what would you do in this emergency scenerio?

[Plasmech]

I have been studying as part of my ground training various emergency scenarios. I came up with this one and wanted to run it by the forum and see what others would do:

You are flying at 3500 feet MSL below the local class B in a Cessna 152. You see a flock of birds ahead. Before you can even begin to think of a reaction, two birds strike your aircraft. One grazes the top and takes out your com antenna, and one hits the right wing and does enough damage to crack the right fuel tank. You now have no communications radio and have a serious fuel leak that you cannot control (there is no fuel tank selector in the 152, only a master on/off valve). You squawk 7700 but have no idea if your transponder is working either. You have no way to talk to ATC and they very well may be unable to see you on their radar, at least not able to see your transponder data.

The closest airport by a long shot is a busy commercial controlled airport. You are fairly certain that you can make a runway even if your engine quits right now.

Do you:

a. Land at the controlled airport unannounced and pray that you don't hit anybody? Perhaps try to land on a taxiway? Maybe ATC picked you up on primary radar and warned the field? Most likely not. Remember this is all happening very quickly and relatively near the airport.

b. Try to find an off-airport place to land..a road or a field, and set up on it, hoping for the best?

You know that as long as you don't hit anybody, your chances of walking away alive or at least not seriously injured from the airport are a lot higher than if you make an off-airport landing. At the same time, you know that if you land at the airport, there is a chance that you will be instantly killed in a mid-air or even something on the ground, and that you would be dragging maybe as many as 200 innocent people into the risk scenario.

What would you do?

While the exact circumstances I describe here may not be very likely, the chance of having to consider going into a controlled field un-announced in general is small yet finite.

[dublinpilot]

I'd certainly go into the major airport unannounced.

Most likely my squwak would be received by the controller, so they'd have a fair idea what was happening.

Even if it wasn't they'd most likely see me on primary radar.

Even if they didn't, I'd be pretty confident that I'd be able to visually seperate myself from other traffic. Sure it might involved someone else having to go around suddenly when I turn onto final at 1/2 mile, but I don't very much that I'd hit anyone.

There might also be something to be gained by flying cross controlled, to keep the damaged wing high to stop the fuel flowing out of it.

I don't fancy the idea of an off field landing in a damaged aircraft, with fuel leaking out, and not able to put out a mayday call.

The chances of a mid air seem remote to me if you keep your eyes open. Most of the traffic is likely to be very large and easy to spot.

dp

[Plasmech]

I wonder what the legal (FAA or European equivalent) implications would be if you made a landing like that and nobody got hurt?

[Jim59]

I think that would land anywhere other than the busy commercial field if I was VFR unless my destination was the busy field and I was already in communication with it when other options might come into play.

[BackPacker]

You squawk 7700 but have no idea if your transponder is working either.

The transponder antenna, AFAIK, is normally mounted at the belly, while COM is normally mounted on top. So I would assume that my transponder would be working. Also, if you see the R light up, it's receiving an interrogation signal to which it's responding. So the odds are all in your favour.

You have no way to talk to ATC

COM2, Icom, cellphone

a. Land at the controlled airport unannounced

If the fuel leak is so bad and uncontrolled that you have no choice, then it's a matter of finding a suitable flat spot and hope for the best. But if there's still juice in the tanks (and flying cross-controlled may well be a good idea in a 152) you've got time.

Controlled airports have mostly ILS or similar straight-in approaches starting 6+ miles out. So you can join a circuit relatively safely, start circling on downwind with all the lights flashing, and hope you get light signals from the tower.

Also, most commercial traffic on a straight-in approach will fly relatively slowly (at least not doing 250+ knots), on the extended centerline and display all their landing lights so from downwind you can see them and time your arrival pretty well. In fact, you could slot in between Mr. Boeing and Mr. Airbus and they'd never know you're there. As long as you manage to avoid their wake turbulence, that is. But there are tricks for that (three whites for instance).

I wonder what the legal (FAA or European equivalent) implications would be if you made a landing like that and nobody got hurt?

Pretty sure: none. Sure, you're going to have to talk to several people, maybe write a good report on what happened and why you did what you did, but if you can convince the authorities that what you did was, in your eyes, the best cause of action, then you've got nothing to worry about.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I wonder what the legal (FAA or European equivalent) implications would be if you made a landing like that and nobody got hurt?
Who cares? "Worry about the lawyers" comes a long way down the list, well behind all of aviate - navigate - communicate.

If you're confident your airframe is sound and you've got many minutes' fuel do a normal non-radio join (ignore any red lights or fireworks and just land). Otherwise go straight for the runway.

At my local airfield one would then be met by the fire engine at the nearest intersection. (Mind you, I do wonder whether the fire crew get bored and like driving around for practice, they've been out twice for me (that I've noticed) when I really didn't need them.)

[Plasmech]

BackPacker,

As far as Com 2, a cell phone, and the transponder being on the belly...the point of my scenario was a no ATC forced landing. I was thinking about about disclaiming out Com 2 and the antenna however I didn't think it was necessary.

[Plasmech]

At my local airfield one would then be met by the fire engine at the nearest intersection. (Mind you, I do wonder whether the fire crew get bored and like driving around for practice, they've been out twice for me (that I've noticed) when I really didn't need them.)

Do tell about the arsonists (a USA joke) errrr I mean firefighters being out to greet you.

[SNS3Guppy]

Do tell about the arsonists (a USA joke) errrr I mean firefighters being out to greet you.

Do tell. I'm a USA firefighter, and I don't get the joke.

You are flying at 3500 feet MSL below the local class B in a Cessna 152. You see a flock of birds ahead. Before you can even begin to think of a reaction, two birds strike your aircraft. One grazes the top and takes out your com antenna, and one hits the right wing and does enough damage to crack the right fuel tank. You now have no communications radio and have a serious fuel leak that you cannot control (there is no fuel tank selector in the 152, only a master on/off valve). You squawk 7700 but have no idea if your transponder is working either. You have no way to talk to ATC and they very well may be unable to see you on their radar, at least not able to see your transponder data.

That's a fairly outlandish scenario. Why does damaging the communications antenna affect the transponder? Why can't ATC see your transponder when you're flying at 3,500'. How does a bird "crack" a fuel tank, especially in a Cessna 152? Let's not forget that you're not flying very fast in a Cessna 152, even at full power in cruise. Bird strikes don't do that much damage. Why is loss of a radio a big deal? If you can reach a runway, why is the fuel loss a big deal? Why the drama. It's a flyable airplane with a couple of bird strikes. Not exactly a source of high excitement. You should add a fire to the scenario. Or perhaps a terrorist attack. Make it realistic.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2004_P_028_en.pdf

While that circular covers multi engine airplanes, it does include some details on birdstrikes in the UK. The vast majority occur below 500'.

Do you not use light signals in the UK? Can you not obtain a landing clearance using light signals? Is the loss of the radio a big deal after all?

You know that as long as you don't hit anybody, your chances of walking away alive or at least not seriously injured from the airport are a lot higher than if you make an off-airport landing. At the same time, you know that if you land at the airport, there is a chance that you will be instantly killed in a mid-air or even something on the ground, and that you would be dragging maybe as many as 200 innocent people into the risk scenario.

Why can't people resist the urge to make every little event into such high drama?

You're in an airplane. You need to go to an airport, and land. You don't have a fire. You don't have a major emergency. You're losing a little fuel. You have a good engine. You have enough fuel to reach a runway. You can obtain visual signals for landing. You go to the airport and land. Not exactly rocket science.

Why not invoke meteorite strikes, falling chickens, and geysers? No nuclear weapons, attacks of flying ants, or inflight strokes? It must be a slow day.

Alternately land on a road. Or in a field. Again, it's just not a big deal. If you're not sure, then make a precautionary landing, and evaluate what you've got. Whether you proceed to a runway and land, or pick a straight stretch of road or an open field or parking lot, either way, you're covered. You've got a place to land, you can do it safely, you've got engine power available. Just do it.

If you've got fuel leaking, is it going to contact something that will promote a fire? Should you consider shutting off your electrical? Is this really a big deal at all? No.

Be glad you didn't share the cockpit with the bird.

Don't try to overthink the situation. You've got a flyable airplane and you're in good health. You don't have a pressing emergency. You have an abnormal situation for which you'd like to land, and you can investigate it further once you're on the ground and stopped. Go do that.

[Plasmech]

I have come to the conclusion that there are a few bad apples in this bunch, mixed in with a lot of good ones.

...the point of the post was to explore a scenario where one as no coms and has to land at a controlled airport. OK? The idea is not to discuss the circumstances leading to not having any coms. Yea, it may have been one of those soft birds :rolleyes: or maybe this particular Cessna 152 has a magic carpet in the cabin that can be called upon to fly in an emergency. Yea maybe the transponder still works, but maybe it doesn't. The point is not to discuss all that stuff that has no relevance to the post.

Looking at a lot of your other posts on this forum, I can clearly see what your MO is. Argue, argue, argue, take the opposing side by default, rebut rebut rebut. "Ridicule" anything that resembles a commonly known "fact" and tell us how it really is because you're the only one on earth smart enough to know how it really is. I know your type. Dime a dozen.

[SNS3Guppy]

Looking at a lot of your other posts on this forum, I can clearly see what your MO is. Argue, argue, argue, take the opposing side by default, rebut rebut rebut.

Perhaps you're being upset about being dressed down for your recent idiotic comments about using a handgun to commit suicide as a form of emergency procedure to address an inflight fire?

Don't post stupidly, and you won't catch flack.

I prefer not to need to repeat myself, but given your reading comprehension problem I'll say again; you're in an airplane. You need to go to an airport, and land. You don't have a fire. You don't have a major emergency. You're losing a little fuel. You have a good engine. You have enough fuel to reach a runway. You can obtain visual signals for landing. You go to the airport and land. Not exactly rocket science.

[20driver]

get what they deserve.

If you are near Class B they have you on radar. If you have an emergency head for the runway, they are going to keep any traffic far away from you. Remember no one else is there who is not in radio contact. If you enter the zone without being ID'd all sorts of alarms go off.

As for intentionally landing on a taxiway as opposed to a runway, that is really dumb. People entering a runway will be looking for traffic and be talking to the tower. Taxi clearances can be general and no one is going to be looking up for some yahoo. Taxi traffic could be coming from between hangers or out of the FBO and you won't see them.

Flying is a simple business and it is small details that will get you. Dreaming up silly what ifs is a waste of time.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I would like to think that, the cicle inthe tower vacility, await any light signals.
If cell phone call 911, unless you have the yellow pages handy, and tell the dispatch what where why etc, as well as INTENTIONS.

Then assuming bowels, and fuel allow, make a precautionaly landing well down runway, and immediatly turn off runway, and exacuate aircraft, BUT remain cclose as not to draw the attention of the SWAT tream that will be on you.

In an emergency, you will be lauded for saving all on board, and not crashing into a school, or shopping mall.

Just my fills worth.

glf

[pistongone]

Sounds to me like you think life is a bit like holywood:{, would this scenario you are working on involve someone like, lets see, Tom Cruz and a lovely scared babe (insert your own choice there:ok: i would choose Rosamund Pike) and he does an amazing job when all the chips are down. They land to a triumphant fanfare and BIG White smiles all round, probably wearing a cool pair of Aviators, said lovely babe looking on with admiration, they then go and get into bed somewhere and all is well again in lala land:E.
Keep up with the training and you will find out that aviation has many built in redundancies. So this scenario is less likely to happen than you winning enough money on the lottery to pay for a new lear jet!
PG.

[reportyourlevel]

If you have enough fuel and the aeroplane is still flyable etc, then on suspecting a radio and transponder fail you could use the emergency triangle procedure to give ATC a clue as to what has happened. OK, technically you're supposed to be lost as well for that, but it's pretty much your only means of communication if you're out of sight of the tower. Once you near the airport you can use switching of your nav and lading lights to indicate that you are compelled to land. I'm assuming that these signals are valid everywhere.

In terms of the lawyers, in the UK departure from the rules of the air is permitted for the avoidance of imminent danger, provided that written details are provided to the competent authority within 10 days (article 160 of the ANO).

[The Flying Chicken]

All plasmech is doing is trying to see the process other people would take in a given situation. I guess the situation could have been summed up by saying electrical failure, fuel leak, decide. But we are pilots. Our tales we tell have only 10% truth and 90% pure bull to make it more exciting!
Anyway. I would fly as high as you can, and lean it out to give me a bit more time, and if possible, go for the overhead to make the join a little more announced, or join the most expeditious way depending on how much time I felt I had.
Clearly, 7600ing, RADAR should be doing its magic, phones and what not.
In an emergency, do what YOU believe to be the safest course of action for you, not what other people believe is your safest course of action.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Reality is:

- You've hit birds
- You're losing fuel
- You've lost Rx (you have no idea if your transmissions are being heard or not)

This is all you can possibly know. You do not know why the comms is lost, you do not know if the transponder is still working, you do not know if you took a bird or two into the engine and that's going to stop shortly. Pilots do not have magic sensors to tell them anything not visible from the cockpit.

You do know that you were talking to somebody, and squawking. So if you go quiet, and either your transponder signal vanishes, or you squawk 7700, ATC know you have a problem.

So, trust ATC sort the other traffic out, and get on the ground where there's assistance available for any subsequent problems.


So, actions, in my opinion:

- Squawk 7700
- Declare a Mayday transmitting blind
- Fly at height until you can make the runway of the major airfield if the engine quits (do not descend until then, unless forced to by weather or loss of power)
- Land at the airport. Use the runway, that's where they expect to find aeroplanes, not a taxiway which will confuse ATC and emergency services.

- Once you are on the ground, then taxi off out of anybody's way, shut down, and get out and away from the aircraft. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE AEROPLANE CAN DO WRONG NEXT.

Do not, DO NOT, worry about the law or convenience to anybody else if you are trying to preserve your own life.


Things I wouldn't do:

- Muck about with cellphones. They won't save your life, being on the ground will do that. They might distract you from flying the aeroplane.
- Fly any kind of wide circuit (pattern); once you are able to glide to the runway, stay in gliding distance all the way.
- Worry about faultfinding. You clearly have airframe damage, just get it on the ground.
- Dive or sideslip to lose height - the extra stresses may damage the airframe. Set approach speed early, and just stay there.
- Use flaps, I don't know the electrical state, I dont know if the flaps will work both sides and I don't know the extra stresses that might put on a damaged wing. Land flapless.

G

[neilgeddes]

[ don't ] Use flaps, I don't know the electrical state, I dont know if the flaps will work both sides and I don't know the extra stresses that might put on a damaged wing. Land flapless


Excellent advice!

[BackPacker]

the point of the post was to explore a scenario where one as no coms and has to land at a controlled airport.

For the little spamcans that most of us here fly, the legal rule in such a scenario is actually to go to a non-controlled airport and land there. In fact, lost comms procedures dictate that even if you have already entered controlled airspace (with clearance) but have not yet made it to the circuit, that you are to leave controlled airspace via a route that doesn't endanger other aircraft (don't cross the ILS area for instance) and land at an uncontrolled airfield.

If you can squawk 7600 so much the better. Good chance that some Area ATC will notice, phone up the uncontrolled aircraft and warn them about your imminent arrival. Always nice to know the others in the circuit are expecting you when you show up non-radio.

If there's another emergency which means you won't make it to an uncontrolled airfield, then you land. Simple.

[BackPacker]

- Muck about with cellphones. They won't save your life, being on the ground will do that. They might distract you from flying the aeroplane.

I said cellphones to show that the loss of Com1 might not be the end of all communications. Of course it may take time to dig them out of the bag, turn them on, get a good signal and then dial someone. And who are you going to dial?

But if your cellphone is nearby and you happen to have the tower/operator phone number programmed in (say because this is your home base and you regularly need them to discuss some aerial work with them in advance) it may well be the quickest and safest way to draw their attention to your situation.

But as with all things in an emergency scenario, especially in a far-fetched one like this, you've got to weigh your actions against the time they take, the distraction the cause and the effect they may have.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Do tell. I'm a USA firefighter, and I don't get the joke.

Maybe your British and American counterparts differ from you as it appears that most of them have a sense of humour.

Every one of them that I have met love making fires and blowing things up. The bigger the better. Second best job in the world.

[ShyTorque]

I'd certainly squawk 7700 (not just 7600 as the serious fuel leak constitutes a higher emergency) but I'd also consider a precautionary landing away from the airport, depending on what terrain I saw below and ahead of me. Isn't this exactly the kind of scenario that suits a precautionary landing?

If I'd committed myself to the runway and my engine quit just as a point of no return was reached; i.e. just able to reach the into wind threshold in a flapless glide, what if an airliner (depending on your definition of busy) was on short finals to that runway? I'd rather make a landing in a field I'd planned to land in than have to turn away with no other option and be forced into making a landing in what might be an unsuitable area.

Is it likely that damage on the leading edge from a single bird would have damaged the flaps too, or weakened the entire wing? After all, we aren't talking fast jet speeds or vultures here, so I doubt it. In a Cessna 152 the wing is clearly visible so I'd assess the damage. If all looked OK I'd carry out a low speed handling check and then cautiously lower the flaps in stages and see what happens. If I could find a field, I'd probably prefer to land in it.

[VMC-on-top]

Guppy - I wouldn't normally reply to one of your slating and arrogant comments on here but I've seen so many.

The OP started out with I have been studying as part of my ground training various emergency scenarios. The guy is training, give him a break - it was a hypothetical scenario. Slating the guy and coming down on him like a tonne of bricks doesn't help and just discourages others from posting on here for fear of being shot down in the same manner.

I have no doubt that you are extremely experienced and have seen many scenarios where you think "you stupid fool, why are you asking such a question" but seriously, learn some people skills and try to go easy on folks would you?

[dublinpilot]

I know you have a comms failure (squawk 7600), but that isn't really your big problem.

You have airframe damage, and (at least as I understood the initial post) fuel gushing out, not leaking, so I think a 7700 squawk would be more appropriate, and would explain to ATC (if they were receiving) that you weren't in a position to wait around.


7-5 caught alive (hijack)
7-6 in a fix (no radio)
7-7 going to heaven (emergency)

dp

[dublinpilot]

Ah beaten to it by ST ;)

[ShyTorque]

7-8 No such code, mate!

;)

[Lister Noble]

Aviate,navigate,communicate.

Have I got those in the right order;)

[Lister Noble]

:)
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
To a pilot in trouble, these three words can mean life or death. If you ignore the aviation, you won't have enough time to navigate or communicate before coming to a sudden stop. If you aviate, but fail to navigate, you end up landing at the wrong airport, and you get in some trouble, but at least you're alive and have an airplane, and communicating this won't do much to help you, especially if you're in the wrong country. If you succeed at both of these, and fail to communicate, then all you have is an angry voice in your ear.

[SNS3Guppy]

The guy is training, give him a break - it was a hypothetical scenario.

A hypothetical scenario; fine. The melodrama, ridiculous. Look at the context. Some of his recent posts have been well beyond borderline idiotic. The recent comments of his introducing the use of a handgun to commit suicide in flight as an emergency procedure took the cake.

[wsmempson]

Whilst of course I note that the original post comes from someone training in the US of A, my 1st question as a uk based pilot would be where in the UK was the class B airspace...

[BackPacker]

A hypothetical scenario; fine. The melodrama, ridiculous.

I agree. He's learning to fly. Read the book and look at what to do in simple emergencies (single system failure like com1 failure) first. Questions about it as to why certain actions are done? Go ahead. That's what we're here for.

Once you're through the simple emergencies, look at complex but related emergencies next (fuel leak that may lead to imminent engine failure and possibly fire for instance, or icing which leads to a covered air filter, plus a higher stall speed, plus restricted forward visibility plus a few other things).

And only then look at complex scenarios where you have two or more emergencies that are completely unrelated and very, very unlikely. A bird strike causing a total com failure, plus a fuel leak, plus structural wing damage, plus flap damage? In controlled airspace? Honestly, that's not the kind of complex emergency you need to be trained for. You need to be trained for the single elements of that emergency. And if something complex happens, as other said: aviate, navigate, communicate.

So take care of the "aviate" emergencies first: Keep the plane flying. In case of a bird strike doing damage to aerodynamic surfaces, assume that your stall speed has now increased, lift has decreased and that you may need to use the rudder to counter any asymmetry in the lift/drag of your flying surfaces. If possible, isolate the leak so that no fuel is pumped towards the leak. (Not much options there in a 152 except the mentioned sideslip to keep the fuel in the good wing, but you might have more options in aircraft with more complex fuel systems.)

Then "navigate": Point the nose to a suitable landing area. On-airport or off-airport depends entirely on circumstances. But flying over built-up areas to reach an airport is generally considered a big no-no in an emergency, unless you really have no other options.

Then "communicate": If you still have time, squawk 7700 and let ATC somehow know your intentions.

Oh, and there's no need to invent a hyperbolic scenario here to ask a question. A question such as "I have a total comms failure while in controlled airspace, and I don't have the option of leaving controlled airspace and going to an uncontrolled field, what should I do?" would work pretty well too.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Do tell about the firefighters being out to greet you.
First occasion:

(a) approach to main runway, bit of a crosswind but severe turbulence over the threshold, went around

(b) approach to grass cross runway, couldn't actually make out where it was in time, went around

(c) third approach was to main runway, ATC advised landing long to avoid turbulence caused by a particular obstruction when the wind was in exactly that direction, worked fine.

Second occasion:

Engine dropped to a fraction of its power for half a second or so on downwind. Told ATC I would be flying a much closer in circuit than normal. Did so and landed.

On both occasions I observed the fire engine returning to base after I'd landed.

[bobward]

Gertrudes story reminds me of an event I had during training, with all due apologies for thread drift.

We were climbing out of the circuit, gettig ready to go off and do some general handling. The engine gave a rumble - the only thing I can liken it to is driving over cobbles. The instructor took over and switched tanks, turned on the fuel pump etc, and decided we were going back in, pronto, as the engine might quit at any point.

He made a call to ATC with basic details of the problem. He then handed back control to the stude (me!) demonstrtating (a) great faith in a low hour student and (b) all flying instructors are mad... Anyway, we flew a wide high circuit, and lined up to land, not dropping off height until we were sure we could glide in.

Coming down the approach I could see several fire trucks, ambulances and other assorted bums and stiffs waiting off to one side. We duly touch down and lead a parade down the main runway until we turned off to the light aircraft park.

Talking with ATC afterwards, when any aircraft declares an emergency the SOP is to call in everyone, just in case. Five firetrucks, and ambulances for two in a Tomahawk might have been a bit of overkill though.

Looking back on it, I don't recall for one second thinking that we were going to land anywhere other than at the airport. It did wonders for the self confidence of a very low houred student. So, Geoff, if you're reading this, thanks mate!:D:D:D

[Plasmech]

Thanks to those of you who replied in a mature and helpful manner. I did just last night learn about squawk codes while doing a Cessna cloud based lesson. 7500, never planning on needing that one. 7600 for coms failure and 7700 rings the doorbell to the afterlife.

[thing]

You could always parachute to safety...........;)

[AfricanEagle]

Another thread drift.

Departure from Sofia, Bulgary, with a C172, destination Romania. Climbing up to the VFR exit gate the engine started running rough every now and then. Went through the usual trouble shooting, every thing was in the green, but engine still unhappy.

Called ATC and requested "return for precautionary landing".

One giant fire engine and 5-6 little yellow cars chased me down the runway upon landing.

Problem was dirty fuel.

Had to pay 85 USD for the emergency intervention because it was a Sunday :uhoh:

[BackPacker]

Had to pay 85 USD for the emergency intervention because it was a Sunday

Odd. Never heard of that before.

