Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it has to
be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a problem.
Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be too. Not to
mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through the engine could
block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it has to
be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a problem.
Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be too. Not to
mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through the engine could
block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

They were also worried about icing and deicing. You'd have to almost put
the deicer directly into the engine itself and that can't be a good
thing. Also, when you look at the forces involved in hitting a large
goose at take off speeds or higher, you run out of materials that make
any sense very quickly.

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

It doesn't work. When you get metal thick enough and hefty enough to
withstand that mph of wind, it restricts air intake. And then, a full sized
Canadian honker, which I believe these were, could go right through there at
that speed anyway.

I'm sure that they've studied it to death. They have studied much lesser
problems and spent much more on them.

As an aside, propane cannons were being used to scare birds in airports and
berry farms until the tree huggers (and nearby residents) stopped it.

To some poor deluded individuals, geese are more important than humans. And
in many sad cases, they are.

Steve

Jimw wrote:

-snip-
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***

I'm not a jet mechanic- but icing and turbulence come to mind
immediately. Then weight considerations.

Jim

On Jan 16, 7:49*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Jimw wrote:

-snip-

***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***

I'm not a jet mechanic- but icing and turbulence come to mind
immediately. * * Then weight considerations.

Jim


Or how about a larger number of smaller birds that would have been
ingested by an engine with the engine still running, but with a screen
the screen gets clogged stalling the engine.

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

If the screen failed during a bird strike, some of it would end up in the
engine as well. Not good.

on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York.

In the Hudson River by NYC. It is considered a crash, but because of the
expertise of the pilot, it was more of a landing in the water.

They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it
has to be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a
problem. Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be
too. Not to mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through
the engine could block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

They were also worried about icing and deicing. You'd have to almost
put the deicer directly into the engine itself and that can't be a
good thing. Also, when you look at the forces involved in hitting a
large goose at take off speeds or higher, you run out of materials
that make any sense very quickly.


the incredible vacuum pull of such an engine would require something a LOT
stronger than hardware cloth,and it wuold restrict airflow.

some Soviet fighter jets use doors that close over the normal intakes to
prevent ingesting debris on the runway,and have auxiliary intake doors on
the top of the engine cowling. Mig-29 does this,IIRC.
Except this still would not have worked in this incident,as the geese were
ingested at higher altitudes when the doors would have been open.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article
,
"JohnR66" wrote:


If the screen failed during a bird strike, some of it would end up in the
engine as well. Not good.

I don't know. If it failed I would think the bird would have taken out
the engine. I don't know that pieces from the screen would make any
difference in real life situations.

In article ,
willshak wrote:

on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York.

In the Hudson River by NYC. It is considered a crash, but because of the
expertise of the pilot, it was more of a landing in the water.

It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.

As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.



They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

On Jan 16, 8:12*am, willshak wrote:
on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:

Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about theplanethat crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *

In the Hudson River by NYC. It is considered a crash, but becauseof the
expertise of the pilot, it was more of a landing in the water. . . (snip)

Bill

The professional pilots at

http://www.pprune.org

are really impressed by the pilot and his airmanship. Airliners
don't do well at all in water landings.

And he did some really impressive flying before he ditched. Low
altitude, engine-out, 90 degree turns like the one he pulled off to
miss the buildings etc tend to be deadly in planes that big.

Regards
Jason

On Jan 16, 4:51*am, Jimw wrote:
....
OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *
....

Actually, if it was Nightline you watched (I did, too, at least that
section) they later had an (I think NTSB(?) ) engineer on who brought
up precisely the problems that prevent the simple solution--namely
airflow restriction and obstruction. Also showed some of the
ingestion testing clips...

This subject gets aired every time there's a significant incident of
course; the news media simply has a conveniently short recollection of
what bandwagon they were on a couple of years or so ago. At least
around here it was a big deal after an incident in Omaha w/ a FedEx
(iirc) flight that had to abort after takeoff.

