I experienced my first wake turbulence upset in 2006. Over indian ocean westbound at FL340 we suddenly experienced a sharp 20 degrees of bank to the left followed by 30 degrees of bank to the right. A320 aircraft was shaking in severe turbulence for about 20 seconds. The auto pilot amazingly didn't trip off and then everything was smooth again! I could hear passengers screaming in that 20 seconds. Fortunately no injury or damage to the airplane. 2 minutes before we passed an opposite traffic (MD11 cargo) 1000 feet above us. The wind was about 50 kts exact headwind for us which is the worse scenario! (Around 50 kts tailwind for the MD11). After that incident and with Emirates A380s in service, we had many similar or worse incidents! By experience and regulations we adopted ourselves to it and the number of incidents reduced significantly. It happened to me another few times. But I always remember the first time and how scary it was. Thank you for this episode.
I cross this airspace several times a month. We use 2 miles of SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) to fly parallel to airway. As per regional procedure, even ATC need not be informed. This solves the problem.
Several years back I was a crew member on a 757 heading to Dubai. As I recall we were level at FL370 at 0.80 Mach. We encountered continuous moderate turbulence for no obvious reason. We were testing a SATCOM system at the time and had high-speed internet available. I was monitoring our flight using FlightRadar24 and was able to see the cause. We were approximately 10 NMi directly behind an A380 at FL390. We side-stepped off the airway and the ride immediately smoothed out. The critical factor here is that we were 2000 feet below the “heavy” A380 and in trail such that the descending wake of the A380 coincided exactly with our position relative to the A380. The fact that we were a 757 loaded to the gills with JetA helped our situation compared to the lighter A321 in the video.
Well explained! As an Airbus instructor/examiner I can confirm the narrative. This was 2008. In the mean time all airline pilots are required to perform upset recovery training in the flight simulator. In that training the emphasis is on recovery from unusual attitudes (for whatever cause but including wake turbulence) whereby the use of rudder is strictly not allowed. Keep up the well explained videos!.
Why is the rudder deflected a lot by only a little bit of pedal at high speeds and a lot less rudder deflection by the same amount of pedal at low speeds? Shouldn't this design be reversed? That design makes no sense to me.
@@erbenton07 My guess is because the rudder pedals are how you steer the plane on the ground. In that regime (low speed, on the ground), you want the nose wheel to turn and the actual rudder to stay put. Once you get into the air and up to speed, then you want to be able to command full rudder. Just speculation, I've never flown any airliners.
@@erbenton07 As the airspeed increases the effectiveness of the control surfaces increases as well, so it’s not that the rudder is moving further, but rather the same amount of movement imparts a greater force on the aircraft. Or that’s what I was taught on light aircraft and gliders back before fly by wire controls. Actually in a glider any aileron input requires a boot load of rudder in order to overcome the secondary effect of the ailerons. The problem is exacerbated by the relatively long wings compared to the fuselage length. Having ailerons considerably further away from the CofG compared to the rudder results in you really needing to work the rudder through all phases of flight. If you’re trying to fly close to the stall speed and you try and pick up a wing with ailerons you will find yourself in a spin before you can say SH…T, however, you can pick up a wing with rudder. During your annual flight review in a glider you had to demonstrate flying the aircraft near the stall then deliberately crossing the controls to induce a spin that you had to allow to fully develop before executing a recovery. Normally this involved centralizing the joystick and kicking on FULL opposite rudder. Once the darn thing stopped spinning you would centralize the rudder then pull it out of the dive using elevator before reaching Vne or exceeding the maximum wing loading (usually 5 g). I never really liked deliberately spinning a glider, but it was a necessary evil and something glider pilots had to be totally and absolutely up to speed on.
Funny stuff wake turbulence. When I lived right below a Heathrow airport flight path I would sometimes go outside at night to watch the planes arrive. Very very rarely, about two minutes after a plane passed you could hear the vortices hit the buildings or stir around in the overhead like invisible boomerangs. Very odd the first time I heard it. I had a ppl and was able to workout what the noise was after a minute or two. It was amazing how unpredictable it was. Maybe once every four months or more. I can see how hard it is to eliminate any risk in the open sky where aircraft may be well below the source of the wake and within normal separation. Great video. Congrats on a sponsor, you deserve it !
I was just thinking about that plane that crashed into Jamaica Bay in New York from the heavy rudder inputs and the vertical stabilizer failed. Its amazing this didn't happen here. Great video as always, Thank you!
I had encountered wake turbulence, while flying a C-172, on a clear beautiful day. It felt like rapid force changes on the yoke, like left, right, left, right banking, about 4 times per second, for about 2 seconds. At first I didn't understand what it was (the aircraft didn't had an autopilot). The second pilot who sit next to me told me it is probably wake turbulence. Now I know what to expect... It is really important not to over control the aircraft in any kind of turbulence, or you can create your own pilot induced turbulence, or in an extreme case, break the aircraft.
My sister used to fly extensively in connection with her work. About 15 years ago she was on an aircraft which hit wake turbulence over Germany. It was so terrifying she has never flown since and ended up having to change her job. It's good to know that the Air Canada incident led to a better understanding of wake turbulence and to improved separation between larger and smaller aircraft.
I had a wake encounter when departing from Atlantic City a few years ago. An Air National Guard KC-10 was doing touch and goes. I waited two minutes after the tanker had left the area before departing and turned away from the runway heading as soon as the gear was retracted. At about 500 ft AGL, I was hit by a wake votex that rolled the airplane 90 degrees left. I applied full right rudder and aileron and it still took several seconds to get any control response. That low, it was a critical situation. My three non-pilot passengers were terrified. I was too busy flying the airplane to register any fear until I had full control of the airplane and then realized that my legs were jelly. Will definitely pass on another chance to do that again.
question, if the plane was rolled by the vortex, and your plane is rotating along its axis (the axis along the pencil like body), what's the point of using rudder, shouldn't it more of an alieron task? or the situation was so deperate, all control surfaces that can counter the rotation will be deployed.
@@ylstorage7085 aileron and rudder are never used independently. They always go together unless you're making a very gentle turn. Think about it in terms of the conservation of angular momentum. The propeller is a big, fast gyroscope with a lot of mass. When you roll the plane, gyroscopic procession causes a torque on the airframe and makes it yaw away from the roll automatically.
My home airport hosts everything from ultralights to 737s. We take wake turbulence seriously. One place where you want wake turbulence is doing steep turns during flight training. You know you've done it right when you do a 360 in the air and hit your own wake turbulence. 😎
I remember hitting my own wake turbulence when completing a 360 with my instructor one smooth day, and I had to confirm with him that it was what I thought it was, since it was a two minute (rate one) turn that I'd just completed under the hood. It amazed me that our little Cessna 172 had been able to produce enough wake turbulence to provide that satisfying little bump exactly two minutes later.
@@daviddunsmore103 under certain circumstances, linking back up with your wake turbulence like that could create a massive vortex ring traveling down toward the surface. Would be cool to see a smoke test.
@@yoopernow i would guess the upper air conditions were just right for this in-trail wake turbulence encounter. the A319 climbed into the larger a/c's wake.
The “combat box” formation was mostly for leveraging maximum defensive firepower, they’d be violating most rules we have today regarding wake turbulence lol.
@@EstorilEm I remember reading that they tried dozens of formations during training, and regardless of what they chose it HAD to be staggered. I mean no doubt they chose to fly in lines and obviously it wasn't physically possible.
And yet again I can but say that “let the darn automation tell the pilot if something out of the ordinary is happening. No matter if it is “the fuel burn is nearly 3 times of what it should be” or “working hard to keep straight and level, boss!” Even a red “working hard” LED would help, a traffic light of the status would be better and an display mode showing the commands the Autopilot is giving would be great. Keeping pilots in the dark like little children is stupid. And dangerous.
