Aircraft accident - how and why

I do not own any of the material in this video, nor do I intend to profit from it in any way. It is intended purely to inform pilots how to avoid fatal accidents on take-off.
Full report:
www.dglr.de/publikationen/2014...
Full video (in German):
www.bfu-web.de/videos/Flugunfa...

[@radioace318la]

Happened to me as a solo student in a 172 on a dead calm evening. The only difference I was at 1.5k. I had thought I gave enough room to the landing 757 on his straight in to runway 32 at SHV. I turned base behind him. Lesson Learned. That was 1997. I still have major respect for wake turbulence.

[@michaelmcfeely6588]

I like this video. In a little over two minutes, it gets to the point and teaches me something.

[@gorillaau]

So If you are taxing and due to take off behind a large plan, watch this video again. Seriously though it's a great video. Take care out there.

[@rsharlan]

As a Private aviator I found this to be very interesting and an important reminder to leave reasonable time between aircraft of any type when taking off.

[@geezerhull]

retired atc. I once saw a bonanza encounter wake turbulence from a preceding bonanza. He was barely out of gound effect. the second bonanza got turned every way but loose. calm day. would never have thought a bonanza could produce any significant wake. turbulence. fortunately the second pilot finally got it back under control. one more grey hair for him (and me)

[@fattony8725]

Not trying to be pedantic, however it was Full left wing "Aileron" not "elevator" A very telling video and a wake up call.........

[@dalgetty]

+Fat Tony thanks ! good point

[@bgamelson]

+Fat Tony You mean full aileron, not full left-wing. It does say down elevator.

[@alanwansboro5444]

+Fat Tony I see what you did there, even if you didn't know it.

[@fattony8725]

+Alan Wansboro Your right, I don't get the problem with pointing out the control surface confusion, ie:aileron/elevator. Somebody explain.

[@stevewayne1359]

+Fat Tony he is referring to "wake" up call as in the "wake" of the AN2

[@gerilynntarvin9402]

that occurred to me at an airshow in Monterey Calif. as we were lining up to leave some 200 aircraft we all tried t o be moving as quickly as possible so the next aircraft wold not have to wait. me flying a 1976 Cessna 150, followed a twin Beech off the field, as I got about 300' and still flying in line with the beechcraft (see where I went wrong?) my weak Cessna did a violent roll to the right, beings I am writing this note- I managed to not crash. lesson learned.

[@touristguy87]

yes...how did you manage to not crash?

[@desmills4727]

Yes, serious stuff. And it can come from anywhere.... some time ago before the A380 was officially licensed for use I came across one and figured it had to have bigger wake than officially 'Heavy'. Taking no chances I asked for increased separation. I'm glad I did - 6 months later it got a whole new category - SUPER. Don't assume others (highly qualified ATC included here) know their stuff.... if in any doubt - ask for more space (time). In particular don't be afraid to ask what the official separation is! Looking at the vid I expect (though I haven't checked) that the field involved was 'Information' and so all movements are at 'pilot discretion'.... but that doesn't mean you cant ask (if you don't have it committed to memory) - and lets face it who knew the A-22 was >5T.... but it was a lot bigger than the Robin. Wise after the event, I know.

[@DanasWings]

Thanks for posting this. We usually think of wake turbulence as an issue with large jetliners, but it can happen any time you follow a significantly larger or heavier aircraft. I once got waked by a powered parachute while I was landing a smaller ultralight; fortunately the only damage was to a few tubes and my pride. A PPC isn't a particularly large or heavy aircraft, but it was probably about twice the weight of the plane I was flying, just as the AN-2 was about twice the size of the Robin in the video.

[@AviationNut]

Wow, never in a million years would i of thought that An-2 could disturb air like that. I bet a lot of pilots out there have no idea how dangerous taking off after AN-2 can be. Hopefully no other pilot will make the same mistake after watching this video.

[@Maverickx89]

Any plane disturbs air like that - it is basically proportional to the mass. The question is how many pilots do realize that this biplane is actually almost 6t mtow.

[@12345fowler]

@@Maverickx89 There are other factors as well. To be precise it is proportional to lift created (in turn proportional to weight) The biplane config is not helping also. 4 wings = 4 vortex instead of only 2. Think about the B757 which I think they never new why exactely is creating a very strong wake turbulence. I think they wanted to move it to heavier category because of it.

[@christopherpardell4418]

It’s not caused by ‘lift’- there is no such thing as lift. The wing creates a downward thrust in the air flowing over the wing ( just as the prop creates a thrust perpendicular to it plane of motion. This downward thrust ends at the tip of the wing. Air just above the wing is thrust down, which pulls air in toward the lower pressure from the area beyond the wing at normal pressure. This causes air below that to be pulled up into the lower pressure and the result is a spiraling mass of air of each wing tip, rotating counter clockwise on the right wingtip, and clockwise on left wingtip. All because the wing works by thrusting downward a current of air whose mass exceeds the weight of the aircraft. Action/reaction. No ‘lift’. Propellers prove that wings generate simple thrust.

