Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3606 times:
FRom the AAIB + BEA :
Only the title as investigation is at the beginning :
": Birdstrike on departure. Engine was shut down and MAYDAY declared. Returned and landed
uneventfully. Damage to both engines, leading edges and radome."
Tht's serious and the multiplication of these occurrences is worrying. Beyond the dry officialese, the damage seems to have been very important.
Couldn't find anything in the press so I rely on the Tech-Ops supêrsleuths to provide us with more infos.
( It's on this forum as I want to avoid the quagmire Ciuv-Av has become).
Seems people on those site don't realise that A333 don't have fuel dump features. And I'm pretty sure that there is no such thing as overweight landing on A333, just heavy landing which only require extra inspection in normal circumstances. Or am I wrong? Would be grateful if someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Interesting that an A333 would be overweight for a Transatlantic trip. Or is it because it is a high density config aircraft?
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 2): The sentence that states damage to both engines is a concern....
Only one of 2 engines was severely damaged to warrant a 1 engine shut down. Don't think that it would be prudent to shut down 2 engines no matter how bad it is damaged as long as it still produces thrust.
Just for entertainment sake. B757 2 engine damaged 1 engine shut down:
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3326 times:
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 3): Seems people on those site don't realise that A333 don't have fuel dump features.
IT is a customer option on the 330. Don't know if this aircraft has the option.
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 3): Only one of 2 engines was severely damaged to warrant a 1 engine shut down. Don't think that it would be prudent to shut down 2 engines no matter how bad it is damaged as long as it still produces thrust.
In some extreme cases, like where you have one engine shut down and the other one is uncontrollable (yes it has happened, and on a 330!), maybe shutting the live one down on short final is an option to consider.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 3): Interesting that an A333 would be overweight for a Transatlantic trip. Or is it because it is a high density config aircraft?
The landing weight is around 182,000 kg
With 311 pax, @ 100 kg average per pax and bag, the ZFW should have been around 155,000 kg... so yes, they were above max landing weight (MLW).
According to some posters on AvHerald, the birds imlplicated were "turkey vultures", averaging 2 kg... that could make a lot of damage... especially on a multiple strike.
A lot of respect for the solidity of these Rolls !
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4): In some extreme cases, like where you have one engine shut down and the other one is uncontrollable (yes it has happened, and on a 330!), maybe shutting the live one down on short final is an option to consider.
Interesting I was thinking of whether to write that down in my previous post (CX A333 incident). Local Cantonese media (irresponsible radio pundits) were saying that the pilots were risking the lives of all the pax on board eventhough they had warnings/alerts half way during their cruise. But that is the other extreme of a 2 engine failure. I shall not digress.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 5): With 311 pax, @ 100 kg average per pax and bag, the ZFW should have been around 155,000 kg... so yes, they were above max landing weight (MLW).
So if there was no fuel dump facility (presumably even if they have that option, the crew would have elected to land ASAP), do they just need to perform a simple 'Heavy landing' check (assuming the landing went well)?
Some pics of the damage done to the aircraft would be nice.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 6): So if there was no fuel dump facility (presumably even if they have that option, the crew would have elected to land ASAP), do they just need to perform a simple 'Heavy landing' check (assuming the landing went well)?
I believe so yes. If the plane passes the check, the pilots have landed her gently enough that it is like a normal landing.
AFAIK the big problems with an overweight landing are tire speed, brakes stress and the like, not so much stress to the structure. But I could be wrong.
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 6): Local Cantonese media (irresponsible radio pundits) were saying that the pilots were risking the lives of all the pax on board eventhough they had warnings/alerts half way during their cruise. But that is the other extreme of a 2 engine failure. I shall not digress.
Certainly the crew were professional. As you say the mainstream media has no clue about technical matters and they like to pour petrol on the flames by sensationalizing. This is why I don't watch or listen to the news anymore. I get my news on the web and read heavily between the lines.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 5): According to some posters on AvHerald, the birds imlplicated were "turkey vultures", averaging 2 kg... that could make a lot of damage... especially on a multiple strike.
An instructor I know hit one in a Cessna 172. Made a big dent in the leading edge of the wing, which lost a significant portion of its lifting ability. And down they spiraled (or spun, not sure). He recovered the plane a worryingly low altitude above a field and made an emergency landing, then they hit some bumps and the plane flipped over onto her back.
Those birds are scary big and tend to hang in flocks. A couple of approach ends I am familiar with seemed to be magnets for the things. Town planners putting landfills in "strategic" locations are not the most popular people with local pilots...
But I digress...
[Edited 2013-02-01 04:59:40]
[Edited 2013-02-01 05:00:03]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Just a matter of curiosity but why would BEA be involved in this particular investigation. As far as we can ascertain so far it's a simple birdstrike and has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft itself. Would the state that manufacture the aircraft be investigating such 'minute' events or is it just a bulletin saying that there was an incident with an Airbus?
Just googled and found some accident investigation regulations (here from Malta):
7. (1) Where an investigation into an accident or a serious incident is being carried out by an investigator-in-charge under these regulations, any other State being -
(a) the State of registry;
(b) the State of design;
(c) the State of manufacture;
(d) the State of the operator; or
(e) a State which, on request, provides information, facilities or experts in an investigation,
shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in all aspects of the investigation.
(2) The accredited representative shall be permitted to -
(a) visit the scene of the accident;
(b) examine the wreckage;
(c) question witnesses;
(d) receive copies of all pertinent documents (saving all such just exceptions as may be determined by the investigator);
(e) have full access to all relevant evidence as soon as possible;
(f) make submissions;
(g) participate in readouts of recorded media; and
(h) participate in any off-scene investigative activities.
All countries belonging to the ICAO have the same (or similar) regulations. I'm just reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afriqiyah_Airways_Flight_771 about the 8U A330 crash in TIP, and the Libyan investigators claimed a heart attack. I wonder how much access the Dutch investigators had.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
No, you don't . That's interesting to me as I've never seen them in flocks.Your remark about landfills seems to be spot on.
It would have requires a hit or two one or two meters on either side of the wing impacts to damage the second engine and the situation would have been more serious.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3015 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 12): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
But I digress...
No, you don't . That's interesting to me as I've never seen them in flocks.Your remark about landfills seems to be spot on.
It would have requires a hit or two one or two meters on either side of the wing impacts to damage the second engine and the situation would have been more serious.
To be exact, they are not a "flocking" bird. However if there is something "interesting" on the ground you can see 10-20 in a relatively small area.
For example, the approach paths to 6 at ISM and (if memory serves) 5 at KGIF seemed to always have a bunch hanging out. 6 at ISM has some nice swampy patches that probably had prey, and 5 at KGIF has a landfill according to an examiner. It was often a game of "dodge the bird" if you had a straight in final.
[Edited 2013-02-01 16:20:30]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
You'd have quite a few options, depending on your situation, the state of the aircraft ( and of the remaining engine ), the geometry of the runway (s)... etc...
With an engine intact, dumping would be the best solution.
Here, with doubts over the engine condition, ,a mayday, followed by an immediate return-and-land was the wisest.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13): To be exact, they are not a "flocking" bird. However if there is something "interesting" on the ground you can see 10-20 in a relatively small area.
The bottom line is that you rarely see one. They also use the thermals generated from the concrete/asphalt, which is a reason why they circle over runways even if there is no food around.
I got close to some at KPIE this week. There were probably 10-20 at the departure end of 18L at various 'dangerous' altitudes.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 3): Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 2):
The sentence that states damage to both engines is a concern....
Only one of 2 engines was severely damaged to warrant a 1 engine shut down. Don't think that it would be prudent to shut down 2 engines no matter how bad it is damaged as long as it still produces thrust.
Just for entertainment sake. B757 2 engine damaged 1 engine shut down:
I was stating that "damage" to both engines is a concern.....no way did I state that both engines were shutdown.
Also The B757 link provided was a single engine bird strike......
ecbomberman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 17): I was stating that "damage" to both engines is a concern.....no way did I state that both engines were shutdown.
Also The B757 link provided was a single engine bird strike......
Yes, I've noticed that... My bad... Googled "Birdstrike Manchester 757" and a BBC news came up stating a double bird strike had occurred. So I wrongly linked that video to that incident.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1943 times:
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 18):
Yes, I've noticed that... My bad... Googled "Birdstrike Manchester 757" and a BBC news came up stating a double bird strike had occurred. So I wrongly linked that video to that incident.
No Issues.....What great about this video is that it clearly demonstrates how a small bird can create such an expensive damage....
mcoatc From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 151 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 16): The bottom line is that you rarely see one. They also use the thermals generated from the concrete/asphalt, which is a reason why they circle over runways even if there is no food around.
There are quite a lot of turkey vultures around MCO, and central FL in general. For those not familiar, MCO is the 3rd largest airfield in the US based on acreage and much of it is forested/wetlands with heavy animal activity.
Reference the incident at hand, both engines did sustain quite a bit of damage. Although #2 was not shut down, it did have heavy vibration. A few more well-placed birds and this incident would have been much more publicized for all the wrong reasons.
Quoting faro (Reply 14): *If* they had had the fuel dump option, what should they have done?
Dump then land or land immediately given the second engine hit?
They did not have the dump option to my understanding, and I have to imagine with the crippled state of the #2 engine, an overweight landing is a far superior option with a 12,000' runway available than circling with one questionable motor to dump fuel.
Someone will have to clarify, but an EI pilot told us a couple of days later that the dump option on the 330 is not normally taken, and customers instead opt for heavier brakes/gear instead. Pihero, can you verify this?
Quoting Pihero (Reply 15): Anyone with pics or new developments ?
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1885 times:
Quoting mcoatc (Reply 20): . Although #2 was not shut down, it did have heavy vibration.
That's one of my questions. Thanks.
Quoting mcoatc (Reply 20): Someone will have to clarify, but an EI pilot told us a couple of days later that the dump option on the 330 is not normally taken, and customers instead opt for heavier brakes/gear instead.
That's correct. The dumping system adds complexity / weight / maintenace to the aircraft. Overweight landings are aprt of the certification and it's a non event.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Quoting mcoatc (Reply 20): Quoting bond007 (Reply 16):
The bottom line is that you rarely see one. They also use the thermals generated from the concrete/asphalt, which is a reason why they circle over runways even if there is no food around.
There are quite a lot of turkey vultures around MCO, and central FL in general. For those not familiar, MCO is the 3rd largest airfield in the US based on acreage and much of it is forested/wetlands with heavy animal activity.
To clarify ... when I said "you rarely see one", I should have said "you rarely see JUST one" ....
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Hard/Overweight landings - In these days of ACMS data can be extracted from the DFDR to identify the Vertical Acceleration (VRTA) & the Rad Alt Vertical Rate of Descent (RALR) during landing. Calculations are then carried out using the MAX VRTA, Min VRTA & RALR to detemine whether inspections are necessary.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1381 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1291 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1445 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
