Challenger beyond repair after in-flight upset?

[MrNosy2]

A rumour - Supposedly sometime in the last two months a Challenger was up set in flight and 'lost 10,000ft' before control was regained. Pilot was able to land safely but aircraft was overstressed (?) and reportedly will not be repaired. At least one passenger is said to have been seriously injured in the event. I've had a dig around and can not find anything to confirm this alleged event - has anyone else heard anything? I apologise in advance if this is just a cock and bull story.

[ChickenHouse]

You did check ASN on that? Usually their database is quite complete and such an incident most probably would show up there.

[galaxy flyer]

A CL604 enroute Male to Europe, upset by opposite direction, 1,000' above, A380's wake. Several rolls, large G excursions. Diverted into Muscat.

[MrNosy2]

Thanks GF - I'd heard that too but didn't want to post it in case it wasn't correct. Happened at FL320?

[Tray Surfer]

Jeez... That must have been horrific in the cabin... And, we all know, seat belts get less ware on our aircraft than they ideally would... :oh:

[Grum]

It is becoming fairly common to have a Super or Heavy pass 1000' above. It is difficult to anticipate but I suppose you can quickly ask for and take a slight heading change upwind.......or do you just sit there wait to see what happens? Does ATC have any responsibility to avoid such scenarios?

[LGW Vulture]

I wondered when this would make the headlines! :eek:

[EMB170]

Had a similar but not so severe experience between Delhi and Dubai with an A340 some years ago. We were in an Embraer Legacy at FL380 with very strong Headwind, which was straight on the nose. The aircraft banked fairly sharpish 45 degrees right, followed very quickly to the left. Autopilot came out, virtually immidiately.
Since than, seeing an aircraft on TCAS coming towards me, i offset by 2 miles as it is recommended anyway.
That was scary stuff.

[His dudeness]

i offset by 2 miles as it is recommended anyway.

In a crosswind towards you as well ? just asking, we fly offset ovhd AFR and no rdr coverage. What to do when you in a, say, LAM hold just under one of these real big ones ?

[galaxy flyer]

Done, mutt, but it might be past your bedtime in the ME

[Una Due Tfc]

I put stuff 1,000 below supers every day....

We still don't fully understand wake. Remember that 777 that banked 45 degrees in severe wake turbulence from a 380 50nm ahead and 1,000 above a few years ago coming off the NAT westbound?

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/jumpseat-assaulted-a380

[H Peacock]

Is there a report to read? I can understand a bit of an upset when flying through the wake of a larger aircraft, but how much of the subsequent 'manoeuvring' of the Challenger was caused by the crew trying to recover/remedy the situation? Surely they hadn't lost complete control of the aircraft, or did their initial actions compound the situation!

[galaxy flyer]

Not yet, happened a couple of weeks ago

[Deep and fast]

Great PeaCOCK
Not even a report out and you're casting doubt on the crews actions!
Challenger wing is super critical, so maybe this has compounded things in an opposite direction incident?

[Jwscud]

380s are a different kettle of fish altogether. When I was flying the Lear 45, a colleague had an upset in the LTMA at around FL160 around 10 miles behind a super. Autopilot disconnected and the aircraft rolled to 70° with the nose dropping rapidly. Promptly recovered but pretty exciting for them even so. Fortunately it was day VMC and an empty leg.

[galaxy flyer]

I believe a Hawker 800 had a similar upset behind a A380 or 744. At altitude the FAA says, with the lower air density, the strength of the vortex cause effects similar to approach conditions. See FAA AC on wake.

[Ejector]

Any Reports on this published ?

[FLEXJET]

The operator is MHS Aviation, the flight was MHV640, I believe it was D-AMSC, Challenger 604 s/n 5564, but i didn't find anything official.

[LGW Vulture]

Correct Flexjet.

[MungoP]

Any sort of upset able to disconnect the autopilot when close to coffin corner has to be a very scary event.. things can go south very quickly especially with a pronounced swept wing.

[mickjoebill]

More evidence of the dangers of Chemtrails....:)

[Boabity]

Second hand info makes it sound even scarier.
The 604 in question had a double engine flameout in the wake along with 5 rolls in its descent of 10000 ft where control was recovered and the engines restarted. RAT did not deploy automatically as it should have either. As it's second hand info I'm waiting to see a report but definitely had some wake scares but nothing in the region.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Interesting... can't wait to read actual accounts of this incident.

