Birdstrikes - incl pictures
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guy I met last weekend was at Middle Wallop when a Gazelle doing a quickstop had a swan-strike. The bird came in through the front opposite him. The pilot, solo, immediately called air tragic. Pan, pan, pan, swan in the cockpit... All they could manage was "repeat, a swan". Anyway, he was happily, recovering the ac to the pan when the Swan came to with a very disgruntled "HONK". Now, I may not know much but I wouldn't like to share the cockpit with an angry Swan. I can only assume he landed sharpish and evacuated the ac.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A mate was on his way home from a mustering job half asleep, fat, dumb and happy. Copped a wedge tail eagle through the bubble on his robbie. It knocked the cyclic out of his hand and gave him a serious scare. He was wearing a helmut at the time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Always wear a helmet with the visor down - it looks cool whether you hit birds or not. But really on a more serious note had a friend hit a crow pilots side whilst low level, **** him right up. SOP keep at least one visor down- it gets drummed into you at flight school from day 2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had a friend in an S76 low hover over a big cruise ship (don't ask why) took a sunbed mattress through the disc....
just as well it was a low hover - disc pretty much OK but opened the T/R gearbox like an over ripe melon (double fist through the hole). Big repair job on tail pylon and punctured fuel tank (T/R blade ricochet off deck)
Lucky escape for a crew trying to do a good job after being stiched with a silly task & inadequate equipment (& I don't mean the S76)
------------------
Ground tested, no fault found
just as well it was a low hover - disc pretty much OK but opened the T/R gearbox like an over ripe melon (double fist through the hole). Big repair job on tail pylon and punctured fuel tank (T/R blade ricochet off deck)
Lucky escape for a crew trying to do a good job after being stiched with a silly task & inadequate equipment (& I don't mean the S76)
------------------
Ground tested, no fault found
Guest
Posts: n/a
Offshore in Bass Strait in 99, the boss and I ran into 3 skua's. We never saw them coming. We had just started decending and the GPS was pushing 170kts+ G/S. The birds hit on the left side in line and below my feet and sounded like 3 fast blows with a hammer. The 76 suffered no damage! Not even a dent. Good ol' Igor. Scared the buggery out of the chief as he had his attention on something else and I think his diving below the console scared me more than the strikes. 
I didn't move...simply because I had no time to react. Two weeks later we rotated off the airfield and I was calling the numbers when out of the corner of my eye I saw a flash of movement. It was my turn to dive behind the dash as the boss did a jig to avoid a nesting plover. Justice was served. 
Two weeks ago in the 47, I was climbing out and managed to count the tailfeathers of the first seahawk I have seen in the air. What a f**ken massive bird!. Again caught it in the perifial vision and did a reactive swerve thinking it was a cessna. Heart attack material.
I didn't move...simply because I had no time to react. Two weeks later we rotated off the airfield and I was calling the numbers when out of the corner of my eye I saw a flash of movement. It was my turn to dive behind the dash as the boss did a jig to avoid a nesting plover. Justice was served. Two weeks ago in the 47, I was climbing out and managed to count the tailfeathers of the first seahawk I have seen in the air. What a f**ken massive bird!. Again caught it in the perifial vision and did a reactive swerve thinking it was a cessna. Heart attack material.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smashed Perspex
Its Saturday, and its coming down in stair rods, so a little free time to ask questions,
I watched a heli comming into land on Friday, the pilot did a fly round, set up into wind and came in pretty fast, on his way down I noticed he was assailed by a flight of seagulls, and it seemed two of the rascals came off worst, it started me thinking:
If you were flying at cruise speed and hit a flock or even a solitary bird it seems that unless you were military the plexi would go, and possible leave you with a pretty big hole that would be gathering wind, this once streamlined windscreen would now be creating possibly quiet a lot of drag, questions are.
1, are you able to fly on, or is the drag so great as to cause the need for an immediate landing, and do birdstrikes at say nominal cruise of around 90 to 100 knts cause any structural damage to civvy helis?
My regards
Peter R-B
I watched a heli comming into land on Friday, the pilot did a fly round, set up into wind and came in pretty fast, on his way down I noticed he was assailed by a flight of seagulls, and it seemed two of the rascals came off worst, it started me thinking:
If you were flying at cruise speed and hit a flock or even a solitary bird it seems that unless you were military the plexi would go, and possible leave you with a pretty big hole that would be gathering wind, this once streamlined windscreen would now be creating possibly quiet a lot of drag, questions are.
1, are you able to fly on, or is the drag so great as to cause the need for an immediate landing, and do birdstrikes at say nominal cruise of around 90 to 100 knts cause any structural damage to civvy helis?