Great video and presentation. I was wondering and hoping you would bring up AA587. Comparing the two was crucial. Amazing how the Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers have different instructions on how and when to use the rudder. There was a lot of finger pointing going on between AA and Airbus after AA587 crash. I knew a pilot who flew that tail number just a few days before the crash, as this was one of his usual routes and flights for AA. When 587 went down I was praying he wasn't on that flight. I saw him the next weekend at work. He had questions for us in aircfraft maintenance and we had questions for him as a pilot. He was a pilot in our Air Guard A-10 unit. As usual, got to hear the behind the scene stories. Especially the training part and use of rudders.
The strongest turbulence I ever felt was on an Air France A380- from another A380. If it was able to shake an A380 like that, I can't imagine what it was like on a much smaller plane!
I remember to fly in a 747 15min behind another 747 from FRA to Johannisburg from 9:00pm to 6:00am. Same timezone, so it could have been just a noisy hotel room, but not a minute of sleep because of turbulence. I could not even eat something. And years later I heard 2 flight attendance talk about the same happening on that route very often.
Just an FYI, the 1st Officer of American 587 didn't "(hold) the rudder deflection for a long period of time." He made full left & right rudder deflections (b/c that's what AA trained him to do) in rapid succession & essentially ripped the rudder off the vertical stabilizer. No worries, I enjoyed this video as well as all of your videos. 😉✌️
American 587 exceeded rudder load specs by 200% due to the alternating deflections. The pilot association later complained that the airplane manual never mentioned that it was possible to exceed load specs with control inputs, and that they didn't know it was possible. The aircraft manufacturers are doing a poor job of communicating with pilots.
In flight school we go up to 4000-5000 feet (to have enough altitude for recovery) and have to fly in a skyhawk (C172) behind another skyhawk. It's terrifying, it feels like you lose control of the plane. And that's with 2 planes the same size. Flying a small plane behind a large plane must be much worse.
Well done, I myself also did not know that wake turbulence could extend so far back on the 747 and other heavy aircraft. Thank you for making this video, great job.👍✈
MACI, you just keep getting better and better with your investigative reconstructions. You've come so far in a very short time. Happy to see your sponsorship and will look into them for VPN
Other uses for a VPN: - If you travel abroad some countries (China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, etc) block some sites (porn, dating, political, google search, CNN, etc). A VPN makes your traffic invisible so you can access these sites. However make sure you are not sending your DNS requests to the local ISP. - If you use public internet, a VPN adds an extra layer of protection against some types of attacks (some MITM) or eavesdropping or spoofing.
On a flight into San Juan on an ATR-72 we were in an upwind for a dogleg final for runway 28 when the pilots got too close to a "heavy" in front of us. It nearly inverted us and snapped all of our necks, but the pilot did recover. i heard the F/A cussing the pilots out when we were deplaning.
Always nice to see an incident in aviation where nobody died during it. Something to learn from, fix, without the passengers and crew being killed in the incident. Great video!
Sad thing is that you never hear about all the times when saves people. MOST of the time in an Airbus it catches the pilots (even at the last second) and it remains a non-issue that they passengers never know about. They might think the go-around is odd, but that’s about it.
I did not really experience wake turbulence but I tried very hard to avoid it. I was doing my student solo in 2016 in a Cessna 152 in Redmond Airport, a very small regional airport. I was doing traffic patterns and touch and go, then an ERJ 145 was coming into land. It was my first solo, so I was too worried. I was trying to land after where the jet touched down, but then I realized I was too nervous to start the descent. I was around 800 feet, so I flew straight and aborted the landing, and I told the tower I was too high to land. So I redid a pattern after this, it's never bad to play safe.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Kelowna, Castlegar and Nelson on business as well as a little bit of fishing. Kelowna is a lovely town with very wonderful people as well as some real characters.
Taking a bit deeper dive into wake turbulence and "Why those little winglets help decrease it, but don't eliminate it..." (in case anyone's interested) First, there's apparently more to the principles of lift than we get in school with the stupid "Blow over this piece of paper" and then "Blow over this wing-shaped piece of paper" to watch high speed air pick up the paper... Yeah, the faster air over the top of the wing DOES decrease the air pressure, and the resulting high pressure zone under the wing pushes UP... BUT there's also Kwanda's Effect, from the downward angle of the trailing edge (and flaps if engaged/extended) AND the over-all curvature of the wing's underside literally COMPRESSING the air beneath the wing that builds lifting force... From this you can see (if you just look at a plane and the wings) that there's no structure holding the air under the wing. Air IS a fluid, so it's free to move around, up to the speed of sound (which is worth note somewhere) but we're also talking about SUB-SONIC (slower than Mach) flight... SO the air being compressed under the wing is going to slip and escape... The curve of the wing keeps showering more and faster air down from the trailing edge, so that's not the easiest course of escape, and air doesn't magically gain energy, so it slips toward the tips of the wings, escaping its compressed state outward to the side... Even that the air flow over the top of the wing is faster from front to rear (relative to the plane) the underside air is able to flow faster outward to the side, past the wing tip. This induces some air flowing from the top of the wing, too, much like a venturi-tube on a perfume spritzer uses air-flow from the bladder to draw liquid up a tube... or how a carburetor uses the air flow to draw the gasoline up a tube into a mist through the intake and into an engine... The fact that the air from under the wing is moving faster to the side CAUSES that vortex motion swirling up and curling around the wing-tip as it escapes the compression under the wing. The larger the wing, and the more lift it can produce, then the larger and more powerful the Vortex is going to be... This goes hand in hand with the size and shear mass of the aircraft the wing is attached to. Most airplanes have a wing on each side, so there will be two vortices produced, counter rotating... BUT why do Airlines care? Other than safety, is there any particular concern??? Well, yes. This brings us to those winglets. They're not just there to look cool or add to branding, believe it or not. The fact is, the larger the Vortices are from an airplane's wings, the more air is being USELESSLY pushed out to the sides, rather than compressed under the wings to produce LIFT. This makes the wings more INEFFICIENT, and adds to DRAG without any net benefit... Beyond the hazards to other craft presented by a 747's wake turbulence, the 747 is spending a BUNCH of fuel, needlessly stirring air around for miles behind it, rather than pushing the plane UP and that adds to the workload and expense of powering the engines. This might not account a hell of a lot in a Cassna, BUT in a plane that weighs 100 TONS empty, it's a different story... Okay... BUT what the hell is a winglet going to do??? The winglets obstruct the flow of air OVER the wings to the side. There's also (usually) a small DOWNWARD protrusion of winglet below the wing, decreasing the escape flow of the air UNDER the wing... ALL of this presents a significant decrease in escaping air, AND the size of vortices in the wake of the aircraft. Again, there's no good way to just "Contain" air under the compression of wings producing lift. However, the corporate bean counters have really narrowed down the size of winglets that present a SIGNIFICANT boost to efficiency with a relatively minimal investment in materials to build the winglets. They DO look kinda cool, so there's a thought to branding and aesthetic... BUT along with savings of fuel and thereby money, there's a decrease in the intensity of turbulence trailing aircraft of inordinately large size and mass... How do the big-brains know what constitutes an adequate separation to avoid wake turbulence??? Generally, Vortices will spread out eventually and diminish to "nominal" or nearly nothing at a known rate (depending on their intensity and the aircraft that created them). They also FALL at about 400 feet per minute, GENERALLY... There are some atmospheric conditions that can help induce "anomalous" figures, however, and let a vortex or both vortices linger about for considerably longer than "the usual"... SO the big-brains know and have documented what usually works, BUT ATC commonly gives pilots the discretionary platitude to maneuver about a mile to the direct right or left of their "track" or "vector" even though everyone works better using "highways" in the sky as a pattern for predictable air traffic. That mile one way or another gives the tolerance by which a pilot, AT HIS OWN DISCRETION can simply escape the wake turbulence (or any other turbulence for the matter) and then communicate to ATC about why his plane has "moved out of track" when he's found "clean" and safe air to fly in... I hope this helps... You can check into "Mantour Pilot" for more on the subject, of course.. AND "Smarter Every Day" is a good resource for a variety of questions, particularly the kind you never thought you wanted to know, including the operating principles inside a carburetor... They're both pretty great channels with presenters who break the complicated stuff down so that even a "dumb-ass country guy like me" can understand it. ;o)
Thanks for this. I'm amazed that wake turbulence has such an effect on relatively smaller planes. BTW, I have been using Surfshark since May, 2019, and they've come a long way since then with faster speeds and more connection choices. Quite the good deal they're offering through you too!
