Vortex wake in the circuit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex wake in the circuit
The (hypothetical) situation is this:
A light aircraft in the visual circuit reports downwind, and is told he is number two to a 747 on final, caution vortex wake, recommended spacing is eight miles. The pilot acknowledges, and proceeds to turn in close behind the 747, with obviously less than the recommended gap.
Send him around, or let him continue?
A light aircraft in the visual circuit reports downwind, and is told he is number two to a 747 on final, caution vortex wake, recommended spacing is eight miles. The pilot acknowledges, and proceeds to turn in close behind the 747, with obviously less than the recommended gap.
Send him around, or let him continue?
I'm not sure what you are supposed to do - you could get a video out to record the fun but that might be frowned upon.
A friend of mine had a warrior on lease back to a flying club. Pilot - giving 2 friends an intro to small planes flight got too close to a C_5 on final for Dover AFB. Rolled 2-3 times - Made it back -bent the posts holding the battery in the battery box. I'm sure new underwear was ordered and those two never got in a small plane again.
Probably should send them around - In the USA I think ATC is only required to warn - it is up to the pilot to heed - but as the saying goes - you can tell them - but you can't tell them much!
A friend of mine had a warrior on lease back to a flying club. Pilot - giving 2 friends an intro to small planes flight got too close to a C_5 on final for Dover AFB. Rolled 2-3 times - Made it back -bent the posts holding the battery in the battery box. I'm sure new underwear was ordered and those two never got in a small plane again.
Probably should send them around - In the USA I think ATC is only required to warn - it is up to the pilot to heed - but as the saying goes - you can tell them - but you can't tell them much!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a while since I did tower but I believe it's the same in the UK. Assuming a VFR in the circuit, give the vortex recommended spacing and then it's their decision.
If it was blatantly obvious they had nowhere near the rec spacing I'm sure most controllers would confirm they were happy, but so far as I was taught - NMP (not my problem)
If it was blatantly obvious they had nowhere near the rec spacing I'm sure most controllers would confirm they were happy, but so far as I was taught - NMP (not my problem)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldnt do anything, the pilot has been warned and is I'm sure well awar of the problem and may well be choosing to come in above the vortex and land long, which is, in my book (as an ATCI and pilot) perfectly acceptable and perfectactly legal.
As ATCO's we are not here to fly the plane, and as a pilot I would be quite upset if an ATCO sent me around if I chose (and I would like to say that with a 74 i wouldn't!) to put mysellf close behind (and above) one.
As ATCO's we are not here to fly the plane, and as a pilot I would be quite upset if an ATCO sent me around if I chose (and I would like to say that with a 74 i wouldn't!) to put mysellf close behind (and above) one.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: south of where i come from
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Cartman's Twin- at the end of the day if you give them the recommended spacing and then warn them again, if they are happy to continue, let them go for it (though rather them than me!!).
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a curly one.
I've had a lightie on a visual stuff itself up the ass of a VC10. Warned him twice about wake turb, he still went for it.........and pulled himself out about a minute later. I had to try VERY hard not to say "I told you so".
I've had a lightie on a visual stuff itself up the ass of a VC10. Warned him twice about wake turb, he still went for it.........and pulled himself out about a minute later. I had to try VERY hard not to say "I told you so".
This is a favourite validation question of a certain SRG member - if you say you'll do nothing, you'll fail ! As usual, it's the "duty of care" discussion 
Two things come to mind - i) if the aircraft is military, the pilot will be using different criteria and ii) if the pilot is skilled enough to be able to fly above the nominal glide path of the leading aircraft, he might be somewhat grumpy if you make him go-around !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much month at the end of my money !
Two things come to mind - i) if the aircraft is military, the pilot will be using different criteria and ii) if the pilot is skilled enough to be able to fly above the nominal glide path of the leading aircraft, he might be somewhat grumpy if you make him go-around !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much month at the end of my money !
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got a b0ll0cking for this on my Aerodrome course, when one of the lightbulbs on the Bailbrook simulator(!) turned in too soon.
Cut and pasted from the MATS Part 1:
16.2.5 A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be
considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or
vertically for the landing runway.
Although this paragraph is probably intended for height and azimuth in respect of the runway, a good lawyer would argue that the puddle jumper 'up the chuff' of the Jumbo is pretty dangerous...Duty of Care and all that...
Does vortex wake still appear in the PPL syllabus? Would your average GA pilot fully understand what you mean by recommended spacing?
Cut and pasted from the MATS Part 1:
16.2.5 A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be
considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or
vertically for the landing runway.