[@sbreheny]

@@christopherpardell4418 Saying that the air's mass exceeds the weight of the aircraft is misleading. First of all, you are neglecting the time component. The aircraft doesn't move a fixed amount of air, it moves a certain amount of air per time. Secondly, you are ignoring the acceleration of that air. The mass of air moved in a few seconds is much less than the mass of the aircraft - it can still provide enough reaction force to oppose gravity because the acceleration of the air is high. (F=MA - M can be small if A is large and you get the same F)

[@christopherpardell4418]

Sean Breheny Yes- good clarification. I should have said its the THRUST that has to match the weight of the aircraft and it has to match the weight of the aircraft NOW- as in constant thrust over time that matches the aircraft weight. That’s WHY rotation speed increases with loading and density altitude. The acceleration imparted by the wing to the mass of air is not constant, either- changing with air density and speed. But its the key to understanding how wings and propellers function. Acceleration of air perpendicular to the direction of the wing thru the air. IF thrust is higher than weight- the plane ascends. If its lower than weight, the plane descends. Level flight is thrust equilibrium with the aircraft mass.

[@Wellan1575]

Thanks John, to educate young pilots ... and all (without experience). Still hard to imagine until you have lived. And near the ground, no wind, no sun, the whirlwind can last several minutes. Under these weather conditions, take-off and landing do require even more caution ...

[@BRABAZON49]

A thoughtful and insightful description of a light aircraft accident. Understood every word. Hard to believe the AN2 could create such dangerous wake turbulence. Thank you...

[@trevorlynds6869]

Very good video. Great for educating pilots of the dangers of wake turbulence.

[@steveholmes7876]

The best thing about this is the music I saw the smiths many times in my younger days but this music is not appropriate for this post don't make sense

[@Coconut965]

Ich bedanke mich für diese Hilfe! In meiner Flugpiste in der USA fliegt sehr oft genau so eine alte Antinov.

[@heretohear8662]

My instructor always told me, wait a few minutes before taking off after a heavy aircraft ...And when he never practiced it, it used to piss me off. Yeah, it's a great idea, but that's for everybody else ...said his mind.

[@vk2uvp]

This almost happened to me on my First Solo. Instructor got out and told me to make a single circuit. Tower cleared me for take off. Right behind a departing Fokker 27. I was abeam and level with the Tower when my PA-28 rolled violently right - towards the Tower! I had never heard once about wake turbulence at that point and it was a lesson I never forgot. I lost some height, aged 25 years, leveled the wings and continued with a very very very careful circuit. I presume the controller learned a lesson, as did the instructor.

[@JB91710]

Good Visual demonstration. The tower held me back in my Quad City Challenger II for about a minute after a bigger plane took of. I guess that was a good idea!

[@airmuseum]

Excellent warning video, except for mislabeling aileron. Another factor to consider is that the rotating vortices drift downwind and off the runway heading. So less danger if taking off in a crosswind. Also, if your plane can lift off and enter a normal climb at a point before where the departing aircraft has lifted off, you will be above the descending turbulence,

[@alabamaramma]

Wing tip vortices are a constant danger to light aircraft. They are bad enough at altitude but almost always fatal at low altitude or on takeoff.

[@nyalwilliams6768]

Actually it was right aileron, the left one was down and the right one up, which causes banking to the right; that is referred to by pilots as right aileron..

[@wseucan]

Ich habe das Video schon vor längerem gesehen. Seitdem warte ich mindestens 2-3 Min. bevor ich hinter einer großen Maschine abhebe oder lande. Egal, was der Tower mir sagt. Danke für das Video.

[@yellowhammer4747]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PROVIDING US WITH THIS INFORMATION SIR. IT REALLY GRABS YOUR ATTENTION AND PUTS WAKE TURBULENCE INTO PERSPECTIVE. EXCELLENT DEMONSTRATION!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!

[@fpsidiotg6955]

Sorry, But in all my flight training I was taught to hold and watch the departure point of leading aircraft. If your plane is capable of shorter take off leave the runway early and divert a bit. If not wait at at least 2 minutes. Believe it or not, I took off from San Louis Obispo Regional in a true ultralight aircraft behind a passenger jet! The tower had me hold for them to take the active ahead of me. Boy was I nervous when he turned by me and I felt the blast for a second. I held the brakes so hard but it was not as bad as I thought. But anyway, I waited for clearance which took about 90 seconds and then I added about 30 to it before I would take the active. No issues.

[@jimrees1778]

Just curious, what brand/model ultralight were you in?

[@cjfoshu]

How were you able to use this music without getting a copy right strike?

