Russia - Plane crash lands in field after bird strike
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
My apologies for my belated thanks for the transcript translation[s].
Apart from the apparent muddle with the Crash Crew (don’t they use local crash maps? Clearly not!) that was a startling quick ‘start to finish’ incident. I add my admiration for the Captain and First Officer for handling that so quickly and efficiently, assisted by Lady Luck (good landing spot, airframe integrity).
Hero? Of course not, by definition, but undoubtedly being in Seats 0A and 0B puts them in the least favourable location for impact with terrain.
Apart from the apparent muddle with the Crash Crew (don’t they use local crash maps? Clearly not!) that was a startling quick ‘start to finish’ incident. I add my admiration for the Captain and First Officer for handling that so quickly and efficiently, assisted by Lady Luck (good landing spot, airframe integrity).
Hero? Of course not, by definition, but undoubtedly being in Seats 0A and 0B puts them in the least favourable location for impact with terrain.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. I looked up the dictionary definition of "hero" I had always imagined that a hero was one who put his own life at risk either to save others or for a just cause. If one would now google "hero" other inclusions might be seen.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
Only half a speed-brake
There is still a chance for a claim to appear later, they should have stayed on the ground past the V1, like true airmen would, saving the day more heroically.Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up? Not to slight Sully or this Russian crew - but had their luck been a bit worse we could easily be looking at several hundred fatalities.
If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe.
If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe.
I guess the tail-mounted engines have a bit of geometrical protection, so statistic would leave the wing-mounted, underslung to compare. I cannot make the split of CFM-5 and IAE 2500 unfortunately. So for what it is worth
at 2008/2009, when the US Airways and Ryanair (clickable) accidents happened, there had been 3700 A32x manufactured. Today, there are 9000. After (avg 6000 A/C / 2 eng options * 5 sectors * 10 years * 365 * 2 tkof-ldg) 110 million movements a case appears again.
A case where we do not really know just yet what and when actually struck, by all means even what happened to the other engine is not clear. Was it really damaged or just not producing enough thrust to keep the A/C airborne on a hot day? (that is a scary thought!). It is not known.
Suggesting right now there is a statistical pattern, warranting a technical review particular to -5 CFM, based on a case of 1 occurrence (beyond spec) and one unknown is something of a stretch. And not really your class at all. Hope you do not mind:
if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...
The sooner we get back to business as usual, the better.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 18th Aug 2019 at 15:41.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up?
If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?
I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.
Someone up mentioned A32x being built strong(er). I personally could imagine the computer modelling of that design era already enabled designs with better load-transfer capabilities, less prone to break up. The real life evidence does not support that view, the 737 which is well comparable in terms of structural weight is a lifesaver too (multiple Asian land short accidents, all of the overruns and this one worth a link.
I don't know the answer to those but here are my 2 cents, for what it's worth. The United 1549 hit at least one goose with each engine. That's roughly 5 kilos of bird per donk. The Ural Airlines 178 hit seagulls. I don't know what happened to the right engine, but I counted seven birds injested by the left one. That's anywhere between 5 and 10 kilograms of meat. And that's, in purely technical terms, A LOT.
If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?
I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.
If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?
I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.
The cert basis is based on historical probabilities and not on lets imagine how many can fit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair loma, I can remember a total of two forced landings due to bird strikes taking out both engines during takeoff (fortunately both with happy endings). Both were A320 series with CFM56-5 engines.
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt you could count birds ingested. Maybe a count of those that missed. However the experts could estimate birds that were ingested through a variety of means, including groups of dented fan blades and dents across the leading edge plane surfaces. Even with a hundred or so gulls in front of the engine you probably would get no more than 2 in a CFM56. And like I said before why would that many gulls be allowed on an active runway.
The cert basis is based on historical probabilities and not on lets imagine how many can fit
The cert basis is based on historical probabilities and not on lets imagine how many can fit
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the answer to those but here are my 2 cents, for what it's worth. The United 1549 hit at least one goose with each engine. That's roughly 5 kilos of bird per donk. The Ural Airlines 178 hit seagulls. I don't know what happened to the right engine, but I counted seven birds injested by the left one. That's anywhere between 5 and 10 kilograms of meat. And that's, in purely technical terms, A LOT.
