The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

"Caution wake turbulence"

Old 28th Jan 2015, 21:29
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
To be a little serious, where does it stop.
I have over 20,000hrs, I fly a C150 every now and then, I don't need a dash 8 or any other medium turbo prop driver (or jet) advising me on wake turbulence.
Why do they advise light aircraft and not a jet?
Simply because they believe they have more experience, knowledge expertise. Well thats often not true (especially these days). Bigger aircraft does not mean more experience, more knowledge or a bigger dick.
If the people that make these calls really believe they are necessary I would be interested to hear how many reports have been submitted in a serious attempt at addressing the issue.
Wake turbulence is only one area that could be commented on. The best way to deal with these issues is to submit reports to the ATSB and allow them to do their duty. After careful consideration they can move in a direction of their choosing.
It really irritates me when people decide whats best for all of us.
My advise is fly your own aircraft as best you can, learn the rules as best you can. Encourage others to do likewise. Report any unsafe acts to the ATSB so they can do their job as best they can. Leave the nanny state stuff to politicians.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 23:13
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Wow some of you guys are precious!!

For gods sake you could save someone's life one day by uttering 2 seconds extra....


ACMS is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 00:12
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
Renurpp,

I can see what your saying, but I think the phrase could be valid in some scenarios. I'm a pilot, not an ATCer but a lot of the ports we fly into (in a medium category turboprop) have ab-intio ultralight training taking place. I'm not going to caution everyone about wake turbulence, but if I see a situation where I think its warranted, then I'll say it. Just like I'll warn proceeding traffic of the flock of pelicans I see on final. Pick your audience I guess.
maverick22 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 04:36
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,180
I guess with the standard of radio calls at CTAF's descending into an unprofessional quagmire, a bit of grandstanding from a propjet jockey will fit in well.

Just don't say it to me, or I will join the quagmire, forget my own standards and tell you exactly what I think.

But, I can't say I have heard it myself so obviously it's not yet widespread. Can any of you giving the thumbs up to this nonsense actually say that there has been an issue in the past that would have been prevented by said bigmouth jockey? Or do you just support pandering to the lowest common denominator and CTAF standards declining even further?
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 04:56
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
Gees Bob,

Hope your feelings don't get too hurt when you're flying in controlled airspace and the controller says that phrase to you

Personally I have never used the phrase, but like I said if there was a situation where I thought it was warranted then I'll have no qualms using it. Some people really do need all the help they can get. I once remarked to another medium category turboprop that we would need to back-track the runway from the full length after landing. Said turboprop acknowledged this, but continued flying their normal approach. When the penny finally dropped that we would still be on the runway when they planned to touchdown, they were at 400'. They then decided to do an orbit at that altitude on final
maverick22 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 05:24
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Get off your high horse Bob, not every lighty driver has your expertise it seems.

"Don't you know who I am? I'm Bob don't tell me what to do"
ACMS is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 05:33
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
To be really proffeshunal "Caution wake turbulence, this time"
Super Cecil is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 05:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 225
RENNURPP, Bob et al,

If you were at a holding point at a CTAF, and saw the preceding aircraft take off and had visible flame coming out the exhaust, would you point that out to them on frequency? Or by your logic of 'I've got a licence therefore I don't need your help' you wouldn't bother because you'd think they'd know by their engine instruments and/or fire alert systems? I'll echo the birds on final statement made before. I'd dare say you've thanked a preceding aircraft for giving you a heads up of the bird activity on short final rather than biting their heads off because 'I know better'.

Like I and others have said before it's just a friendly 'just be aware' statement. No way are we implying that when we hear a take off roll call preceding a bigger aircraft's departure within 2 minutes and we jump on the horn and say 'tisk tisk! you should know better Mr Cessna'.

My company issued a memo to crew a while ago, outlining the considerations we need to look at re. wake turbulence at smaller aerodromes with light aircraft about. Apparently other smaller operators had made specific mention of how much the wake the Q400 produces and took that to the company. So that's just our way of mitigating an incident like this one:

Investigation: 199401475 - Turbulence/windshear/microburst involving a Mooney Aircraft Corp M20J, VH-LOB, Wagga Wagga, NSW on 6 June 1994

I would hazard a guess that other regional airlines would have received the same flack.

Fuel-Off
Fuel-Off is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 05:51
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 36
Posts: 427
I agree with all the people who are saying 'stop being so precious'.

It takes two seconds and no this isn't something people are used to.

A few years ago a P3 got caught in the wake of a C17 on final (I think Hawaii?) and required full aileron lock to maintain level. That's between two big aircraft with ATC services. A Cessna would probably be a hole in the ground.

I don't see it as dick waving. A lot of people genuinely don't consider that as they don't fly behind big aircraft regularly if it all. Not to mention a whole bunch of helicopters being in Medium/Heavy (Chinook by memory) that people are unaware of.

If operating a big aircraft and there's a chance a little guy behind me is potentially unaware and going to takeoff or land into it I'll say it. And I won't be upset if somebody reminds me when I'm flying little aircraft too. In fact I think next time I'll say thanks.
Shagpile is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 05:57
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,180
OK guys, I will climb down off my high horse. I do concede that there are possible situations where it may be warranted. An RAA toy waiting to do an intersection departure right where prop jockey is going to rotate may be one.

