A Crisis At the Border | Air Canada Flight 190
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 08. 2021
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/aircrash - Enter promo code AIRCRASH for 83% off and three extra months for free!
Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
A320 Image: Alan Wilson from Stilton, Peterborough, Cambs, UK - Airbus A319-113 ‘C-GBHZ / 279’ Air Canada Rouge
Wake Turbulence Images: NASA, FAA
This is the story of air canada flight 190, in the early hours on the 10th of january 2008 an air canada airbus a319 was making the trip from victoria international airport in british columbia to toronto international airport in ontario. At 6:33 am, flight 190 was in contact with vancouver area control as they climbed to flight level 350. Flight 190 was then transferred over to seattle area control, theyd be the ones clearing air canada flight 190 to its cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. At 6:45 am they were cleared to climb to 37,000 feet.
By 6:48 am they had been climbing for a few minutes and they were 9 nautical miles from the US canada border, at 36,600 feet. Suddenly the whole plane experienced a series of jolts, it felt like the plane had gone over a series of speed bumps at high speed, the plane then started to roll to the right, it wasn't much just 5.6 degrees, but then it started to roll to the left, this roll was much more severe at 28 degrees of bank. The plane was supposed to be wings level and no one in the cockpit was commanding these rolls. The captain who was the pilot flying decided to disengage the autopilot and to hand fly the plane, The captain struggled to level the plane, for 18 seconds he fought with the plane, as it rolled from side to side, Commanding full rudder and full aileron corrections in both directions multiple times.
During all of this the plane kept descending, by the time they were at 35,500 feet flight 190 seemed to be under control. They cautiously descended to 31,000 feet, they took stock of their situation. They had quite a few injured passengers, three passengers were injured quite seriously. Everything that had not been secured in the cabin was thrown around. In fact during the upset the cabin service trolleys were lifted off the floor and slammed into the ceiling, thankfully they came crashing down down in the aisle and not on someone.
The pilots had two possible diversion airports available to them, kelowna or calgary, calgary was further away but they opted for calgary as the terrain at calgary was easier to work with and it had better medical services. The pilots hand flew the a319 all the way to calgary not daring to turn on the autopilot fearing another upset. At 7:29 am flight 190 landed at calgary without further incident. Out of the 88 people onboard, 8 people suffered minor injuries and 3 people suffered serious injuries. But everyone survived.
Once the plane was on the ground the engineers carried out whats known as a heavy turbulence inspection, the a319 had been through a lot and they wanted to know if it had been damaged in anyway. The flight data recorders had shown that the plane had experienced g forces well in excess of the limit set by airbus, But the airplane was fine even though parts like the vertical stabilizer had experienced loads 129% its load limit.
Now we get to why the plane experienced the upset in the first place, on the way back the pilots assumed that there was something wrong with the autopilot, but they were wrong. Infact the source of the problem wasnt even on the incident aircraft itself. The problem was 8.1 nautical miles out infront of flight 190, it was a united airlines 747.
Flight 190 had flown through the wake turbulence of another plane. But what is wake turbulence? When an airplane flies through the air, it creates a disturbance in its wake. Specifically it creates two counter rotating vortices behind the aircraft, think of it like two mini - Věda a technologie
I experienced my first wake turbulence upset in 2006. Over indian ocean westbound at FL340 we suddenly experienced a sharp 20 degrees of bank to the left followed by 30 degrees of bank to the right. A320 aircraft was shaking in severe turbulence for about 20 seconds. The auto pilot amazingly didn't trip off and then everything was smooth again! I could hear passengers screaming in that 20 seconds. Fortunately no injury or damage to the airplane.
2 minutes before we passed an opposite traffic (MD11 cargo) 1000 feet above us. The wind was about 50 kts exact headwind for us which is the worse scenario! (Around 50 kts tailwind for the MD11).
After that incident and with Emirates A380s in service, we had many similar or worse incidents! By experience and regulations we adopted ourselves to it and the number of incidents reduced significantly. It happened to me another few times.
But I always remember the first time and how scary it was.
Thank you for this episode.
Interesting story. So how exactly DO you adapt to situations like this?
Idk I’m calling cap…
I cross this airspace several times a month. We use 2 miles of SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) to fly parallel to airway. As per regional procedure, even ATC need not be informed. This solves the problem.
I am hard of hearing. Your speaking voice is easily understood and a pleasure to listen to.
@@Ironman3333334 I am glad someone else said it first lol. Sorry Robert Childish I know but....
Several years back I was a crew member on a 757 heading to Dubai. As I recall we were level at FL370 at 0.80 Mach. We encountered continuous moderate turbulence for no obvious reason. We were testing a SATCOM system at the time and had high-speed internet available. I was monitoring our flight using FlightRadar24 and was able to see the cause. We were approximately 10 NMi directly behind an A380 at FL390. We side-stepped off the airway and the ride immediately smoothed out. The critical factor here is that we were 2000 feet below the “heavy” A380 and in trail such that the descending wake of the A380 coincided exactly with our position relative to the A380. The fact that we were a 757 loaded to the gills with JetA helped our situation compared to the lighter A321 in the video.
me too
Well done
Well explained! As an Airbus instructor/examiner I can confirm the narrative. This was 2008. In the mean time all airline pilots are required to perform upset recovery training in the flight simulator. In that training the emphasis is on recovery from unusual attitudes (for whatever cause but including wake turbulence) whereby the use of rudder is strictly not allowed. Keep up the well explained videos!.
Thank you!
I recall that American Airlines 587 went down due to overuse of the rudder during a wake turbulence event.
Why is the rudder deflected a lot by only a little bit of pedal at high speeds and a lot less rudder deflection by the same amount of pedal at low speeds? Shouldn't this design be reversed? That design makes no sense to me.
@@erbenton07 My guess is because the rudder pedals are how you steer the plane on the ground. In that regime (low speed, on the ground), you want the nose wheel to turn and the actual rudder to stay put. Once you get into the air and up to speed, then you want to be able to command full rudder. Just speculation, I've never flown any airliners.
@@erbenton07 As the airspeed increases the effectiveness of the control surfaces increases as well, so it’s not that the rudder is moving further, but rather the same amount of movement imparts a greater force on the aircraft. Or that’s what I was taught on light aircraft and gliders back before fly by wire controls.
Actually in a glider any aileron input requires a boot load of rudder in order to overcome the secondary effect of the ailerons. The problem is exacerbated by the relatively long wings compared to the fuselage length. Having ailerons considerably further away from the CofG compared to the rudder results in you really needing to work the rudder through all phases of flight. If you’re trying to fly close to the stall speed and you try and pick up a wing with ailerons you will find yourself in a spin before you can say SH…T, however, you can pick up a wing with rudder.
During your annual flight review in a glider you had to demonstrate flying the aircraft near the stall then deliberately crossing the controls to induce a spin that you had to allow to fully develop before executing a recovery. Normally this involved centralizing the joystick and kicking on FULL opposite rudder. Once the darn thing stopped spinning you would centralize the rudder then pull it out of the dive using elevator before reaching Vne or exceeding the maximum wing loading (usually 5 g). I never really liked deliberately spinning a glider, but it was a necessary evil and something glider pilots had to be totally and absolutely up to speed on.
I had encountered wake turbulence, while flying a C-172, on a clear beautiful day. It felt like rapid force changes on the yoke, like left, right, left, right banking, about 4 times per second, for about 2 seconds.
At first I didn't understand what it was (the aircraft didn't had an autopilot). The second pilot who sit next to me told me it is probably wake turbulence.
Now I know what to expect...
It is really important not to over control the aircraft in any kind of turbulence, or you can create your own pilot induced turbulence, or in an extreme case, break the aircraft.
Funny stuff wake turbulence. When I lived right below a Heathrow airport flight path I would sometimes go outside at night to watch the planes arrive. Very very rarely, about two minutes after a plane passed you could hear the vortices hit the buildings or stir around in the overhead like invisible boomerangs. Very odd the first time I heard it. I had a ppl and was able to workout what the noise was after a minute or two. It was amazing how unpredictable it was. Maybe once every four months or more. I can see how hard it is to eliminate any risk in the open sky where aircraft may be well below the source of the wake and within normal separation. Great video. Congrats on a sponsor, you deserve it !
Wake turbulence: When the plane jolting arround wakes you up.
It's designed to keep the pilots alert.
Time to turn wake turbulence into a product.
Between this and the comment about the spaghetti.....
I was just thinking about that plane that crashed into Jamaica Bay in New York from the heavy rudder inputs and the vertical stabilizer failed. Its amazing this didn't happen here. Great video as always, Thank you!
Actually they "knew" about wake turbulence since world war 2. It's why bombers flew in a staggered formation.
The “combat box” formation was mostly for leveraging maximum defensive firepower, they’d be violating most rules we have today regarding wake turbulence lol.
@@EstorilEm I remember reading that they tried dozens of formations during training, and regardless of what they chose it HAD to be staggered. I mean no doubt they chose to fly in lines and obviously it wasn't physically possible.
