What is the best thing to tell ATC after hearing - Caution Wake Turbulence

[Stewartb]

Most of my own wake turbulence warnings are from USAF traffic crossing over my path of flight. Lake Hood airspace limits me to between 700-1200' crossing the inlet because the AF approach is straight down the inlet between 1400-1700'. Trainers circle to climb to 2000' using departure control but most of us go low. F-15 (now F-22), C-130, C-17, KC-135, etc. They can all make a good bump. Beyond that area we have Anchorage International traffic to cross under. 747, 757, 737, etc. but we can usually maintain space and altitude clearance to avoid feeling their wakes. Since somebody implied wake turbulence is associated with heavies? My worst and scariest wake turbulence event was in my 180 in trail of a C-206 float plane as we were entering Lake Hood airspace. An airplane doesn't have to be big and heavy to cause you problems.

 

[JasonM]

+1

Too many wake turbulence questions here...really a no brainer.

If you have to post a question about WT....you shouldn't be flying anywhere near these areas.

This is kindergarten stuff folks...you should know what to do....and if kindergarten is below you....keep flying and plan your routes where heavys don't fly.

Why even waste your time posting something you great grand master super pilot, you..? My question was not how to land in a wake turbulence situation. My question was what I could say if I don't feel comfortable landing after getting told "Caution Wake turbulence" and wanted some separation. Some of us don't know it all like you and don't fly into Class Bravos all day long like you apparently.

 

[roncachamp]

Why even waste your time posting something you great grand master super pilot, you..? My question was not how to land in a wake turbulence situation. My question was what I could say if I don't feel comfortable landing after getting told "Caution Wake turbulence" and wanted some separation. Some of us don't know it all like you and don't fly into Class Bravos all day long like you apparently.

"I would like to change my destination to [insert name of another airport here]."

 

[EdFred]

Jason,

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is really like wanting to play in the NFL and wondering if you can not get tackled. If wake turbulence freaks you out that much, don't go into any airports where it's going to be a concern. There's no need to ever extend a downwind or ask for a lap in a hold to let it dissipate when we are flying GA.

You have 3 times the runway you need if you are going into a (Bravo) airport behind an aircraft that's generating WT, and it is probably going to be faster than you. What's the IFR separation? 5 Miles? (I forget) And that aircraft probably has a faster approach speed than you. If you're flying your 90kt approach, the closest you will ever be in 3 minutes 20 seconds behind, and that gap will only keep growing. Fly the ILS 2.5 dots high if you are still freaked out by it.

And if you didn't see the aircraft land in front of you, and he's generating wake turbulence it's a safe bet he didn't land past the halfway point of the runway. You have 3x the runway you need, land in the last 1/2 of the runway, and take running into it out of the equation.

But IFR/IMC it should never be an issue.

 

[Velocity173]

Why even waste your time posting something you great grand master super pilot, you..? My question was not how to land in a wake turbulence situation. My question was what I could say if I don't feel comfortable landing after getting told "Caution Wake turbulence" and wanted some separation. Some of us don't know it all like you and don't fly into Class Bravos all day long like you apparently.

If you're on the ground and have been cleared for take off behind and aircraft you're uncomfortable following, then tell ATC you'd like to hold for wake turbulence. Generally you'll get held anyway based on ATC's wake turbulence rules. Some of which you as the pilot can waive, others you cannot.

If you're airborne, there are many variations of required wake turbulence separation that ATC has to abide by depending on type aircraft and airspace. While accidents still happen with these procedures in place, ATC just isn't winging it and putting your aircraft in a position contrary to established rules. If you are in a situation where less than the approved wake turbulence separation is used, then it's because you've accepted visual. If you can't determine a safe separation on your own through visual sep, then I don't know what to tell ya. It's really a dynamic thing where there is no hard and fast rule. you develope your own rules by experiencing wake turbulence first hand.

 

[JasonM]

I can see now why people do not want to be part of this forum any longer. Super Pilots Away!!!!!!

 

[EdFred]

I can see now why people do not want to be part of this forum any longer. Super Pilots Away!!!!!!

Really? Drama queening much? You've been given real world answers. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they aren't correct.

