It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A380 wake turbulence flips CL-604

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
A Challenger 604, from Male to Abu Dhabi, passed 1,000 feet below an A380, most likely operating as EK-412 from Dubai to Sidney, going in the opposite direction. Approximately 1-2 minutes later, the CL-604 rolled inverted, and spun at least 3, possibly as many as 5 times. The aircraft suffered a double flameout, and dropped 10,000 feet before the crew could recover. During the recovery, the aircraft suffered an over G, and was damaged beyond repair. One person was taken the hospital with serious injuries, and an unknown number were treated for their injuries. There were 9 people on board at the time. The aircraft made an emergency landing at Muscat, while the A380 continued to Sydney without incident.


We normally don’t report on individual aircraft incidents here, because the causal factors are related to a very narrow set of unique circumstances.

This instance is different, and should be of concern to all operators.

A Challenger 604 at FL350 operating from Male-Abu Dhabi passed an A380 opposite direction at FL360, one thousand feet above, about 630nm southeast of Muscat, Oman, over the Arabian Sea.

A short time later (1-2 minutes) the aircraft encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft into an uncontrolled roll, turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft, restart the engines and divert to Muscat. The aircraft received damage beyond repair due to the G-forces, and was written off.

An official report is to be published by the German BFU. In the interim, the complete set of circumstances can be read at Aviation Herald.

flightservicebureau.org...




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This instance is different, and should be of concern to all operators.


Holy crap, they bent it up!

I'm impressed they were able to recover.

And every time I read that country name, I get an ear worm of Andy Kaufman.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As ever more planes get into the sky and as many of them seem to be a bit 'susly' built given the doco I saw recently on the building of a Boeing plane, and the industry becomes ever more competitative and corners get cut, planes will soon start dropping out of the sky with or without passengers.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah, I was impressed as hell that they got it back. Extreme upset, with a double engine failure? That usually ends very badly.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Most aircraft don't have a large wake turbulence pattern to avoid, so they can get away with the RVSM of 1,000 feet. The worst, prior to the A380, was the 757, which had an unusual wake turbulence for an aircraft that size. For an aircraft the size of a 604 to get flipped, the A380 has to have a much bigger wake turbulence than expected.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Azureblue

Most aircraft don't have a large wake turbulence pattern to avoid, so they can get away with the RVSM of 1,000 feet. The worst, prior to the A380, was the 757, which had an unusual wake turbulence for an aircraft that size. For an aircraft the size of a 604 to get flipped, the A380 has to have a much bigger wake turbulence than expected.


thanks for your comments.

what is RVSM and how big is a 604? Im not fmailiar with planes sorry.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Tip vortices are nasty (nasty).
So, I suppose the investigation will involve separation rules. Right? Is 2 minutes standard?


edit on 3/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums, RVSM. They used to required 2,000 feet vertical separation between two aircraft. But after doing studies with the largest aircraft in use, at the time, they found that you could safely fly within 1,000 feet vertically of another aircraft.

The CL-604 is a business jet built by Bombardier. It's part of their 600 series, which is a pretty popular aircraft. It's not a very large aircraft at 68 feet, with a 64 foot wingspan.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

they found that you could safely fly within 1,000 feet vertically of another aircraft.
Since vortices move with the air mass containing them, falling air would have an effect. One would think. Perhaps that number should be reconsidered.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In this case, it was 1,000 feet under RVSM rules. The two aircraft were traveling in opposite directions at the time.

It all depends on the type of separation you're talking about. Longitudinal separation is 10 minutes minimum with good navaid coverage, and 15 without. Radar separation is 3-5 nautical miles, and up to 10 in areas with less radar coverage.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They generally pass each other so fast, the vortices don't have much effect on the other aircraft, beyond mild turbulence. The problem comes in when you have one aircraft that is significantly bigger than the other, such as in this case.
edit on 3/16/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Odd. Mixing distance and duration.
If a vortex is dangerous for 10 minutes, it has 10 minutes to move around.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There are multiple types of separation. Some require time between aircraft, others require distance. Time is usually used where there is no radar coverage, to allow the best possible separation between aircraft. Not just for the wake turbulence, but for safety as well.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I got that. From a physics based perspective, time would seem to be a good standard. Vortices don't last forever, but they do get blown around.

Of course, ten minutes can be a long time when you have a bunch of planes lined up.

I'm sure I've seen a cockpit video of a plane chasing a heavy and doing a full roll. Unintentionally. Can't seem to find it though.

edit on 3/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

With the amount of air travel that's currently flying, 10 minutes would be an eternity. In 2015 Hartsfield fed 100 million passengers through. Trying to do that with a 10 minute separation would be a nightmare.


They used to have serious problems with the 757 and small planes doing that. Especially in the landing and takeoff configuration the 757 has huge wake turbulence for an aircraft that size. There were one or two crashes IIRC from small planes following a 757 too closely.
edit on 3/16/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed.
An hour for 6 aircraft.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Would it not be the same for ships though? A bloody big ship could leave wake that would swamp a smaller one, thing with ships is you cant recover from a roll (generally).

The recovery sounds awesome, good skills and few people who I am sure will never fly again!



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My compliments to the crew!! Amazing work to keep that from ending in the worst way possible.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

You can see and avoid a boat wake.

Wingtip vortices, not so much.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   

...the crew was able to recover the aircraft, restart the engines and divert to Muscat. The aircraft received damage beyond repair due to the G-forces, and was written off.


But was still able to land, like to see that beyond repair damage report to find out what wasn't repairable. The G forces must have twisted the air frame or...?



new topics




 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join