X45

Pax jets can be upset by wake turbulance. Would release of coloured smoke by planes assist pilots to see it?

Perhaps the large jets A380, B747 etc could be fitted with smoke release equipment? Seeing something is a powerful reminder. Commercial pressures prevent extended distances between aircraft at many busy airports. Wake induced control loss can be fatal.

Public Comments

1. A good idea except: The haze caused by the smoke would be cumulative, reducing visibility around the airport (sometimes is a factor during airshows when there is no wind). The public would not go for their skies being visually polluted. The equipment would be a financial and maintenance burden for the airlines (it's not their fault you are following too close in your Cessna). I've flown into many airports behind large jets in a small plane. Keeping your distance and staying above the flightpath of the jet is the key to staying safe.
2. It *would* probably work. However, it would be extremely expensive, require a lot of heavy equipment to be towed around, and result in a lowered visibility during the most crucial part of a flight (landing). And the truth is, wake upsets are not a significant danger. They do exist, however they tend to catch people flying small aircraft who lack the skill and experience necessary to avoid them. Passenger jets are rarely impacted by them to a significant degree.
3. The tree huggers are flipping out about aviation air polution as it is, and you want to add more??? Not bloody likely!
4. i think it would be good, but this happens rarely. it would cost higher to maintain and we dont know the risks invoved
5. Are you saying that some plane, should release smoke so planes behind can see it at take off? So reducing visibility would somehow be safer? If you release just a little stream of smoke, it will have dissipated by the next take off.
6. ATC is probably your best defense against wake turbulence encounters these days. And as previously noted, the smoke would most likely be met with resistance due to increasing the cost of a flight.
7. There certainly are commercial pressures to take off or land as close as possible to keep schedules, save fuel, maximize runway use, etc., however the Pilot in Command has the last say in whether or not his aircraft enters an area of wake turbulance. If the PIC wants to wait an additional 30-60 seconds after clearance before he pulls onto the runway to take off, that is his lawful right. There is even more commercial pressure to prevent accidents and loss of life and machines (which are millions of times more expensive than a little time lost), so training and proper procedures for wake turbulance avoidance are more valuable and less expensive than smoke systems that would pollute the airspace both visually and environmentally, and would absolutely cause more problems than it would assist.
8. No. Everyone who ever had pilot train knows and understands the cause of wake turbulence. It starts when the wheels leave the ground and ends when the wheels touch down. This turbulence, which emanates from the end of the a wing, descends downward. Thus to avoid, your glide path toward touchdown needs to be higher than the preceding aircraft and one lands longer. On take off your wheels leave the ground before the preceding aircraft. You may have seen the winglets on newer aircraft. It as been shown they reduce wake from the wings, plus you save on fuel due to better mileage. Wakes and the strength of them is determined by the weight of the aircraft. Of course takeoff would find the aircraft heaver than at landing, thus there is greater wake turbulence generated at takeoff.
9. Air traffic control keeps all IFR traffic separated a safe distance from each other and provides traffic advisories when VFR traffic gets too close. Wake turbulence is not usually a problem because of the spacing provided.