jet/bird evasive action
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious, how much would that be in feet or meters ?
Close enough that you can clearly see the opposite pilot smiling
...or not.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misd-again, Bingo! My point exactly, a small vertical change will put you out of harms way. The same concept as TCAS maneuvers. The concept of aerobatic bank angles is fundamentally flawed from a risk avoidance and safety of flight perspective.
The UK CSL did an analysis on wing mounted engine and possible interactions with migratory bird flocks. The analysis was sobering, hence the need to revisit the regulations and standards to address strikes to multiple engines.
I am trolling through my files to see if I can find the file and post it.
The UK CSL did an analysis on wing mounted engine and possible interactions with migratory bird flocks. The analysis was sobering, hence the need to revisit the regulations and standards to address strikes to multiple engines.
I am trolling through my files to see if I can find the file and post it.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sevenstrokeroll, you just don't give up, do you?
More than 45 degs bank is considered an upset in a commercial jet.
Swept wing jet are not the same ballgame as C172. Look at the design load factor requirement. +2.5G is the limit for an airliner, that's 67 degs bank level flight. Or 60 degs with a little too much back pressure.
More than 45 degs bank is considered an upset in a commercial jet.
Swept wing jet are not the same ballgame as C172. Look at the design load factor requirement. +2.5G is the limit for an airliner, that's 67 degs bank level flight. Or 60 degs with a little too much back pressure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, I've been in alot of upsets then...
you fly your way...even in the plane we train for ''steep turns'' at 45degrees...
and who said 67 degrees? and who said you had to pull back in this situation.
even the 707 was rolled
you fly your way...even in the plane we train for ''steep turns'' at 45degrees...
and who said 67 degrees? and who said you had to pull back in this situation.
even the 707 was rolled
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even the 707 was rolled
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said to roll the plane to 60 degrees of bank at 1.3vso with gear and flaps out? I didn't .
have you guys even read the original post?
I'm trying to get the engines out of the birds path...it is one option...in the first post I even mentioned climbing.
by the time you started the roll, you would pass the birds and start to resume level flight...perhaps I should have said: NOT TO EXCEED 60 degrees of bank.
wow.
some of the dopiest guys on pprune and they didn't even read the posts
and a guy with 200 hours in cherokees and c172's.
wow...charles lindbergh, move over!
sheesh.
I don't know how much altitude the 707 lost while rolling, but I've seen the film and it looked really nice...twice...in front of all of Seattle. It didnt look like much, but I wasn't looking at the altitmeter, were you?
have you guys even read the original post?
I'm trying to get the engines out of the birds path...it is one option...in the first post I even mentioned climbing.
by the time you started the roll, you would pass the birds and start to resume level flight...perhaps I should have said: NOT TO EXCEED 60 degrees of bank.
wow.
some of the dopiest guys on pprune and they didn't even read the posts
and a guy with 200 hours in cherokees and c172's.
wow...charles lindbergh, move over!
sheesh.
I don't know how much altitude the 707 lost while rolling, but I've seen the film and it looked really nice...twice...in front of all of Seattle. It didnt look like much, but I wasn't looking at the altitmeter, were you?
Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 6th Mar 2011 at 19:30.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected on that. I just rechecked and the value is 60 degrees of bank in the Canadian regs.
However, the point is moot because in reality given the roll rate of jet aircraft and the potential for other problems with maneuvering a jet aircraft in this manner, the likelihood of this succeeding is low.
Add to this the fact that the predictability of bird flight patterns when threatened and the birds actually remaining in the same lateral distribution is low and I cannot see any real value in this strategy.
I can see the value in a change in vertical profile to avoid a flock of birds and can speak from practical experience using it.
However, the point is moot because in reality given the roll rate of jet aircraft and the potential for other problems with maneuvering a jet aircraft in this manner, the likelihood of this succeeding is low.
Add to this the fact that the predictability of bird flight patterns when threatened and the birds actually remaining in the same lateral distribution is low and I cannot see any real value in this strategy.
I can see the value in a change in vertical profile to avoid a flock of birds and can speak from practical experience using it.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said to roll the plane to 60 degrees of bank at 1.3vso with gear and flaps out? I didn't .
have you guys even read the original post?
I'm trying to get the engines out of the birds path...it is one option...in the first post I even mentioned climbing.
by the time you started the roll, you would pass the birds and start to resume level flight...perhaps I should have said: NOT TO EXCEED 60 degrees of bank.
wow.
some of the dopiest guys on pprune and they didn't even read the posts
and a guy with 200 hours in cherokees and c172's.
wow...charles lindbergh, move over!
sheesh.
I don't know how much altitude the 707 lost while rolling, but I've seen the film and it looked really nice...twice...in front of all of Seattle. It didnt look like much, but I wasn't looking at the altitmeter, were you?
have you guys even read the original post?
I'm trying to get the engines out of the birds path...it is one option...in the first post I even mentioned climbing.
by the time you started the roll, you would pass the birds and start to resume level flight...perhaps I should have said: NOT TO EXCEED 60 degrees of bank.
wow.
some of the dopiest guys on pprune and they didn't even read the posts
and a guy with 200 hours in cherokees and c172's.
wow...charles lindbergh, move over!
sheesh.
I don't know how much altitude the 707 lost while rolling, but I've seen the film and it looked really nice...twice...in front of all of Seattle. It didnt look like much, but I wasn't looking at the altitmeter, were you?
Unless I missed something, we have yet to hear what your personal flight experience is. I make no secret of the fact that my experience is limited to VFR and IFR ASEL and several simulator sessions on the heavies so that those reading my post know what the context is. Please, tell us what your experience is so that I may properly honor the next Chuck Yeager. If not, you're just a troll who likes to play with MSFS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear canuck
thanks for acknowledging 60 degrees of bank (exceeding) as aerobatic...indeed the FAA only speaks of it as requiring a parachute in FAR 91.307
Dear K9...there are countless times I've seen bird formations above 3000 feet, not in either approach or departure. Therefore I do not subscribe to your contention that only in the approach or departure phase could you see and maneuver to avoid birds. Just because it has been beaten into the ground on PPRUNE doesn't make it so. Why not take the time to really look for birds at a distance?
I even remember seeing a small child's balloon (with mickey mouse shape) at FL350 with time to avoid if needed (vicinity of Ontario , California (yes, sort of near, but not that near Disneyland)
AS to my experience:
CFIIMEIATPMEL 737 type rating. I learned to fly in 1975 and am employed by one of the largest airlines in the world as a pilot. Any more would give away my employer's name.
So, polish up your spectacles. And keep your eyes on the sky and not in the engineering books.
thanks for acknowledging 60 degrees of bank (exceeding) as aerobatic...indeed the FAA only speaks of it as requiring a parachute in FAR 91.307
Dear K9...there are countless times I've seen bird formations above 3000 feet, not in either approach or departure. Therefore I do not subscribe to your contention that only in the approach or departure phase could you see and maneuver to avoid birds. Just because it has been beaten into the ground on PPRUNE doesn't make it so. Why not take the time to really look for birds at a distance?
I even remember seeing a small child's balloon (with mickey mouse shape) at FL350 with time to avoid if needed (vicinity of Ontario , California (yes, sort of near, but not that near Disneyland)
AS to my experience:
CFIIMEIATPMEL 737 type rating. I learned to fly in 1975 and am employed by one of the largest airlines in the world as a pilot. Any more would give away my employer's name.
So, polish up your spectacles. And keep your eyes on the sky and not in the engineering books.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear canuck
thanks for acknowledging 60 degrees of bank (exceeding) as aerobatic...indeed the FAA only speaks of it as requiring a parachute in FAR 91.307
Dear K9...there are countless times I've seen bird formations above 3000 feet, not in either approach or departure. Therefore I do not subscribe to your contention that only in the approach or departure phase could you see and maneuver to avoid birds. Just because it has been beaten into the ground on PPRUNE doesn't make it so. Why not take the time to really look for birds at a distance?
I even remember seeing a small child's balloon (with mickey mouse shape) at FL350 with time to avoid if needed (vicinity of Ontario , California (yes, sort of near, but not that near Disneyland)
AS to my experience:
CFIIMEIATPMEL 737 type rating. I learned to fly in 1975 and am employed by one of the largest airlines in the world as a pilot. Any more would give away my employer's name.
So, polish up your spectacles. And keep your eyes on the sky and not in the engineering books.
thanks for acknowledging 60 degrees of bank (exceeding) as aerobatic...indeed the FAA only speaks of it as requiring a parachute in FAR 91.307
Dear K9...there are countless times I've seen bird formations above 3000 feet, not in either approach or departure. Therefore I do not subscribe to your contention that only in the approach or departure phase could you see and maneuver to avoid birds. Just because it has been beaten into the ground on PPRUNE doesn't make it so. Why not take the time to really look for birds at a distance?
I even remember seeing a small child's balloon (with mickey mouse shape) at FL350 with time to avoid if needed (vicinity of Ontario , California (yes, sort of near, but not that near Disneyland)
AS to my experience:
CFIIMEIATPMEL 737 type rating. I learned to fly in 1975 and am employed by one of the largest airlines in the world as a pilot. Any more would give away my employer's name.
So, polish up your spectacles. And keep your eyes on the sky and not in the engineering books.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made a basic mistake in the bank angle math, and how much it displaced an engine from wings level. It's HALF the value I posted. So you're telling me you can calculate where the birds will be within 15 to 35 feet, with enough time to calculate the roll rate needed to achieve 60 degrees of bank before you merge with the birds...wow.
If you're that good and you saw the birds you could do a .5 degree pitch attitude change and in a quarter mile you'd miss the birds by the same amount(12'). But noooo, 60 degrees of bank is the solution you're advocating.
PM you for intelligent discourse?
If you're that good and you saw the birds you could do a .5 degree pitch attitude change and in a quarter mile you'd miss the birds by the same amount(12'). But noooo, 60 degrees of bank is the solution you're advocating.
PM you for intelligent discourse?
sevenstrokeroll;
By way of intervention, the thread ought not to have been diverted by the 60deg bank issue but instead should have remained focussed on your original, laudable goal of enhancing awareness on the seriousness of bird-strikes.
There have been some very helpful, intelligent comments made here which, we may safely assume, are read by many who nevertheless don't post.
I happen to agree with those who believe that a 60deg bank is not a likely avoidance manoeuvre for a jet transport, for the reasons stated but that in no way negates the substantial contribution of the thread. (BTW K-9, in my experience 60deg bank steep turns were standard in an initial IFR/PPC ride, with no altitude lost/gained, no speed lost/gained. It is NOT a tough manouevre if you know what you're doing and can fly. I just don't think it is practical in a transport aircraft - great coordination exercise though, especially if done while climbing then descending...)
My own view, informed by analyzing flight data and seeing speeds in the data of up to 350kts in terminal areas of major airports (on migratory bird routes), is, (at almost 800fps), "why are you doing this?".
ssr, if the thread causes some to reconsider such a decision to fly their aircraft above 250kts below 10k, it will have been worth the beatings over 60deg's... ;-)
regards,
PJ2
By way of intervention, the thread ought not to have been diverted by the 60deg bank issue but instead should have remained focussed on your original, laudable goal of enhancing awareness on the seriousness of bird-strikes.
There have been some very helpful, intelligent comments made here which, we may safely assume, are read by many who nevertheless don't post.
I happen to agree with those who believe that a 60deg bank is not a likely avoidance manoeuvre for a jet transport, for the reasons stated but that in no way negates the substantial contribution of the thread. (BTW K-9, in my experience 60deg bank steep turns were standard in an initial IFR/PPC ride, with no altitude lost/gained, no speed lost/gained. It is NOT a tough manouevre if you know what you're doing and can fly. I just don't think it is practical in a transport aircraft - great coordination exercise though, especially if done while climbing then descending...)
My own view, informed by analyzing flight data and seeing speeds in the data of up to 350kts in terminal areas of major airports (on migratory bird routes), is, (at almost 800fps), "why are you doing this?".
ssr, if the thread causes some to reconsider such a decision to fly their aircraft above 250kts below 10k, it will have been worth the beatings over 60deg's... ;-)
regards,
PJ2
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skyfish...what? 
PJ2--I've done plenty of steep turns in my usual airplanes, and I have some dual in an Extra 300 so I've done a wee bit more than 60°, too. As you said, none of that is practical for a transport unless it's a C-17.
PJ2--I've done plenty of steep turns in my usual airplanes, and I have some dual in an Extra 300 so I've done a wee bit more than 60°, too. As you said, none of that is practical for a transport unless it's a C-17.
Discussion threads have value in this section even if it results in arguments.
Name calling and/or assignment of personal charcteristics is not an argument, it's a put-down and confuses the technical discussion among those of us that want to consider some new points with pro and cons.
Name calling and/or assignment of personal charcteristics is not an argument, it's a put-down and confuses the technical discussion among those of us that want to consider some new points with pro and cons.