And yet again I can but say that “let the darn automation tell the pilot if something out of the ordinary is happening. No matter if it is “the fuel burn is nearly 3 times of what it should be” or “working hard to keep straight and level, boss!” Even a red “working hard” LED would help, a traffic light of the status would be better and an display mode showing the commands the Autopilot is giving would be great. Keeping pilots in the dark like little children is stupid. And dangerous.
A sponsor now? In the big leagues, well done.
Congratulations! Well deserved!
I had a wake encounter when departing from Atlantic City a few years ago. An Air National Guard KC-10 was doing touch and goes. I waited two minutes after the tanker had left the area before departing and turned away from the runway heading as soon as the gear was retracted. At about 500 ft AGL, I was hit by a wake votex that rolled the airplane 90 degrees left. I applied full right rudder and aileron and it still took several seconds to get any control response. That low, it was a critical situation. My three non-pilot passengers were terrified. I was too busy flying the airplane to register any fear until I had full control of the airplane and then realized that my legs were jelly. Will definitely pass on another chance to do that again.
question, if the plane was rolled by the vortex, and your plane is rotating along its axis (the axis along the pencil like body), what's the point of using rudder, shouldn't it more of an alieron task? or the situation was so deperate, all control surfaces that can counter the rotation will be deployed.
@@ylstorage7085 aileron and rudder are never used independently. They always go together unless you're making a very gentle turn.
Think about it in terms of the conservation of angular momentum. The propeller is a big, fast gyroscope with a lot of mass. When you roll the plane, gyroscopic procession causes a torque on the airframe and makes it yaw away from the roll automatically.
Another fascinating story. Had no idea that wake turbulence could extend so far. Looks like you are about to reach 100k subs, well deserved!
We think of 10 miles as a distance, but think of it as a time instead.
600 NM/hr is 10 NM/min. Meaning 10 NM is only about 1 minute at cruising speed.
Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to say!! I've heard of it during takeoff/landing, but not at that kind of distance.
I just learned recently about wake turbulence and I am too amazed that it is that way.
For a plane that did not make it and crashed because of wake turbulence, see:
Nov 2008 Mexico City Learjet 45 crash
Standard training to avoid wake vortices says "stay above or UPWIND of the source". The vortices sink and are carried downwind.
Of course, that results that the "source" will be below and downwind to your aircraft, and you now feed YOUR wake turbulence to him...
@@Oferb553 Only if you pass him. This applies to in-trail flying.
@@yoopernow i would guess the upper air conditions were just right for this in-trail wake turbulence encounter. the A319 climbed into the larger a/c's wake.
My home airport hosts everything from ultralights to 737s. We take wake turbulence seriously.
One place where you want wake turbulence is doing steep turns during flight training. You know you've done it right when you do a 360 in the air and hit your own wake turbulence. 😎
My first ever flight, we experienced *heavy* W.T (in a BA-146)... took me 9 years to get back on a plane 😂😵
I remember hitting my own wake turbulence when completing a 360 with my instructor one smooth day, and I had to confirm with him that it was what I thought it was, since it was a two minute (rate one) turn that I'd just completed under the hood. It amazed me that our little Cessna 172 had been able to produce enough wake turbulence to provide that satisfying little bump exactly two minutes later.
@@daviddunsmore103 under certain circumstances, linking back up with your wake turbulence like that could create a massive vortex ring traveling down toward the surface. Would be cool to see a smoke test.
@@tissuepaper9962 Would be cool in a sci fi movie, a massive vortex ring traveling down toward the surface, like a giant drill, until.... :)
My sister used to fly extensively in connection with her work. About 15 years ago she was on an aircraft which hit wake turbulence over Germany. It was so terrifying she has never flown since and ended up having to change her job. It's good to know that the Air Canada incident led to a better understanding of wake turbulence and to improved separation between larger and smaller aircraft.
The strongest turbulence I ever felt was on an Air France A380- from another A380. If it was able to shake an A380 like that, I can't imagine what it was like on a much smaller plane!
I remember to fly in a 747 15min behind another 747 from FRA to Johannisburg from 9:00pm to 6:00am. Same timezone, so it could have been just a noisy hotel room, but not a minute of sleep because of turbulence. I could not even eat something. And years later I heard 2 flight attendance talk about the same happening on that route very often.
I was in a Cessna 172 and caught wake turbulence from a 737 on its way to land in the NT. I think we were upside down at one stage!! Landed safely.
Everyone simply expects the automation to be the villain
Sad thing is that you never hear about all the times when saves people. MOST of the time in an Airbus it catches the pilots (even at the last second) and it remains a non-issue that they passengers never know about. They might think the go-around is odd, but that’s about it.
