|
Originally Posted by Snakecharma
(Post 10173350)
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 I agree. |
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 |
Normal ops
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. |
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! |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 10173627)
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! |
Originally Posted by Datum
(Post 10173628)
enough idea to know that situation can easily be avoided.. muppets
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10172522)
"We were absolutely certain we were going to die."
Well, you were absolutely wrong, weren't you! 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... |
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. |
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). |
Datum, what about all those 380’s etc. trailing close behind through European airspace or the airways approaching the Middle East? |
Originally Posted by Maggie Island
(Post 10173989)
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). Still reckon it would feel like a cork in a washing machine. |
Here's the ABC's Media Watch showing the coverage of this incident to be just another piece of sensationalist "journalism":
Qantas 'nosedive' |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.