the right. The
pilot immediately put in full-left deflection of
rudder and aileron and full-down elevator in
an attempt to level the aircraft and to get the
nose down. As the aircraft began to respond
to the correct attitude, the pilot realized that
he was near the ground and pulled the yoke

2.5

SECTION 2

back into his lap. The aircraft crashed short of

the threshold of runway 32, veered to the
northeast, and came to rest in the approach
end of runway 35. The pilot and the two
passengers suffered minor injuries, and the
aircraft was destroyed. The wind was 5 knots
from the south.
The approach ends of runways 32 and 35 are
about 560 feet apart. Radar data show that the
Cessna was at an altitude of less than 100 feet
above ground level (AGL) when it crossed the
flightpath of the B-757. The B-757 had passed
the crossing position about 38 seconds prior
to the Cessna 182.
4. A Gulfstream IV departed New Jersey on a
routine night trip to Florida with a crew of 3
and 2 passengers. The weather was clear with
unlimited visibility and smooth air. During a
slow descent for landing at approximately
Flight Level 250, ATC advised the pilot that he
might see traffic crossing from right to left.
The Gulfsteam pilot sighted the traffic far
ahead. At about 15,000 feet and 300 knots, the
Gulfstream pilot reported that he felt like he
had hit a 20 foot thick concrete wall at 300
knots. The flight attendant and passengers
were injured. The passengers were jettisoned
to the ceiling and slammed to the floor. The
aircraft was checked for damage and landed
uneventfully.
5. A McDonnell Douglas MD-88 was executing a visual approach while following a B-757
to the airport. The crew of the MD-88 reported that the aircraft suddenly rolled right
about 15 degrees and the pilot rapidly deflected both the wheel and rudder pedal to
correct the uncommanded roll. Data from the
digital flight data recorder indicate that at
about 110 feet AGL the roll angle reached 13
degrees right wing down and the ailerons and
rudder were deflected about one-half of full
travel, 10 degrees and 23 degrees respectively.
The crew regained control and the approach
was continued to an uneventful landing. Recorded radar data show that at the point of
upset, the MD-88 was about 2.5 nautical miles
(65 seconds) behind the Boeing 757 while the
flightpath of the MD-88 was slightly below
that of the B-757. The flightpath angle of both
aircraft was 3 degrees.

2.6

The MD-88 flight crew had been issued a

visual approach clearance when the aircraft
was 4.5 nautical miles from the leading aircraft. However, the separation quickly reduced to 2.5 nautical miles. The MD-88 flight
crew told investigators that they thought they
had a 4 nautical mile separation at the time of
the encounter.
6. An Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind
crashed while on a visual approach. The two
crew members and three passengers were
killed. Witnesses reported that the aircraft
rolled and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
data indicate that the onset of the event was
sudden. The aircraft pitch attitude was about
45 degrees nose down at ground contact. Recorded radar data show that at the point of
upset, the Westwind was about 1200 feet above
mean sea level and 3.5 nautical miles from the
runway. The Westwind was about 2.1 nautical miles (60 seconds) behind a B-757 and on
a flightpath that was about 400 feet below the
flightpath of the B-757. The flightpath angle
of the Westwind was 3 degrees and the
flightpath angle of the B-757 was 5.6 degrees.
CVR data indicate that the Westwind pilots
were aware they were close to a Boeing aircraft and the aircraft appeared high. They
anticipated encountering a little wake and
intended to fly one dot high on the glideslope.
While receiving radar vectors to the airport,
the crews of both aircraft were flying generally toward the east and would have to
make right turns to land to the south. Radar
data and ATC voice transcripts show that
the Westwind was 3.8 nautical miles northeast of the B-757 when cleared for a visual
approach. The Westwind started its right
turn from a ground track of 120 degrees
while the B-757 ground track remained at
about 90 degrees. The resultant closure
angle started at 30 degrees and became
greater as the Westwind continued its turn.
About 23 seconds later, the B-757 was cleared
for the visual approach. The average ground
speeds of the Westwind and the B-757 were
about 200 and 150 knots, respectively. The
Westwind was established on course 37 seconds ahead of the B-757. Although the
combination of the closure angle and the
faster speed of the Westwind reduced sepa-

SECTION 2

ration distance from about 3.8 nautical miles

to about 2.1 nautical miles in 46 seconds, the
primary factor in the decreased separation
was the converging ground tracks. The
only way the pilot of the Westwind could
have maintained adequate separation was
to execute significant maneuvers.
Based on radar data, at the time the visual
approach clearance was issued, the separation distance was rapidly approaching the 3
nautical miles required for IFR separation. To
prevent compromise of the separation require-

ment, the controller would have had to take

positive action to change the Westwinds track,
or to issue the visual approach clearance and
receive confirmation that the pilot accepted
the visual approach within 29 seconds.
These cases are extreme wake-turbulence encounters. In all cases, it was possible to avoid
the encounters if the pilots and air traffic
controllers had sufficient knowledge of wake
turbulence and applied proper avoidance procedures and techniques. Hopefully, this training aid will help prevent similar occurrences.

2.7

SECTION 2

2.4
2.4.1

Description/Characteristics of the
Wake-Turbulence Hazard
Wake-Turbulence Formation

The phenomenon that creates wake turbulence results from the forces that lift the aircraft. High pressure air from the lower surface
of the wings flows around the wingtips to the
lower pressure region above the wings. A

pair of counter-rotating vortices are thus shed

from the wings, the right wing vortex rotates
counterclockwise, and the left wing vortex
rotates clockwise as shown in Figure 2.4-1.
This region of rotating air behind the aircraft
is where wake turbulence occurs. The strength
of the turbulence is predominantly determined
by the weight, wingspan and speed of the
aircraft.

Figure 2.4-1
Wake-turbulence
formation

The wake turbulence associated with helicopters also results from high pressure air on the
lower surface of the rotor blades flowing
around the tips to the lower pressure region
above the rotor blades. A hovering helicopter
generates downwash from its main rotor(s) as

Figure 2.4-1A
Formation of
helicopter wake
turbulence (hover)

Figure 2.4-1B
Formation of
helicopter wake
turbulence
(forward flight)

2.8

shown in Figure 2.4-1A. In forward flight a

pair of downward spiraling vortices are shed
from the rotor blades, as shown in Figure 2.41B. This region of rotating air below the
helicopter is where wake turbulence occurs.

