Learned about wake turbulence the hard way

A

AnonInstructor

Guest
So there I was, right seat in a 172 as instructor, cocky know-it-all checkride-prep student in the left seat. We'd made 2 circuits of the pattern already to practice different landings and take-offs, sharing the pattern with a Navy P-8 making opposite traffic. Two circuits, two uneventful patterns as the student heeded my warnings to stay high and land long.

Third one was different. We very specifically discussed using the last touchdown zone distance markers as our touchdown point, as this would put us 1,500 feet past the touchdown point of the P-8, and with 9,000 feet of runway, it left tons of room. Final looked good until short final over the runway and said student entered a slip to tighten up his approach.

Lesson 1, I ignored the uneasy feeling in my stomach and let him continue. I didn't really like the thought of descending further knowing we were descending closer to the P-8 flight path, but I felt we were remaining high enough for wake turbulence to not be an issue. We weren't. As we descended to somewhere between 50-75 feet, I felt a burble not unlike a stall buffet and began reaching for the yoke. Less than a second later, the burble turned into a uncommanded left bank well past steep turn angles with the nose starting to pitch down. To his credit, my student immediately began rolling back to the right, but I quickly added full aileron input and full power. By the time the plane was back wings level, we were spit out well to the left of the runway. Once we were finally climbing back away from the runway, I offset well upwind since the P-8 had also done a touch-and-go.

Lesson 2, even with an experienced student with whom I've flown before, keep my hand shadowing the yoke.

Lesson 3, don't **** with wake turbulence. My student had a very nonchalant attitude about it on the first two circuits, which I think led to the slip on the last one. I won't go so far as to say he was dismissive of my want to stay high, but it was fairly apparent he didn't think we needed to. After the encounter, there were a lot of "holy ****"s and "I can't believe that just happened" as we went around one more time. I flew the rest of the upwind and crosswind, and let him fly the remaining pattern once we were back at TPA on the downwind. Giving him the controls back seemed to help him calm down a bit, but we certainly had a spirited post-flight debrief.

I hope this flight gave him the same lasting impression it did me. Tower apparently was preoccupied as not a word was said, but at least on the next one the P-8 was given a right 360 for additional traffic much to my amusement. We landed without issue and taxied in.
 
What was 'opposite' traffic. You in left and him in right? Or the P-8 was landing opposite direction? Was the P-8 a pattern rat doing touch and go's?

EDIT: Ok, I kept reading. The P-8 was bouncing. Did you just not consider the wake from it's departure?
 
AnonInstructor said:
So there I was, right seat in a 172 as instructor, cocky know-it-all checkride-prep student in the left seat. We'd made 2 circuits of the pattern already to practice different landings and take-offs, sharing the pattern with a Navy P-8 making opposite traffic. Two circuits, two uneventful patterns as the student heeded my warnings to stay high and land long.

Third one was different. We very specifically discussed using the last touchdown zone distance markers as our touchdown point, as this would put us 1,500 feet past the touchdown point of the P-8, and with 9,000 feet of runway, it left tons of room. Final looked good until short final over the runway and said student entered a slip to tighten up his approach.

Lesson 1, I ignored the uneasy feeling in my stomach and let him continue. I didn't really like the thought of descending further knowing we were descending closer to the P-8 flight path, but I felt we were remaining high enough for wake turbulence to not be an issue. We weren't. As we descended to somewhere between 50-75 feet, I felt a burble not unlike a stall buffet and began reaching for the yoke. Less than a second later, the burble turned into a uncommanded left bank well past steep turn angles with the nose starting to pitch down. To his credit, my student immediately began rolling back to the right, but I quickly added full aileron input and full power. By the time the plane was back wings level, we were spit out well to the left of the runway. Once we were finally climbing back away from the runway, I offset well upwind since the P-8 had also done a touch-and-go.

Lesson 2, even with an experienced student with whom I've flown before, keep my hand shadowing the yoke.

Lesson 3, don't **** with wake turbulence. My student had a very nonchalant attitude about it on the first two circuits, which I think led to the slip on the last one. I won't go so far as to say he was dismissive of my want to stay high, but it was fairly apparent he didn't think we needed to. After the encounter, there were a lot of "holy ****"s and "I can't believe that just happened" as we went around one more time. I flew the rest of the upwind and crosswind, and let him fly the remaining pattern once we were back at TPA on the downwind. Giving him the controls back seemed to help him calm down a bit, but we certainly had a spirited post-flight debrief.

I hope this flight gave him the same lasting impression it did me. Tower apparently was preoccupied as not a word was said, but at least on the next one the P-8 was given a right 360 for additional traffic much to my amusement. We landed without issue and taxied in.
Click to expand...

Nice work, some learn from other's mistakes, some need to experience it themselves to learn. Hopefully they survive the experience. I don't think I would share the pattern with a heavy aircraft doing touch and goes.

I tell instructors not to be shy about having their hands on the controls while I'm flying, I don't care. Just tell me "my controls" if they want to take over.
 
And my instructor was like “awesome you get to practice wake avoidance for real”. This was two weeks ago when they had an event at the FBO for girls that brought in representative aircrafts from the airlines. A Potter dash 8 landed right in front of us on our first pass.

I was less gunho and made sure I stayed high and did a steep approach with full flaps. Ended up being told to go around 50 above cause I was backing up the AC CRJ coming in after. So got to do it again on the next pass.

I guess it was good that we did it for real but I’d have been happy if we didn’t have to either having seen videos of small planes completely losing it due to wake.
 
I might have switched to an airport without heavy wake-turbulence inducing traffic. I notice the CFI didn't include that in his lessons learned. Perhaps he should.
 
The issue was not wake turbulence. The issue was a human factor and a simple 3P failure. You perceived and processed, but failed to perform.
 
I got a 360 request from ATC for a jet coming up on me whilst landing, and found out that a passing Challenger has a heck of an effect on a Skyhawk, mostly due to my "chop and drop" habit. Should have landed long. Didn't even occur to me that it would have much effect at all.
 
benyflyguy said:
Just saw this one over on Reddit. There is a helo that now practices out of our home field all the time always puts my pattern planning on red alert.

Click to expand...
I didn't crash, but it was spooky. C150, CH53. I learned all about how it isn't just about rotor wash, which you don't have to stay all that far away from. They make vortices that hang around for awhile just like a fixed wing.
 
One time in Alaska a CH-47 crossed the runway in front of me without talking on the radio. In very SVFR conditions. While I was on very short final, actually while I was crossing the threshold at less than 50 agl.

I have done some rodeo riding, and that was the wildest rodeo I have ever been in.

Everyone that saw the incident, including myself, was actually surprised I did not crash.

It kind of scares me that you put full aileron input in to level the wings at such a slow airspeed. I am hoping that rudder pedal was on the floor first.

But obviously all is well.
 
If you hit a "dust devil" over the runway (they're invisible there), you'll get the exact same excitement and will get at LEAST n uncommanded 45* turn from runway heading ... keep your hand on the throttle and be ready if landing after noon in the desert southwest ....
 
Zeldman said:
It kind of scares me that you put full aileron input in to level the wings at such a slow airspeed. I am hoping that rudder pedal was on the floor first.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but it was pretty much automatic and I didn't really think about how much I had in, the yoke was obvious since it was right in front of me. As we were coming upright and the throttle finally caught up I did glance over at the turn coordinator to try and keep us coordinated.
 
luvflyin said:
What was 'opposite' traffic. You in left and him in right? Or the P-8 was landing opposite direction? Was the P-8 a pattern rat doing touch and go's?

EDIT: Ok, I kept reading. The P-8 was bouncing. Did you just not consider the wake from it's departure?
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't more clear, the P-8 was doing touch-and-gos as well, they were just making left traffic while we were making right. Departure end turbulence wasn't an issue, we offset to the upwind side on each climb-out.
 
steingar said:
I might have switched to an airport without heavy wake-turbulence inducing traffic. I notice the CFI didn't include that in his lessons learned. Perhaps he should.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point as well. We were already in the pattern and had done a few circuits when the P-8 showed up. At that point in the lesson, going somewhere else would have been difficult from a timing standpoint, so I decided to stay and conduct the approaches as described. If the P-8 had already been there when we started the lesson, I probably would have gone to one of the other fields to start with.
 
