Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
What can this incident be classified as?
1. A crash? ---in my mind usually bloodier
although the plane seems totalled
2. A landing?--because they all walked away
3. An Arrival because the landing could be that good due to the non- standard TDZ
PA
1. A crash? ---in my mind usually bloodier
although the plane seems totalled2. A landing?--because they all walked away
3. An Arrival because the landing could be that good due to the non- standard TDZ
PA
Good Landing def. any landing you can use the plane again.
Great Landing def. any landing you can walk away from and, by extension, the passengers.
Sounds like a "great landing".
GF
Great Landing def. any landing you can walk away from and, by extension, the passengers.
Sounds like a "great landing".
GF
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An item I picked up from a aviation news bulletin (forget which)
Robert Dolbeer, Ph.D., a recently retired USDA ornithologist who has studied aircraft bird strikes for more than three decades, predicts the recent bird strike that forced the US Airways A320 ditching in the Hudson River may portend an increased rate of such mishaps.
"The US Airways crash was an accident waiting to happen," Dolbeer explained last Tuesday. "In 1990, the population of Canada geese was estimated to be about one million. In 2008, the estimated population was four million." Dolbeer also said there have been large increases in the populations of bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill cranes, black and turkey vultures, plus white pelicans during the same period -- pointing out that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of aircraft bird strikes.
FAA statistics indicate that there were 1,738 reported bird strikes in 1990. There were 7,439 reported bird strikes in 2007.
Nesting sites and wildlife refuges near airports that attract waterfowl species put the flying public at risk, says Dolbeer. A Canada goose can weigh 15 pounds to 20 pounds, far in excess of the four- to eight-pound bird test requirements for typical aircraft airframes and engines. Other species also are substantially larger than FAA standard size birds used for certification testing. Fred George
Robert Dolbeer, Ph.D., a recently retired USDA ornithologist who has studied aircraft bird strikes for more than three decades, predicts the recent bird strike that forced the US Airways A320 ditching in the Hudson River may portend an increased rate of such mishaps.
"The US Airways crash was an accident waiting to happen," Dolbeer explained last Tuesday. "In 1990, the population of Canada geese was estimated to be about one million. In 2008, the estimated population was four million." Dolbeer also said there have been large increases in the populations of bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill cranes, black and turkey vultures, plus white pelicans during the same period -- pointing out that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of aircraft bird strikes.
FAA statistics indicate that there were 1,738 reported bird strikes in 1990. There were 7,439 reported bird strikes in 2007.
Nesting sites and wildlife refuges near airports that attract waterfowl species put the flying public at risk, says Dolbeer. A Canada goose can weigh 15 pounds to 20 pounds, far in excess of the four- to eight-pound bird test requirements for typical aircraft airframes and engines. Other species also are substantially larger than FAA standard size birds used for certification testing. Fred George
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is very fine and interesting. But I do think in all the hoo ha, something has been missed. In recent months two airliners have been brought down by birds causing double engine failures. By means of the skill of the pilots and a bit of luck, no one died despite both aircraft being written off.
That can't always be the case. The next time someone loses two engines at low altitude. It might not be over a suitable landing place or have a highly experienced pilot at the controls. People will die. It seems to me that birds at airports need to be taken a lot more seriously than they have been hithertoo.
To the point perhaps where aircraft are held overhead or on the ground when large flocks are detected near airports. The Rome incident in particular might have bee avoided. Perhaps not so much in NY. Although large flocks are detectable on primary radar.
It all very well people saying the crew should dodge around the birds like a fighter pilot in Flak alley. That isn't realistic.
Hopefully both reports when published will address this issue.
That can't always be the case. The next time someone loses two engines at low altitude. It might not be over a suitable landing place or have a highly experienced pilot at the controls. People will die. It seems to me that birds at airports need to be taken a lot more seriously than they have been hithertoo.
To the point perhaps where aircraft are held overhead or on the ground when large flocks are detected near airports. The Rome incident in particular might have bee avoided. Perhaps not so much in NY. Although large flocks are detectable on primary radar.
It all very well people saying the crew should dodge around the birds like a fighter pilot in Flak alley. That isn't realistic.
Hopefully both reports when published will address this issue.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corsair
why isn't it realistic to attempt to dodge birds? I've done it. I've also dodged thunderstorms, dust devils, toy balloons, other airplanes.
While it would be better NOT to have to deal with birds, until such time that things are different, I'll dodge.
And I'll keep my FA's in their seats a little longer after takeoff.
And, from the world of the "Twilight Zone", I had a bird strike on my car today. Hit my front left tire. Of course I couldn't pull up! Cue Twilight Zone music, or the theme from "The Birds"(which had no music)
why isn't it realistic to attempt to dodge birds? I've done it. I've also dodged thunderstorms, dust devils, toy balloons, other airplanes.
While it would be better NOT to have to deal with birds, until such time that things are different, I'll dodge.
And I'll keep my FA's in their seats a little longer after takeoff.