Although this paragraph is probably intended for height and azimuth in respect of the runway, a good lawyer would argue that the puddle jumper 'up the chuff' of the Jumbo is pretty dangerous...Duty of Care and all that...
Does vortex wake still appear in the PPL syllabus? Would your average GA pilot fully understand what you mean by recommended spacing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
More to the point, would your early PPL be able to judge what 8 miles or whatever looks like? I know that when I first got to use an ATM I realised that my estimates of range on final were very aproximate at times!!!
And Eric, do tell which SRG person? Just an outline description will do .... it may be pertinent for me one day soon.
And Eric, do tell which SRG person? Just an outline description will do .... it may be pertinent for me one day soon.
Phil yer boots Spitoon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a lightie on a visual stuff itself up the ass of a VC10. Warned him twice about wake turb, he still went for it.........and pulled himself out about a minute later. I had to try VERY hard not to say "I told you so".
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EvilJ has the right asnswer. Fly your approach above the heavy's GP, to land beyond where his nose wheel touched down, and you will not have a problem.
A few years ago, in my two-seater, coming into Exeter, I was told to circle north if the field, to follow a 757, known for large wake turbulence. When I reported having him in sight, ATC cleared me to land after. I followed closely, and watched where his nose wheel touched.
With 5 degree GS, compared with 3deg for ILS/PAPI, to land about 100m beyond his nose down point, silky smooth! Landing roll a small fraction of his.
No comment from ATC.
8 miles at 100Kts is sure going to clog up traffic movements.
Mike.
A few years ago, in my two-seater, coming into Exeter, I was told to circle north if the field, to follow a 757, known for large wake turbulence. When I reported having him in sight, ATC cleared me to land after. I followed closely, and watched where his nose wheel touched.
With 5 degree GS, compared with 3deg for ILS/PAPI, to land about 100m beyond his nose down point, silky smooth! Landing roll a small fraction of his.
No comment from ATC.
8 miles at 100Kts is sure going to clog up traffic movements.
Mike.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cucumber Heaven
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point, would your early PPL be able to judge what 8 miles or whatever looks like?
I did have the misfortune to be in a hotel next to Orange County airport some years ago and witness a Cessna getting flipped by the wake of a 757 which I believe was landing on the parallel runway. Sadly, student pilot on solo detail did not survive
"Fly your approach above the heavy's GP, to land beyond where his nose wheel touched down, and you will not have a problem"
Not completely true. This does not account for tailwinds which can push the wake up the runway with the generating aircraft.
Not completely true. This does not account for tailwinds which can push the wake up the runway with the generating aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S coast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anyone old enough to remenber - like me - when the vortex wake arrival separation was expressed in minutes as well as miles? it always seemed to me to be easier to judge 4 minutes behind at the threshold rather than 8 miles. As someone said, "what does 8 miles look like?"
Tori
Tori
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to just re-confirm the recomended spacing, but thats it. The pilot is responsible, and quite often they remain quite high to allow the vortex to sink (point noted previosly).
If it is a pilot, that dare I say it, probably found a pilots licence in his Corn flakes, I would maybe put a bit more emphasis on the recomended spacing.
I have never sent someone around though, but thats not to say you feel sometimes it would be safer.
As Jerricho said if they do abort, you can't help but bite your tongue and think 'Told you so'
If it is a pilot, that dare I say it, probably found a pilots licence in his Corn flakes, I would maybe put a bit more emphasis on the recomended spacing.
I have never sent someone around though, but thats not to say you feel sometimes it would be safer.
As Jerricho said if they do abort, you can't help but bite your tongue and think 'Told you so'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vortex wake arrival separation was expressed in minutes as well as miles
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the situation presented, a sensible pilot would orbit and if he/she considers that wasn't enough when on final approach,
fly above the path of the previous and aim to touchdown upwind
of the plane's touchdown point.
If you consider it is NMP (not my problem),in the event of an accident, the subsequent court of enquiry would take a v. dim view because you could have and should have instructed the pilot to go around. Duty of care these days means if you were there, do something about it; doing nothing is not an option. If the pilot attempts to land despite being instructed to go around, the ATCOs can only watch with their finger on the crash alarm.
fly above the path of the previous and aim to touchdown upwind
of the plane's touchdown point.
If you consider it is NMP (not my problem),in the event of an accident, the subsequent court of enquiry would take a v. dim view because you could have and should have instructed the pilot to go around. Duty of care these days means if you were there, do something about it; doing nothing is not an option. If the pilot attempts to land despite being instructed to go around, the ATCOs can only watch with their finger on the crash alarm.