I can imagine that if your arrival/departure necessitated an upgrade to the ICAO rescue standard above what was normally on duty during the weekends, that they would charge you for that. Even if your arrival and departure went smoothly. After all, if they need to upgrade from Cat. 2 to Cat 3, and thus call up people from home, bring in additional fire trucks and such, just to make your departure and arrival legal, it wouldn't be entirely unfair to charge you for that.

But having to pay a fee because the available duty crew had to get out of the hangar and witness your precautionary landing? This would only serve for pilots to mask their problems.

[Plasmech]

Remind me not to crash on a Sunday :p

[DeeCee]

Guppy, hitting birds won't cause much damage? An acquaintance of mine hit a flock of birds climbing out at 2000' at around 100 knots. Several bounced off the airframe, but one came straight through the middle of the windshield taking off his glasses and headset, leaving him with a large gash on the side of his head. He dialled in 7700 and returned to the airport. If it had been slightly more over his side he would have not have survived. I have photos of the results.

[AfricanEagle]

Don't no why I was charged, since I landed some 10 minutes after my call that was worded as "precautionary" and not "emergency" landing.

Didn't mind paying that small amount after I witnessed a Russian Tupolev Captain pull out a wad of dollars that must have weighed a couple of kilos needed to pay for his landing and fuel :)

[Plasmech]

Guppy, hitting birds won't cause much damage? An acquaintance of mine hit a flock of birds climbing out at 2000' at around 100 knots. Several bounced off the airframe, but one came straight through the middle of the windshield taking off his glasses and headset, leaving him with a large gash on the side of his head. He dialled in 7700 and returned to the airport. If it had been slightly more over his side he would have not have survived. I have photos of the results.

Agree 100%.

I've seen many pictures of bird strikes. Yes, of course the faster an aircraft is going the more damage a given bird is going to do, but in some ways it's all relative. For example, a CFM56 is designed to be able to ingest birds...during testing actual dead birds are fed into an engine. A 737 also has a MUCH stronger multi-layer laminated windshield. While a 737 is going to hit a bird a heck of a lot faster than a 152, a bird could just as easily if not more easily penetrate the 152's windshield, or completely disable its engine that was never tested for a bird (most likely prop) strike. Faster (usually larger) aircraft have much more system redundancy built into them as well.

I myself would not want to hit a bird in a 152 nor would I consider it a "non event". This holds true while I have only 4 lessons under my belt and will continue to hold true forever.

[Fuji Abound]

For the little spamcans that most of us here fly, the legal rule in such a scenario is actually to go to a non-controlled airport and land there.


I'd like to see that rule?

If you have a problem that warrants it (I am not talking about this problem especially) you land at the nearest available airport.

It is nonesense to ever suggest otherwise. I have had people tell me when your engine quits in a twin the other engine is to get you home. The other engine is to get you to the closest airport - if it happens to be an inter galactic port so be it! I guarantee you will look really stupid when you land in a field on the way back to your home base, run over a ditch, total the air craft and crack a rib.

The rule is the same in a single - if the problem warrants it, land at an airport any airport as soon as possible. Dont think for a moment that because it is "big" airport I had better go else where. Heathrow and Fairoaks have a length of tarmac that is good to land on and always better than a field, one is a bit longer and a bit wider but thats it.

As to making a drama landing in a field shouldnt be a drama in a 152 but a field you dont know is never going to be a better option than an "airport" - if you can make the airport thats the route to take, if you cant do the best you can with the field.

[SNS3Guppy]

I did just last night learn about squawk codes while doing a Cessna cloud based lesson. 7500, never planning on needing that one. 7600 for coms failure and 7700 rings the doorbell to the afterlife.

"Rings the doorbell to the afterlife?"

Is it possible that you can get any more melodramatic?

[LH2]

"Rings the doorbell to the afterlife?"

Is it possible that you can get any more melodramatic?

I think you are being a bit of tit there mate. Don't know if it's the same in the US, in Europe we are taught using the mnemonics "75... taken alive, 76... in a fix, 77... could be going to heaven". I took the above as a reference to that which, while a bit melodramatic if you think about it, is just the way we memorise them codes.

I did like the points made by Genghis further up, so I would say this thread has served a useful purpose at least as far as I'm concerned.

And a small remark regarding a comment by Backpacker: not every controlled airport wants you to bugger off if NORDO. Last I checked, most AENA airports have a published NORDO procedure involving a special circuit and light signals. I do agree however that as a generalisation his comments reflect accurately the usual state of affairs.

[gileraguy]

Does a vivid imagination make flying more perilous?

(I remember feeling a heavy thump on the nose wheel just before rotation and for the rest of the flight I sweated out the landing, thinking the tyre was ripped off the rim! (it wasn't))):ugh:

[Plasmech]

"Rings the doorbell to the afterlife?"

Is it possible that you can get any more melodramatic?

The "afterlife" comment was sarcasm on my part.

Tell you what guy, since you seem to despise me, how about just skipping over my posts? You're not teaching me or anybody else anything except for the fact that you need psychological help, seriously.

You are trying to make me out to be but a mere "civilian" whose only perception of aviation is what I have seen from Hollywood, and you are going to great pains to do so. RELAX. Give it up. You will live a longer healthier life if you get your heart rate down.

[SNS3Guppy]

In the United States, we teach that 7500 is used for hijack or illegal interference with a crew member; 7600 is for radio failure, and 7700 is a general emergency squawk. No special mnemonics needed.

No airport is going to turn away emergency traffic; not even a military field with strict entrance and landing requirements.

Light signals are established for lost communications. One need only land, either at the nearest airfield, or at an expedient precautionary landing site off-field. Problem solved.

Lost communication is not the end of the world, nor is it much concern. There is no certain death here. There is no doorbell to the afterlife.

A forced landing should be a familiar event if one has been properly trained.