Do we know if the RAT was deployed manually? Perhaps the RAT did not deploy due to the unusual G forces of the 5 rolls that could have left it stuck in its enclosure.

[josephfeatherweight]

Which authority will be responsible for preparing a report? I too will be very interested to read this one.

[lear60fellow]

We always take a deep look outside when something approaches on TCAS, anything bigger than a DC9 we go upwing for a while, have experienced a couple of slight vortex turbulence incidents and no happy with it.

[gearlever]

.... the CL-604 passed 1000 feet below an Airbus A380-800 while enroute over the Arabic Sea, when a short time later (1-2 minutes) the aircraft encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force, restart the engines and divert to Muscat.Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabic Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3&opt=0)

[EDMJ]

Already being discussed here:

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/590638-challenger-beyond-repair-after-flight-upset.html

[DaveReidUK]

Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabic Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descentAvherald concedes in its report that the identity of the A380 operator is unconfirmed, and may not have been Emirates at all.

That theory is based on their interpretation of ADS-B data which, based on past experience of such analyses by AH, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.

[Ian W]

There is a full discussion here: Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabic Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3&opt=0)

"The Aviation Herald received information that Air Traffic Control all around the globe have recently been instructed to exercise particular care with A380s crossing above other aircraft."

This may be insufficient for safety as it is not really clear how persistent the wake from a 380 actually is. It probably slowly descends and expands. However, for safety it may be necessary for ATC to explicitly apply extra vertical and or lateral separation from the A380's wake with the A380 making the altitude or heading change as it is the reason for the problem. With Free Route Airspace becoming more common the problem may reduce.

[Ian W]

The important issue from this AV report:
According to information The Aviation Herald received on March 4th 2017 the CL-604 passed 1000 feet below an Airbus A380-800 while enroute over the Arabic Sea, when a short time later (1-2 minutes) the aircraft encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times)

So the aircraft were flying apart and 1 - 2 minutes later the Challenger was rolled by the wake. That must be 20 - 30 miles behind the 380 and a thousand feet below it the wake was strong enough to roll a bizjet. For those offsetting a couple of miles to avoid wake that may well not be enough with these kinds of figures.

It may also explain the occasional CAT with pax and flight attendants hurt when the flight was otherwise smooth who would suspect an aircraft 30+ miles away?

[LostThePicture]

Avherald concedes in its report that the identity of the A380 operator is unconfirmed, and may not have been Emirates at all.

That theory is based on their interpretation of ADS-B data which, based on past experience of such analyses by AH, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.

Do you think you might be missing the point, Dave?


So the aircraft were flying apart and 1 - 2 minutes later the Challenger was rolled by the wake. That must be 20 - 30 miles behind the 380 and a thousand feet below it the wake was strong enough to roll a bizjet. For those offsetting a couple of miles to avoid wake that may well not be enough with these kinds of figures.

Wake vortices will generally descend at around 2 m/s or 300-500fpm depending on who you ask. They will persist much longer in still air conditions and, as is apparent from this report, conditions of little crosswind (the report states that winds were strong and north-westerly, i.e. directly behind the A380). All things being equal, offsetting by as little as a mile should be enough to avoid wake in more-or-less any conditions. But is this common enough practice?

The real concern to me is that it has taken two months for this occurrence to be made public, when there could be valuable lessons to learn. Whilst avherald might boldly state that global ATC has been instructed to exercise particular care around A380s, my own ANSP has (at time of writing) offered little in the way of firm guidance.

LTP

[Less Hair]

There will be some german BFU interim report. Out not before mid march.

[Ian W]

Wake vortices will generally descend at around 2 m/s or 300-500fpm depending on who you ask. They will persist much longer in still air conditions and, as is apparent from this report, conditions of little crosswind (the report states that winds were strong and north-westerly, i.e. directly behind the A380). All things being equal, offsetting by as little as a mile should be enough to avoid wake in more-or-less any conditions. But is this common enough practice?


I was thinking of a 380 overflying and another aircraft climbing from medium level to level 1000ft lower but only reaching that level 25 - 30 nm behind the 380. It may not be immediately obvious to the controller that there is a trailing wake problem to worry about.

[tdracer]

Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3&opt=1024)

Rolled at least three times :mad:
Challenger a write-off :eek: (I presume due to excessive G load damage).

[galaxy flyer]

Especially for a type that punched a hole in a bakery in Teterboro, the crew opened the door the evacuation.


GF

[stilton]

Good reason to always offset.

[Jet Jockey A4]

I'm interested in knowing how they regained control of the aircraft with the two engines flamed out and the RAT not being deployed.

[Airbubba]

I'm interested in knowing how they regained control of the aircraft with the two engines flamed out and the RAT not being deployed.

Well, the AV Herald writeup says:

...both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force...

I'm with you, that CL-604 on manual reversion must have been a handful. ;)

But maybe the windmilling engines provided enough hydraulics to make the recovery.

[ICT_SLB]

They could have had (or started) the APU and then restarted the engines. IIRC from testing, there is some time before HYD 1 & 2 are depleted (depends on useage of course) and HYD3 is powered by electric pumps. A Challenger or CRJ are best thought of as a FBW aircraft with one channel being pre-stressed Bowden cable! The CF34 does not have sufficient core flow when windmilling to provide ancilliaries but the older Lycoming-powered CL600 I was reliably informed provided sufficient flow to supply hydraulics right to touchdown.
Many years ago I did some work looking at installing a G Load recording system for a Flight Inspection Challenger. The loads routinely experienced at low altitude produce the equivalent of multiple flight hours in airframe life but the Challenger just shrugs them off so I shudder to think what the loads must have been for it to be a writeoff - double figures?

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ ICT SLB...

Yes the Challenger is indeed built like a tank and it must have been a pretty hard upset to have damaged it beyond repair.

Well if the dual engine failure occurred at FL320 or thereafter and the RAT did not deploy automatically or was not deployed manually, I'm afraid they had lost all their hydraulics and AC electrics.

With two engines out, the EDPs on both engines for HYD 1 and HYD 2 would not be able to supply hydraulics to power the flight controls... With a dual engine failure you would have also lost all AC electrics on the aircraft which power all four electric hydraulic pumps, so again no hydraulic power to systems 1-2 and 3 which means no flight controls.

There are two backups to either a dual engine failure or a complete AC electrical failure (lost of the two main AC generators)...

- The first one would be either an automatic or manual deployment of the RAT which would then power the AC essential bus (plus some DC) thus powering the 3B hydraulic pump which would power the flight controls but as we know so far apparently the RAT did not deploy.

- The second one would be that either the APU was already running (doubtful, but not impossible, see note below) which means they had the possibility of using its AC generator to power all the AC busses and hydraulic pumps or that somehow while they were dealing with a dual engine failure and they were rolling the aircraft 5 times out of control and also descending losing 10,000 feet of altitude in the process, someone had the presence of mind to start the APU get the generator on line restoring all the AC and hydraulic pumps.

NOTE: The APU limitation on the 604 is a max altitude of 20,000 feet. Normally it should be shutdown prior to 20,000 feet, usually somewhere in the after takeoff checklist. This said it is well known that crews have forgotten to shutdown the APU and it will run (unloaded) at FL370.
Also Bombardier guarantees a successful start of the APU only up to 20,000 feet. This does not mean someone could not attempt and get a successful start of the APU at 28,000 or even 32,000 feet but I have not heard of such attempts.

[ICT_SLB]

RAT deployment is gravity/airflow only so may well have been compromised (think a non-deployment of a CRJ ADG happened once during testing in about 20 years but it hadn't been stowed correctly - unlike normal operations the ADG was routinely dropped for access). AFAIK the APU will start & run over the entire envelope but just can't be guaranteed. Again from testing, you get some residual Hydraulics from the Reservoirs (my memory is up to about 40s but, as I said, the more you use the controls, the quicker the pressure dissipates).
On the CRJ you would retain some roll control via the Spoilerons, which are electrically operated & at least one channel on Battery, but it's been many years since I worked on Challengers and I'm not sure what the latest CL604/605 version has.

[Globally Challenged]

Our 605s have ADG pins to prevent inadvertent deployment on the ground - if not removed they would also prevent manual or automatic deployment in flight.

Not saying this is what happened here - but it is an outside possibility .... its happened numerous times with gear pins ;)

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ ICT SLB...

Like I said in my post anything is possible about the APU just no guarantees. Also the APU system on the RJ is not identical to the CL64.

Although later versions of the 604 came with the same APU as the original RJs, it could not be used at high altitude like the RJ… You cannot load it up with pneumatic/bleed and electrical power at the same time while in flight. Bleed extraction must not be used above 15,500 feet. The 604's APU does not have a retractable door like the RJ but a small fixed scoop. All small differences I’m sure but perhaps that’s why Bombardier never changed the AFM’s restrictions even after the new APU was installed.

Like I said the RAT should deploy automatically (squib releases the lock and out it goes) or manually by physically pulling on a cable that releases that same lock and yes gravity/airflow takes care of the rest. As to why it did not release in this case, well you mentioned a possibility and another possible reason is perhaps the severe G force encountered during the event that would have prevented its release.

As Globally Challenged said the RAT locking pin could have been left in placed, now that would be embarrassing.

On the hydraulics, yes there is a possibility of residual hydraulic for a very limited time but again I have to doubt about it being available through 3 or 5 rolls and a descent of 10,000 feet and this to me is the portion of this incident I’m really interested in… Time will tell.

There are no spoilerons on any Challengers (600/601/604/605/650).

[Globally Challenged]

Agree on all of the above.

However: There are no spoilerons on any Challengers.

The 300 has multi-function spoilers which include roll-control (I presume the 350 does too as I think it was only minor changes from the 300)

[Jet Jockey A4]

LOL... The 300/350 are not "real" Challengers!

They should have stayed with its original name, the "Continental".

[Globally Challenged]

haha agreed!

[CL300]

They were afraid that people would not overfly water with , that is all..complete different systems anyway :-)

[galaxy flyer]

No, a company named Continental Airlines threatened a suit for trademark infringement.

[PLovett]

There was a column in the US "Flying" magazine a few years ago written by a B777 captain on a transatlantic flight who wrote about the turbulence he encountered from an A380 a few miles ahead and a thousand feet above. In that case it was after their tracks had crossed. I recall the writer was very surprised at the level of turbulence caused at the time.

[galaxy flyer]

About the first month of NAT RVSM in '97, I, in a loaded C-5, was approaching landfall in Gander airspace, when an opposite direction B747 (FDX, IIRC) passed a 1,000' above. A minute later, after a brief discussion along the lines of "what's this gonna be like" we hit the wake--rolled 30-40 degrees, autopilot said, "I can't do this, about you guys try it". Ever since, especially flying bizjets, even large ones, I've been cautious around heavies

[OD100]

I find it hard to believe that after 8 weeks, pictures have not surfaced....

[slfool]

No real new info, but another article on Flight Service Bureau:

Enroute A380 wake flips Challenger 604 upside down (http://flightservicebureau.org/enroute-a380-wake-flips-challenger-604-upside-down/)

[specialbrew]

Bombardier issued the following Advisory wire this afternoon concerning this incident...

"This Advisory Wire (AW) is to provide clarification on recent media reporting of a temporary loss of control
event which occurred on a Challenger 604 on January 7th, 2017.

DESCRIPTION:
It was reported to Bombardier that a Challenger 604 was flying over the Arabian Sea at 34,000 feet when it
experienced a temporary loss of control which resulted in significant loss of altitude, abnormal flight attitudes,
and accelerations beyond the certificated flight envelope.
Shortly after the event, the crew shut down one engine due to a high ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature)
indication; the other engine remained operational. The crew eventually regained control of the aircraft, later on
relit the engine which had been shut down, diverted from their intended destination and landed safely without
further incident. There were serious injuries to some passengers on-board. The flight crew reported that shortly
before the event an oncoming large transport category aircraft passed them with 1,000 feet clearance above,
and slightly offset to the left.

The German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU), representing the State of Registry of the
Challenger 604 involved in this event, has classified the event as an Accident and initiated an investigation
pursuant to ICAO Annex 13 protocols. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), representing the
State of Design and Manufacture of the Challenger 604 has been appointed as an Accredited Representative
to the investigation. Bombardier has been appointed as a Technical Advisor to the TSB for the purposes of this
investigation.
Note that Bombardier cannot provide further comment on the investigation beyond what has been stated in this
AW. The BFU, as the investigating agency, will communicate investigation progress as and when it deems fit."
3.

[Jet Jockey A4]

This makes more sense... No RAT deployment because the crew shut down one engine and the other remained operational... Also explains why they could recover from their unusual attitudes because they still had hydraulic power.

[Max Torque]

I find it hard to believe that after 8 weeks, pictures have not surfaced....

It's parked rather remotely in Muscat, adjacent to the new fire station, so few people have the kind of access that would allow for taking a picture. Also, taking pictures inside airports in many parts of the world is not a very good idea.
It would be a boring picture anyway. There are no signs of any damage. Very up close there might be indications of overstress, but from 20 meters there is nothing obvious.

[langleybaston]

Do we know beyond doubt this was wake turbulence? I ask as a retired meteorologist who made a study of CAT of all sorts. If such incidents can with certainty be attributed to wake, then procedures could be evolved. If, however, random CAT from Kelvin-Helmholtz events, much more difficult to deal with.

So, do we know, or is wake a handy villain to blame?

[underfire]

While wake will descend, depending on conditions, they really only go about 500 feet. There are many images and video that show A380 and other wake, and most of the time, the energy is in the rotation, and sink is a function of the weight and associated pressure.

In regards to KH waves...isnt that more washboard that roll?

Given what what was reported, vs the actual from the manufacturer, it is difficult to believe much at this point.

[atakacs]

Hmm why would they actually shut down an engine? I can cutting thrust as a response to the overheat warning but would engine shutdown be a SOP in such circumstances?

[physicus]

@langleybaston surely a singular vortex would be an unlikely scenario, given the characteristic turbidity of boundary condition flow? And a vortex strong enough to lead to uncontrolled bank excursion would have to be extremely violent and tight, never heard about anything of that magnitude being generated by turbulent flow alone.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ atakacs...

Hmm why would they actually shut down an engine? I can cutting thrust as a response to the overheat warning but would engine shutdown be a SOP in such circumstances?

The Challenger 604's checklist call for the engine to be retarded until the message (ITT in red) goes out, if it doesn't then a shutdown is required.

[underfire]

given that what the manufacturer stated vs the news account, I would not believe much about the 5 or 6 rolls that were alleged.

the official report will provide the ac data. (and perhaps they did leave the pins in the RAT)

[Jet Jockey A4]

(and perhaps they did leave the pins in the RAT)

With one engine still running, the RAT would not have deployed.

[atakacs]

@ atakacs...



The Challenger 604's checklist call for the engine to be retarded until the message (ITT in red) goes out, if it doesn't then a shutdown is required.

Thanks

Given the alleged circumstances I hardly see them going through check lists... Unless this was after recovery into stable flight?

[Jet Jockey A4]

Thanks

Given the alleged circumstances I hardly see them going through check lists... Unless this was after recovery into stable flight?

Yes the engine was shut down after the "event" according to the Bombardier Advisory Wire.

I quote...

"Shortly after the event, the crew shut down one engine due to a high ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature) indication; the other engine remained operational."

[atakacs]

Very good point, I missed it.

I'm very much looking for the BFU report on this one...

[GotTheTshirt]

Well it just made the Daily Mail today !
Most of the "info" seems to be from Pprune !!:)

[Deadstick126]

I just saw this on Avherald and didn't notice a thread here. The two aircraft crossed with 1000 feet verticle separation and within a short time the Canadair Challenger suffered severe wake turbulence, lost control and descended 10,000 feet before recovery, then made an emergency landing in Muscat, Oman. Nine people hurt in the Challenger, one seriously. The aircraft was totaled from the damages.

German business jet ?flipped three times by Emirates A380? | News | DW.COM | 19.03.2017 (http://www.dw.com/en/german-business-jet-flipped-three-times-by-emirates-a380/a-38014996)

Private Jet Flipped Over in Wake Turbulence From Airbus A380: Reports - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/private-jet-flipped-over-wake-turbulence-airbus-a380-reports-n736861)


This post was moved to here so that the poster may participate in the discussion already in progress(/mod mode)

[OD100]

BAS has put out an advisor wire. There are also pics out there and they are scary...

[Airbubba]

Can you give a link to the pictures?

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like you need a Bombardier customer account to view AWs.

Bombardier - Login (https://customer.aero.bombardier.com/cic/public/)

[OD100]

Any Reports on this published ?

Yes, Bombardier issued an advisory wire on March 17th, with some notable details. There are some scary pictures out there as well....

[skadi]

Yes, Bombardier issued an advisory wire on March 17th, with some notable details. There are some scary pictures out there as well....

