Birdstrikes - incl pictures
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I am not trying to be confrontational and certainly would not want to be likened to an insect, as you seem to be doing with people who disagree with you over your Canadian contract. But if you have time to debate, then lets have a reasoned debate.
We both accept that whole aircraft testing is better than previous standards which only required certain areas to be tested. Do you agree that a 95th centile bird (1 kg) at Vh is a sufficiently high certification standard for the windscreen? From my practical experience, including birds penetrating my cockpit and having a colleague’s windscreen on a SA 330 Puma penetrated by a large bird which knocked both throttles out of the governed gate and partially moved a fuel shutoff lever, it could be questioned. I know that 1 kg is the standard in JAR/FAR 29, but do you have a personal view?
You criticised my maths in a previous post , as you are probably bettered educated than I am would you care to point out my errors so that I will not make the same mistakes again.
g33
I am not trying to be confrontational and certainly would not want to be likened to an insect, as you seem to be doing with people who disagree with you over your Canadian contract. But if you have time to debate, then lets have a reasoned debate.
We both accept that whole aircraft testing is better than previous standards which only required certain areas to be tested. Do you agree that a 95th centile bird (1 kg) at Vh is a sufficiently high certification standard for the windscreen? From my practical experience, including birds penetrating my cockpit and having a colleague’s windscreen on a SA 330 Puma penetrated by a large bird which knocked both throttles out of the governed gate and partially moved a fuel shutoff lever, it could be questioned. I know that 1 kg is the standard in JAR/FAR 29, but do you have a personal view?
You criticised my maths in a previous post , as you are probably bettered educated than I am would you care to point out my errors so that I will not make the same mistakes again.
g33
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g33,
Let's continue the conversation, it is a good one!
That other fellow that I accuse of being a mosquito does not post issues or questions, he is a troll. Read his post again to see why I don't even bother with him.
Your issues are good ones, but we fall on opposite sides of the practicality line, where the requirement is intended to protect without inflicting an onerous burden on the aircraft's weight, cost or productivity. I really do not have any feel for sizes of birds, my research into your pervious question (pprune teaches ALL of us!) showed that list of historical bird strikes. I am doing a bit of look-up on the weights of the birds.
More to follow!
Let's continue the conversation, it is a good one!
That other fellow that I accuse of being a mosquito does not post issues or questions, he is a troll. Read his post again to see why I don't even bother with him.
Your issues are good ones, but we fall on opposite sides of the practicality line, where the requirement is intended to protect without inflicting an onerous burden on the aircraft's weight, cost or productivity. I really do not have any feel for sizes of birds, my research into your pervious question (pprune teaches ALL of us!) showed that list of historical bird strikes. I am doing a bit of look-up on the weights of the birds.
More to follow!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff. A Dash 8 was nearly written off in Australia some years ago. It was on descent when a large eagle with the best part of an undigested rabbit in it's gut struck it on the wing leading edge near one of the engines. The bird actually pieced into the wing structure and severed some of the engine control cables and wiring. Forced an engine shutdown and assorted mayhem. I can't recall exactly but the aircraft was a bordeline write off due to the amount of damage and fears over a bent wing spar too. I admit he was probably pulling the scales down more than 2.2 pounds but the damage was massive.
Must be nice to hit one in a fast jet at 500 knots on the deck.
regards
Vic
Must be nice to hit one in a fast jet at 500 knots on the deck.
regards
Vic
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic!!
I've had 2 exciting strikes along with plenty of not too exciting ones.
First in Borneo. I had taken off from Bario, where currently there is a helicopter missing, in a Wessex with 15 ghurkas in the back. As I levelled off and accelerated to a high speed cruise of 100 kts, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a black object at 10 o'clock flash past followed by a thud felt through my feet and then some tail vibrations. I did a 180 and returned to Bario for a run on landing as the tail felt like it was suffering. After shut down, we saw that a blade pocket, number 19 I think, had detached and hit the tail rotor which was now about 3-4 inches wide and not providing too much thrust. So I have no doubt that a bird strike on the tail would be even more exciting.
The second one was in India. After levelling off at 2000 feet in a 212, sitting in the left seat, I lowered my head to do some sums and I saw a black flash ahead, immediately followed by a huge bang. We had hit a full size eagle with a wing span of at least 3-4 feet. It had hit the plastic window above my head, pushing it down about 3 inches and thus spilling his guts down the back of my neck and into various holes and slots in the frame work. The rest of the bird went through the No 1 engine without too much drama. Needless to say, thanks to the Indian heat, the cockpit spelt bloody terrinble as we couldn't pick out all the little bits!!
I've had 2 exciting strikes along with plenty of not too exciting ones.
First in Borneo. I had taken off from Bario, where currently there is a helicopter missing, in a Wessex with 15 ghurkas in the back. As I levelled off and accelerated to a high speed cruise of 100 kts, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a black object at 10 o'clock flash past followed by a thud felt through my feet and then some tail vibrations. I did a 180 and returned to Bario for a run on landing as the tail felt like it was suffering. After shut down, we saw that a blade pocket, number 19 I think, had detached and hit the tail rotor which was now about 3-4 inches wide and not providing too much thrust. So I have no doubt that a bird strike on the tail would be even more exciting.
The second one was in India. After levelling off at 2000 feet in a 212, sitting in the left seat, I lowered my head to do some sums and I saw a black flash ahead, immediately followed by a huge bang. We had hit a full size eagle with a wing span of at least 3-4 feet. It had hit the plastic window above my head, pushing it down about 3 inches and thus spilling his guts down the back of my neck and into various holes and slots in the frame work. The rest of the bird went through the No 1 engine without too much drama. Needless to say, thanks to the Indian heat, the cockpit spelt bloody terrinble as we couldn't pick out all the little bits!!
Victor 2 has it spot on - the RAAF lost 2 fine pilots in an F-111 which hit a pelican while low level on the Evans Head bombing range. Would have been around 1977 or 78. Doing around 450 knots, it incapacitated them for a brief period of time, and one of them had recovered enough to initiate the ejection sequence but it was too late. Very sad.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian ATSB Birdstrike Report
Just in case anyone feels like perusing this report, it goes into some stats, some specific incidents, analyses etc.
The overview is:
The full report is here
The overview is:
Birdstrikes continue to be a problem for aviation worldwide, costing approximately $US3 billion annually. Increasingly, funds are being directed towards research which focuses on bird control and avoidance methods. Two such methods which are proving to be successful, are the use of hand held laser devices to scare birds from the airport environment, and the use of the US developed Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS), which allows aircraft to avoid high-risk birdstrike areas.
This study investigated the Australian birdstrike data for the period 1991 to 2001. Although limited, the available data was able to be used to investigate birdstrike rates, species involvement and hazard potentials, as well as providing a time of day and phase of flight analysis. Additionally, the current study highlights the magnitude of some of the impact forces exerted during a birdstrike. The data suggest that there has been a significant increase in the rate of birdstrikes being recorded in Australia since 1992 (most notably between 1998 and 2001). It is unclear whether this is the result of an increasing strike hazard or an improving reporting culture. Both the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Australian data indicate that the majority of strikes occur on, or in the vicinity of, the airport environment, during the take off, approach or landing phases of flight.
An analysis of the strike data revealed that birdstrikes are most common during the earlier months of the year (January to May) and are at their lowest between June and August. The specific monthly pattern varies between locations, particularly between airports in the north and south of Australia: with airports in the north of Australia generally recording higher strike rates. The data also suggests that strikes are most common at dawn, and during the early morning and late afternoon periods of the day. However, this may be an artefact of aircraft activity levels during these times.
The hawk and the galah are the most commonly struck birds in Australia. However, the eagle and the ibis pose the most serious hazard to aircraft if struck. Development of ‘most struck’ and ‘potential hazard’ lists allow airport owners and operators to develop and prioritise control methods to suit their specific area.
All birdstrikes and bird hazards, no matter how insignificant they might appear, must be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). An improved reporting culture will allow a more thorough and comprehensive understanding of the bird hazard situation, which should in turn lead to the implementation of more effective control and management strategies.
The production of regular, standardised, educational and promotional material, regarding the birdstrike problem within Australia is recommended. This will not only increase awareness of the issues and the importance of reporting, but it will also help individuals and organisations in the industry to take the necessary steps to minimise the occurrence of birdstrikes.
It is also recommended that an Australian Birdstrike Working Group consisting of industry representatives from Australia be established. Such a body may not only enhance awareness of the safety issues surrounding birdstrikes, but may also determine directions for future research, regulations and procedures to minimise the risk posed to aircraft.
This study investigated the Australian birdstrike data for the period 1991 to 2001. Although limited, the available data was able to be used to investigate birdstrike rates, species involvement and hazard potentials, as well as providing a time of day and phase of flight analysis. Additionally, the current study highlights the magnitude of some of the impact forces exerted during a birdstrike. The data suggest that there has been a significant increase in the rate of birdstrikes being recorded in Australia since 1992 (most notably between 1998 and 2001). It is unclear whether this is the result of an increasing strike hazard or an improving reporting culture. Both the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Australian data indicate that the majority of strikes occur on, or in the vicinity of, the airport environment, during the take off, approach or landing phases of flight.
An analysis of the strike data revealed that birdstrikes are most common during the earlier months of the year (January to May) and are at their lowest between June and August. The specific monthly pattern varies between locations, particularly between airports in the north and south of Australia: with airports in the north of Australia generally recording higher strike rates. The data also suggests that strikes are most common at dawn, and during the early morning and late afternoon periods of the day. However, this may be an artefact of aircraft activity levels during these times.
The hawk and the galah are the most commonly struck birds in Australia. However, the eagle and the ibis pose the most serious hazard to aircraft if struck. Development of ‘most struck’ and ‘potential hazard’ lists allow airport owners and operators to develop and prioritise control methods to suit their specific area.
All birdstrikes and bird hazards, no matter how insignificant they might appear, must be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). An improved reporting culture will allow a more thorough and comprehensive understanding of the bird hazard situation, which should in turn lead to the implementation of more effective control and management strategies.
The production of regular, standardised, educational and promotional material, regarding the birdstrike problem within Australia is recommended. This will not only increase awareness of the issues and the importance of reporting, but it will also help individuals and organisations in the industry to take the necessary steps to minimise the occurrence of birdstrikes.
It is also recommended that an Australian Birdstrike Working Group consisting of industry representatives from Australia be established. Such a body may not only enhance awareness of the safety issues surrounding birdstrikes, but may also determine directions for future research, regulations and procedures to minimise the risk posed to aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some interesting information out there on the web:
http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/Bash90-03.pdf
http://www.davvl.de/Volu%20englisch/2003/Wiede.pdf
The first link identifies the types of birds involved and shows that a lot are bigger than our "super new" 1 kg certification requirement.
Interestingly there were about 5,794 reported birdstrikes in the USA in 2003 and it is estimated that 80% of all birdstrikes go unreported. I won't work out the estimated total number as Nick says I can't count!
For plank wing and helos approximately:
18% hit the windscreen
16% hit the engines
14% hit the wing/main rotor
2% hit the tail
g33
http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/Bash90-03.pdf
http://www.davvl.de/Volu%20englisch/2003/Wiede.pdf
The first link identifies the types of birds involved and shows that a lot are bigger than our "super new" 1 kg certification requirement.
Interestingly there were about 5,794 reported birdstrikes in the USA in 2003 and it is estimated that 80% of all birdstrikes go unreported. I won't work out the estimated total number as Nick says I can't count!
For plank wing and helos approximately:
18% hit the windscreen
16% hit the engines
14% hit the wing/main rotor
2% hit the tail
g33
Some of the birdstrike stats may be spurious, though.
I know of two cases where pilots hit "things" and reported them as birdstrikes. One was when a pilot hit a tree, breaking the chin bubble. The investigating officer accepted the birdstrike report, but added:
"The bird was in its nest at the time."
I know of two cases where pilots hit "things" and reported them as birdstrikes. One was when a pilot hit a tree, breaking the chin bubble. The investigating officer accepted the birdstrike report, but added:
"The bird was in its nest at the time."
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is some bird mass data.
I took the USAF strikes from the birdstrike web site, estimated the largest individual of each species (I guessed roughly if the bird was a small one, used several bird spotter web sites for the big guys, and rounded up to state the highest weight listed for the big guys:
www.s-92heliport.com/Birdstrike.xls
Note that the average strike was less than half a kilogram, and that the percentage of strikes 1 Kg or less amounted to 89% of all strikes.
Thus, the newest regulations:
Protect the entire aircraft against 100% of the areas struck
Protect for 89% of the strikes recorded
The older regulations (1.8Kg or 63 ounces) :
Protect 18% of the aircraft (the windshield)
Leave 82% of the aircraft unprotected
Protect against 94% of the strikes
So, in this imperfect world, we find that the old BCAR gives you protection for 5% more strikes on the windshield, but leaves the aircraft completely unprotected for 82% of the strikes A bad bargain, g33.
I took the USAF strikes from the birdstrike web site, estimated the largest individual of each species (I guessed roughly if the bird was a small one, used several bird spotter web sites for the big guys, and rounded up to state the highest weight listed for the big guys:
www.s-92heliport.com/Birdstrike.xls
Note that the average strike was less than half a kilogram, and that the percentage of strikes 1 Kg or less amounted to 89% of all strikes.