[@edwardlibed2220]

good presentation! ✈️

[@wetzel1628]

I was on final today behind a b767 in a piper cherokee. I thought I gave that guy plenty of room but not enough apparently. I got flipped so hard and so fast I had a greater than 90 degree bank angle 500 ft agl. Scariest shit ever

[@Ricovandijk]

Another good way to experience wake turbulence, go and stand at the approach end of a runway on a calm day, sometimes a minute after a plane lands you can hear a little swishing sound in the air. I’ve heard it several times with a glider at Teuge, a Dc3 in Duxford, and a 737 at schiphol.

[@airgliderz]

Every pilot should take sailplane lessons on tow behind a tow plane and experience wing tip vortices fairly violent turning turbulence. You learn to visualize where the turbulence is and skils if boxing the wake (while on tie you fly araiihnd the tow planes wake staying just putside the edge of the turbulance). A tow plane is flying slow in full climb towing a glider on the end of a rope. Tow plane wings are in a high lift configuration the entire tie generating heavy wing tip vortices. It's a fun pilot skill to nix the tie planes wake while on tow and quite an experience flying into the tow planes wake and recovering while on tow. If you get way out of wack you release the tiw rope or you break the tow rope safety weak link. Good pilot skill to learn and experience.

[@12345fowler]

Hey I towed a fair number of hours and I never knew the glider was taking this into consideration. make sense of course. You are right we climb slow with flaps out so making the most lift during the climb, thus maxxing the wake turbulance also.

[@airgliderz]

@@12345fowler way cool. A tow pilot at our airport was a German WW2 dive bomber pilot. He Ga a hole new meaning to how he pedaled off after release, severe slip all the way to just before touch down, blew the window out of the modified 200hp piper Cub (glider port was in Waverly Colorado at just over 5,000 asl so density altitude matters. He would tow us over the rocky mountains to Steamboat Colorado and to catch mountain waves.

[@josecoss5897]

I am not a pilot but interested in aviation.. so my question is, if an aircraft takes off seconds after another, would it get foiled by the first aircraft wake? or does it depend on the size and engine type of the leading aircraft?

[@richardstone8268]

Rule of thumb, if possible take off before the point of rotation of large heavy aircraft and climb at Vx or best angle (most altitude in the shortest distance) until clear of the flight path and wingtip vortices then make an early turn out when practicable. On landing the pilot of a light aircraft wants to stay above the flight path of a large heavy aircraft and land beyond the point of touch down of that aircraft. Wing tip vortices usually descend down and out at 5 kts and dissipate in about 5 minutes or less but have been known to be present as much as 10 minutes after an aircraft departs or lands depending on wind conditions.

[@jkoz8821]

I think the music fits and almost makes it more eerie...but I also happen to be a smith's fan so maybe I'm bias.

[@mattbowers3541]

I had this happen in clear air just after level-off. At a moderate rate, the plane tried to roll clear over. I evenly brought in full aileron deflection without (seeming) effect. At about 80 degrees roll, it started reversing & we smoothly rolled out level. Lucky I was at altitude & cruise speed! Looking back, kind of fun!? Maybe. :) In my C-182, I must have crossed under an airliner that had taken-off from Reno, NV. I waited a few seconds, then glanced at my wife, and in maximum unemotional theater voice, "Interesting". Keeping the calm allowed her to -not- suddenly decide to never fly again!

[@billyost1479]

That is a lot of weight in need of lift. Not surprised by the vortex it left behind. Bi-wings only adds power to the vortex when the aircraft is creating a lot of air displacement... especially if the aircraft is heavy. Doubtful the huge prop had any effect in the cause though. The fuselage usually dissipates any vortex created by the prop.

[@k9er233]

"Caution Wake Turbulence" - - Always heed what you hear in your headset, when flying out of a tower controlled airfield...

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

In about year 1980, On a practice formation flight take off, I got into the "right side Tornado" of the airplane ahead- at less than say 70 feet away from his wingtip..I wanted to get as close formation as posible..My mistake..We were at less than 300 feet agl at about Vy speed..We both were carrying freight..Both were at almost full gross..I Felt and heard the wind from the left side rolling me to Right side..When quick aileron only could not stop the roll i quickly pushed nose down and full rudder (I practiced spins often) and leveled off over trees at less than 200 feet agl..but I didnt LOC..No more getting that close to other planes wings..Lessons learned..Practicing Spins every month just for fun..(They are not required in USA) saved me from this kind of LOC crash and certain death.... I was a new CPL with less than 300 hours on singles only but aerobatics trained...Just my 2 cents..Spin Training is needed for all pilots..No BS training saved me..

