EK 380 almost causes biz jet crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MUC
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK 380 almost causes biz jet crash
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Dubai
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one that thinks maybe there was some fabrication (probably unintentional) here by the bizjet crew?
Only 10,000' loss, but 5 rolls, failed RAT deployment, and dual flameout. Kind of hard to believe all that could occur but only lose 10,000'.
Only 10,000' loss, but 5 rolls, failed RAT deployment, and dual flameout. Kind of hard to believe all that could occur but only lose 10,000'.
I'd be interested to know the winds aloft at the time. Wake turbulence is most dangerous when the air is very still because wind turbulence breaks up and dissipates the vortices. There was Lear 35 that crashed in Mexico City a few years ago when it hit wake turbulence of the preceding heavy, and that was on a calm evening with very stable air.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: .
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done UPRT recently, 5 rolls in a bizjet is very easy to accomplish at altitude when upset. Push, roll, power, recover. A wake turbulence encounter like this would be very possible and with an unsuspecting crew who might not be on point in recovering, the result could have been much worse.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Offset should be mandatory and at the discretion of the crew, L/R 2nm. Yes, MNPS airspace will need to be rethought but what will it take?/QUOTE]
Have a look at the Dubai CTA - in particular, the distance between the DXB and SHJ STAR tracks, seeing the problem yet?
Have a look at the Dubai CTA - in particular, the distance between the DXB and SHJ STAR tracks, seeing the problem yet?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=dcbus]
I think dcbus that Guy D'ageradar (ATC I believe) is trying to say that there isn't room for offsets on the STARs...
Hardly surprising around DXB!
Quote:
Offset should be mandatory and at the discretion of the crew, L/R 2nm. Yes, MNPS airspace will need to be rethought but what will it take?/QUOTE]
Have a look at the Dubai CTA - in particular, the distance between the DXB and SHJ STAR tracks, seeing the problem yet?
Offset on STARS? Come on You're not really an Airline pilot. ARE YOU?? They'll put anybody in a seat these days. Yes Offsets should always be flown where available. Your passenger's deserve it especially when the seat belt sign is OFF!!!
Offset should be mandatory and at the discretion of the crew, L/R 2nm. Yes, MNPS airspace will need to be rethought but what will it take?/QUOTE]
Have a look at the Dubai CTA - in particular, the distance between the DXB and SHJ STAR tracks, seeing the problem yet?
Offset on STARS? Come on You're not really an Airline pilot. ARE YOU?? They'll put anybody in a seat these days. Yes Offsets should always be flown where available. Your passenger's deserve it especially when the seat belt sign is OFF!!!
Hardly surprising around DXB!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you WK, you're correct. Dubai CTA was only given as an example - lots of places where offsetting 2nm on an RNP1 route can cause significant problems, plus the possibility of a "no tea, no biscuits" chat.....thus my response to always doing so.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DCBUS
In a Radar environment if you suspect Wake Turbulence from a preceding A/C ask ATC for an offset L/R by however much you need. On a STAR stay above the profile of the guy ahead and let ATC know. There endeth a lesson in "Rocket Science".
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is a good example of why the suffix super is used with the callsign. To alert both ATC and pilots in the vicinity (those that have a bit of SA at least; that's another story these days
) that there may be a wake turbulence issue.
I'm not keen following a fellow 380 too closely; even at 570 tonnes we still pick up a fair bit of rock n'roll from their wake!
) that there may be a wake turbulence issue.I'm not keen following a fellow 380 too closely; even at 570 tonnes we still pick up a fair bit of rock n'roll from their wake!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Begs the question if such a tight environment can sustain a mixed operation of heavies and medium and smaller. Some times it seems like the increase of pax uplift of the biggies is annihilated with the necessary separation for medium and lighter ac. Avid aviators out of DXB know what i am pointing at. The painful wait after a super departure when some 737 or 320 are due ....
En route slop might mitigate the problem, but if 2nm l/r are a problem in TMAs, then the bigwakeshakers almost inhibit parallel lightweight ops.
En route slop might mitigate the problem, but if 2nm l/r are a problem in TMAs, then the bigwakeshakers almost inhibit parallel lightweight ops.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the Approach controllers at DXB regularly use the 3 dimensional / vertical avoidance of Wake from the preceding Super, which is very good.
There is of course another option, as used by other busy airports. To use both sides of downwind.
Some time ago, when DXB arrivals were being significantly effected by some nasty CBs, lots of RT asking for wx avoiding tracks etc, it was very busy.
Yet on the opposite side there was no weather. We asked for a Left Hand Downwind for 30L, ATC said why? No wx says us. ATC grabbed it with both hands and switched the flow. RT dropped by 50%.
If the Supers flew the opposite downwind orientation from the rest would it ease the problem a bit?
Obviously there would need to be SID considerations but worth a look?
There is of course another option, as used by other busy airports. To use both sides of downwind.
Some time ago, when DXB arrivals were being significantly effected by some nasty CBs, lots of RT asking for wx avoiding tracks etc, it was very busy.
Yet on the opposite side there was no weather. We asked for a Left Hand Downwind for 30L, ATC said why? No wx says us. ATC grabbed it with both hands and switched the flow. RT dropped by 50%.
If the Supers flew the opposite downwind orientation from the rest would it ease the problem a bit?
Obviously there would need to be SID considerations but worth a look?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dcbus
WK
Honestly you're too much man. Smell the coffee, WHERE OFFSET IS AVAILABLE YOU DON'T NEED TO ASK. Sunshine!!
dcbus is online now Report Post
Honestly you're too much man. Smell the coffee, WHERE OFFSET IS AVAILABLE YOU DON'T NEED TO ASK. Sunshine!!
dcbus is online now Report Post
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: guess where
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smell the coffee, WHERE OFFSET IS AVAILABLE YOU DON'T NEED TO ASK. Sunshine!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an operational viewpoint I seem to recall that if you put in an enroute offset in the FMC on a Boeing, it ceases at the beginning of a STAR. (Don't know about Airbus). But I've never tried using one, once established tracking a STAR. Maybe next flight if I'm bored.
As mentioned just stay above the profile you're following and let ATC know what you need if you need it (increased spacing, a different heading).
I dunno. Never found it to be a huge issue operating into DXB for many years. Some occasional bumps, sure. Nothing crazy like the CL-604.
As mentioned just stay above the profile you're following and let ATC know what you need if you need it (increased spacing, a different heading).
I dunno. Never found it to be a huge issue operating into DXB for many years. Some occasional bumps, sure. Nothing crazy like the CL-604.
