bird strike into both engines

[orentavor]

Anyone knows about this?

Ryanair B738 at Trapani on Sep 29th 2009, bird strike into both engines

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DWD performing flight FR-8631 from Trapani (Italy) to Brussels Charleroi (Belgium), struck a flock of birds during takeoff and returned to Trapani for an immediate emergency landing. The airplane landed safely.

The Italian "Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo" ANSV reported, that both engines received damages. The ANSV opened an investigation into the serious incident.

[hautemude]

YES

Probably the pilots, the cabin crew, the pax, the air traffic controllers and the firemen to name but a few.

Also it was reported by the Aviation Heald last Tuesday

[BOAC]

orent - to add to the unhelpful reply from our friend there, there is no point in your looking at Av Herald since it only quotes your 'report'

[Jetdriver]

Before anyone is even remotely tempted to start posting that picture from this thread on here........ Don't!

[powerstall]

Here's a link to a report by the FAA regarding dual bird strikes..

http://www.birdstrikecontrol.com/new...ikes-per-year/

[orentavor]

Thank you

Thank you for that powerstall.

[protectthehornet]

gee, with those big engines out ahead of the wings with nothing to protect them, why think this won't happen again with disasterous outcome?

now, stick the engines back the by the tail (dc9 727 etc) and you have the whole plane ahead to hit the birds...smaller intakes too.

[gravity enemy]

The odd eventuality of ever encountering a bird strike is far smaller than the disadvantages an aircraft receives, when its engines are rear mounted. It would be like going back in time to re-invent the wheel, just because once every blue moon a flock of birds might be ingested.

A tail engined aircraft brings along all it's baggage of a rear CoG, maintenace difficulties, cabin noise and not to mention deep stall. Technology needs to improved on the ground to ensure that airports are free of bird flocks, whilst the aircraft flying out of them can make use of the most efficient design.

[sb_sfo]

aft mounted engines

PTH,
I want to see a couple GE90-115s mounted like an MD80

[Airbus_a321]

Technology needs to improved ON THE GROUND to ensure that airports are free of bird flocks

that's the only correct point. ON the Ground, done by the AIRPORTS.

I guess there is a very big deficit especially in a lot of Italien airports. just mentioned in the past: Ciampino, Trapani, Venice, Bologna etc.
To distract from those shortcomings of urgently needed Bird Avoidance Programms on Airports, you find on some Italian airport that they try to switch the liability to the pilots only, and force them e.g. by "to switch the WX Radar on for departure so to avoid birdstrike": - officially published by aiport NOTAM

[protectthehornet]

gravity enemy

please let me know if there are any cases of rear mounted engines/bird ingestion causing 100percent power failure (like hudson crash).

also let me know how many ground techs have been ingested in tail mounted engines?

sure there are advantages to the structure of a plane with wing mounted engines, but there is more to life than structures.

[IRRenewal]

Yep, that did indeed happen. A/C returned after T/O and landed safely. Severe delays at TPS for a few days. A/C ferried to STN (next day I believe) for remedial work.

[nicolai]

please let me know if there are any cases of rear mounted engines/bird ingestion causing 100percent power failure (like hudson crash).

A Falcon 20 in 2005 (maybe more, I stopped looking after that).

[gravity enemy]

protectthehornet

This is not about bird strikes at all! How many 100% failures have occurred in tail-engined aircraft is quite irrelevant. The rear engine design (for a medium sized aircraft) brings far more dangers than bird strikes ever do to wing mounted designs.

Much more fatal accidents have happened to aircraft as a result of this rear configuration due to aerodynamic and mechanical reasons, than have ever happened to wing mounted designs. I can assure you there is a reason why Airbus and Boeing have chosen to build aircraft with their current configurations as they are. As far as Mechanics being sucked into engines, once again this is an argument in the wrong direction. The solution isn't in a new aircraft design, but rather on the ground. There should be and infact are procedures with regards to ground handling which prohibit ground staff to move close to the engines. So in this case it's a matter of law enforcement.

So to conclude, if you all of a sudden as a direct result of bird strikes, start designing rear mounted aircraft, yes sure you might get slightly less 100% power losses. (However they will still occur), but you will get far more plane crashes due to deep stalling alone. Engines will be of the low by-pass ratio type at best, since fitting a high by-pass would be very impractical. That will result in a higher fuel consumption and lower energy efficiency, leading to a bigger carbon footprint and more noise...and a whole lot of whining people on the ground. Also aircraft will be heavier, since the tail section will have to be strengthened significantly in order to carry the engines. The main wings will also be of a heavier and more inefficient design since they won't have their engines to counteract bending, wing twisting and torsion.

Ticket prices and pollution will skyrocket. Air accidents will increase too. And all this because of some birds, especially since there are proven ways in airports around the world, which minimise the risks of birds, such as the use of dogs, eagles, audio signals and others. It is not useful to put a stop sign on aviation development for this reason.

but there is more to life than structures.

Yes indeed you are correct! And in this case the best structures for 'life' are the wing mounted designs.

Take care GE

[lomapaseo]

Rear mounted engines ingest a lot more tires and ice than wing mounted engines. They also eject parts into cabins more often.

Life is a balance of good vs evils. But overall the accident rate is all that really counts once the aircraft meets the certification standards.

[barit1]

That would depend on whether the crew saw high vibs (somewhat likely) or a fire warning (less likely). In this case, haste makes waste; you don't want to shut down the wrong donk.

[protectthehornet]

nicolai...thanks, I hadn't heard about that one...maybe I should have said airliner, but I didn't.

and gravity:

The md90 had a higher bypass engine

and all the other garbage about the problems with rear mounted engines really made me laugh.

you fly your planes, I'll fly mine. Big rudders, associated with wing mounted engines, have caused a problem or two.

And of course all the modern fighter jets with wing mounted engines ( like the ME262) speak for themselves. (;-)

but getting back to the birds. are high bypass engines more likely to suck in birds with their large intakes then the small intakes of older engines? just wondering. (lets' stick to airliners too)

[lomapaseo]

More engines (4 vs 2) and bigger inlets mean more multiple engine strikes.

The pilot workload goes up when multiple engines are involved.

When you involve more than one engine it implies a flock encounter and in that case the flocking bird-species behaviour (ball flocks vs flying V's, etc.) significantly affect the data. Birds are not inaminate objects to be sucked into engines. They do have avoidance manuevers based on visuals and noise, so the number of strikes does not correlate directly with inlet area but rather a rough correlation with diameter

[gravity enemy]

I am glad I made you laugh. I am indeed talking about airliners, so I don't understand why you had to go and bring fighter aircraft into the picture. And the ME-262 is possibly the worst example of all...However since you brought it up fighter jets aren't tail mounted, but rather body mounted, since their engines are inside the fuselage. A fighter aircraft is a whole different animal, with different centers of pressure and gravity as well as shorter elevator arms. You simply cannot compare it to a Medium/Heavy airliner. Also fighter aircraft fly in supersonic speed ranges, where wing mounted aircraft simply cannot go since there is too much compression drag. No problem for subsonic airliners though.

Fair enough the MD90's V2500 is a high by-pass, but not quite what I had in mind. Try fitting an engine powerful enough for a heavy aircraft of the 777/346 type. It will be awkward.

As far as the 'garbage' about the inefficiency in the tail-engined design, perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is indeed garbage and just one giant misprint in every modern Principles of flight textbook all over the world.

Airbus and Boeing are the world leaders in the manufacturing of Medium/Heavy aircraft, but I am sure they have got it all terribly wrong! If I may recommend a book for you, read Air Disasters, by Stanley Stewart. It has a pretty good story which sums up the deep stall characteristics of tail mounted aircraft.

Welcome to the 21st century
Keep well GE

[gusting_45]

gravity enemy.

Don't wish to get sucked into the argument but deep stall is a function of the position of the horizontal stabiliser not the engines.

I have flown the 727, still the best pilot's airplane, in my experience.

cheers.