It is decades since I last flew into Guernsey. OK we understand wet runway and gusty cross wind conditions. Sure going back in on one was probably not the best thing to try. We all know that sitting at home in an armchair thinking about a scenario and the, 'what would I have done?' is completely different to sitting in that left hand seat in the thick of it. Personally, from my armchair, I think that I would have gone for the nearest suitable diversion. However all is well that ends well.

A point of consideration with twins is that it should be sphinctre tightening to know that on one engine, it might fail too. So, with heightened awareness let us all recall, please, that a 50% reduction in power is a Mayday ; not a Pan . "Nearest suitable " means just that. NEAREST. Time is not a factor. "Suitable" means only with regard to RWY length, app facilities etc. In otherwords, it is a field capable of taking you with specific regard. A farmers's field is capable but would not meet specified criteria.

Colleague lost an engine of a 737 in the descent to Orley. He returned to LGW (Base) and CP invited all of us, howling for blood, that the discussion should centre on "suitable" ! Oh really ! Mind you , offender was from same squadron, liked golf & was probably a ......................................oh no, here I go again !

I am a birdwatcher, anyone got a photo? Many birds of prey have yellow legs I would imagine it was a Common Buzzard which is reasonably big. Failing that it could be a Kestrel (bit small) or female Sparrowhawk (can be biggish) or something more exotic. As it is related to m x v squared I guess speed is more important than mass of the bird, although I would think a large Buzzard at least twice the mass of a Kestrel.

From my PPL memory Southampton is 1723m (02/20) and there is maintenance (executive stuff) but not sure FlyBe use it

Kestrel 140-310g, Buzzard 430-1400g = ouch!!

I had a couple of close encounters with Buzzards in my Arrow, thank goodness I didn't hit one (or vice versa)

Made the Jersey news today ... a short video included, which may have been linked already ...
Video: Plane flies on despite propeller smash in bird strike « Jersey Evening Post

Apologies to the ornithologists...
 

@gawbc

Looks like a big bird...

https://image-store.slidesharecdn.co...d938-large.png

Yes, unsurprisingly it's the same video as the one in the DM article linked from post #1.

I'd guess that if any other passengers had also filmed the event we'd have seen the results by now.

Fairly sure it's a Common Buzzard (one of the most common birds of prey in the UK / GB / British Isles whatever Guernsey is)

What's the chances of a bird hitting a spinner? Unless a bang on central hit, I would have expected the airflow to sweep a bird around the spinner and into the blades. I suppose it is possible that a blow from a blade could throw a bird forward into the spinner but again this seems pretty low probability.

Probably in the lottery odds.

I bullseyed a bird on the nosecone once... Middle of the night, 3000 feet in the climb... 250 knots...

Slipstream doesn't help with a bird that size!!

:ouch:

EGLL
 

Why's that then? If the captain of the flight had decided that Heathrow was the appropriate course of action, then he'd have gone there. I'm not aware of any rule that says you can't divert to Heathrow unless there is an imminent danger of death.

From the AIP:

Diversion: Before filing EGLL as ALTN, prior arrangement for GND handling are necessary. Except EMERG.

Prop shaft damage?
 

No-one seems to have mentioned it so far, but the prop/spinner assembly "seems" to be moving (wobbling) around on the shaft or bearings, suggesting fairly significant damage to the prop-shaft and/or reduction gearboxbox.
Could be the camera wobbling though doesn't look like it.
Not getting into the "nearest Suitable" debate................;)

Given that the cabin sidewall and window frame "wobble" in unison with the engine/prop, I think it's safe to assume that it's our friend Dan who has the shakes ...

Time might not be a factor on your flight deck LandFlap but it is on mine. If I've got to chose between two equally suitable airports and A is 50 minutes away while B is 60 minutes away, I'm going to A even if B is closer.

Blimey, he's got a PPL? More likely got the job because he once flew to Spain on holiday. About as qualified as the average "defence correspondent" :*

Framer ; Splitting hairs ole mate. Aces like you who can quickly determine the best given an almost equal choice are skygods whom I greatly admire. LF is correct though. Nearest is nearest is nearest. Otherwise we get bogged down in all the claptrap like which is "more" suitable. Thats why the Regulatory Authorities defined it closely as "nearest". Or was it "nearest" as "closest". Oh gosh, tea & bickies for an average poler like me every time.

Rubbish. Go to the most sensible airport, if the law says something else then it's an excellent chance to use the authority you have to make decisions in the name of safety that don't align with the law.

Ok, go to the nearest which has crosswinds, is wet, short, doesn't have fire cover and isn't open.

No QRH I've ever seen instructs you to land at the nearest. Nearest suitable yes, nearest no.

When the engine is developing power, granted.

But in the video the prop is already feathered and barely windmilling at all (about 2 rpm).

You will have bluff body dynamics vortex shedding coming from the damaged face in the air flow.


Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube

Its what caused this bridge to fail.

The vortexes shed on one side then the other and set up a resonance so I wouldn't be surprised if there was vibration still even after the engine was shut down.

Finding it quite interesting how black and white some people think things are.
One of the odd things that happens to pilots is that they begin to think differently. The answer to a simple question "how far away is X?" will often be answered in terms of time, "about half an hour". This is very relevant in this scenario.

For my money, if it's going to take 15 minutes to get on the ground then any field within approximately 15 minutes flying time is perfectly valid and I'd rather have extra minutes than too few as too few will increase the workload either by pressure or manoeuvring.

The difference will be whether the checklist says 'land at nearest suitable airport' or 'land IMMEDIATELY at nearest suitable airport'(my capitals).

In almost any case, except when there is a dire emergency, the deciding factor may well be cabin preparation.

And one can always point to the paragraph 'captain's discretion to deviate from...'.

And I also think some posters on here have short memories. The weather on Saturday in the south was just awful so the crew elected to go to Birmingham where the wind was straight down the runway. GCI - BHX is hardly transatlantic for crying out loud. GCI - EXT or SOU is about 25-30 minutes airborne on a good day, with checklists to do etc it'll be about 40-45 minutes. In that time you've flown to BHX anyway.
It's nice to see the dispatcher from GCI on board is so knowledgeable about Q400 operations (not) :ugh:

Spandy missing the point too. Wet, windy and the last bit, in particular, no fire cover and closed anyway does not in any sense make it suitable. Nearest is nearest is nearest and has to be suitable. Of course. If it isn't you go somewhere else. Geees, the very claptrap I think Slowjet was seeking to avoid.

Here's the thing Skygods : almost overhead Larnaca on the way home to a Birthday Bash in the ME, engine quits. Drills complete, into the hold (very high level and descending, company calls on HF and says that there is a spare engine in Damascus and there is an Engineers strike at LCA. Also, massive 80kts up yer ass on the way to Damascus. Kindly divert to Damascus. What would you Skygods do ? Careful, this really happened and was incorporated into our Command Selection Interviews. responses were interesting and in some cases, the straw that broke the camel's back resulting in a bit more RHS time being recommended.

Not quite what you said last time though. The nearest is NOT necessarily suitable, or useable.

Has nobody had a look at FR24 yet?

Well 20 mins put the aircraft over the Needles at 17k doing about 280 kts (give or take a bit). Slight speed reduction about 20 miles South it would seem but it fair nipped along to BHX after that.

The last four types I've flown said that you should "Land at the nearest suitable airport" following an engine out. And in my book that equals time, not distance. My company trusts me to make that decision as to where that will be together with my colleague. This guy was also trusted by his company to do the same but this time he actually had to do it for real. What is important is that he took his time and didn't stuff it up. Hats off to him plus plenty of tea and medals. Saving a couple of minutes or going somewhere possibly geographically closer where A. You are not used flying, b. Where you might not have handling arrangements and engineering and c. Where the weather might not be as good might not be the best option (or most suitable). So if flying to where you were going in the first place is also reasonable, then why not?

PS. I think we are still allowed to use common sense.

Not sure about that, and anyway, it's in short supply. However, in this case I'm not going to judge: I wasn't there. However, in my career I did have six single-engine landings in twin-engine aircraft.

I know we are not referring to ETOPS, but with 330 minutes permitted on some, are we not making a bit of an issue about what constitutes safe practice in this particular case. Save the Monday morning quarterbacking for the footy.

Perhaps if there is only a few minutes difference, OK, but otherwise, these convenience factors have nothing to do with "Land at Nearest Suitable Airport". You do only have one chance left, and while obviously the chance that it too will stop/have to be shutdown is very very small, you'd look like a total goat if you decided to fly "past" a "suitable" airport because it had inferior handling arrangements or no engineers and the other stopped before you got to where you'd like to have got-to.