And, from the world of the "Twilight Zone", I had a bird strike on my car today. Hit my front left tire. Of course I couldn't pull up! Cue Twilight Zone music, or the theme from "The Birds"(which had no music)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Incident", from Merriam-Webster:
I lean toward #3, symptomatic of a grave problem that has not been fully recognized.
But per the regulatory definition, it's an accident.
1: something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance
2 a: an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience : happening b: an accompanying minor occurrence or condition : concomitant
3: an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters <a serious border incident>
2 a: an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience : happening b: an accompanying minor occurrence or condition : concomitant
3: an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters <a serious border incident>
But per the regulatory definition, it's an accident.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 86
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Flight Attendants
Capt Cynical--
The New York times had some accounts of the scene in the rear of the AC that decribe some of the actions of the flight attendant in that area. These appeared 2 or 3 days after the event; I'm not sure I still have the paper. They were not printed in the Washington Post. The gist was:
A passenger said that another passenger attempted to open the rear door (I believe left rear), but that the flight attendant suceeded in stopping this passenger, but not before the door opened "a crack". It was not possible to reclose the door.
A tall male passenger reported that he realized that the flooding in the tail area of the cabin would become too deep for shorter passengers, and he grasped a woman and her child and bulled his way to the head of the line (I believe this would have been to the overwing exits.)
The woman who went forward over the seatbacks had a small child with her. (I infer her actions were for the same reason; it was not clear from the reports whether this made other passengers see the problem for the smaller passengers, or whether there were just a very few women and children, and these two actions sufficed.)
The Times also had a brief report from this flight attendant, who said that she found herself in water up to her chest, and so thought it would be a good idea if she found and put on a life vest. (On thinking about this brief comment, I have to think that she must have realized that otherwise the water might get over her head. I assume she felt she must be the last off from that area and could not herself go forward ahead of others.)
The last Times report of these that I recall was from a passenger who concluded after exiting that there were not enough life rafts. (Two at the front doors appeared to me from pictures to be serviceable, at a reported capacity of 50 to 55 people but not filled to this number. The two at the rear door would have been non-deployable without opening the rear doors. It is unclear to me if the left rear slide/raft later deployed with equalization of pressure on the door, or if it deployed as the door opened "a crack", or as part of the retrieval dewatering; some pictures seemed to show something back there. The situation with rafts/slides in the overwing area is unclear to me. From reports on the effect of immersion on one woman who slipped off the wing, it seems to me that passengers could not in general have gotten from the wing into the forward rafts-- although this woman may have spent some time in deep water inside the plane as well.)
The Times also published on Saturday a picture of an inflated life vest in the water, in b/w, that clearly was marked "US Air". On Sunday they published a color picture of the same vest, with only US A clearly visible.
OE
The New York times had some accounts of the scene in the rear of the AC that decribe some of the actions of the flight attendant in that area. These appeared 2 or 3 days after the event; I'm not sure I still have the paper. They were not printed in the Washington Post. The gist was:
A passenger said that another passenger attempted to open the rear door (I believe left rear), but that the flight attendant suceeded in stopping this passenger, but not before the door opened "a crack". It was not possible to reclose the door.
A tall male passenger reported that he realized that the flooding in the tail area of the cabin would become too deep for shorter passengers, and he grasped a woman and her child and bulled his way to the head of the line (I believe this would have been to the overwing exits.)
The woman who went forward over the seatbacks had a small child with her. (I infer her actions were for the same reason; it was not clear from the reports whether this made other passengers see the problem for the smaller passengers, or whether there were just a very few women and children, and these two actions sufficed.)
The Times also had a brief report from this flight attendant, who said that she found herself in water up to her chest, and so thought it would be a good idea if she found and put on a life vest. (On thinking about this brief comment, I have to think that she must have realized that otherwise the water might get over her head. I assume she felt she must be the last off from that area and could not herself go forward ahead of others.)
The last Times report of these that I recall was from a passenger who concluded after exiting that there were not enough life rafts. (Two at the front doors appeared to me from pictures to be serviceable, at a reported capacity of 50 to 55 people but not filled to this number. The two at the rear door would have been non-deployable without opening the rear doors. It is unclear to me if the left rear slide/raft later deployed with equalization of pressure on the door, or if it deployed as the door opened "a crack", or as part of the retrieval dewatering; some pictures seemed to show something back there. The situation with rafts/slides in the overwing area is unclear to me. From reports on the effect of immersion on one woman who slipped off the wing, it seems to me that passengers could not in general have gotten from the wing into the forward rafts-- although this woman may have spent some time in deep water inside the plane as well.)
The Times also published on Saturday a picture of an inflated life vest in the water, in b/w, that clearly was marked "US Air". On Sunday they published a color picture of the same vest, with only US A clearly visible.
OE
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. Canada Geese
The River Thames is close to Heathrow Airport. A few years ago the river had been taken over by Canada geese to the extent that the geese were a threat to the river's ecology. Canadas are attractive looking, tame birds, so there is an uninformed but strong resistance to culling them. Driving along the riverbank very early one morning I spotted a group of people from the Environment Agency, who manage the Thames, conducting a scientific experiment. They were finding out how many geese you can herd into a panel van. The answer in layman's terms is lots. Since then the goose population has stabilised at an acceptable figure, at least from an ecological point of view. No doubt by repeating the experiment more frequently I see no reason why the population could not be further reduced if necessary. The underlying difficulty of course is that airports are usually sited in places that are equally attractive to small feathered birds and big aluminium ones.
Congratulations to Halfnut. The advertising world's loss has been aviation's gain.
Congratulations to Halfnut. The advertising world's loss has been aviation's gain.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why isn't it realistic to attempt to dodge birds? I've done it. I've also dodged thunderstorms, dust devils, toy balloons, other airplanes.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when will engine bird ingestion requirements be upped to goose weights? Presumably no current or planned engine could pass such a test and a redesign could never be economic in terms of increased weight and reduced efficiency.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
intruder
when one maneuvers any kind of plane, one should realize safety margins. my dodging has happened in small planes and B737's out of LGA.
You and I will never know if I would have missed the birds without evasive action.
Perhaps an FAA sponsored bird encounter of the third kind might be a useful project for bailout funding.
you just have to miss the intakes by an inch to have been successful (windshield too)
Of course, if you are not looking out the window, you have other problems. Sadly, most airliners require looking at the instruments more than outside. We may have to retrain ourselves to realize there are hazards in the sky NOT under ATC control
You and I will never know if I would have missed the birds without evasive action.
Perhaps an FAA sponsored bird encounter of the third kind might be a useful project for bailout funding.
you just have to miss the intakes by an inch to have been successful (windshield too)
Of course, if you are not looking out the window, you have other problems. Sadly, most airliners require looking at the instruments more than outside. We may have to retrain ourselves to realize there are hazards in the sky NOT under ATC control
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been observing a number of grazing brent geese. When an aircraft passed about 200 feet above and 200 yards horiziontally the geese lifted off.
They rose to a height of 20 feet and then settled within 5 seconds.
All an audible alert would have done in this case was ensure they lifted before the aircraft passed over head.
As for an audible alert for airborne geese, have you listened to a skein of geese. They might be brilliant flyers but in human terms they have lousy RT discipline. If they heard an audible alert, at best, they might scatter and increase the chances of a bird strike.
See, be seen, and avoid is one approach (lights on) and a bird detection system is probably the best. Our surface search radar only detects skeins of 1000 or more geese.
They rose to a height of 20 feet and then settled within 5 seconds.
All an audible alert would have done in this case was ensure they lifted before the aircraft passed over head.
As for an audible alert for airborne geese, have you listened to a skein of geese. They might be brilliant flyers but in human terms they have lousy RT discipline. If they heard an audible alert, at best, they might scatter and increase the chances of a bird strike.
See, be seen, and avoid is one approach (lights on) and a bird detection system is probably the best. Our surface search radar only detects skeins of 1000 or more geese.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly puzzled as to why my last post was moderated away? One anecdote too many?
Anyway, to answer torquelink's bird ingestion comment. An engine could probably tolerate a goose size strike. But it's doubtful you can make an engine that would survive several geese. You have to remember too that the Ryanair in Rome was brought down by starlings, lots of them. It's quantity not size. In any case a hit in the right place can stop an engine. I've seen the results of a birdstrike on the innards of an engine. It's not pretty.
Protecthehornet, in the now lost post, I made the point that to avoid birds you have to see them and anything on a collision course will be in a fixed position on the windscreen with no relative movement. Plus being a bird, it's a lot smaller than an airliner or a balloon or a thunderstorm. Which just adds to the difficulty.
I'll leave it at that.
Anyway, to answer torquelink's bird ingestion comment. An engine could probably tolerate a goose size strike. But it's doubtful you can make an engine that would survive several geese. You have to remember too that the Ryanair in Rome was brought down by starlings, lots of them. It's quantity not size. In any case a hit in the right place can stop an engine. I've seen the results of a birdstrike on the innards of an engine. It's not pretty.
Protecthehornet, in the now lost post, I made the point that to avoid birds you have to see them and anything on a collision course will be in a fixed position on the windscreen with no relative movement. Plus being a bird, it's a lot smaller than an airliner or a balloon or a thunderstorm. Which just adds to the difficulty.
I'll leave it at that.
Anyway, to answer torquelink's bird ingestion comment. An engine could probably tolerate a goose size strike. But it's doubtful you can make an engine that would survive several geese
If you hit near the center then the fan blades fare pretty well, while a hit near the tip will often mess things up in the fan enough to disable the engine.
As the bird size starts to fill the inlet then the odds of getting a whole bird in without breaking it into small pieces off the inlet lip increase. So multiple whole 8 lb birds into a CFM56 would be improbable. Fortunately mother nature provides clearance between the wing tips of flying birds so the areal density of the really large birds in a startled flock spread out far enough to make it unlikely that you can get more than one whole bird into an inlet.
Like most environmental threats the regulation can not consider all what-ifs as combinations since no engine could be tested to cover all possibilities. Instead for environmental threats, birds, rain, hail, the regulations consider past encounter statistics and set a threshold (in a single ingestion test) that has to be met that is intended to provide a level of safety (factors better than your average flight risk for all causes)