@@EstorilEm you don't hear about such cases because when the automation dies it's job and saves the plane, there is nothing to investigate.
@@Oferb553 true
@@Oferb553 *does
In flight school we go up to 4000-5000 feet (to have enough altitude for recovery) and have to fly in a skyhawk (C172) behind another skyhawk. It's terrifying, it feels like you lose control of the plane. And that's with 2 planes the same size. Flying a small plane behind a large plane must be much worse.
I am so glad you found a sponsor! Such amazing content deserves a lot more than what youtube offers! Congratulations!
Ur videos are the best in explaining the disasters and is fun to watch!
Great video and presentation. I was wondering and hoping you would bring up AA587. Comparing the two was crucial. Amazing how the Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers have different instructions on how and when to use the rudder. There was a lot of finger pointing going on between AA and Airbus after AA587 crash. I knew a pilot who flew that tail number just a few days before the crash, as this was one of his usual routes and flights for AA. When 587 went down I was praying he wasn't on that flight. I saw him the next weekend at work. He had questions for us in aircfraft maintenance and we had questions for him as a pilot. He was a pilot in our Air Guard A-10 unit. As usual, got to hear the behind the scene stories. Especially the training part and use of rudders.
Thanks for making these videos they are really helping me during this lockdown and keeping my anxiety down
Well done, I myself also did not know that wake turbulence could extend so far back on the 747 and other heavy aircraft. Thank you for making this video, great job.👍✈
Just an FYI, the 1st Officer of American 587 didn't "(hold) the rudder deflection for a long period of time." He made full left & right rudder deflections (b/c that's what AA trained him to do) in rapid succession & essentially ripped the rudder off the vertical stabilizer. No worries, I enjoyed this video as well as all of your videos. 😉✌️
American 587 exceeded rudder load specs by 200% due to the alternating deflections. The pilot association later complained that the airplane manual never mentioned that it was possible to exceed load specs with control inputs, and that they didn't know it was possible. The aircraft manufacturers are doing a poor job of communicating with pilots.
Yes, I remembered that too: Rapid back and forth rudder deflections, overstressing the rudder, breaking it off. Remembered that from another YT piece.
On a flight into San Juan on an ATR-72 we were in an upwind for a dogleg final for runway 28 when the pilots got too close to a "heavy" in front of us. It nearly inverted us and snapped all of our necks, but the pilot did recover. i heard the F/A cussing the pilots out when we were deplaning.
Taking a bit deeper dive into wake turbulence and "Why those little winglets help decrease it, but don't eliminate it..." (in case anyone's interested)
First, there's apparently more to the principles of lift than we get in school with the stupid "Blow over this piece of paper" and then "Blow over this wing-shaped piece of paper" to watch high speed air pick up the paper... Yeah, the faster air over the top of the wing DOES decrease the air pressure, and the resulting high pressure zone under the wing pushes UP... BUT there's also Kwanda's Effect, from the downward angle of the trailing edge (and flaps if engaged/extended) AND the over-all curvature of the wing's underside literally COMPRESSING the air beneath the wing that builds lifting force...
From this you can see (if you just look at a plane and the wings) that there's no structure holding the air under the wing. Air IS a fluid, so it's free to move around, up to the speed of sound (which is worth note somewhere) but we're also talking about SUB-SONIC (slower than Mach) flight... SO the air being compressed under the wing is going to slip and escape... The curve of the wing keeps showering more and faster air down from the trailing edge, so that's not the easiest course of escape, and air doesn't magically gain energy, so it slips toward the tips of the wings, escaping its compressed state outward to the side... Even that the air flow over the top of the wing is faster from front to rear (relative to the plane) the underside air is able to flow faster outward to the side, past the wing tip. This induces some air flowing from the top of the wing, too, much like a venturi-tube on a perfume spritzer uses air-flow from the bladder to draw liquid up a tube... or how a carburetor uses the air flow to draw the gasoline up a tube into a mist through the intake and into an engine... The fact that the air from under the wing is moving faster to the side CAUSES that vortex motion swirling up and curling around the wing-tip as it escapes the compression under the wing. The larger the wing, and the more lift it can produce, then the larger and more powerful the Vortex is going to be... This goes hand in hand with the size and shear mass of the aircraft the wing is attached to. Most airplanes have a wing on each side, so there will be two vortices produced, counter rotating...
BUT why do Airlines care? Other than safety, is there any particular concern???
Well, yes. This brings us to those winglets. They're not just there to look cool or add to branding, believe it or not. The fact is, the larger the Vortices are from an airplane's wings, the more air is being USELESSLY pushed out to the sides, rather than compressed under the wings to produce LIFT. This makes the wings more INEFFICIENT, and adds to DRAG without any net benefit... Beyond the hazards to other craft presented by a 747's wake turbulence, the 747 is spending a BUNCH of fuel, needlessly stirring air around for miles behind it, rather than pushing the plane UP and that adds to the workload and expense of powering the engines. This might not account a hell of a lot in a Cassna, BUT in a plane that weighs 100 TONS empty, it's a different story...
Okay... BUT what the hell is a winglet going to do???
The winglets obstruct the flow of air OVER the wings to the side. There's also (usually) a small DOWNWARD protrusion of winglet below the wing, decreasing the escape flow of the air UNDER the wing... ALL of this presents a significant decrease in escaping air, AND the size of vortices in the wake of the aircraft. Again, there's no good way to just "Contain" air under the compression of wings producing lift. However, the corporate bean counters have really narrowed down the size of winglets that present a SIGNIFICANT boost to efficiency with a relatively minimal investment in materials to build the winglets. They DO look kinda cool, so there's a thought to branding and aesthetic... BUT along with savings of fuel and thereby money, there's a decrease in the intensity of turbulence trailing aircraft of inordinately large size and mass...
How do the big-brains know what constitutes an adequate separation to avoid wake turbulence???
Generally, Vortices will spread out eventually and diminish to "nominal" or nearly nothing at a known rate (depending on their intensity and the aircraft that created them). They also FALL at about 400 feet per minute, GENERALLY... There are some atmospheric conditions that can help induce "anomalous" figures, however, and let a vortex or both vortices linger about for considerably longer than "the usual"... SO the big-brains know and have documented what usually works, BUT ATC commonly gives pilots the discretionary platitude to maneuver about a mile to the direct right or left of their "track" or "vector" even though everyone works better using "highways" in the sky as a pattern for predictable air traffic. That mile one way or another gives the tolerance by which a pilot, AT HIS OWN DISCRETION can simply escape the wake turbulence (or any other turbulence for the matter) and then communicate to ATC about why his plane has "moved out of track" when he's found "clean" and safe air to fly in...
I hope this helps... You can check into "Mantour Pilot" for more on the subject, of course.. AND "Smarter Every Day" is a good resource for a variety of questions, particularly the kind you never thought you wanted to know, including the operating principles inside a carburetor... They're both pretty great channels with presenters who break the complicated stuff down so that even a "dumb-ass country guy like me" can understand it. ;o)
MACI, you just keep getting better and better with your investigative reconstructions. You've come so far in a very short time. Happy to see your sponsorship and will look into them for VPN
Other uses for a VPN:
- If you travel abroad some countries (China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, etc) block some sites (porn, dating, political, google search, CNN, etc). A VPN makes your traffic invisible so you can access these sites. However make sure you are not sending your DNS requests to the local ISP.
- If you use public internet, a VPN adds an extra layer of protection against some types of attacks (some MITM) or eavesdropping or spoofing.
Congratulations!, my guy got sponsored :D
Yay!
Most elaborate use cases of Surfshark that I have ever seen : )
so happy that you can get sponsors now, love your content, keep it up
My worst experience of wake turbulence is when the cat jumps on my bed while I'm asleep ;)
This incident is also why they don't service spaghetti on A319s anymore.
You barely get a cookie nowadays, lol
Well, the choices were chicken or fish.
Oh, that's right, I had lasagna.
Get that sponsorship attention! Good for you my dude. Been watching since early on, and I’m so glad to see your channel grow.
Always nice to see an incident in aviation where nobody died during it. Something to learn from, fix, without the passengers and crew being killed in the incident. Great video!
The report concluded that the pilot had gotten out of the loop and was making control inputs out of phase with what would be necessary to recover the airplane. Yet, looking at the FDR plot at 3:18, it seems like the pilot's aileron inputs were the _correct_ ones for recovering from the upset (they commanded right aileron when the plane was rolling left, and left aileron when it was rolling right), and their rudder inputs, although improper, were at least counter to the plane's motions (right rudder when rolling left, left rudder when rolling right)... ?
Best channel on CZcams! Thanks for all you do!
Awesome vid as ever, and great to see the sponsor!
great video great research thank you! great job!
I did not really experience wake turbulence but I tried very hard to avoid it. I was doing my student solo in 2016 in a Cessna 152 in Redmond Airport, a very small regional airport. I was doing traffic patterns and touch and go, then an ERJ 145 was coming into land. It was my first solo, so I was too worried. I was trying to land after where the jet touched down, but then I realized I was too nervous to start the descent. I was around 800 feet, so I flew straight and aborted the landing, and I told the tower I was too high to land. So I redid a pattern after this, it's never bad to play safe.
Thanks for this. I'm amazed that wake turbulence has such an effect on relatively smaller planes. BTW, I have been using Surfshark since May, 2019, and they've come a long way since then with faster speeds and more connection choices. Quite the good deal they're offering through you too!
Yay! I love these videos! Keep up the good work.
I watch all of your videos :D
Thank you!
Same :)
Your videos are incredible. You bring the stories information to a different level. Thank you!
Experienced a wake turbulence over Europe many years ago, but this was a little different. The aircraft had passed at right angles across our path about 4 minutes earlier. It was one loud bang and the entire aircraft shuddered. I likened it to going over a speed bump at 32000 feet at 500km/h. Never experienced anything like it before or since. Fortunately it did not result in an in-flight upset, just a spilled drink.
Great video as always!
I have experienced wake turbulence many times, but on my last flight a couple of weeks ago, we had wake turbulence just before landing. The plane was banking both ways and started shaking very strongly. People were screaming and the only reason I wasn’t in tears is because I had my 10 year old daughter crying as she was scared. My legs were shaking as I disembarked and I went to cry in the airport bathroom 🙈
Nice video keep up the good work and don't stop they videos there amazing
Thank you!
i love the detailed explanation
I can't believe my little town Kelowna made it into one of these videos! Love your work sir keep it up!
U didn’t correct him?
@@halojump123 on what?
I’ve spent a lot of time in Kelowna, Castlegar and Nelson on business as well as a little bit of fishing. Kelowna is a lovely town with very wonderful people as well as some real characters.
@@farmerbob4554 been here 23 years and would agree characters are an understatement
Congratulations bro 100k subs in no time
NICE JOB
Im happy that the pilot said no autopilot because they didnt know about the wake turbulence. Also happy that engineers build for 150% load or whatever they do right.
The pilot Shiism have left the autopilot in. Most of this was pilot overcontrol.
Everyone survived = The Pilots did their job properly.
I remember on a really early video you made a comment along the lines of "I didn't expect this would eventually get 40k views ". And now you're getting that many views on new videos in 24 hours
Excellent episode
Wake turbulence vortices also descend at around 300-500 fpm intially, so even within a 5 mile separation these vortices might well affect a plane at the 1000 foot separation altitude.
Great video keep up the great work
Great video and I see this one has a sponsor! Ive watched your channel grow and Im happy for you bro! Everyone - please dont skip to the end or stop watching after the main content. Watch the sponsor message also. Just let it play. Lets support him guys.
This is a great example for passengers to stay seated with the belt on reasonably tight. I see so many wandering around the cabin for a stroll or chatting in groups in the galleys during long hauls. Of course you need to get up for the toilet but dont hang around on your feet needlessly, You never know and if the plane hits CAT or wake turb it can smash you on the ceiling and break your neck. You also pose a danger to other pax.
My father had once a Cessna 172 Skyhawk. When he was landing on Saint Thomas, the turbulence created by a comercial plane when it was taking off, moved him out of the runway and he got the scare of his life. No mayor incident occurred but he contacted Control Tower about it.
Congratulations 👏 you fully deserve sponsors.
Never experienced an upset in real life, but we are trained on regular basis on how to deal with it, rudder inputs are not recommended , as you said it's mostly for engine failures.
Great video! Really enjoy watching this kind of reports
I love this videos
If you want to see wake turbulence at its most extreme check out the XB-70 crash
Yay! Another Mini Air Crash Investigation video!
Yay indeed!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation lol
Flight 587 (Queens crash 2 months post 9/11) flew into the wake turbulence of a Japan Airlines 747 just after takeoff. Good thing the cockpit crew didnt overstress the rudders this time!
I actually liked that sponsor spot because I feel how often MSFS2020 just decides it isn't feeling like working and dies
Congrats to Airbus for building such robust aircrafts. By any standards it should have fall apart, but it didn't.
I had no idea this happened and I live in southern BC. What a scary incident, I'm glad it ended well for everyone and now we all know a bit more about wake turbulence and far it can extend 😳 thank you for covering this!