Bird strike out of Guernsey continues on one Engine to Birmingham
 

I think we are missing the point here.
The aircraft had a problem.
The crew elected to shut down the engine to limit any potential further damage.
The aircraft landed safely and without further incident.
What exactly do you guys want as a 'better' outcome?

totti highflyer, you're right, it really is as simple as that.

Just for clarity, the Q400 checklist will lead you into a decision making process in the fact that if it is serious enough it will instruct you to "land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield" or "land at the nearest suitable airfield". Notice the slight difference.

This incident happened around 10:50z, the weather in the South and West of England at the time was not pleasant.

Guernsey - R09/27

EGJB 081050Z 18021G33KT 9999 -RA SCT012 BKN022 13/12 Q1000
EGJB 081120Z 19023KT 9999 VCSH SCT013 BKN025 14/12 Q1000

Jersey - R08/26

EGJJ 081050Z 18023KT 9999 FEW008 SCT035 13/11 Q1002 TEMPO RA BKN015
EGJJ 081120Z 18016KT 9999 FEW008 SCT012 BKN035 13/11 Q1001 TEMPO RA BKN015

Bournemouth - R08/26

EGHH 081050Z 19021G32KT 9999 SCT017 BKN027 13/12 Q0999 RERA
EGHH 081120Z 18021G32KT 9999 SCT018 BKN030 14/12 Q0998

Southampton - R02/20

EGHI 081050Z 19013G32KT 150V230 9999 BKN020 13/09 Q1000
EGHI 081120Z 19012G28KT 140V230 9999 BKN022 13/09 Q0999

Newquay - R12/30

EGHQ 081050Z 24022G32KT 9999 SCT020 11/08 Q0996
EGHQ 081120Z 24021KT 9999 SCT022 11/07 Q0996

Exeter - R08/26

EGTE 081050Z 20014KT 9999 FEW010 SCT025 12/10 Q0996
EGTE 081120Z 19012KT 9999 SCT028 12/10 Q0996

Bristol - R09/27

EGGD 081050Z 18016KT 6000 RA FEW005 SCT006 BKN009 11/10 Q0995
EGGD 081120Z 17021G32KT 9000 RA FEW005 SCT006 BKN009 11/10 Q0995

Cardiff - R12/30

EGFF 081050Z AUTO 19013KT 9999 FEW023/// //////TCU 12/10 Q0995 RERA
EGFF 081120Z AUTO 19009KT 9999 SCT021/// //////TCU 12/10 Q0995


And finally at destination

Birmingham - R15/33

EGBB 081050Z AUTO 14012KT 6000 -RA SCT007/// BKN010/// OVC015/// 09/09 Q0996 RERA
EGBB 081120Z 14013KT 4000 RA FEW006 BKN012 BKN020 10/09 Q0996


We're not talking medium to long haul operations here as Landflap alludes to, we're talking short haul, regional flying (no sh** Sherlock) where a suitable airfield "should" generally be within 15 minutes flying time regardless of where you are, but ask yourself this, was this situation an engine failure? Of course not. Was it a precautionary shutdown? Of course it was. Was the engine available should they needed it in a dire situation? Of course it was. They elected to go to BHX based on the information presented to them, was this a bad decision? I think not, but if you think it was then I'd love to hear why.

If you don't have to land immediately, then why would you land at any place other than a "suitable airfield"?

wow, well this dan sounds like a prat....

"I guess the pilots wanted to be home in Birmingham for the night"

what an absolute moron

Capt Bloggs you've answered your own question because you clearly know what the definition of "suitable airfield" is with regard to airline operations. Unless your question was completely rhetorical of course?

Off topic..

How is Deano a 'Probationary PPruner' but have a join date of 2003 and over 700 posts :confused:

Totty highflier: well put.

SLFguy, I've no idea. I've PM'ed the top mods several times about it, including this morning infact, but as yet I've not had one response. Ce la vie.

An awful lot of "what-ifs" here in contrast to "what-did" happen.

What's missing in the analytical discussions is the inherent ability of the crew coupled with the tolerance of the machine to result in a safe outcome.

Any talk about imbalances either due to the offset mass of the bird or even rubbery vortex shedding need balance against the inherent dampening in the wing and the ability of the crew to adjust airspeed eve a little bit.