[@Ironwench68]

First thing you learn in aerial application is to always put the nose down and fly under or around obstructions. Putting the nose down may seem odd advice in an environment where one is fifty feet or less above the ground most of the time, but in a heavily loaded aircraft, attempting even a moderate climb is certain death. It's the old saw - airspeed=life. More than once this ingrained, nose-down training has saved my life. After a while, one gets used to flying under and around obstructions that would terrify the average light aircraft pilot. What is really neat is that one never finds a representative of the FAA waiting to permanently ground them at the end of a flight. I too would recommend introductory aerobatic training for all pilots, just to know what it is like to find yourself upside down, in a spin or other unusual attitudes. Besides, aerobatics is the most fun one can have with their pants on in an airplane.

[@Ironwench68]

+Brian Buckmaster Sounds like an excuse to me. The gyro may hit the stops in a spin but, but that is what stops are designed for. Gyros do not tumble in a spin and a tumbling gyro slamming into the stops is what is really hard on bearings and other components. Tumbling happens when one is in really unusual attitudes, like upside down. Snap rolls seem especially hard on the equipment. I flew Citabrias for many hours practicing spins with no caging function on the gyros. The same was true for the Stearman. In fact we did all sorts of aerobatics in the Stearman without caging gyros. Of course its one thing to do occasional aerobatics and something else to have students practicing them day after day. Many schools did not like the stress spins impose on an airframe. The classic C-150 trainer was a very light structure. We once had a guy drill out a number of rivets on a 150 fuselage and it did not even take drilling half the panel before the entire tail assembly twisted and fell off on the ground. The lesson is always support the flying surfaces before doing any major repairs to airframe structures. When you have students doing spins day after day, it can be hard on the airframe, especially the empennage and students are hard enough on aircraft when they are straight and level. Then there is the panic factor, which ironically is why one spins an airplane in the first place. The FAA discovered an appreciable increase in the accident fatality rate when spins were in included in the training syllabus. - Another government Duh! There is a world off difference in under powered aircraft that have to be "flown" around maneuvers and ones that go where the pilot points it. When you go from a Citabria to a Super Chipmunk or a Pitts, the transition is truly breathtaking. Suddenly you realize what airplanes and flying are all about. There are three things I always recommend to those considering being in the air. (1) Aerobatic training in an aircraft with an inverted system (and of course non-tumbling or caged gyros). (2) Soaring - the only flying I would still pay to do these days. (3) Skydiving. It may not cure one's acrophobia, but what a rush. Besides departing a stricken aircraft, like one suffering structural failure during aerobatics, is not a good time to learn how to parachute. The idea is when things go bang in the air, one should be not only familiar, but comfortable with the alternatives.

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

Arch Stanton -Right on..too many Panic Pull upsets by USA GA pilots that were supposed to not panic and take control instead..Many pilots just cannot push the nose down on an upset..they stall the plane instead by Panic Pull..Even airline pilots are Panic Pulling lately.. Pushing nose down when needed can be getting used to if exercises for it are done..Spins are not the only exercises..But they are one the best..Many countries require at least a 2 turn spin for any pilot license (incipient spins) but Not in USA..Even Accelerated stalls are not required in USA..very stupid..and wimpy licenses..See the accident rate due LOC..more than ever..shameful.. The Anti hard maneuvering, pro wimpy pilot training lobby in congress is killing USA GA..We know who they are in Washington..They have blood in their hands from the thousands that have died from their obstruction of complete pilot training via a complete pilot training Syllabus..They lobby to keep the USA GA training regulations to suit them clods very low standards and no hard maneuvering at all..USA had better pilots when spins and accel stalls were required.. simple logic opposed in DC in last 3 decades..

[@patrickshiew6886]

CFITOMAHAWK I

[@Chuck_Carolina]

Oh, I agree so much with this in general aviation in the US today form one point. The legal system has had the aircraft manufacture industry tied up in court over litigation for every fault of a pilot because of the plane. FAA followed suit because of airworthy accreditation and rolled over to the lawyers. Here a pilot's mistake cost folks their lives; and his. No sky cost them there lives; it was over before he took active on the runway and left the ground. No spin training or stall training would have help this flight; doomed from the time the throttle was fire-walled.... PS.... Dump playing music. So stupid. Say something or let the audio speak for itself. It is called KZbin, not You music.... Pictures or video should inform the mind: music soothes the mind. Kind of like a contradiction with people of intelligence. Is it a commercial? We don't want to see it; or are you trying to convey a message or idea? We want to hear it! Get the difference???

[@kimberlypanos489]

They didn't wait long enough after the departing airplane and were too slow in the climb. I also didn't see any left rudder as the roll commenced. I would have dropped the nose slightly and stomped on the left rudder pedal at that moment with full left aileron since the stall will increase on the stalled wing as opposite aileron is inputted.

