Wake Turbulence Suspected In RV-6 Fatal Crash

You know, I never took wake turbulence that seriously until I saw a POV video of a 172 on short final roll almost past 90 degrees after encountering the wake from a Q400 that had landed and cleared the runway. It threw them off course so quickly I could hardly believe it.

I'm definitely going to keep a better out eye from here on. Scary stuff.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
You know, I never took wake turbulence that seriously until I saw a POV video of a 172 on short final roll almost past 90 degrees after encountering the wake from a Q400 that had landed and cleared the runway. It threw them off course so quickly I could hardly believe it.

I'm definitely going to keep a better out eye from here on. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...

I got snap rolled to nearly 90 degree's in PHX one night in a PA-31 behind a 737. It happens and you deal with it.
 
always try to obtain 2 minute+ delay behind a significantly larger airplane. In my opinion this is

Any airplane to include airliner (B737,MD80 or larger) versus any airliner level equipment or bigger

Cessna 172 behind a G-5

etc

Also, remember that when you accept visual separation you also accept wake turbulence separation, "its on you" versus on ATC if under IFR handling.
 
B350ATP said:
always try to obtain 2 minute+ delay behind a significantly larger airplane. In my opinion this is

Any airplane to include airliner (B737,MD80 or larger) versus any airliner level equipment or bigger

Cessna 172 behind a G-5

etc

Also, remember that when you accept visual separation you also accept wake turbulence separation, "its on you" versus on ATC if under IFR handling.
Click to expand...

Is 2 minutes the general rule?
I departed today after a Falcon 50 and waited 5 minutes. I could not remember the time recommendation.
 
Sorry for the loss,may they rest in peace.
 
FORANE said:
Is 2 minutes the general rule?
I departed today after a Falcon 50 and waited 5 minutes. I could not remember the time recommendation.
Click to expand...

I want to say FAA says "at least 2 minutes" and ICAO says "3 minutes"

I find it easier (and safer) to just delay 2 to 3 minutes versus try to figure out "point of rotation" or "point of touchdown" etc etc by the wake producing airplane. Call me lazy but for me just sitting in place for 2 more minutes is easy-peasy.

Wake turbulence (and has caught me before also...) is a silent killer and the accident files are full of sad cases where a time delay or extended distance would have resulted in deaths prevented.

Good AOPA article : http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1998/October/1/Wake-Turbulence-Should-You-Worry.aspx
 
I was flying a Metroliner into STL years ago and got rolled to the left to about a 45 degree bank. That doesn't sound too bad but when you have full aileron the other way and it's still rolling it was rather eye opening.
 
Friend passed some distance under and airliner in his c150 and got shaken up so hard the insurance company totaled the airplane (after he landed safely).
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I want to say the FAA time is based on weights and location (read full length vs intersection) of departure.
Click to expand...

I just wait 2 to 3 minutes and that works every time.

I will do 1 minute if winds are strong (20 knots+) and/or gusty

Almost never less than 1 minute if preceding heavier aircraft in front of me.
 
Last edited:
B350ATP said:
I want to say FAA says "at least 2 minutes" and ICAO says "3 minutes"

I find it easier (and safer) to just delay 2 to 3 minutes versus try to figure out "point of rotation" or "point of touchdown" etc etc by the wake producing airplane. Call me lazy but for me just sitting in place for 2 more minutes is easy-peasy.

Wake turbulence (and has caught me before also...) is a silent killer and the accident files are full of sad cases where a time delay or extended distance would have resulted in deaths prevented.

Good AOPA article : http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1998/October/1/Wake-Turbulence-Should-You-Worry.aspx
Click to expand...
Flying a relatively light plane (RV10) I'm both cautious about wake turbulence and find the point of rotation and touchdown easier to follow than the time thing.

If it's a jet ahead I just make sure I get off long before it does and stay away from it's flight path. Landing I just go long and touch down past their touchdown point. Staying above the ILS slope is generally good too.

Having never encountered wake turbulence, the trick is identifying those unusual situations where I might run into bad stuff anyway, e.g. landing KCLT rwy 23 when the heavy traffic is landing 18L. After doing that a couple of times I figured out bad things could have happened.
 
Unfortunately, there is no good way to prepare someone for wake turbulence, and sadly, their first encounter is sometimes their last.
 
Shepherd said:
Unfortunately, there is no good way to prepare someone for wake turbulence, and sadly, their first encounter is sometimes their last.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not true. Every pilot ought to take one of the readily available severe upset/extreme unusual attitude recovery courses. Here's a link showing the locations where the training can be had:

http://www.iacusn.org/schools/
 
LDJones said:
Wow...."sure death" vs. "high probability of death or at least serious injury"... A horrible choice to be stuck with making....without much time to decide.
Click to expand...
Horrible choice indeed.

I would imagine that someone building and flying a warplane replica is familiar with the flying lore that says sure death may be preferable to serious burns. WWI and WWII pilots have been quoted that they rather jump without a workable chute than burn in the cockpit.

A fire after takeoff sounds like leaking fuel and that can go south really fast.
 
I've commenced many a go around at KLGB as a result of big iron landing in front of me on short-final. I remember flying with my instructor and we hit he wake of a landing jet in ground effect and since then I've elected to NEVER let that happen again...
 
Shepherd said:
Unfortunately, there is no good way to prepare someone for wake turbulence, and sadly, their first encounter is sometimes their last.
Click to expand...
If the NTSB does determine that it was wake turbulence, the accident pilot probably never knew it was coming. He was "sightseeing" so probably low, slow, and looking down. STC tower does not have radar so although they probably knew he was out there, they would not have known where. Commercial service into STC is only a few flights a day and a couple of years ago there were none at all, so the accident pilot probably wasn't expecting anything heavier than a bugsmasher on the approach. That's if he even thought about being under the approach path. His only hope was to have been monitoring tower and to have heard the Airbus checking in with the tower. But even then, the call might have been made too late or the deduction that there was a possible risk might not have happened.
 
Can you cite the video?

Cpt_Kirk said:
You know, I never took wake turbulence that seriously until I saw a POV video of a 172 on short final roll almost past 90 degrees after encountering the wake from a Q400 that had landed and cleared the runway. It threw them off course so quickly I could hardly believe it.

I'm definitely going to keep a better out eye from here on. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Psjair said:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=..._2263853359&v=BuGFIXxkyLU&src_vid=sjifp5oi6dE


This might be it.
Click to expand...
Good one. I love the wake being visible on the water.

The bank is probably less than 45 degrees but that would feel like 'knife edge' given the circumstances.

The narrator talks about the CFI leaving the ailerons alone during the recovery so as to avoid stalling. Not sure I'd be able to do that and can't tell whether that was actually done but....

I was thinking that my reaction would be to 1) apply full power, 2) unload by pushing forward a bit, 3) recover the roll with lots of rudder and some aileron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top