I've had thousands of bird strikes over the years; some have done significant damage in high speed aircraft, most have done little more than leave blood and feathers. I've shared the cockpit with birds on a number of occasions. I've had bird strikes in 152's and 172's and a falcon crushed the wing in a 210 I flew, back to the spar. Many of the birds, the vast majority, were flocks through which I flew while doing ag work. Approach low to the crop, my sound footprint masked, the birds rose up right in front of me, often resulting in flying through the entire flock.

Bird strike damage varies in severity. Most bird strikes occur at low altitude. I have experienced two at night at 10,000', and the 210 wing damage occurred between seven and eight thousand, but the majority of my bird encounters happened at low altitude.

I don't believe I've ever heard of a cracked fuel tank in a Cessna 152 resulting from a bird strike.

Generally in the professional world, we train for emergencies in singularity; we don't do compound emergencies during training for a reason. They seldom happen. That's not to say that one emergency doesn't lead to another, because this is often the case. Compound emergencies also happen, though in extreme rarity. The famous case of the airbus in the river (Sullenberger) recently is such an example, as is UAL 232 at Sioux City, with the loss of all hydraulics.

In theory, a severe bird strike with a really large bird could damage one communication antenna, though that doesn't necessarily impair communication. Another bird strike sufficient to crush a wing and "crack" a fuel cell is more fantastical, and in combination with the damage to the antenna, of rather long odds. The loss of the transponder is curious as to how or why, but the timing is fantastic.

The only issues of note in the scenario are that the airplane is flyable and under control, and that a suitable landing site exists. The problem is, therefore, solved.

[Fright Level]

With fuel gone out of only one wing with a gravity feed and typically being "topped off" before each flight, you surely have some flying time left before the other tank is dry? Halve the original endurance, knock off 30 mins reserve and surely there is enough time to get to a smaller airport?

[BEagle]

Just land at the airport. Anyway, what sort of bird is so slow and stupid that it cannot get out of the way if it sees a Cesspit 152 in its way?

Worst birdstrike I ever had was in a car. A pheasant flew out of the hedge, dented the corner of the front wing, took out a wing mirror and broke the radio antenna.

When I stopped to recover the mirror, I turned off the engine as I got out - only for the electric antenna motor to try to wind in the remains of the antenna, which then flailed about scratching the paintwork to hell... So I grabbed it and tried to stop it, then wondered what to do next as the tug-of-war contined. Got back in, turned the power back on, then found a pair of pliers to remove the remains of the antenna, power off, pull fuse.

And the wretched pheasant had bounced over the hedge, so I couldn't even take it home and eat it!

[ShyTorque]

There you go, so make a precautionary landing, find the pheasant and take it home for supper. ;)

[BackPacker]

I'd like to see that rule?

Okay, you got me. I just checked and, indeed, it's not a general rule. In the Netherlands, it's buried deep in the AD part of the AIP. So the VFR lost comms procedure is apparently specific to each aerodrome.

Here's for instance AIP AD EHAM, para 2.22:

4.4 Communication failure procedures for VFR flights at Schiphol
4.4.1 General

Select SSR code 7600.
4.4.2 VFR outbound

In case of communication failure adhere to the departure instructions. If the departure instructions contain a clearance limit in the CTR, act in accordance with 4.4.4.
4.4.3 VFR inbound
4.4.3.1 Via VICTOR Arrival

1. In case of communication failure before joining the circuit, leave the CTR according to VICTOR Departure and divert to an appropriate aerodrome.
2. In case of communication failure over or after a position from where to join the circuit (this is past the compulsory reporting point BRAVO), execute a circuit as short as practicable for the last received and acknowledged runway (helispot). If the runway appears to be clear, make a full stop landing and vacate as soon as possible, otherwise go around and execute a similar circuit (be aware of the fact that your flight path could interfere with the flight path of other aerodrome traffic).

4.4.3.2 Via a different route to the field

1. In case of communication failure before joining the circuit, act in accordance with 4.4.4.
2. In case of communication failure after joining the circuit, act in accordance with 4.4.3.1 item b.
3. In case of communication failure overhead the centre of the aerodrome, maintain altitude, proceed to point BRAVO, act in accordance with 4.4.3.1 item a.

4.4.4 VFR crossing the CTR

In case of communication failure leave the CTR via the shortest route (radial wise), maintain altitude until outside the CTR, do not cross a runway centre line or ILS area and proceed to an appropriate aerodrome.

I found essentially the same instructions for EHRD, EHGG and EHBK, which are the other civilian controlled airports in the Netherlands. I have no idea about other controlled airports around the world, but it should be in the local AIP somehow.

So that's another item to check when planning a flight to a controlled aerodrome. Particularly if you expect large birds en-route that may take out all your comms.:E

[Ryan5252]

You are trying to make me out to be but a mere "civilian" whose only perception of aviation is what I have seen from Hollywood, and you are going to great pains to do so. RELAX. Give it up. You will live a longer healthier life if you get your heart rate down.

To be fair though, you do fuel the fire with the substance of your posts. You started the thread with an emergency scenario (albeit long winded and far-fetched) and asked for the advice of others on here as to what they would do, prompted by your recent studying of emergency procedures. As you can see from the responses, regardless of the nature (or number) of 'emergencies' one's reaction is always the same; Fly the plane! Then depending on the situation you assess your best course of action. You put in down in a field, road or runway. Ultimately, the buck stops with you. You are in command and responsible for the safe conduct of your flight. No one else. There are many, many pilots of many backgrounds and levels of experience on these forums and we all will have differing views on exactly what is the best course of action and will argue amongst ourselves for days on end as to which is best - but we will all agree with one thing; we will fly the plane first, after that its up to you. Try not to think too hard at this stage of your training, it will all come together nicely at some point. Airmanship is not a skill that be taught or gleamed from a book, it is one which is acquired over time with experience and your level of airmanship in such an occasion will either be your saving grace or your doom.

As regards to the Gupster (looks like that’s gonna stick :ok:) I have been on ****ty end of his 'rants' more than once, but when one learns not to get too upset about them and actually look into the content of what he is saying one can learn a lot and generally take something productive and informative away - why else would anyone keep coming back for more? However, I'm afraid I agree with him in this case - from your posts you are spending too much time playing FSX and watching pilots shooting themselves in the movies and not enough time doing research on real world procedures. YouTube is your friend - there are tons of videos on there from Sun'n Fun for example, some up to an hour long which will teach you alot about real world flying.

