View Full Version : RYR nasty bird strike at PIK
Understand that one of this morning's RYR departures from PIK had a serious bird strike on rotation. Aircraft was still on the runway about an hour later "cooling the brakes". Still having engine repairs tonight.
Well done the crew. :)
I imagine a pretty exciting deceleration. :eek: :eek:
serious bird strike on rotation
Are you saying that he aborted the takeoff AFTER V1? If so you shouldnt be congratulating the crew but pulling their licences!
Mutt.
rupetime
3rd Jan 2003, 07:31
Not only is Findo suggesting it was after V1 but reading it again the birdstrike was on "rotation".........and he still aborted !
Hmm......lets see if anyone has some facts before the court martial wraps up.
GordonBurford
3rd Jan 2003, 07:50
Come on guys, I know as a not-very knowledgeable wannabe that you don't abort the takeoff after V1... And i'm sure this would have been mentioned during the years of training it took for them to get their jobs. I'm sure that they had the best of reasons, and i'd be interested to hear what they are because this kind of this is very interesting to me.
Either way, as a frequentish flyer on this route, I bet the passengers were complaining like hell about the delay! I'm sure some passengers would quite happily get on a plane that was on fire, rather than wait 20 minutes for one that wasn't! Personally, however, if the captain doesn't think the aircraft is safe to fly, I trust his experiance and training more than my desire to get somewhere.
Greenfinch
3rd Jan 2003, 09:22
Rupetime,
Not only is Findo suggesting it was after V1 but reading it again the birdstrike was on "rotation".........and he still aborted !
Remember, V1 and VR are often coincident. That said it would have to be something pretty catastrophic to abort as rotation commenced (if that's how it REALLY happened).
GF
:cool:
mutt:
You have obviously already decided that the crew made a big mistake and should lose their licenses when you do not have the faintest idea of what they were faced with.
Let us just suppose, for example, that a flock of seagulls took out BOTH engines on rotation just how do you imagine that they would still be able to go flying?
Exactly that happened to a friend of mine at NCL in a BAC 1-11 some years ago. They did a great job of stopping the aircraft in what was left of the runway and ended up in the grass just off the end with everything and everybody intact (except for the engines).
Mister Geezer
3rd Jan 2003, 09:43
Was that rotation on the taxyway or on the runway??? :D
GordonBurford
3rd Jan 2003, 09:48
Years ago I was working at a Helicopter firm (nothing exciting, just a parts audit - although I enjoyed my time there) when they showed me a aircraft that had suffered the misfortune of having a bird actually bounce off a Rotorblade, and enter the cockpit, via the glass! You can bet the pilot got that one down QUICK. I also was regaled by an ex-navy pilot with tales of a second officer that had become quite ill during the flight and vomited copiously over the flight-instruments and controls, before slumping forward onto the cyclic, causing an uncommanded autopilot disconnect. Apparently it's quite difficult to correct the unscheduled nocturnal aerobatics that resulted, especially while being assulted by a semi-conscious 220Lbs man, and unable to see your instruments for semi-digested junk-food, and trying not the breathe while you're doing it.
I was going to ask about the possibility of bird-strike on the 737 killing both engines, actually, but it seemed a bit cheeky for a wannabe to start hypothising when experianced aircrew hadn't done so. 737's are not noted for their gliding ability. They're seldom seen at glider meets (unless someone at ATC REALLY needs to pay more attention) and you need a bloody impressive thermal, or exceptional sloping ability, to "get around" with one!
Personally, I think there are a million and one scenarios that could have faced these men. Wait untill the accident report is available (if they're PPRUNE members, they may even wish to tell us what happened themselves!) before making ANY judgements. The main thing is, everyone is still breather (except the birds, presumably). And you know what they say... "Any landing you walk away from is a good one... If you can use the plane again, it was exceptional!"