Thus, the newest regulations:
Protect the entire aircraft against 100% of the areas struck
Protect for 89% of the strikes recorded
The older regulations (1.8Kg or 63 ounces) :
Protect 18% of the aircraft (the windshield)
Leave 82% of the aircraft unprotected
Protect against 94% of the strikes
So, in this imperfect world, we find that the old BCAR gives you protection for 5% more strikes on the windshield, but leaves the aircraft completely unprotected for 82% of the strikes A bad bargain, g33.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
You would make a good politician as you don't answer the question!
I thought we had already agreed that total aircraft protection is an improvement. I thought that we were trying to have a reasoned debate on the question:
"Is a 1 kg bird at Vh/Vne a sufficiently high standard?"
Unfortunately you have become all defensive again! In your own, figures 11% of all strikes on the windscreen (and elsewhere for that matter) exceed 1 kg. Do you agree that this is acceptable or not?
g33
You would make a good politician as you don't answer the question!
I thought we had already agreed that total aircraft protection is an improvement. I thought that we were trying to have a reasoned debate on the question:
"Is a 1 kg bird at Vh/Vne a sufficiently high standard?"
Unfortunately you have become all defensive again! In your own, figures 11% of all strikes on the windscreen (and elsewhere for that matter) exceed 1 kg. Do you agree that this is acceptable or not?
g33
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not Nick, but I think it is acceptable. Increasing the protection to 1.8kg only adds protection against another 5% of strikes. How far do you want to go - up to ostrich size? In any case, the regs have been published, and that is the standard manufacturers will meet. If you think the regulations are inadequate, you are free to lobby for stronger ones.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
You don’t answer the question (again), but there again as the spin-doctor for the Sikorsky Sales Dept do we expect you to?
This discussion began as a question on windscreen protection against bird strikes. You jumped in with both feet as said …
”For Transport Category, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all”.
This was not correct, but you used the topic to push the S92 (again). You were then forced to admit that:
“The S-76 is qualified to take a 2 lb bird at 165 knots on its windshield. This was done to meet BCAR requirements at that time”.
So in fact Sikorsky had certified the S76 against limited bird strikes protection some decades ago and so your initial plug for the S92 was wrong.
Since I have tried to get an answer if you accept that a 1 kg bird is a sufficiently high standard bearing in mind that 11% (your figures) of bird strikes involve birds larger than 1 kg. We already agree that total aircraft testing is an improvement, so lets move on and answer the question.
My view is that 1 kg is probably not enough for some key areas, but we have to be practical. As BCAR 29 and DGAC Special Conditions required a 1.8 kg bird for the windscreen, engine intakes and rotor head then 1.8 kg is practical in these areas as some current large helicopters already meet this standard. It might not be practical for smaller helicopters due to structural considerations, where 1 kg will be the best compromise. 1.8 kg might not be practical for the tail rotor blades, and as only 1% (FAA figures) of reported strikes occur in that region then 1 kg might be sufficient. After all we require the cabin and cockpit to be able to withstand different g decelerations in the x, y and z axis, so why not different bird masses for different area?
If you can’t produce a constructive reply Nick don’t bother answering.
You don’t answer the question (again), but there again as the spin-doctor for the Sikorsky Sales Dept do we expect you to?
This discussion began as a question on windscreen protection against bird strikes. You jumped in with both feet as said …
”For Transport Category, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all”.
This was not correct, but you used the topic to push the S92 (again). You were then forced to admit that:
“The S-76 is qualified to take a 2 lb bird at 165 knots on its windshield. This was done to meet BCAR requirements at that time”.
So in fact Sikorsky had certified the S76 against limited bird strikes protection some decades ago and so your initial plug for the S92 was wrong.
Since I have tried to get an answer if you accept that a 1 kg bird is a sufficiently high standard bearing in mind that 11% (your figures) of bird strikes involve birds larger than 1 kg. We already agree that total aircraft testing is an improvement, so lets move on and answer the question.
My view is that 1 kg is probably not enough for some key areas, but we have to be practical. As BCAR 29 and DGAC Special Conditions required a 1.8 kg bird for the windscreen, engine intakes and rotor head then 1.8 kg is practical in these areas as some current large helicopters already meet this standard. It might not be practical for smaller helicopters due to structural considerations, where 1 kg will be the best compromise. 1.8 kg might not be practical for the tail rotor blades, and as only 1% (FAA figures) of reported strikes occur in that region then 1 kg might be sufficient. After all we require the cabin and cockpit to be able to withstand different g decelerations in the x, y and z axis, so why not different bird masses for different area?
