Aircraft crash (fatal) KRNO. Wake turbulence.

Sluggo63

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,927
Display Name

Display name:
Sluggo63
Be careful out there, ensure proper spacing and don't cut it too close.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...000e-40bd-a672-a6b2123af8f4&pgno=1&pgsize=100

"On August 30, 2016, about 1801 Pacific daylight time, a Beechcraft A-36 Bonanza, N985CA, was destroyed when it impacted the ground in a recreational vehicle (RV) park about one-half mile prior to the threshold of runway 16L at Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO), Sparks, Nevada. The airplane was owned by Venture Aviation Services of Reno Nevada, and was on leaseback to, and operated by, Flying Start Aero, a flight school based at RNO. Both persons on board received fatal injuries, but no-one in the RV park was injured. The flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed.

...

Preliminary air traffic control and ground tracking radar information indicated that the flight was conducted under visual flight rules, and the pilot first contacted the RNO air traffic control tower (ATCT) about 1754:35; at that time the Bonanza was about 9 miles southeast of RNO at 8,500 feet, and on an assigned heading of approximately north. About 2 minutes later, the pilot reported that he was on a "wide downwind" for runway 16L, and was instructed to "continue inbound." At 1757:13, when the Bonanza was about 7 miles east-northeast of RNO, the pilot radioed that he was turning a "wide left base" for 16L. The ATCT radioed that his traffic was a B-757 on a 9 mile final for 16R, that the winds were 260 at 13, gusting to 18 knots, and that he was cleared to land. Although the controller did not specify it, the Bonanza's traffic was a FedEx B-757, which was about 5 miles in trail behind a UPS B-757, also on final for 16R. The pilot responded that he did not have the traffic in sight. About 1 minute later, when the Bonanza was about 5 miles northeast of RNO and descending through 8,000 feet, the pilot advised that he had "the airliner" in sight. At that time, the UPS B-757 was on about a half-mile final to 16R, and the FedEx B-757 was about 6 miles from 16R. About the same time as the pilot reported visual contact with the "airliner," the Bonanza began a dogleg (diagonal) base leg towards 16L, and continued its descent. The Bonanza then joined an abbreviated, perpendicular base leg about 1 mile from 16L, and then turned onto final. The last radar return from the Bonanza was recorded at 1800:59, when the airplane was at a radar-indicated altitude of 4,600 feet, and about 1/2 mile north of the 16L threshold.

According to multiple eyewitnesses, the Bonanza appeared to be approaching RNO normally, without any unusual sounds or dynamics, or any smoke or other outward signs of distress. Just as the airplane was over the RV park, it rapidly rolled inverted, and descended to the ground. Ground scar and debris information was consistent with a near-vertical descent. The airframe and engine exhibited significant impact disruption, and were also significantly damaged or consumed by the post-impact fire. Examination of the remaining wreckage did not reveal any pre-impact failures or deficiencies."
 
I'm often not sure how deal with wake turbulence. Tonight I was was flying IFR as a 737 flew overhead, I get the generic "caution wake turbulence" notice. I slow the plane below menuvering sped and "tighten my grip" for the impending doom that never came. What are you supposed to do on this situation? One often doesn't have the option to avoid being subjected to wake turbulence.
 
I agree, it is scary. Flying mostly out of smaller airports that don't have scheduled carriers certainly makes me not think about it like I should. Some of the examples in the other thread show we should all be more aware of it. I think I may have encountered it once and it did scare me. We have a lot of tanker traffic hear our airport, but they are usually well above our pattern. I was on a solo flight and had just taken off and was at maybe 500 feet when I felt like my 182 rolled into a 90 degree bank. Guessing it was only 30 degrees or so, but it happened so fast it felt more dramatic. I thought there was a control problem at first. I leveled it back off and everything was fine. I can only guess that I flew into a descending wake from a tanker (by the time I thought about this being a possibility, any taker would have been long gone). I will never know exactly what happened, but not being in control for that brief moment was very scary.