Given that I have never heard it and the original poster may have only heard it once, (or even not at all) it may also never/rarely even occur. The thread could also be a windup, I don't know. What I do know is even if I say it here, I would bit my tongue in real life, rather then use a CTAF frequency to vent my spleen.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 09:30
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 890
There's some missing of the point here.

If I see someone actually doing something dangerous, of course I would speak up. I hope we all would. Examples include Fuel-off's "seeing the preceding aircraft take off and had visible flame coming out the exhaust".

I don't speak up for something that may or may not result in a dangerous activity. For example, Shagpile's "there's a chance a little guy behind me is potentially unaware and going to takeoff or land into it". (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, it only takes two two seconds. So does every little comment, about every topic under the sun. Shall we each transmit our pet hobby horses at every CTAF?

If you see something actually wrong, say something. If you see something that might perhaps become wrong if the other guy is ignorant, forgetful or just careless, think twice. Maybe he is just as competent as you... Maybe that lighty is going to fly down a four degree profile and land long, because he's been sharing a circuit with turboprops for years now...
Oktas8 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 09:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 232
If you see something actually wrong, say something. If you see something that might perhaps become wrong if the other guy is ignorant, forgetful or just careless, think twice. Maybe he is just as competent as you... Maybe that lighty is going to fly down a four degree profile and land long, because he's been sharing a circuit with turboprops for years now
Umm ok, righto champ
maverick22 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 11:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 931
There-in lies the problem Oktas...you DO not know the experience level of the other guy. A simple heads up costs nothing, and if the guy is truly in-experienced, the call might be enough to stop journo's getting the story wrong with half a dozen people's names spelt incorrectly.



Wake turb is so disregarded in this industry its not funny...as I said in my previous post, its not until you have an incident that you begin to comprehend the danger.

The Q400 has been used as a benchmark in this thread....the damage it's wake can do to a lightie is large....many people seem to think that another Q400 could tolerate that wake....VERY wrong!

An aircrafts wake is dangerous to any following aircraft.
Just look at the seperation standards in AIP.
Heavy following Heavy
Medium Following Heavy
Heavy Following medium.

The last in the list is the proof...there is a requirement.

Guys at lightie level OCTA, are not current with the requirements, and MOST would need a heads up to think about what is going on in that regard.

I think i'd rather the condescending 'think about it' call than wander into turb.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 05:29
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,180
Aussie Bob is just upset that he is on the receiving end. If he flew something that actually managed to generate a wake turb worth talking about he wouldn't sound so bitter.
How very true, good on ya!

Fact is I flunked instrument school too.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 07:08
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 36
Posts: 427
Wake turb is extremely dangerous. I can't believe there is even a discussion about what is really a comment "Be careful behind me bro, you may end up dead" when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.


Shagpile is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 08:02
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,180
Well so many folk have pulled me up for my opinion that I have changed my tune. If I ever hear it I will give the captain a

But as someone eloquently put it a few posts ago, where does it all end? Weather is the biggest killer of pilots, perhaps we should call "checked the wx"? People run out of gas, should we include "checked your fuel"?

Whatever, I will just grin and dawdle along in my lightie, dreaming of the bigger planes I don't fly.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 08:32
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 890
I can't believe there is even a discussion about what is really a comment "Be careful behind me bro, you may end up dead" when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.
That's a fair comment where the captain knows that the other pilot is incompetent in this subject area, or where the the captain can see there is something obviously wrong.

Otherwise, to be quite consistent, the captain really ought to broadcast warnings about cloud and engine failures, because those factors kill more people than wake turbulence encounters.

jas24zzk Where please does it specify a wake turbulence separation standard for a heavy following a medium? I think you're making stuff up! (Insert joke emoticon here.)

There-in lies the problem Oktas...you DO not know the experience level of the other guy.
Neither do you. Any assimption made is just an assumption, unless backed up by evidence. That is, evidence that the guy is a newbie student, or evidence that he really is actually turning base too close to the preceding traffic.

Or, evidence that wake turbulence encounters are actually a statistically evident problem in GA in this country. Otherwise, it's all about assumptions and non-evidence-backed willy waving.
Oktas8 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 22:46
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
jas24zzk Where please does it specify a wake turbulence separation standard for a heavy following a medium?
The only thing I can think of is a heavy following a medium that counts as a heavy when it is in front e.g. B757 or Chinook.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 02:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
when the captain of a heavy aircraft thinks it may be warranted.
Shagpile,
I think the wake behind a 747 a heavy as depicted and a Dash 8 (point of this topic) may differ slightly
RENURPP is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 03:16
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 36
Posts: 427
I think the wake behind a 747 a heavy as depicted and a Dash 8 (point of this topic) may differ slightly
Yeah that's fair enough -- it was the only cool picture I could find!

Saying it every call in a dash8 - yeah that's unnecessary.

Scenario where it is absolutely warranted: you land straight-in approach in a medium wake aircraft. Still air and unlikely your wake will blow away quickly. An ultralight late downwind turns right in behind you and their radio call gives you the impression they may not be aware of wake turbulence. You give them a quick reminder of a non-standard consideration.

Of course reminding everybody "Be careful mate your engine might fail" is stupid -- that's a standard consideration drummed in from first flights and standard for every flight. Wake turbulence is a non-standard environmental consideration that many people will never see. It is absolutely different than reminding people about normal aviation hazards.
Shagpile is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.