Heres one picture:

Inside the cabin ? before and after the wake turbulence encounter ? International Ops 2017 (http://flightservicebureau.org/inside-the-cabin-before-and-after-the-wake-turbulence-encounter/)

The left one ( before ) is a different aircraft, but the right one fits with the interior of the damaged machine.

https://www.flyvictor.com/en-us/aircraft-operators/mhs-aviation-gmbh/challenger-604-d-amsc/#/

skadi

[Jet Jockey A4]

Here is the picture from that article above...

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/mlab601/mlab601115/Challenger_zps75y6kv2j.png

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

In the post/link by skadi above, the article says at one point:
Since the authority, manufacturer, and operator are all aware of the story, it is reasonable to deduce that were a material part of the widely reported incident not true, then that would have been stated rather quickly.

That's a rather sweeping statement and not one with much logical basis. The actual facts of an incident under investigation are not suitable or permitted for dissemination - the Bombardier advisory wire makes that clear. So neither the agencies nor the OEM nor the operator nor anyone else with access to the facts is going to get into issuing specific denials of specific aspects of speculative news stories. The act of doing so would in effect be confirming the parts you don't deny. Since at least some of the original "facts" have been stated to be untrue by people who should know, I would tend to assume that anything from the same source or sources be considered equally dubious

I believe the CIA has a similar "neither confirm nor deny" policy. :)

[spinex]

I think you'll find that the CIA and large corporations operate on fairly different principles. There is plenty of precedent for companies disclosing the basic facts of a situation to quell speculation which may reflect badly on them and/or their product. The Bombardier statement follows this logic, although I was interested to note that there not an outright denial that the engines both flamed out during the aircraft's gyrations, merely the disclosure of a later in flight shutdown. I wonder...:cool:

[Octane]

Written off? Surely you could find a buyer in Nigeria or similar?!

[ExDubai]

given that what the manufacturer stated vs the news account, I would not believe much about the 5 or 6 rolls that were alleged.

the official report will provide the ac data. (and perhaps they did leave the pins in the RAT)
Interim report from the BFU is out...
https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Interim_Reports/IR2017/I1-Report_17-0024_CL600A380_ArabiaSea.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Somehow scary to read....

[Jet Jockey A4]

Perhaps if they would have used the SLOP this encounter would not have happened.

[BizJetJock]

That will be the SLOP that the report states is not authorised on the route they were on?
Also SLOP is specifically aimed at trailing aircraft above, there is no mention in any procedure about opposite direction traffic. This accident maybe suggests there should be.

[Empty Cruise]

...did anyone here have a look at the FDR read-outs, especially of the flight control positions? Not pre-empting the LBU final report - but as a UPRT instructor I am fairly convinced that the full-scale and opposite rudder deflections (yes, pluralis) - immediately followed by full-scale and opposite aileron deflection, and the large sideslip angles they created, did not really help the crew here...

[H Peacock]

Be careful there Empty Cruise. I made a post several pages back wondering if the Challenger's huge height loss and over-speed were possibly a result of crew actions rather than the initial upset. I was told to keep quiet by some aggressive chap that knows all about laminar flow aerofoils and to wait for the final report! But yep, those FDR traces do indeed tell a story... Can't wait for that final report!

[Empty Cruise]

Well... personally, I find laminar airfoils work best when not flying sideways, but that is of course just an opinion :hmm:

[Airbubba]

A recently updated article with analysis of the BFU interim report from Simon at the Av Herald:

Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, May 16th 2017 14:36Z, last updated Friday, Jun 30th 2017 17:18Z

On Jun 22nd 2017 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) released their Safety Information Bulletin 2017-10, the draft of which had already been covered in earlier coverage.

On May 16th 2017 Germany's BFU released their January 2017 Bulletin in German (the interim report covering this occurrence now also available separately in English) reporting that the Challenger (serial number 5464), carrying 6 passengers and 3 crew, got out of control about one minute after it had been overflown by an Airbus A380. The aircraft lost about 9000 feet before the crew was able to regain control. Two passengers received serious, one member of the crew as well as two other passengers minor injuries. The aircraft diverted to Muscat. As the occurrence happened over international waters the BFU is responsible for the investigation assisted by the investigation bodies of Oman, India, United Arab Emirates, Canada, USA and France.

The BFU reported the Challenger had departed Male at 06:52Z, reached cruise flight level 340 at 07:20Z and was enroute along L894 to waypoint KITAL. At 08:18Z the crew reported passing waypoint GOLEM.

