how did we go from smooth landing to airspeed limitations to birdstrikes?

in 16 yrs of flying GA, i have rarely seen birds above 3000 Ft AGL. except pelicans ! some up to 5000 AGL, (usually around hunter valley) and 1 pidgeon over goulburn at 4000.

I remember a trip (approx 6 months ago) to Hervey Bay in a Arrow with the local CFI, during the flare he started yelling hold it off hold it off, i just yelled quiet! and sure enough, the only sign we had touchdown was the squeel of the tyres! not even a very small thump! i was impressed! the CFI didnt say anything after that!:cool: funnily enough, never had a completly smooth landing i a jabiru, probably because the gear legs are angled forward at a good 15 deg! and similar to 767 syndrome, get that stubbed toe type feel on touchdown.

the heaviest TD i have felt was as PAX in 737 into Maroochydoor on a windy day!

Date: 02 April 2001
Aircraft: B-767-300
Airport: Charles de Gaule
Phase of Flight: Climb (14,000’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Nose, radome, wing, fuselage, tail
Wildlife Species: Northern shoveler
Comments from Report: A flock of shovelers was struck causing dents and 11 punctures to the aircraft. One bird entered the cockpit causing depressurization. The pilot had to use an oxygen mask. The aircraft returned safety to the airport. Cost of repairs estimated at over $1 million.

I've read of bird strikes (geese) above 20,000'.

So, what have we got here with HSWL and the Rev.?

A couple of ATPL pilots who masquerade as amateur PPL pilots, for reasons best known to themselves!

Indeed, the Rev also masquerades as a Flight Engineer!

With the Revs hours as stated, at 18k or so, and the H alluding to high speed jet transport time also, I obviously should apologise to both for questioning their credentials!

And so I do!...but, could I just ask (if you both don't mind)...

just how many hours do both of you have in the LHS(that stands for left hand seat, in case you don't know what that means) of a high speed jet transport aircraft?

:p :p

And ,I gotta tellya, Isn't ultralights a real super hero after his post??

;)

Ahh those were the days Kap.

Down the DME steps and 300 knots into the circuit at Coolangatta for a RH circuit and in. Maybe 330 if no one was lookin.

Well amos, since you ask; all my hours were spent in the F/E's seat on various high speed jet transport aircraft but I'm awfully glad none of it was behind the LHS with you in it!:yuk:

Gnadenburg.

I think you'll find that the essence of that formula (KE=1/2 mv^2) is:

The energy increases/decreases in direct proportion to the weight. With twice the weight at the same speed, you have twice the energy.

The energy increases/decreases in proportion to the speed squared. With twice the speed at the same weight, you have four times the energy.

The 1/2 is not significant for this discussion really. :)

Blip

Sure you can drop the 1/2 from MV squared, as our discussion the relationship between a constant mass and TAS being the variable.

Pragmatically, weight of the bird, it's type ( bone density ) and vector relationships of the collision- bird speed, bird direction and angle of splat ( where on the body the bird is struck ) comes into play.

To put the above in a mathematical relationship involves a Langranian material model- my applied maths/mechanics
knowledge grinds to a halt.

So, the real answer as to whether a birdstrike is a potentially catastrophic event at greater than 250kts below 10000, lies with the aircraft manafacturer.

Similar experience at Hobart in a 737, had me asking the hostie if we had been shot down.

Reminds me of a pea-soup morning in Sydney a while ago.
Qantas: go round
Ansett: go round
Qantas: go round
Unnamed Asian Carrier: on the numbers
Ansett: go round

"were you visual at the minima sir?"
*pause* "ah Charey Charey" :eek:

Gnadenburg. You said:
Interesting that only a few years ago, CASA endorsed flying training required an airline trainee to demonstrate a "high speed descent" during line training. This involved entering a five to six thousand foot gate at 20DME at 350kts in a 727, 340kts in a A320 and 320kts in a 737.


Being a little curious about your statement I talked to a former CASA Area Manager about this. He was amazed and quite unaware of any formal CASA directive in this regard. This manager was the Examiner of Airmen 767/747, so I suppose he should know. He said if it did happen, it was certainly without the knowledge of CASA Head Office who would never have approved such a practice and more probably the work of a rogue RPT examiner who had personal views on the subject. It was never a "policy"

Deliberate high speed below 10 into low altitudes as described in these posts is nothing more than a macho thing and can be likened to P platers burning you off at the traffic lights. Immature pilots get some satisfaction out of it - whatever turns you on, I guess.

HSWL,

That's a little harsh.

The fact is, up until a few years ago ther WAS no speed limit below 10 000' in AUS, and as has been pointed out here it was often requested by ATC, even after the limit was imposed.

As it was common practice and often expedient for traffic purposes, wouldn't training to do it and demonstrating that skill when being checked have not been a good idea?

BTW, in Europe, where the limit has been around for a lot longer, it is still not uncommon to be asked to maintain high speed below FL100 in Class D or higher, and VERY common (almost universal) to be given "Free speed", meaning your discretion.

I take it you therefore think the majority of pilots flying in Europe are "P platers burning off at the lights"??

HWSL

I do not think you understand.

Domestic jet aircraft in Australia, up until the advent of STAR arrivals - and even then it was common to waiver speed restrictions below 10000 - operated in a speed band of 290 to 310kts below 10000. A320 aircraft were operated in a 320kt to 280kt speed band due VNAV limitations. All CASA endorsed and expected for ATC flow control.

