Archive 2014

This month presented several interesting cases. The events of the days 8 and 18 have been discussed above speaking about "abnormal parameters." Also significant are the events of the 10th and 11th: in both cases among the damages to the aircraft, there is also a broken passenger window, presumably due to the collision with a bird violently thrown by the propeller blade, and in the second (11) even minor injuries for a crew member. Finally, another multiple impact as a result of flying through a flock of birds in Burgas: this airport had already a similar event in 2008, and the following year, after the publication of the investigation final report, we commented the conclusions (see: Archives 2009 "September 3, a case to meditate on").

• 1 – Leipzig
  Condor A321, bird strike during the initial climb; immediate return;
• 4 – Amsterdam
  KLM B747, at take off impacted with a bird that caused the first officer’s speed indications to be intermittently unreliable; after an attempt to continue the flight, the crew decided to return;
• 5 - Nakhon Si Thammarat (Thailand)
  Thai Air Asia A320, during the initial climb an engine ingested a bird; immediate return;
• 7 – Philadelphia
  Republic ERJ170, bird strike during the approach; minor damage;
• 8 – Amsterdam
  Easyjet A319, rejected take off at high speed after having spotted a flock of birds flying across the runway;
• 8 – Dallas (TX)
  Lufthansa A340, was climbing through 2000 feet when the crew observed a large bird hitting the aircraft at the right hand side of the nose; in the absence of any abnormal parameters the crew continued the flight to destination;  a postflight inspection revealed the bird had left large dents at the right hand nose, parts of the bird went through engine #3, other parts impacted the slats;
• 10 – Harrisburg (PA)
  Piedmont DH8A, during the initial climb flew through a flock of geese receiving several bird strikes resulting in damage to the right propeller and a broken passenger window; immediate ruturn;
  
  (Photos Peter Mercy taken from avherald.com)
• 11 –Geneva
  Swiss A319, during the initial climb a bird was ingested into the left engine; precautionary return but no damage reported;
• 11 - Orlando (FL)
  Silver Airways Saab 340, on final approach the crew declared emergency reporting they just had a bird strike causing debris all over the windscreen and a passenger window blown out; one flight attendant received minor injuries;
• 14 – Tobago
  Caribbean Airlines ATR72, bird strike at departure forced the aircraft to land; flight delayed of 4,5 hours after the aircraft was repaired;
• 15 – Tbilisi
  Lufthansa A319, bird strike during the approach; return flight delayed of 14 hours;
• 18 – Istanbul
  THY A321, at take off went through a flock of rather large birds and received a number of bird strikes; in the absence of any abnormal indications the crew decided to continue to destination;
  a post flight inspection revealed the aircraft received damage to the nose gear, nose gear landing light, leading edge and slats of right hand wing, left engine inlet leading edge, there were indications that both engines had ingested birds; the return flight was cancelled;
• 21 – Burgas
  Bulgarian Air Charter MD82, during the initial climb crossing 1000 ft. flew through a flock of birds receiving several impacts; immediate return 
• 21 – Houston (TX)
  United B737, at departure a bird impacted the aircraft; precautionary landing; damage to the leading edge of the wing;
  
  
• 23 – Belem
  TAM A320, bird strike on final approach and request of emergency services on stand by; next flights cancelled;
• 24 – near Hyannis (MA)
  Cape Air Cessna 402, while enroute struck birds and sustained damage to the leading edge of a wing which caused a diversion and landing;
• 25 – Guersney
  Aurigny Air Service ERJ195, bird strike at takeoff and immediate return;
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-28918294
• 26 – Amsterdam
  British Airways Cityflyer ERJ170,  bird strike at takeoff that led the crew to stop the climb and not to pressurize the aircraft fearing a structural damage; immediate return and flight cancelled;
• 31 - Nakhon Si Thammarat (Thailandia)
  Nok B737, during the initial climb flew through a flock of birds receiving multiple strikes; diversion to other airport about 25’ later and flight cancelled;

 

Two similar events occurred in this month reopen the old question of the continuation of the flight after a bird ingestion into the engines at take-off "in the absence of abnormal parameters." All those who follow this website can immediately notice the differences in the pilot behaviors in presence of similar cases; there are those who immediately land and those who decide to continue to their destination, only to then divert to another airport or realize on arrival that the aircraft has suffered significant damage. Of course there is also the possibility that the crew does not notice anything.