An Airbus A380-800, serial number 224, (Editorial note: although the BFU is not permitted by German law to identify aircraft, the narrative is consistent with Emirates A388 A6-EUL) had departed Dubai at 06:55Z for Sydney (Australia). The aircraft was enroute at FL350 in southeasterly direction.

Analysis of flight data of both aircraft showed, that at 08:38:07Z the A380 passed over the Challenger at 1000 feet vertical separation, about one minute later at 08:38:54Z the Challenger, on autopilot, began to rotate to the right around its longitudinal axis despite ailerons deflected to the left and a light vertical acceleration began. Over the next 10 seconds a right bank of 6-8 degrees were recorded, then the right bank increased to 42 degrees within one second despite left aileron deflection of 20 degrees, a vertical acceleration of +1.6G occurred followed by a vertical acceleration of -3.2G one second later. 13 seconds after the begin of the upset the autopilot disconnected and a master warning activated for 7 seconds.

More at this link:

Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3/0017&opt=0)

[C441]

Meanwhile here in Australia, the major broadsheet has it's own aviation section.
It's just a pity they don't have any aviation journalists……

…..and in the dramatic roll of a Learjet over Oman in January.

The Learjet, a Bombardier Challenger 64, was written off by insurers after a midair roll and 10,000-feet drop after it passed under an Airbus A380 going in the opposite direction.

[underfire]

Just noticed this information, which has the FDR reports....

Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3/0017)

(looked through this thread and did not see them)

Damn, that ac was tossed...

http://avherald.com/img/emirates_a388_a6-eul_arabian_sea_170107_3.jpg

http://avherald.com/img/emirates_a388_a6-eul_arabian_sea_170107_4.jpg

[JammedStab]

I find it interesting that the incident aircraft will never fly again even though there was no visible damage to the airframe.

Remember the Cjina Airlines 747SP that got into a spin over the Pacific years back. Here is a quote of some of the damage and its continued flying career....

" The aircraft was significantly damaged by the excessive G-forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (5 cm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling.[1] Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of the horizontal stabilizer had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained.[1]

After repairs were made to the plane, it returned to service on April 25, 1985. It continued in service for nearly 12 years "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

Perhaps it was a more valuable aircraft. But it does show that a permanently damaged aircraft can sometimes continue to legally fly.

[ivor toolbox]

Meanwhile here in Australia, the major broadsheet has it's own aviation section.
It's just a pity they don't have any aviation journalists……

Ah but in point of fact, the design that became the Challenger was the last design of Bill Lear's. Bombardier inherited it when they bought Learjet from Gates.

Ttfn

[CL300]

Ah but in point of fact, the design that became the Challenger was the last design of Bill Lear's. Bombardier inherited it when they bought Learjet from Gates.

Ttfn

Yep , the LearFan 600 :-)

[Bowmore]

Yep , the LearFan 600 :-)


Actually, it was LearStar 600, LearFan 2100 was a twin engine, single propeller turbo-prop.

[CL300]

Actually, it was LearStar 600, LearFan 2100 was a twin engine, single propeller turbo-prop.

Correct.. Brain cells start to get old

[His dudeness]

if they only start to get old at 98, you´re very well... :)

[galaxy flyer]

Ah but in point of fact, the design that became the Challenger was the last design of Bill Lear's. Bombardier inherited it when they bought Learjet from Gates.

Ttfn

Wrongo! BBD acquired the CL-600 design from Crown-corporation Canadair before BBD acquired Lear. The 600 design was produced for about 8 years by Canadair, then by BBD before Lear was acquired by BBD. in fact, the Lear family sued BBD for royalties that were part of Canadair’s deal when they bought the design rights from Bill Lear. The issue ripened when BBD built the CRJ and the Lear family wanted to be paid royalties as a derivative design. BBD, in Canadian court lost and settled for a large sum, which has never gone down well with either side.

The Learstar 600 was actually a smaller diameter fuselage than the final CL-600 due to freighter design for FDX. The CL-300 series is closer to the Lear 600 fuse.

GF

[H Peacock]

This serious incident happened over 3 years ago. Is there still nothing more to read than an Interim Report?

[H Peacock]

I don't often post twice in succession, but it's now over 4 years since this accident, 4 years!!! - I can't find any update since the Interim Report.

Surely the report is out there somewhere, or is this now a p@@ing match (with lawyers) about whose fault the damage was, i.e. crew mishandling v initial upset?

Come on BFU, you have a duty to publish the Final Report ASAP!