Beware of the A380

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Beware of the A380

Post by pelmet »

Probably among the worst turbulence encounters I ever had was a sudden near severe turbulence encounter with what I believe was the wake of an A380. Was night time and the wind was directly behind us and it passed one thousand feet above us in the opposite direction on the airway.

Check out this incredible incident....

"Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent
By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Mar 8th 2017 11:40Z, last updated Wednesday, Mar 8th 2017 21:00Z

An Emirates Airbus A380-800, most likely registration A6-EUL performing flight EK-412 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Sydney,NS (Australia), was enroute at FL350 about 630nm southeast of Muscat (Oman) and about 820nm northwest of Male (Maldives) at about 08:40Z when a business jet passed underneath in opposite direction. The A380 continued the flight to Sydney without any apparent incident and landed safely.

The business jet, a MHS Aviation (Munich) Canadair Challenger 604 registration D-AMSC performing flight MHV-604 from Male (Maldives) to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) with 9 people on board, was enroute over the Arabian Sea when an Airbus A380-800 was observed by the crew passing 1000 feet above. After passing underneath the A380 at about 08:40Z the crew lost control of the aircraft as result of wake turbulence from the A380 and was able to regain control of the aircraft only after losing about 10,000 feet. The airframe experienced very high G-Loads during the upset, a number of occupants received injuries during the upset. After the crew managed to stabilize the aircraft the crew decided to divert to Muscat (Oman), entered Omani Airspace at 14:10L (10:10Z) declaring emergency and reporting injuries on board and continued for a landing in Muscat at 15:14L (11:14Z) without further incident. A number of occupants were taken to a hospital, one occupant was reported with serious injuries. The aircraft received damage beyond repair and was written off.

Oman's Civil Aviation Authority had told Omani media on Jan 8th 2017, that a private German registered aircraft had performed an emergency landing in Muscat on Jan 7th 2017 declaring emergency at 14:10L (10:10Z) and landing in Muscat at 15:14L (11:14Z). The crew had declared emergency due to injuries on board and problems with an engine (a number of media subsequently reported the right hand engine had failed, another number of media reported the left hand engine had failed).

According to information The Aviation Herald received on March 4th 2017 the CL-604 passed 1000 feet below an Airbus A380-800 while enroute over the Arabian Sea, when a short time later (1-2 minutes) the aircraft encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force, restart the engines and divert to Muscat.

The Aviation Herald is currently unable to substantiate details of the occurrence, no radar data are available for the business jet, it is therefore unclear when the business jet departed from Male and where the actual "rendezvouz" with the A380 took place. Based on the known time of the occurrence at 08:40Z as well as the time when the CL-604 reached Omani Airspace declaring emergency and landed in Muscat, as well as which A380s were enroute over the Arabian Sea around that time The Aviation Herald believes the most likely A380 was EK-412 and the "rendezvouz" took place 630nm southeast of Muscat, which provides the best match of remaining flying time (2.5 hours) and distance for the CL-604 also considering rather strong northwesterly winds (headwind for the CL-604, tailwind for the A380s).

On Jan 7th 2017 there were also other A380-800s crossing the Arabian Sea from northwest to southeast: a Qantas A380-800, registration VH-OQJ performing flight QF-2 from Dubai to Sydney, was enroute at FL330 about 1000nm southeast of Muscat and about 400nm northwest of Male at 08:40Z. An Emirates A380-800 registration A6-EDO performing flight EK-406 from Dubai to Melbourne,VI (Australia) was enroute at FL350 about 470nm southeast of Muscat at 08:40Z. Another Emirates A380-800 registration A6-EUH performing flight EK-424 from Dubai to Perth,WA (Australia), was enroute at FL350 about 350nm southeast of Muscat at 08:40z.

The Aviation Herald received information that Air Traffic Control all around the globe have recently been instructed to exercise particular care with A380s crossing above other aircraft."