SECTION 2

1) The vortex strength depended on the size,

weight, and speed of the aircraft;
2) The pair of vortices generally descended
after generation and would separate when
they approached the ground;
3) The vortex motion was substantially affected by the ambient wind.
The lack of field testing prior to 1970, especially of vortices near the ground, precluded
an in-depth understanding of vortex behavior, and in particular of the decay process.
Now, two decades later, the industry recognizes that there are more factors associated
with wake turbulence.
This section briefly summarizes the current
knowledge of the behavior of wake vortices.
Much has been learned about the characteristics of vortices, but there are still gaps in our
understanding. The weight, wingspan and

speed of the aircraft determine the initial

strength and motion of the vortices; however,
the ambient atmosphere (wind, stability, turbulence, etc.) eventually dictates the motion
and decay rate of the vortices.
2.4.2

Velocity Flow Field

The general flow field of a vortex is approximately a circular flow and composed of the
following regions:
The core region of the vortex can range
from a few inches in diameter to several
feet. The outer edge of the core has the
maximum rotational velocity of the vortex. The maximum core velocity may
exceed 300 ft/sec. The greatest maximum strength occurs when the aircraft
has a clean wing.
The outer region of the vortex is characterized by a decreasing velocity profile.
As seen in Figure 2.4-2, this region may
be as large as 100 feet in diameter.

Figure 2.4-2
Velocity profile

The early theories, pre-1970, describing aircraft wake vortex characteristics were very
simplistic. They stated that:

ore

00 fee

Up to 1

May exceed
300 ft/sec

2.9

SECTION 2

2.4.3

The Hazard (Figure 2.4-3)

primarily depends on the wingspan and the

control responsiveness of the encountering
aircraft.

The usual hazard associated with wake turbulence is that the induced rolling moment
can exceed the roll control of the encountering
aircraft. To evaluate the induced rolling moment, the overall profile of the vortex must be
combined with the aerodynamic characteristics of the encountering aircraft. During
flight tests, aircraft were intentionally flown
into the vortex of a heavy aircraft. These tests
showed that the capability of an aircraft to
counteract the roll imposed by the vortex

Counter control is most effective and induced

roll minimal where the wingspan of the encountering aircraft is outside the rotational
flow field of the vortex. Counter control is
more difficult for encountering aircraft with
wingspans that are relatively shorter than
that of the generating aircraft. Pilots of short
span aircraft and high performance aircraft
must be especially alert to vortex encounters.

Figure 2.4-3
Induced roll

Counter
control

Wak
ev
or
te
x

w
flo

d
fiel

2.10

SECTION 2

The response of an aircraft to the usual waketurbulence encounter is illustrated below in

Figures 2.4-4 thru 2.4-9.
Pilots have also reported brick wall encounters where the aircraft experiences a
rather abrupt displacement. These encounters seem to occur en route when the encountering aircraft crosses through the wake of the
generating aircraft.

When approached from above, the downward flow between the vortices pulls the aircraft through the wake. This creates an
uncommanded descent (See Figures 2.4-4
and 2.4-5).

Figure 2.4-4
Aircraft reaction to
wake-turbulence
encounter, approach
from above-center
(rear view
depiction)

pe

Glideslo

pe

Figure 2.4-5
Aircraft reaction to
wake-turbulence
encounter, approach
from above-right
(rear view
depiction)

Glideslo

2.11

SECTION 2

When approached from the side, the upward

flow at the outside of the wake will cause the
aircraft to bank away from the wake. A rapid
approach from the side may result in the
aircraft passing through the wake (See Figures 2.4-6 and 2.4-7).

Figure 2.4-6
Aircraft reaction to
wake turbulence
encounter,
approach from the
side (rear view
depiction)

pe

Glideslo

Figure 2.4-7
Aircraft reaction to
wake turbulence
encounter, rapid
approach from the
side (rear view
depiction)

pe

Glideslo

2.12

SECTION 2

When approached from below, the downward flow through the wake pushes the aircraft down and away from the wake. If
approached at a rapid enough rate, the aircraft will pass through the wake (See Figures
2.4-8 and 2.4-9).

Figure 2.4-8
Aircraft reaction to
wake-turbulence
encounter, approach
frome below right
(rear view depiction)

pe

Glideslo

Figure 2.4-9
Aircraft reaction to
wake-turbulence
encounter, rapid
approach from
below (rear view
depiction)

pe

Glideslo

2.13

SECTION 2

2.4.4

Vertical Motion of the Wake

The wake of an aircraft has behavioral characteristics which can help the pilot visualize the
wake location and thereby take avoidance
precautions. The initial descent rate of the
wake is adequately described by classical
theory; the descent rate is determined by the
weight, flight speed and wingspan of the generating aircraft. Generally, vortices descend
at the initial rate of about 300 to 500 feet per

minute for about 30 seconds. The descent rate

decreases and eventually approaches zero at
between 500 and 900 feet below the flightpath.
Flying at or above the flightpath provides the
best method for avoidance. Maintaining a
vertical separation of at least 1000 feet when
crossing below the preceding aircraft may be
considered safe. This vertical motion is illustrated in Figure 2.4-10.

Flightpath

Figure 2.4-10
Vertical motion out
of ground effect

500 to 900 feet

Levels off in approximately

5 nm in approach configuration

On approach and takeoff the wake descends

below the flightpath until it enters ground
effect whereupon the vortices slow their downward descent and move laterally as shown
below. Typically, the wakes descent will be
arrested within approximately 1/2 wingspan
(50-100 feet for the B-747) of the ground. Be-

low this height the wake does not completely

form into concentrated vortices and the turbulence in the wake is weakened. Thus, the
turbulence level is reduced, but may still be a
factor to aircraft in the touchdown area. This
is illustrated in Figure 2.4-11.

No strong wake
Approach path
1600 feet

Figure 2.4-11
Vertical motion in
ground effect
6

Wake
turbulence

50 feet

2.14

1200
feet

50 feet

SECTION 2

2.4.5

Horizontal Motion of the Wake

The horizontal motion of vortices is dictated

by the ambient wind and the proximity of the
vortices to the ground.
At altitude, the wakes horizontal motion is
determined by the velocity of the wind. On
approach and takeoff, the wake descends below the flightpath until it enters ground effect
whereupon the vortices decrease their downward descent and move laterally. With no

crosswind, the two vortices move apart to

clear the flightpath. Crosswinds of 1 to 5
knots can cause one vortex to remain near the
flightpath. A light quartering tailwind requires maximum caution. However, a pilot
does not have the tools to determine that a
perfectly zero crosswind condition exists.
Crosswinds greater than 5 knots cause the
vortices to move quickly across the flightpath
and to break up. This is illustrated in Figure
2.4-12 below.

0 crosswind
Altitude, ft

T = 0 sec
100

300

200

100

Figure 2.4-12
Horizontal motion

T = 10 sec
T = 20 sec

100

200

300 Ground plane, feet

T = Time

3-knot crosswind
T = 0 sec
100
T = 10 sec
T = 20 sec

300

200

100

100

200

300 Ground plane, feet

T = Time

6-knot crosswind
T = 0 sec
100
T = 10 sec
T = 20 sec
300

200

100

100

200

300

Ground plane, feet

T = Time

2.15

SECTION 2

Vortices have been found to move laterally as

much as 1500 feet under certain conditions,
but with seemingly weak strengths at the
larger lateral distances. Additionally, under
some crosswind conditions, vortices have been
observed to bounce (i.e., descend toward
the ground and then later begin to rise up
somewhat).

2.4.7

2.4.6

2.5

Decay Process

The decay process of the wake is complex and

is strongly influenced by the atmospheric conditions. The decay process is driven by the
following factors:
Atmospheric Turbulence. Atmospheric
turbulence plays a significant role in the
decay of the vortex. Atmospheric turbulence imparts viscous forces on the
wake. These forces extract energy from
the vortex, thus reducing its strength.
The heavier the turbulence, the quicker
the wake decays.
Viscous Interactions. The viscosity of
the atmosphere slowly extracts energy
from the vortex, thus reducing its
strength.
Buoyancy. An upward force acts on the
vortex as a result of the density inside
the vortex system being lower than the
density outside the vortex. This force
also slowly extracts energy from the
vortex; thus, reducing its strength.
Vortex Instability. A small amount of
turbulence in the atmosphere can create
an instability in the vortex pair that
causes the vortices to link. When the
vortices link, the strength of the pair
decays rapidly.

2.16

Gaps in Our Knowledge

The initial behavior of the wake is well described by theory. However, the long-term
behavior is strongly dependent on meteorological conditions. Work continues to fully
understand the effects of meteorological conditions on the decay process.

Future Wake-Turbulence Detection

Technology

There are many sensors/systems that have

had or may have application in forecasting or
detecting wake turbulence. These range in
complexity from simple sensors, such as propeller anemometers, to complex systems, such
as the FAAs Integrated Weather Sensing System (ITWSS). There is a general consensus
that it would be desirable to use sensors/
systems which already exist (such as the Low
Level Windshear Alert System). However,
there is currently nothing in operational use
which meets all of the requirements for waketurbulence sensing. There is not even complete agreement on what the requirements for
wake-turbulence sensing should be.
Wake-turbulence sensor research is currently
being conducted in the United Kingdom,
France, Canada, Germany, and the United
States. The U.S. research is the most extensive
and includes research in most, if not all, of the
areas of interest to other countries.

SECTION 2

The primary areas of research are Radar, Lidar (Laser Radar), Sodar (acoustic Radar),
Infrared sensors, and combinations of these
technologies. A high-power radar has demonstrated the capability of detecting and tracking wakes, but not at the much lower power
level which might be practical in a terminal
area. Radar is not able to resolve whether a
wake is hazardous or not as there is even some
uncertainty over the source of the signal return. Radar research is continuing because it
has a number of advantages as an operational
sensor, even though technical results have not
been as promising as for other sensors.
Laser systems have a long, successful history
as research instruments for wake-turbulence
measurements. They can detect, track, and
measure wake strength. Research is continuing to improve their range and all weather
capability. Because of their complexity, the
primary challenge is to develop a safe, standalone system for operational use. Research
systems have been used in several countries
to develop a wake-turbulence database.
Acoustic systems have also proven successful
in wake-turbulence research. Older systems
required several sensors to track wake turbulence but new systems are being developed
which can detect, track, and measure strength
with a single sensor. Acoustic systems have
provided most of the airport wake-turbulence
strength measurements in the U.S. database.
These systems are simpler and cheaper than
Lasers but are limited in range (1000 feet or
less).
Infrared sensor research for wind shear
prompted tests of an infrared sensor for wake
turbulence. These tests showed that there
was an infrared signature associated with the
passage of an aircraft. However, it is not clear
if the signature is due to the temperature
profile in the atmosphere or some characteristic of wake turbulence. This situation is so
unclear that presently, infrared sensors are
not considered promising.

In addition to the major sensor technologies,

there is a continuous stream of ideas for new
sensors based on new technologies or combinations of old technologies. During 1995 and
1996, the FAA/NASA Wake Vortex Program
will evaluate vortex technology and select the
most promising technology with the goal of
developing and demonstrating an operational
system by the year 2000.

2.6

Air Traffic Control Responsibilities

for Maintaining Aircraft Separation*

Air traffic controllers play a large role in assuring that aircraft avoid wake turbulence
since pilots are unable to visually apply avoidance procedures during IMC. Controllers,
while providing radar vector service, are responsible for applying the wake-turbulence
longitudinal separation distances between IFR
aircraft and wake-turbulence advisories to
VFR aircraft.
2.6.1

Wake-Turbulence Cautionary
Advisories

Air traffic controllers are responsible for providing cautionary wake-turbulence information to assist pilots prior to their assuming
visual responsibility for avoidance. Controllers must issue wake-turbulence cautionary
advisories and the position, altitude if known,
and direction of flight of heavy jets or B-757s
to:
a. VFR aircraft not being radar vectored,
but which are behind heavy jets or B757s.
b. VFR arriving aircraft that have previously been radar vectored and the
vectoring has been discontinued.
c. IFR aircraft that accept a visual approach
or visual separation.
Air traffic controllers should also issue cautionary information to any aircraft if, in their
opinion, wake turbulence may have an adverse effect on it. When traffic is known to be
a heavy aircraft, the word heavy should be
included in the description.

*Information provided in Section 2.6 is compatible with FAA air traffic directives.

2.17

SECTION 2

2.6.2

Radar/Approach Controllers

Within the terminal area, IFR aircraft are separated by 3 miles when less than 40 miles from
the terminal antenna. A 2.5 nautical mile
separation is authorized between certain aircraft which is established on the final approach course within 10 nautical miles of the
landing runway when:
a. The leading aircrafts Weight Class is the
same or less than the following aircraft;
b. Heavy aircraft and the B-757 are permitted to participate in the separation
reduction as the following aircraft only;
c. An average runway occupancy time of
50 seconds or less is documented;
d. Bright Radar Indicator Tower Equipment
displays are operational and used for
quick glance references;
e. Turnoff points are visible from the control tower.

