Trans Pacific A380 upset

[Chris2303]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12070572Wake turbulence' blamed for Qantas nosedive

[Glorified Dus Briver]

I will only believe what our resident aviation expert, GT has to say :E

[LostProperty]

I will only believe what our resident aviation expert, GT has to say :E
Well you can have the benefit of Byron Bailey's view in today's Australian

[Street garbage]

I have seen 4 different photo's in articles describing the incident. A330, 787, 744, A380. Still waiting for the photo of the 737. Glad to see so many experts in journalism. I shouldn't be disappointed though, some of the propaganda from the Street last week describing the Super Constellation had a photo next to it of an Avro Lancastrian.

[Ascend Charlie]

"We were absolutely certain we were going to die."

Well, you were absolutely wrong, weren't you!

[Capt Fathom]

"We were absolutely certain we were going to die."
Well maybe you should have thought of that before you got onboard!

[wheels_down]

Geez the general public don’t have much faith in Aussie pilots these days do they?

[Ken Borough]

Where are the ambulance chasers? :}

[compressor stall]

PM on Auntie tonight had a short article on it. It presented the hysterical commentary then countered with another view that was quite the opposite - short and over in a few seconds.

Admittefly the QF tech pilot presented the facts involving pitch not roll so it’s possible the hysterical one was at the back and the calm one was in the middle.

[Trevor the lover]

Quote:
"We were absolutely certain we were going to die."

Ummm - you ARE going to die!!

[Wizofoz]

I have been in the wake of an overflying A380. It's pretty awesome and lasts for a seemingly long time.

Do they not apply SLOPS on the pacific?

[Street garbage]

QF have released data from the incident, there was a 3 degree pitch change during the incident.

[t_cas]

I have been in the wake of an overflying A380. It's pretty awesome and lasts for a seemingly long time.

Do they not apply SLOPS on the pacific?

SLOPS is advisable and a prudent measure for a thinking pilot.

[swh]

QF have released data from the incident, there was a 3 degree pitch change during the incident.

avherald as mentions up to 3 degrees of pitch change (ie +/- 1.5 degrees) and 100 ft of altitude.

what I would like to know is why there was only 1000 ft separation so aircraft flying the same direction.
Incident: Qantas A388 and Qantas A388 over Pacific on Jun 10th 2018, wake turbulence causes altitude deviation (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2&opt=0)

[ruprecht]

what I would like to know is why there was only 1000 ft separation so aircraft flying the same direction.

It’s not unusual for the QF 8, 12, 16, 94 and a couple of United jets to all end up close to each other over the Pacific, due to departure delays and the fact that everyone is chasing the same winds. Crews will accept non-standard levels in an effort to improve fuel burn if their preferred altitude is blocked.

[Capn Bloggs]

Do they not apply SLOPS on the pacific?
Slop left or right depending on the wind?:)

[Street garbage]

SLOPS is advisable and a prudent measure for a thinking pilot.

SLOPS works well, if you are on an airways, not flying a FLEX/ UPR Track.

[DirectAnywhere]

No point offsetting when everyone’s flex tracking. You have no idea where the other aeroplanes are going. Very few aircraft are on airways across the Pacific these days except US domestic jets between Hawaii and the mainland.

[megan]

A question from the curious. I presume the trailing aircraft would be aware of the aircraft in front and above. To what range is the TCAS good for? In the offshore helo world personally used to use the radar to keep tabs on traffic ahead, which were the ones of interest, surprising good with tail on aspect,

[Snakecharma]

I very rarely see TCAS traffic when enroute between Aus and the US, and given we are on CPDLC we have no real awareness of other traffic

We are inevitably applying a version of offset as we get weather deviations around the usual pacific weather.

sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me, well apart from “my life flashed before my eyes and I was certain we were going to crash” when I heard the sound of a tray of glasses crashing in the galley.

And t_cas not sure I agree with your assessment, and I am most certainly a thinking pilot

[t_cas]

I very rarely see TCAS traffic when enroute between Aus and the US, and given we are on CPDLC we have no real awareness of other traffic

We are inevitably applying a version of offset as we get weather deviations around the usual pacific weather.

sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me, well apart from “my life flashed before my eyes and I was certain we were going to crash” when I heard the sound of a tray of glasses crashing in the galley.

And t_cas not sure I agree with your assessment, and I am most certainly a thinking pilot

You have indeed applied what I am alluding to in your post.

I agree.

[Datum]

Why was another company aircraft ‘in trail’ at 1000 feet below the lead aircraft at close to maximum operating weight (LAX to East Coast of Australia)?.. big sky, again why be that close in the first place..

Edited for clarity ... JT

[Bundy Bear]

It is very normal these days for all of us to be grouped together as a consequence of similar flight planning systems and similar departure times. (United/delta/virgin/Qantas)

It is not uncommon for atc to offer non standard levels as a tool to try and accommodate everyone.

[Capt Fathom]

You don’t have any idea do you Datum!
What does Maximum Operating Weight have to do with a wake turbulence encounter?
By the way, I know those Qantas Pilots like living on the edge, that’s what they follow in-trail a 1000 feet below their mate!

[Datum]

You don’t have any idea do you Datum!
What does Maximum Operating Weight have to do with a wake turbulence encounter?
By the way, I know those Qantas Pilots like living on the edge, that’s what they follow in-trail a 1000 feet below their mate!

enough idea to know that situation can easily be avoided.. muppets

[mrdeux]

enough idea to know that situation can easily be avoided.. muppetsI guess it isn’t a problem on MS Flight Sim.

[C441]

Edited to remove a quote of that which was removed to edit for clarity in a previous thread ... JT

There seems to be this perception here and in the media that the 94 took off 2 minutes after the 12 and sat there 1000ft below and 20 miles behind for 2 hours until it hit the wake.
Unlike years gone by, it is very rare to fly on an airway between the US west coast and Australian east coast. You could head down just north of Tahiti today and north of Honolulu tomorrow with a plan full of Lats and Longs and no waypoint names. Most plans are on "User Preferred Routes" that may be similar but not the same for any two aircraft. What it does mean though, is that United, Delta, ANZ, Fiji, Qantas, Virgin and the rest will all depart at similar times, will often be occupying the same or similar blocks of airspace, all looking for somewhere between FL300 and 340 (initially).

It's quite possible, even likely, that the track of the 94 crossed the 12's track at that most inopportune moment, despite having a comfortable cross track difference minutes earlier. It could just as easily have been any two aircraft en-route that night and probably occurs relatively frequently; without the media fanfare.

[AerialPerspective]

"We were absolutely certain we were going to die."

Well, you were absolutely wrong, weren't you!

Yes, don’t you just love how the media interview the most sensationalist idiots and normally fail to counter their ravings.

Haven't seen anything from the Port Hedland bag chucker but I can only imagine his drivel... it just grates on me every time he’s on with the title ‘aviation expert’ under his name on the screen or being introduced as an expert.

Aren’t we all upset we’ve spent a lifetime in this industry when all we had to do was throw bags in a remote airport for a few years and do a TAFE course on journalism...

[Datum]

More understandable if you’re comparing, or discussing different airlines.

Flight Planning and weather/wind forecasting has developed significantly, so much so that it should be possible to accurately predict, based on the actual time of departure, where company aircraft MAY ‘share the same airspace’..that is, cross paths or remain in trail for a period, within +/- 2000 feet.

It has been well established that the adverse effects of wake turbulence linger for some time (i.e. minutes), usually sink over time, and can shift due to proximate winds, in this case upper level winds. A380 at close to maximum weight, such as a Qantas aircraft departing LAX for Australia, would create dangerous levels of turbulence. Further, aircraft in cruise and/or cruise climb are travelling at a speed which results in significant distance across the ground in the same period (i.e. at 450 knots, 7.5 nm per minute, x 3 mins for 22.5 NM). This would suggest a ‘gap’ of minutes and minimum altitude separation may not be that smart..

In addition, TCAS should assist to maintain SA regarding the proximity of other aircraft.

Probably just sheer luck that no one was injured.

[Maggie Island]

Worth noting that the required wake separation for a lighty less than 7000kg MTOW with an A380 ahead is 8nm (well... in Aus airspace anyway).

[morno]

Datum, what about all those 380’s etc. trailing close behind through European airspace or the airways approaching the Middle East?

[Pearly White]

Worth noting that the required wake separation for a lighty less than 7000kg MTOW with an A380 ahead is 8nm (well... in Aus airspace anyway).
That would be an exciting encounter in a Tomahawk. Hard to see where you'd get that close to an A380 - arriving 380s are generally around 8,000 feet or more over Lilydale and the step starts at 5,000 so you'd also have at least 3,000 feet of vertical separation.

Still reckon it would feel like a cork in a washing machine.

[dr dre]

Here's the ABC's Media Watch showing the coverage of this incident to be just another piece of sensationalist "journalism":

Qantas 'nosedive' (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4858440.htm)