Your videos are quality bro 👍🇬🇧
Super clip as always! This reminds me of drivers of rear wheel drive cars in bad conditions who "lose it" in a corner. If you catch the slide quickly enough with the right amount of opposite lock and resist the temptation to brake, you might get lucky but more often than not what happens is that the startle effect takes over, too much opp lock is applied and the rear of the car then swings the other way resulting in fishtailing with the car literally acting like a pendulum. One can very easily see how at over 8nm away compared to the mandated 5, it wouldn't have occurred to the pilots that they were very much being affected by the disturbed air created by the Jumbo up ahead. Leading directly from that, it's incredibly easy to see why the pilot's instant first reaction to what must have been initially a sudden (albeit slight) roll followed by a gut wrenching lurch the opposite way, would have created the impression there had been a sudden and serious failure .... terrifying and whilst statistically flight IS very safe - and awareness of events such as these doesn't put me off air travel - every time I board a 'plane, I'm under no delusions that anything can happen! I wouldn't want to cause nervous flyers to feel more so, but, unlike as seems to be the case with other channels, it can end up feeling like the creator is more concerned with suave reassurance than with simply stating the facts and allowing one's own conclusions to form - and I do feel personally, that I always learn more - OK, perhaps with a touch of knowledgeable but balanced guidance - when told the salient points and then consider my own opinion. Although in this case, I can only feel genuinely sorry for the crew and passengers, I truly think this absolutely falls into one of those 'acts of God' type scenarios that, at the time it would be unreasonable to have expected even an experienced pilot either to have known to avoid, or, having encountered it, instantly recognised and understood what was happening. No surprise to me, however, the airline changed its procedures and what an interesting thought about the 'plane providing some sort of indication that it "is doing something" to countermand the upset!
Awesome sir love your video,s
In all honesty, this is like the best case scenario, no serious injuries, and a huge learning experience that made flying safer! Awesome video!😸
He did say there were 3 or 4 people seriously injured.
@@Sashazur oh
Air Canada Rouge, the livery you use in the video, did not exist in 2008. It's an Air Canada flanker brand that's marketed as a budget discount airline. It commenced operations on 1 July 2013.
Also, the Toronto Airport in Toronto, Ontario, Canada is actually called the "Toronto Pearson International Airport". No one calls it Toronto Airport, and that is not it's name. It's like calling the "San Francisco International Airport" as San Francisco airport. There are many airports in both of those cities and they all have names.
Smart idea to divert to Calgary. Kelowna is in a valley with an airport that has a lot less resources in case of an emergency
Wow, he's sponsored now.
Whoop, whoop!!!
Congrats on the sponsorship
Have you done a video about the Challenger flying through the A380 Wake?? The Challenger landed but was written off and was a mess.
1:17
Everyone, remember the person in the toilet just had their worst day of their life.
I used to work directly under a landing path near BWI airport. You could go outside and look up and watch the plane landing, passing maybe 200 feet overhead. Then, almost a minute later, if it was quiet, you could hear a rippling, tearing sound following the path of the plane. Before I knew about vortices, this was one of the most eerie experiences I've had.
great video!
good video
Oh hey, I recognize those hotels in the thumbnail!
When I was a kid, I was a passenger on a plane that went through a wake-turbulence upset. Every drink in the cabin ended up all over the place, the stewardesses grabbed seats to not be thrown. I was wearing my ginger ale.
We were taught at the regional RJ level "avoid rapid oscillating control reversals" including the rudder. Flying the Airbus, we are taught not to touch the rudder pedal after takeoff, even during our new extreme upset sim procedures training. The Airbus will coordinate your rudder for you. As a matter of fact, a pilot cannot adjust rudder trim with the autopilot engaged. (Nothing happens). Aileron trim is physically absent. And the only time we touch the stabilizer trim wheel is to preset it for takeoff. FTY. The Airbus is unique. You can take off, set 15 degrees pitch, let go, it will maintain that. Then you can roll 33 degrees to the right, let go. It will maintain the 15 degrees and 33 degrees with no trim. You don't pull back or trim up in a turn. It does it for you.
Thank you for pronouncing Calgary correctly. So many don't!
how do people say it wrong?
@@jnawk83 it's not really right or wrong per se, but most locals ignore the second a while most non-locals pronounce it. CAL-gree vs CAL-guh-ree. That being said I also liked that he pronounced it the way I grew up saying it lol
-a guy from Calgree
To clarify: the weight of the leading plane is not directly responsible for the strength of the wake turbulence. Its size and speed are. Of course, the greater the weight the more likely its size is bigger.
The weight of the trailing plane however does matter in how much it gets thrown around in response to the forces of the wake turbulence.
As for the comparison with American 587 the pilot psychology was very different. In the Air Canada flight incident the pilots were caught off-guard and while their response did enhance the bad situation they were able to recover quick enough not to damage the plane. The pilot flying American 587 had a reputation for overreaction already and seeing a 747 taking off in front put him into a mindset to anticipate and (over)react to its wake turbulence to begin with.
The weight dorms matter. Weight directly impacts the vortex generation which is a product of lift, which is precisely equal to weight.