Air traffic controllers are responsible for applying appropriate wake-turbulence separation criteria for departing aircraft. They will
inform the pilot when it is necessary to hold
an aircraft to provide the required wake-turbulence separation. The proper communication phraseology is hold for wake
turbulence. Pilots may request a waiver to
deviate from the criteria. A pilot request for
takeoff does not initiate a waiver request unless it specifically includes a request to deviate from the required wake-turbulence
interval.
2.6.3.2 Wake-Turbulence Departure
Separation Criteria
Separation criteria (listed by aircraft waketurbulence weight categories and runway situation) are as follows:

Wake-turbulence procedures specify increased separation minima required for certain classes of aircraft because of the possible
effect of wake turbulence. Refer to Appendix
4-F for FAA, United Kingdom and ICAO IFR
radar controlled wake-turbulence separation
criteria.

Same or parallel runways separated less

than 2500 feet:

2.6.3

Same runway:

Tower Controllers

Tower controllers are responsible for runway

separation for aircraft arriving or departing
the airport. Tower controllers do not provide
visual wake-turbulence separation to arrival
aircraft; that is the pilots responsibility. Tower
controllers do provide wake-turbulence separation for departing aircraft by applying time
intervals. Pilots may request a waiver to the
wake-turbulence departure separation and
the tower controller will then issue a caution
wake turbulence advisory and clear the aircraft for takeoff provided no other traffic conflict exists.

2.18

2.6.3.1 Wake-Turbulence Separation for

Departing Aircraft

Small/large/heavy behind heavy - 2

minutes (same direction).

Small/large/heavy behind heavy - 3

minutes (opposite direction or intersection departure).

Note:

Small behind large - 3 minutes (opposite direction or intersection

departure).
Aircraft conducting touch-and-go and
stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection.

Intersecting runways:
-

Small/large/heavy behind heavy - 2

minutes (projected flightpaths cross
or departure will fly through airborne
path of arrival).

SECTION 2

2.6.4

Visual Separation

Aircraft may be separated by visual means

when other approved separation is assured
before and after the application of visual separation. To ensure that other separation will
exist, air traffic controllers should consider
aircraft performance, wake turbulence, closure rate, routes of flight and known weather
conditions. Reported weather conditions must
allow the aircraft to remain within sight until
other separation exists. Controllers should
not apply visual separation between successive departures when departure routes and/
or aircraft performance preclude maintaining
separation.
2.6.4.1 Visual Separation-Terminal Area
Visual separation may be applied between
aircraft under the control of the same facility
within the terminal area provided:

2.6.4.2 Visual Separation - En Route

Air traffic controllers may use visual separation in lieu of radar separation in conjunction
with visual approach procedures. Refer to
Section 2.6.4 for those procedures.
2.6.4.3 Visual Separation - Nonapproach
Control Towers
Nonapproach control tower controllers may
be authorized to provide visual separation
between aircraft within surface areas or designated areas provided other separation is
assured before and after the application of
visual separation. This may be applied by the
nonapproach control tower providing the
separation or by a pilot visually observing
another aircraft and being instructed to maintain visual separation with that aircraft.

a. communication is maintained with at

least one of the aircraft, involved or the
capability to communicate is immediately available; and the aircraft are
visually observed by the tower controller and visual separation is maintained
between the aircraft by the tower controller.

2.7

b. a pilot sees the other aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation
from the aircraft as follows:

2.7.1

(1) The pilot is informed by the ATC of

the other aircraft, including position, direction and, unless it is
obvious, the other aircrafts intention.
(2) Acknowledgment is obtained from
the pilot that the other aircraft is in
sight.
(3) The pilot is instructed to maintain
visual separation from the other aircraft.
(4) The pilot is advised if the radar targets appear likely to converge.
(5) If the aircraft are converging, the
other aircraft is informed of the traffic and that visual separation is being
applied.

Pilot Responsibilities for

Maintaining Wake-Turbulence
Separation

Pilots and air traffic control share the responsibility for assuring that aircraft avoid wake
turbulence.
Who Does What and When

There is clear delineation of who and when

responsibility is assumed for avoiding wake
turbulence. The pilot is responsible for avoiding wake turbulence when:
a. flying in VFR and not being vectored by
ATC.
b. maintaining visual separation.
c. cleared for a visual approach.
Air traffic control (ATC) assumes wake-turbulence responsibility while providing the
pilot instrument flight rules (IFR) control in
instrument meteorological weather conditions
and when vectoring VFR aircraft. [A discussion of ATC procedures is included in the
ATC responsibility Section, 2.6.] A discussion
of several situations will help to clarify a
pilot's responsibility.

The tower controller shall not provide visual

separation between aircraft when wake-turbulence separation is required or when the
lead aircraft is a B-757.
2.19

SECTION 2

When the pilot is being radar controlled by

ATC, the aircraft will be spaced, for wake
turbulence, behind a preceding aircraft at a
distance determined by the weights of the
two aircraft. Based on the known movements
of wake turbulence, this separation has been
successful in preventing wake-turbulence encounters. The minimum separation is designed not only to allow time for the wake
turbulence to begin to dissipate, but also to
allow time for it to descend below the following aircraft's flightpath. Longitudinal separation is but one element of avoidance. If VFR
weather conditions exist when ATC is providing radar control, the pilot is not relieved
of the responsibility for assuring the flightpath
will avoid an encounter with wake turbulence. If instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) exist, only the ATC established
separation distances are available to prevent
wake-turbulence encounters, since the pilot is
unable to visually apply avoidance procedures.
When it is operationally beneficial, ATC may
authorize the pilot to conduct a visual approach to an airport or to follow another
aircraft in VFR weather. The pilot must have
the airport or an identified preceding aircraft
in sight before the clearance is issued. If the
pilot has the airport in sight but cannot see the
aircraft he or she is following, ATC may still
clear the aircraft for a visual approach; however, ATC retains both normal separation and
wake-turbulence separation responsibility.
When the pilot is able to visually follow a
preceding aircraft, and accepts the visual approach clearance, this transfers responsibility
for avoiding wake turbulence to the pilot. To
summarize this point, the pilot accepts waketurbulence avoidance responsibility when:
a. ATC instructions include traffic information.
b. Instructions to follow an aircraft are given
and the pilot is able to comply.
c. The pilot accepts the visual approach
clearance.