[@gogogeedus]

or neutralize the ailerons. because the ailerons are obviously not helping the situation, but you dont have a lot of time to consider the best option, I guess not getting into that situation is the best remedy, as you say

[@johnromano3567]

also guys that is not the complete corrective measures for recovery. Full down elevator! Counter intuitive I know, argue about my statement all you like, physics don't lie, always treat this situation like you are in the first quarter of an accelerated stall recovery! get that wing flying again in good air ASAP. the few inches or feet you potentially gain will save your life.

[@djbabbotstown]

Beautiful video. Nice music nice information.

[@Ironwench68]

Wake turbulence, has always been a killer. The problem is induced not by the propeller, but from vortices produced by the wing. The double spiral produced by the wingtips can be seen in the video and the computer simulation. The larger and heavier the aircraft, the more pronounced the wake turbulence. I would not have suspected that a relatively small aircraft like the An-2 could produce this much wake turbulence. The heavy rolling moment generated by the vortices dissipate once the aircraft leaves the ground and is out of ground effect. Typically wingtip vortices dissipate about a wingspan to a wingspan and a half above the ground. This is why ATC requires timed spacing between aircraft departures and arrivals. Prop-wash or slipstream turbulence is something different. This can also be seen in the video. Glider training addresses the problem of flying through an aircraft's slipstream. "Boxing the wake" is standard training where one flies through the tow-plane's wake. Even with light aircraft like a Supercub, it can be rather unpleasant. It is noteworthy that one of the An-2s roles is that of glider tug. Boxing the wake of an An-2 must be interesting to say the least. In any case, large propeller aircraft, can definitely induce a control problem in following aircraft. Apparently either one was beyond the capability of a light aircraft like the Robin to overcome. The difference is wake turbulence can linger for several minutes, whereas prop-wash/slipstream turbulence dissipates almost immediately after passage. Again, I am surprised at the distance at which the slipstream turbulence is encountered by the Robin. Yet, while the prop-wash may have been a contributing factor, it was the wake turbulence that caused this accident, not the prop-wash from the An-2. It is interesting to note an An-2 operating out of this grass strip. While the aircraft is quite capable of doing so, one wonders what it is doing at this small grass strip. The An-2 is an expensive aircraft to operate. Therefore it is unusual to find one used for personal pleasure flying. Might this one be used for skydiving? The aircraft climbing out looks more like a high wing Cessna than an An-2. There is another relatively large, radial engine, yellow aircraft parked on the strip that looks like it might be a Yak. If there is a moral to this video, it's stay away from the rear end kick of an AN-2 "Colt"!

[@dalgetty]

agreed (pretty awesome ratio of comment to reply, here)

[@observer1242]

I have been on an airliner that flew through wake turbulence of the airliner that departed in front of us in a long line of planes lined up to depart O'Hare. When you fly through it, as a passenger, its not that pleasant an experience. Not only the turbulence you feel but the yaw sensation is very uncomfortable as you pass through it at about 800 feet up in a 737 nose up on departure.

[@12345fowler]

Are you sure about the rolling moment dissipate once the aircraft leaves the ground out of ground effect ? That make no sense at all. So you tell me that a 747 at 100 m after lift off doesn't generate wake turbulence ?

[@airgliderz]

Love the music, adds a lot to the video experience. Turns a dry accident report into a more interesting captivating report.

[@beckysmith7142]

I saw that happen one time, but it was a ultra light. It got high enough that it rolled over some trees and landed upside down in a bunch if thorn bushes. The plane never touched the ground. I got more scarps on me trying to the pilot than he did.

[@deanVetUk]

hang on a minute. video states 'the pilot was applying full left wing down elevator to correct the right-hand rotation'. i understand the simple translation issue Elevator Aileron but i don't understand why people are saying 'Left hand aileron down? surely to counter the RH turbulence induced roll we want right aileron down (turning yoke to left) to increase the lift of the RH wing? ( + LH rudder + quick reaction). Even so it looks like the forces were too strong for the unfortunate occupants and hence the video is still a good warning reminder.

[@asifmahmood4359]

After takeoff if you encounter roll never ever use ailerons to avoid this dangerous phenomenon called ADVERSE AILERON YAW, please read yourself what it is. The technique is initially a rudder, with lowering of nose/pitch, assisted by little ailerons till you are out of wake turbulence, go upwind or takeoff before his/her rotation point and stay above his flight path but as a procedure delay your takeoff time rule. You can use crosswind after takeoff as well. This accident could have been avoided in this same environment. Problem is, our regulatory agencies are not concern about primary and basic flying in our flying schools. Most of the flying instructors have low experience, low paid. Flight safety starts from flying school, these schools should be at par with MIT, Harvard, Yale, or Berkeley. The result is poorly trained pilots flying highly educated passengers, depending their safety on them.

