"Caution wake turbulence"
 

Have heard the phrase "caution wake turbulence" used on CTAFs by medium category turboprops a number of times recently. It is usually directed at light aircraft (LSAs etc)

I'm undecided whether it falls into the category of good airmanship or if it's in the same basket as "pending clearance," "this time" and "copied no traffic."

Thoughts?

In another life I used to fly a medium category helicopter.

At the start of my career - as a lowly PPL I would never have thought a chopper would generate that amount of wake turb.

I used give lighties following me in the circuit a heads up.

Better I take up 2 seconds of CTAF time rather than have to start up again and medivac some punters out of their busted up sportstar or Jabiru....Three words - much more efficient.

I once heard an aircraft on the CTAF give an advisory that there were snakes on the runway, and some wag says:

"Caution, snake turbulence."

Completely unnecessary. A bit of hand on dick syndrome I suspect.
If there is an issue it should be dealt with by training not by a "medium category turboprop" driver. Definitely in the in the same basket as "pending clearance," "this time" and "copied no traffic."

Oh I don't know, I imagine a C150 following a Q400 close behind might be in for some wake turbulence......

It would be very wise for the professional in the Q400 to warn the C150 behind.

Good airmanship I would think and just plain old common courtesy from one Pilot to another.

OK so the new rule is- if your flying a heavier category aircraft than the following when you depart you make sure you advise the following aircraft "caution wake turbulence". F$%%^K my brown dog!
e.g "Tiger 123 rolling runway 25 GAFFA QLink 234 beware wake turbulence"

Nanny state gone mad.

What happened to basic aeronautical knowledge? I would think that good airmanship would mean one is aware that all aircraft aircraft produce wake turbulence, and the bigger the aircraft the more severe the wake turbulence. Or has 'good airmanship' been re-defined to mean more quack on the radio?
As RENURPP said; intercourse with my brown canine!

This is, after all, where people come to ask what they should use to write on a Maintenance Release...

I didn't say that I would advise the Aircraft behind, I never operate anything bigger than a PA 28 into Un controlled Airports so it's not something I thought of.

However if someone wants to warn a Pilot behind them in some circumstances then I don't have a problem with that.

I was told this in a light twin once lining up behind a departing q400. I just assumed it was some sort of company policy they were adhering to.:confused:

Captain Sand Dune, you're right, what a wank, especially that ATC lot who seem to have to say it all the time...I mean everyone should automatically know better.

I'm with the other camp, I think it's not a bad idea, definitely not a "Wank" or "Big Noting" probably a few guys who have seen a couple of lighties line up behind them not thinking about the ramifications of what they're doing, but only if there is actually someone else behind you about to line up and/or land otherwise why bother?

I am thinking it is the typical Aussie policy of catering to the lowest common denominator. Frankly I am sick of it and would welcome some suggestions of some "smart" comebacks.

Good airmanship is keeping radio calls inline with what's written in the AIP.

Seconded.


The really annoying thing about these "brilliant ideas" is that they tend to get copied and propagated by so many.

I've told a few lighties in the past who are insistent on following very closely behind me in the Q400 'just be aware, we give out a lot of wake'. But only when, as mentioned in previous posts that the light plane driver isn't really taking the wake stuff into consideration. I don't think guys say it as a wank thing on purpose - it's that missing thing in aviation...what is it again? Oh yeah - AIRMANSHIP!

Ask the Rex cadets at Wagga how much wake the Q400 provides. You'll find the answers pretty entertaining.

Fuel-Off :ok:

Careful, they're both in the same wake turbulence category :}

Good airmanship, involves thinking of others.

Wake isn't something most lighties are used to considering, and it won't become second nature, until they have a wake incident.

They are that frightening!....and I was in the aircraft generating the wake...never gave it another thought outside of exams...until that 10 seconds!

A reminder to think cannot possibly be negative...can it??

I rest my case.

What, are we paying by the word for the use of the radio these days?

In the grand scheme of things, the 2 seconds to utter a small phrase costs almost nothing to f#%k all, and may provide a substantial benefit (was it a Mooney at Wagga that got tipped up by a C-130 some years ago?) to someone. Really though, I get the impression that this whole thing is like 2 bald guys arguing over a comb...

if we are going down this track then so what. I have taken off behind jets in same category same weight and got a good ride from their wake so why not tell everybody? better safe then sorry, doesn't cost anything to say it.

Caution wake turbulence, caution I experienced light turbulence through 300 feet, blah blah blah its all free :* Hands on dicks!

Caution - wake turbulence.

Caution - low speed can lead to stalling.

Caution - maintain a lookout.

Caution - clouds in the sky.

Caution - you might be stupid, and it's my job to protect you from yourself.



This is why CASA is like it is. Many Australian pilots seem to want to protect us all from ourselves in the unlikely event that we are terminally stupid. :(

O8 - dash 8 driver.

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.

Wow some of you guys are precious!!

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


:mad:

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.:ok:

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?

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 :rolleyes:

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 :eek:

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"

To be really proffeshunal "Caution wake turbulence, this time" :8

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 :ok:

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.

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.

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...

Umm ok, righto champ :hmm:

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.

How very true, good on ya! :ok:

Fact is I flunked instrument school too.

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.


https://41.media.tumblr.com/28f744a0...nkq1o1_500.jpg

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 :ok:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Shagpile,
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.