Waive the Wake Turbulence

[mtsu_av8er]

I've been rocked by wake turbulence, I've waived the wait, and if I were flying a Baron or 210 around, and the rick could be reduced, I'd waive it again. There is NO danger if a heavy takes off ahead of me, and I take an immediate departure followed by a turn-out.

Perfectly safe.

 

[butt]

Butt, seriously, how does one go from (1.5 years ago) asking about what the military has for you to questioning an Air Force fighter pilot about his aeronautical knowledge?

What that Air Force officer acts like wake turbulence is an invisible ghost force that can't be predicted. If he really is Air Force officer, then he most likely does know all about wake turbulence, but none of his posts in this thread lead me to believe that. (except for the last one he made above)

Also, why do people always dig up old posts I make as a way to "humiliate" me or something? What does me asking about the Air Force 18 months ago have to do with wake turbulence? It seems like such a cheap way win an argument...

 

[Hacker15e]

What that Air Force officer acts like wake turbulence is an invisible ghost force that can't be predicted.

No, I never said that. I said 'what's the rush?'. I tempered that statement with a couple of hours worth of my own experience in which I've been battered around by wake turbulence and have learned to respect it rather than scoff it. I followed that up by saying wondering why people felt their time was so critical that they couldn't wait the allotted time just to be certain it wasn't going to be a factor.

If he really is Air Force officer, then he most likely does know all about wake turbulence, but none of his posts in this thread lead me to believe that. (except for the last one he made above)

Situational awareness cannot be taught, only graded.

All that being said, it's been an interesting thread of discussion.

 

[mjg407]

Hacker, one thing that you don't yet realize, and will when one day you leave the service, is that in the military, Safety is the priority, period. Nothing trumps it. Drop the safety card down, all bets are off. It's something I miss. You get to the civilian world, you can drop the safety word but it doesn't have the backing of a 4 star who doesn't care if you burnt 800 gallons extra of JP-8. The civilian world is not run by pilots, it's run by businessmen. All squadrons/wings/CAGs etc are run by aviators. So I can totally see why some would look for ways to waive the wake turbulence hold if they are able to abide by rest of the wake turbulence pitfalls.

 

[JEP]

What that Air Force officer acts like wake turbulence is an invisible ghost force that can't be predicted. If he really is Air Force officer, then he most likely does know all about wake turbulence, but none of his posts in this thread lead me to believe that. (except for the last one he made above)

Also, why do people always dig up old posts I make as a way to "humiliate" me or something? What does me asking about the Air Force 18 months ago have to do with wake turbulence? It seems like such a cheap way win an argument...

Digging up old posts is not done to humiliate anyone. We only know people here by the information that they provide. When people make statements we can only take them at face value. Shoot, I have been burned myself by posts that people dig up.

What does your question 18 months ago have to do with wake turbulence? Well if you ask me, a lot. 18 months ago you asked about what the military has to offer you (shows your experience level at the time) to questioning the knowledge of an Air Force officer (whose experience is well documented here). That seems a little strange and a bit arrogant on your part.

Lastly it is not about winning an argument. There was no argument to win. Your experience is laid out as you have done so and the same for Hacker as well. We know what his level of experience is and for anyone other than a select few here (current/former military pilots), it is hard to question it.

 

[butt]

Situational awareness cannot be taught, only graded.
All that being said, it's been an interesting thread of discussion.

That was a response to this that you said:

I can't think of any compelling reason, outside of a Lifeguard flight, that someone in a GA aircraft would HAVE to go so bad that waiting a minute or two would be unbearable.

The compelling reason is that sometimes there isn't going to be a wake turbulence hazard. You kept implying that in every situation where a controller makes you wait, its critical to safety that you wait. And no one is saying a three minute wait is "unbearable". "Annoying" more than anything else. Why sit there for three minutes while burning fuel when you know a safe takeoff can be made?

What if ATC had a rule that you had to wait 3 minutes after any kind of plane takes off, and they made you, in a heavy 747 wait three minutes after a C172 takes off? Are you going to wait the whole three minutes because "safety is paramount"? Are you going to not give a crap about the long line of waiting aircraft behind you because "they don't care about my safety, only I do"?

 

[butt]

What does your question 18 months ago have to do with wake turbulence? Well if you ask me, a lot. 18 months ago you asked about what the military has to offer you (shows your experience level at the time) to questioning the knowledge of an Air Force officer (whose experience is well documented here). That seems a little strange and a bit arrogant on your part.

I still don't see how me asking about the military a long time ago has anything to do with this discussion. Maybe if this thread was about military procedures of something, or if the thread 18 months ago showed that I knew squat about wake turbulence (which would still be bunk considering it was 1.5 years ago). Why does the fact that the guy is a military person have to do with wake turbulence? I don't judge people based on who they are. I judge what they say based on what they say. They guy could be a student pilot for all I care. I'm not arguing against his experiences or anything.