[@bakerrv]

I once took off behind a tri-pacer in a cherokee, as a flight of 2. We had a slight cross wind, I was on the downwind side of the tri-pacers flight path and flew into his wake turbulence, rolled 90 degrees to the right and it took full deflection of the ailerons to stop it and luckily flew out of it as it was blown across the runway. Lesson learned, should have been on the up wind side of the tri-pacer.

[@dalgetty]

what an experience...

[@chrisbaker2903]

Would up elevator have helped turn out of the wake turbulence quicker? (Yes I know the elevator is the part behind the horizontal stabilizer... LOL). I've never flown a full size aircraft but I've built and flown radio control aircraft for about 55 years. Non pilots may not know that in a normal turn using the elevator can and does help turn the aircraft. I always used all three controls in synch to properly turn and perform other maneuvers as well.

[@snoobeagle]

Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 4 ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 149039

[@markstainton9080]

Looked like there was a 2 second long slight bank that should have given the pilot a chance to put in some rudder. I was taught to favour rudder over aileron at low speed and low altitude and riding turbulence. Climb out looked quiet steep ( showing off ??), with four on board (and full tanks ??) airspeed would be low and a tip stall on right wing almost inevitable. Does Robin 400 have slats ?. Was it within maximum take off weight. Was Balance correct.

[@dalgetty]

good point no MTOW problems flagged in the enquiry, no slats

[@ZhihengCao]

What if it is a C172 that took off 39 seconds earlier can you take off after that in another C172?

[@kenclark9888]

The wait time is always a good plan. But if the wind is right some times the vortices will be gone faster. Always use caution with it, better safe than sorry

[@timothyhudson7999]

I am "liking" this video only because there is no "damn that sucks" button to click on. So sorry for the people that died.

[@floundericiouswa5694]

RIP I would complain about the music if it were interfering with an underlying meaningful voice or audio track...but since it's an accompaniment to an otherwise mute video (actually the original is a german voiceover), I think you could just mute it if you don't like it.

[@1hornet1]

This has happened to me in a C-172. Thankfully I was expecting it and had altitude. I was not at all happy at how fast the plane rolled on me.

[@MikeMiller-fc2cc]

Mr. Maxwell, It is evident the explanation of the cause of this crash is your own. investigators DO NOT USE THE TERMINOLOGY THAT YOU HAVE. the part you quote is not an elevator, the parts proper name is aileron. Elevators are mounted on the REAR, The HORIZONTAL STABILIZER. BEFORE YOU COMMENT LEARN THE TERMINOLOGY OF AIRCRAFT.

[@c7ry]

This is generally true, but my opionon here is that the Light rotated well before the Medum, maybe 1 min after, so in any case I don't think wake turbulence is the cause here. However judging from the TO attitude I more prone to think that the guy just pulled a little to much at rotation and simply reached critical alpha

[@tattrie17]

Yes this is good. One of the better ways of showing the danger. I have been behind King Airs and Citations before prior to takeoff. Luckily I am in an old c172 so my pre flight checklist gives me the time to avoid the wake turbulence. I think I might wait a bit longer now. Especially if the wind is next to none. Great video, did the pilot/passengers survive?

[@tazman8697]

3 died One survived.

[@Valmidenio]

5,500 kg: LIGHT category for wake turbulence. To be considered HAVY it must be above 136,000 kg.

[@mikebreen2890]

The music is so inappropriate.

[@glintbreightly3871]

Naw, it's awesome. Great pick. Has a dreamy background drone that goes well with the slow rolling arc of the airplane and the billowing smoke during the follow up tests.

[@rrh2918]

i was in a 172 cessna with my instructor at about 20 some hours. we hit a thermal that rolled us vertical so fast i didn't know what happened. the instructor just sat there, the plane eventually leveled out all by itself, it terrified me so bad i don't know what i would have done had he not been with me. honestly i don't think i would be here today. just thought i would share that. and yep, i'm still flying, 152, quicksilver 2, and a challenger 2, i'm currently in.

[@dalgetty]

sometimes over-reaction is the killer (rio to paris, for example)

[@12345fowler]

I once came back from a solo flight in the alps. I explained to my instructor I had been terrfied by the turbulence when descending to my local airport. No sh** that was some heavy turbulence and I didn't even knew that could exist in that magnitude. My instructor calmy answered to me : relax son so far we have never ever see a turbulence going down below the ground. He was right of course.

[@marshallhyasi6213]

Great video .. thanks !

[@dutchvcc]

An2 is a great plane, but if you fly behind in takeoff landing or cruise its kills you. I have seen and experienced it force

[@e30kitty]

No rudder was applied? Could the use of rudder maybe have prevented this? I guess not -.-

[@triplanelover]

very enlightening; so sorry those poor people perished. rip

[@gomphrena-beautifulflower-8043]

triplanelover • one (of four occupants) survived the initial crash, but unsure if (s)he survived long-term. Auf weidershen 3, RIP.