If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?
I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.
If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?
I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.
You can't differentiate these events from chance, not even with Poisson process, which really isn't applicable to this in my opinion.
Yes. I looked up the dictionary definition of "hero" I had always imagined that a hero was one who put his own life at risk either to save others or for a just cause. If one would now google "hero" other inclusions might be seen.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hope (thankfully it will never will happen) that you might in an event like that, Use your head and not a checklist.
As to first comment, aft engines have negligible if any geometric protection from a birds trike. They are sensitive to ice shedding from wings, from debris from main gear, and have more problematic uncontained failure collateral damage issues. They add to wing bending moment issues, not relieve them. There is a different thrust couple which benefits rudder size and they add to stability generally... Except in reverse... Where they characteristically disturb rudder effectiveness. An engine failure on a tail mounted design will need similar inputs from the pilot, as the design is optimised or should be to have enough but not too much authority. Excessively sized rudder or vert stab have their own impact on other bits of stability.
As for Hull integrity, the 320 appears to fare well. There are too many concertina shaped debris fields from the early NGs to be too comfortable with the fiasco of the ring frame/CAM/hand "forgeing" to be comfortable with a comparison between the two.
The structural deformation is a complex process, but where the kitsets occur at the same place repeatedly, there would be merit in contemplation. Or not. Where the Hull has zigged and zagged, the events are generally survivable unless you happen to be right at the failure point. Hit hard enough and it it irrelevant, humans are squishy outers with soft centers, and take so much before it ends on tears.
When stuff gets interesting, one of two things happens physiologically, either inaction from shock/cognitive overload, or time dilation...
Which occurs depends on the preparedness of the individual to deal with a surprise.
Your first midair is memorable if you survive, sitting in a. Powered aircraft without noise also is memorable. A flight control failure will always get your undivided attention. Birds strikes vary from
Curiosity to expensive to catastrophic. And come out of the blue (well, OK there are times and places where birds are more interested in being in your flightpath).
There have been failures of all types of engines from. Ingestion of KFC into the compressor flow... Not just - 5's lor 2500sthere was a nasty little - 7deal into CMP... If it flies, birds can mess up your game. Good news is high bypass, wide chord fans have lower injection into the inner engine, so bird strikes are lower risk on those designs, which is the way RPT jets are developing, if they get their act together.
Only half a speed-brake
Up above a suggestion is made CFM56 -7 have fan blades of a wider chord, different material and perhaps different impact failure modes (speculating due to lack of knowledge, but do understand this may not define how fragile they are).
Perhaps a fair reasoning would be like this. If the -7 fan disk is more durable against impact compared to -5, able to deliver more thrust after an equivalent birdstrike, then
Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.
Perhaps a fair reasoning would be like this. If the -7 fan disk is more durable against impact compared to -5, able to deliver more thrust after an equivalent birdstrike, then
- On your worst luck day with both engines taking hits, you really want to be sitting on an -7 powered aeroplane.
Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.
I think we are over-reaching in the engine discussion differences in this thread.
In simpler terms it's the aero damage to the fan (in most cases, but not the Sully) and the ability for the engine cycle to support some thrust. If the bird wipes out the inner compressors it's game over.
It might be more productive if some new evidence like condition of the fan blades turns up in this thread
In simpler terms it's the aero damage to the fan (in most cases, but not the Sully) and the ability for the engine cycle to support some thrust. If the bird wipes out the inner compressors it's game over.
It might be more productive if some new evidence like condition of the fan blades turns up in this thread
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it would be extremely difficult or more like impossible to apply statistics to this, with only two of these events and both different, in fact I imagine identical bird strikes would be rare. You would have to compare equivalent forces, the bird strikes would need to have hit both engines while taking off. This is where statistics can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands.
You can't differentiate these events from chance, not even with Poisson process, which really isn't applicable to this in my opinion.
You can't differentiate these events from chance, not even with Poisson process, which really isn't applicable to this in my opinion.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
That's what I've been saying all along!!! Let's go back to four engines!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_A...entry_accident
Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:
APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS
ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY
APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS
ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY