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3&opt=0
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Rockie »

A wise pilot will offset upwind, or insist on a turn to avoid passing 1000 feet under and 4 - 30 behind one of these monsters.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jet Jockey
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Jet Jockey »

Read about this incident on another forum.

I have to wonder how they regained control of the aircraft with both engines flamed out and no RAT?
---------- ADS -----------
 
rippey
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:46 pm

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by rippey »

Jet Jockey wrote:Read about this incident on another forum.

I have to wonder how they regained control of the aircraft with both engines flamed out and no RAT?
After following the thread on the other site I was also wondering this. Only thing I can think of was the residual pressure trapped in the lines at the pcus, the 3 1500 psi accumulators, and possibly a bit of output from the engine pumps until they completely spooled down - which they may not have as it sounds like they were able to get an a windmilling start -too high to start the apu. The RAT issue is also disconcerting, although in a nose down somewhat inverted attitude I have no doubt it would be unable to deploy. I know in 601 recurrent I had more than one crew admit they pulled the auto-deploy breaker before long overwater flights - certainly not pointing fingers but I wonder if this is somewhat common practice on the 604? In any case I can't imagine how terrifying it must have been. When in doubt, SLOP!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3255
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Panama Jack »

Unfortunate but unfortunately also avoidable, specifically in Indian Ocean oceanic airspace, where I have noticed that with, extremely rare exception, nobody SLOPs (except for me).

I would think it be a matter of good airmanship if A380 crews routinely SLOP, where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake. Especially at night or in IMC, other aircraft may not know what size aircraft those approaching green & red lights or TCAS target are-- but A380 crews know who they are and the havoc they can wreak on other aircraft below them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Spokes »

Sorry, SLOP?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Spokes »

Duplicate
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
User avatar
CL-Skadoo!
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by CL-Skadoo! »

Spokes wrote:Sorry, SLOP?
Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure. 1 or 2 mile offset right (sometimes left, in China) from the Ocean track centreline.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by CL-Skadoo! on Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by pelmet »

Panama Jack wrote:Unfortunate but unfortunately also avoidable, specifically in Indian Ocean oceanic airspace, where I have noticed that with, extremely rare exception, nobody SLOPs (except for me).

I would think it be a matter of good airmanship if A380 crews routinely SLOP, where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake. Especially at night or in IMC, other aircraft may not know what size aircraft those approaching green & red lights or TCAS target are-- but A380 crews know who they are and the havoc they can wreak on other aircraft below them.
I think that SLOPping may be helpful in some areas with the A380 being the one that SLOPs based on the present winds. But....SLOP is for oceanic airspace. I had this problem on an airway over land. It is very nice to say that..."the wise pilot will offset" to avoid the A380 wake turbulence path but how do you know what the traffic you see on the TCAS coming at you is. And it is not realistic to ask the controller each and every time you see traffic on the TCAS what the type is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rippey
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:46 pm

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by rippey »

CL-Skadoo! wrote:
Spokes wrote:Sorry, SLOP?
Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure. 1 or 2 mile offset left or right from the Ocean track centreline.
Sure about that? ;). SLOP right of track only
---------- ADS -----------
 
rxl
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:17 am
Location: Terminal 4

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by rxl »

rippey wrote:I know in 601 recurrent I had more than one crew admit they pulled the auto-deploy breaker before long overwater flights - certainly not pointing fingers but I wonder if this is somewhat common practice on the 604?
Pretty frightening incident to say the least.
I fly the CRJ at Jazz and from what I understand, the 100/200 series is almost identical to the -604 Challenger from a systems stand point. From that perspective, I'm trying to get my head wrapped around why any pilot would willfully disable a CRITICAL back-up system like the ADG? In the situation this crew was faced with, if both engines were to core lock and you cannot start the APU right away, once the accumulators deplete without the ADG you are just along for a "quiet" blacked out ride.
I hope that this is not even a "somewhat common" practice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
CL-Skadoo!
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by CL-Skadoo! »

rippey wrote:
CL-Skadoo! wrote:
Spokes wrote:Sorry, SLOP?
Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure. 1 or 2 mile offset left or right from the Ocean track centreline.
Sure about that? ;). SLOP right of track only
Ya, you are correct, I fix.. Ever go left in China? My little birdie did as it was told.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rippey
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:46 pm