[@cowboy6591]

Where did you get that information? The people posting this shamelessly have reported squat on the injuries.

[@bryanj5325]

The "Robin" must have pretty minimal roll authority to have an AN-2 cause that event. Though watching the event, it pointed out a potential last ditch solution. If you find yourself in wake turbulence and approaching 80, 90-degs bank at low altitude (i.e., you are out of options), might try to pull and try to get out of the wake laterally. I was always taught to counter the wake turbulence roll with aileron only. Clearly, that sometimes isn't enough. You're going to end up cartwheeling or diving inverted into the runway at that point anyway, might try pulling as you're approaching 80-degs or so. I'll have to simulate that at altitude and see what happens...

[@12345fowler]

Bryan, the DR400 has very good roll authority. Actually it flies like a litte fighter, very light on all axis. I did few dozens hours towing sailplanes in it and I used to fly very tight circuit to stay in the sailplane pattern box, while descending at redline speed. These folks had no chance given the force of the vortex. All this talk about elevator is BS. So close to the ground there is nothing you can do, especially if you don't expect it in the first place.

[@reasonitout9087]

Aircraft generate the most wake turbulance on take off. As P.IC. you should follow your training specifcally as it relates to waiting.

[@SKYWALKERD]

Hey i just want to know if they survived or not?!

[@gdeck100]

Always a good idea, whether on takeoff or approach to fly upwind and/or above the flight path of preceding aircraft.

[@varrjames186]

Does anybody know the song that's playing?

[@JaleelJohanson62]

Wow! Learn something new everyday.

[@SirScopes021]

The testpilot was Rolf Hankers not Rudolf Hankers. He is one of the kindest guys I know in aviation!

[@kareemnagy7613]

Thank you sir. no need for music.

[@jtuttle11]

This is why in the United States at controlled airports there is a 'Required Interval of '3Minutes' between aircraft arrivals and departures. This time interval gives the wingtip vortexes time to dissipate safely allowing the following aircraft to operate normally.

[@sgthop]

+JAMES TUTTLE It's actually not required, just recommended, and it's usually two minutes. A pilot can void wake turbulence delays if in his judgement they can depart safely.

[@Mgp-Rc]

+sgthop Also depends on the type of Aircraft in front of you. Common sense really

[@sgthop]

+MgpMontville Yeah, obviously a 747 isn't going to have to worry about taking off after a 152. But, I might void wake turbulence if I were following the 747 in the 152, also, because a 152 will be off the ground much, much sooner than a 747 and will be able to turn out before encountering the wake turbulence.

[@digranni128]

muito bem explicado.

[@garthrichert5256]

Sad thing. Was is perhaps a turn stall ?

[@brian6779]

how long should we wait on the runway then? lets say we have a 747 just took off and you are a cessna 172 next in line

[@RomeoJulietCharlie]

+Brian Cheung 2 minutes, unless you're taking off from an intersection, in which case it's 3 minutes. (This applies for a light aircraft behind a medium or heavy airliner. It'd be 3 minutes behind a super (ie. A380), or 4 minutes from an intersection)

[@12345fowler]

Been thinking about one thing. The vortex are proportional to lift beeing generated (the more lift the stronger the vortex) Here you can see the vortex beeing created by the A-2 just flying trough in level flight. Which ssems to be quite strong as experienced in the reconstitution test. Now imagine a departing A-2, possibly loaded, i.e. more lift needed to be created by the wings. Vortex would be even stronger.

[@chrisbaker2903]

Also the heavier the wing loading the stronger the vortices because of the higher angle of attack to get the needed lift.

[@reedsilvesan2197]

wow very informative video

[@pomegranitejason]

This music scares me.

[@TheDirtflyer]

Never take off , right after a Bigger aircraft twice your size . Wait at least 5 minutes or turn to either side of his take off point. Good reminder for active pilots.

[@insertstupidserialnumberhe2727]

Before watching I thought the thumbnail showed a navi-green aircraft turning towards the camera.

[@EasternMerchant]

did they survive?

[@rags417]

There is no way that could be a SOP but what would have happened if the pilot of the Robin had tried to continue with the roll ? He would have lost altitude but maybe could have powered right through the vortex. Again, no solution I know because there simply would be no time to a) realise what was going on, b) apply the full 360 degree roll and c) reorient after the roll without crashing.

[@peterleiza4351]

This is why you should have spacing between departures

[@FLYSUBS89]

Good video. I learned something from it And I like the music too.

[@4dhoneybee107]

interesting choice of music

[@billroberts9182]

I took off too soon after a Coast Guard C-130 did a touch and go. I was at 250 ft above the ground when, in the blink of an eye, my supercub rolled to the left a full 90 degrees! I remember dirt and camping stuff shifting in the airplane. Had I gone upside down I would have been killed since I don't have "upset" or aerobatic training. Lesson learned!

