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.

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

When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney, all flight
engines had anti-icing features built into the blades (some of the
compressor blades were hollow and hot air circulated through them). This
solved the engine icing problem. The icing problem is with the aircraft
body itself.

We would NEVER put any "thing" in front of the engine for fear of
ingesting the "thing" and destroying the engine. A structure like a
screen and its supports has the potential for completely destroying any
jet engine.

Bird strikes are a very common event, particularly around airports.
Engines are designed to absorb bird strikes and tested against bird
strikes. At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

I do not recall any requirement for tests with multiple chickens.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the chicken
was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us to scare
the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

on 1/22/2009 7:35 AM (ET) Ernie Willson wrote the following:
When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney, all flight
engines had anti-icing features built into the blades (some of the
compressor blades were hollow and hot air circulated through them).
This solved the engine icing problem. The icing problem is with the
aircraft body itself.

We would NEVER put any "thing" in front of the engine for fear of
ingesting the "thing" and destroying the engine. A structure like a
screen and its supports has the potential for completely destroying
any jet engine.

Bird strikes are a very common event, particularly around airports.
Engines are designed to absorb bird strikes and tested against bird
strikes. At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

I do not recall any requirement for tests with multiple chickens.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the
chicken was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us
to scare the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.
Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?


--

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

In article ,
willshak wrote:

Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?

Nah. In order to be used, they have to mil-spec chickens (g).

willshak wrote:
on 1/22/2009 7:35 AM (ET) Ernie Willson wrote the following:
When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney,etc.

At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the
chicken was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us
to scare the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:

Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?

I believe the do now. Back in the 50's it was as easy to get a live
chicken as a plucked and cleaned one. The live chicken is closer to a
real bird strike than a cleaned one, however, I doubt that the missing
viscera and feathers affects the effects on the engine.

BTW there is a "spec" chicken. IIRC the spec says that the chicken must
be thoroughly thawed, it must hit the engine inlet at or above a certain
velocity, and it must be heavier than a stated minimum weight.

EJ in NJ

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!!!

"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

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 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 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.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

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.

************************************************** ***

I wonder how many people know that they are Canada geese and have nothing to
do with the country of Canada?

On Jan 16, 6:16*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

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.

************************************************** ***

I wonder how many people know that they are Canada geese and have nothing to
do with the country of Canada?

At last...now if all the talking heads on television could learn the
same thing...

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0500, 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.

Sorry, geese are more important than humans. Remember the days of Arafat?
The cats were more important than the Israeli children Arafat's men were
killing!

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


That statement makes no sense at all. Scaring them is far less
inhumane than sucking them into a jet engine. I did not mention this
in my original message but the thought did come to mind about
harming/killing birds in addition to the plane damage and human lives
lost. It's a bad situation all the way, and with all the technology
we have these days, you'd think they would have developed something by
now to keep these birds from getting sucked into the engines.

They sell these whistle devices to put on cars to scare deer away,
isn't there some way to do something like that to get the birds away
from the planes?

I know what propane cannons are, I heard them once, and they are sort
of annoying, but why not just fire them before a plane takes off, and
not all day long.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:06:50 -0600, Jimw 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


That statement makes no sense at all. Scaring them is far less
inhumane than sucking them into a jet engine. I did not mention this
in my original message but the thought did come to mind about
harming/killing birds in addition to the plane damage and human lives
lost. It's a bad situation all the way, and with all the technology
we have these days, you'd think they would have developed something by
now to keep these birds from getting sucked into the engines.

They sell these whistle devices to put on cars to scare deer away,
isn't there some way to do something like that to get the birds away
from the planes?

I know what propane cannons are, I heard them once, and they are sort
of annoying, but why not just fire them before a plane takes off, and
not all day long.
You mean every 6 minutes? or at some airports every 3.5?

wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:06:50 -0600, Jimw 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


That statement makes no sense at all. Scaring them is far less
inhumane than sucking them into a jet engine. I did not mention this
in my original message but the thought did come to mind about
harming/killing birds in addition to the plane damage and human lives
lost. It's a bad situation all the way, and with all the technology
we have these days, you'd think they would have developed something
by now to keep these birds from getting sucked into the engines.

They sell these whistle devices to put on cars to scare deer away,
isn't there some way to do something like that to get the birds away
from the planes?

I know what propane cannons are, I heard them once, and they are sort
of annoying, but why not just fire them before a plane takes off, and
not all day long.

You mean every 6 minutes? or at some airports every 3.5?