Jim
 
I'm often not sure how deal with wake turbulence. Tonight I was was flying IFR as a 737 flew overhead, I get the generic "caution wake turbulence" notice. I slow the plane below menuvering sped and "tighten my grip" for the impending doom that never came. What are you supposed to do on this situation? One often doesn't have the option to avoid being subjected to wake turbulence.

Generally, the separation requirements for IFR will prevent you from encountering wake turb. ATC uses increased separation for both IFR and VFR when specific aircraft require wake turb sep behind them. Problem in all that is, ATC can use visual sep. Now it's on you to maintain your own sep from them.

Haven't heard the transcripts from the OP's example but the IFR Bo should have been at least 4 miles behind the preceding 757. Parallels are less than 2,500 ft so it's treated as one runway. To get any less than 4 miles behind, the Bo would have to have visual on the 757 and then given "maintain visual separation from that traffic, caution wake turbulence...." Unfortunately, it sounds like the Bo didn't see the correct traffic.
 
Last edited:
Generally, the separation requirements for IFR will prevent you from encountering wake turb. ATC uses increased separation for both IFR and VFR when specific aircraft require wake turb sep behind them. Problem in all that is, ATC can use visual sep. Now it's on you to maintain your own sep from them.

Haven't heard the transcripts from the OP's example but the IFR Bo should have been at least 4 miles behind the preceding 757. Parallels are less than 2,500 ft so it's treated as one runway. To get any less than 4 miles behind the Bo would have to have visual on the 757 and then given "maintain visual separation from that traffic, cation wake turbulence...." Unfortunately, it sounds like the Bo didn't see the correct traffic.
Sounds that way. This prelim adds detail that wasn't mentioned in all the original reports. There were TWO 757s involved. He may have seen the first and accepted responsibility to avoid, but not actually seen the second that killed him.

Very sad, but highlight the importance of not being too quick to call the visual on either traffic or the runway in the case of a visual approach.
 
The KRNO airport layout is conducive to light airplanes being well below the approach path of the airliners on the parallel runway.

The centerlines of the two runways are 800' apart. The north ends of the runways are even with each other, and while 16L (the general aviation runway) has no displaced threshhold, the threshhold of 16R (the air carrier runway) is displaced 1,000'. And there is frequently a crosswind from the west, which would tend to drift the airliners' wake turbulence toward 16L. This was apparently the case here.


KRNO_zpszh5gmpwu.jpg
 
It doesn't even take an airliner's wake to kill.
In 1976 two part 135 Cessna 206 seaplanes departed Bedwell Harbor for River's Inlet.

The second 206 followed closely the takeoff run of the first. It rolled into the water and 5 people were killed.

I was warned the next year when I went to work for them.
 
This is a great, albeit tragic reminder. I landed at LAX in February with the Lancair, right behind a 777 on 24R. I remember specifically watching him like a hawk and then maintaining at or above his glidepath. It resulted in a long landing for me, but I'd kept my speed up inside the FAF at around 170 to get a lead on the jet behind me and I'd coordinated it with the tower. It was the first time I really had to consider wake turbulence.
 
Our airport is three miles west of Portland International, on the extended centerline of the PDX runways, and in a cutout of the surface area of the Class C. ILS arrivals to 10L cross overhead at just above our traffic pattern altitude. Though uncontrolled, our airport has its own Class D* area, for the sole purpose of requiring arrivals and departures to contact ATC at PDX to obtain wake turbulence advisories.

(*Soon to be changed to a Class E surface area with special rules.)
 
It doesn't even take an airliner's wake to kill.
In 1976 two part 135 Cessna 206 seaplanes departed Bedwell Harbor for River's Inlet.

The second 206 followed closely the takeoff run of the first. It rolled into the water and 5 people were killed.

I was warned the next year when I went to work for them.

Are you sure it was wake turbulence? Around terrain, you can get some air currents that feel a whole lot like it. Once, taking off from Half Moon Bay in a stiff left quartering headwind, I got a sudden 60 deg right roll at 200 AGL. No other aircraft in sight; it had to be wind.
 
As I posted in the other thread, I've crossed a lot of wakes of a lot of big planes but the worst wake turbulence I've ever encountered was in trail of a C-206 on floats. Keep in mind there's a big difference between crossing a wake and trailing in the same direction.

757 wakes are known to be among the worst.
 
As I posted in the other thread, I've crossed a lot of wakes of a lot of big planes but the worst wake turbulence I've ever encountered was in trail of a C-206 on floats.
I believe it. I've hear some horror stories of guys who got into wake turbulence from biplanes.
 
The FAA has come out recently and changed wake turbulence rules at a number of air traffic facilities (program called 'Wake Recat'). They've determined that B757s aren't any more likely to cause issues with wake turbulence than other large airliners under 300,000 lbs. In Chicago (among many other larger metro areas), B757s aren't treated any differently than 737s, MD80s, etc... Our facility tracks complaints/reports of wake turbulence from pilots. The most common offender, by far, is B737-800s and -900s.

My point isn't to downplay wake turbulence behind B757s; it's the opposite: Caution and vigilance should be exercised behind any larger aircraft. Currently, a C172-sized aircraft is only required to be 4 miles behind a 737/757/A320 sized airliner, and there is no minimum wake turbulence separation behind an E145/E170/CRJ-sized aircraft.
 
I think NorCal went overboard with wake turbulence advisories yesterday. Crossing San Francisco Bay at 1500, they read off every airliner going into San Francisco at 4500. I know an A380 is a big airplane, but is there really much they can do 3000 feet above?

I do cross this bay often, but I'm usually talking to a tower rather than NorCal.
 
Head north at Lake Hood and a half mile or so after liftoff you'll climb to cross 3 miles of ocean inlet at 1200' or below to allow separation from mid channel perpendicular crossing military traffic at 1700'. We see everything from F-22s to C-5s. The instant response to crossing under a heavy transport is to make space. Wake turbulence closer to the ocean or as high as you can be..... That's always the question.
 
So basically if your behind a big plane get the helll out of thereeee?!?
 
I'm always a nervous nelly in two phases: when tower cautions WT on approach to land or T/O. Even get them for the RJ's. Always aim for the point prior to lift off (when I'm approaching for landing), or make a short field take off and get off the ground before the A/C prior to me started its rotation. Still though, it just gives me the willies to hear over the radio 'caution wake turb'...
 
I must say I've never encountered wake turbulence, for which I am thankful. Lots of rough air but never wake turbulence. I do wait at the hold short line before TO when advised. More that once I've wanted to waive the hold short advisory from the tower but never have. Lots of pilots here waive the hold short advisory without any problems, It's just not worth taking the chance of what could happen..
 
Wakes will kill you completely......worked at SNA for 20 years in OPS......same setup as RNO at SNA with the same crosswind occasionally. I watched one sunny afternoon as a 149 hour student pilot in a 152 attempted to solo and swung in too close under an AA757..........it did just like the BO, rolled over inverted and went straight into the dirt. The pilot was impaled on the yoke and never knew what hit him. I also spoke with an A320 Captain who hit wake turbulence 12 miles in trail of a 747 out of LAX and it clearly made an impression on him, it takes a lot to shake up these Captains. Supposedly you need 1,000ft below any airliners going over the top of you, I have done that with no harm but my instinct is to get as far out of the way as you can. I did several extended downwinds and go arounds in 172's at SNA because of the heavy metal on 20R.........
 
Sad to see that it was wake turbulence and not a medical problem. There is a memorial service for John next Saturday. I'm sure most of the local aviation community will be there. :(
 
Back
Top