If I found a thread you made 1.5 years ago where you asked about planting trees, would it be arrogant of you to argue against me in this thread, if I turned out to be a master gardener?

 

[BajtheJino]

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand I can't take anyone serious that is too lazy to fill out (even nonsense) on the "About Me" portion of their personal info.

 

[mjg407]

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand I can't take anyone serious that is too lazy to fill out (even nonsense) on the "About Me" portion of their personal info.

Lol, you know he's from KAMA....:nana2:

 

[JEP]

I still don't see how me asking about the military a long time ago has anything to do with this discussion. Maybe if this thread was about military procedures of something, or if the thread 18 months ago showed that I knew squat about wake turbulence (which would still be bunk considering it was 1.5 years ago). Why does the fact that the guy is a military person have to do with wake turbulence? I don't judge people based on who they are. I judge what they say based on what they say. They guy could be a student pilot for all I care. I'm not arguing against his experiences or anything.

If I found a thread you made 1.5 years ago where you asked about planting trees, would it be arrogant of you to argue against me in this thread, if I turned out to be a master gardener?

The fact that he is a military fighter pilot speaks volumes about his experience. You cannot run to the fbo and rent a AF fighter plane for a few trips around the pattern.

If you cannot see the correlation between the experience of a fighter pilot and his aeronautical knowledge (awareness of wake turbulence), then there isn't much else to say.

 

[Hacker15e]

Hacker, one thing that you don't yet realize, and will when one day you leave the service, is that in the military, Safety is the priority, period. Nothing trumps it. Drop the safety card down, all bets are off. It's something I miss. You get to the civilian world, you can drop the safety word but it doesn't have the backing of a 4 star who doesn't care if you burnt 800 gallons extra of JP-8. The civilian world is not run by pilots, it's run by businessmen. All squadrons/wings/CAGs etc are run by aviators. So I can totally see why some would look for ways to waive the wake turbulence hold if they are able to abide by rest of the wake turbulence pitfalls.

Excellent point, thank you.

 

[Texasspilot]

I used to waive it all the time leaving AMA and LBB in 310's and 402's. If you can get an early turn out then theres no harm.

For me running late sucked on some freight runs simply because our POI at the time said if you are going to go over 14 hours of duty you had to shut it down no matter what.

Didn't matter if it was t-storms, atc delays, whatever. There was no reason to go over 14 and if you were enroute you had better have it on the ground and secured by the time that 14 hour mark hit.

The POI was incorrect but she was the one handing out letters of warning and violations so......

 

[butt]

The fact that he is a military fighter pilot speaks volumes about his experience. You cannot run to the fbo and rent a AF fighter plane for a few trips around the pattern.

If you cannot see the correlation between the experience of a fighter pilot and his aeronautical knowledge (awareness of wake turbulence), then there isn't much else to say.

OK. I get it, he is a fighter pilot, he has lots of experience. Thats great. What does this have to do with anything? What are you trying to prove here?

He kept posting as if to say that the only way to mitigate wake turbulence is to wait three minutes. This, from my perspective and experience, is wrong. I replied accordingly. I don't care if hes a fighter pilot, a student pilot or whatever. Why does that change anything? Is there a rule here where you have to look up the person's background and make sure they're not more experienced than you before you're allowed to reply?

I'm also still wondering why me asking about the military 1.5 years ago has anything to do with this thread, other than as a lame attempt to frown me.

 

[Hacker15e]

OK. I get it, he is a fighter pilot, he has lots of experience. Thats great. What does this have to do with anything?

The point in question is the quasi-condescending "instruction" you were providing me on how to be a professional pilot and wondering if I knew what wake turbulence really was. When you don't know your audience (or target) it doesn't show a lot of SA to talk that way.

Personally, it didn't really bother me, but it's just not a courteous way to post on a forum.

He kept posting as if to say that the only way to mitigate wake turbulence is to wait three minutes. This, from my perspective and experience, is wrong.

No, dude, that's not what I posted. Let me repeat...again...that what I questioned was why anyone was in such a hurry that they felt like they couldn't afford to wait the couple minutes just to be sure.

 

[mjg407]

Excellent point, thank you.

np, it's all pretty new to me too.

 

[ppragman]

I have to pass under and behind a lot of heavies on the way out of Anchorage everyday. I usually cross right under KANSY which is the final for the ILS 14 into anchortown. Normally, if you pass under their path by no less than 20-30 seconds, the wake hasn't had a chance to descend yet, and your golden. If however, you pass under or behind a 757 or a 767, be ready. You can see the wake hitting the water in the inlet with those tings, its amazing. I widen out about two to three miles if the controller says "traffic is a heavy 757 on 10 mile final to runway 14" otherwise I go underneath usually if I can time it right.