International carriers would slow to 250 below 10000.

It is only recently that this SOP has changed.

The ignorance of a CASA Area Manager is shameful. But as expertise in CASA was always limited, I understand airlines in Australia were mostly self-regulated.

According to your statement, HSWL, the less macho pilots will start slowing down at even higher levels on descent.
It's got NOTHING to do with "machoism", and EVERYTHING to do with the professional pilot operating the aircraft efficiently for his employer.

Perhaps (because) you are not a professional pilot, you are unable to understand their psyche.
Professional pilots achieve a great deal of work satisfaction in being able to achieve savings for their employer - savings in terms of fuel NOT used (ie. fuel burns below plan), running as close as possible to published schedule, overall reduced operating costs, all within a framework of SAFE operations, and passenger comfort.
250 kts below 10 INCREASES fuel burn and overall operational costs due to longer flight times (aircraft usage).

From an ATC (operational)point of view:

MX on descent is requested every day to make the sequence work. As long as the aircraft gets it prior to TD and is not carrying an MEL to prevent it, it is rarely refused.

Freighters at night will often maintain above 300KIAS until 1500FT of their own accord.

The 250BLWA100 was only introduced at some airports 2 years ago. It now seems to be standard.

During the NAS E Airspace debacle it was not permitted (MIL excepted) on descent (in E) in to major aerodromes because of the step design. This has been rectified with the 25/11 rollback - sorry, ENHANCEMENT, and it is probably saving a lot more money than it pretended to previously.

250BLWA100 is standard on SIDS and some SID designs need it for segregation with STARS. Where there is not going to be a tactical conflict, where there is a tactical requirment for a low level maintain , or where a Heavy fuelled up for a long haul departs, it is normally cancelled on first contact, and welcomed by the crew.

Exceptions of course are during CB activity where VTurb is the consideration - most controllers won't offer it in such weather.

So, it does not appear to be an exception to the rule, more likely the normal operating environment.

At least until some directive appears from some anonymous face telling ATC that it can not be offered for some unknown or ridiculous reason.

There seem to be a lot of those directives. :rolleyes:

http://****sutonka.port5.com/watchtn.jpg4tw

I think we're all saying the same things again and again here.

I'm quite sure I operate the aircraft efficiently and safely and have no feelings of "machismo" that i have noted so far, during descent. If I did, I would be loathe to mention them as pushing A/P buttons at the front of a pile of heavy metal doing only 320Kt in a straight line is not what gets a girl moist, at least I don't think so.

Now if I was doing Vne in an FA-18 (whatever that might be), well then "machismo" would almost certainly come into play and my ego would be enlarged accordingly with subsequent beatings of the meat here.

No, it isn't "machismo", I simply can't shake that urge to fly efficiently and safely within the normal aircraft operating envelope. It isn't hard to do but accept that HSWL might not be up to it.

I think HSWL is winding you all up and by the tone of the replies must be walking away chuckling to himself - isn't that so HSWL?

250 knot below 10 grand in descent will not necessarily cost you more fuel than 320 knots. Somewhere there is a Boeing blurb that stated a much lower speed than 250 will give you least burn.

Either way, there is little specific "skill" difference between 250 and 320 knots - just that 320 keeps you sitting on the edge of your seat a bit more in case a sudden track shortening is offered. Mind you that wayward low flying pelican would hurt more if clobbered at 320 rather than 250.

Incidently heard that a Virgin aircraft took a bloody big bird into the engine a couple of days back. Engine change, too. Good job it wasn't at high speed below 10...

Yeah but more time in the air costs in hours.

Yeah he could be winding up but just founds 'un'-learned in the process. Someone show him how to do a real wind-up...

Anyone? Winstun??

Say 60nm at 250 knots; that is 14.4 minutes

Then 60nm at 320 knots; that is 11.25 minutes.

A difference of 3.15 minutes or 0.0525 of an hour.

Icarus,

Hmm, I think you are being a litlle too literal in your calculations. Touchdown speed and configuration will not be at 320 or even 250 knots.

A high speed descent seems to gain only about 1 to maybe 1.5 minutes from 40NM to touchdown.

One minute is valuable in a landing sequence from ATC point of view which is why it is regularly requested.

(Now what was that about smooth landings?? ;) )

Hey, split the difference then. 2 minutes. Add that up per a/c per sector per day and see what you get. Friggen lot when it comes to together. Fuel use isn't the only variable.

These points regarding time saved are all valid.

Often I conduct a high speed climb to save perhaps 1 min, this very often saves 7 to 10 mins of holding at the destination due to arriving earlier, rather than later, in a sequence of say 20 aircraft during the morning/evening gaggle.

Morning mungrel, 1 minute saved on each flight in general will equate to the salary of 1 crew member over an entire year. May be the salary I save will be mine.

Uncommon sense, I so totally agree.
Far to often I see pilot's with absolutely no regard for what is going on around them. With the aid of TCAS, the mark 1 eyeball and a good listening watch, we should all be aware of our position in the sequence. I very often speed up or slow down, depending on what the preceding aircraft and/or aircraft following me is doing, to make the sequence work for me and the others around me. (sadly it is more often slow down due the previous aircraft unable to cope with anything more than Vref +10)

From where I sit, if pilots were more diligent in this regard, everybody's job would be made a lot easier.

Cheers, HH.

:ok: