|
"I was aboard this aircraft. The take off was fast, rather quick and felt short. Then we pitched down and banked right (left wing up) and then left (right wing up) and the back felt to skid out sideways, I was in the window seat just behind the left wing. Then it felt like the pilot pulled the aircraft up manually. He continued to make very strong left and right banks while in the air before we circled back to JFK. |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10451556)
Sounds like a wake encounter.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10450993)
It will be interesting to see if the NTSB agrees with Avherald's (unattributed) report that "the ground tracks even suggest the aircraft came close to ground loop".
|
Originally Posted by booze
(Post 10451951)
Wake encounter in such crosswind?! Sounds like pisspoor piloting skills to me.
|
Originally Posted by thundersnow9
(Post 10452115)
SLF here. Just wondering if perhaps a wake from an aircraft departing 31R could have propagated downwind to 31L given the breeze. I've hit by more than a few wakes while sailing close to the runways in BOS, they do seem to sink fairly efficiently.
|
I hope AA isn't again training in aggressive use of rudder pedals in turbulence as before the AA 587 crash.
|
Wake encounter in such crosswind?! Sounds like pisspoor piloting skills to me. Would also have to see where at this airport the crosswinds are measured. |
The problem seems to be establishing just what the manufacturer stipulates, and how strictly that's interpreted as SOP.
A pal of mine had a friendly chat with a boss about holding the side-stick back slightly during the deceleration run. Such a small issue; a hangover from the old days. So what of crossing the controls on take off? If allowed at all, I'm sure it wouldn't be great handfuls of stick and rudder like the DC3 days. There was a discussion a year or so back about crossing up upon landing. I was pleasantly surprised at a few more experienced posters being very for this technique. This was after a near wing-tip scraping landing with a major thump when the starboard wheels came down. |
Wake encounters are pretty obvious and distinctive on a DFDR review.
Not suggesting it was (or wasn't) a wake encounter, but they should readily be able to tell fairly quickly. |
Handling skills are now tertiary to what managers are looking for in a newly-hired pilot. There is a presumption - by HR types - that pilots should first be customer service agents, then pilots. Flying can be trained after the fact. That’s their opinion. Anything goes to be the most PC company now. |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10452794)
Sorry, I dont see the crosswind details anywhere.
Would also have to see where at this airport the crosswinds are measured. KJFK 102351Z 33015KT 10SM FEW070 FEW250 11/M03 A2996 RMK AO2 PK WND 34026/2257 SLP145 T01111028 10161 20111 53034= TWR wind was 010/17 prior takeoff roll. Anemometers are placed along all RWYs, although I'm not sure about their spacing or number. |
Just Imagine
Just imagine the comments if this had happened to a 3rd world carrier..... Just Saying!
|
Originally Posted by Longtimer
(Post 10452884)
Just imagine the comments if this had happened to a 3rd world carrier..... Just Saying!
pg 47: Regional Accident Rate (2013-2017) Accidents per Million Sectors North America, north Asia, and EU around 1. Asia/pacific, Latin america, Middle east 2-3 Africa/Russia 4-6 Just Saying! |
33015KT
Wind direction 330 at 15 kts, peak 23, runway direction 313.9... crosswind? 5kts? |
Originally Posted by thundersnow9
(Post 10452115)
SLF here. Just wondering if perhaps a wake from an aircraft departing 31R could have propagated downwind to 31L given the breeze. I've hit by more than a few wakes while sailing close to the runways in BOS, they do seem to sink fairly efficiently.
JFK 03/759 JFK RWY 13L/31R CLSD 1904010300-1911162200 The aircraft taking off on 31L prior to American 300 was Envoy 4077, an EMB-135, about two minutes earlier. Just before AA300 started to roll (in more than one sense) Avianca 244 was landing on 4R and Delta 408 was taking off on 4L, both A330-200's: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ebf1190d52.jpg |
Well, I dont think an ERJ caused a wake...nor a mild crosswind...
dragging a wing for a bit and taking out a sign....damn. !JFK 03/760 JFK RWY 13L/31R WIP CONST LGTD AND BARRICADED 1904010300-1911162200 CREATED: 29 Mar 2019 21:44:00 SOURCE: JFK !JFK 03/759 JFK RWY 13L/31R CLSD 1904010300-1911162200 CREATED: 29 Mar 2019 21:43:00 SOURCE: JFK Finished work early? NOTAMS for closure, not for open! So many crane obstruction NOTAMS hanging out there... https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/notamRetrievalByICAOAction.do?method=displayByICAOs&reportTy pe=RAW&formatType=ICAO&retrieveLocId=KJFK&actionType=notamRe trievalByICAOs |
|
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10452892)
33015KT
Wind direction 330 at 15 kts, peak 23, runway direction 313.9... crosswind? 5kts? |
Originally Posted by booze
(Post 10453045)
Reported TWR wind was 010/17. Anyhow even 5 kts of crosswind is enough to highly reduce the effect of wake caused by the preceding aircraft, if any.
|
Originally Posted by 737 Driver
(Post 10453145)
Actually, a light crosswind can actually make it worse. Wingtip vortices move slowly outward away from the departure runway. A light crosswind can effectively hold the upwind vortex on the runway. Not saying that's the case here, but it's something to consider when judging your separation needs.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5e9cc66ea2.png |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.