AnonInstructor said:
Sorry I wasn't more clear, the P-8 was doing touch-and-gos as well, they were just making left traffic while we were making right. Departure end turbulence wasn't an issue, we offset to the upwind side on each climb-out.
Click to expand...
Why wasn’t departure end turbulence an issue?
 
AnonInstructor said:
That's a fair point as well. We were already in the pattern and had done a few circuits when the P-8 showed up. At that point in the lesson, going somewhere else would have been difficult from a timing standpoint, so I decided to stay and conduct the approaches as described. If the P-8 had already been there when we started the lesson, I probably would have gone to one of the other fields to start with.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but I can't believe I'm reading this from a CFI. "Timing standpoint?" If someone had to get back, you could have just stopped the lesson, one less touch and go won't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Not as much as dying, getting hurt, pranging the airplane etc...

Sorry to be so negative, but I honestly think you perhaps need to reset your priorities. You almost died.
 
AnonInstructor said:
Sorry I wasn't more clear, the P-8 was doing touch-and-gos as well, they were just making left traffic while we were making right. Departure end turbulence wasn't an issue, we offset to the upwind side on each climb-out.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean your climb-out. This happened to you on your approach. Did you see where the P-8 touched down? What kind of touch and go did it do? A rolling one where it stayed on the runway for awhile before rotating? Or was it touch, rotate and go immediately? Like a last second go around. It’s possible that while you were still landing, you could have been in it’s departure wake given that you were approaching to land long. Possible. Anyway, something to think about if encountering this situation again. FWIW, the Controller was supposed to keep you 3 minutes apart unless you waived the 3 minute rule.
 
luvflyin said:
FWIW, the Controller was supposed to keep you 3 minutes apart unless you waived the 3 minute rule.
Click to expand...

Actually this isn't really true, when they say "caution wake turbulence" and you accept the landing clearance, they are no longer responsible to keep you separated. Same on departure.
 
PaulS said:
Actually this isn't really true, when they say "caution wake turbulence" and you accept the landing clearance, they are no longer responsible to keep you separated. Same on departure.
Click to expand...
There is a specific rule covering intersection departures. It applies to touch and go/stop and go/low approach traffic also. Both of these planes were. Granted, this happened on the 172’s approach so it wouldn’t have really changed what happened. But to be legal the Controller would have to have said unable touch and go and cleared him to land. Unless the pilot waived the 3 minute rule.
 
AnonInstructor said:
That's a fair point as well. We were already in the pattern and had done a few circuits when the P-8 showed up. At that point in the lesson, going somewhere else would have been difficult from a timing standpoint, so I decided to stay and conduct the approaches as described. If the P-8 had already been there when we started the lesson, I probably would have gone to one of the other fields to start with.
Click to expand...

This is a great training decision for ADM. Make it a scenario where airport is shut down and have to divert. I talk to CFIs at my field and ask them why they stay to practice landings when there are other airports 15 minutes away. They say the student won’t learn anything flying to the other fields. I see that as all wrong, a CFI can make anything a learning experience.
 
steingar said:
I am sorry, but I can't believe I'm reading this from a CFI. "Timing standpoint?" If someone had to get back, you could have just stopped the lesson, one less touch and go won't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Not as much as dying, getting hurt, pranging the airplane etc...

Sorry to be so negative, but I honestly think you perhaps need to reset your priorities. You almost died.
Click to expand...

Say you are training at SAW, where are you going to go that is not going to affect lesson plans and timing?

Not every airport has another airport 3 minutes away at 172 speeds.
 
EdFred said:
Say you are training at SAW, where are you going to go that is not going to affect lesson plans and timing?