[@UncleBoratagain]

Happened at Hucknall a long time ago. Antonov followed by Robin. Robin written off. Occupants survived

[@12345fowler]

So that makes this An-2 a real killer (Great Aircraft BTW)

[@RicardoPereira-mk3zt]

alguem poderia me dizer o nome da musica do video

[@gdd29]

Is this what happened to American Airlines too that took off and went down just after JAL heavy 747 from Kennedy in 2001?

[@tristandoran601]

There was turbulence but the main cause of that accident was the copilot’s aggressive use of the rudder caused the rear stabiliser to fail catastrophically.

[@alisaanne9543]

I was in final in my Jodel, low and slow, and although I had no sense that I would run in to wake turbulence, I did as it rolled me to starboard almost upside down with full opposite aileron. Fortunately, I was able to recover, but I did a field goal on the high school football field beside the runway. I needed an underwear change after that one!

[@12345fowler]

If anything like this happens to me, I would better be in a Jodel (DR-400) than any lemon U.S. generic trainer like Tomahawk or C152. That think flies like a little fighter, with very good stick response.

[@LorddGray]

That would do it. And the slower the aircraft the worse the effect is. I flew a Beach Sport into the wake of a 185 on final once and it was a bit of a rodeo; felt like my right wing just lost all lift.

[@jmp.t28b99]

BEECH SPORT. Wing Tip Vortices are known about by all pilots and are a part of Basic Flight Training.

[@Bravo21]

Thanks for this, because the more you know ...

[@flyingcatsofthesalishsea.]

And the song???

[@jonesbugattis]

Shoot! some times you just get dead. For twenty years I flew as my Dad's copilot. Only once we felt the wake of another plane in a big way. We were in a Baron on final for Miami Int'l just after sunset (1986ish). In one second we were almost upside down. My Dad made the recovery seem easy. We never talked about it. It was bad, but it was done, and we and the airplane moved on. just about shitting myself only remembering it..

[@jkoz8821]

it's amazing how the Robin aircraft literally drops out of the sky in a severe right bank at altitude and speed. it had to be quite the ride for the test pilot before he recovered control.... did the ppl people in the actual accident survive?

[@12345fowler]

Nothing amazing once at 90° on the edge the wings do not produce any lift upward so you just fly like a catapulted stone and guess where the stone would be headed next ? The real bugger issue is that the vortex isn't only powerful it is big enough to engulf the whole wings of the DR400. I would guess same vortex velocity but applied to only one wing the DR400 would have enough authority to counter it. IF both wings are in the same vortex then you are in for big sh1te

[@multiio1424]

4 people were on the plane, 3 dead, one severely injured.

[@tisoy909]

Rotation before V1 or rotation in wake.

[@jimimeldhedegaardkristense6066]

5500kg is not "heavy".... (according to ICAO), the weight of an AN-2 is only categorised as LIGHT, same as the aircraft behind. So even Air Traffic Control will not apply more separation between you guys.

[@Stephen2846]

Sorry. It looks like an early rotation, in a loaded plane, departure stall of the right wing along with too high angle of attack. Not sure of the altitude or temperature, but they could have also been a factor.

[@12345fowler]

You have no clue

[@robertjonasson2527]

Wing tip vortices are very dangerous.I often took off behind jet airliners when learning to fly and I waited until the turbulance blew off the runway.

[@12345fowler]

Well in a GA aircraft you would be in the air well short of where the jetliner is taking off. But they climb way faster so you could eventually come up to his wake turbulence if you fly straight or same path than him. I believe in most airports ops they let small GA aircraft deprt behind jetliners but they turn them out quite quickly after take-off just for this same reason, and also to avoid having another jetliners having to wait hours because you are only doing 90Kts climb speed and 1000 FPM at best.

[@stevearizona521]

I was on a Boeing 737, cruising at 35,000 ft, when we got caught in a wingtip vortex from a Boeing 747 that was 13 miles ahead of us (the pilot told me the distance). Within a second, we were on our right side and the pilot had to roll back hard to the left to correct. Obnoxious golfers from Arizona State University were standing and drinking booze in the aisle at the time. They got tossed head over heal, while we were all belted in our seats. It was funny as hell.

[@Stephen2846]

Aileron's are on the wings and are controlled on both wings at the same time. Example: If the left wing Aileron is down, the right wing Aileron will be up. The Ailerons are either neutral or each Aileron will be the opposite of the other. The term "Elevator" is no longer favored in aviation; the new term is "Pitch Control."

[@rbrooks2007]

Even then, the 'elevators' are at the tail of the aircraft and as you say, control pitch.

[@danielhartin7680]

Well, you learn something new every day. I thought the generation of wake turbulence was only a factor with passenger jets.