Sorry for those pops on the mic at some points. That's what I could do with the basic equipment I have where I am now :( If you have more to add about Wake Turbulence, please leave a comment so we can take note of it :)
A 777200ER has a maximum landing weight around 400,000 lbs (200 tons). A PA-28 certified at 2150 pounds (1 ton). When an object weighing one ton gets behind one weighing 200 tons, exactly what do you think is going to happen? Samuel is lucky he didn't have his wings torn off. I've been on the beach at Princess Juliana when a 747 came in. There are clowns who stand behind it. It is not recommended.
Thanks for the analysis Victor. Most serious wake encounters occur when flying in the same direction (like that DR400) or exactly reciprocal to the vortices (like that Challenger), and that's when you get the roll that flips the plane over. Samuel crossed the wake at JFK perpendicular to the vortices, so he got a couple of very quick up & down severe jolts rather than a rolling motion. Either way, it's enough to shake loose a battery or even knock the pilot out when they hit their head on the ceiling.
Thank you for this explanation in general, and also several avoidance options. It seems particularly important what a pilot should be thinking about, and what to do when he hears the wake turbulence caution.
Just a point of clarification...Wake turbulence is synonymous with 'wing tip vortices'. It doesn't include jet blast or general air disruption as the aircraft 'moves through the air' as you put it. The distinction is important because jet blast and general air disruption is generally short-lived and doesn't linger for nearly as long wingtip vortices.
If the piper did a left 360 (2 minute standard rate turn) before the 777 landed, Im sure the wake turbulence would’ve been gone and could’ve proceeded on safely.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 Not sure flying 490’ over the water 2.5nm away from the shore in January in a single engine plane when the water temp is 38 is a good idea.
@@kathrynslye471 - Really?, I have seen light aircraft towing banners directly over Rockaway beach. I any case, the decision to cross the final apch, was not thought out well.
excellent video, I was flying a lear some years ago up in the mid 30s and the controller advised that a tripple 7 was crossing my path 25 miles ahead from left to right 2000 feet above, I saw him crossing so far ahead BUT when I got there, there was a loud bang as if someone took a large sledge hammer to the roof of the lear and a shutter and vibration, it was a big scare for me and the pax thought that we hit another airplane, all was well and no damage but what a wake up call to what wake turb can do.
My understanding is that it sinks a few hundred feet and then stabilizes there until it dissipates. I think the initial downward momentum is because the air that lifts the wing up has an action/reaction principle going on and so the air gets deflected downward briefly. So the vortices sink for a bit, but they're inherently the same density as the surrounding air and so stop after just a few hundred feet. Airbus A380 vortices are so strong that they seems to descend further before stopping. The Challenger in the video was a full 1000' below the A380.
With our benefit of hindsight, the pilot is best situated to make these calls and probably should have chosen another course. The WT could have moved down so the pilot may have been at risk at either 400 or 1400.
The danger is from the TIP VORTICIES off the wings. The turbulence cork screws and slowly drops of the end of the wings much like a tornado moving horizontically and can last minutes...
First of all, awesome work by the PIC and ATC and thanks Victor, I learn a lot from these videos. Although it was a serious incident, following proper procedures and having situational awareness made this a perfect emergency landing. I read a comment stating if it would have been better if the pilot stayed below Bravo at 500ft. I kind of agree because it seems like the PIC hit the wake turbulence after or during the climb and we are always taught that if you encounter (or have a chance of encountering) turbulence, the best thing to do is to maintain a steady and level flight. But another way of thinking is that I would rather encounter wake turbulence at 1500ft as compared to 500ft; that extra altitude might have given enough time for an emergency landing at JFK. Either way, for learning pilots such as me, (according to me) it is very important to establish the fact that ATC can only give us caution warnings and PIC has the final say in order to make sure that the aircraft and the personnel are safe. Might be a better idea to stay in a holding pattern or delay the take-off/landing if there is any chance of encountering wake turbulence especially for light category aircraft.
I have to say well done ATC for the job they did both with two warnings and then trying to get the airplane on the ground and the emergency trucks rolling.
Is there a reason small planes aren’t kept clear of heavy aircraft or even banned from airports like JFK (save for military and emergency planes)? It seems like all parties knew conditions were ripe for an incident like this.
Fantastic followup to your other video. These two videos should be incorporated into flight training. Actually you should contact the AOPA to see if they want to put it into their series of real pilot stories. Your radar and ATC communications really tell the story.
So, I absolutely appreciate you doing an analysis video and I hope you do more. But I have a gripe. Proper wake turbulence exists when and only when the wing is producing lift. Yes, objects moving quickly through space disrupt the air around it and leaves some form of turbulence, but it's not the same. For the worst of turbulence to begin the aircraft must be out of ground effect. So at the end of this what am I saying? I'm saying wake turbulence is a hazard for your life if you experience it in 3D space. It is very likely not a life threatening occurrence if a C-5 goes by you on the ground and knocks your wingtip over because your dumbass got too close somehow. One more thing, you made a very short disclaimer that jet blast is not the same as wake turbulence but for people not watching the video you never mentioned it. I think thats a pretty huge oversight. Again, I see what you were trying to do, and I appreciate the sentiment because wake turbulence and just how incredibly dangerous it is, is important for people to know.
Very good clarification Sir, I was about to indicate that wake turbulence is always considered to be generated by the horseshoe vortex structure downstream a lifting surface (wing). And more importantly, it does NOT descend due to gravity!! since the air mass density would otherwise remain the same at any constant level. It does descend DUE to the slipstream deflection that happens on any lifting surface wake.
ok did I miss something ? heavy was at 1300 ft, piper intercepted that space climbing actually above 1300 ft when he declared emergency? could it be wake turbulence doesn't always descend and reduce?
Sorry for those pops on the mic at some points. That's what I could do with the basic equipment I have where I am now :(
If you have more to add about Wake Turbulence, please leave a comment so we can take note of it :)
A 777200ER has a maximum landing weight around 400,000 lbs (200 tons). A PA-28 certified at 2150 pounds (1 ton). When an object weighing one ton gets behind one weighing 200 tons, exactly what do you think is going to happen? Samuel is lucky he didn't have his wings torn off. I've been on the beach at Princess Juliana when a 747 came in. There are clowns who stand behind it. It is not recommended.
That’s fine but are you able to use Vietnamese’s Airport’s transponder number?
Well done Samuel. Glad you and passengers are safe.
Thanks for the analysis Victor. Most serious wake encounters occur when flying in the same direction (like that DR400) or exactly reciprocal to the vortices (like that Challenger), and that's when you get the roll that flips the plane over. Samuel crossed the wake at JFK perpendicular to the vortices, so he got a couple of very quick up & down severe jolts rather than a rolling motion. Either way, it's enough to shake loose a battery or even knock the pilot out when they hit their head on the ceiling.
Thanks, Dean! Hopefully some pilots out there will note the dangers of wake
😵
Outstanding. Thank you!
Thank you for this explanation in general, and also several avoidance options. It seems particularly important what a pilot should be thinking about, and what to do when he hears the wake turbulence caution.
Just a point of clarification...Wake turbulence is synonymous with 'wing tip vortices'. It doesn't include jet blast or general air disruption as the aircraft 'moves through the air' as you put it. The distinction is important because jet blast and general air disruption is generally short-lived and doesn't linger for nearly as long wingtip vortices.
If the piper did a left 360 (2 minute standard rate turn) before the 777 landed, Im sure the wake turbulence would’ve been gone and could’ve proceeded on safely.
Or, planned a track to pass beyond the FAF, or along the coast line, and not as he did, crossing the final about 4 nm.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 Not sure flying 490’ over the water 2.5nm away from the shore in January in a single engine plane when the water temp is 38 is a good idea.
@@kathrynslye471 - Really?, I have seen light aircraft towing banners directly over Rockaway beach. I any case, the decision to cross the final apch, was not thought out well.
excellent video, I was flying a lear some years ago up in the mid 30s and the controller advised that a tripple 7 was crossing my path 25 miles ahead from left to right 2000 feet above, I saw him crossing so far ahead BUT when I got there, there was a loud bang as if someone took a large sledge hammer to the roof of the lear and a shutter and vibration, it was a big scare for me and the pax thought that we hit another airplane, all was well and no damage but what a wake up call to what wake turb can do.
Great analysis!!! Very informative... Keep up the great job...
Much appreciated!
Student pilot here. Thank you Samuel and VAS. Without this real story plus the videos I don’t know if I would really get how scary WT is.
10:55 does the turbulence really descend due to gravity? Is it not the the same density as the surrounding air?
My understanding is that it sinks a few hundred feet and then stabilizes there until it dissipates. I think the initial downward momentum is because the air that lifts the wing up has an action/reaction principle going on and so the air gets deflected downward briefly. So the vortices sink for a bit, but they're inherently the same density as the surrounding air and so stop after just a few hundred feet. Airbus A380 vortices are so strong that they seems to descend further before stopping. The Challenger in the video was a full 1000' below the A380.
