OT Plane Crash because of Birds

Page 2 of 3  


The professional pilots at
http://www.pprune.org
are really impressed by the pilot and his airmanship. Airliners don't do well at all in water landings.
And he did some really impressive flying before he ditched. Low altitude, engine-out, 90 degree turns like the one he pulled off to miss the buildings etc tend to be deadly in planes that big.
Regards Jason
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:12:32 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com"

A friend who has a window overlooking where it happened says what has been shown on TV does not show that in addition to everything else, the pilot put the plane down in a relatively narrow slot between two huge barges.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

...
Actually, if it was Nightline you watched (I did, too, at least that section) they later had an (I think NTSB(?) ) engineer on who brought up precisely the problems that prevent the simple solution--namely airflow restriction and obstruction. Also showed some of the ingestion testing clips...
This subject gets aired every time there's a significant incident of course; the news media simply has a conveniently short recollection of what bandwagon they were on a couple of years or so ago. At least around here it was a big deal after an incident in Omaha w/ a FedEx (iirc) flight that had to abort after takeoff.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All they need to do is turn the engines around so they blow the birds away instead of sucking them in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's an idea: They could mount goose radar on the engines. Then, the split second before impact, a lot of buckshot is fired forward to blow the offending geese to shreds, thereby softening the engine strike.
Of course, that's much easier to say than do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since LaGuardia Airport is in NY, I think it's prohibited by law. If we assume that the pilot is in possesion of the plane while flying it, then section 11-0931-1(b) of the New York Environmental Conservation Law - Prohibitions On The Use And Possession Of Firearms - might cover it.
11-0931. Prohibitions on the use and possession of firearms. 1. No person except a law enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties shall use in hunting or possess in the fields or forests or on the waters of the state for any purpose: b. any automatic firearm, or any firearm which has been converted to an automatic type, or any firearm which has a built- in mechanical adjustment which will permit it to function as an automatic arm;
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've gone through all the posts and between them all the reason(s) that screens etc. are not used in front of the engines were touched on in one way or another. I have been involved in bird ingestion of a jet engine. Ran a test where we fired a bird into the engine to evaluate it's response to the bird strike and then its ability to recover and achieve a minimum level of thrust. Thrust recovery of the engine, both in time and power level, is aimed at obtaining enough power to successfully be able to complete a take-off and achieve a minimum altitude.. Don't want to get into the specifics of "requirements". You can't put anything in the front of the engine for a number of reasons--Ice build up, inlet air distortion, potential for FOD. The only aircraft that I've seen with a screen in front of the engine inlet was the F117 (the small black stealth bomber). In fact, it has a wiper blade to keep the screen clean. The big bang that people heard was the engine as it went into a "stall"--that's when the flow of air is interrupted and because of the high pressure at the back end of the compressor, a reversal of flow occurs and out the front it comes--like a gigantic blurb. Things happen very fast--give you an example--In the test I was involved in, fifty people or so were seated so as to observe the engine inlet during the bird strike. No one observed anything unusual, however when the film was reviewed --taken at 1000 frames per sec (each frame therefore was .001 sec) the inlet of the engine filled with a large fireball that burst out of the front (with a few floating feathers) and then was sucked back into the inlet. And no one saw the flame. BTW, the bird was not alive. Jet engines go through significant testing in order to meet and exceed requirements relative to a bird strike, however, there are limits with respect to size and number of birds that an engine can tolerate. We actually x-rayed the birds during the selection process in order to ensure that there was nothing inside of them (pieces of metal or any other type of foreign objects) that would have a negative impact of the results of test results. Whenever there is an aircraft incident when both (or all) engines are involved, especially a power loss, you can just about bet the farm that it's not primarily an engine fault but more so related to some other outside influence--fuel contamination, fuel starvation, FOD, inlet air distortion etc. MLD

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A few gattling guns would help. Maybe a few thousand of very large 2" screen could be done, but im sure this has been researched. hit something with 50lbs at 400 mph and make it not fail or reduce airflow is the problem, it might weigh 1-4000 lbs
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rather than trying to prevent debris from entering, jet engines are designed to ingest a certain amount of debris without issue. They are capable of swallowing whole chickens and passing them out the exhaust cooked to perfection, sliced, deboned and pureed.
It would be folly to attempt to build a screen; even at landing speeds, the goose would simply go through the screen like a potato through a french fry cutter.
This must've been one heck of a goose or an entire flock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

Since *each* engine ate one, there obviously had to have been at least two geese. Fox News reported that it was a flock large enough that it showed up on radar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:41:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I would expect they know migratory flyway/patterns of the geese and adjust accordingly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Canada geese haven't been migratory for decades. They form a year-round population in nearly every urban area in the eastern third of the U.S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jimw wrote:

I think others have explained why screens are not such a good runner. I suspect that the problem is that there are obese geese that side of The Pond!
Seriously, it does make me wonder about whether the incredible tests that the engine manufacturers do are now adequate. I've not checked to find out how close to the airport that the apparent strike occurred. I do know from professional experience that the airports and local regulators here in the UK are rightly concerned about environmental developments close to airports that will encourage avian friends!
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID@471
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The pilot was also a glider pilot and flies gliders as a hobbie which was his ace up his sleeve , so to speak...The space shuttle is the biggest glider in the world...All landings are dead stick.....The pilot did an AMAZING job.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
benick wrote:

