EK 380 almost causes biz jet crash
 

Rocked us on final yesterday. And we were in a heavy. Real threat. Should fly offset all the time.

Am I the only one that thinks maybe there was some fabrication (probably unintentional) here by the bizjet crew?

Only 10,000' loss, but 5 rolls, failed RAT deployment, and dual flameout. Kind of hard to believe all that could occur but only lose 10,000'.

I'd be interested to know the winds aloft at the time. Wake turbulence is most dangerous when the air is very still because wind turbulence breaks up and dissipates the vortices. There was Lear 35 that crashed in Mexico City a few years ago when it hit wake turbulence of the preceding heavy, and that was on a calm evening with very stable air.

Having done UPRT recently, 5 rolls in a bizjet is very easy to accomplish at altitude when upset. Push, roll, power, recover. A wake turbulence encounter like this would be very possible and with an unsuspecting crew who might not be on point in recovering, the result could have been much worse.

SLOP operations was invented and implemented for Wake turbulence as well. ...Use it.

[QUOTE]Offset should be mandatory and at the discretion of the crew, L/R 2nm. Yes, MNPS airspace will need to be rethought but what will it take?/QUOTE]

Have a look at the Dubai CTA - in particular, the distance between the DXB and SHJ STAR tracks, seeing the problem yet?

[quote=dcbus]I think dcbus that Guy D'ageradar (ATC I believe) is trying to say that there isn't room for offsets on the STARs...

Hardly surprising around DXB!

Thank you WK, you're correct. Dubai CTA was only given as an example - lots of places where offsetting 2nm on an RNP1 route can cause significant problems, plus the possibility of a "no tea, no biscuits" chat.....thus my response to always doing so.

There ya go... Ask... Not quite what you said in your previous post dcbus!

And this is a good example of why the suffix super is used with the callsign. To alert both ATC and pilots in the vicinity (those that have a bit of SA at least; that's another story these days:rolleyes:) that there may be a wake turbulence issue.

I'm not keen following a fellow 380 too closely; even at 570 tonnes we still pick up a fair bit of rock n'roll from their wake!

Begs the question if such a tight environment can sustain a mixed operation of heavies and medium and smaller. Some times it seems like the increase of pax uplift of the biggies is annihilated with the necessary separation for medium and lighter ac. Avid aviators out of DXB know what i am pointing at. The painful wait after a super departure when some 737 or 320 are due ....
En route slop might mitigate the problem, but if 2nm l/r are a problem in TMAs, then the bigwakeshakers almost inhibit parallel lightweight ops.

Some of the Approach controllers at DXB regularly use the 3 dimensional / vertical avoidance of Wake from the preceding Super, which is very good.
There is of course another option, as used by other busy airports. To use both sides of downwind.
Some time ago, when DXB arrivals were being significantly effected by some nasty CBs, lots of RT asking for wx avoiding tracks etc, it was very busy.
Yet on the opposite side there was no weather. We asked for a Left Hand Downwind for 30L, ATC said why? No wx says us. ATC grabbed it with both hands and switched the flow. RT dropped by 50%.
If the Supers flew the opposite downwind orientation from the rest would it ease the problem a bit?
Obviously there would need to be SID considerations but worth a look?

I ain't your sunshine little fellah:hmm::rolleyes:

This is only available in designated SLOP areas without asking. Other than this, a max of 1NM can be flown offset if:

From an operational viewpoint I seem to recall that if you put in an enroute offset in the FMC on a Boeing, it ceases at the beginning of a STAR. (Don't know about Airbus). But I've never tried using one, once established tracking a STAR. Maybe next flight if I'm bored.

As mentioned just stay above the profile you're following and let ATC know what you need if you need it (increased spacing, a different heading).

I dunno. Never found it to be a huge issue operating into DXB for many years. Some occasional bumps, sure. Nothing crazy like the CL-604.