Inflight Entertainment => The missing link => Topic started by: Baradium on April 27, 2007, 10:18:56 PM
Title: Chuck?
Post by: Baradium on April 27, 2007, 10:18:56 PM
http://www.ksat.com/news/13211530/detail.html
Quote
SAN ANTONIO -- Two people escaped injury Thursday night following a runway accident at San Antonio International Airport.
Airport officials said that a Boeing 737 was taxiing to a runway for takeoff when its increase thrust caused a small Cessna plane that was behind it to flip.
Two people on board the Cesnna were not hurt.
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 14, 2007, 05:22:32 AM
Didn't his instructor teach him not to tailgate big airplanes with hot tailpipes?
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 14, 2007, 01:48:31 PM
Ah there's another thread I'd forgotten to reply to, sorry. If it's an airport big enough to have a 737 there isn't there ATC to keep track of airplanes taxiing?
Frank
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 14, 2007, 04:41:31 PM
It's the pilot's job to maintain a safe following distance. ATC would have only told him to "follow the 737". I'll go out on a limb and say this one is pilot error.
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 14, 2007, 04:56:16 PM
Sounds plausible, however the thrust from even a small 737 can be quite a lot right? So a small light plane would have to keep a very very big distance while taxiing right? Disclaimer: I freely admit I don't have any real-life reference for this and that this post is just almost entirely guesswork, although I'd love to get real information and therefore I allow myself to continue the discussion with the hope of learning more, both in terms of nature's forces and something that might save lives. This is in way intended to contradict information from you real life aviators out there that may participate in this discussion |:)\
Frank
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 14, 2007, 10:36:30 PM
Sounds plausible, however the thrust from even a small 737 can be quite a lot right? So a small light plane would have to keep a very very big distance while taxiing right?
Well done, Frank. You now have more knowledge than that Cessna pilot did.
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: undatc on May 15, 2007, 02:02:36 AM
Ah there's another thread I'd forgotten to reply to, sorry. If it's an airport big enough to have a 737 there isn't there ATC to keep track of airplanes taxiing?
Frank
While taxing ATC doesn't actually have to tell you anything, the distance you follow another plane, be it a 747 or a Sky Hawk, is the pilots choice. However most of the time, ground would probably tell you something like, "Runway 28 right, taxi via Alpha, traffic to follow, Heavy Boeing 747, caution wake turbulence." Though in the 7110 it doesn't give exact phraseology for it, there is a section on this;
3-7-3. GROUND OPERATIONS
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
Avoid clearances which require:
a. Heavy jet aircraft to use greater than normal taxiing power.
b. Small aircraft or helicopters to taxi in close proximity to taxiing or hover-taxi helicopters.
NOTE- Use caution when taxiing smaller aircraft/helicopters in the vicinity of larger aircraft.
REFERENCE- AC 90-23, Aircraft Wake Turbulence, Para 10 and Para 11.
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Baradium on May 15, 2007, 09:23:42 AM
Chris, I've always heard "caution, jet blast."
Wake turbulence when involving flight and it's actual wingtip vortices we're worried about, jet blast when we're landing behind where they powered up or taxiing behind one.
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: airtac on May 15, 2007, 02:17:06 PM
Wake turbulence when involving flight and it's actual wingtip vortices we're worried about, jet blast when we're landing behind where they powered up or taxiing behind one.
YEP, same experience |:)\...............................
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: undatc on May 16, 2007, 02:04:14 AM
You can say either, as in that section it doesn't offer specific phraseology, its open to interpretation by each controller. You'd be scared by actually how many of our regs are like that....
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: airtac on May 16, 2007, 03:42:14 AM
You can say either, as in that section it doesn't offer specific phraseology, its open to interpretation by each controller. You'd be scared by actually how many of our regs are like that....
Hell, I been scared by the regs for 47 years ::eek::
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Baradium on May 16, 2007, 07:42:00 AM
You can say either, as in that section it doesn't offer specific phraseology, its open to interpretation by each controller. You'd be scared by actually how many of our regs are like that....
The Pilot / Controller Glossary defines "Wake Turbulence" and "Jet Blast." You can use "Wake Turbulence" instead of "Jet Blast" but not the other way around. The reg you post doesn't seem to be a communication reg anyway, it's telling you something to avoid, not detailing how and when to inform the aircraft. ;)
I also assume that you have a "Pilot / Controller Glossary" whouch would be identical in definitions to ours, and I would further assume it's what you're supposed to use for phraseology... 'cause otherwise the whole point of the thing is moot.
However... right or wrong, if you tell me "caution wake turbulence" for an airplane that is sitting there idling on the ground... I'm probobly going to laugh. ;)
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: undatc on May 16, 2007, 01:25:37 PM
You can say either, as in that section it doesn't offer specific phraseology, its open to interpretation by each controller. You'd be scared by actually how many of our regs are like that....
The Pilot / Controller Glossary defines "Wake Turbulence" and "Jet Blast." You can use "Wake Turbulence" instead of "Jet Blast" but not the other way around. The reg you post doesn't seem to be a communication reg anyway, it's telling you something to avoid, not detailing how and when to inform the aircraft. ;)
I also assume that you have a "Pilot / Controller Glossary" whouch would be identical in definitions to ours, and I would further assume it's what you're supposed to use for phraseology... 'cause otherwise the whole point of the thing is moot.
However... right or wrong, if you tell me "caution wake turbulence" for an airplane that is sitting there idling on the ground... I'm probobly going to laugh. ;)
True, however my copy of the 7110 is actually missing the PCG so I dont reference it much. I should probably print out a copy so I have one....
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: airtac on May 16, 2007, 03:15:47 PM
Precise definition Baradium, I concur |:)\
Title: Re: Chuck?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 16, 2007, 04:16:10 PM
You can say either, as in that section it doesn't offer specific phraseology, its open to interpretation by each controller. You'd be scared by actually how many of our regs are like that....
The Pilot / Controller Glossary defines "Wake Turbulence" and "Jet Blast." You can use "Wake Turbulence" instead of "Jet Blast" but not the other way around. The reg you post doesn't seem to be a communication reg anyway, it's telling you something to avoid, not detailing how and when to inform the aircraft. ;)
I also assume that you have a "Pilot / Controller Glossary" whouch would be identical in definitions to ours, and I would further assume it's what you're supposed to use for phraseology... 'cause otherwise the whole point of the thing is moot.
However... right or wrong, if you tell me "caution wake turbulence" for an airplane that is sitting there idling on the ground... I'm probobly going to laugh. ;)
True, however my copy of the 7110 is actually missing the PCG so I dont reference it much. I should probably print out a copy so I have one....
"Incomplete textbooks can be found at the beautiful UND bookstore. Fleecing poor college students for 120 years."