Never experienced an upset in real life, but we are trained on regular basis on how to deal with it, rudder inputs are not recommended , as you said it's mostly for engine failures. Great video! Really enjoy watching this kind of reports
Air Canada Rouge, the livery you use in the video, did not exist in 2008. It's an Air Canada flanker brand that's marketed as a budget discount airline. It commenced operations on 1 July 2013. Also, the Toronto Airport in Toronto, Ontario, Canada is actually called the "Toronto Pearson International Airport". No one calls it Toronto Airport, and that is not it's name. It's like calling the "San Francisco International Airport" as San Francisco airport. There are many airports in both of those cities and they all have names.
I have experienced wake turbulence many times, but on my last flight a couple of weeks ago, we had wake turbulence just before landing. The plane was banking both ways and started shaking very strongly. People were screaming and the only reason I wasn’t in tears is because I had my 10 year old daughter crying as she was scared. My legs were shaking as I disembarked and I went to cry in the airport bathroom 🙈
I remember on a really early video you made a comment along the lines of "I didn't expect this would eventually get 40k views ". And now you're getting that many views on new videos in 24 hours
We were taught at the regional RJ level "avoid rapid oscillating control reversals" including the rudder. Flying the Airbus, we are taught not to touch the rudder pedal after takeoff, even during our new extreme upset sim procedures training. The Airbus will coordinate your rudder for you. As a matter of fact, a pilot cannot adjust rudder trim with the autopilot engaged. (Nothing happens). Aileron trim is physically absent. And the only time we touch the stabilizer trim wheel is to preset it for takeoff. FTY. The Airbus is unique. You can take off, set 15 degrees pitch, let go, it will maintain that. Then you can roll 33 degrees to the right, let go. It will maintain the 15 degrees and 33 degrees with no trim. You don't pull back or trim up in a turn. It does it for you.
The report concluded that the pilot had gotten out of the loop and was making control inputs out of phase with what would be necessary to recover the airplane. Yet, looking at the FDR plot at 3:18, it seems like the pilot's aileron inputs were the _correct_ ones for recovering from the upset (they commanded right aileron when the plane was rolling left, and left aileron when it was rolling right), and their rudder inputs, although improper, were at least counter to the plane's motions (right rudder when rolling left, left rudder when rolling right)... ?
@@jnawk83 it's not really right or wrong per se, but most locals ignore the second a while most non-locals pronounce it. CAL-gree vs CAL-guh-ree. That being said I also liked that he pronounced it the way I grew up saying it lol -a guy from Calgree
My father had once a Cessna 172 Skyhawk. When he was landing on Saint Thomas, the turbulence created by a comercial plane when it was taking off, moved him out of the runway and he got the scare of his life. No mayor incident occurred but he contacted Control Tower about it.
Great video and I see this one has a sponsor! Ive watched your channel grow and Im happy for you bro! Everyone - please dont skip to the end or stop watching after the main content. Watch the sponsor message also. Just let it play. Lets support him guys. This is a great example for passengers to stay seated with the belt on reasonably tight. I see so many wandering around the cabin for a stroll or chatting in groups in the galleys during long hauls. Of course you need to get up for the toilet but dont hang around on your feet needlessly, You never know and if the plane hits CAT or wake turb it can smash you on the ceiling and break your neck. You also pose a danger to other pax.
You asked about pilots and wake turbulence training. I (used to) fly paragliders. Training: none. Or "you could experience wake turbulence if you fly behind someone else. Don't do that". That said... The first time I encountered it, I wasn't expecting it. It felt like a couple of speedbumps in the air. As this was totally "out of the blue" for me, and completely new, I decided: "there is something weird going on with the air over there, lets get out of this spot ASAP". So I few away, found a new thermal... no more bumps until the guy I'd been sharing that first thermal with came over.... Then I found my second wake turbulence and things started to click.
I used to work directly under a landing path near BWI airport. You could go outside and look up and watch the plane landing, passing maybe 200 feet overhead. Then, almost a minute later, if it was quiet, you could hear a rippling, tearing sound following the path of the plane. Before I knew about vortices, this was one of the most eerie experiences I've had.
Wake turbulence vortices also descend at around 300-500 fpm intially, so even within a 5 mile separation these vortices might well affect a plane at the 1000 foot separation altitude.
Thanks • Well done • I was a Huey crewman crossing over LA , north to south over Burbank , when I spotted a 747 at our altitude crossing our our path east to west descending into LAX 😲😳 I told the pilot, and he about broke the cyclic jockeying us around in order to not cross behind it 😂😂😂😂😂 😜 We were at our assigned altitude and they were maybe a mile distant 😅 Those pilots feared that wake ....
Experienced a wake turbulence over Europe many years ago, but this was a little different. The aircraft had passed at right angles across our path about 4 minutes earlier. It was one loud bang and the entire aircraft shuddered. I likened it to going over a speed bump at 32000 feet at 500km/h. Never experienced anything like it before or since. Fortunately it did not result in an in-flight upset, just a spilled drink.
Super clip as always! This reminds me of drivers of rear wheel drive cars in bad conditions who "lose it" in a corner. If you catch the slide quickly enough with the right amount of opposite lock and resist the temptation to brake, you might get lucky but more often than not what happens is that the startle effect takes over, too much opp lock is applied and the rear of the car then swings the other way resulting in fishtailing with the car literally acting like a pendulum. One can very easily see how at over 8nm away compared to the mandated 5, it wouldn't have occurred to the pilots that they were very much being affected by the disturbed air created by the Jumbo up ahead. Leading directly from that, it's incredibly easy to see why the pilot's instant first reaction to what must have been initially a sudden (albeit slight) roll followed by a gut wrenching lurch the opposite way, would have created the impression there had been a sudden and serious failure .... terrifying and whilst statistically flight IS very safe - and awareness of events such as these doesn't put me off air travel - every time I board a 'plane, I'm under no delusions that anything can happen! I wouldn't want to cause nervous flyers to feel more so, but, unlike as seems to be the case with other channels, it can end up feeling like the creator is more concerned with suave reassurance than with simply stating the facts and allowing one's own conclusions to form - and I do feel personally, that I always learn more - OK, perhaps with a touch of knowledgeable but balanced guidance - when told the salient points and then consider my own opinion. Although in this case, I can only feel genuinely sorry for the crew and passengers, I truly think this absolutely falls into one of those 'acts of God' type scenarios that, at the time it would be unreasonable to have expected even an experienced pilot either to have known to avoid, or, having encountered it, instantly recognised and understood what was happening. No surprise to me, however, the airline changed its procedures and what an interesting thought about the 'plane providing some sort of indication that it "is doing something" to countermand the upset!
Im happy that the pilot said no autopilot because they didnt know about the wake turbulence. Also happy that engineers build for 150% load or whatever they do right.
My training regarding flying in wake turbulence was "DON'T!" Don't fly where you think it might be, and if caught in it, let the plane do what it wants to until you're getting out of it, unless absolutely necessary due to other hazards (such as rapidly approaching rocks and trees).
That's incredible that wake vortices are that persistent for that long, wow. Speaking of tornadoes, I thought I asked this before but do you have any plans to cover NLM Cityhopper Flight 431 at all? That's the quite literal flying into a tornado and the more extreme version of this.
When I was a kid, I was a passenger on a plane that went through a wake-turbulence upset. Every drink in the cabin ended up all over the place, the stewardesses grabbed seats to not be thrown. I was wearing my ginger ale.
8:15, if you look at the Westland Lynx Mk7 it had a repeater for the Automatic Flight Control System in the cockpit that shows AFCS Vs human demand. Basically it shows what the computer is doing to stabilise the flight, if everything is going well the needles will oscillate around the centre point in pitch and roll. However because it's an aircraft that can be damaged doing it's job then it's quite possible to have a few bullet holes in the blades and have the aircraft be completely stable at the controls because the AFCS is going wild in cancelling out the vibrations, which will appear as the AFCS repeater needles moving across the full range of scale continuously for the flight. Perhaps a figure like "AFCS authority use" somewhere in the cockpit shows how much work the aircraft is doing to stabilise itself, a low figure like 1-5% means the air and aircraft are stable, a high figure like 70% shows the air or aircraft are unstable
Pilot here. Was on 737s, now on 320s. In both aircrafts, we have dedicated training module for Upset recoveries now. Not necessarily classified as just for wake turbulence. In any stage, you get upset, you disengage autopilot and autothrust and do certain recovery actions depending on the state of the aircraft.
Depends. Most upsets are best handled by autopilot on A320 as this incident shows. If you’ve been trained to always take the autopilot out, I’d ask for a refund.
@@peteconrad2077 You are absolutely wrong. A320 (and B737s) autopilots are designed to handle upto severe turbulence. Even then you have to set severe turbulence speed manually, Autopilot is not designed to detect severe turbulence. As for upset recovery in A320, Read FCTM. Procedures > Abnormal and Emergency Procedures > Misc > Upset Prevention and Recovery. For both Nose High and Nose Low actions, First point is "Takeover and disconnect AP and A/THR". You can definitely ask for a refund if you don't trust Airbus procedures. But whats written in FCTM is written and is what Pilots will be trained for.
@@Co11ider get some reading lesson kid. I didn’t claim the AP cousin detect turbulence. If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used. In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced from the wake the AP will do a better job. This for out of hand because they instinctively took the AP off and then overcontrolled leading to a bigger problem. Trust me. Every food airbus pilot knows that the AP almost always does better than you can.
@@peteconrad2077 I don't know what any of this has to do with your experience. I have friends who had just started on narrow body airliners getting 777s wake and going 80 degrees bank where take over manual was warranted. //In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced// I never made any comment on this. All I said was taking over manual is in NEWER training modules as per the regulator. //If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used.// So your FCTM does say about disconnection, I don't see whats the argument here.
@@Co11ider you said I was wrong to say that in most cases the 320 autopilot dies. A better job of upset recovery. You are quite wrong. In the majority of cases the 320 AP does a much better job than the human poor taking over manually. I have king experience of the type, most of it as an instructor and examiner. I can tell you that if you’re clinic I’m wrong, you don’t know what you’re taking about.
Flight 587 (Queens crash 2 months post 9/11) flew into the wake turbulence of a Japan Airlines 747 just after takeoff. Good thing the cockpit crew didnt overstress the rudders this time!
To clarify: the weight of the leading plane is not directly responsible for the strength of the wake turbulence. Its size and speed are. Of course, the greater the weight the more likely its size is bigger. The weight of the trailing plane however does matter in how much it gets thrown around in response to the forces of the wake turbulence. As for the comparison with American 587 the pilot psychology was very different. In the Air Canada flight incident the pilots were caught off-guard and while their response did enhance the bad situation they were able to recover quick enough not to damage the plane. The pilot flying American 587 had a reputation for overreaction already and seeing a 747 taking off in front put him into a mindset to anticipate and (over)react to its wake turbulence to begin with.
I'm so not used to hearing it called Toronto International Airport lol. I guess its a much easier way to get across where it is rather than saying Pearson International Airport.
There was a wake turbulence incident somewhere over the Indian ocean where a business jet was turned completely over by the wake turbulence of an A380.
I experienced my first wake turbulence upset in 2006. Over indian ocean westbound at FL340 we suddenly experienced a sharp 20 degrees of bank to the left followed by 30 degrees of bank to the right. A320 aircraft was shaking in severe turbulence for about 20 seconds. The auto pilot amazingly didn't trip off and then everything was smooth again! I could hear passengers screaming in that 20 seconds. Fortunately no injury or damage to the airplane.
2 minutes before we passed an opposite traffic (MD11 cargo) 1000 feet above us. The wind was about 50 kts exact headwind for us which is the worse scenario! (Around 50 kts tailwind for the MD11).
After that incident and with Emirates A380s in service, we had many similar or worse incidents! By experience and regulations we adopted ourselves to it and the number of incidents reduced significantly. It happened to me another few times.
But I always remember the first time and how scary it was.
Thank you for this episode.
Interesting story. So how exactly DO you adapt to situations like this?
Idk I’m calling cap…
I cross this airspace several times a month. We use 2 miles of SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) to fly parallel to airway. As per regional procedure, even ATC need not be informed. This solves the problem.
I am hard of hearing. Your speaking voice is easily understood and a pleasure to listen to.
@@Ironman3333334 I am glad someone else said it first lol. Sorry Robert Childish I know but....
Several years back I was a crew member on a 757 heading to Dubai. As I recall we were level at FL370 at 0.80 Mach. We encountered continuous moderate turbulence for no obvious reason. We were testing a SATCOM system at the time and had high-speed internet available. I was monitoring our flight using FlightRadar24 and was able to see the cause. We were approximately 10 NMi directly behind an A380 at FL390. We side-stepped off the airway and the ride immediately smoothed out. The critical factor here is that we were 2000 feet below the “heavy” A380 and in trail such that the descending wake of the A380 coincided exactly with our position relative to the A380. The fact that we were a 757 loaded to the gills with JetA helped our situation compared to the lighter A321 in the video.
me too
Well done
Well explained! As an Airbus instructor/examiner I can confirm the narrative. This was 2008. In the mean time all airline pilots are required to perform upset recovery training in the flight simulator. In that training the emphasis is on recovery from unusual attitudes (for whatever cause but including wake turbulence) whereby the use of rudder is strictly not allowed. Keep up the well explained videos!.
Thank you!
I recall that American Airlines 587 went down due to overuse of the rudder during a wake turbulence event.
Why is the rudder deflected a lot by only a little bit of pedal at high speeds and a lot less rudder deflection by the same amount of pedal at low speeds? Shouldn't this design be reversed? That design makes no sense to me.
@@erbenton07 My guess is because the rudder pedals are how you steer the plane on the ground. In that regime (low speed, on the ground), you want the nose wheel to turn and the actual rudder to stay put. Once you get into the air and up to speed, then you want to be able to command full rudder. Just speculation, I've never flown any airliners.
@@erbenton07 As the airspeed increases the effectiveness of the control surfaces increases as well, so it’s not that the rudder is moving further, but rather the same amount of movement imparts a greater force on the aircraft. Or that’s what I was taught on light aircraft and gliders back before fly by wire controls.
Actually in a glider any aileron input requires a boot load of rudder in order to overcome the secondary effect of the ailerons. The problem is exacerbated by the relatively long wings compared to the fuselage length. Having ailerons considerably further away from the CofG compared to the rudder results in you really needing to work the rudder through all phases of flight. If you’re trying to fly close to the stall speed and you try and pick up a wing with ailerons you will find yourself in a spin before you can say SH…T, however, you can pick up a wing with rudder.
During your annual flight review in a glider you had to demonstrate flying the aircraft near the stall then deliberately crossing the controls to induce a spin that you had to allow to fully develop before executing a recovery. Normally this involved centralizing the joystick and kicking on FULL opposite rudder. Once the darn thing stopped spinning you would centralize the rudder then pull it out of the dive using elevator before reaching Vne or exceeding the maximum wing loading (usually 5 g). I never really liked deliberately spinning a glider, but it was a necessary evil and something glider pilots had to be totally and absolutely up to speed on.
Funny stuff wake turbulence. When I lived right below a Heathrow airport flight path I would sometimes go outside at night to watch the planes arrive. Very very rarely, about two minutes after a plane passed you could hear the vortices hit the buildings or stir around in the overhead like invisible boomerangs. Very odd the first time I heard it. I had a ppl and was able to workout what the noise was after a minute or two. It was amazing how unpredictable it was. Maybe once every four months or more. I can see how hard it is to eliminate any risk in the open sky where aircraft may be well below the source of the wake and within normal separation. Great video. Congrats on a sponsor, you deserve it !
I was just thinking about that plane that crashed into Jamaica Bay in New York from the heavy rudder inputs and the vertical stabilizer failed. Its amazing this didn't happen here. Great video as always, Thank you!
A sponsor now? In the big leagues, well done.
Congratulations! Well deserved!
I had encountered wake turbulence, while flying a C-172, on a clear beautiful day. It felt like rapid force changes on the yoke, like left, right, left, right banking, about 4 times per second, for about 2 seconds.
At first I didn't understand what it was (the aircraft didn't had an autopilot). The second pilot who sit next to me told me it is probably wake turbulence.
Now I know what to expect...
It is really important not to over control the aircraft in any kind of turbulence, or you can create your own pilot induced turbulence, or in an extreme case, break the aircraft.
My sister used to fly extensively in connection with her work. About 15 years ago she was on an aircraft which hit wake turbulence over Germany. It was so terrifying she has never flown since and ended up having to change her job. It's good to know that the Air Canada incident led to a better understanding of wake turbulence and to improved separation between larger and smaller aircraft.
I had a wake encounter when departing from Atlantic City a few years ago. An Air National Guard KC-10 was doing touch and goes. I waited two minutes after the tanker had left the area before departing and turned away from the runway heading as soon as the gear was retracted. At about 500 ft AGL, I was hit by a wake votex that rolled the airplane 90 degrees left. I applied full right rudder and aileron and it still took several seconds to get any control response. That low, it was a critical situation. My three non-pilot passengers were terrified. I was too busy flying the airplane to register any fear until I had full control of the airplane and then realized that my legs were jelly. Will definitely pass on another chance to do that again.
question, if the plane was rolled by the vortex, and your plane is rotating along its axis (the axis along the pencil like body), what's the point of using rudder, shouldn't it more of an alieron task? or the situation was so deperate, all control surfaces that can counter the rotation will be deployed.
@@ylstorage7085 aileron and rudder are never used independently. They always go together unless you're making a very gentle turn.
Think about it in terms of the conservation of angular momentum. The propeller is a big, fast gyroscope with a lot of mass. When you roll the plane, gyroscopic procession causes a torque on the airframe and makes it yaw away from the roll automatically.
Another fascinating story. Had no idea that wake turbulence could extend so far. Looks like you are about to reach 100k subs, well deserved!
We think of 10 miles as a distance, but think of it as a time instead.
600 NM/hr is 10 NM/min. Meaning 10 NM is only about 1 minute at cruising speed.
Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to say!! I've heard of it during takeoff/landing, but not at that kind of distance.
I just learned recently about wake turbulence and I am too amazed that it is that way.
For a plane that did not make it and crashed because of wake turbulence, see:
Nov 2008 Mexico City Learjet 45 crash
My home airport hosts everything from ultralights to 737s. We take wake turbulence seriously.
One place where you want wake turbulence is doing steep turns during flight training. You know you've done it right when you do a 360 in the air and hit your own wake turbulence. 😎
My first ever flight, we experienced *heavy* W.T (in a BA-146)... took me 9 years to get back on a plane 😂😵
I remember hitting my own wake turbulence when completing a 360 with my instructor one smooth day, and I had to confirm with him that it was what I thought it was, since it was a two minute (rate one) turn that I'd just completed under the hood. It amazed me that our little Cessna 172 had been able to produce enough wake turbulence to provide that satisfying little bump exactly two minutes later.
@@daviddunsmore103 under certain circumstances, linking back up with your wake turbulence like that could create a massive vortex ring traveling down toward the surface. Would be cool to see a smoke test.
@@tissuepaper9962 Would be cool in a sci fi movie, a massive vortex ring traveling down toward the surface, like a giant drill, until.... :)
Standard training to avoid wake vortices says "stay above or UPWIND of the source". The vortices sink and are carried downwind.
Of course, that results that the "source" will be below and downwind to your aircraft, and you now feed YOUR wake turbulence to him...
@@Oferb553 Only if you pass him. This applies to in-trail flying.
@@yoopernow i would guess the upper air conditions were just right for this in-trail wake turbulence encounter. the A319 climbed into the larger a/c's wake.
Wake turbulence: When the plane jolting arround wakes you up.
It's designed to keep the pilots alert.
Time to turn wake turbulence into a product.
Between this and the comment about the spaghetti.....
Actually they "knew" about wake turbulence since world war 2. It's why bombers flew in a staggered formation.
The “combat box” formation was mostly for leveraging maximum defensive firepower, they’d be violating most rules we have today regarding wake turbulence lol.
@@EstorilEm I remember reading that they tried dozens of formations during training, and regardless of what they chose it HAD to be staggered. I mean no doubt they chose to fly in lines and obviously it wasn't physically possible.
And yet again I can but say that “let the darn automation tell the pilot if something out of the ordinary is happening. No matter if it is “the fuel burn is nearly 3 times of what it should be” or “working hard to keep straight and level, boss!” Even a red “working hard” LED would help, a traffic light of the status would be better and an display mode showing the commands the Autopilot is giving would be great. Keeping pilots in the dark like little children is stupid. And dangerous.
Ur videos are the best in explaining the disasters and is fun to watch!
Great video and presentation. I was wondering and hoping you would bring up AA587. Comparing the two was crucial. Amazing how the Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers have different instructions on how and when to use the rudder. There was a lot of finger pointing going on between AA and Airbus after AA587 crash. I knew a pilot who flew that tail number just a few days before the crash, as this was one of his usual routes and flights for AA. When 587 went down I was praying he wasn't on that flight. I saw him the next weekend at work. He had questions for us in aircfraft maintenance and we had questions for him as a pilot. He was a pilot in our Air Guard A-10 unit. As usual, got to hear the behind the scene stories. Especially the training part and use of rudders.
I am so glad you found a sponsor! Such amazing content deserves a lot more than what youtube offers! Congratulations!
The strongest turbulence I ever felt was on an Air France A380- from another A380. If it was able to shake an A380 like that, I can't imagine what it was like on a much smaller plane!
I remember to fly in a 747 15min behind another 747 from FRA to Johannisburg from 9:00pm to 6:00am. Same timezone, so it could have been just a noisy hotel room, but not a minute of sleep because of turbulence. I could not even eat something. And years later I heard 2 flight attendance talk about the same happening on that route very often.
I was in a Cessna 172 and caught wake turbulence from a 737 on its way to land in the NT. I think we were upside down at one stage!! Landed safely.
Just an FYI, the 1st Officer of American 587 didn't "(hold) the rudder deflection for a long period of time." He made full left & right rudder deflections (b/c that's what AA trained him to do) in rapid succession & essentially ripped the rudder off the vertical stabilizer. No worries, I enjoyed this video as well as all of your videos. 😉✌️
American 587 exceeded rudder load specs by 200% due to the alternating deflections. The pilot association later complained that the airplane manual never mentioned that it was possible to exceed load specs with control inputs, and that they didn't know it was possible. The aircraft manufacturers are doing a poor job of communicating with pilots.
Yes, I remembered that too: Rapid back and forth rudder deflections, overstressing the rudder, breaking it off. Remembered that from another YT piece.
Thanks for making these videos they are really helping me during this lockdown and keeping my anxiety down
In flight school we go up to 4000-5000 feet (to have enough altitude for recovery) and have to fly in a skyhawk (C172) behind another skyhawk. It's terrifying, it feels like you lose control of the plane. And that's with 2 planes the same size. Flying a small plane behind a large plane must be much worse.
Well done, I myself also did not know that wake turbulence could extend so far back on the 747 and other heavy aircraft. Thank you for making this video, great job.👍✈
MACI, you just keep getting better and better with your investigative reconstructions. You've come so far in a very short time. Happy to see your sponsorship and will look into them for VPN
Other uses for a VPN:
- If you travel abroad some countries (China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, etc) block some sites (porn, dating, political, google search, CNN, etc). A VPN makes your traffic invisible so you can access these sites. However make sure you are not sending your DNS requests to the local ISP.
- If you use public internet, a VPN adds an extra layer of protection against some types of attacks (some MITM) or eavesdropping or spoofing.
Most elaborate use cases of Surfshark that I have ever seen : )
Congratulations!, my guy got sponsored :D
Yay!
On a flight into San Juan on an ATR-72 we were in an upwind for a dogleg final for runway 28 when the pilots got too close to a "heavy" in front of us. It nearly inverted us and snapped all of our necks, but the pilot did recover. i heard the F/A cussing the pilots out when we were deplaning.
so happy that you can get sponsors now, love your content, keep it up
Always nice to see an incident in aviation where nobody died during it. Something to learn from, fix, without the passengers and crew being killed in the incident. Great video!
I watch all of your videos :D
Thank you!
Same :)
Everyone simply expects the automation to be the villain
Sad thing is that you never hear about all the times when saves people. MOST of the time in an Airbus it catches the pilots (even at the last second) and it remains a non-issue that they passengers never know about. They might think the go-around is odd, but that’s about it.
@@EstorilEm you don't hear about such cases because when the automation dies it's job and saves the plane, there is nothing to investigate.
@@Oferb553 true
@@Oferb553 *does
I did not really experience wake turbulence but I tried very hard to avoid it. I was doing my student solo in 2016 in a Cessna 152 in Redmond Airport, a very small regional airport. I was doing traffic patterns and touch and go, then an ERJ 145 was coming into land. It was my first solo, so I was too worried. I was trying to land after where the jet touched down, but then I realized I was too nervous to start the descent. I was around 800 feet, so I flew straight and aborted the landing, and I told the tower I was too high to land. So I redid a pattern after this, it's never bad to play safe.
Get that sponsorship attention! Good for you my dude. Been watching since early on, and I’m so glad to see your channel grow.
I can't believe my little town Kelowna made it into one of these videos! Love your work sir keep it up!
U didn’t correct him?
@@halojump123 on what?
I’ve spent a lot of time in Kelowna, Castlegar and Nelson on business as well as a little bit of fishing. Kelowna is a lovely town with very wonderful people as well as some real characters.
@@farmerbob4554 been here 23 years and would agree characters are an understatement
Taking a bit deeper dive into wake turbulence and "Why those little winglets help decrease it, but don't eliminate it..." (in case anyone's interested)
First, there's apparently more to the principles of lift than we get in school with the stupid "Blow over this piece of paper" and then "Blow over this wing-shaped piece of paper" to watch high speed air pick up the paper... Yeah, the faster air over the top of the wing DOES decrease the air pressure, and the resulting high pressure zone under the wing pushes UP... BUT there's also Kwanda's Effect, from the downward angle of the trailing edge (and flaps if engaged/extended) AND the over-all curvature of the wing's underside literally COMPRESSING the air beneath the wing that builds lifting force...
From this you can see (if you just look at a plane and the wings) that there's no structure holding the air under the wing. Air IS a fluid, so it's free to move around, up to the speed of sound (which is worth note somewhere) but we're also talking about SUB-SONIC (slower than Mach) flight... SO the air being compressed under the wing is going to slip and escape... The curve of the wing keeps showering more and faster air down from the trailing edge, so that's not the easiest course of escape, and air doesn't magically gain energy, so it slips toward the tips of the wings, escaping its compressed state outward to the side... Even that the air flow over the top of the wing is faster from front to rear (relative to the plane) the underside air is able to flow faster outward to the side, past the wing tip. This induces some air flowing from the top of the wing, too, much like a venturi-tube on a perfume spritzer uses air-flow from the bladder to draw liquid up a tube... or how a carburetor uses the air flow to draw the gasoline up a tube into a mist through the intake and into an engine... The fact that the air from under the wing is moving faster to the side CAUSES that vortex motion swirling up and curling around the wing-tip as it escapes the compression under the wing. The larger the wing, and the more lift it can produce, then the larger and more powerful the Vortex is going to be... This goes hand in hand with the size and shear mass of the aircraft the wing is attached to. Most airplanes have a wing on each side, so there will be two vortices produced, counter rotating...
BUT why do Airlines care? Other than safety, is there any particular concern???
Well, yes. This brings us to those winglets. They're not just there to look cool or add to branding, believe it or not. The fact is, the larger the Vortices are from an airplane's wings, the more air is being USELESSLY pushed out to the sides, rather than compressed under the wings to produce LIFT. This makes the wings more INEFFICIENT, and adds to DRAG without any net benefit... Beyond the hazards to other craft presented by a 747's wake turbulence, the 747 is spending a BUNCH of fuel, needlessly stirring air around for miles behind it, rather than pushing the plane UP and that adds to the workload and expense of powering the engines. This might not account a hell of a lot in a Cassna, BUT in a plane that weighs 100 TONS empty, it's a different story...
Okay... BUT what the hell is a winglet going to do???
The winglets obstruct the flow of air OVER the wings to the side. There's also (usually) a small DOWNWARD protrusion of winglet below the wing, decreasing the escape flow of the air UNDER the wing... ALL of this presents a significant decrease in escaping air, AND the size of vortices in the wake of the aircraft. Again, there's no good way to just "Contain" air under the compression of wings producing lift. However, the corporate bean counters have really narrowed down the size of winglets that present a SIGNIFICANT boost to efficiency with a relatively minimal investment in materials to build the winglets. They DO look kinda cool, so there's a thought to branding and aesthetic... BUT along with savings of fuel and thereby money, there's a decrease in the intensity of turbulence trailing aircraft of inordinately large size and mass...
How do the big-brains know what constitutes an adequate separation to avoid wake turbulence???
