Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BirdStrike At LGA  
User currently offlinePlanereality From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 103 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6897 times:

Just saw this on twitter from AA:
"We are tracking information pertaining to the bird strike at #LGA and will pass along details as soon as we get them"
cant find detail yet


Andiamo!
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePlanereality From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

from NY Post: lands safely


http://www.nypost.com/seven/06302009...to_laguardia_hits_birds_176870.htm



Andiamo!
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6829 times:

I'm not an engineer, so this may not be possible, but why couldn't some sort of screen be fashioned to deflect bird strikes? This wouldn't be chicken-wire (sorry, no pun intended), or anything like that, but rather heavy gauge steel fashioned to look something like a hockey goalie's helmet, except it would be elongated forward so any bird hitting it would be deflected, instead of ingested.

It would add a few pounds to the aircraft's weight and would add some expense, but I think it would be cheaper than losing a plane and - God forbid - any passengers.

Anyone have any ideas on this? Is it doable?



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineKGAIflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Planereality (Thread starter):
We are tracking information pertaining to the bird strike at #LGA

Since I was at LGA yesterday, I'm scratching my head over this report.

I did BOS-LGA-BOS yesterday on the USAir Shuttle and didn't even see as much as a dragonfly in the area of LGA. I did see workers on the periphery and outside the chain-links trimming down grass.

And returning to Boston at 5pm, I saw an AA MD-80 on a ramp with the cowling off its starboard engine. But the report says the plane in question was a 738.

Is there anyone out there who was on AA1256 who can tell what happened?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6533 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
but why couldn't some sort of screen be fashioned to deflect bird strikes?

Well I am not an engineer either but at those speeds I am almost positive it would just slice up the bird and hit the engine anyway. To effectively stop a bird you probably need wiring so think and holes so small that you wouldn't have nearly enough adequate airflow.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6425 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
I'm not an engineer, so this may not be possible, but why couldn't some sort of screen be fashioned to deflect bird strikes?

I'm guessing that it would mess with airflow into the engines, which is a much bigger problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3817 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6386 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
I'm not an engineer, so this may not be possible, but why couldn't some sort of screen be fashioned to deflect bird strikes?

I'm guessing that it would mess with airflow into the engines, which is a much bigger problem.

Whats the cost of a bird ingestion vs what may happen if the engines airflow is suddenly blocked by a large object?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6361 times:



Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 6):
Whats the cost of a bird ingestion vs what may happen if the engines airflow is suddenly blocked by a large object?

It's not about the engine's airflow being suddenly blocked, it's about the engine's airflow being continuously blocked (or at least disrupted) by whatever is there to guard against bird ingestion.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6339 times:



Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 6):

Whats the cost of a bird ingestion vs what may happen if the engines airflow is suddenly blocked by a large object?


Good point. This device would be attached to the outside of the engine nacelles, pointing outward at an angle. This should deflect birds, much like a cowcatcher on the old steam engines. There shouldn't be any significant blockage, I don't think.

Again, I'm not an engineer, so there are probably things I haven't considered, other than the appearance. It would probably look ugly, but if it saves lives who cares?



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6261 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
It would add a few pounds to the aircraft's weight and would add some expense, but I think it would be cheaper than losing a plane and - God forbid - any passengers.

Anyone have any ideas on this? Is it doable?

The US military, NASA and aircraft engine manufacturers have all experimented with alternate air flow devices, screens and such over the years. There have been hundreds of tests and tens of thousands of hours of testing in stands and in flight.

The tests all result in basically the same conclusions.

Alternate airflow devices - where there is not a straight path into the engines so debris or birds can be separated before the air enters the engine - those end up requiring a massive increase in thrust and fuel usage. The costs for a stealth fighter or bomber are considered worthwile. Decreasing payload capacity and increasing fuel costs are not considered worthwile for an aircraft in commercial service.

The most effective use of alternate airflow devices / paths is with turboprops, where many engines are mounted reversed, drawing the air into the engine from the rear and expelling hot gasses into a exhaust manifold at the 'front' of the engine.

Screens and other engine intake covers - the weight of effective devices is high. No matter what the minimum size / weight capacity of the screen - real world testing has shown that at some point a bird or object heavier and more dense than planned will hit the device. This ends up causing more extensive engine damage when the screen is pushed into the engine along with the bird or other foreign object.

The best use of technology and money is to make the engine as strong as possible given the risks so that it can survive the impact of a large dense object without catastrophic failure. Most of the time engines struck in bird strikes or other FOD impacts continue to provide usable levels of thrust until they can be secured when the shutdown does not significantly endanger the flight.

At one time a major bird strike resulted in not only the loss of the engine for power, but broken turbine blades striking the fuselage, and sometimes parts of broken engine disks. This is an area where engine manufacturers are constantally testing and working to improve.

The US Airways Flt 1549 aircraft engines sustained major impact damage and did their designed job by not failing catastrophically. Yes, it was unfortunate that they could not be used to provide thrust after the multiple bird strikes. But at least they did not fail catastrophically with disk breaking and shredding the fuselage.

The US Airways bird impacts were far in excess of the engine design specifications.

Quoting KGAIflyer (Reply 3):
And returning to Boston at 5pm, I saw an AA MD-80 on a ramp with the cowling off its starboard engine. But the report says the plane in question was a 738.

According to the link in the second post - the aircraft was damaged when the NOSE GEAR struck a bird, prompting a return and precautionary landing.

There was no engine damage.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4276 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6127 times:

Can someone explain to me why bird strikes are even newsworthy? And why is the media selective in reporting them. I know for a fact that Air Wisconsin took two bird strikes yesterday, and the media reported absolutely nothing on them.

User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6102 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 8):

Good point. This device would be attached to the outside of the engine nacelles, pointing outward at an angle. This should deflect birds, much like a cowcatcher on the old steam engines. There shouldn't be any significant blockage, I don't think.

I'm willing to bet multiple reasons. For one, if a bird does hit a screen, it's not going to deflect. It's going to rip apart like it's going through a shredder. Also, if the bird damages the screen, pieces of the metallic screen would be going through the engine as well.


User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2458 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

This is an area where props are superior! At least I would assume.


"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5533 times:



Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 12):
This is an area where props are superior!

Not if the blades delaminate.

I once saw the damage from an incident when a helicopter with blades turning was boarding a set of passengers for a tour. One dimwit realized he had his car keys in his pocket and turned around to toss them to his girlfriend. Up into the rotors...SPLAT. Keyring explodes. Rotor leading edges delaminate on multiple blades. (This was a Hughes 500 with 5 blades.) Time to order a new set.

I imagine that a similar effect would be had with a prop hitting a large number of birds. The only difference could be that the volume that hit the blades might be different than the number ingested by a fanjet, given an equivalent number of birds per square yard (i.e. bird density), since the jet engine draws air in from other than directly in front of it.


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1651 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

There used to be devices affixed in front of engines which deflected birds. The devices showed an alarming tendency to fly apart in a bird strike and pieces of the device would, then, hit the aircraft and puncture the pressure hull, fuel tanks and passengers.

The resulting imbalance to the aircraft could create a large yaw moment, loss of thrust and potential engine fire.

As I recall, the devices were called "propellers."


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13596 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4745 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Apodino (Reply 10):
Can someone explain to me why bird strikes are even newsworthy?

Here's why:




"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

Well, I guess my deflector idea isn't such a good idea after all. I was thinking about it last night, and I realized that a bird could be deflected up into a window, which could cause a whole new set of problems. I hadn't considered the issues that have been raised in this post.

I appreciate being able to share my idea. It was just a pipe-dream, but I thought it might have merit. Maybe we can design birds that will stay away from airplanes. . . no, I don't guess that would work either.

Thanks everybody.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4076 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 16):
Maybe we can design birds that will stay away from airplanes

You're right, probably won't work. However, we may be able to design some features on aircraft to make them less susceptible to being struck by birds. There was an article about this in the June edition of Air Transport World magazine. One that I hadn't heard of before was the effect that pulsing landing lights had in reducing bird strikes. I already knew the other benefits of the system - greater visibility from other aircraft, longer bulb life, but it turns out they also seem to reduce the incidence bird strikes. According to the article, Qantas 737-400s and 737-800s fitted with the Pulselite system suffered 40% and 66% fewer bird strikes respectively.

For more info, have a look at http://preciseflight.com/products/pulselite/birdstrike_avoidance

The other point the ATW article made is that modern aircraft being quieter, they are harder for birds to notice. I wonder whether it would be possible to fit aircraft with speakers which produce a sound inaudible to humans but audible and annoying to birds...

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1871 posts, RR: 41
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3777 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

What happens when an airplane engine with guide-vanes hits a bird? I can imagine that if a vane would snap it could do tremendous damage to the engine?


Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3533 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 2):
I'm not an engineer, so this may not be possible, but why couldn't some sort of screen be fashioned to deflect bird strikes? This wouldn't be chicken-wire (sorry, no pun intended), or anything like that, but rather heavy gauge steel fashioned to look something like a hockey goalie's helmet, except it would be elongated forward so any bird hitting it would be deflected, instead of ingested.

There a few problems. The biggest, first off, is the disruption of the airflow whcih was already broght up. Then with all the bugs and water and dirt and other things get stuck on the screen, it's just another maintainance cost. I don't think there's chance of this ever happening.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineWagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):
Here's why:

Wow, so just because one bad thing happened at LGA, we have to hear about bird strikes from now on.

I've got news for everyone. When I go in to work, I probably hear a pilot report a birdstrike at least once a day. We're required to have them call the TRACON watch desk because we have paperwork to fill out. That's all that happens. If the news was reporting every birdstrike at every major airport around the country, that would be the only thing on. And I'm not even factoring GA in to that equation.

AWE1549 was a freak occuarance that ended up in the almost worst case scenario. The odds of it happening again soon are beyond slim. Just think of how long LGA airport has been operating, and how many hundreds of aicraft every day have flown through those flocks of birds. And now after all those years one airplane wound up in the drink. PHL sits immediately next to a wildlife refuge, and there is at least one known family of bald eagles that has decided to nest on the airport perimeter. I'm not eactly worried about my next 27R arrival winding up in the Delaware River.

Now I'm not saying they shouldn't stop trying to clear geese from around airports and preventing birdstrikes, but must we hear about it all the time now just because its a slow news day?



I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13596 posts, RR: 61
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3171 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Wagz (Reply 20):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):
Here's why:

Wow, so just because one bad thing happened at LGA, we have to hear about bird strikes from now on.

Hey pal, he asked why - I'm not saying I agree with the media's incessant need to over-hype everything, but the fact remains that 1549 put birdstrikes front-and-center on the media's aviation boogeyman list.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3164 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):

:-( Poor plane!  Sad

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 21):
..... the fact remains that 1549 put birdstrikes front-and-center on the media's aviation boogeyman list.

Now thanks to the general public, IIRC, the birdstrikes are required to be reported and released to the general public.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineWagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 21):
Hey pal, he asked why - I'm not saying I agree with the media's incessant need to over-hype everything, but the fact remains that 1549 put birdstrikes front-and-center on the media's aviation boogeyman list.

I wasn't really singling you out, your post was just the most relevant to quote. I really aimed my post at the whole thread in general, what with everyone trying to come up with prevention devices for aircraft and whatnot.

So to everyone involved, (that includes the media if they're reading this) bird strikes happen all the time. 1 time out of a million something bad happens. Get over it.



I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3085 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 21):
..... the fact remains that 1549 put birdstrikes front-and-center on the media's aviation boogeyman list.

Now thanks to the general public, IIRC, the birdstrikes are required to be reported and released to the general public.

Even birdstries that don't make the news can be expensive. Example, the AC 777-300ER below that had an encounter with geese on final approach to YVR on June 8. Following from Transport Canada daily incident summary.

The Air Canada Boeing 777-300 aircraft (C-FITW), operating as ACA008, was on approach to Runway 08L at Vancouver after a flight from Hong Kong. Descending through 500 ft on final, the crew observed a flock of geese 200 ft AGL below, and a go- around was initiated. During the missed approach, the aircraft was struck by about 6 geese. The aircraft completed a second approach and landed at Vancouver without further difficulty. After arrival at the gate, an inspection revealed the following damage: no. 1 engine fan nose cowl was dented and the acoustic liner damaged, at least 4 fan blades of the no. 2 engine damaged, abradable liner damaged, right wing outboard leading edge, as well as slats and flaps appeared damaged. The aircraft will be out of service until the damage is fully determined and repaired.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways Base At LGA-Sustainable? posted Mon Mar 2 2009 07:53:49 by CXA330300
AA A300 At LGA On 2/23/09 In The Am posted Tue Feb 24 2009 04:29:38 by MikeNYC
Life Pic: Shorts Flying Boat At LGA posted Tue Dec 30 2008 12:19:15 by Timz
Is Something Up At LGA? posted Tue Dec 16 2008 18:43:20 by LU9092
Extending The Runway at LGA? posted Mon Nov 3 2008 21:25:28 by Ovrpowrd727
Attention LGA Spotters. AA 767 At LGA posted Thu Oct 30 2008 08:09:17 by Miaami
MD-11's Ever At LGA? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 13:21:30 by Brucek
Runway 4/22 At LGA posted Sat Aug 23 2008 20:38:36 by Lga1011
Last Schedule Widebody At LGA? posted Sat Jun 14 2008 09:06:24 by SQ25J
U.S. Proposes Auctioning Runway Slots At LGA posted Thu Apr 17 2008 05:59:55 by Analog