If you're interested, the AAIB website is;
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/
Obviously, it'll be a while before this particular story reaches it, There are some tragic accidents on it, of course, but also some quite interesting ones. Like the baggage handler who clatted a 146 with his truck because the tyres were bald, and the Yak pilot who mistook his flaps indicator for his gear indicator and landed "wheels up". Probably an easy mistake to make, but quite amusing when no one's hurt, and it's happening to someone else. There's also some salutory lessons, i'm sure. Most of you probably know it already, but for anyone who doesn't it's worth a quiet virtual "potter about" in.
angels
3rd Jan 2003, 10:06
The original poster may have made a simple error such as meaning to write that the strike happened 'just before' rotation.
Either way, this is an intriguing thread. Is there no-one at PIK who can give us the griff?
HotDog
3rd Jan 2003, 11:10
Many,many years ago, I was involved in an abort in a Convair 880 at Haneda when right at the call of V1, No.3 engine suffered a catastrophic, uncontained engine failure. We came to a halt at the end of the runway, just as the performance graphs told us we would. Shortly after we taxied back to the bay, all mainwheel fuseable plugs blew. No.3 engine had a hole through the side of the cowl that you could have crawled into. The engine failure was immediately followed by an engine fire warning. All this happened on a final command check of the pilot in the left hand seat. A pretty touch and go decision to make at the time but considering the damage and the nature of the failure, I'm glad the decision was made to abort. Apart from that, we had another two days stayover in Tokyo.:D
Not as bad as it sounds, abort occured before rotation but pax had to be bussed off and aircraft towed because of "seized brakes". Aircraft was on runway for about 1 hour.
Thank you angels you are quite correct. I copied the information from a non pilot report elsewhere without changing anything. It does not seem to have made sensational headlines anywhere which is quite refreshing after the metro accident last week in possibly similar circumstances.
The result of the incident is that all walked away safely. What I would have said, if I was a passenger, was well done the crew.
lomapaseo
3rd Jan 2003, 13:03
Let us just suppose, for example, that a flock of seagulls took out BOTH engines on rotation just how do you imagine that they would still be able to go flying?
Exactly that happened to a friend of mine at NCL in a BAC 1-11 some years ago. They did a great job of stopping the aircraft in what was left of the runway and ended up in the grass just off the end with everything and everybody intact (except for the engines).
Once decision speed is reached, the pilots decsion is presumed (keep going). Of course the aircraft may not agree in the rarest of circumstances. It would not be t helpful to the cause of safety, to encourage pilots to override their training by adding a "what if" in the decsion process. Of course I have no idea what the facts are in the reported incident so my comments are only generalized.
Regarding the BAC 1-11, I'm not aware of any such incident involving multiple engines, certainly it would have been reportable and in the database.
angels
3rd Jan 2003, 13:11
NCNG - Looks like you signed up to Pprune to help out on this one. Nice one, many thanks for settling things.
Findo -- What happened to you is a trap which has caught people out many times before. When I c&p stuff, I always try and give the source, hence you can deflect criticism onto said source with a 'don't shoot the messanger' type of response.
Cheers.
lomapaseo:
Most of us are well aware of the definition of V1, VR, V2 etc but V1 becomes totally irrelevant when all your engines quit!
I'm sorry you can't find the BAC 1-11 incident in your precious data base. The airline was BIA. The Captain was C... F... and the F/O was D... S... They did a first class job in difficult circumstances.
I also know of another near-catastrophic bird strike which might interest you but which is also probably not in your data base.
A BAe 146 operated by an NFD crew got airborne at night from Genoa. They went straight through a flock of seagulls which took out 2 engines immediately. The crew did a fantastic job - quickly round the harbour in the dark at 500 feet - which was just as well for the 3rd engine failed on finals!
On both occasions the crew were very practical and not too concerned with the theoretical!
Multiple failures from birdstrikes are not as uncommon as you would seem to suggest. I just hope that you never have to deal with such a scenario.
Well said JW411.
lomapaseo, I doubt anyone would advocate - 'encourage pilots to override their training', but they need to sometimes have other solutions up their sleave.
I only fly turbo props but I know which runways are long enough for me to abort after V1, in the very unlikely event I need to stop, to deny that thought is rather foolish.
In 1997 an Emerald Budgie out of STN aborted after rotation, the end result, everyone walked away, what might have happened otherwise does not bear thinking about.
Commanders need to think outside the square sometimes, that comes with experience, lomapaseo has neither methinks.
