A380 wake turbulence flips CL-604

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...?

Usually its the wing spars that get bent up like a bananna,wrinkling skins and popping rivets..

a reply to: intrptr

I'm betting the wing box was rippled out of limits and possibly the fuse as well. I remember an old engineer taking me through airframe inspections years ago on a 747 and we were in the wheel well area. He pointed to the exposed keel beam in the body gear well and said, "and if you look at that keel beam and ever see significant ripples or buckled skin it means it was over stressed and the whole aircraft is f**ked and headed for scrapping!"
Pretty simple explanation really.

originally posted by: Blackfinger

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...?

Usually its the wing spars that get bent up like a banana,wrinkling skins and popping rivets..

Imagine landing that with a 'bent wing'... let alone the spirals, flame out and ten thousand foot freefall...

Wing vortices; persistent, invisible, horizontal tornados in the sky.

a reply to: thebozeian

Pretty simple explanation really.

For you, thanks for the inspection rundown.

a reply to: thebozeian

My father, many years ago, had a B-52 they kept for pilot training that was twisted. He said you could climb up on it and look down the back, and see where it was.

They'd make them fly one flight by hand, no trim. Every one of those flights, a student would get out, rubbing his back and asking if they all flew that badly.

a reply to: thebozeian

Seeing an outer gear snapped off and through the wing on a United 747SP in the late 80,s was it for me.

Good lord that crew needs a raise...

That would have me turn in my wings... good lord that was pretty much my worst nightmare... and they saved it..

originally posted by: Phage
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.

The vorticies almost always spin downward and below or if they hit the ground and there is a cross wind they can move horizontally... 35000 ft is one hell of a time and place to get wrapped up in one. We had wake turbulence procedures (based upon time and winds) for take off after a heavy at all stateside airports. Take off is not the time to get wrapped up in one..

What I do find weird about the story is they were traveling in opposite directions so the rate of closure would have been considerable and the time for exposure should have been minimal. One thing about GPS/FMS navigation and the airway system.. You are right on and in the middle of the airway if the FMS is working correctly.

a reply to: Zaphod58
You have to move a lot of air to lift 600 tonnes and the 80m wingspan limit doesn't help either I guess. I am wondering if Airbus has also been looking into folding wings to increase efficiency (and reduce wake turbulence).

a reply to: Irishhaf

No kidding. For all the stories about bad CRM, this one is an outstanding example of good CRM. That's the only way they could have saved that aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

LOL, yeah I read that in your other post, thought it was pretty funny. When I was studying in our trade school system an old instructor told me how there was an aircraft in a hangar one day many years ago ( I forget which type) and a sheet-metal guy was looking at it. He was starring at it from front on for quite some time and remarked that there was "something funny" about that aircraft. After quite a while he said "ahh, I know!" he worked out that one wing had been assembled in the factory upside down. And yet nobody up to that point had ever noticed it. Apparently no pilot ever complained of odd flying characteristics either. Weird.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Ahh yes I remember that one. We ended up refurbishing the gear as well as helped with the repair didn't we? .....Back when we actually had workshops and a management that wasn't hell bent on killing us off. Came down to people at United not carrying out regular lubes on the upper points on the wing gear if I remember correctly. There are a few up there that are hard to reach.

a reply to: thebozeian

We had an EC-135 that was absolutely perfect. I mean, to the point you didn't even trim that aircraft. You took it up, and let go of the controls, and it was perfectly level every time. Then one PDM trip, they didn't have the jig right, and put the wings back on uneven. Damn thing never flew right again. We even sent it back to them, so they could take the wings off and redo them, and it STILL didn't fly right.

Ahh yes I remember that one. We ended up refurbishing the gear as well as helped with the repair didn't we? .....Back when we actually had workshops and a management that wasn't hell bent on killing us off. Came down to people at United not carrying out regular lubes on the upper points on the wing gear if I remember correctly. There are a few up there that are hard to reach.

Was only a second year snork back then..Ended up next door to the Machine shop doing interiors..Only lasted a year as a tradie as being a country lad never fitted in to the big city..Always felt like a number in the system..Jet base was a boys toy shop wet dream back then..Its all dead now.Sad..
Many stories spending three months in Inter servicing as part of the course..Scary stuff..

a reply to: moebius

I recall an Airbus representative discussing the aerodynamics of the A-380 wing and stating that the airfoil section actually gains most efficiency at a point 6m longer than it is. Which means that an A-380 should have a 92m wingspan. If you look at the outboard section in plan form and compare it with a 777/A-330/787/A-350 you can actually see what he was talking about. So I suppose that if there is ever an A-380 900 or NEO, they may seriously consider such a move particularly since Boeing will have already proved it with the 777X.

the A-380 wing and stating that the airfoil section actually gains most efficiency at a point 6m longer than it is. Which means that an A-380 should have a 92m wingspan.

Wasnt airport design a feature in keeping the shorter wings?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah we had a 707 many moons ago that was known as the "Bangalore Bomber". It was involved in a mishap that saw it dive from altitude before being recovered. My mates father was on the 70's at the time and told me the story. Apparently one of the crew was out of the cockpit reliving himself when he started going weightless. He managed to get back in the cockpit and with the pilot in command they pulled out of the dive. Apparently they went supersonic in the process. When they got it on the ground they inspected it and found the wings now had a permanent "set" over 8" higher from where they should have been. Boeing inspected it and concluded it was good to fly. After that it was reputed that the increased dihedral meant it was the fastest 707 in existence. Don't know if that was true or not.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Yes it was. But if they weren't constrained by that then it would have been a greater wingspan.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That sounds utterly terrifying for all concerned. I am very glad that everyone appears to have made it off that flight alive, if not unscathed.

Incidents like these make me think that aircraft need the ability to actually make these airflow patterns visible to the pilot in time to avoid them. To be fair, this would not be the only sort of scenario that would be more survivable with that sort of technology available to an aircraft crew.

One of my flight instructors was a test pilot before teaching us. He was the PIC testing the at the time new DC-10 when they intentionally stalled it at 36,000 feet. It spun. They recovered at less than 10,000 AGL. He said it was company policy to not intentionally stall an airliner after that.