Generally, Vortices will spread out eventually and diminish to "nominal" or nearly nothing at a known rate (depending on their intensity and the aircraft that created them). They also FALL at about 400 feet per minute, GENERALLY... There are some atmospheric conditions that can help induce "anomalous" figures, however, and let a vortex or both vortices linger about for considerably longer than "the usual"... SO the big-brains know and have documented what usually works, BUT ATC commonly gives pilots the discretionary platitude to maneuver about a mile to the direct right or left of their "track" or "vector" even though everyone works better using "highways" in the sky as a pattern for predictable air traffic. That mile one way or another gives the tolerance by which a pilot, AT HIS OWN DISCRETION can simply escape the wake turbulence (or any other turbulence for the matter) and then communicate to ATC about why his plane has "moved out of track" when he's found "clean" and safe air to fly in...
I hope this helps... You can check into "Mantour Pilot" for more on the subject, of course.. AND "Smarter Every Day" is a good resource for a variety of questions, particularly the kind you never thought you wanted to know, including the operating principles inside a carburetor... They're both pretty great channels with presenters who break the complicated stuff down so that even a "dumb-ass country guy like me" can understand it. ;o)
In all honesty, this is like the best case scenario, no serious injuries, and a huge learning experience that made flying safer! Awesome video!😸
He did say there were 3 or 4 people seriously injured.
@@Sashazur oh
Thanks for this. I'm amazed that wake turbulence has such an effect on relatively smaller planes. BTW, I have been using Surfshark since May, 2019, and they've come a long way since then with faster speeds and more connection choices. Quite the good deal they're offering through you too!
Yay! Another Mini Air Crash Investigation video!
Yay indeed!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation lol
Nice video keep up the good work and don't stop they videos there amazing
Thank you!
Never experienced an upset in real life, but we are trained on regular basis on how to deal with it, rudder inputs are not recommended , as you said it's mostly for engine failures.
Great video! Really enjoy watching this kind of reports
great video great research thank you! great job!
Air Canada Rouge, the livery you use in the video, did not exist in 2008. It's an Air Canada flanker brand that's marketed as a budget discount airline. It commenced operations on 1 July 2013.
Also, the Toronto Airport in Toronto, Ontario, Canada is actually called the "Toronto Pearson International Airport". No one calls it Toronto Airport, and that is not it's name. It's like calling the "San Francisco International Airport" as San Francisco airport. There are many airports in both of those cities and they all have names.
I have experienced wake turbulence many times, but on my last flight a couple of weeks ago, we had wake turbulence just before landing. The plane was banking both ways and started shaking very strongly. People were screaming and the only reason I wasn’t in tears is because I had my 10 year old daughter crying as she was scared. My legs were shaking as I disembarked and I went to cry in the airport bathroom 🙈
Best channel on UA-cam! Thanks for all you do!
My worst experience of wake turbulence is when the cat jumps on my bed while I'm asleep ;)
I remember on a really early video you made a comment along the lines of "I didn't expect this would eventually get 40k views ". And now you're getting that many views on new videos in 24 hours
We were taught at the regional RJ level "avoid rapid oscillating control reversals" including the rudder. Flying the Airbus, we are taught not to touch the rudder pedal after takeoff, even during our new extreme upset sim procedures training. The Airbus will coordinate your rudder for you. As a matter of fact, a pilot cannot adjust rudder trim with the autopilot engaged. (Nothing happens). Aileron trim is physically absent. And the only time we touch the stabilizer trim wheel is to preset it for takeoff. FTY. The Airbus is unique. You can take off, set 15 degrees pitch, let go, it will maintain that. Then you can roll 33 degrees to the right, let go. It will maintain the 15 degrees and 33 degrees with no trim. You don't pull back or trim up in a turn. It does it for you.
Have you done a video about the Challenger flying through the A380 Wake?? The Challenger landed but was written off and was a mess.
Awesome vid as ever, and great to see the sponsor!
The report concluded that the pilot had gotten out of the loop and was making control inputs out of phase with what would be necessary to recover the airplane. Yet, looking at the FDR plot at 3:18, it seems like the pilot's aileron inputs were the _correct_ ones for recovering from the upset (they commanded right aileron when the plane was rolling left, and left aileron when it was rolling right), and their rudder inputs, although improper, were at least counter to the plane's motions (right rudder when rolling left, left rudder when rolling right)... ?
Thank you for pronouncing Calgary correctly. So many don't!
how do people say it wrong?
@@jnawk83 it's not really right or wrong per se, but most locals ignore the second a while most non-locals pronounce it. CAL-gree vs CAL-guh-ree. That being said I also liked that he pronounced it the way I grew up saying it lol
-a guy from Calgree
I love this videos
My father had once a Cessna 172 Skyhawk. When he was landing on Saint Thomas, the turbulence created by a comercial plane when it was taking off, moved him out of the runway and he got the scare of his life. No mayor incident occurred but he contacted Control Tower about it.
Great video and I see this one has a sponsor! Ive watched your channel grow and Im happy for you bro! Everyone - please dont skip to the end or stop watching after the main content. Watch the sponsor message also. Just let it play. Lets support him guys.
This is a great example for passengers to stay seated with the belt on reasonably tight. I see so many wandering around the cabin for a stroll or chatting in groups in the galleys during long hauls. Of course you need to get up for the toilet but dont hang around on your feet needlessly, You never know and if the plane hits CAT or wake turb it can smash you on the ceiling and break your neck. You also pose a danger to other pax.
This incident is also why they don't service spaghetti on A319s anymore.
You barely get a cookie nowadays, lol
Well, the choices were chicken or fish.
Oh, that's right, I had lasagna.
You asked about pilots and wake turbulence training. I (used to) fly paragliders. Training: none. Or "you could experience wake turbulence if you fly behind someone else. Don't do that".
That said... The first time I encountered it, I wasn't expecting it. It felt like a couple of speedbumps in the air. As this was totally "out of the blue" for me, and completely new, I decided: "there is something weird going on with the air over there, lets get out of this spot ASAP". So I few away, found a new thermal... no more bumps until the guy I'd been sharing that first thermal with came over.... Then I found my second wake turbulence and things started to click.
I used to work directly under a landing path near BWI airport. You could go outside and look up and watch the plane landing, passing maybe 200 feet overhead. Then, almost a minute later, if it was quiet, you could hear a rippling, tearing sound following the path of the plane. Before I knew about vortices, this was one of the most eerie experiences I've had.
Your videos are incredible. You bring the stories information to a different level. Thank you!
Wake turbulence vortices also descend at around 300-500 fpm intially, so even within a 5 mile separation these vortices might well affect a plane at the 1000 foot separation altitude.
Thanks • Well done • I was a Huey crewman crossing over LA , north to south over Burbank , when I spotted a 747 at our altitude crossing our our path east to west descending into LAX 😲😳 I told the pilot, and he about broke the cyclic jockeying us around in order to not cross behind it 😂😂😂😂😂 😜 We were at our assigned altitude and they were maybe a mile distant 😅 Those pilots feared that wake ....
Experienced a wake turbulence over Europe many years ago, but this was a little different. The aircraft had passed at right angles across our path about 4 minutes earlier. It was one loud bang and the entire aircraft shuddered. I likened it to going over a speed bump at 32000 feet at 500km/h. Never experienced anything like it before or since. Fortunately it did not result in an in-flight upset, just a spilled drink.
i love the detailed explanation
Great video as always!
Should have left the autopilot on. How much experience does a captain have flying manual at 35k? Basically zero.
Yay! I love these videos! Keep up the good work.
Congratulations bro 100k subs in no time
Super clip as always! This reminds me of drivers of rear wheel drive cars in bad conditions who "lose it" in a corner. If you catch the slide quickly enough with the right amount of opposite lock and resist the temptation to brake, you might get lucky but more often than not what happens is that the startle effect takes over, too much opp lock is applied and the rear of the car then swings the other way resulting in fishtailing with the car literally acting like a pendulum. One can very easily see how at over 8nm away compared to the mandated 5, it wouldn't have occurred to the pilots that they were very much being affected by the disturbed air created by the Jumbo up ahead. Leading directly from that, it's incredibly easy to see why the pilot's instant first reaction to what must have been initially a sudden (albeit slight) roll followed by a gut wrenching lurch the opposite way, would have created the impression there had been a sudden and serious failure .... terrifying and whilst statistically flight IS very safe - and awareness of events such as these doesn't put me off air travel - every time I board a 'plane, I'm under no delusions that anything can happen! I wouldn't want to cause nervous flyers to feel more so, but, unlike as seems to be the case with other channels, it can end up feeling like the creator is more concerned with suave reassurance than with simply stating the facts and allowing one's own conclusions to form - and I do feel personally, that I always learn more - OK, perhaps with a touch of knowledgeable but balanced guidance - when told the salient points and then consider my own opinion. Although in this case, I can only feel genuinely sorry for the crew and passengers, I truly think this absolutely falls into one of those 'acts of God' type scenarios that, at the time it would be unreasonable to have expected even an experienced pilot either to have known to avoid, or, having encountered it, instantly recognised and understood what was happening. No surprise to me, however, the airline changed its procedures and what an interesting thought about the 'plane providing some sort of indication that it "is doing something" to countermand the upset!
Congrats on the sponsorship
Im happy that the pilot said no autopilot because they didnt know about the wake turbulence. Also happy that engineers build for 150% load or whatever they do right.
The pilot Shiism have left the autopilot in. Most of this was pilot overcontrol.
Congratulations 👏 you fully deserve sponsors.
My training regarding flying in wake turbulence was "DON'T!"
Don't fly where you think it might be, and if caught in it, let the plane do what it wants to until you're getting out of it, unless absolutely necessary due to other hazards (such as rapidly approaching rocks and trees).
Oh hey, I recognize those hotels in the thumbnail!
That's incredible that wake vortices are that persistent for that long, wow.
Speaking of tornadoes, I thought I asked this before but do you have any plans to cover NLM Cityhopper Flight 431 at all? That's the quite literal flying into a tornado and the more extreme version of this.
10 NM is only about a minute at passenger jet speed.
@@briant7265 still a long distance though
If you want to see wake turbulence at its most extreme check out the XB-70 crash
Everyone survived = The Pilots did their job properly.
When I was a kid, I was a passenger on a plane that went through a wake-turbulence upset. Every drink in the cabin ended up all over the place, the stewardesses grabbed seats to not be thrown. I was wearing my ginger ale.
Wow, he's sponsored now.
Whoop, whoop!!!
1:17
Everyone, remember the person in the toilet just had their worst day of their life.
Excellent episode
I actually liked that sponsor spot because I feel how often MSFS2020 just decides it isn't feeling like working and dies
Congrats to Airbus for building such robust aircrafts. By any standards it should have fall apart, but it didn't.
Smart idea to divert to Calgary. Kelowna is in a valley with an airport that has a lot less resources in case of an emergency
Great video keep up the great work
8:15, if you look at the Westland Lynx Mk7 it had a repeater for the Automatic Flight Control System in the cockpit that shows AFCS Vs human demand. Basically it shows what the computer is doing to stabilise the flight, if everything is going well the needles will oscillate around the centre point in pitch and roll.
However because it's an aircraft that can be damaged doing it's job then it's quite possible to have a few bullet holes in the blades and have the aircraft be completely stable at the controls because the AFCS is going wild in cancelling out the vibrations, which will appear as the AFCS repeater needles moving across the full range of scale continuously for the flight.
Perhaps a figure like "AFCS authority use" somewhere in the cockpit shows how much work the aircraft is doing to stabilise itself, a low figure like 1-5% means the air and aircraft are stable, a high figure like 70% shows the air or aircraft are unstable
Pilot here. Was on 737s, now on 320s. In both aircrafts, we have dedicated training module for Upset recoveries now. Not necessarily classified as just for wake turbulence. In any stage, you get upset, you disengage autopilot and autothrust and do certain recovery actions depending on the state of the aircraft.
Depends. Most upsets are best handled by autopilot on A320 as this incident shows. If you’ve been trained to always take the autopilot out, I’d ask for a refund.
@@peteconrad2077 You are absolutely wrong. A320 (and B737s) autopilots are designed to handle upto severe turbulence. Even then you have to set severe turbulence speed manually, Autopilot is not designed to detect severe turbulence.
As for upset recovery in A320, Read FCTM. Procedures > Abnormal and Emergency Procedures > Misc > Upset Prevention and Recovery. For both Nose High and Nose Low actions, First point is "Takeover and disconnect AP and A/THR".
You can definitely ask for a refund if you don't trust Airbus procedures. But whats written in FCTM is written and is what Pilots will be trained for.
@@Co11ider get some reading lesson kid. I didn’t claim the AP cousin detect turbulence. If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used. In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced from the wake the AP will do a better job. This for out of hand because they instinctively took the AP off and then overcontrolled leading to a bigger problem.
Trust me. Every food airbus pilot knows that the AP almost always does better than you can.
@@peteconrad2077 I don't know what any of this has to do with your experience. I have friends who had just started on narrow body airliners getting 777s wake and going 80 degrees bank where take over manual was warranted.
//In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced//
I never made any comment on this. All I said was taking over manual is in NEWER training modules as per the regulator.
//If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used.//
So your FCTM does say about disconnection, I don't see whats the argument here.
@@Co11ider you said I was wrong to say that in most cases the 320 autopilot dies. A better job of upset recovery. You are quite wrong. In the majority of cases the 320 AP does a much better job than the human poor taking over manually. I have king experience of the type, most of it as an instructor and examiner. I can tell you that if you’re clinic I’m wrong, you don’t know what you’re taking about.
I thought this would be about mountain waves at first. Severe coherent wake turbulence from another plane at those distances is rare.
Your videos are quality bro 👍🇬🇧
NICE JOB
Flight 587 (Queens crash 2 months post 9/11) flew into the wake turbulence of a Japan Airlines 747 just after takeoff. Good thing the cockpit crew didnt overstress the rudders this time!
Kudos on the correction pronunciation of Calgary! Most non-locals don't get it right :-)
Awesome sir love your video,s
To clarify: the weight of the leading plane is not directly responsible for the strength of the wake turbulence. Its size and speed are. Of course, the greater the weight the more likely its size is bigger.
The weight of the trailing plane however does matter in how much it gets thrown around in response to the forces of the wake turbulence.
As for the comparison with American 587 the pilot psychology was very different. In the Air Canada flight incident the pilots were caught off-guard and while their response did enhance the bad situation they were able to recover quick enough not to damage the plane. The pilot flying American 587 had a reputation for overreaction already and seeing a 747 taking off in front put him into a mindset to anticipate and (over)react to its wake turbulence to begin with.
The weight dorms matter. Weight directly impacts the vortex generation which is a product of lift, which is precisely equal to weight.
If I recall this was an Air Canada ACFT and not an Air Canada rouge ACFT. Explanation on stop though. Great job.
the landing was pretty smooth, not gonna lie
Thanks!
Yooo 4Kp60 is fire on your videoss
I'm so not used to hearing it called Toronto International Airport lol. I guess its a much easier way to get across where it is rather than saying Pearson International Airport.
And it's Winnipeg international Airport not James Armstrong Richardson international Airport.
There was a wake turbulence incident somewhere over the Indian ocean where a business jet was turned completely over by the wake turbulence of an A380.
great video!
This is why you ALWAYS keep you belt on.
This why you've gotta be real careful in a GA aircraft near big jets.