My regards
Peter R-B
VFRPB
The EC120's windscreens are bonded to the airframe and therefore form part of the structure. I can't remember the quoted %age of structural strength, but it's sizeable. Therefore, a badly placed sea-gull could spoil your whole day, and your helicopter!
I used to fly a Gazelle that had an unfortunate coming together with a lawn mower when parked. It smashed a 4" hole in the lower part of the bubble. The owner fixed/bodged it with some blade tape and it flew like that for years.
During the Falklands War, the solitary Chinook that survived the Atlantic Conveyor hit the sea on a mission and smashed the chin window/s. It flew like that for hundreds of hours for the rest of the war. (Perhaps the ex-wokka fleet chaps could spread more light on this).
J
The EC120's windscreens are bonded to the airframe and therefore form part of the structure. I can't remember the quoted %age of structural strength, but it's sizeable. Therefore, a badly placed sea-gull could spoil your whole day, and your helicopter!
I used to fly a Gazelle that had an unfortunate coming together with a lawn mower when parked. It smashed a 4" hole in the lower part of the bubble. The owner fixed/bodged it with some blade tape and it flew like that for years.
During the Falklands War, the solitary Chinook that survived the Atlantic Conveyor hit the sea on a mission and smashed the chin window/s. It flew like that for hundreds of hours for the rest of the war. (Perhaps the ex-wokka fleet chaps could spread more light on this).
J
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR
No I am not suggesting that for I simply do not know, but is mil perspex not stronger than your everyday B206/R44/R22, simply because of the Mil Spec?
PeterR-B
No I am not suggesting that for I simply do not know, but is mil perspex not stronger than your everyday B206/R44/R22, simply because of the Mil Spec?
PeterR-B
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFRPB
A little while back in a 206, one of our pilots had a bird strike at just 90kts, the bird was the size of a seagull, came straight through the windscreen, busted up his face real bad, he was totally incapacitated, the other pilot continued to fly the aircraft to the nearest airport where emergency services were immediately available. The round hole in the windscreen was 2'+ in diameter....
Fatigue
A little while back in a 206, one of our pilots had a bird strike at just 90kts, the bird was the size of a seagull, came straight through the windscreen, busted up his face real bad, he was totally incapacitated, the other pilot continued to fly the aircraft to the nearest airport where emergency services were immediately available. The round hole in the windscreen was 2'+ in diameter....
Fatigue
That is what glass windscreens are all about....they might crack, craze, or even bow inward....but unless you hit a Christmas Turkey....usually you only get a startling wake up call....you can actually feel the aircraft decelerate from all the folks in the back suddenly leaning forward....and if flying in Nigeria....the sudden onset of bright lights contrasting with the shadows is amazing!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules for what the windscreen can take are surprisingly poor for normal catagory rotorcraft (like the R-22 and Bell 206) and older transports (prior to the S-92). Simply put, there are no rules on bird strikes at all. I have seen windshields fully pierced and shattered on EC-135's due to birds. Here are the rules, for homebuilts, Normal Catagory and Transport Catagory:
Homebuilts: No rules at all
Normal catagory helos, no specific bird protection, at all
For Transport Catagory, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all.
For Transport Catagory approved after 1996:
They must protect the crew and the aircraft from strikes, everywhere the bird might hit. The energy of the bird is a bunch. A 2.2 lb bird at 165 knots hits like a 4 Kg sledge hammer at 80 knots! These are the new rules:
§ 29.631 Bird strike.
The rotorcraft must be designed to ensure capability of continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category B) after impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when the velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight path of the rotorcraft) is equal to VNE or VH (whichever is the lesser) at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by tests or by analysis based on tests carried out on sufficiently representative structures of similar design.
Homebuilts: No rules at all
Normal catagory helos, no specific bird protection, at all
For Transport Catagory, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all.
For Transport Catagory approved after 1996:
They must protect the crew and the aircraft from strikes, everywhere the bird might hit. The energy of the bird is a bunch. A 2.2 lb bird at 165 knots hits like a 4 Kg sledge hammer at 80 knots! These are the new rules:
§ 29.631 Bird strike.
The rotorcraft must be designed to ensure capability of continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category B) after impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when the velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight path of the rotorcraft) is equal to VNE or VH (whichever is the lesser) at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by tests or by analysis based on tests carried out on sufficiently representative structures of similar design.
Last edited by NickLappos; 17th Jul 2004 at 18:07.
