Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Tool of the day

Old 09-19-2017, 10:55 AM
  #9751  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Default

Originally Posted by Turbosina View Post
Where did I say it was a transport category aircraft?

It was a Meridian, for crying out loud.
And that's my point. Even on the 320, quite a few think this thing will roll inverted and smash into the ground behind a 767 and want to fly high. If you want to fly a half dot high, that's your prerogative. A large category aircraft like the 320 family has enough mass, inertia, wingspan, and aileron authority that it will not violently roll over and cause you to lose control.

This was actually one of the factors cited in the AA 587 crash. The NTSB came down harshly on the AAMP training curriculum, in which one scenario in the sim flying behind a 747, and they would roll the MD80/A300 a full 90 degrees due to wake and then have the pilot recover. It was all BS, and grossly exaggerated the expectancy of a wake disturbance on a large, transport category aircraft. No doubt this was in the back of the mind of the AA 587 FO as he violently overcontrolled the aircraft. No large transport category aircraft has flipped over and crashed behind a 757/767 or other heavy aircraft while on approach from 500ft-3000+ft AGL.

The one exception was the Delta DC9-10 (almost RJ type) in the traffic pattern with a DC10 also doing touch n goes in Texas, and they caught the wake below a 100 feet, corrected in one direction, overcorrected in another direction, and with not enough altitude they rolled upside on the runway and crashed. But this was on short final, in a non-normal operation of a heavy doing touch n goes.

It's just an eye rolling moment when some think a large transport category aircraft like an Airbus will behave like a small business jet for wake and lose control and crash
ShyGuy is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:23 AM
  #9752  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 201
Default

Originally Posted by BigDukeSix View Post
Not what your mom said!
If you took her pegging you, than you are tougher than I thought. You are still a lousy acrobatic pilot.

Cheers!
AC560 is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:33 AM
  #9753  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Default

Originally Posted by ShyGuy View Post
This was actually one of the factors cited in the AA 587 crash.

The one exception was the Delta DC9-10 (almost RJ type) in the traffic pattern with a DC10 also doing touch n goes in Texas, and they caught the wake below a 100 feet...
Shy,

Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.

Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.

Enough said.
Packrat is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:06 PM
  #9754  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: doggy style
Posts: 1,006
Default

First off, I appreciate the ride to work this morning.... but the SWA captain that made all of his announcements in a pirate voice starting at 0530 this morning and the flight attendant who followed the whole flight. It got old after the first sentence at the gate and was completely obnoxious by initial descent. Seriously, a whole safety demo in a lame pirate voice... Really? I thought talk like a pirate day was a kid's thing.
DENpilot is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:58 PM
  #9755  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Papa Bear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 323
Default

Originally Posted by DENpilot View Post
First off, I appreciate the ride to work this morning.... but the SWA captain that made all of his announcements in a pirate voice starting at 0530 this morning and the flight attendant who followed the whole flight. It got old after the first sentence at the gate and was completely obnoxious by initial descent. Seriously, a whole safety demo in a lame pirate voice... Really? I thought talk like a pirate day was a kid's thing.
It's national pirate day...duh everyone knows that.
Papa Bear is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:26 PM
  #9756  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Default

Originally Posted by ShyGuy View Post
A transport category aircraft you were flying rolled fully inverted behind an A300 at 1,000 AGL?
Originally Posted by BigDukeSix View Post
^^^^^I call bullsh!t on this too. And upset recovery is to roll in the shortest direction to wings level!
We used to do it all the time at SKW...in the sim.

I seriously doubt it happened in the real world at SKW, I would have heard about it.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:51 PM
  #9757  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Default

Originally Posted by Packrat View Post
Shy,

Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.

Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.

Enough said.
The way you quoted me with the rolleyes is out of context from what I wrote. Not sure if that was a formatting error on your part or on purpose. I certainly didn't put a rolleyes right after the DC9 crashing below 100 feet.

AA 587 had descending vortices at almost 250 knots from the 747. At worse, it was a light roll rate of the A300 (a widebody!) that would have been a complete non-event if it wasn't for the immediate and severe over-controlling reaction by the PF.
ShyGuy is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 04:16 PM
  #9758  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Default

Originally Posted by ShyGuy View Post
The way you quoted me with the rolleyes is out of context from what I wrote. Not sure if that was a formatting error on your part or on purpose. I certainly didn't put a rolleyes right after the DC9 crashing below 100 feet.

AA 587 had descending vortices at almost 250 knots from the 747. At worse, it was a light roll rate of the A300 (a widebody!) that would have been a complete non-event if it wasn't for the immediate and severe over-controlling reaction by the PF.
Formatting error. Again, AA 587 was a departure event...the following aircraft was BELOW the vortex generating aircraft. We're talking about an ILS where the trail aircraft is ABOVE the generator.

Big difference. And, I agree the flight control inputs were to blame, but you have to remember that, at the time, ALL airlines were sim training FULL THROW of flight controls for upset recovery. That theory changed after 587.
Packrat is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 04:34 PM
  #9759  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 89
Default ..........

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
We used to do it all the time at SKW...in the sim.

I seriously doubt it happened in the real world at SKW, I would have heard about it.
Happened at ASA 3-4 years ago. A CRJ2 on downwind behind a Korean B748 freighter.
cargofast is offline  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:20 PM
  #9760  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 656
Default

Rolf is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Elvis90
Military
2
11-11-2010 09:25 AM
meloveboeing
Regional
5
10-02-2010 07:47 AM
kc135driver
United
119
08-24-2010 08:30 AM
exerauflyboy5
Flight Schools and Training
15
02-18-2009 08:29 PM
Busdriver
JetBlue
70
01-16-2006 10:32 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices