Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by G-CPTN

however it seems likely that these particular birds were in transit through the zone.

Geese do move locally from roosts to feeding grounds and it is maybe this behaviour that should be studied with respect to this incident, in particular the times of day when these 'local' flights (of the geese) occur.

Quite, a point I have been making frequently. There is a BAM DIS for the area. As the birds will always relocate from a roost to a grazing ground there is no amount of ground scaring that will stop them - they will still seek out other grazing areas.

Where I am we have regulate dawn and dusk sorties, often with 500 plus and only 5 minutes separation between waves. A magnificent sight in VMC but a condition where a bird detecting radar is essential for safe navigation in IMC.

I would guess that will be a major recommendation.

BTW, not sci-fi but a number of birds could be fitted with SIF and Charlie.

[wileydog3]

Rattletrap, few flights depart with FULL FUEL as it is not necessary and is a waste of fuel and $$$.

You imply that the compressor stall was not reported. Do you have facts to verify that? Or is that just unfounded assumption?

Never forget that while there may be various pressures applied at any organization (such as scrutiny of fuel requests) the PIC has final say and has to then climb into the cockpit. Ask yourself.. would you take an airplane you felt unsafe or lacking sufficient fuel?

[wileydog3]

Fizix said

It is an amazing outcome indeed ... all the holes in the cheese lined up!

Actually, using the old Swiss cheese model, the crew stopped the unfolding event and thus they were the final barrier that kept this from being an event with fatalities. There are no procedures really for a dual engine failure, low altitude followed by a ditching in a river near an inland city. This is where good airmanship and a team comes into play.

And in some ways, it highlights the fact that not all events can be managed through SMS or TEM or the most current jargon. A good aviator with a good crew is going to have to improvise in very unusual situations. And there is not going to be a checklist, a procedure, a policy that can cover such events. This is not to say that it is not going be be tried, however.

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by damagecontrol

. . . there is a small natural lake right . . . it attracks a lot of bird life. I am always fearing a birdstrike when large aircraft land here. I like birds with feathers too, but when it comes to the metal ones, the feathered ones must stay away... or on the ground.

Bird control take many forms. One is not to fly in the same airspace as the birds. For ground feeding birds, or lake ones come to that, the best thing is to let them feed as scaring them puts them in conflict with aircraft.

Many long lived birds become habituated to aircraft and will avoid flying in to aircraft. I have tens of thousands of birds feeding but the only bird strike we had was when a helicopter disturbed roosting geese at night.

Look around Heathrow (LHR) there are huge reservoirs and sewage farms within 3 miles with on just 3 miles from 09L. I am sure there is a risk here but equally that it is constrained.

[kenhughes]

Re post # 966: If this is a direct quote, does no one else find it strange? (Bolding mine):

John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine.

No passenger, unless a pilot himself, would say that the plane had a series of compressor stalls. They would be more likely to say that the engine blew up, caught on fire, exploded, etc.

I can't even imagine CC telling the passenger, "Oh, don't worry, it's just a series of compressor stalls - now eat your pretzels like a good passenger".

Is John Hodcock a real person, or is he a plant by the lawyers looking to make a buck or two?

[forget]

No passenger, unless a pilot himself,

There are people, other than pilots, who can recognise a compressor stall.

[kenhughes]

There are people, other than pilots, who can recognise a compressor stall.

Agreed. I came back to edit my post, but you had beat me to it.

Can we agree on "the average passenger", rather than "no passenger"?

[lomapaseo]

Re post # 966: If this is a direct quote, does no one else find it strange? (Bolding mine):


Quote:
John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine.

No passenger, unless a pilot himself, would say that the plane had a series of compressor stalls. They would be more likely to say that the engine blew up, caught on fire, exploded, etc.

I can't even imagine CC telling the passenger, "Oh, don't worry, it's just a series of compressor stalls - now eat your pretzels like a good passenger".

Is John Hodcock a real person, or is he a plant by the lawyers looking to make a buck or two?

There is always the possibility that what he said has been translated by CNN using their off-line experts.

At any rate the word is out and will be considered in the on-going investigation. As I suggested earlier the analysis of the DFDR can tell the difference between bird caused fan damage and a weak compressor.

BTW it is possible to have both (in spite of what CNN says)

[forget]

Compressor stall. Here YouTube - Compressor stall A330

[wileydog3]

VanHork, think of the engine having a very bad cough with possible fire coming out one or both ends. With the 'coughs' the engine will vibrate or bang around.

This is the F100 engine...
YouTube - P&W-F100-220C Engine Stall

In this video you can see a compressor stall shaking an F-16

YouTube - F100 Fighter Engine - 3

[armchairpilot94116]

Jet engines cant digest birds well , would propeller aircraft generally fare better or would damage to the blades render them even worse in bird strikes?

Here is a clip of a bird welcoming the first visit of the A380 demo plane to TPE. Wouldnt be good PR if a few of his flock ended up causing the A380 to land in a bad way.

YouTube - A380 reach Taiwan

(turn down the volume on your computer as the clip is rather loud)

[Loose rivets]

Something I saw once spells out the balistic power of a bird's head. The luckless creature, about the size of a chicken, was hanging by its neck on the outside of a DC3 windscreen. Its head was inside, still attached.

[ChristiaanJ]

Most of you have probably seen this one, but saves looking it up.

Thomsonfly 757 birdstrike

That was a heron.

Classic example of a series of stalls after a strike.

CJ

[awblain]

300kt/1lb bird - m-v-squared

Robert's joke of a windscreen taking a 1lb bird at 300kts or a 300lb bird at 1kt brings up a useful scaling, as the kinetic energy of the bird goes as mass times speed squared.

The sobering kinetic energy of a 20lb goose at 300kts matches that of a 3000lb car at 25kt, or a 72,000lb boat at 5kt.

The damage done should thus rise quickly with speed, depending on how exactly the bird is `processed': how much of the bird's kinetic energy is dumped into how many fan/compressor blades. I speculate that the details of impact are relatively independent of speed, since the speed of sound in the (unfrozen) bird is probably like that in water, of order 1500m/s, well above closing speed (~150m/s), and above the maximum fan tip speed
(less than 800 m/s? - even for a 3m diameter fan at 5000rpm).

Just after departure at ~150kt there would only be 1/4 of the kinetic energy going in as at 300kt. Also, since geese are quite quick (~60 kt), a head on is probably going to more damaging than an overtake: impact at 360kt vs 240kt differs by a factor of more than 2 in energy.

[Pontius Navigator]

I recall a report, must be 40 years ago, of an Electra that took a goose through the centre windscreen. It fetched up in the toilet at the back. The aisle, fortuitously was clear and the toiler empty. The aircraft was at 180 and the goose iro 60lb. The figure that sticks in my mind was the force - 300,000 ft lbs.

[ChristiaanJ]

I do doubt there are 60 lbs geese flying around.

I remember the DC-3 used on the Fairford-Filton shuttle run in the early Concorde days (I flew on it).
That one 'collected' a 'mere' gull through the right windscreen.
F/O leant forward for an unknown reason... next moment there was this huge bang above his head, a shower of glass and feathers, and a big bloddy splash on the C/B panel behind him.

His time hadn't come yet.

CJ

[precept]

Link To Ny Post Article - Engine Found

See following link to update on missing engine and other findings.

Latest News | Top Stories | News Articles

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116

Jet engines cant digest birds well , would propeller aircraft generally fare better or would damage to the blades render them even worse in bird strikes?

Props may or may not hit a bird.

One figure I recall was that a bird would have to be 8 foot long to be certain of being hit by the propellor in a Tucano flying possibly at 250kts. (The 8 feet is certainly the figure I recall).

The issue here is that the bird would probably hit the cockpit without being chopped up by the propellor.

To pre-empt the next 'bright' idea - you would probably need multi-bladed, contra rotating propellors to chop up the birds before they entered the turbo-fan arc. Of course we woulc always by the Turnmanski turpoprops.

[robbreid]

NTSB update . . .

************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
January 21, 2009
************************************************************
NTSB ISSUES UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION INTO DITCHING OF US
AIRWAYS JETLINER INTO HUDSON RIVER
************************************************************
In its continuing investigation of US Airways flight 1549,
which ditched into the Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan at
approximately 3:30 p.m. on January 15, 2009, the National
Transportation Safety Board has developed the following
factual information:
The right engine has been externally examined and
documented. An examination of the first stage fan blades
revealed evidence of soft body impact damage. Three of the
variable guide vanes are fractured and two are missing. The
engine's electronic control unit is missing and numerous
internal components of the engine were significantly
damaged.
What appears to be organic material was found in the right
engine and on the wings and fuselage. Samples of the
material have been provided to the United States Department
of Agriculture for a complete DNA analysis. A single
feather was found attached to a flap track on the wing. It
is being sent to bird identification experts at the
Smithsonian.
The left engine has been located in about 50 feet of water
near the area of the Hudson River where the aircraft
ditched. The NTSB is working with federal, state and local
agencies to recover the engine, which is expected to occur
sometime on Thursday.
The NTSB has learned that the right engine experienced a
surge during a flight on January 13, 2009, and that
subsequent maintenance actions included the replacement of a
temperature probe. Investigators from the NTSB's
Maintenance Records group are researching this report by
examining applicable maintenance records and procedures.
The NTSB's Survival Factors group is in the process of
interviewing passengers to learn more about the events
surrounding the ditching and the emergency evacuation and
rescue. The Operations and Human Performance group is
interviewing US Airways flight operations training
personnel.
The checked and carry-on baggage is in the process of being
removed from the aircraft. Representatives from the NTSB's
Office of Transportation Disaster Assistance are working to
coordinate efforts with US Airways to return these items to
the passengers.
The on-scene documentation of the airplane is expected to be
completed by the end of the week. Preparations are underway
to facilitate movement and more permanent storage of the
airplane so that more detailed documentation of the damage
can be performed at a later date.
###
NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
[phone]
[email protected]

[galvonager]

About 90 seconds after liftoff the captain remarks about birds, about 3 seconds later thumps are being heard and the engines can be heard running down.

A question from the SLF gallery here: can any evasive action be taken in situations like that, and if yes, is it advisable? As others have shared in this discussion, geese (apparently) stick to their pre-selected heading, so it would fall upon the pilot to prevent a collision. Would the reaction of an A320 to control inputs (it's not a fighter jet, after all) allow it to change its trajectory sufficiently in 3 seconds to avoid a bird strike?