Last month the FAA reduced the number of flights arriving/departing
Laguardia to a max of 71 per hour. That's one landing or takeoff every 51
seconds.

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.

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.

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 @

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, 8:21*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)...

--

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.

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
,
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.

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.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you! Most
"commercial" aircraft will do as you suggest,
under proper circumstances and pilot control, but
not all, on top of the hundreds, probably
thousands of mitigating circumstances to each and
every such situation.

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.

No, that's not so either. A plane with sufficient
speed and altitude, MIGHT, with proper control, be
able to "glide" into a landing. But the instant
'stall speed' arrives, that plane becomes a rock.
With luck, you'll have enough altitude to put it
nose down until you get the speed you need, and
then with more luck, the controls will withstand
the pressures of pulling the plane out of the
dive and add another few minutes of flying time.
And it's not how they land, either; there is no
"gliding" involved. In fact, they are under full
power during landing, slowed down by things like
lowered flaps and other surfaces that act as air
brakes, until position position speed and altitude
are such that the landing can be accomplished.
Still under power, the speed decreases until near
"stall" speed is achieved, and the plane falls the
last few feet onto the runway. Why do they do it
under power? Because then if there is a ground
problem, they still have the power available to go
around and try again. Jet engines do NOT
accelerate quickly; it takes time to get the
engines spinning fast enough again, if the landing
has to be aborted; so, they're kept spinning and
other means are used to slow down.


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.

8,000 ft is very low for a plane to "glide" very
far. The engines may be 2-blocked but the plane
isn't flying level, it's climbing, and it's speed
isn't yet high. It's going to slow down quickly
without an engine and when it reaches the stall
speed, it becomes a rock; at 8k ft there's not
enough altitude to do a nose down to regain lost
speed. It's a fast thinking person who makes the
decision to try to hit the most likely reachable
spot that saves lives. A single miscalculation
and many people are likely to be dead.

In addition to all this, there are many planes
that, without power, will hit stall speed within
seconds due to their minimal wing areas. These
aren't passenger planes, but they're still planes,
and there's a good reason for the crew having
parachutes and ejection seats at the ready.
Regardless of altitude & pilot experience, losing
power means flailing to the ground very quickly.
Again, it takes a lot of skill to know whether to
abandone a millions of dollars aircraft in time to
get out before the planes spinning/rolling fall
makes evacuation impossible.

I'm quitting because I'll write a book here if not
careful, but ... please, don't try to be so
ignorant and non-chalant about things that can
take so many lives both on the plane and on the
ground. It's a very serious mattern.




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

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.

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.

--

"dpb" wrote in message
...
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.

No they're not gliders, but if your descending without power, the plane is
losing potential energy so it can, in some cases, fly faster and retain
maneuverability.
You just better have some space to land cause there is no second chance.

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)...

--

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:13:20 GMT, JohnR66 wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message
...
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 first and foremost gliders. They fly MUCH better than a rock.

No they're not gliders, but if your descending without power, the plane is
losing potential energy so it can, in some cases, fly faster and retain
maneuverability.
You just better have some space to land cause there is no second chance.

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.


He was highly skilled and many a military pilot has had to do the same type
of landing in combat situations. Also, he did not "ditch" the plane. He
LANDED the plane.

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

On Jan 16, 3:13*pm, "JohnR66" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message

...
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.

No they're not gliders, but if your descending without power, the plane is
losing potential energy so it can, in some cases, fly faster and retain
maneuverability.
You just better have some space to land cause there is no second chance.

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)...

--

The maximum altitude reached was reported as 3500 ft and the total
time from the point of impact by the birds to touchdown on the river
was 3 1/2 minutes. During that time, the pilot had to assess the
situation, determine a landing position, handle the radio and flying
functions while the co-pilot followed the engine restart checklist and
attempted an engine restart.

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)...

--

I wonder if you remember The Gimli Glider, the 767
that ran out of fuel at cruising altitude. The pilot
happened to be a sailplane pilot also. I remember
reading that every time they tried to duplicate the
landing in the simulator, they had a simulated crash.

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

TDD

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:27:30 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I wonder if you remember The Gimli Glider, the 767
that ran out of fuel at cruising altitude. The pilot
happened to be a sailplane pilot also. I remember
reading that every time they tried to duplicate the
landing in the simulator, they had a simulated crash.

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

TDD

And in further irony, the Air Canada maintenance van that was
dispatched to begin repairs ran out of gas on the road :-)

J

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)

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.