[Guest post by DRJ]
US Airways Flight 1549 from New York’s LaGuardia to Charlotte NC crashed on takeoff. It’s believed that birds hit both engines.
Thankfully everyone survived.
UPDATE: “That was the most perfect landing I ever saw.”
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
Losing propulsion power is never good, but the worst possible time is just after take-off.
What an enormous job those pilots did in ditching that Airbus. Same to the Flight Attendants who got ALL the passengers evacuated.
As a pilot myself, I salute that flight crew.
Pons Asinorum (b2b187) — 1/15/2009 @ 2:26 pmA double engine failure is extremely rare and generally only happens due to a loss of fuel.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/15/2009 @ 2:32 pmThe flight crew should be commended for such a spectacular job, but if all it took was a few seagulls to bring the plane down, then let’s have the NTSB explain how that could happen at this point in air travel evolution. My understanding is that both GE and Rolls Royce put their engine prototypes through rigorous testing before certification, and that testing includes many instances of buckets of dead birds thrown continously into the engines at full throttle, particularly during simulations of take – offs.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/15/2009 @ 2:55 pmGod is so merciful.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:00 pmI’ve been listening to Fox news. They said that a frozen turkey will be fired into the engine during testing. They also said that if several birds went through at what amounts to the same time, that could possibly cause the engine to tear apart on the inside.
In the unlikely event that a flock of geese get sucked into both engines, it is possible for something of this nature to happen.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:00 pmShouldn’t there be a way to protect these engines from bird attacks? Isn’t there a technology for that?
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:12 pmI am no expert in aeronautics (or anything else, for that matter) but I was thinking about what could be a protective measure. Beyond using the sturdiest material, which they do (titanium), I couldn’t think of anything.
These jets fly at speeds approaching 600 mph when at altitude, so any protective measure must be able to withstand those speeds. Any measure to deflect birds will also deflect air intake, possibly to an extent that the thrust ratio is too collapsed for flight. Putting a “protective mesh” across the engine that would be strong enough to withstand the airspeed would not only serve as a grater for the birds but as a power-disruptor to the engines.
Another preventative measure would be to go around and shoot all the geese and other birds that choose to live at airports, but you know how far that idea would fly. Even if we could go around shooting all the birds at the airport, that would not prevent large flocks of birds living elsewhere nearby.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:26 pmThey’ve tried using blasting caps and dogs to chase away the geese and other annoying waterfowl, but the birds quickly acclimate to the disruptions. I also don’t believe a mesh screen would work, due to the high velocity of air being forced into the engine intakes. When you look at the tests the manufacturers must undergo, you’ll see lots of birds thrown at the engines at the same time (but a key point here – only one engine at a time is tested, not both), so perhaps it’s time for the NTSB to review this policy and make a change. It’s been criticized in the past as not accurately portraying live flight conditions via this manner, and I couldn’t agree more.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:36 pmRight sentiment, wrong agency — The NTSB can only recommend. It is the FAA that has the authority to force implementation of safety procedures or equipment.
Pons Asinorum (b2b187) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:39 pmAlso – the NTSB is quite fortunate that no lives were lost here, as usually it takes a catastropic event to force needed changes in the airlines and their suppliers (it took a few airline disasters to force the airlines to change their toxic and highly inflammable insulation, for example). The FAA has always been feckless in this regard, due to their curious status as a quasi gov’t regulator/booster of air travel.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:40 pmI don’t think you can build an engine that will ingest something the size of a goose repeatedly without a chance of failing. All we can do is reduce risks, we can’t eliminate them.
There is a great technology for controlling the risk of bird strikes. Open up the areas around the runways to bird hunters.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:54 pmI’m all for making planes safer by making planes safer but I also want to make planes safer by making the airspace safer. I could be wrong, but I believe most large waterfowl are legally hunted. They should be eliminated from airports instead of merely scared off. The truth is waterfowl have become more numerous year to year at these airports despite efforts to scare them off. The left-wing environmentalists will never allow it to happen.
I forget what site I was reading when I read the quote “I am not an environmentalist but I am a conservationist,” but I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. These birds are not among the list of endangered species; to the contrary, they are overly vibrant, moreso at airports which cannot use appropriate measures to rid themselves of the birds. They are nuisances, and just that. Heck, we could turn them into food for the hungry and down coats for the cold.
Okay, that last line was a bit crass, but I’ll stand by it anyway.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 3:57 pmOpen up the areas around the runways to bird hunters.
Comment by SPQR — 1/15/2009 @ 3:54 pm
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:00 pmLOL.
In the unlikely event that a flock of geese get sucked into both engines, it is possible for something of this nature to happen.
