QF94 from Los Angeles to Melbourne Vortex
 

Interesting - I wonder about the 1000-ft altitude difference cited for two planes on the same southwesterly heading. I assume the upset plane was the lower plane (wake vortices sink), and perhaps the leading 'Bus was in the process of its first step-climb from FL320, passing through FL330? Timing is about right, and the extra lift needed in the climb would increase the vortex intensity. 20 nm equals about 2.5 minutes separation, so that makes sense.

EDIT - AvHerald says upset plane actually was SW-bound at FL310(?? - also in step climb?) but indeed the event occurred at about the time the lead plane was also starting its climb from FL320 to FL340.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2&opt=0

"Australian television and radio host Eddie McGuire, who was on the flight, said the plane "jumped up and down for about 10 seconds" and that "somebody described it as the feeling of going over the top of a roller-coaster.""

A somewhat less breathless version by a respected newspaper...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...14-p4zldt.html

Maintaining separation to avoid wake turbulence is SOP, how did this happen to Qantas pilots, the nosedive was most likely the PF repositioning the craft.

Yawn. Newsworthy? Only because 'kick the National Carrier' is a game in Australia.

:rolleyes:

Define "nosedive", please.

For those not living in Australia, you might be interested to know that he media celebrity Eddie McGuire is know as “Eddie Everywhere”. He certainly lives up to his name, even being on an A380 as it nosedives (sic) towards the Pacific Ocean.

ATSB ' take on the issue

The fact that no one was injured based on the severity of the rapid descent makes me call shenanigans.

Have to admit that I didn't know there was more wake generated during steady state climb, since lift equals weight in steady state, the same lift as is required in straight and level flight.

I'd speculate that the nosedive was the pilots trying to quickly get out of that turbulent air by promptly descending.

Pedant mode on/ If one is being really picky, a small portion of the weight is opposed by the thrust in a climb, so the lift require is less than level flight \pedant mode off

Wiggy beat me to it!

When I'm in the sim, it sometimes feels like we're in a nosedive but we haven't really gone anywhere!

Since these were Australian crews, aircraft, had Eddie Maguire on board, and was reported in Australian papers, PIF, I'll ask you to do a Pauline Hanson: PLEASE EXPLAIN?! :)

Not the case, you gain positive vertical acceleration you need more lift than cruise. Also its a not clean profile with more power.

That would only be during the initial pitch up. Take an aeroplane steady-state climbing at a 60° angle. Wing lift, the thing that creates the vortexs, is not more. IMO.

OK, yes, transitioning to a climb would put a "knuckle" of increased vortex in the wake momentarily and then return to the "steady state" vortex strength - assuming the climb in thereafter unaccelerated (not a loop-the-loop!). It is highly improbable (but not impossible) that the trailing plane would fly into the preceding vortex exactly at the point where the knuckle exists.

@Capn Bloggs - an aeroplane climbing at a 60° angle will not be in a "steady state" very long - unless it's an F-18. ;) But your point is taken.