Hello vfrpilotpb,
I personnaly had a buzzard who decided to invite himself inside my alouette 2when crop-spraying....I was lucky enough to have seen it at the last second and tried to avoid it by a sharp right turn. It went trough the left windscreen and smashed at the back of the cabin. My speed at this moment was about 50 kts. I immediatly felt strong cabin vibrations due to disturbed airstream.
I am sure I have good chances of not beeing able to answer this post should this poor bird had impacted on the right side just at my face's level.
I remember having seen on a south african registred Puma, a metallic protection structure, just in front engines fuel levers. I was told that this modification had been designed to avoid accidental engine cut off with the ffcl in case of bird strike and cockpit intrusion.
Our South African collegues probably have very interresting stories to share on this topic.
I personnaly had a buzzard who decided to invite himself inside my alouette 2when crop-spraying....I was lucky enough to have seen it at the last second and tried to avoid it by a sharp right turn. It went trough the left windscreen and smashed at the back of the cabin. My speed at this moment was about 50 kts. I immediatly felt strong cabin vibrations due to disturbed airstream.
I am sure I have good chances of not beeing able to answer this post should this poor bird had impacted on the right side just at my face's level.
I remember having seen on a south african registred Puma, a metallic protection structure, just in front engines fuel levers. I was told that this modification had been designed to avoid accidental engine cut off with the ffcl in case of bird strike and cockpit intrusion.
Our South African collegues probably have very interresting stories to share on this topic.
"Just a pilot"
I haven't put a gull on the windscreen, but I did hit one just low and left of the nose of a Twinstar, at cruise. Pushed a section of fiberglass nosecone approximately 18 x 12 inches in behind the lower console. Really, really breezy and you'd be surrpised how much stuff accumulates in the nooks and crannies, to blow around suddenly like a dust storm.
I don't want to hit anything bigger than a bug that could come into the occupied area. There's a lot of energy to be transferred an absorbed by whatever takes the impact- and drag, trim and breeze will be small problems if somebody takes a birdy bullet thru the bubble.
I don't want to hit anything bigger than a bug that could come into the occupied area. There's a lot of energy to be transferred an absorbed by whatever takes the impact- and drag, trim and breeze will be small problems if somebody takes a birdy bullet thru the bubble.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Rules!
Nick said "For Transport Catagory, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all".
This is not correct for the UK where we have had stricter certification criteria under BCAR 29. BCAR 29 requires windscreens etc to be able to withstand a 1.81 kg bird (rather than the 1 kg bird under FAR/JAR 29), so types like the S Puma Mk2 are subject to stricter certification rules than new helicopters certified "to the latest standard".
A 1 kg bird is about the weight of a Pheasant, ie not very big, so perhaps a 1.8 kg bird is more realistic.
This is not correct for the UK where we have had stricter certification criteria under BCAR 29. BCAR 29 requires windscreens etc to be able to withstand a 1.81 kg bird (rather than the 1 kg bird under FAR/JAR 29), so types like the S Puma Mk2 are subject to stricter certification rules than new helicopters certified "to the latest standard".
A 1 kg bird is about the weight of a Pheasant, ie not very big, so perhaps a 1.8 kg bird is more realistic.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g33,
I defer to your understanding of BCAR, which clearly calls for bird protection, but I am not sure that any helo has to meet it unless it is a British one. Most aircraft are certified under their host country's rules, then are approved in Britain under the bilateral regs, where the differences are usually not required.
I do not believe that any transport helo specifically meets the BCAR, including any Super Puma model. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Regarding the 1 Kg requirement, this represents the 95th percentile wild bird, a Pheasant, and reflects the practical cut off for the balance between safety and practicality, at least according to those who wrote the rule.
The new way to approve all machines in Europe is to the latest EASA rules, the JAR 29. These rules are now identical to the FAR 29 (with much excellent input from European authorities). These require the 1.0Kg bird for all approvals. I think this means BCAR is defunct, again, please correct me if I am wrong.
Regarding any Super Puma meeting a higher standard, I seriously doubt that. If you read the 29.631 paragraph more carefully, you might find that the entire aircraft must be protected against that 4 Kg sledge hammer, not just the windscreen. The EC folks specifically avoided re-certifying the Super Puma to avoid this. I wonder what its rotor blades, tail gearbox fairing or drive shaft covers would look like after such a strike, and how the machinery beneith them would operate. I wonder who among us would fly the aircraft home afterward! These hits had to be tested on S-92 to allow certification. we chewed up a lot of birds shooting them at helicopter parts. If the group wants I will post some of these movies, they are most impressive!
That also does not describe the several dozen other rules that were upgraded, so that Super Puma only meets about 45% of the latest rules. The newest machines have a tremendous advantage because of these tougher, more stringent safety requirements.
I defer to your understanding of BCAR, which clearly calls for bird protection, but I am not sure that any helo has to meet it unless it is a British one. Most aircraft are certified under their host country's rules, then are approved in Britain under the bilateral regs, where the differences are usually not required.
I do not believe that any transport helo specifically meets the BCAR, including any Super Puma model. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Regarding the 1 Kg requirement, this represents the 95th percentile wild bird, a Pheasant, and reflects the practical cut off for the balance between safety and practicality, at least according to those who wrote the rule.
The new way to approve all machines in Europe is to the latest EASA rules, the JAR 29. These rules are now identical to the FAR 29 (with much excellent input from European authorities). These require the 1.0Kg bird for all approvals. I think this means BCAR is defunct, again, please correct me if I am wrong.
Regarding any Super Puma meeting a higher standard, I seriously doubt that. If you read the 29.631 paragraph more carefully, you might find that the entire aircraft must be protected against that 4 Kg sledge hammer, not just the windscreen. The EC folks specifically avoided re-certifying the Super Puma to avoid this. I wonder what its rotor blades, tail gearbox fairing or drive shaft covers would look like after such a strike, and how the machinery beneith them would operate. I wonder who among us would fly the aircraft home afterward! These hits had to be tested on S-92 to allow certification. we chewed up a lot of birds shooting them at helicopter parts. If the group wants I will post some of these movies, they are most impressive!
That also does not describe the several dozen other rules that were upgraded, so that Super Puma only meets about 45% of the latest rules. The newest machines have a tremendous advantage because of these tougher, more stringent safety requirements.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Rules
Nick,
As the S Puma Mk2 had to comply with BCAR 29 to be certified in the UK it was subjected to the 1.8 kg test, especially for the windscreen, which was the subject of the original post.
I agree that 29.631 now covers the whole aircraft, but sadly the windscreen (and my face) is less well protected under the "new and improved regulations".
As the S Puma Mk2 had to comply with BCAR 29 to be certified in the UK it was subjected to the 1.8 kg test, especially for the windscreen, which was the subject of the original post.
I agree that 29.631 now covers the whole aircraft, but sadly the windscreen (and my face) is less well protected under the "new and improved regulations".
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help me on this one g33, because the S-76 and S-61 also are certified to BCAR. I do not recall their bird qual, but I don't believe it is to 1.8 kg.
Regarding the protection from birds overall, your face is still worth saving, but your butt is even more protected in the latest regs. Note that only 15% of bird strikes occur on the windshield, at least on USAF aircraft:
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/Bash/sta...pact_stat.html
Also note that most of the bird strikes involve small species, where the 1Kg requirement is very conservative (maybe some ppruners who are also bird fanciers could estimate the weights of these types):
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/Bash/sta...ount_stat.html
The latest regs protect the rest of the aircraft, areas that are entirely unprotected on Super Pumas or other types of the older generation. A tail drive shaft cover hit by a bird at cruise speed would probably become a tail rotor failure in short order, and a rotor blade hit by a bird could fail (a 206 in the GOM suffered that a few years ago).
Regarding the protection from birds overall, your face is still worth saving, but your butt is even more protected in the latest regs. Note that only 15% of bird strikes occur on the windshield, at least on USAF aircraft:
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/Bash/sta...pact_stat.html
Also note that most of the bird strikes involve small species, where the 1Kg requirement is very conservative (maybe some ppruners who are also bird fanciers could estimate the weights of these types):
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/Bash/sta...ount_stat.html
The latest regs protect the rest of the aircraft, areas that are entirely unprotected on Super Pumas or other types of the older generation. A tail drive shaft cover hit by a bird at cruise speed would probably become a tail rotor failure in short order, and a rotor blade hit by a bird could fail (a 206 in the GOM suffered that a few years ago).
Last edited by NickLappos; 18th Jul 2004 at 15:18.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
The S61 and S76 were certified to earlier versions of BCARs, I think the S76 is covered by BCAR Part G?
I agree that total aircraft birdstrike testing is better than selective testing, its just a shame that the windscreen is now certifiable to a lower standard in the UK.
As I look out onto my garden I can see a Common Bussard which eats Pheasants for breakfast and certainly weighs more than 1 kg.
The S61 and S76 were certified to earlier versions of BCARs, I think the S76 is covered by BCAR Part G?
I agree that total aircraft birdstrike testing is better than selective testing, its just a shame that the windscreen is now certifiable to a lower standard in the UK.
As I look out onto my garden I can see a Common Bussard which eats Pheasants for breakfast and certainly weighs more than 1 kg.