Flightmech
3rd Jan 2003, 18:17
Meeb
"In 1997 an Emerald Budgie out of STN aborted after rotation, the end result, everyone walked away, what might have happened otherwise does not bear thinking about."
I witnessed this event, ended up in the grass off 23. It was carrying the Leeds United Football team if i remember rightly?
Definately seemed a good decision to me bearing in mind the engine damage sustained.
JW411,
I somehow expected the original posting to reflect of the finest Sun reporting techniques, i therefore decided to see when people would actually decide to abort after V1. You gave me an excellent example, as did Meeb..........
Hate to do it to you, but you have to remember the words at the bottom of this page....
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions
Mutt.
skypig49
3rd Jan 2003, 20:08
In the mid 90's, Yukla 27, E-3 Awacs at Elmendorf, AFB, Alaska. Multiple Geese strikes on T/O roll. Lost one at V1 and and another at just after Vrot(same side). They didn't make it. Lost some good friends on that one. As for stopping after V1, If you can personally hand the authorities your ticket (license) then you have done at least one thing right! No second guessing the crew in ANY case. Well done to them.
Ed
lomapaseo
3rd Jan 2003, 20:50
A BAe 146 operated by an NFD crew got airborne at night from Genoa. They went straight through a flock of seagulls which took out 2 engines immediately. The crew did a fantastic job - quickly round the harbour in the dark at 500 feet - which was just as well for the 3rd engine failed on finals!
On both occasions the crew were very practical and not too concerned with the theoretical!
Multiple failures from birdstrikes are not as uncommon as you would seem to suggest. I just hope that you never have to deal with such a scenario.
They are only as common as those truly verified in data bases. I also don't recall a BAE146 being in the data base.
The data base has a singlular use to promote changes to improve safety. What's not verified in the data base will not be addressed.
Although such terrible results could have arose form this inccident but the main thing is you were lucky that the pilot could abort the takeoff just noticed in the other article who has had no loss of life in air travel this year including Cargo and commercial, Washington and we argue over should he have aborted or not it's lucky he did for this could have meant serious atrossities and huge hummiliation to us as a Country. This was lucky to be at a place like PIK where he could abort a takeoff as for if he had departed from somewhere like LCY he would now maybe be back on the ground safely or he could have had a strike with a sound barrier or if he had got up and stalled he may have crashed on land or in the river either of these crash situations probably would have meant loss of life and for many families huge upset. So thats why we should stop arguing about should he have abort, he did abort which meant the lives were spared for those onboard and if so maybe for some living near or under PIK flight path. If i could lay blame it would be partially to the checker at PIK, he should have made sure the birds where clear enough for that aircraft to takeoff because if that was a b747 or bigger than a b757 this may have meant it might not of been able abort and as all the jets in that size range would probably most likely to have huge thrust amounts and in wide and large amounts of flying birds it would suck them in and that would mean huge atrossities but thats what i would call seriously dangerous for this inncident there is no one who you can blame in the right mind the pilot did what first came to mind and he did it quick enough so that he could abort so i think this matter was clearly an accident and i think in the right minds some of the other pilots would have done.
eastern wiseguy
3rd Jan 2003, 22:55
If i could lay blame it would be partially to the checker at PIK, he should have made sure the birds where clear enough for that aircraft to takeoff
It is not the sole responsibility of the checker I as an ATC do scan the runway for bird activity and advise accordingly but in many cases the birds will decide to appear AFTER the aircraft is rolling and there is NOTHING that can be done.The guy in the bird vehicle can only do so much and until a way of instigating a TOTAL ban on birds around an aifield can be found it will remain a risk that everyone flying has to take.From long experience with an airfield which attracts large numbers of birds all through the year I can say that on many occassions we have three bird vehicles out scaring ,doing constant harrassment with tapes, gas guns ,and cartridge firing yet despite this strikes still occur.
lomapaseo:
I am seriously tempted to tell you precisely into which part of your anatomy you should place your precious data base but on this occasion I shall refrain!
Canuckbirdstrike
5th Jan 2003, 20:14
Just an FYI only about 20% of bird strikes are actually reported andthe quality of information is poor and in many cases incomplete.
As for the Genoa BAE146 incident this is a documented incident that was the subject of a most interesting court case.
"THE INCIDENT - On 7th June 1989 a TNT Bae 146 cargo flight collided immediately after take-off with a flock of gulls…one engine stopped running immediately, two more after the emergency landing… …the plane managed to return to the parking stand with only one
engine running!"
A complex civil liability case ensued and a judgment for around $10 million US was awarded to the aircraft operator. Various organizations who should have exercised a higher standard of care were assessed a portion of the liability. I would need to drag out the whole case to name the negligent parties and there percentage of damage assessment. This is not an isolated case.
As someone who works in the area of bird strike safety I would really appreciate if someone could forward any of the details (
[email protected]) on the incident including pictures if available!
It is also important to note that the number of multiple engine strikes from birds is increasing and that the number of large birds (watefowl) are also increasing at a high rate.
Sorry a correction on the damage award in Genoa it was 2 million US$.
Airbanda
5th Jan 2003, 21:24
The story of the Emerald 748 at STN, from the captain's perspective, is featured in the current issue of Pilot.
Massey1Bravo
6th Jan 2003, 08:31
I don't know if you guys can still remember, but I think we have had a similar discussion when the AF Concorde crashed. The discussion goes that the pilots could have saved some of the lives of the pax if they aborted the take off rather than flying with 2 uncontained engine failures and a fuel tank fire.
Anyway IMHO pilots (Esp. those flying twins) should always be prepared to do a RTO after V1 should something catastrophic happen to more than 1 engine. (i.e. Birdstrikes)
India Four Two
6th Jan 2003, 10:31
Here's a TSB Report (http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1995/a95h0015/a95h0015.asp) about a DC-10 overrun at Vancouver, where the Captain rejected the takeoff after V1, because of a loud bang, which he thought was a bomb - it turned out to be a compressor stall, but the interesting point here is that the Captain had previously determined his actions in a case like this (1.14.2.3 Decision Making on Flight 17):
The captain's decision to reject was based on the fact that he did not recognize the initial sound and subsequent thumping noises, and that, because he thought the bang could have been a bomb, he had concerns about the integrity of the aircraft and its ability to fly. Also, the captain stated that, based on the rejected take-off provisions in the DC-10 Flight Manual and on a fatal DC8 accident that he had witnessed, he had developed a mental rule to not take an aircraft into the air if he suspected that there was aircraft structural failure.
Mister Gash
7th Jan 2003, 10:09
On th PIK Ryanair flight the captain, who was the non-handling pilot, noticed a flock of birds in his peripheral vision just before V1. This was quickly followed by a succession of bangs and the take-off was rejected. Aircraft stopped on the centreline with plenty of runway left to go but couldn't be moved for some time due to locked brakes. Conditions were wet and windy with something like a 15-knot crosswind at the time and decision was made BEFORE V1.
No drama, just two pros doing what they're supposed to do. No complaints from pax either!
(Edited for clarity.)
prang one
7th Jan 2003, 14:07
JW411 I agree with what you say.
Iomapaseo. The theorized faliures that we are trainied to deal with are based on past events and theory.
In my experiance most failures come close to these "profiles" or are not in the cx list period.
In such cases the experiance ,knowledge of systems and training of the crew have to be used together to try and save the aircraft
Afterwards it can be disected and put in the cx list by the boys/girls in the post theory dept.
As for birds making all the engines go bang on the runway (if that is what happened) I have never seen a cx list solution for that .Probably because its obviouse your on your own.
Thats why we get the big bucks:rolleyes:
prang one:
You are absolutely right. Simple things like engine fires on take-off seldom kill people. It is usually when something happens that is not in any checklist that things can go seriously wrong.
In fact, the closest I got to dying was when the ar*e-end of the large bit of kit that I was flying at the time froze up. I did not have long to figure out which bit had actually frozen and what I should do with the bit of trim that I was left with when the automatics came out but luck was on my side.
Hand flying a large aeroplane on a very imprecise elevator trim control for over 7 hours gets you thinking and the checklists do not help at all!