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by rippey »

rxl wrote:
rippey wrote:I know in 601 recurrent I had more than one crew admit they pulled the auto-deploy breaker before long overwater flights - certainly not pointing fingers but I wonder if this is somewhat common practice on the 604?
Pretty frightening incident to say the least.
I fly the CRJ at Jazz and from what I understand, the 100/200 series is almost identical to the -604 Challenger from a systems stand point. From that perspective, I'm trying to get my head wrapped around why any pilot would willfully disable a CRITICAL back-up system like the ADG? In the situation this crew was faced with, if both engines were to core lock and you cannot start the APU right away, once the accumulators deplete without the ADG you are just along for a "quiet" blacked out ride.
I hope that this is not even a "somewhat common" practice.
Apparently one crew had an accidental deploy at 30W which ended up in a very noisy and slow ride across the remainder of the pond to an airport where of course you are now aog until the squib is replaced. The logic (used in the loosest way possible) is to pull the breaker to prevent an inadvertent deploy, as you can still pull the manual deploy handle if you actually need it - which of of course is on the checklist for both dual flameout and loss of all generated power. Never did, never would, but that's the story from other challenger drivers who 'knew crews' who would do this on crossings.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rxl
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:17 am
Location: Terminal 4

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by rxl »

rippey wrote: Apparently one crew had an accidental deploy at 30W which ended up in a very noisy and slow ride across the remainder of the pond to an airport where of course you are now aog until the squib is replaced. The logic (used in the loosest way possible) is to pull the breaker to prevent an inadvertent deploy, as you can still pull the manual deploy handle if you actually need it - which of of course is on the checklist for both dual flameout and loss of all generated power. Never did, never would, but that's the story from other challenger drivers who 'knew crews' who would do this on crossings.
That was the only possible excuse for this that I could think of myself. I know that this business is all about risk management but to willfully disable a critical safety system which might just save your bacon when all hell breaks loose -as it did for this unfortunate crew - seems at best unwise.
Modern airplanes are designed and engineered as they are for some very good and well thought out reasons.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3255
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Panama Jack »

pelmet wrote:
Panama Jack wrote:Unfortunate but unfortunately also avoidable, specifically in Indian Ocean oceanic airspace, where I have noticed that with, extremely rare exception, nobody SLOPs (except for me).

I would think it be a matter of good airmanship if A380 crews routinely SLOP, where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake. Especially at night or in IMC, other aircraft may not know what size aircraft those approaching green & red lights or TCAS target are-- but A380 crews know who they are and the havoc they can wreak on other aircraft below them.
I think that SLOPping may be helpful in some areas with the A380 being the one that SLOPs based on the present winds. But....SLOP is for oceanic airspace. I had this problem on an airway over land. It is very nice to say that..."the wise pilot will offset" to avoid the A380 wake turbulence path but how do you know what the traffic you see on the TCAS coming at you is. And it is not realistic to ask the controller each and every time you see traffic on the TCAS what the type is.

You are absolutely correct-- that is why I said "where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake." However, over land (and not over the AFI region where SLOP is also encouraged), what does it take for a situationally-aware A380 skipper to make an ATC request for 1 mile offset for wake-turbulence avoidance? Yeah, he isn't being shaken, but he isn't dumping it down on a bunch of opposite direction traffic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by cncpc »

Jet Jockey wrote:Read about this incident on another forum.

I have to wonder how they regained control of the aircraft with both engines flamed out and no RAT?
Good hands and feet?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6309
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by ahramin »

I'm not sure how useful hands and feet are when they aren't able to move the controls.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Rockie »

pelmet wrote:
Panama Jack wrote:Unfortunate but unfortunately also avoidable, specifically in Indian Ocean oceanic airspace, where I have noticed that with, extremely rare exception, nobody SLOPs (except for me).

I would think it be a matter of good airmanship if A380 crews routinely SLOP, where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake. Especially at night or in IMC, other aircraft may not know what size aircraft those approaching green & red lights or TCAS target are-- but A380 crews know who they are and the havoc they can wreak on other aircraft below them.
I had this problem on an airway over land. It is very nice to say that..."the wise pilot will offset" to avoid the A380 wake turbulence path but how do you know what the traffic you see on the TCAS coming at you is. And it is not realistic to ask the controller each and every time you see traffic on the TCAS what the type is.
In Canada ATC is getting better at warning us when we will pass in the vicinity and underneath a 380. In each case I assess whether or not there is a danger and if there is I get a turn to pass either directly underneath or far enough behind to minimize the risk - and I always thank ATC for the info. I know it's much more difficult in very busy airspace like Europe, NE United States and parts of Asia, but with 1000 separation the standard ATC needs to develop procedures to avoid this situation or we will lose airplanes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by Eric Janson »

Panama Jack wrote:Unfortunate but unfortunately also avoidable, specifically in Indian Ocean oceanic airspace, where I have noticed that with, extremely rare exception, nobody SLOPs (except for me).

I would think it be a matter of good airmanship if A380 crews routinely SLOP, where permitted and based on where the winds would blow their wake. Especially at night or in IMC, other aircraft may not know what size aircraft those approaching green & red lights or TCAS target are-- but A380 crews know who they are and the havoc they can wreak on other aircraft below them.
Everyone I fly with SLOPs across the Indian Ocean. I personally don't see too many aircraft on the airway centreline.

On the routes I fly we have a lot of crossing traffic S of Indonesia and there was a pretty good jolt recently as we crossed the track of an aircraft flying 1000' above us. No idea who it was but it was probably an A380.

Quickest way out if you get caught in wake is to climb then move upwind once you are out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Beware of the A380

Post by complexintentions »

There's something fishy about the whole Challenger story. Not saying it isn't true - who can say - but that's pretty extreme. The A380's been in service since 2007 - ten years - and almost exclusively operated into high-density airspace i.e. LHR and this is the first time I've heard of anything remotely as bad. Either the CL-604 crew were super-unlucky or...?

I also don't believe the A380 is quite the bogeyman for wake turbulence it's being made out to be. I base that on operating on tight spacing for years and years into DXB behind, below, or against them. With constant holding, a trombone STAR pattern, and the largest A380 fleet in the world there were plenty of opportunities to sample the wake characteristics. Note that the comments here think or believe they encountered an A380! This is how aviation legends get started. For what it's worth, the absolute worst I ever got rocked in a heavy turned out to be behind...a company A330. (I was totally surprised when I queried the type, because I did the same thing - assumed it was the A380!) And my actual closest near-death experience with wake turbulence was in a C172 when with a whopping 20-odd hours in my logbook I got too close behind a DCH-8 on final and nearly rolled inverted. (Pant-shitting time. But hey I never did that again!) It's all relative I suppose.

So respect wake turbulence whatever the type, but I wouldn't mythologize the A380.

Unrelated points:

- pulling breakers against procedure is begging Darwin to come calling.
- NATS SLOP is actually centreline, 1 mile, or 2 mile right. The idea is that everyone is doing something random and thus, centreline is also an option. It's all about creating more mathematical randomization. (Comforting, no?)
- I've never seen SLOP left of track, even in China. And in China it's not really SLOP, it's used mainly as a safeguard to their shitty metric RVSM. SLOP is up to 2 miles right, Chinese ATC will routinely assign 3 or 5 miles offset right of track.
- SLOP is also used in non-oceanic airspace, i.e. Africa
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”