[BackPacker]

You're not teaching me or anybody else anything

Speak for yourself buddy.

Although I don't always like the Gupsters (yep, it's gonna stick:ok:) tone and I have indeed crossed swords with him on one or two occasions, I acknowledge that he's got an incredible wealth of experience, way more than I ever will acquire, and I find a very large number of his posts very informative.

If you find that he's not teaching you anything, then either you're not reading his posts for what they're worth, or you are too inexperienced to grasp where they're coming from.

[thing]

I too find on occasion the Gupster has an erudite answer to a question, if no people skills, however we can't have everything. The only thing that niggles me slightly with the wealth of experience in everything that the Gupster has, shouldn't he be about 700 years old and therefore a Timelord..........?

Gupssy, that was British humour, no need for a response.

[SNS3Guppy]

Gupssy, that was British humour, no need for a response.

As some may be aware, mine is a British family, with the odd Welshman thrown in (hence a strong affinity for blackened sheep), and a very solid Irish half (for which I make no apology, and to which I naturally gravitate). I grew up with an English accent, and while I'm not British, I'm fairly sure Timelords apply to Doctor Who (an export that would have been far better served restricted to Great Britain). I never really understood the whole thing.

Consider this a needless response.

Anyway, what sort of bird is so slow and stupid that it cannot get out of the way if it sees a Cesspit 152 in its way?

Indeed. A careful inspection of the trailing edge of the wings of the Cessna 152 are the best place to inspect for bird strikes. These usually occur when being overtaken.

[vabsie]

I too find SNS3Guppy's posts very helpful - He actually takes the time to explain most of his posts. As a student, I find this helpful regardless of what some might make of the tone.

As far as I'm concerned, keep up the debates (heated or not) as that's how I learn.

Vabsie

[thing]

Well you're probably right Gups, Dr Who is peculiarly British. I'm of Scottish descent, my wife is of Irish descent (my brother in law owns a pub in Ireland, how good is that?) and my daughter was born in St Asaph in Wales so you're talking to a fairly well rounded Brit.

[SNS3Guppy]

For example, a CFM56 is designed to be able to ingest birds...during testing actual dead birds are fed into an engine.

The CFM56 is most assuredly, absolutely NOT designed to ingest birds. It's tested for the effects of bird strikes against fan blade integrity. It is not designed for bird strikes, however.

A 737 also has a MUCH stronger multi-layer laminated windshield. While a 737 is going to hit a bird a heck of a lot faster than a 152, a bird could just as easily if not more easily penetrate the 152's windshield, or completely disable its engine that was never tested for a bird (most likely prop) strike.

What a 737 can or can't do is largely irrelevant.

When you talk about a bird disabling the engine on a 152, you're confused. When you compare it to a CFM56 you're also confused. Where tests have been conducted on turbofan engine fan blades, the birds were not fed into the engine itself, and the birds were not tested through the engine.

Bird strikes to the engine of the Cessna 152 are really meangless, as there's little means for a bird to be ingested into the engine. A bird passing through the propeller is really a non-event. Most of the time the bird doesn't survive the passage. The propeller, however does. Further, the stresses on a propeller blade traveling at 2,500 rpm are very different than those on a thin fan blade turning at 5000 or higher RPM.

In a worse-case scenario in which a bird manages to block the induction air inlet (bearing in mind that the induction in the 152 isn't easy to block, and comes with an alternate air source to rectify the situation, in the form of the carburetor air heat control), it's fixable. A bird isn't going to damage the cylinders or engine case. The engine installation in the Cessna 152, then, is entirely unlike that on a B737.

Examples of significant bird strikes:
Significant Bird Strikes to Aircraft (http://www.birdstrike.org/commlink/signif.htm)

Debunking some myths surrounding bird strikes:
Bird Strike Committee USA (http://www.birdstrike.org/commlink/top_ten.htm)

A Cessna 152 bird strike:
YouTube - Bird strike against cessna 152/ Impacto de ave. Argentina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4L8OvB6kC4)
v=o4L8OvB6kC4

[Fuji Abound]

As some may be aware, mine is a British family,


I thought all Yanks were originally British (or Irish) .. .. well nearly all.

Reluctantly I even must accept you speak better English than we .. .. well at least in the sense of old English.

Shame

[SNS3Guppy]

Reluctantly I even must accept you speak better English than we .. .. well at least in the sense of old English.


Is there any other kind?

I have my mother to blame for that; the same one who insisted that cowboy boots are a sin.

I thought all Yanks were originally British (or Irish) .. .. well nearly all.

Not really.

The truly original ones were there before any one else showed up.

[Fuji Abound]

Yeah, but you lot shot them - or most of them at any rate.

[DeeCee]

Guppy, you've had thousands of bird strikes? Wow, I've only had a few hundred.

[SNS3Guppy]

I surely surely didn't. I've spent time living with and among them, however.

The French and Indian war was primarily the Poms taking potshots at the Native Americans who, along with the French, drove the redcoats back.

Guppy, you've had thousands of bird strikes?

Roughly, but I didn't stop to count.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Assuming a minimum of 3,000 birdstrikes, a 40 year career, 2 months leave and a 5 day working week that equates to 7.5 birdstrikes a month or 1.9 a week which is 1 birdstrike every other day on average.

You must be very unlucky and I'm glad you survived.

Good job you haven't contributed to the bird evasion thread!

[dublinpilot]

I've had thousands of bird strikes over the years; some have done significant damage in high speed aircraft, most have done little more than leave blood and feathers. I've shared the cockpit with birds on a number of occasions. I've had bird strikes in 152's and 172's and a falcon crushed the wing in a 210 I flew, back to the spar. Many of the birds, the vast majority, were flocks through which I flew while doing ag work. Approach low to the crop, my sound footprint masked, the birds rose up right in front of me, often resulting in flying through the entire flock.