--

On Jan 16, 5:51*am, Jimw wrote:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. *Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. *From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. *There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages. *

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *

Jim

All they need to do is turn the engines around so they blow the birds
away instead of sucking them in.

On Jan 16, 8:21*am, Smitty Two wrote:
....
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
....

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:



It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.


Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)

On Jan 16, 10:44*am, dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21*am, Smitty Two wrote:
... As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.

...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". *The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

One of the things mentioned by some of the talking heads, while in no
way diminishing the fantastic job done by the crew, was that pilots
train on flight simulators for just such emergencies.

That got me thinking. Do you think that the folks that wrote the
software for the simulators were able to create the mathematical
models required to simulate the drag of the Hudson River on the
engines of an Airbus A320?

Assuming they practice water landings, how could the pilot adjust for
current, choppiness, etc? I think that at the point that they've opted
for a water landing, there are going to be a huge number of factors
that no simulator practice is going to help them with. The best that
can be hoped for is that the 80% of things covered by the simulator is
enough to cover all the unknowns.

SteveB wrote:
"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

It doesn't work. When you get metal thick enough and hefty enough to
withstand that mph of wind, it restricts air intake. And then, a full sized
Canadian honker, which I believe these were, could go right through there at
that speed anyway.

I'm sure that they've studied it to death. They have studied much lesser
problems and spent much more on them.

As an aside, propane cannons were being used to scare birds in airports and
berry farms until the tree huggers (and nearby residents) stopped it.

To some poor deluded individuals, geese are more important than humans. And
in many sad cases, they are.

Steve


These geese were not that close to the ground.

Lou

On Jan 16, 2:51*am, Jimw wrote:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. *Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. *From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. *There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages. *

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *

Jim

Here's an idea: They could mount goose radar on the engines. Then,
the split second before impact, a lot of buckshot is fired forward to
blow the offending geese to shreds, thereby softening the engine
strike.

Of course, that's much easier to say than do.

In article
,
dpb wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:21*am, Smitty Two wrote:
...
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot. Yep, planes *are* gliders. Every
single one of them, regardless of size. They absolutely fly perfectly
well without power. If they didn't, you'd never be able to land one.

The fact that he was at 8000 ft, if he was, makes the off-field landing
easier: more time to select a landing spot and maneuver to it.

Engine outs are so common that in small planes they aren't even
considered an emergency. Commercial pilots practice constantly for such
occurrences.

On Jan 16, 11:21*am, mike wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:51*am, Jimw wrote:





Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. *Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. *From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. *There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages. *

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *

Jim

Here's an idea: *They could mount goose radar on the engines. *Then,
the split second before impact, a lot of buckshot is fired forward to
blow the offending geese to shreds, thereby softening the engine
strike.

Of course, that's much easier to say than do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since LaGuardia Airport is in NY, I think it's prohibited by law. If
we assume that the pilot is in possesion of the plane while flying it,
then section 11-0931-1(b) of the New York Environmental Conservation
Law - Prohibitions On The Use And Possession Of Firearms - might cover
it.

§ 11-0931. Prohibitions on the use and possession of firearms.
1. No person except a law enforcement officer in the performance
of his official duties shall use in hunting or possess in the fields
or forests or on the waters of the state for any purpose:
b. any automatic firearm, or any firearm which has been
converted to an automatic type, or any firearm which has a built-
in mechanical adjustment which will permit it to function as an
automatic arm;

dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two wrote:
...
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well
without engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.


They ARE gliders. The engines of a multi-engine jet on final approach are
producing essentially zero thrust. Might as well be turned off.

In the instant case, the plane lost all power at several thousand feet -- it
didn't fall out of the sky.

In "In Defense of Flying" (by F. Lee Bailey) he told the story of his
check-ride for a commercial license after graduating from Navy Flight
School, including some 30-odd carrier landings. He was bored, especially by
the old fart giving him the test.

"Okay, hotshot, let's see if you can land this thing," said the examiner.
Bailey said he saw the field, straight ahead, 4,000 foot runway, and his
altitude was 3,000 feet. No problemo.

In spite of everything he could do, he passed over the far end of the runway
at an altitude of 900 feet! The goddamn plane just wouldn't get out of the
sky!

A chastened Bailey DID get his commercial ticket, albeit with much chuckling
on the part of the examiner.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:44*am, dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21*am, Smitty Two wrote:
... As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.

...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". *The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

One of the things mentioned by some of the talking heads, while in no
way diminishing the fantastic job done by the crew, was that pilots
train on flight simulators for just such emergencies.

That got me thinking. Do you think that the folks that wrote the
software for the simulators were able to create the mathematical
models required to simulate the drag of the Hudson River on the
engines of an Airbus A320?

Assuming they practice water landings, how could the pilot adjust for
current, choppiness, etc? I think that at the point that they've opted
for a water landing, there are going to be a huge number of factors
that no simulator practice is going to help them with. The best that
can be hoped for is that the 80% of things covered by the simulator is
enough to cover all the unknowns.

A water landing could be considered a variation of a "soft field"
landing, where additional mechanical drag is anticipated. Procedure for
that calls for carrying some engine power into the landing, as opposed
to engines idling. Obviously that was not an option in this case, and
likely made the landing less gentle than normal.

You land a plane by establishing and maintaining correct airspeed and
"attitude" - generally being wings level and nose increasingly pitched
up. Roll and yaw may be necessary to land with a crosswind, with the
plane straightened out just prior to touchdown.

It doesn't matter whether you land on a runway or a river or a
collection of treetops: Pilots are trained to "keep flying the plane" in
any emergency. That means landing - wherever it is - with correct
airspeed and attitude. Engines are not required to do that.

John Denver, as one well-known example, died not because the engine
quit, but because he stopped flying the plane when the engine quit in
order to try to restart the engine. As a result, the plane "crashed
into" the water rather than "landing on" the water.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:



It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.


Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)

No. I believe structural failure involves the loss of an airfoil (wing,
horizontal stabilizer, or vertical stabilizer) or the loss of one of the
control surfaces attached to those airfoils (aileron, elevator, or
rudder) which are the movable surfaces used to control the roll, pitch,
and yaw axes.

"Loss of control" means the inability to control the ailerons, elevator,
or rudder - whether or not said surface departs the aircraft - and may
have disastrous consequences.

Engine loss is considered loss of power and does not affect the pilot's
ability to maintain control of the airplane. It only means that the
plane will begin to descend.

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:



It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.


Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)

No. I believe structural failure involves the loss of an airfoil (wing,
horizontal stabilizer, or vertical stabilizer) or the loss of one of the
control surfaces attached to those airfoils (aileron, elevator, or
rudder) which are the movable surfaces used to control the roll, pitch,
and yaw axes.

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

I've gone through all the posts and between them all the reason(s) that
screens etc. are not used in front of the engines were touched on in one way
or another.
I have been involved in bird ingestion of a jet engine. Ran a test where we
fired a bird into the engine to evaluate it's response to the bird strike
and then its ability to recover and achieve a minimum level of thrust.
Thrust recovery of the engine, both in time and power level, is aimed at
obtaining enough power to successfully be able to complete a take-off and
achieve a minimum altitude.. Don't want to get into the specifics of
"requirements".
You can't put anything in the front of the engine for a number of
reasons--Ice build up, inlet air distortion, potential for FOD. The only
aircraft that I've seen with a screen in front of the engine inlet was the
F117 (the small black stealth bomber). In fact, it has a wiper blade to
keep the screen clean.
The big bang that people heard was the engine as it went into a
"stall"--that's when the flow of air is interrupted and because of the high
pressure at the back end of the compressor, a reversal of flow occurs and
out the front it comes--like a gigantic blurb. Things happen very
fast--give you an example--In the test I was involved in, fifty people or so
were seated so as to observe the engine inlet during the bird strike. No
one observed anything unusual, however when the film was reviewed --taken at
1000 frames per sec (each frame therefore was .001 sec) the inlet of the
engine filled with a large fireball that burst out of the front (with a few
floating feathers) and then was sucked back into the inlet. And no one saw
the flame. BTW, the bird was not alive.
Jet engines go through significant testing in order to meet and exceed
requirements relative to a bird strike, however, there are limits with
respect to size and number of birds that an engine can tolerate. We
actually x-rayed the birds during the selection process in order to ensure
that there was nothing inside of them (pieces of metal or any other type of
foreign objects) that would have a negative impact of the results of test
results. Whenever there is an aircraft incident when both (or all) engines
are involved, especially a power loss, you can just about bet the farm that
it's not primarily an engine fault but more so related to some other outside
influence--fuel contamination, fuel starvation, FOD, inlet air distortion
etc.
MLD


"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

On Jan 16, 11:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two wrote:
...
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well
without engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". *The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

They ARE gliders. The engines of a multi-engine jet on final approach are
producing essentially zero thrust. Might as well be turned off.

In the instant case, the plane lost all power at several thousand feet -- it
didn't fall out of the sky.

In "In Defense of Flying" (by F. Lee Bailey) he told the story of his
check-ride for a commercial license after graduating from Navy Flight
School, including some 30-odd carrier landings. He was bored, especially by
the old fart giving him the test.

"Okay, hotshot, let's see if you can land this thing," said the examiner.
Bailey said he saw the field, straight ahead, 4,000 foot runway, and his
altitude was 3,000 feet. No problemo.

In spite of everything he could do, he passed over the far end of the runway
at an altitude of 900 feet! The goddamn plane just wouldn't get out of the
sky!

A chastened Bailey DID get his commercial ticket, albeit with much chuckling
on the part of the examiner.

F Lee Bailey is a bag o' hot air...

In a clean configuration I'd guess something on the order of 16:1 or
so; shortly after takeoff w/ flaps still extended (this was within 30
seconds, recall) and less than full airspeed I'd say be lucky to be
much over 5-6:1 From 8000 ft that's not going to be long.

The guy did a helluva job as any reading of anything his cohorts are
saying will confirm.

--

On Jan 16, 12:33*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,
*Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*Smitty Two wrote:

It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.

*Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)

No. I believe structural failure involves the loss of an airfoil (wing,
horizontal stabilizer, or vertical stabilizer) or the loss of one of the
control surfaces attached to those airfoils (aileron, elevator, or
rudder) which are the movable surfaces used to control the roll, pitch,
and yaw axes.

* Interesting. Thanks for the reply.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yep, airplanes are still controlable without power. In the case of
the Boeing 757, for example, they have a built in turbine in the
bottom of the plane. In the event the plane loses all power, the
turbine drops down to use wind power to power the essential hydraulics
and electronics. That system was used early on in the life of the
757, when Air Canada managed to run one dry on a commercial flight.
The ex military pilot knew of a closed military air base and they
managed to glide many miles, maybe 50 or so and land successfully.
In case you're wondering, they ran it dry because one fuel gauge
wasnt' operating correctly. The pilots and ground crew concluded it
was legal to fly as long as they dipped the fuel tank. Which they
did, but in converting from metric to english or vice versa, they blew
it and grossly miscalculated the fuel on board.

In the case of this A320, not sure what powered the hydraulics, etc
after both engines failed. But I would guess it would have been an
aux power unit, which is essentially a small fuel powered turbine that
is used to provide starting power, etc.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:16:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Jimw" wrote in message
.. .
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it has to
be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a problem.
Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be too. Not to
mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through the engine could
block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

The airflow into the intake on a jet engine is significantly higher
than the airspeed of the plane - and when, not if, the metal screen
fractured and went through the jet it will do a LOT more damage than
the birds!!!

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:40:40 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jimw" wrote in message
.. .
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

It doesn't work. When you get metal thick enough and hefty enough to
withstand that mph of wind, it restricts air intake. And then, a full sized
Canadian honker, which I believe these were, could go right through there at
that speed anyway.

I'm sure that they've studied it to death. They have studied much lesser
problems and spent much more on them.

As an aside, propane cannons were being used to scare birds in airports and
berry farms until the tree huggers (and nearby residents) stopped it.

To some poor deluded individuals, geese are more important than humans. And
in many sad cases, they are.

Steve

Up here in Ontario we call them honkers "flying dogs" and a large
number are no longer migratory - they stick around all winter.
Time to open a hunting season on them again to get the numbers in
line.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
willshak wrote:

on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York.

In the Hudson River by NYC. It is considered a crash, but because of the
expertise of the pilot, it was more of a landing in the water.

It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.

As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.



They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

And the airbus is inherently unstable and is virtually unflyable
without the assistance of the flight computers. It is "fly by wire".

Good thing he still had electrical power or it would have ended a LOT
worse.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:23:27 -0800 (PST), dpb
wrote:

On Jan 16, 11:05Â*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two wrote:
...
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well
without engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". Â*The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

They ARE gliders. The engines of a multi-engine jet on final approach are
producing essentially zero thrust. Might as well be turned off.

In the instant case, the plane lost all power at several thousand feet -- it
didn't fall out of the sky.

In "In Defense of Flying" (by F. Lee Bailey) he told the story of his
check-ride for a commercial license after graduating from Navy Flight
School, including some 30-odd carrier landings. He was bored, especially by
the old fart giving him the test.

"Okay, hotshot, let's see if you can land this thing," said the examiner.
Bailey said he saw the field, straight ahead, 4,000 foot runway, and his
altitude was 3,000 feet. No problemo.

In spite of everything he could do, he passed over the far end of the runway
at an altitude of 900 feet! The goddamn plane just wouldn't get out of the
sky!

A chastened Bailey DID get his commercial ticket, albeit with much chuckling
on the part of the examiner.

F Lee Bailey is a bag o' hot air...

In a clean configuration I'd guess something on the order of 16:1 or
so; shortly after takeoff w/ flaps still extended (this was within 30
seconds, recall) and less than full airspeed I'd say be lucky to be
much over 5-6:1 From 8000 ft that's not going to be long.

The guy did a helluva job as any reading of anything his cohorts are
saying will confirm.


What needs to be remembered is when the birds hit the fans the nose
was still UP - he was still climbing. Loose power in that
configuration and forward speed decreases VERY quichly and the pilot
needs to trade altitude for speed IMMEDIATELY to avoid stalling the
plane.. Once he has adequate flying speed he sure does not have much
altitude left - and to get that plane out over the river instead of
over Manhattan before loosing too much altitude while still being
above minmum control speed on an A300 series plane takes some doing.

This plane is not a Cessna - it is a flying computer - all
"fly-by-wire".

It is a good indication of the expertise of the pilot in command that
he got it down in an "open space - in one piece - and even MORE that
there was no loss of life, and very few injuries.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:55:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:



It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.


Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)


The engines are not structural - to answer the first part of your
question - and the pilot was obviously in control to direct the plane
onto the river and land it with not much more than a "bump".

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:24:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 16, 12:33Â*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Â*Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,
Â*Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Â*Smitty Two wrote:

It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.

Â*Wouldn't the engines flying apart be considered structural failure and
turning an airplane into a glider would seem to suggest the pilot isn;t
in control (serious question, honestly)

No. I believe structural failure involves the loss of an airfoil (wing,
horizontal stabilizer, or vertical stabilizer) or the loss of one of the
control surfaces attached to those airfoils (aileron, elevator, or
rudder) which are the movable surfaces used to control the roll, pitch,
and yaw axes.

