jonesey2k wrote:Actually you can hear them aswell. Standing just behind the threshold at liverpool when a 737 flys over for landing you can hear the air swirling around loudly for short while after the plane has landed.
Have a pint at the Green Man at Hatton Cross and you can hear the 757 vortices swirling around.
The original photo states it's 5 miles from landing. Shouldn't the gear be down by then?
If God had meant us to fly, he would have given us tickets.
Trawling through the internet have not been able to find it and no doubt someone in the know will correct me if I'm wrong but some time ago I watched a documentary in respect of an airliner that crashed into a suburb of New York?
The aircraft in question had taken off, with the co-pilot in control, when he made an early turn to the left knowing that another aircraft a 747 was ahead however, the vortexes from the 747 had been blown across into the flight path of this aircraft by the wind as it made a left turn. Subsequently the aircraft hit the turbulence and the pilot fought to maintain control, the captain asked if he would like him to take over to which the other responded. "No...I'm OK". The rudder of the aircraft fell away and as a result the aircraft crashed. The findings from the black box was that the co-pilot, when trying to maintain control of the aircraft used harsh control of the rudders which put too much stress and consequently it failed.
I used to be an optimist but with age I am now a grumpy old pessimist.
Garry, that was the one, it surprised me to know that using rudders to that extent would cause such a catastrophic failure, especially as the aircraft would still be below 250kts.
I used to be an optimist but with age I am now a grumpy old pessimist.
Nigel, I think this is the one you mean. This is the synopsis from the NTSB. It looks like they decided on pilot error plus design of the Airbus control system and AA's operating procedures. No mention of wake vortex, although I can't imagine why else he would kick the rudder pedals hard enough to break the VS off! Unless he was very angry about something!
EDIT: Just had a quick look at the .pdf of the full report and it does indeed mention that the original problem was consistent with encountering wake turbulence. Haven't got time to read the rest just now.
Thanks Ian, that's the one. As I remember in the documentary it occurred above a harbour, the reason for the pilots' exessive rudder inputs could not been explained however, it was felt that the pilot thought that by using the rudders it would assist in stabilising the aircraft, had he used only the ailerons, the pilot would have had more chance of a successful recovery.
Regards Nigel
I used to be an optimist but with age I am now a grumpy old pessimist.
It fell onto Queen's . It was a wake encounter as others have said.I have not read the report recently, but IIRC the problem arose from rapid reversals of full rudder at about 250 kts IAS at about 3,000 feet in the climb which exceeded the design load by a considerable margin. Jets are not really meant for heavy rudder use except during TO and landing at relatively limited IAS, because with no torque or slipstream effects there should be little need for rudder