I'm sure the word 'thousands' in intended to be a figure of speech. But none the less as I read that post, and thought about your other posts (small arms fire, instrument panels hanging out of the cockpit, engine failures galore), the thought crossed my mind that you must be the most accident prone pilot that I have ever come across :p ;)

[SNS3Guppy]

I'm sure the word 'thousands' in intended to be a figure of speech.

No, I'm quite sure I meant thousands.

It's not hard when it involves dozens at a time on a nearly daily basis, several times a day. That's what happens when a flock rises out of the crop immediately in front of you when you're spraying a field.

I've spent a fair amount of my career at low altitudes, often below 10', and bird strikes are not at all uncommon.

You must be very unlucky and I'm glad you survived.

I'm not at all unlucky, and survival was never an issue.

Good job you haven't contributed to the bird evasion thread!

Attempting to "evade" birds is idiotic.

Birds do a far better job of evading you. For the ones that don't, you'll be wasting your time to attempt to "evade" the bird.

[24Carrot]

Quote:
I thought all Yanks were originally British (or Irish) .. .. well nearly all.

Not really.

The truly original ones were there before any one else showed up.... but those truly original ones never called themselves "Yanks", nor did anybody else!

[bookworm]

Interesting birdstrike account from the ASI (http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/birdstrike/birdstrike.cfm) involving a Baron. No fuel tank leak, but substantial damage.

I've had bird strikes in 152's and 172's and a falcon crushed the wing in a 210 I flew, back to the spar.

Given the incident in the 210, do you really think that the OP's scenario of a fuel leak is so implausible? While it's valuable to point out that any given birdstrike is unlikely to cause much damage, the point of considering emergency scenarios is to rehearse the thought process for abnormal situations, many of which are unlikely and unlucky.

[SNS3Guppy]

Given the incident in the 210, do you really think that the OP's scenario of a fuel leak is so implausible?

Yes, I do, for reasons already given. Additionally, the 210 was operated at much higher speed, has a much thinner wing, and took a descent sized bird in a dive, causing the damage.

As I said, I've experienced a LOT of bird strikes on aircraft over the years. Most of them did little to no damage. The vast majority were fairly small birds, too. In most cases, the damage if any at all, was restricted to very small dents or dings in the leading edge; on several airplanes at one location I flew, we had kevlar leading edges installed to cut down on the dents and dings. In only a few cases have I had significant damage. You also have to bear in mind that much of my flying was done at low altitudes, where one has the greatest percentage of bird strikes. While you may operate in that environment for only a few moments, I may operate in that environment full time; it makes a big difference.

Some of those airplanes had reinforced surfaces, in some cases armored surfaces. The greatest damage I've had was the Lear strike, which did crush the radome and got the left windshield. I was also slowing through 250 knots at the time at 10,000' at night; circumstances in which the original poster will not find himself in a Cessna 152. In all liklihood, the original poster won't be spending all his time at low altitude working in situations that are conducive to bird strikes.

Bear in mind that few bird strikes occur at 3,500', which I believe was the original poster's postulation. Most occur below 500'. This has already been discussed.

While it's valuable to point out that any given birdstrike is unlikely to cause much damage, the point of considering emergency scenarios is to rehearse the thought process for abnormal situations, many of which are unlikely and unlucky.

The scenario posited by the original poster was very straight forward: a flyable airplane and an available runway. Really nothing to discuss; go land. The details were somewhat fantastic; multiple issues caused by multiple bird strikes, including the unexplained loss of the transponder. As noted before, even in professional training, we generally address one emergency at a time. For a student pilot to be positing multiple emergencies or abnormals all occurring at once is perhaps a bit much.

It's one thing to ask one's self where one will land if the engine fails. Fair enough; this is a requirement of every moment one is airborne in a single engine airplane, and it should be in the foremost of one's mind at all times. It's entirely another matter to begin imagining wild ideas involving complex scenarios; one leave the realm of productive thought to enter into unrealistic television drama. The what-happens-if-a bird-strikes-me-and-then-I-catch-fire-while-I'm-having-a-heart-attack-and-a-dozen-wasps-come-out-of-the-vent-to-attack-me-right-at-the-moment-I-realize-I-left-my-epinepherine-pen-in-the-car-and-the-iron-got-left-on-at-home scenario might be going a little overboard.

Here we have the I-hit-a-bird-ooh-it's-scary-everything's-fine-and-oh-look-there's-a-runway-I-can-use scenario. In other words, no problem. That's the important thing to understand here.

But none the less as I read that post, and thought about your other posts (small arms fire, instrument panels hanging out of the cockpit, engine failures galore), the thought crossed my mind that you must be the most accident prone pilot that I have ever come across

Small arms fire isn't an accident; it's part of the working environment. I believe when I wrote that I was working an assignment in Iraq, and shortly thereafter in Afghanistan. It's to be expected, you see.

The instrument panel was blown out of the cockpit, and that was a windscreen failure involving a rapid depressurization in a Cessna 421. There was no "accident," nor was I or anyone else prone to one. We returned to land uneventfully.

Engine failures, you bet. Most of mine have occurred in older large radial-powered airplanes; many of them were cylinder failures, some propeller failures, and a number of shutdowns due to large oil leaks from a weak point on one particular type of radial engine installation, involving the stephead governor mounting base cracking. None resulted in an "accident." Several years ago a single engine failure in a Garrett TPE-331-10 powered single engine airplane did result in a forced landing on a mountainside, which was not an accident and wasn't handled as one; I made the forced landing successfully and continued flying the airplane a month later.

None of the bird strikes have resulted in accidents or been accidents, either. In a few, rare cases, some damage has occurred which required repair. Otherwise, in most all circumstances, the bird strikes were uneventful. That's not to say that bird strikes are always so, of course. One causing a Cessna 152 wing tank to crack, that takes out communications, and that somehow disables the transponder is a bit unusual, but even then one has a scenario in which a perfectly acceptable runway is available and one has a full-functioning airplane with a good engine, good control, and an ability to go land. It's what one might call a no-brainer. Go land.