Today I decided to take a break (just a short one) from my NGX and I did a short trip with my Mooney. What was about to become a perfect landing just turned out to be a disaster. The reason for it is that a bigger aircraft had taken off about 1 minute before my landing. I know that this happens in real life, but I think it is exaggerated in FSX. 1 whole minute should be enough for the air to calm down and turbulence disappear. Anyways, what I wonder is whether there is some way to deactivate it.

Hi, Tell that to the northbound flight into KDTW a few winters ago that went down, mostly because of WT and the plane wasn't even in sight. ASE provides WT up to 4 minutes. What weather program are you using?

FSX doesn't model wake turbulence.

In real life, there is a TWO minute take-off rule behind a heavy. Also there is a SIX MILE seperation rule on approach. While taking off behind a heavy aircraft you should take off before its take off point and stay above its flight path. Likewise on landing even after 6 miles seperation in a light aircraft you should aim to land after its touchdown point. Depending on wind conditions the vorticies may stay in the area longer than expected, but 1 minute is too soon to take off in your Mooney after a heavy.

I'm curious too. Which weather program since FSX does not produce its own wake turbulence that I am aware of. How about ATC? Any software available that advises you of possible wake turbulence based on AI Heavy takeoff/landing?

ATC is never aware of wake. Active Sky Evolution produces wake.

ATC is never aware of wake. Active Sky Evolution produces wake.

What's interesting, if you look in editvoicepack and search for the landing clearance instruction, there is a tag for Wake Turbulence, (TWR_ADD_WAKE_TURBULENCE) but it's not defined anywhere. These are usually defined with a boolean statement appending a _YES (So The definition statement would be "TWR_ADD_WAKE_TURBULENCE_YES") So at some point Aces, must have thought about implementing it.

In real life, there is a TWO minute take-off rule behind a heavy. Also there is a SIX MILE seperation rule on approach. While taking off behind a heavy aircraft you should take off before its take off point and stay above its flight path. Likewise on landing even after 6 miles seperation in a light aircraft you should aim to land after its touchdown point. Depending on wind conditions the vorticies may stay in the area longer than expected, but 1 minute is too soon to take off in your Mooney after a heavy.

Generally yes, there are ways around 6 miles of WT though. If a VFR aircraft is following a IFR heavy I'm not giving them 6 miles, they only need to see the heavy.

ATC is never aware of wake. Active Sky Evolution produces wake.

Thank you! I will have to consider upgrading my Active Sky.

ASX and ASA also simulate WT.

I was not even aware that FSX does not produce WT. I use ASE which I am very happy with. Are there any ATC programs that take WT into consideration?

I was not even aware that FSX does not produce WT. I use ASE which I am very happy with. Are there any ATC programs that take WT into consideration?

If you go into the wind options of ASE you can reduce the amount of Wake Turbulence if you like to a level that won't swamp your aircraft. I believe the default setting is 50 percent, I reduced mine to 20%.

Thank you!

Generally yes, there are ways around 6 miles of WT though. If a VFR aircraft is following a IFR heavy I'm not giving them 6 miles, they only need to see the heavy.

LOL! Yeah I know about that one. When flying into KMDW there ain't no 6 mile seperation. "CAP 1577, follow the Southwest 737-800 at your 11 O'Clock 3 miles, cleared for the visual runway 4 Left, contact tower on..." Even so, I'll stay above his glide path and land long of the TDZ. OH! And BTW, we are no longer CAP FLIGHT XXXX, we are just CAP XXXX now....most ATC know us by our old call sign and refer to us as such, but that just serves to confuse my new pilots :0) If you see one of us flying through your airspace wave and say hi!

Here was my experience awhile back:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/288752-barrel-roll-on-approach/page__p__1788109__fromsearch__1#entry1788109