MH A380 slipstream incidence

[V Wong 0]

This just in : http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/12/18/Pilots-quick-action-saves-lives-Aircraft-was-caught-in-747s-slipstream.aspx

[Johan Z 0]

Is separation between two aircraft always enforced? Or is it up to pilots/ATC?

[Naim 6]

Sounds a bit worse than my own wake turbulence experience onboard AK A320 at BKK, as told here: http://travel.nuraina.com/thailand-bangkok/

[kandiah k 0]

I believe it is an EK aircraft

[zamim 0]

Then it would be a second incident within two weeks. The first reported incident was also MAS B738 from PEN.

[Arthur Van Straten 0]

For the benefits of the ill informed and and also for the well informed, who will tell me that i keep repeating my messages on the subject, here we go again.

 

Wake vortex is a phenomenon in aviation which is known for a very long time. Wake vortexes are produced by aircraft lagerly depending on their operating weight and speed versus landing or takeoff configuration.

In another topic on this board i have already tried to explain what wake vortexes are and how pilots can cope with it safely.

 

But, lets go by the situation at hand as experienced by the good people in the Malaysian B737-800.

When you, as a cockpit crew, are vectored into position to land at, in this instance, KLIA, the cockpitcrew is in radio contact with approach control and tower at KLIA.

Now, if ATC clears an A380, which in this scenario had a callsign as "Malaysian xxx "Super". cleared to land at KLIA runway, the following aircraft, MH170 which is a B737-800 hears this on the radio as both aircatrft are on the same radio frequency. Meaning that, the follwowing B737-800 knew they were following a 'Super' as indicated on weight classifications.and thus knew about a possible wake vortex encounter.

 

Well, when it occured as predicted, the 737-800 flight deck crew reacted as they have been teached on occasions as this and managed to land their aircraft safely on the runway. That, from a passenger perspective this was a horrififying experience, can not be blamed on the 737 flight deck crew. They just did their job which they were trained for.

 

So, it is a non event from a pillots point of view but one can not reasonabely tell a jounalist that his story should be told differently. In journalism, it goes, never get a good story in the way of operational facts..

It was a non event and the MAS pilots just did their job. As advertised.

 

Cheers

A,

 

 

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

Arthur, precisely what is on my mind. They already knew they were behind a Super's ass. They should have just apologised to the pax and leave it at that, rather than pushing the blame to the ATC.

[Ja Singh 2]

in NZ needs min 3 mins or 7 miles separation after a super landing.

this news made headlines here on yahoo. see video below:

 

http://nz.totaltravel.yahoo.com/news-opinions/videos/watch/20387346/pilot-lands-aircraft-safely-after-turbulence-in-malaysia/

[Radzi 2]

A few things to consider.

 

1. MH 170 is KUL - KTM.

2. All MH B738 has TCAS. Most have the expanded display where you can look down to 6000 ft below. This is very useful during approach as it will tell you the approximate location of vicinity aircraft so you can plan accordingly. You don't want to be closer than 4 nm to the aircraft in front during final approach in any circumstances. If it is a Super you will want to keep the distance even more.

3. There is a speed limit imposed by ATC on final, keep at least 160 kt until 6 nm to touchdown. This is to prevent some people from slowing down too early which will effect airport capacity. Anyway this ruling is not to be followed blindly, just like most things in life.