Bird Strike at Manchester

[llondel]

Reports of an aircraft flying over Manchester "making thudding noises"

Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/plane-noise-manchester-jet2-airport-10077466)

Apparently Jet2 LS804 with a bird strike, now safely on the ground.

[deighton2002]

It sounded like there was a firework display taking place in Manchester, and as the plane flew overhead the sound moved with the plane. I thought I saw flashes from the left or port-side engine, although witnesses have said right engine.

There was no sign of the plane losing height or changing direction rapidly

[llondel]

My assumption is that they tried to land, found the runway occupied by a bird, went around making all the noise and then put it back down again. Well done the flight crew.

Now looking forward to all the "passengers screaming in terror" and "I was convinced we were all going to die" headlines in the national news in the morning.

[Richard J.]

Sounds like the normal symptoms and reaction to a bird strike. Go-around, shut down the affected engine, and land on one engine.

But I'm surprised that the reports of the noise and/or flames were from so many parts of Greater Manchester and Cheshire, including Northwich, Old Trafford and Stretford which would have been in the circuit after the go-around. Isn't it normal to shut down the bird-struck engine straight away?

[750XL]

Was a definite loud thumping/banging noise as it flew over South Manchester, I thought it was fireworks at first.

[Nialler]

My assumption is that they tried to land, found the runway occupied by a bird, went around making all the noise and then put it back down again. Well done the flight crew.

Now looking forward to all the "passengers screaming in terror" and "I was convinced we were all going to die" headlines in the national news in the morning.

If you have a cabin photo please forward it to the Daily Mail. :sad:

Actually, cabin photos could be a nice little nixer for CC, so long as they know the situation and are in control. Hell, the photos could look even better if they stoked up the passengers a bit.

Or how about this announcement:

"Hello, our pilots are bringing us in on one engine after a bird-strike. This is an entirely well-rehearsed procedure and the landing will be as normal as the previous landings you've experienced. However, could everybody for the moment scream and wave hands while our cabin crew take some photos and video for the tabloids? The proceeds from the photos will pay for a rather nice meal for us all at Le Coq d'Argent later this evening. Excellent. OK, calm down everybody while the drivers slick this thing in as normal. Oh, the restaurant will require advance notice of anyone eating chateaubriand. We'll sort that out in the terminal."

[RAT 5]

My assumption is that they tried to land, found the runway occupied by a bird

Sounds like the normal symptoms and reaction to a bird strike. Go-around, shut down the affected engine, and land on one engine.

Not so sure about the 'normal'; why not just land. Better to be on the ground with a thumping engine than in the air. Was this indeed on approach? Remember RYR in CIA?
I now read in the MEN that indeed it was inbound from BCN. I wonder what height it was on approach? I still think I'd land the bird.

[lomapaseo]

If you don't retard the throttle for a thumping engine you are going to have no more blades in it after a very short while.

Most of the recent news videos in the last few years have it done in short order after only a few thumps as they reconfigured their aircraft.

[DevX]

Shouldn't you wing bedecked type people be using the correct terminology here? I thought thudding, thumping and backfiring were exclusive terms for the ill informed gutter press.
It's a 'surge' chaps (and chapesses). :ok:

[G-CPTN]

10 miles as the crow (and Jet2 737) flies - and in direct line with the runway.

According to Flightaware it flew down the runway line at 1000 ft before circling at 3900 ft to land from the north-east:-

Jet2 inbound route. (https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/EXS804)

Altitude plot. (https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/EXS804/history/20150917/1030Z/LEBL/EGCC/tracklog)

Looks like a go-around.

[Mr Magnetic]

There is a short video clip on the BBC that appears to show the noise from the ground.

Jet2 plane lands safely at Manchester Airport after 'engine fire' alert - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34284468)

Is it just me though, or have they freeze framed a strobe flash a bit further down the page sort of hinting it may be flames? :hmm:

[RAT 5]

I'd still like to hear more about it from the inside and hear the rational for a G.A. rather than a landing. Perhaps we can learn from it. However, my first reaction sitting in a wounded a/c with a runway in front of me is to land it.

[heliusac]

I'd still like to hear more about it from the inside and hear the rational for a G.A. rather than a landing. Perhaps we can learn from it. However, my first reaction sitting in a wounded a/c with a runway on from to me is to land it.Depends on what stage of approach the engine failure occurs (above/below 1000'), IMC/VMC and if stable or non stable etc. If they felt they were not stable then they could not continue the approach. However nobody actually knows the facts yet except the flightcrew so it's entirely conceivable that they had already started a go around before the failure occurred etc.

Armchair theory though from us all until the report so lets just be delighted with a safe outcome.

[philbky]

A go around over Stockport when in trouble brings back memories of June 4 1967. In both cases the crews must have had their reasons for breaking off the initial approach. As the surviving Captain had no memory of the lead up to the 1967 accident we shall never know.

As this incident ended well we the reason should become clear.

[Nialler]

@heluisac:

Don't be so silly:

Depends on what stage of approach the engine failure occurs (above/below 1000'), IMC/VMC and if stable or non stable etc. If they felt they were not stable then they could not continue the approach. However nobody actually knows the facts yet except the flightcrew so it's entirely conceivable that they had already started a go around before the failure occurred etc.

Armchair theory though from us all until the report so lets just be delighted with a safe outcome.

Where are you coming from? Let's just speculate wildly and fade into the background when our initial speculations are proven wildly untrue.

Easier stuff, surely?

[peekay4]

A few years ago a 737 lost Hydraulic System A during approach, and found themselves at 1500 AGL with flaps stuck at 15 degrees, gear down.

The PF Captain elected to immediately land the plane with the current config. The PNF wanted to go around so he could complete the QRH but was afraid to say anything. The aircraft ended up landing fast, and the PF was unable to activate the thrust reverser, plus the ground spoiler was inop due to the hydraulics loss. The brakes also quickly failed and the aircraft veered off the runway at high speed, killing some people on the ground.

In this case the safety board cited the decision to rush the landing as a contributing factor. The crew had plenty of time to conduct a missed approach, properly complete the QRH actions, evaluate status, and compute the expected landing performance data. They concluded that there was enough runway distance available to safely land the airplane had the crew followed SOPs.

So anyway conducting a go around when trouble arises even on final may be the correct action to take, depending on the circumstances.

[RAT 5]

PK4. That was not a loss of thrust scenario. Loss of thrust = land at nearest suitable airfield. At the time it might well be in front of you.
I flew for one operator whose SOP was, engine failure on finals = G/A. The FCTM said captain's discretion. Mostly there is time to continue and if you become unstable at DA or above then G/A. A surprise SE G/A is not something to be rushed and thus I would hope the approach is continued for a short while to stabilise the a/c before initiating the G/A. It maybe that in doing so you stabilise enough to land. My point is this; how much do you let the captain decide on the day and how much you write into SOP's and give no choice? I know you are allowed to deviate from SOP's in the name of better safety, but how many would risk that. I still reflect on the astonishingly excellent unheralded job done by the RYR captain at CIA. Outstanding.
It is a topic for general discussion. Someone intimated about having a thread of "what would you do?" An excellent idea, into which this might fit.
But, as has been said; let's wait for all the facts on this one.

[Don't sink]

This sort of ties in with the other thread about drones. But from the moment I heard this incident yesterday, my thought was I hope it was a bird strike ( sorry RSPB!) and not a drone strike! Over the past few months there have been quite a few reports from crews approaching Manchester's runway 23 reporting drones...it was in the news in fact as the airport shut for a few hours while it was investigated.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

A few years ago a 737 lost Hydraulic System A during approach, and found themselves at 1500 AGL with flaps stuck at 15 degrees, gear down.

Are you sure??

Loss of hydraulic system A would result in the gear being stuck down, but the flaps are driven from hydraulic system B, so there should have been no issues with them.

The brakes also quickly failed

Are you sure??

Normal brakes on a B737 are on B system hydraulics, so there is no reason for the brakes to have failed.


As for why the crew didn't continue to land, at the moment only they know that, no point speculating, we weren't there. There are of course many reasons, a couple that immediately spring to mind are :- if the engine malfunction occurred during the approach perhaps the stability of the approach was in doubt, it's not an easy manoeuvre to fly even when you are expecting it in the sim, let alone out of the blue, or perhaps the GA was initiated for another reason and the engine gave out during the power application for whatever reason.

All will become apparent in good time.

[peekay4]

Are you sure??

Loss of hydraulic system A would result in the gear being stuck down, but the flaps are driven from hydraulic system B, so there should have been no issues with them.

Are you sure??

Normal brakes on a B737 are on B system hydraulics, so there is no reason for the brakes to have failed.
I believe you're describing the 737NG.

The accident aircraft was a 737-200. On the -200, Hydraulic System A controls all flaps and slats, ground spoilers, both thrust reversers, nose wheel steering, and the inboard brakes.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Correct, I was referring to 300-900 series, I therefore stand corrected.

[heliusac]

@Nialler:
Don't be so silly:

Quote:
Depends on what stage of approach the engine failure occurs (above/below 1000'), IMC/VMC and if stable or non stable etc. If they felt they were not stable then they could not continue the approach. However nobody actually knows the facts yet except the flightcrew so it's entirely conceivable that they had already started a go around before the failure occurred etc.

Armchair theory though from us all until the report so lets just be delighted with a safe outcome.
Where are you coming from? Let's just speculate wildly and fade into the background when our initial speculations are proven wildly untrue.

Easier stuff, surely? Easy tiger! Not sure why you are being quite so aggressive there?

Which bit are you getting so angry at? The first two sentences are SOP.

I think where I am coming from is that saying "why didn't they just land" is a bit simplistic as there were potentially many variables that lead to the decision to go around. As of yet nobody knows if the failure occurred before or after the go around so the option to just land may not have been an option at all.

That's not a theory I am presenting it's more just a balanced view. As for fading into the background well I was rather hoping to stick around and have some more useful input into this discussion as long as that doesn't upset you.

Finally I don't have a clue what "Easier stuff surely?" means:confused:

[Nialler]

I was actually supporting you and your comment about none of us having all the facts to hand.

I was doing it through the medium of sarcasm. Badly.