Fred, It is something to be concerned about but not at proper separation. My point simply is that even if one is *closer* than a few miles (not like the AA case) it will be better for a large aircraft than a smaller one and many pilots do experience WT in varying degrees. This is something to really worry about for any aircraft but I seem to recall a investigation of the USAir 737 that crashed near Pittsburg where it was thought that perhaps WT was a possible cause for it's rudder deviation but the NTSB flew a 737 through WT at the "same distance" and it recovered fine; (distance behind WT aircraft I am not too sure of). [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg

the AA A310's tail was ripped of because of a SERIES of events, not solely the wake turbulence itselfThe pilot's were not properly trained to cope with this in the way airbus intended it.So as the aircraft struck the wake, the PF started a series of 'yanks' with the rudder wich unfortunately led the pressure point to slide way beyond the safe margin for the A300 tail leading to the break in the structure...It's been confirmed that had the pilot used a different series of control inputs, then the plane would not have suffered this terrible thing. Of course, this is certainly not the pilot's fault, but simply a concurrence of things, that were 'forgotten' by some people, both at airbus, and AA....Cheers(for more info, there is a docu on Nat. Geo. sometimes)

Hi Lenny,> The pilot's were not properly trained to cope with this in the way airbus intended it. So as the aircraft struck the wake, the PF started a series of 'yanks' with the rudder wich unfortunately led the pressure point to slide way beyond the safe margin for the A300 tail leading to the break in the structure... 3)Bruno Francescoli :-waveStudent Pilot.KOPF PA28-161.

Hi again Lenny!> It's been confirmed that had the pilot used a different series of control inputs, then the plane would not have suffered this terrible thing.