Not every airport has another airport 3 minutes away at 172 speeds.
Click to expand...
I don't care if it's an hour away. I'd much rather transition to another airport (or stop flying) rather than risk a wake turbulence encounter over and over. I know people who've been hurt and I know airplanes that have been damaged. This stuff can kill you easily, especially if you hit it at low altitude where you haven't room to recover. I haven't any choice but to operate with jets, you all do.
 
steingar said:
I don't care if it's an hour away. I'd much rather transition to another airport (or stop flying) rather than risk a wake turbulence encounter over and over. I know people who've been hurt and I know airplanes that have been damaged. This stuff can kill you easily, especially if you hit it at low altitude where you haven't room to recover. I haven't any choice but to operate with jets, you all do.
Click to expand...

There's no risk if you, I dunno, practice wake turbulence avoidance, and don't get complacent in doing so.
 
luvflyin said:
FWIW, the Controller was supposed to keep you 3 minutes apart unless you waived the 3 minute rule.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really apply in VFR pattern work between a large (the P8) and a small (172). You are thinking about radar wake turbulence separation. The three minute rule applies to intersection or opposite direction departures with the large taking off before the small and yes, it is waiverable.
 
Timbeck2 said:
That doesn't really apply in VFR pattern work between a large (the P8) and a small (172). You are thinking about radar wake turbulence separation. The three minute rule applies to intersection or opposite direction departures with the large taking off before the small and yes, it is waiverable.
Click to expand...
It does, and no I’m not. It would have been legal to clear him to land. But not Touch and Go without the waiver

3−9−7. WAKE TURBULENCE SEPARATION FOR INTERSECTION DEPARTURES
a. Apply the following wake turbulence criteria for intersection departures:
1. Separate a small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a departing small aircraft weighing more than 12,500 lbs. by ensuring that the aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the preceding aircraft has taken off.
2. Separate a small aircraft taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a departing large aircraft (except B757) by ensuring that the aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the preceding aircraft has taken off.
NOTE−
Aircraft conducting touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−8−2, Touch−and−Go or Stop−and−Go or Low Approach.
3−8−2. TOUCH-AND-GO OR STOP-AND-GO OR LOW APPROACH
Consider an aircraft cleared for touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach as an arriving aircraft until it touches down (for touch-and-go), or makes a complete stop (for stop-and-go), or crosses the landing threshold (for low approach), and thereafter as a departing aircraft.
 
Good grief. Some of the comments on here have me wondering why anyone would post anything in the Lessons Learned forum. At least the OP had the good sense to post anonymously.

I flew out of a Class C for 25 years and have heard the phrase “Caution wake turbulence” probably hundreds of times. Operating in the pattern with larger aircraft can be done safely as long as you adhere to proper wake avoidance principles. This is illustrated by the OP's story, several successful T&G's when applying proper wake avoidance procedures. One deviation from those procedures and it almost bit them. He/she learned a lesson and shared it so that others may benefit.

Just because a certain practice is something you wouldn’t do doesn’t mean it can’t be performed safely…
 
luvflyin said:
It does, and no I’m not. It would have been legal to clear him to land. But not Touch and Go without the waiver

3−9−7. WAKE TURBULENCE SEPARATION FOR INTERSECTION DEPARTURES
a. Apply the following wake turbulence criteria for intersection departures:
1. Separate a small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a departing small aircraft weighing more than 12,500 lbs. by ensuring that the aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the preceding aircraft has taken off.
2. Separate a small aircraft taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a departing large aircraft (except B757) by ensuring that the aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the preceding aircraft has taken off.
NOTE−
Aircraft conducting touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−8−2, Touch−and−Go or Stop−and−Go or Low Approach.
3−8−2. TOUCH-AND-GO OR STOP-AND-GO OR LOW APPROACH
Consider an aircraft cleared for touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach as an arriving aircraft until it touches down (for touch-and-go), or makes a complete stop (for stop-and-go), or crosses the landing threshold (for low approach), and thereafter as a departing aircraft.
Click to expand...

none of this applies to aircraft already in the pattern which is the case here.
 
Timbeck2 said:
none of this applies to aircraft already in the pattern which is the case here.
Click to expand...

The note says aircraft conducting touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection. I've never seen that implemented, though, only on initial departure.
 
Last edited:
AnonInstructor said:
Sorry I wasn't more clear, the P-8 was doing touch-and-gos as well, they were just making left traffic while we were making right. Departure end turbulence wasn't an issue, we offset to the upwind side on each climb-out.
Click to expand...


So we are talking a P-8 Poseidon?? Seems like a lot of iron to me to be doing touch and go’s??? I’m a missing something here. Starting to smell a bit trollish here…

edit: so I went to yT and searched and apparently they go and do this. That would be fun to watch from the ground.
 
Last edited:
Sierra_Hotel said:
The note says aircraft conducting touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection. I've never seen that implemented, though, only on initial departure.
Click to expand...
That is in reference to a departure following the touch and go/stop and go
 
luvflyin said:
I didn’t mean your climb-out. This happened to you on your approach. Did you see where the P-8 touched down? What kind of touch and go did it do? A rolling one where it stayed on the runway for awhile before rotating? Or was it touch, rotate and go immediately? Like a last second go around. It’s possible that while you were still landing, you could have been in it’s departure wake given that you were approaching to land long. Possible. Anyway, something to think about if encountering this situation again. FWIW, the Controller was supposed to keep you 3 minutes apart unless you waived the 3 minute rule.
Click to expand...

They were staying on the runway for a long roll. If they were doing the usual slam-and-go that I see USAF T-1's doing on the regular, we would have ended the lesson. Student specifically requested working on short/soft takeoffs is the reason we were doing pattern work in the first place.

Amusingly, the only time I've ever been given a departure hold for wake turbulence and had the 3-minute rule specifically referenced was after a T-45 Goshawk departed.
 
PaulS said:
Actually this isn't really true, when they say "caution wake turbulence" and you accept the landing clearance, they are no longer responsible to keep you separated. Same on departure.
Click to expand...

Yeah just little thing there if you folks come up north here. Doesn't matters what ATC says, it's on you the pilot up here in general. I have been held on TO for WT due to a biz jet just departed, but end of day if we had flipped over after it would have been my fault.

On the flip side while Transport Canada is slow on a medical, the typical 3rd class around here seems to be a lot less probing than what you folks gets. There's no questions about anything but medical for example.
 
AnonInstructor said:
They were staying on the runway for a long roll. If they were doing the usual slam-and-go that I see USAF T-1's doing on the regular, we would have ended the lesson. Student specifically requested working on short/soft takeoffs is the reason we were doing pattern work in the first place.

Amusingly, the only time I've ever been given a departure hold for wake turbulence and had the 3-minute rule specifically referenced was after a T-45 Goshawk departed.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I was just giving up some food for thought on the subject.
 
luvflyin said:
I didn't crash, but it was spooky. C150, CH53. I learned all about how it isn't just about rotor wash, which you don't have to stay all that far away from. They make vortices that hang around for awhile just like a fixed wing.
Click to expand...

One of the airports I fly out of has frequent Apache ops. I stay the heck away from them, and communicate specifically to understand exactly what they are doing. Never had to divert but I am always prepared to execute a diversion to give them all the space they need. The pilots are always communicative which I appreciate.
 
idahoflier said:
I flew out of a Class C for 25 years and have heard the phrase “Caution wake turbulence” probably hundreds of times. Operating in the pattern with larger aircraft can be done safely as long as you adhere to proper wake avoidance principles. This is illustrated by the OP's story, several successful T&G's when applying proper wake avoidance procedures. One deviation from those procedures and it almost bit them. He/she learned a lesson and shared it so that others may benefit.

Just because a certain practice is something you wouldn’t do doesn’t mean it can’t be performed safely…
Click to expand...

No doubt you morn the loss of spin training...
 
steingar said:
No doubt you morn the loss of spin training...
Click to expand...
How exactly is that related in anyway to what @idahoflier said?

Clearly, as a PPL that has crashed an airplane - you think you're superior to experienced flight instructors. This is why wake turbulence procedures exist, so you can operate safely. Running away from an airport where a larger aircraft landed is not feasible for any student scheduling, or frankly any aviation operation.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top