Should the ATC have cleared the Piper to 1400 crossing the path of incoming large aircraft? Would he have been better off staying at 400?
With our benefit of hindsight, the pilot is best situated to make these calls and probably should have chosen another course. The WT could have moved down so the pilot may have been at risk at either 400 or 1400.
The danger is from the TIP VORTICIES off the wings. The turbulence cork screws and slowly drops of the end of the wings much like a tornado moving horizontically and can last minutes...
First of all, awesome work by the PIC and ATC and thanks Victor, I learn a lot from these videos. Although it was a serious incident, following proper procedures and having situational awareness made this a perfect emergency landing.
I read a comment stating if it would have been better if the pilot stayed below Bravo at 500ft. I kind of agree because it seems like the PIC hit the wake turbulence after or during the climb and we are always taught that if you encounter (or have a chance of encountering) turbulence, the best thing to do is to maintain a steady and level flight. But another way of thinking is that I would rather encounter wake turbulence at 1500ft as compared to 500ft; that extra altitude might have given enough time for an emergency landing at JFK.
Either way, for learning pilots such as me, (according to me) it is very important to establish the fact that ATC can only give us caution warnings and PIC has the final say in order to make sure that the aircraft and the personnel are safe. Might be a better idea to stay in a holding pattern or delay the take-off/landing if there is any chance of encountering wake turbulence especially for light category aircraft.
Just wondering, does a battery not need to be fixed in place in a plane ?
Absolutely. Should be bolted down in a bracket or a box. They can be shaken lose however.
Caution, volume differences may cause headaches for headphone users.
Caution, sound turbulence.
I fly a PA28 a lot and I just learnt something new.
That's fantastic!
Was the battery firmly and correctly fixed in place before turbulence? Battery should not be moving with rough turbulence.
I have to say well done ATC for the job they did both with two warnings and then trying to get the airplane on the ground and the emergency trucks rolling.
Is there a reason small planes aren’t kept clear of heavy aircraft or even banned from airports like JFK (save for military and emergency planes)? It seems like all parties knew conditions were ripe for an incident like this.
Can we have a photo of how the battery was secured?
A CRJ 200 lost an engine on takeoff yesterday out of Denver. You should do a video of that!
Flight number?
@@VASAviation SKW 5431
If 777 makes class B wake... what generates class A?
A380 and AN225
excellent video. I guess in the future some new device will warn the pilots about wake turbulence like Tcas is doing right now with other planes.
Fantastic followup to your other video. These two videos should be incorporated into flight training. Actually you should contact the AOPA to see if they want to put it into their series of real pilot stories. Your radar and ATC communications really tell the story.
Thank you!
So, I absolutely appreciate you doing an analysis video and I hope you do more. But I have a gripe. Proper wake turbulence exists when and only when the wing is producing lift. Yes, objects moving quickly through space disrupt the air around it and leaves some form of turbulence, but it's not the same.
For the worst of turbulence to begin the aircraft must be out of ground effect.
So at the end of this what am I saying? I'm saying wake turbulence is a hazard for your life if you experience it in 3D space. It is very likely not a life threatening occurrence if a C-5 goes by you on the ground and knocks your wingtip over because your dumbass got too close somehow.
One more thing, you made a very short disclaimer that jet blast is not the same as wake turbulence but for people not watching the video you never mentioned it. I think thats a pretty huge oversight. Again, I see what you were trying to do, and I appreciate the sentiment because wake turbulence and just how incredibly dangerous it is, is important for people to know.
Thanks for the feedback and comment too :)
Very good clarification Sir, I was about to indicate that wake turbulence is always considered to be generated by the horseshoe vortex structure downstream a lifting surface (wing). And more importantly, it does NOT descend due to gravity!! since the air mass density would otherwise remain the same at any constant level. It does descend DUE to the slipstream deflection that happens on any lifting surface wake.
ok did I miss something ? heavy was at 1300 ft, piper intercepted that space climbing actually above 1300 ft when he declared emergency? could it be wake turbulence doesn't always descend and reduce?
ok sorry I see now he was at 900+, my error, I see clearly now how he intercepted the wake
Bummer you're remote working- the sound level of ATC is inaudable its so low. Hope you can remix things when you get back.
Did my best with the equipment I have :(
Last
Old
first. sorry i had to.