Simviation Forum - ... the meaning of "heavy" in RT transmissions?

Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:01am

Bernardvoges Offline
2nd Lieutenant
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 1

Hi there,

Can anyone shed light on the meaning of the term "heavy" during radio transmissions - frequently used by literally heavy jets (747, 340 etc).

Is that it? Does it just signify that it's a large aircraft, or does it have another meaning?

What then constitutes a 'heavy'?

Thanks,
Bernard

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:06am

SilverFox441 Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1467

It's used to signify aircraft that are heavy.

Larger planes are generally less manueverable and it's good for everyone to know that this particular plane is a bus that can barely get out of it's own way. Tongue

Steve (Silver Fox) Daly

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:38am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

wake turbulence... even if the 757 climbs like a rocket (and is under the official weight limit for 'heavy') it makes more wake turbulence than some heavy classified machines

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 11:15pm

JVC_systems Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 369

Can 757 be called "heavy" or is still short of of being "heavy"?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 4:27am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

i have heard the 757 being called heavy during an ATC transmission before. Like Ivan said its all to do with the wake turbulance and the 757 produces a hell of alot

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 6:13pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

The 757, under the U.S. classification of "heavy", falls below the weight class of heavy aircraft. Due to it's notorious nature though (it's dangerous wake characteristics were discovered after it was produced and entered service), is sometimes referred to as "heavy".

To answer the question, "heavy" in an ATC instruction, is used to warn pilots that the aircraft has a hazardous WAKE.

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jan 31^st, 2004 at 1:07pm

JVC_systems Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 369

What about 767-200? Can it be called "heavy" I just remember downloading a 767 for FS2004 and in the game ATC never refered to my aircraft as "heavy" so that's why I am asking. I have been on Delta Air lines 767 (KSFO - ATL flight) and I would say the aircraft was big.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jan 31^st, 2004 at 1:09pm

JVC_systems Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 369

Just a quick update. it was 767-200 (KSFO - KATL flight). I was also wondering why is it that Delta never uses 767-300 for those routes? I've been on several delta flight and they never had 767-300 doing flights within the US. Usually all their 767-300 go to Europe or elsewhere.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jan 31^st, 2004 at 1:26pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

The company bases the type on how many people fly during the time of year. The 200 i also believe doesnt have a good range for atlanta europe routes, i think Delta uses the 767-400 on its Boston-London route as that was the type i was on, on one of my trips. as for the flight sim heavy, you need to tick the box when selecting a call sign.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Feb 1^st, 2004 at 2:22am

JVC_systems Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 369

Btw, I have heared that Delta wants to get rid of their 767-200's? If so why is that? It is such a great aircraft!! Also what would be a good replacement for 767-200 and/or their routes once they are retried?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Feb 1^st, 2004 at 5:39am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Its getting old is the reason why. Its replacement, will prob be the 7E7, which i why its being built, there really is no market right now for the 767 area. The A330 is a little big. The A321 is to small and lacking range.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Feb 2^nd, 2004 at 3:52pm

Flying Trucker Ex Member

FROM: A.I.P. CANADA (Aeronautical Information
Publication) produced by Transport Canada and
amended monthly

Gen 5-5
Heavy Aircraft/Jet
For wake turbulence categorization purposes, an
aircraft certificated for a maximum takeoff weight
of 136000 kilograms (300000 lbs) or more.

Cheers...Happy Landings....Doug

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: