Bonanza Man wrote:He needs 4 miles in trail increasing to 5 when the heavy crosses the numbers. The aircraft should never have been turned over to the tower as the required separation did not exist at that time.

Ummm...did I not say he was reported to have 4 miles seperation when handed off to the tower? I fail to see the problem between that and what you have stated.

By the way, here is the METAR for that approach: KADW 182055Z AUTO 18014KT 10SM FEW140 24/07 A2989 Are we really to believe that the best pilots our armed forces have to offer the president could not maintain visual seperation trailing a C-17 within 4 miles on the same approach in these conditions?

I just don't see the problem with making the aircraft go around when the seperation got questionable. What would you suggest they should have done? This is the reason that go-arounds exist in the first place. What would you say if I told you this was part of the conversation? "Report the airport in sight for a visual approach." "Airport in sight." "Cleared visual approach, caution wake turbulence following heavy C-17."

It was not a loss of separation on a visual approach, it was loss of wake turbulence separation and had nothing to do with a "near miss". good old media.... The pilot can request to waive "non heavy" separation but that is one of the things ATC cannot initiate, of course that would not have applied behind a C17 anyway. We took off 8 miles behind a 777 a couple of years ago and got rolled pretty good climbing out of about 1500' in a G2.

I just don't see the problem with making the aircraft go around when the seperation got questionable. What would you suggest they should have done? This is the reason that go-arounds exist in the first place. What would you say if I told you this was part of the conversation? "Report the airport in sight for a visual approach." "Airport in sight." "Cleared visual approach, caution wake turbulence following heavy C-17."

I am quite certain, it is the pilots responsibility to keep adequate separation for wake turbulence under VFR conditions. However, not sure on IFR flights. in my limited experience, even under IFR flight, but VMC conditions....when traffic is called out. It is visually confirmed and expected to keep separation. Nothing wrong with a go around, thats what they are for! I am quite sure that the controller gave an estimate of 4-5 miles, upon hand off to the other controller, because the radar is not exact. it is an estimate.
I couldn't agree with you more Lowflybye. As a Pilot flying in and around Class Charlie airspace in Charleston, SC, this is exactly what you would hear when trailing a C-17 or heavy airliner. I remember being on approach in a C-150 maybe 1550lbs gross, trailing a C-17. Thinking to myself, damn I hope I dont get flipped upside down and into a horrible fiery death spiral. I was scared to death, because I had heard so much about wake turbulence and how it is invisible and the winds can carry it places. The best advice pilots were giving me, was stay clear, well clear. So I requested another runway, as to not fly through or into the approach path taken by the C-17 in front of me.

This is just a non-educated sensationalized media story. I am really appalled at by fox news, i thought they usually have pretty accurate technical reports/analysis.

lowflybye wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:He needs 4 miles in trail increasing to 5 when the heavy crosses the numbers. The aircraft should never have been turned over to the tower as the required separation did not exist at that time.

Ummm...did I not say he was reported to have 4 miles seperation when handed off to the tower? I fail to see the problem between that and what you have stated.

By the way, here is the METAR for that approach: KADW 182055Z AUTO 18014KT 10SM FEW140 24/07 A2989 Are we really to believe that the best pilots our armed forces have to offer the president could not maintain visual seperation trailing a C-17 within 4 miles on the same approach in these conditions?

I just don't see the problem with making the aircraft go around when the seperation got questionable. What would you suggest they should have done? This is the reason that go-arounds exist in the first place. What would you say if I told you this was part of the conversation? "Report the airport in sight for a visual approach." "Airport in sight." "Cleared visual approach, caution wake turbulence following heavy C-17."

It's not that visual couldn't have been used, it certainly could have. But the controller didn't initiate it therefore he had a deal. If you have four miles of separation at the time of the freq change to tower just how are you going to increase that to 5 by the time the heavy cross the numbers? The answer is you can't with those two aircraft. Had the second aircraft been a piston single or twin getting another mile is easy. Not possible with jets. With jets you have to start out with 6-7 miles in this situation because as the front jet slows first you get compression. The mistake was made a lot earlier than most realize, not just when the second aircraft was on a 4 mile final.
As to your question that was probably the situation but until the trailing aircraft reports the front aircraft in sight, is instructed to follow it and accepts that, the approach controller is responsible for the required separation. That's the very definition of IFR flight. Reporting the airport in sight will only get you the visual approach. Somebody has to be responsible for the separation between the two aircraft. Until the trailing aircraft accepts that responsibility it remains with ATC.

lownslow79 wrote: I am quite sure that the controller gave an estimate of 4-5 miles, upon hand off to the other controller, because the radar is not exact. it is an estimate.

The radar is accurate to never more than a 500 foot horizontal error. Usually it's less than 1/10th of that. If the radar was not accurate the targets would jump all over the place with each sweep, it does not do this. It is checked against a fixed target every time a controller sits down. In any event there is no estimated separation with a radar controller. It is what the radar says it is, updated every 6 seconds. Every radar hit is recorded as a lat/lon which can then be printed out or seen on a computer and a line drawn to connect the dots. When a plane is flying straight and level the radar plot is straight also.

porterjet wrote:It was not a loss of separation on a visual approach, it was loss of wake turbulence separation and had nothing to do with a "near miss". good old media.... The pilot can request to waive "non heavy" separation but that is one of the things ATC cannot initiate, of course that would not have applied behind a C17 anyway.

It was most certainly a loss of separation, it does not matter why the required number was 5 miles, just that it was. The same goes for you in your spam can behind, say a 737. It's 3 miles increasing to 4 at the threshold. If the controller sees he's going to lose the required separation he can initiate you getting the heavy(or large) in sight so you can maintain visual. What you are describing is for takeoffs.

NO, what I am saying is that the ultimate 3 miles "near miss" separation was not the problem, had the preceding airplane been another 737 there would not have been a problem. The 737 was sent around because the required 5 miles in trail of a heavy jet was not there and was not going to be there. VMC or IMC that requirement exists.
My pointing out our experience happened to be on takeoff and was merely a "been there done that" experience to be passed on and that 5 miles may not be enough to keep from getting a free look at the road directly under the airplane.

With all the technicality's of go around procedures, wake turbulence separation, visual separation, 3 miles, 5 miles or 19 yards the perception remains:
I always wonder what the heck is being covered up, when banalities like this one become major national news.
Hence: Buckle up, America!

The guy in the tower must have been a little pissed at the radar operator. I wonder if they exchange hate mail?

NTSB Identification: OPS11IA499A
14 CFR Armed Forces
Incident occurred Monday, April 18, 2011 in
Aircraft: , registration:
Injuries: Unavailable

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On Monday, April 18, 2011 at 5:06pm: EXEC1F/B737 inbound to Andrews Air Force Base (ADW) heading 220 to join the ILS runway 19 approach descending to 4000 feet. (Reach) RCH3115/C17 (Heavy) was vectored in front of EXEC1F for the ILS runway 19 approach. Closest Proximity 2.94 miles.

Both EXEC1F and REACH3115 were landing at Andrews Air Force Base and radar vectored for an ILS approach to runway 19L. REACH3115 was a heavy jet and EXEC1F was a B737. The required separation is 5 miles in trail for wake turbulence separation.

The radar controller at Potomac TRACON vectored EXEC1F within 3.08 miles of the heavy jet and advised the pilot he was 4 miles in trail. The radar controller advised the pilot of EXEC1F to use caution for wake turbulence, cleared the aircraft for the ILS approach and instructed the pilot to contact Andrews Tower.

As soon as EXEC1F contacted the tower, the tower controller asked ECEX1F to make "S" turns on final to get additional spacing. The pilot of EXEC1F did comply with the request, however, the spacing had continued to deteriorate to 2.94 miles. The tower controller then instructed EXEC1F to "go around" because the spacing was not adequate for landing. The weather was reported to be Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC).

I am going to join Bonanza Man on this one. From my limited point of view and given the airport, the area that controllers were controlling, I would expect the controllers to issue accurate instructions. Pilots trying to estimate how far two planes are apart from each other strictly by visual reference is very difficult. If TCAS was on board, that might have made things easier on the pilots, BUT, I still blame the controllers, especially the approach controller. The only thing that made this incident a news event was the notariety of the passenger, would have been the same if Palin, McCain, Lindsay Lohan, the Pope, Olbermann, etc would have been on board and the never ending search for the "next story".

For the layman what you can deduce from the below report was the error occurred as soon as the controller put the heavy in front of the 737. This probably happened 15-20 miles, at least, from the airport.

porterjet wrote:NTSB Identification: OPS11IA499A
14 CFR Armed Forces
Incident occurred Monday, April 18, 2011 in
Aircraft: , registration:
Injuries: Unavailable

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On Monday, April 18, 2011 at 5:06pm: EXEC1F/B737 inbound to Andrews Air Force Base (ADW) heading 220 to join the ILS runway 19 approach descending to 4000 feet. (Reach) RCH3115/C17 (Heavy) was vectored in front of EXEC1F for the ILS runway 19 approach. Closest Proximity 2.94 miles.

Both EXEC1F and REACH3115 were landing at Andrews Air Force Base and radar vectored for an ILS approach to runway 19L. REACH3115 was a heavy jet and EXEC1F was a B737. The required separation is 5 miles in trail for wake turbulence separation.

The radar controller at Potomac TRACON vectored EXEC1F within 3.08 miles of the heavy jet and advised the pilot he was 4 miles in trail. The radar controller advised the pilot of EXEC1F to use caution for wake turbulence, cleared the aircraft for the ILS approach and instructed the pilot to contact Andrews Tower.

As soon as EXEC1F contacted the tower, the tower controller asked ECEX1F to make "S" turns on final to get additional spacing. The pilot of EXEC1F did comply with the request, however, the spacing had continued to deteriorate to 2.94 miles. The tower controller then instructed EXEC1F to "go around" because the spacing was not adequate for landing. The weather was reported to be Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC).

And....to be fair to our First Lady, I never heard anything that she personally got in anybody's face over the incident, complained about it or otherwise raised a stink. The media did it for her, maybe she's thinking "big frigging deal, whats a little turbulence, give that controller a break"! And no, I am not a fan of the lady, just saying how the media twists things up while it blows them up.