Â* Interesting. Thanks for the reply.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yep, airplanes are still controlable without power. In the case of
the Boeing 757, for example, they have a built in turbine in the
bottom of the plane. In the event the plane loses all power, the
turbine drops down to use wind power to power the essential hydraulics
and electronics. That system was used early on in the life of the
757, when Air Canada managed to run one dry on a commercial flight.
The ex military pilot knew of a closed military air base and they
managed to glide many miles, maybe 50 or so and land successfully.
In case you're wondering, they ran it dry because one fuel gauge
wasnt' operating correctly. The pilots and ground crew concluded it
was legal to fly as long as they dipped the fuel tank. Which they
did, but in converting from metric to english or vice versa, they blew
it and grossly miscalculated the fuel on board.

In the case of this A320, not sure what powered the hydraulics, etc
after both engines failed. But I would guess it would have been an
aux power unit, which is essentially a small fuel powered turbine that
is used to provide starting power, etc.


Remember the plane that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and landed
on an island off the coast of Africa a few years ago? The glide COULD
have been stretched to reach the African mainland with no trouble -
but the airport on the island was familiar to the pilot and well
equipped and located.

On Jan 16, 4:51*am, Jimw wrote:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. *Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. *From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. *There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages. *

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *

Jim

A few gattling guns would help. Maybe a few thousand of very large 2"
screen could be done, but im sure this has been researched. hit
something with 50lbs at 400 mph and make it not fail or reduce airflow
is the problem, it might weigh 1-4000 lbs

On Jan 16, 2:01*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:40:40 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:







"Jimw" wrote in message
.. .
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. *They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. *Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. *From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. *There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

It doesn't work. *When you get metal thick enough and hefty enough to
withstand that mph of wind, it restricts air intake. *And then, a full sized
Canadian honker, which I believe these were, could go right through there at
that speed anyway.

I'm sure that they've studied it to death. *They have studied much lesser
problems and spent much more on them.

As an aside, propane cannons were being used to scare birds in airports and
berry farms until the tree huggers (and nearby residents) stopped it.

To some poor deluded individuals, geese are more important than humans. *And
in many sad cases, they are.

Steve

Up here in Ontario we call them honkers "flying dogs" and a large
number are no longer migratory - they stick around all winter.
Time to open a hunting season on them again to get the numbers in
line.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Down here, just south of Lake Ontario, one on the local radio
"personalities" was saying the exact same thing.

He recalls his younger days when seeing the big V of Canadian Geese
flying over the area was spectacular. Now all you have to do is go to
any mall, soccer field or drainage pond of any tract to find all the
Canadian geese and geese-poop you want.

Our school district is working on a capital project that will re-
locate many of the softball, soccer and football fields. The issue of
the geese and their droppings is a major factor in the new design.
Shotguns would certainly be cheaper.

On Jan 16, 2:15*pm, wrote:


What needs to be remembered is when the birds hit the fans the nose
was still UP - he was still climbing. Loose

Oh, cripes!

In article ,
wrote:


And the airbus is inherently unstable and is virtually unflyable
without the assistance of the flight computers. It is "fly by wire".

Good thing he still had electrical power or it would have ended a LOT
worse.

While some behave better than others, no certificated aircraft is
"inherently unstable."

On Jan 16, 1:20*pm, wrote:
....
Remember the plane that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and landed
on an island off the coast of Africa a few years ago? The glide COULD
have been stretched to reach the African mainland with no trouble -
but the airport on the island was familiar to the pilot and well
equipped and located.

Can't say as I do, but consider the initial altitude, airspeed and
configuration differences...

--

On Jan 16, 5:51*am, Jimw wrote:
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. *Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this? *

Rather than trying to prevent debris from entering, jet engines are
designed to ingest a certain amount of debris without issue. They are
capable of swallowing whole chickens and passing them out the exhaust
cooked to perfection, sliced, deboned and pureed.

It would be folly to attempt to build a screen; even at landing
speeds, the goose would simply go through the screen like a potato
through a french fry cutter.

This must've been one heck of a goose or an entire flock.