2.20

ATC is also responsible for assuring proper

wake-turbulence separation before issuing
clearance for takeoff by applying time and
distance intervals. Pilots, after considering
possible wake-turbulence effects, may specifically request a waiver to the interval. Controllers may acknowledge this request as
acceptance of responsibility for wake-turbulence separation. If traffic permits, takeoff
clearance will be issued. A wake-turbulence
cautionary advisory will be given.
During cruise flight in VFR weather, altitude
separations could be as little as 500 feet between IFR and VFR aircraft. In this situation
the same principle applies: pilots must use
proper avoidance procedures.
2.7.2

Communications

To aid other pilots and ATC within FAA

controlled airspace, pilots of heavy aircraft
should always use the word Heavy in their
radio communications. Radio communications are usually country specific, therefore
pilots should check appropriate regulations
regarding wake turbulence prior to operations outside FAA controlled airspace.
ATC is required to provide a "CAUTION
WAKE TURBULENCE" advisory when VFR
aircraft are not being radar vectored and are
behind heavy jets or B-757s and to IFR aircraft
that accept visual separation or a visual approach. ATC controllers may also issue a
wake-turbulence caution when, in their opinion, wake turbulence may have an adverse
effect on an aircraft following another aircraft. Because wake-turbulence movement is
variable, the controller is not responsible for
anticipating its existence or effect. Although
not mandatory during ground operations, controllers may use the words jet blast, propwash, or rotorwash, in lieu of wake turbulence,
when issuing a caution advisory.

SECTION 2

2.8

Wake Turbulence Recommended

Visual Avoidance Procedures

It would be easy to avoid wake turbulence if

it could be seen. Although under certain
atmospheric or artificially generated conditions it is possible to see wake turbulence, this
is not the normal situation. Therefore, pilots
must rely on their knowledge of the behavior
or characteristics of wake turbulence to visualize the wake location so that they may implement avoidance procedures.
These
procedures have been developed for various
situations. It is important to note that the
procedures require pilots to adjust their operations and flightpath to preclude wake encounters. Aircraft performance should be
considered during the decision process of
applying the procedures. Generally, the procedures were developed to assist pilots in

Wind

avoiding the area below and behind the generating aircraft. A go around may be the
appropriate solution in some situations.
2.8.1

Specific Procedures

2.8.1.1 Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft Same Runway (Figure 2.8-1)

Stay at or above the larger aircrafts final
approach flightpath.
Note its touchdown point.
Land beyond the touchdown point, runway length permitting.
If unable to land safely beyond the touchdown point, go around.

Touchdown point of
larger aircraft
Figure 2.8-1
Landing behind a
larger aircraft
- same runway

Planned touchdown point

of following aircraft

Planned touchdown point

of following aircraft

Touchdown point of
larger aircraft

2.21

SECTION 2

2.8.1.2 Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft Parallel Runway Closer Than 2500
Feet (Figure 2.8-2)
Consider possible wake-turbulence drift
to your runway.
Stay at or above the larger aircrafts final
approach flightpath.
Note its touchdown point.
9-L

Figure 2.8-2
Landing behind a
larger aircraft parallel runway
closer than 2500
feet

Less than 2500 feet

9-R
Touchdown points
Parallel Runway Situation

Wind

9-L
Less than 2500 feet

9-R
Touchdown points

Offset Runway Situation

2.8.1.3 Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft Crossing Runway (Figure 2.8-3)

Cross above the larger aircrafts flightpath.
Consider lateral and vertical motion of
wake turbulence.
If unable to land safely, go around.
9

36

Figure 2.8-3
Landing behind a
departing larger
aircraft - crossing
runway

Aircraft crossing over

wake turbulence

2.22

SECTION 2

2.8.1.4 Landing Behind a Departing

Larger Aircraft - Same Runway
(Figure 2.8-4)
Note the larger aircrafts rotation point.
Land before the rotation point, or go
around.

Planned
touchdown
point

Figure 2.8-4
Landing behind a
departing larger
aircraft - same runway

Rotation point

2.8.1.5 Landing Behind a Departing

Larger Aircraft - Crossing Runway
(Figures 2.8-5,-6)
Note the larger aircrafts rotation point. If
past the intersection, continue the approach and land before the intersection.
If larger aircraft rotates before the intersection, avoid flight below larger aircrafts
flightpath. Abandon the approach unless
a landing is assured well before reaching
the intersection.

Figure 2.8-5
Landing behind a
departing larger
aircraft - crossing
runway

2
Touchdown here
or abandon approach

15

08

Rotation point

Figure 2.8-6
Landing behind a
departing larger
aircraft - crossing
runway

Rotation point

2.23

SECTION 2

2.8.1.6 Departing Behind a Larger Aircraft

(Figures 2.8-7,-8,-9)
Note the larger aircrafts rotation point.

Continue climb above the larger aircrafts

climb path until turning clear of its wake.
Caution: This may not be possible because of the larger aircrafts performance.

Delay, do not begin take-off roll unless

your rotation point will be prior to the
larger aircrafts rotation point.

Avoid subsequent headings which will

cross below and behind a larger aircraft.

Climb displaced upwind of larger aircraft.

Be alert for any critical take-off situation

which could lead to a wake-turbulence
encounter.

Figure 2.8-7
Departing behind a
larger aircraft same runway

Large
aircraft
Small aircraft

Figure 2.8-8
Departing behind a
larger aircraft crossing departure
courses

Figure 2.8-9
Departing behind a
larger aircraft opposite direction

Large aircraft
Critical take-off situation

Small aircraft

2.24

SECTION 2

2.8.1.7 Intersection Takeoffs - Same

Runway (Figure 2.8-10)
Be alert to adjacent larger aircraft operations, particularly upwind of your
runway.
If intersection take-off clearance is received, avoid headings which will cross
below a larger aircrafts path.
Ensure your rotation point is before larger
aircrafts rotation point, or delay takeoff.

Rotation point

Figure 2.8-10
Intersection takeoffs same runway

2.25

SECTION 2

2.8.1.8 Departing or Landing After a

Heavy Aircraft Executing a Low
Approach, Missed Approach or
Touch-and-Go Landing
(Figure 2.8-11)
Ensure that an interval of at least two
minutes has elapsed before your take off
or landing.

Figure 2.8-11
Departing or
landing after a
heavy aircraft
executing a low
approach, missed
approach or touchand-go landing

Take-off or landing hazard

2.8.1.9 En Route Within 1000 Feet

Altitude of a Large Aircraft's
Altitude (Figure 2.8-12)
Avoid flight below and behind a large
aircrafts path.
Wind

Figure 2.8-12
En route VFR (1000
foot altitude plus
500 feet)

Wind

2.26

If a larger aircraft is observed above and

on the same track (meeting or overtaking), adjust your position laterally,
preferably upwind.

SECTION 2

2.8.2

Avoiding Helicopter Outwash

Vortices

In a slow hover taxi or stationary hover near

the surface, helicopter main rotor(s) generate
downwash producing high velocity outwash
vortices to a distance approximately three
times the diameter of the rotor. When rotor
downwash contacts the surface, the resulting
outwash vortices have behavioral characteristics similar to wingtip vortices of fixed-wing
aircraft. However, the vortex circulation is
outward, upward, around and away from the
main rotor(s) in all directions. Pilots of small
aircraft should avoid operating within three
rotor diameters of any helicopter that is in a
slow-hover taxi or stationary hover (Figure
2.8-13).

In forward flight, departing or landing helicopters produce a pair of strong, high-speed

trailing vortices similar to wingtip turbulence
of larger fixed-wing aircraft (Figure 2.8-14).
Pilots of small aircraft should use caution
when operating behind or crossing behind
landing and departing helicopters. Additionally, it is possible for the wake turbulence
from a helicopter that hovers upwind of a
runway to drift towards the runway.
In certain situations, ATC will use the phrase,
caution, wake turbulence. Pilots must be
aware that whether or not a warning has been
given, they are expected to adjust their operations and flightpath as necessary to preclude
serious wake encounters.

Figure 2.8-13
Helicopter hoverproduced
downwash

Figure 2.8-14
Helicopter forwardflight-produced wake
turbulence

2.27

SECTION 2

2.9
2.9.1

Pilot Difficulty in Visually

Maintaining Separation
Flightpaths

A review of accidents and incidents involving

wake turbulence reveals a recurring problem
that pilots routinely must solve during arrival
and landing. Traffic and airspace as well as
other considerations require the establishment
of flight patterns for sequencing aircraft for
landing. These patterns are designed to accommodate arrivals from several directions,
as well as approaches and landings under IFR
and VFR weather conditions. Pilots may fly
visual approaches when weather conditions
permit and authorized by ATC at controlled
airports. The pilot is then solely responsible
for avoiding the wake turbulence when other

aircraft are present by staying at or above the

flightpath of any aircraft they may follow.
The task of maintaining a proper visual relationship with the lead aircraft becomes greater
and more complicated when aircraft of different sizes and speeds, approaching from various altitudes and directions, are involved.
These complexities increase the difficulty in
maintaining the appropriate flightpath.
Even though the leader aircraft is currently
below you, do not assume that the flightpath
of the leader aircraft is below you. It is quite
possible that the leader aircraft varied its descent rate, especially during the initial portion
of its approach (Figure 2.9-1).

Actual flightpath
(leader)

Figure 2.9-1
Steeper flightpath
by leader aircraft

2.28

Visual determination that the leader

aircraft is lower; therefore, wrongly
assumes it is above the flightpath of
the lead aircraft

SECTION 2

2.10 Pilot Techniques for Visually

Maintaining Separation
When available to the pilot, the ILS glideslope
2.9.1.1 Use of ILS Glideslope

can be a starting point for assistance in determining the flightpath of a leader aircraft; however, it is not foolproof. In fact, the leader
aircraft may have intercepted and flown above
the glideslope for wake-turbulence avoidance
or other reasons.
2.9.1.2 Visual Illusions
Pilots can experience visual illusions for several reasons. Different aircraft sizes can make
it difficult for pilots to determine distances or
rates of closure with a leader aircraft. Additionally, the body attitudes of some aircraft
significantly change as airspeed is reduced.
The change in aircraft body attitude can give
the illusion of a change in flightpath. Aircraft
approaching from different directions and
altitudes while turning to final approach is
another situation where it is difficult for pilots
to determine what the leaders flightpath was
or will be when becoming aligned behind the
leader.
2.9.1.3 Darkness/Reduced Visibility
Determining the leader aircrafts flightpath
during darkness can be difficult for pilots.
Depth perception is inhibited and pilots may
have to rely only on the leader aircrafts lighting when ascertaining its flightpath. It is also
difficult to determine flightpaths during reduced visibility caused by weather conditions.
2.9.2

Instrument to Visual Situation

Changing from an instrument approach to a

visual approach and landing, when conditions permit, is routinely accomplished. The
pilots situational awareness up until the time
of transition from IMC to VMC is usually
limited to information received from radio
communications. While ATC will issue information and cautionary instructions, the pilot
must be prepared to react to the traffic situation and apply proper avoidance procedures.

2.10.1

General

The wake-turbulence avoidance procedures

discussed in Section 2.8 are effective when
properly used. To properly apply avoidance
procedures and techniques, it is important for
pilots to know and understand the characteristics and movement of wake turbulence discussed in Section 2.4. Normally, it is not
possible for pilots to know the precise location of wake turbulence. Pilots must therefore
avoid the area below and behind larger aircraft flightpaths, especially at low altitude
where even a momentary wake encounter
could be hazardous. While this is not always
easy to do, there are some techniques that
may be used. Pilots should always consider
their aircraft performance when avoiding
wake turbulence since several procedures and
techniques may require some adjustments to
routine operations. Notification of ATC may
also be necessary.
For pilots to be able to avoid wake turbulence
by staying on or above the flightpath of the
leader aircraft, trailing pilots must make some
assumptions on where the leader has flown
since there is no available visual reference.
The use of visual glideslope indicators such as
VASI or PAPI or instrument precision approach aids, when possible, will assist in establishing and maintaining a normal approach
flightpath* and runway centerline course. If
external aids are not available and obstacles
are not a factor, a descent rate of 300 feet per
nautical mile traveled approximates a 3-degree flightpath. The aircraft should be stabilized on a flightpath not later than 500 feet
AGL. Air traffic controllers and pilots must
understand that accomplishing a steep descent may have serious ramifications for trailing aircraft with regard to wake turbulence.

*Heavy wide-body aircraft pilots routinely fly the upper two rows of VASI lights.

2.29

SECTION 2

2.10.2

Visual Cues for Estimating

Leaders Flightpath

One way to determine the flightpath that the

leader has flown is to extend an imaginary
line from your position to the runway normal
touchdown point (Figure 2.10-1A). If the
leader aircraft is above this line, you are below

its flightpath. Conversely, if the leader aircraft is on or below the imaginary line, you are
on or above its flightpath. This technique
assumes the leader has flown a consistent
flightpath and is using a normal runway touchdown point.