What kind of instructors did you have that scared you so much about wake turbulence? Did they wear epaulettes?

There is nothing super-piloty about landing beyond the first 1/3 of a runway when you have 8,000 feet of runway to use.

 

[Velocity173]

I can see now why people do not want to be part of this forum any longer. Super Pilots Away!!!!!!

????. You've been given advice. You just want a perfect answer to a problem where there is none. A simple answer to your question is the answer to anything ATC does that makes you uncomfortable; unable. Problem is, you don't even know what is an unsafe distance to even give that reply. Like I said, unless you've flown around "big" aircraft before, you're not going to know when to say unable and when not to. Look at the Cirrus pilot, he kept saying "what's a Brasila?" He had no clue how far to say behind it.

 

[JasonM]

Really? Drama queening much?

I'm not "Drama Queening", just pointing out how I can see why people dont want to be on this forum. Being told they are kinder gardeners for asking a question is pointless and does not help.

I honestly got what I was looking for a while ago in this thread. there was some helpful responses here. Just didn't see a need for someone to jump on an opportunity to be Super Pilot and degrade those of us that are not as experienced.

 

[Everskyward]

+1

Too many wake turbulence questions here...really a no brainer.

If you have to post a question about WT....you shouldn't be flying anywhere near these areas.

This is kindergarten stuff folks...you should know what to do....and if kindergarten is below you....keep flying and plan your routes where heavys don't fly.

Was that necessary? You can give advice without being so condescending.

 

[EdFred]

I'm not "Drama Queening", just pointing out how I can see why people dont want to be on this forum. Being told they are kinder gardeners for asking a question is pointless and does not help.

I honestly got what I was looking for a while ago in this thread. there was some helpful responses here. Just didn't see a need for someone to jump on an opportunity to be Super Pilot and degrade those of us that are not as experienced.

True. I would have said wake turbulence was at least 3rd grade level stuff.

 

[denverpilot]

I want to go back to the original question as posed in the subject line.

"Roger"... Probably works.

 

[TEFLONSEAN]

Was that necessary? You can give advice without being so condescending.

My apologies if that sounded harsh or condescending....

But yall know what to do...it shouldn't be a factor....does it get your attention???....most definately...as it should....and fly accordingly.

 

[jspilot]

Jason you really need to read up on wake turbulence. I'm far from a "super pilot," in fact all I'm trying to do in my original response was help out. The level of misunderstanding you have surrounding the dangers of wake turbulence is astounding. If you don't want the help from the "super pilots" here, maybe you will be more likely to learn from pilots who write books on flying.

 

[JasonM]

Jason you really need to read up on wake turbulence. I'm far from a "super pilot," in fact all I'm trying to do in my original response was help out. The level of misunderstanding you have surrounding the dangers of wake turbulence is astounding. If you don't want the help from the "super pilots" here, maybe you will be more likely to learn from pilots who write books on flying.

What exactly am I misunderstanding about Wake Turbulence? Are you saying it is not dangerous? Maybe before you blast off, you could read my initial post one time. Main point being...

What if I feel like being overly cautious. Whats the best way to tell them you want to wait a few minutes to land?

 

[jspilot]

What exactly am I misunderstanding about Wake Turbulence? Are you saying it is not dangerous? Maybe before you blast off, you could read my initial post one time. Main point being...

What if I feel like being overly cautious. Whats the best way to tell them you want to wait a few minutes to land?

Jason, if you fly a typical single engine plane approaching an airport at 70 knots, the jet going 140 knots( twice the speed), will never be an issue unless you literally are directly behind the jet during landing. It's travelling twice your speed, wake turbulence lasts about 2- minutes. My whole point all along is, your overly cautious approach is completely un required 99.9 percent of the time, if you are following standard pilot rules with how to deal with wake turbulence. Plus, as the jet get closer to the ground, their wake is smaller as it hits the ground faster. So literally you would need to touch down about 500 feet or so behind a 737 for your small plane to feel the wake and that's assuming you fail to touch down beyond his touchdown point.

Your question should have been about takeoff during which wake turbulence actually could have an impact if you are making an intersection departure and the jet took the full length. At that point, a simple, " Tower, I'd like a minute or two to avoid the wake turbulence," will suffice.( which ATC will almost always give you this time anyway--based on my experience.)