My understanding is that this is exactly what happened. They hit a flock of geese, probably headed for Florida now that the cold snap arrived. A lot of geese have started wintering in the mid-latitude sections of the US. This cold winter may be enough to get them to resume to migration but it was a bad time for them to start.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:05 pmIn fact, there are some species of geese that are so numerous that they are actually doing damage to the Canadian tundra in recent years by over population, and the USFWS tries to encourage more hunting of them by removing bag limits and other restrictions.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:09 pmPoor birds. 🙁
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:22 pmSave a Dodo, shoot a…
ehm *cough* well…
I didn’t say that, besides, you can’t prove it. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:29 pmWe need to take out the damn birds. Let’s get some shotguns and get to business!
Joe (dcebbd) — 1/15/2009 @ 4:31 pmA flock of geese is a lot more mass than what the FAA requires for bird-injestion testing. Multiple injestion of flying geese into both engines is a recipe for disaster.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:06 pmThe competance of the flight crew, and the speedy arrival on the scene of vessels of all sorts (particularly civilian) is a testament to the highest level of regard for human life by strangers one might never meet again.
I’ve updated the post with links about the pilot and his amazing landing.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:07 pmThere are reports of airports introducing raptors (hawks, Owls, etc.) with good results.
rls (14b9d3) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:14 pmMost airport programs are directed at birds that “home” there.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:19 pmCanada Geese on migration present a completely different problem that would be highly problematic to deal with.
This incident just might be one of those freak accidents that are of the “wrong time, wrong place” category.
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 33.76 specifies the bird ingestion tests as required by the FAA. The weight and quantity of the bird(s) to be used is largely determined by engine inlet area.
So, using 3200 sq inches (my guess based on fan size of V2500 engine ):
1 bird weighing 6.05 lbs would have been used for a “single bird strike test”.
3 birds each weighing 2.53 lbs would have been used to simulate the “flock test”.
(I think)
Not sure if this is a physical limit based on materials used in the engine, but I wonder how much improvement can be made before encountering a cost-prohibited barrier. Maybe a new design, new materials, new devices or updating new standards (if this is an obsolete standard) are practical counter-measures.
Pons Asinorum (b2b187) — 1/15/2009 @ 5:51 pmSomeone should give that pilot a metal of some kind, amazing he landed on water and kept the plane in one piece, I just find that incredible.
ML (14488c) — 1/15/2009 @ 6:39 pmMe and the Canadian Geese that have taken up residence in my backyard are not friends. Not at all.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 6:53 pmComment by JD — 1/15/2009 @ 6:53 pm
Birdist!
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:21 pmML, did you mean “medal”?
Sully is a flat out stud. Outstanding job, Captain!
JD, you need to introduce those geese to a large dog.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:33 pmML, did you mean “medal”?
Yeah I did, although I think it should be made from some nice metal, not plastic.
ML (14488c) — 1/15/2009 @ 7:59 pmLook up “bird strike” in wikipedia, and you will see this is a common problem.
I salute the pilot, crew, and passengers. This is a tribute to our culture, in a way, both military and civilian. We are orderly, considerate, honorable folk.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/15/2009 @ 8:03 pmPablo – I could get a dog, but lose the Better Half. Not sure if that is a net gain or loss, but I am not feeling lucky.
JD (d1f299) — 1/15/2009 @ 8:04 pmAnyone who has ever raised domestic geese or spent much time around Canadian geese or other geese species can surely tell you that the idea that you can control them is insane. They’re the goats of the bird world. Years ago I had a flock of geese–three Embdens and three Toulouse. Whenever a visitor showed up, they cornered them and wouldn’t let them so much as move until I came out and chased them away. Geese are possibly the smartest birds there are with the exception of some raptors. If geese decide to live in urban areas, people might as well accept it. The only way to get rid of urban geese is to get rid of urban areas.
Brooks (364e40) — 1/15/2009 @ 8:15 pmFeed them lots of corn meal, and then invite everyone over for dinner.
AD (d614d2) — 1/15/2009 @ 10:11 pmCapt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III does make President-Elect Juggy O’Ears look more like an empty suit, don’t he?
nk (9097f8) — 1/16/2009 @ 9:28 amCapt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III Is a hero.
pitchforksntorches (4dd8c4) — 1/17/2009 @ 7:30 amCaptain Alfred C. Haynes is a hero. (Souix City Landing Fame)
My sons who served active duty (One in Iraq as a Corpsman) are heros…
Then why do we throw money at Sport figures who are moral degenerates and spoiled cry-baby, drug-addicted entertainers?
When you can answer that question maybe you can take on the question of
“Why aren’t CEOs of failed companies, penniless and destitute?”