Below leaders flightpath

Figure 2.10-1A
Determining
flightpath of leader
using imaginary
line extension
method

Above leaders flightpath

Normal touchdown point

While following an aircraft, extending an

imaginary line from your aircraft through the
leader to the runway should end at the normal runway touchdown point (Figure 2.101B). If it ends at a point down the runway, the

trailing aircraft is probably below the

flightpath of the leader. If the imaginary line
extension is prior to the touchdown point,
e.g., in the overrun, the trailing aircraft is
probably above the leaders flightpath.

Above

Figure 2.10-1B
Determining if
follower is above or
below leader

Below

Visual sight
angle of T/D
if following
aircraft is below
leader flightpath

2.30

Normal
touchdown
point

Visual sight
angle of T/D
if following
aircraft is above
leader flightpath

SECTION 2

2.10.3

Using ILS Glideslopes for Vertical

Separation

When ILS approaches are being used, consideration may be made by the pilot of the trailing aircraft to fly at or above the ILS glideslope.
This assumes the leader aircraft is positioned
on the glideslope. Be alert! This assumption
is not always valid. A nose high pitch attitude

Miles from touchdown (nm)

One-dot (1/4 degree) deviation

Two-dot (1/2 degree) deviation
Note:

2.10.4

of the leader aircraft should not be used as an

indicator of glideslope position because pitch
attitudes vary among aircraft types and manufacturers. Table 2.10-1 provides distance in
feet for degrees in deviation from the glideslope and illustrates position relative to the
glideslope.

130'

104'

78'

52'

26'

260'

208'

156'

104'

52'

Table 2.10-1
Deviation from
standard 3-degree
glideslope

The relative distance from the glideslope becomes quite insignificant close
to the runway.

Using ILS Localizer for Lateral

Separation

During crosswind conditions, pilots may consider flying offset on the upwind side of the
localizer centerline as a means of avoiding the
leaders wake turbulence. This assumes the

Miles from touchdown (nm)

One-dot (1-1/4 degree) deviation
Two-dot (2-1/2 degree) deviation

leader is flying on the localizer course. Table

2.10-2 can be used to determine offset distance in feet for degrees in deviation from the
localizer course.

838'

706'

573'

441'

308'

1677' 1412'

1147'

882'

617'

Table 2.10-2
Localizer deviation

2.31

SECTION 2

2.10.5

Longitudinal Separation

Pilots may also establish longitudinal separation from a leader aircraft so as to allow time
for the wake turbulence to move or dissipate.
Judging in-flight distances is not always easy
to do because different aircraft sizes can be
visually deceiving to the pilot.
2.10.5.1 Air Traffic Control Assist
Air traffic controllers are able to provide separation distance information to pilots when
workload permits and they have radar displays in the control tower. They can provide
airspeed differential between aircraft and may
advise pilots following another aircraft when
they are overtaking the preceding aircraft.
2.10.5.2 On-board Radar
Aircraft equipped with radar may have the
capability to determine separation distances
from other aircraft. Caution: Be careful not to
focus attention on the radar at the expense of
outside visual scans.
2.10.5.3 Time and Distance Methods
A technique available for the pilot of the following aircraft is to start timing the leader
aircraft when it or its shadow passes a recognizable geographical reference point. Radio
call points can also be used for timing references. Determine the amount of time it takes
for the following aircraft to pass over the same
point. Convert that time into distance. For
example, if it took three minutes and the
following aircrafts ground speed was 120
knots (two miles per minute), then the distance between the two aircraft is six miles.
Most heavy and large aircraft produce some
smoke from the tires during touchdown on
landing. Pilots of trailing aircraft, upon observing the smoke, can estimate their own
position from touchdown as well as determining a point to land beyond. Knowing the
distance from the runway to an instrument
final approach fix or an available landmark
can be helpful in determining relative distances.

2.32

2.10.6

Establishing Longitudinal
Separation

There are several ways to increase separation

distances while following an aircraft on final
approach. Several factors should be considered before implementing these techniques:
aircraft performance, in-flight visibility, other
traffic in the pattern as well as those that are
taking off or preparing to take off, notification
of ATC, etc.
Airspeed reduction is an obvious choice of
most pilots, but usually is limited to small
changes because of aircraft performance or
ATC restrictions. Pilots must not reduce airspeed below the aircrafts minimum safe operating speed. Also, recovery from an
inadvertent wake-turbulence encounter is
more difficult at slower airspeeds. For planning purposes, most transport category aircraft final approach speeds are between 120
knots to 150 knots.
Flying S turns is another way to gain separation.
A 360-degree turn will greatly increase the
distance from the leader, but the impact on
other aircraft may preclude its use.
The decision to abort the approach or landing
and go around is always an alternative for
avoiding wake turbulence.
2.10.7

Radio Communications

Listening to all radio communications (not

just those directed to you) can be helpful in
providing information that can improve waketurbulence situational awareness. Prior to
entering a visual traffic pattern or initiating
an instrument approach, radio communications between ATC and other aircraft can alert
pilots to where they may fit in the landing
sequence or what type aircraft they may follow. Takeoff and landing clearances for other
aircraft provide pilots information that can be
useful for spacing considerations as well as
anticipating the location of generated wake
turbulence. Do not overlook any information
that can aid planning and flying an approach,
landing or go-around.

SECTION 2

2.10.8

Estimating Movement of Wake

Turbulence

Basic surface wind indications can aid pilots

with estimating the movement of wake turbulence. Blowing dust, smoke or wakes on
lakes and ponds provide indications that may
be used in determining wind direction which
may be applied to wake-turbulence movement. Use any on-board avionics equipment
i.e., inertial reference, Doppler radar, global
positioning system, etc. to determine wind
direction. Aircraft drift angles will also give
the pilot an indication of wind direction.

2.11 Pilot Responses Upon Encountering

Wake Turbulence
An encounter with wake turbulence usually
results in induced rolling or pitch moments;
however, in rare instances an encounter could
cause structural damage to the aircraft. In
more than one instance, pilots have described
an encounter to be like hitting a wall. The
dynamic forces of the vortex can exceed the
roll or pitch capability of the aircraft to overcome these forces. During test programs, the
wake was approached from all directions to
evaluate the effect of encounter direction on
response. One item that was common to all
encounters, without a concerted effort by the
pilot the aircraft would be expelled from the
wake. Refer to Section 2.4, Figures 2.4-4
through 2.4-9, for the effects on an aircraft
when encountering wake turbulence from
several directions. While this information
provides a better understanding of wake turbulence, its usefulness is limited since waketurbulence encounters are inadvertent and
pilots will not be aware of their entry location.
Counter control is usually effective and induced roll is minimal in cases where the wingspan and ailerons of the encountering aircraft
extend beyond the rotational flow field of the
vortex. It is more difficult for aircraft with
short wingspan (relative to the generating
aircraft) to counter the imposed roll induced
by the vortex flow. Pilots of short span aircraft, even of the high performance type, must
be especially alert to wake-turbulence encounters.

It may be difficult or impossible for pilots to

differentiate between wake turbulence and
turbulence generated from another source.
Apply appropriate corrective action if wake
turbulence is encountered. A wake-turbulence encounter at low altitude is much more
hazardous than an encounter at cruise altitude or early during the approach phase of
flight.

2.12 Cooperative and Efficient

Management of Capacity
The worldwide number of aircraft continues
to increase each year for reasons that reach
from the desire for greater recreational use to
responding to commercial demand. As this
number increases, so must the necessary support or infrastructure. The critical or limiting
factor of this infrastructure continues to
change. For example, in the early years of
aviation, the small number of runways often
limited where a pilot could land. As more
runways were built, adverse weather became
the critical element which was slowly overcome with the advent of better and better
terminal approach aids and air traffic systems. We have evolved from few pilots to
many pilots; from few air traffic controllers to
many air traffic controllers. Most of the limiting factors have gradually been mitigated
though improved technology. Currently,
wake turbulence and the application of existing IFR separation and avoidance procedures
are a limiting factor at many major airports.
This situation, coupled with high air traffic
density, creates an environment that requires
pilots and air traffic controllers to cooperate
to safely and efficiently conduct flight operations.
Air traffic controllers should understand that
many times the pilots situational awareness
is limited to information provided by ATC
until the pilot enters visual meteorological
conditions. This means that initially it may be
difficult for pilots to visually detect whether
they may be overtaking the leader aircraft or
where they are, relative to the leaders
flightpath. Any pertinent information that
can be given to the pilot during a radar controlled arrival, will help the pilot transition to
a visual approach and landing.

2.33

SECTION 2

Delaying a pilots descent increases the cockpit workload and difficulty in accomplishing
a normal approach for landing. A higher than
normal approach can impact trailing aircraft.
The leader aircraft may not be aware of trailing aircraft or of their position.
Pilots can assist ATC in several ways. One
way is to understand that ATC is continually
challenged in sequencing arrivals with departures, planning for different aircraft with
different performance characteristics and applying wake-turbulence separation criteria.
A pilot who initiates an unusual request or
makes a change in his/her flight operations
from what is normally expected by ATC, will
probably increase an already high workload
for most controllers at major airports. Early,
precise and disciplined radio communications
with ATC improves the flow of vital information.
Wake turbulence is one of many factors that
pilots and air traffic controllers must overcome to fly safely. It takes cooperation among
pilots and air traffic controllers and understanding of each others requirements to safely
avoid wake turbulence.

2.13 Air Traffic Considerations When

Applying Separation
Air traffic control is responsible for the safe,
orderly and expeditious flow of all aircraft in
their area of responsibility. The primary considerations that affect the controller's ability
to do this are:
Type of approaches available (IFR orVFR)
Mix of traffic (turbojet, propeller, helicopter)
Traffic density
Wake-turbulence separation
Noise abatement procedures.
The terminal approach control can safely land

2.34

and depart more aircraft if the weather is VFR

and visual approaches are being used. Typically, aircraft flying visual approaches will
have approximately 1-1/2 miles between landing and arriving aircraft. Under IFR weather
conditions, aircraft require a minimum of
2-1/2 miles inside the final approach fix and
if wake-turbulence separation is required, the
separation may be extended up to 4, 5, or 6
miles between aircraft. Traffic density is the
major factor in the amount of aircraft that can
be safely, orderly and expeditiously landed or
departed. The busiest airports schedule aircraft takeoffs and landings based on weather
conditions. At almost any busy airport, when
the weather is IFR, there are extensive delays
and even cancellations if the IFR weather
persists for an extended period of time.
Visual conditions and visual separation allow
air traffic to handle more aircraft in the system. When controllers clear pilots to maintain
visual separation or to fly a visual approach,
they can concentrate their efforts on separating the other IFR aircraft they are handling.
The quicker an approach controller transfers
the responsibility of separation to the pilot,
the better service he or she can provide to the
other aircraft that still require IFR control.
There are several factors a controller should
consider before clearing a pilot to maintain
visual separation or to fly a visual approach
when wake-turbulence separation must be
applied. First, winds have a significant effect
on wake turbulence. A smaller aircraft upwind from a larger aircraft is unlikely to encounter any wake turbulence. However, it is
not always practical or possible to have a
smaller aircraft follow a larger aircraft on the
upwind side. Traffic patterns, runway configurations, and expeditious handling sometimes do not make it practical to sequence
aircraft based on crosswinds. Another consideration controllers need to make is the
flightpath of the preceding aircraft compared
to the flightpath of the following aircraft. Steep
descents of larger aircraft for any reason could
create a hazard for smaller following aircraft
flying a normal descent to the same runway.
This is because the smaller aircraft at some
time could be below the glidepath of the larger
aircraft.

SECTION 2

Many more fast, small jet powered aircraft are

being manufactured. It is no longer a "small
aircraft fly slower than large aircraft" environment. Faster small jets following slower
large jets could create a serious wake-turbulence problem since the smaller aircraft could
get too close behind the larger jet. Intersecting
runways also create a hazard when a small jet
is cleared to land on a runway and its flightpath
will take it through the flightpath of a larger
jet that was landing or departing on a different runway.
The best prevention for avoiding wake turbulence is both pilot and controller awareness.
Controllers must be aware of where wake
turbulence could occur and how it will affect

other aircraft following. Crosswinds, steep

descents, different airspeeds and crossing runways are factors controllers should consider.
Pilots also have to be made aware of where
the potential hazards exist. Sometimes giving
a cautionary wake-turbulence advisory is not
enough. The pilot needs to know if the aircraft he/she is following is on a steeper than
normal descent, is flying slower, or if the
preceding aircraft has departed or is landing
on another runway. If the controllers are
aware of potential wake-turbulence hazards,
then they need to inform the pilots of those
hazards and allow the pilot to adjust his/her
flightpath accordingly.

2.35

SECTION 2

(This page intentionally left blank)

2.36