 

[Everskyward]

What exactly am I misunderstanding about Wake Turbulence? Are you saying it is not dangerous? Maybe before you blast off, you could read my initial post one time. Main point being...

What if I feel like being overly cautious. Whats the best way to tell them you want to wait a few minutes to land?

You could do what was suggested in post #2. Go around and stay in closed traffic. But what the tower probably expects you to do with that warning is what others here have said. Stay above the preceding airplane's approach path and touch down beyond it.

 

[Stewartb]

Jason,

Don't be afraid to call the tower and ask them how they'd handle the situation. That should give you more confidence than what you're gaining here. If you do call, let us know how it goes.

 

[roncachamp]

What exactly am I misunderstanding about Wake Turbulence? Are you saying it is not dangerous? Maybe before you blast off, you could read my initial post one time. Main point being...

What if I feel like being overly cautious. Whats the best way to tell them you want to wait a few minutes to land?

If that's all you want to do then just say it in clear concise English. There is no standard phraseology for it. If what you really want is the best way to obtain a few more minutes before landing there probably isn't one under the conditions you stated, which makes the request a wasted transmission.

 

[narchee]

Was that necessary? You can give advice without being so condescending.

So why is it that you mods are pretty good at controlling the newly registered members like that guy you just slapped down, but seem incapable of dealing with some of the out of control members with a 2005 join date.



I like this forum but it is definitely populated with some bullies.

 

[Everskyward]

So why is it that you mods are pretty good at controlling the newly registered members like that guy you just slapped down, but seem incapable of dealing with some of the out of control members with a 2005 join date.



I like this forum but it is definitely populated with some bullies.

The little triangle with the red border is the way you report bad posts. If you feel someone has gone beyond the rules of conduct, feel free to use it. The post I responded to had been reported (by someone other than the OP, so don't accuse him of going crying to anyone) or I might not have even opened this thread.

 

[Jim Logajan]

True. I would have said wake turbulence was at least 3rd grade level stuff.

The pilots of about 61% of the aircraft accidents caused by wake turbulence held commercial or ATP certificates, which appears to be a larger proportion of accidents than would occur if randomly selected from the population of all pilot certificates held during the statistical measuring period (1983 - 2000). [Witty comment as to their grade level would go here if I could only think of one.]

"Data show that 50 (38 percent) of the 130 pilots-in-command (PICs) of the accident aircraft held commercial pilot certificates, and 30 PICs (23 percent) held airline transport pilot (ATP) certificates (Table 8). Of the 50 PICs with commercial pilot certificates, 20 PICs had been cautioned about wake turbulence by ATC. Of the 30 PICs with ATP certificates, six PICs had been cautioned about wake turbulence by ATC. Pilots with private pilot certificates flew the trailing aircraft in 36 (28 percent) of the 130 accidents; 12 pilots had been cautioned about wake turbulence. Of 14 student pilots (11 percent) who flew the trailing aircraft in wake-turbulence accidents, seven pilots had been cautioned about wake turbulence."

Source:
http://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_mar-apr02.pdf

P.S. The above document has more statistical info on wake turbulence accidents and incidents than you can shake a wind sock at.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Roger

 

[danhagan]

If you're on the ground and have been cleared for take off behind and aircraft you're uncomfortable following, then tell ATC you'd like to hold for wake turbulence.

Our guys ask if you want immediate departure or wake turbulence delay. Last time offered on a night flight I took the delay. They departed two commercial jets on 22 and 26L. A king air took off in place of me and found the WT of one of the departing AC.

Another occasion I was on a night flight to Class C and handed off to tower. What I didn't hear on tower frequency a little earlier was a FedEx jet abort take off and indicate he was returning to his ramp. He actually only pulled off of RWY 22 and stopped with no beacons or lights, rear-end aimed at the runway (see where this is going). I was cleared to stop-n-go RWY 22 ... I didn't spot the dark outline of the jet until just yards from it at near rotation speed ... that blast was HUGE ... tower saw it and asked if I was OK and then got on the FedEx guys for not taking it to the barn like they indicated.