RYR nasty bird strike at PIK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Middlesex
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although such terrible results could have arose form this inccident but the main thing is you were lucky that the pilot could abort the takeoff just noticed in the other article who has had no loss of life in air travel this year including Cargo and commercial, Washington and we argue over should he have aborted or not it's lucky he did for this could have meant serious atrossities and huge hummiliation to us as a Country. This was lucky to be at a place like PIK where he could abort a takeoff as for if he had departed from somewhere like LCY he would now maybe be back on the ground safely or he could have had a strike with a sound barrier or if he had got up and stalled he may have crashed on land or in the river either of these crash situations probably would have meant loss of life and for many families huge upset. So thats why we should stop arguing about should he have abort, he did abort which meant the lives were spared for those onboard and if so maybe for some living near or under PIK flight path. If i could lay blame it would be partially to the checker at PIK, he should have made sure the birds where clear enough for that aircraft to takeoff because if that was a b747 or bigger than a b757 this may have meant it might not of been able abort and as all the jets in that size range would probably most likely to have huge thrust amounts and in wide and large amounts of flying birds it would suck them in and that would mean huge atrossities but thats what i would call seriously dangerous for this inncident there is no one who you can blame in the right mind the pilot did what first came to mind and he did it quick enough so that he could abort so i think this matter was clearly an accident and i think in the right minds some of the other pilots would have done.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i could lay blame it would be partially to the checker at PIK, he should have made sure the birds where clear enough for that aircraft to takeoff
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an FYI only about 20% of bird strikes are actually reported andthe quality of information is poor and in many cases incomplete.
As for the Genoa BAE146 incident this is a documented incident that was the subject of a most interesting court case.
"THE INCIDENT - On 7th June 1989 a TNT Bae 146 cargo flight collided immediately after take-off with a flock of gulls…one engine stopped running immediately, two more after the emergency landing… …the plane managed to return to the parking stand with only one
engine running!"
A complex civil liability case ensued and a judgment for around $10 million US was awarded to the aircraft operator. Various organizations who should have exercised a higher standard of care were assessed a portion of the liability. I would need to drag out the whole case to name the negligent parties and there percentage of damage assessment. This is not an isolated case.
As someone who works in the area of bird strike safety I would really appreciate if someone could forward any of the details ([email protected]) on the incident including pictures if available!
It is also important to note that the number of multiple engine strikes from birds is increasing and that the number of large birds (watefowl) are also increasing at a high rate.
Sorry a correction on the damage award in Genoa it was 2 million US$.
As for the Genoa BAE146 incident this is a documented incident that was the subject of a most interesting court case.
"THE INCIDENT - On 7th June 1989 a TNT Bae 146 cargo flight collided immediately after take-off with a flock of gulls…one engine stopped running immediately, two more after the emergency landing… …the plane managed to return to the parking stand with only one
engine running!"
A complex civil liability case ensued and a judgment for around $10 million US was awarded to the aircraft operator. Various organizations who should have exercised a higher standard of care were assessed a portion of the liability. I would need to drag out the whole case to name the negligent parties and there percentage of damage assessment. This is not an isolated case.
As someone who works in the area of bird strike safety I would really appreciate if someone could forward any of the details ([email protected]) on the incident including pictures if available!
It is also important to note that the number of multiple engine strikes from birds is increasing and that the number of large birds (watefowl) are also increasing at a high rate.
Sorry a correction on the damage award in Genoa it was 2 million US$.
The story of the Emerald 748 at STN, from the captain's perspective, is featured in the current issue of Pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if you guys can still remember, but I think we have had a similar discussion when the AF Concorde crashed. The discussion goes that the pilots could have saved some of the lives of the pax if they aborted the take off rather than flying with 2 uncontained engine failures and a fuel tank fire.
Anyway IMHO pilots (Esp. those flying twins) should always be prepared to do a RTO after V1 should something catastrophic happen to more than 1 engine. (i.e. Birdstrikes)
Anyway IMHO pilots (Esp. those flying twins) should always be prepared to do a RTO after V1 should something catastrophic happen to more than 1 engine. (i.e. Birdstrikes)
Here's a TSB Report about a DC-10 overrun at Vancouver, where the Captain rejected the takeoff after V1, because of a loud bang, which he thought was a bomb - it turned out to be a compressor stall, but the interesting point here is that the Captain had previously determined his actions in a case like this (1.14.2.3 Decision Making on Flight 17):
The captain's decision to reject was based on the fact that he did not recognize the initial sound and subsequent thumping noises, and that, because he thought the bang could have been a bomb, he had concerns about the integrity of the aircraft and its ability to fly. Also, the captain stated that, based on the rejected take-off provisions in the DC-10 Flight Manual and on a fatal DC8 accident that he had witnessed, he had developed a mental rule to not take an aircraft into the air if he suspected that there was aircraft structural failure.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On th PIK Ryanair flight the captain, who was the non-handling pilot, noticed a flock of birds in his peripheral vision just before V1. This was quickly followed by a succession of bangs and the take-off was rejected. Aircraft stopped on the centreline with plenty of runway left to go but couldn't be moved for some time due to locked brakes. Conditions were wet and windy with something like a 15-knot crosswind at the time and decision was made BEFORE V1.
No drama, just two pros doing what they're supposed to do. No complaints from pax either!
(Edited for clarity.)
No drama, just two pros doing what they're supposed to do. No complaints from pax either!
(Edited for clarity.)
Last edited by Mister Gash; 8th Jan 2003 at 09:19.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: clown town
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411 I agree with what you say.
Iomapaseo. The theorized faliures that we are trainied to deal with are based on past events and theory.
In my experiance most failures come close to these "profiles" or are not in the cx list period.
In such cases the experiance ,knowledge of systems and training of the crew have to be used together to try and save the aircraft
Afterwards it can be disected and put in the cx list by the boys/girls in the post theory dept.
As for birds making all the engines go bang on the runway (if that is what happened) I have never seen a cx list solution for that .Probably because its obviouse your on your own.
Thats why we get the big bucks
Iomapaseo. The theorized faliures that we are trainied to deal with are based on past events and theory.
In my experiance most failures come close to these "profiles" or are not in the cx list period.
In such cases the experiance ,knowledge of systems and training of the crew have to be used together to try and save the aircraft
Afterwards it can be disected and put in the cx list by the boys/girls in the post theory dept.
As for birds making all the engines go bang on the runway (if that is what happened) I have never seen a cx list solution for that .Probably because its obviouse your on your own.
Thats why we get the big bucks
prang one:
You are absolutely right. Simple things like engine fires on take-off seldom kill people. It is usually when something happens that is not in any checklist that things can go seriously wrong.
In fact, the closest I got to dying was when the ar*e-end of the large bit of kit that I was flying at the time froze up. I did not have long to figure out which bit had actually frozen and what I should do with the bit of trim that I was left with when the automatics came out but luck was on my side.
Hand flying a large aeroplane on a very imprecise elevator trim control for over 7 hours gets you thinking and the checklists do not help at all!
You are absolutely right. Simple things like engine fires on take-off seldom kill people. It is usually when something happens that is not in any checklist that things can go seriously wrong.
In fact, the closest I got to dying was when the ar*e-end of the large bit of kit that I was flying at the time froze up. I did not have long to figure out which bit had actually frozen and what I should do with the bit of trim that I was left with when the automatics came out but luck was on my side.
Hand flying a large aeroplane on a very imprecise elevator trim control for over 7 hours gets you thinking and the checklists do not help at all!
