http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread. ... ncy-at-AMS
Bobbieee agrees 110% that the aircraft should have gone around due to wake turbulence.
I am not sure I see good, clear evidence of wake turbulence here...My 172 AND 32A experience is that it's generally more of a sudden jolt, and I see very little evidence of the proverbial 'uncommand roll'...I guess if there were some tailwinds the wake could have planted the second plane firmly (as the video appears to show).
Plus, one of my 3BS general rules of thumb, is that an aircraft can generally handle wake turbulence 'from it's own kind' (within common sense, of course).
AND, you have to have pretty special winds to encounter wake turbulence on a final approach course, since it settles BELOW the flight path and you have to have a fairly precise light crosswind + tailwind to bring one of the vortexes to the centerline...AND the 'normal headwind' moves the wake even further 'below' the next aircraft...
Bottom line, 3BS thinks there's a decent dose of 3BS-like (but not_3BS's) BS floating around here.
I do concur that it looks like the second plane touched down before the first plane vacated the runway, and I find that pretty unusual and in violation of 'normal operating rules'.
Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Moderators: el, ZeroAltitude, flyboy2548m
Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Is there a question there somewhere?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Apologies:Is there a question there somewhere?
Are Boeing Bobby and Evan incorrect in stating that "The second 747 should have gone around to avoid wake turbulence"?
OR (inferred) Is 3BS basically correct in his bottom line comment in the original post...that 'needing to go around' in the featured incident is largely BS?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Couple of issues here. I, for one, am not convinced that the second airplane's hard landing was necessarily due to wake turbulence. Looked more like a garden-variety pranger, which happens all the time without the benefit of wake turbulence. In fact, it may be the second crew was tracking a bit high to avoid the wake, and then dove down to the runway. Not knowing EASA separation rules, I can't say if the sequencing was "legal", but it does look sloppy.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Ha! Flyboy Concurs with me....I, for two, am not convinced that the second airplane's hard landing was necessarily due to wake turbulence. Looked more like a garden-variety pranger, which happens all the time without the benefit of wake turbulence...
Blind Squirrels and Parlour-Talking Ass Hats sometimes get the right answer or find nuts, respectively.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
Re: Wake Turbulence...[i]there[/i].
Ironingly, here's another 'double runway occupancy incident'...I would expect that the winds here would minimize the chance of a wake encounter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erttyI7WOKo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erttyI7WOKo
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests