Opinion on near crash..

After reading the helicopter / Cirrus crash, It reminded me of a near miss I had when flying Lears.

Circa 1997: I was touching down in a Lear24 (one of the smallest, lightest Lears) on Runway 28L at SFO. A 747 or 777 had landed previously on 28L and was holding short on taxiway D facing Southwest (his engines facing directly at our landing runway). We asked to land long to exit on K (closest to our FBO). After our touchdown, ground control apparently gave taxi instructions to the Heavy and he powered up to taxi, sending his thrust across our roll out zone.

How we didnt strike the right tip tank is beyond me. The thrust of the heavy lifted up the left side of the plane about a foot or two, and we slightly 'weather vaned' to the left. Thankfully, I had enough airspeed to maintain some sort of control.

Obviously I made a comment to the ground controller, which was met with silence. But I wondered, who would be at fault?

Me, the Tower Or the Ground Control or ?


Here is an airport diagram....just scroll down.
KSFO - San Francisco, CA

 

In my opinion, Ground Control. In my early days I was constantly being reminded about the dangers of prop blast while running up or taxiing. A 747 produces huge airflow when powering up and he should have been ordered to hold for the traffic passing behind him. I know of two deaths that were caused by being behind a heavy when it ran up to full power.

 

I would blame the ground controller, but I also don't know if I would assign much weight to that. He probably should have waited until you passed, but unfortunately he most likely didn't notice you until it was too late.

 

Ground control, for sure. There is a reason they have to keep repeating "Callsign, Heavy" because everything they do is heavy and affects aircraft, buildings, vehicles, AGE, etc behind them.

"Heavy" is used to remind everyone of wake turbulence, ground jet blast, and all the ill effects possible from giant engines and airflow.

 

Yeah, hate to say it, but the FAA would probably put the blame on you, the PIC. As you know, the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. I'm not saying ATC shouldn't have said something. Just like if ATC clears you for takeoff, yet there's somebody on short final. Just because ATC clears you, it doesn't free you from the responsibility of checking yourself. I'm assuming it's VFR.

Anyways, good save. We (I) always try and use minimal power to breakaway. Unless we are heavy, idle thrust is sufficient. That said, idle thrust is still probably quite a disturbance.

 

While reading about wake turbulence and recommended separation of planes while taking off and landing I wondered if the turbulence is still an issue for things like air to air refueling? I would assume that fighters would get pushed around a fair bit but then the videos show it as a pretty smooth operation.

Maybe Taz can sort me out??

John

 

Interesting comments. Ive always wondered 'what if' about that day as its the only time I had a near miss. I know the FAA usually goes for the low hanging fruit (pilot at fault) unless there is a glaring mechanical issue. I think my only saving grace would have been the fact that while in air, we have no knowledge of movement of the planes on ground control, different frequency.

But yea, a 13,000lb plane is no match for the thrust of a heavy hahaha.

 

Yeah, I'm on your side. But I'd guess the FAA would say you requested a long landing, and all the inherent risks that go with that are on you. While we don't request long landings, we do request U rollouts in SFO on 28R. No reverse, no autobrakes, and let it roll to the end.

 

I- Aerial refueling is really not problem. For boom refuelers, the boom extends below the tanker so is out of most of the wake turbulence. Same thing for the probe and drogue refuelers, where the drogue is long enough to get below most of the wake turbulence. The latest refuelers like the new C-46 and A-330 based tankers also have wing pod mounted drogues and these too are usually below most of the wake turbulence.

During refueling of more than one aircraft, the ones not being refueled typically fly formation off the tanker's wings in an observation position. The aircraft being refueled approaches from below the tanker and stops in a pre-contact position below and slightly behind the boom, opening the air refueling receptacle doors. When cleared to the contact position, the aircraft climbs and moves slightly forward so the boom operator can fly the boom into the refueling receptacle. The receiving aircraft then flies formation with the tanker, aided by signal lights on the bottom of the tanker showing whether he needs to move forward or aft or up or down.

Even simpler for the probe and drogue receiving aircraft since he flies to the drogue and then inserts his probe. Some tankers can refuel 3 aircraft simultaneously, although I am not sure they do that operationally. In general, the flow rate on the boom is much higher than on a drogue, so not much difference in refueling time for a formation either way.

 

I spent untold hours working on the drawings of the first KC-135 60 years ago and I can still recite some drawing numbers. I know that that isn't a big deal but it always amazes me. I remember the position diagrams of which Taz speaks and the concerns about wing down flow. I also worked on the KC-97 tanker that started it all with a boom instead of the probe and drogue and British trailing hose and reel in style. The B-29 mods proved the concept. Now in the days of computers and desk top designers it is taking longer to make a tanker out of an existing airframe than it did to design and build the original KC-135 that was done with eyeballs busy heads and hands...and the good ol' KC-135 is still going strong.

 

Thanks Terry, makes it clear in my mind.

John