Thanks • Well done • I was a Huey crewman crossing over LA , north to south over Burbank , when I spotted a 747 at our altitude crossing our our path east to west descending into LAX 😲😳 I told the pilot, and he about broke the cyclic jockeying us around in order to not cross behind it 😂😂😂😂😂 😜 We were at our assigned altitude and they were maybe a mile distant 😅 Those pilots feared that wake ....
You asked about pilots and wake turbulence training. I (used to) fly paragliders. Training: none. Or "you could experience wake turbulence if you fly behind someone else. Don't do that".
That said... The first time I encountered it, I wasn't expecting it. It felt like a couple of speedbumps in the air. As this was totally "out of the blue" for me, and completely new, I decided: "there is something weird going on with the air over there, lets get out of this spot ASAP". So I few away, found a new thermal... no more bumps until the guy I'd been sharing that first thermal with came over.... Then I found my second wake turbulence and things started to click.
That's incredible that wake vortices are that persistent for that long, wow.
Speaking of tornadoes, I thought I asked this before but do you have any plans to cover NLM Cityhopper Flight 431 at all? That's the quite literal flying into a tornado and the more extreme version of this.
10 NM is only about a minute at passenger jet speed.
@@briant7265 still a long distance though
I thought this would be about mountain waves at first. Severe coherent wake turbulence from another plane at those distances is rare.
If I recall this was an Air Canada ACFT and not an Air Canada rouge ACFT. Explanation on stop though. Great job.
My training regarding flying in wake turbulence was "DON'T!"
Don't fly where you think it might be, and if caught in it, let the plane do what it wants to until you're getting out of it, unless absolutely necessary due to other hazards (such as rapidly approaching rocks and trees).
Yooo 4Kp60 is fire on your videoss
This is why you ALWAYS keep you belt on.
This why you've gotta be real careful in a GA aircraft near big jets.
There was a wake turbulence incident somewhere over the Indian ocean where a business jet was turned completely over by the wake turbulence of an A380.
At altitude, a/c are teetering on a stall and also some parts going supersonic. Angle of attack a high 14+ degrees. This made for a MUCH larger wake turbulence. ...... the U2 early versions had only a 12 mph band to fly in. Was increased a bit in later models.
15 degrees angle did attack at high altitude? No. Absolutely not.
Pilot here. Was on 737s, now on 320s. In both aircrafts, we have dedicated training module for Upset recoveries now. Not necessarily classified as just for wake turbulence. In any stage, you get upset, you disengage autopilot and autothrust and do certain recovery actions depending on the state of the aircraft.
Depends. Most upsets are best handled by autopilot on A320 as this incident shows. If you’ve been trained to always take the autopilot out, I’d ask for a refund.
@@peteconrad2077 You are absolutely wrong. A320 (and B737s) autopilots are designed to handle upto severe turbulence. Even then you have to set severe turbulence speed manually, Autopilot is not designed to detect severe turbulence.
As for upset recovery in A320, Read FCTM. Procedures > Abnormal and Emergency Procedures > Misc > Upset Prevention and Recovery. For both Nose High and Nose Low actions, First point is "Takeover and disconnect AP and A/THR".
You can definitely ask for a refund if you don't trust Airbus procedures. But whats written in FCTM is written and is what Pilots will be trained for.
@@Co11ider get some reading lesson kid. I didn’t claim the AP cousin detect turbulence. If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used. In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced from the wake the AP will do a better job. This for out of hand because they instinctively took the AP off and then overcontrolled leading to a bigger problem.
Trust me. Every food airbus pilot knows that the AP almost always does better than you can.
@@peteconrad2077 I don't know what any of this has to do with your experience. I have friends who had just started on narrow body airliners getting 777s wake and going 80 degrees bank where take over manual was warranted.
//In my 18,000 hours on the 320 I can tell you that for the kind of moderate upset they experienced//
I never made any comment on this. All I said was taking over manual is in NEWER training modules as per the regulator.
//If you read your FCTM a bit more carefully, Note 1 below your nose high nose low section says the AP can be used.//
So your FCTM does say about disconnection, I don't see whats the argument here.
@@Co11ider you said I was wrong to say that in most cases the 320 autopilot dies. A better job of upset recovery. You are quite wrong. In the majority of cases the 320 AP does a much better job than the human poor taking over manually. I have king experience of the type, most of it as an instructor and examiner. I can tell you that if you’re clinic I’m wrong, you don’t know what you’re taking about.
Nice clip and explanation! Thanks! UA 747-8? (old engines -4 but new wings -8 in the video)
Love ur vid man just chumma love it hope u like it