Not to take away from the accomplishment, but every pilot is, to a small extent, a glider pilot.
One of the first things taught in flight school is how to maneuver a plane with the engine turned off (and do all the other stuff, like call "Mayday," look for a landing spot, deal with soiled trousers, etc.). I still remember my instructor, whose name was Sneaky Bastard, surreptitiously turning off the fuel supply!
Cough-cough, pop, fizz.... silence!
I wept.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hey, ever land a glider on water?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

My pants were wet. Does that count?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Pucker marks on the seat?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well I just have this big urge to set some facts straight on this thread, from someone who knows; :)
They still use sound-makers, at least at the airports I'm familiar with here in the NE to scare the birdies away. A guy in a pickup with a blank but loud rifle has a go at it every now and then at KHFD. BUt they don't have much of an effective range and certainly wouldn't have any effect on birdies 2 miles out and a few x000 feet up, which is where these guys were.
Whether or not this was a crash, well "crash" is not a technical term; But this technically / legally was an "aircraft accident", and the aircraft did receive "substantial damage", all of which are precisely defined. "Substantial damage" is incurred when the damage affects the "performance or flight characteristics... and would normally require major repair or replacement of .. [a] ... component". The very fact that both engines failed due to birdie impact qualifies this as both an accident and substantial damage. [FAR 830.2].
A transport multi-turbojet glides quite well with no power. I'm not familiar with the A320, but am with the B737, which has a glide ratio pushing 20:1. That's when cleaned up -- no flaps, no gear. A little problem with that is the speed required to maintain that L/D ratio is circa 200Kts, kinda too fast to hit pavement with landing gear, much less anything bumpier like water. So when dirty and slow, the glide ratio deteriorates (a lot), but you are by no means falling like a rock.
A landing in the water, as this was, is most certainly a "ditching". Nothing critical of how this was executed, that's just what a water landing is called...
And no (mainstream at least) pilots practice ditching in a simulator, although power failures are of course routine proficiency exercises for the simulator. Ditching technique and guidelines are discussed as part of training and proficiency, but I'm not aware of any "land on the water mode" in a simulator.
A multi-engine jet on [a normal] final approach by no means has its engines producing essentially zero thrust, and they had better not be turned off. A jet will be in a very high drag configuration on approach what with gear and flaps of all types hanging out, and a non-trivial amount of power is required to manage the descent rate. Also, power is carried since it minimizes an already significant lag in response to throttle on a jet -- they take time to spool up. You might need that to manage any need to go around, wind shear, turbulence, etc, so carrying power is done in no small additional part to minimize response time to a power-up command.
Jet engines are not held in place with a single shear pin.
I'm not aware of any engine departures [that ended without a major crash]... and would suspect that such an event would probably upset the CG into an unflyable configuration esp on tail-engine aircraft, and/or mess up some critical control systems.
Like I said, I'm not familiar enough with the A320 to be authoritative, but I do understand that it is aerodynamically unstable and requires fly-by-wire in order to introduce the stability required to make it flyable (and certifiable). Doesn't matter much I think... stability either comes from aerodynamics or the systems..
And now, in my opinion. Without detracting from the tremendously fortunate outcome and the contributions by the flight crew, this wasn't the case of steely nerved coordination like you might need to get a Greyhound bus up on its two wheels, banked over on the side, riding only on a single rail in order to cross a railroad bridge over a deep chasm.
I'd attribute the successful outcome of this in order of:
- a darn good configuration of luck -- this was the right place at the right time and the right conditions to make a happy ditching like this occur. I guess it had a bit of bad luck -- would've been a better outcome to set it down on a piece of asphalt with numbers on both ends, but that being out of the possibility, it was fine that the water was smooth, the hidden wires were not there, and massive rescue capacity was seconds away.
- secondly, and I think this is where the flight crew should really get the kudos -- was the decisive decision making at the right time. Deciding to ditch in the Hudson is by no means an easy barrier to cross -- but when the other options aren't there, one needs to make the hard choice and stick to it.
- and oh yeah, flying skill. Honestly, and I'm sure I'll be debated, but a gentle ditching given all the other factors above, I'd really expect from a competent pilot. Slow the thing down, keep the wings level, and nose up, real up, but don't stall it. Yeah, it does kinda sound like a soft-field landing, albeit one without power available.....
Having said that I've never ditched an aircraft (but landed one many times).
Happy home repairing and thanks for clearing up my three-wire dryer mystery:)
T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good points. We often forget about the shuttle not being powered.
Glide ratio for anyone not familiar, is how far forward the plane will go for every foot down. 20:1 means that a plane at 3000 feet altitude can go 60,000 feet or about 11 miles. A glider can be about 50:1 or 60:1, but they don't carry 150 passengers. A Cessna 150 is only about 7:1, the shuttle 4.5:1
As for the crew, the Captain certainly did a great job and was cool about it, but the rest of the crew, cockpit and cabin, are to be commended for what they did for preparation and evacuation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.