If you can’t produce a constructive reply Nick don’t bother answering.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g33,
Your current difficulty is that you haven't gotten the answer you want, so you are going a bit daffy. I said, about six different ways, that it is a bad bargain to latch onto an old windshield strength requirement, and ignore the rest of the aircraft. I hope you got that!
Now, about your slurs, I take exception. I actually went to the trouble of attempting to determine the size of the impacts to frame the "extra" protection that you have become fixated on. The crummy 5% extra for which you allow the rest of the aircraft to be sacrificed. It was data that you could have worked, but instead you put the snivley comment "your figures." You are clearly one of those people who sit on a thought, the one you found somewhere, and just polish that thought up until it shines and shines. Your thought, the prized product of this entire discourse, is that 1.8 Kg is bigger than 1.0 Kg. Nice. Very nice! A little obvious to people who think more often than once a week.
You want the rest of the aircraft, the entire aircraft, except for the windshield and lips of the engine, to go unprotected so that your pet pig can win the beauty contest. For the several people whose tail rotors have been knocked off by birds, and those whose main rotors have been bent or broken by them too, I say:
g33, let us be thankful nobody asked YOU how to make the next generation helicopter!
The European authorities wrote their new regulations, and left you in the cold, but instead protected a new generation of pilot. See para 631:
http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/decision_ED_2003_16_RM.pdf
Your current difficulty is that you haven't gotten the answer you want, so you are going a bit daffy. I said, about six different ways, that it is a bad bargain to latch onto an old windshield strength requirement, and ignore the rest of the aircraft. I hope you got that!
Now, about your slurs, I take exception. I actually went to the trouble of attempting to determine the size of the impacts to frame the "extra" protection that you have become fixated on. The crummy 5% extra for which you allow the rest of the aircraft to be sacrificed. It was data that you could have worked, but instead you put the snivley comment "your figures." You are clearly one of those people who sit on a thought, the one you found somewhere, and just polish that thought up until it shines and shines. Your thought, the prized product of this entire discourse, is that 1.8 Kg is bigger than 1.0 Kg. Nice. Very nice! A little obvious to people who think more often than once a week.
You want the rest of the aircraft, the entire aircraft, except for the windshield and lips of the engine, to go unprotected so that your pet pig can win the beauty contest. For the several people whose tail rotors have been knocked off by birds, and those whose main rotors have been bent or broken by them too, I say:
g33, let us be thankful nobody asked YOU how to make the next generation helicopter!
The European authorities wrote their new regulations, and left you in the cold, but instead protected a new generation of pilot. See para 631:
http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/decision_ED_2003_16_RM.pdf
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey G33,
Thank you for your input, I posted the question that started this thread due to seeing something that I wasn't sure was totally covered by strength items,
The answers including yours have been very revealing to people such as me, However I do feel that your postings and questions/statement are becoming a little harsh especially to the the answers and statements that have come from Nick Lappos, a lot of us none pro Heli pilots learn an awful lot from reading and taking part in this Rotorhead forum, and I for one feel honoured to be allowed to write/partake and get involved with such hallowed individuals and professional pilots.
As far as I can see Nick Lappos is not responsible for setting down the standards for bird strike strengths, he as far as I can see is merely reporting the answers as he see's them to the questions posted on this thread, if your not happy with them, then two options,
Stop flying, or avoid all bird life, let the thread develop without the venom!
Peter Russell-Blackburn PPL(H) Lancashire UK
Thank you to all who have posted
Thank you for your input, I posted the question that started this thread due to seeing something that I wasn't sure was totally covered by strength items,
The answers including yours have been very revealing to people such as me, However I do feel that your postings and questions/statement are becoming a little harsh especially to the the answers and statements that have come from Nick Lappos, a lot of us none pro Heli pilots learn an awful lot from reading and taking part in this Rotorhead forum, and I for one feel honoured to be allowed to write/partake and get involved with such hallowed individuals and professional pilots.
As far as I can see Nick Lappos is not responsible for setting down the standards for bird strike strengths, he as far as I can see is merely reporting the answers as he see's them to the questions posted on this thread, if your not happy with them, then two options,
Stop flying, or avoid all bird life, let the thread develop without the venom!
Peter Russell-Blackburn PPL(H) Lancashire UK
Thank you to all who have posted
