Yesterday I was flying from KMOB (my home airport) to KATL in the 737NG. I use AcitveSky 2004 with the latest MR. I also use Ultimate Traffic at 100%.Anywho, I had the AP on VORLOC and the plane was turning to line up. Then, one of the #$@%% AI planes decides to cut in front of me and about a half mile ahead. A few seconds later, I experience a series of severe turbulence and the AP is knocked offline.Anyway, I called in for a missed approach and had to do it again. BTW, the stupid ATC sent me on a heading and never called me back. I had to re-file my IFR plan to get ATC to acknowledge my existence.But I digress.The question is, is Wake Turbulence that bad in real life?

If all that happened is that your autopilot disengaged, consider yourself lucky. Wake turbulence has downed many aircraft, many of them transport category.VinPMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/devteam.jpg

Well you have a few miles separation in real life because of it. A large jet should have not too much trouble unlike a cessna in such cases. I'm sure it's pretty hard to simulate this effect upon differn't size aircraft correctly in FS but the fact that Active Sky really gives WT is pretty cool. [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg

>The question is, is Wake Turbulence that bad in real life?Yes, and worse.Do a search and read the follow-up on American Flight 587 - Nov 2001. Wake turbulence was a *contributing factor* to the crash (i.e., it started a chain of events). If I recall correctly, AA587 [legally per ATC regulations] departed JFK several minutes behind a 747 and flew through the 747 wake. In an effort to maintain control of the aircraft the vertical stab separated from the aircraft. The 8 Mar 2004 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology has a brief update on the continuing debate between American and Airbus in regards to why the A300-600 vertical stabilizer separated from the rest of the airframe.-michael

>A large jet should have not too much trouble unlike a>cessna in such cases. Not Like a Cessna, of course not, but It WILL be on deep troubles. Do you remeber AA's A310 that took off from KJFK?Bruno Francescoli :-waveStudent Pilot.KOPF PA28-161.

Randy,Can you please point me to a source that proves what you say is right? I have always been under the impression that WT is something to be worried about in any size aircraft. Many accidents have been attributed to WT in transport size aircraft, so I am curious.

There was also a case back in the 80's where a DC9 doing circuits rolled inverted and crashed during the flare to land.Cause? L1011 Wake.Having experienced first hand the wake of both the 777 and 76 in a Dash 8 300 i can personally attest to how vicious wake turb can be.Steer clear.Having an AP disengage is a minor problem compared to an excursion at low alt.Into Sydney on fine still days we are flying down the ILS half to a full dot high to avoid wake from 76 and larger aircraft.Scary stuff!!SeeyaDarren

I really doubt that "wake turbulence" has been implemented into FS! I guess you just experienced severe wind change (heading and/or speed) as this is still an unresolved issue with real weather turned on.-Andreas

Hi AndreasActiveSky 2004, which Ken used, does simulate Wake Turbulence. AS2004 does some good things about the default severe wind changes as well.Cheers,

Thanks for the information about ActiveSky simulating wake turbulence. I didn't know that! I've been using fsmeteo so far but hardly use it (or the build in MS real weather as a matter of fact) due to the wind change problem!Are you sure ActiveSky is able to help with that? So far everyone is saying that there is no way around this problem at the moment...CheersAndreas

AndreasIt is not perfect but all the testing that has been going on with the latest release of AS2004 has made the wind changes much smoother and better. Damian has done some amazing work trying to look behind the curtains of FS wx engine.Go to the neighbouring site, Active Sky Support Forum, and check out what's been said about it. Hope it helps,

I believe at this point that ActiveSky 2004 implements a very basic Wake Turbulence simulation.In the future, Damian plans on implementing Wake Turbulence that:1) differs depending on size of airplane2) "drifts" depending on windAnyway, check out the ActiveSky forum. His product (my opinion only - does not indicate an endorsement by AVSim.com) is very good and worth the price.Also, the wind change problem has been dealt with also with the latest release.

My opinion is in line with Ken's. Fantastic product and well worth having. I bought it just a couple of days ago and already I can't live without it. :)

hehe,me too! I bought it earlier today and I must say I am very impressed with it :) Now I wonder if the vatsim atc

I fly 737NG with ActiveSky all the time! The sudden winds shifts are gone, as long as you load your flightplan into AS first. If you just fire it up and go flying, your gonna have alot of unhappy passengers!ChuckCYXU