Given that the pilot discretion must remain a priority, there are questions however on what ground the pilots base their assessment on whether to continue the flight. In the case of Lufthansa A340 (August 8) the crew must surely have assessed they could fly several hours over the mainland with dozens of possible airports available in case of need, not to mention that losing an engine out of four is certainly not a tragedy, not even over the ocean. An immediate landing maybe would have made the consequences worse for the passengers and for the airline. However, even in this case the amount of damages suffered, if known before, would probably have suggested a different decision.

In the case of the THY A320 (18 August), even considering the route entirely on the mainland, the decision to continue can’t easily be justified, given the type of impact (the aircraft flew through a flock of birds) and the extent of damage suffered, certainly perceived by the crew. Furthermore it was a case of bird ingestion into both engines of a twin-engine. We know that the consequences of an ingestion, especially at take-off can occur hours and even days after the event, and - for example - a damaged fan blade can break suddenly putting out of order the entire engine.

The airlines generally do not have a common policy on the pilot behaviors for these cases, in fact most of the time they do not have any policy, delegating to them the duty and responsibility to take the most appropriate decision. In no airline manual one may find the order to land immediately after an impact with a bird, single or multiple. However, in a matter of fact they make psychological pressures on their pilots to hold down the costs, to bring back the aircraft to the airline headquarter, to not discharge tons of fuel, and so on.

Obviously not to the point of affecting safety: in presence of engine abnormal parameters landing is a must; however, there is a “gray zone” in which one is certain to have received an impact but everything continues to work properly and one does not know what to do: go back and discover that there is no damage, with the risk of receiving a scolding, or continue trusting in the aircraft.

We believe this is an issue that should interest not only the airlines (some indications on flight manuals would be appreciated) but also the aviation authorities.

 

A remarkable event happened in Dusseldorf (16) where there was another case of dual bird ingestion into the engines; the crew managed to stop the aircraft on the runway but in case of forced take-off the consequences would have been unpredictable. It is the fourth case this year and the second in Germany alone.

• 1 – Tunis
  Tunis Air A320, bird strike at take off; immediate return;
• 3- Dublin
  Aer Lingus A320, during the initial climb a bird struck an engine that started to vibrate; immediate return 15’ later;
• 3 – Dublin
  Aer Lingus A320, during the rotation for takeoff a bird hit the left hand engine resulting in vibrations and unusual engine noise;  the aircraft landed immediately with both engines running;
• 3 – Auckland
  Air New Zealand A320, rejected take off at low speed after a bird impacted the aircraft;
• 3 – Basel
  Easyjet A319, during the initial climb flew through a small flock of storks one of which was ingested in the left engine caising a loud bang and severe vibrations; te crew declared Mayday and the airport kept the runway sterile for helping to land; flight cancelled; a stork may weigh up to 4,5 kg;
• 4 – Bruxelles
  Egypt Air A320, during the initial climb a bird was ingested in the right engine; the crew did not declare emergency but required an immediate return; a fan blade was found completely damaged;
• 7 – Stuttgart
  Condor B757, during the initial climb a bird was ingested in the right engine causing repeated compressor stalls and streaks of flame; the crew shut down the engine and landed immediately; 
• 7 – Ponhpei (Micronesia)
  United Airlines B737, during the approach the aircraft sustained a bird strike with ingestion into the right engine resulting in damage to 8 fan blades;
• 10 – Dallas
  American Airlines MD83, rejected take off after a bird ingestion into one engine; minor damage;
• 11 – Girona
  Transavia B737, on approach the aircraft flew through a flock of gulls suffering multiple impacts;
• 
  (Photo of Arjan van de Leur taken from avherald.com)
  
• 13 – Newark (NJ)
  Air India B777, during the initial climb a bird was ingested into the left engine that had to be shut down by the crew; immediate return 20’ later; during the landing several tyres blew;
• 13 – Trabzon
  Pegasus B737, during the initial climb a bird impacted and fractured the windshield; immediate return 20’ later;
• 16 – Dusseldorf
  Lufthansa A320, before reaching V1 the crew rejected take off after having flown through a flock of birds receiving multiple impacts and bird ingestion into both engines; it is the fourth case this year and the second in Germany;
• 28 – Batumi (Belarus)
  Belavia ERJ195, during the initial climb a bird was ingested into one engine; immediate landing;
• 28 – Istanbul
  THY B737, during the initial climb flew through a flock of birds suffering several bird strikes; immediate landing;
• 29 – Bangor (ME)
  Chautauqua ERJ145, during the take off run a bird impacted the right main gear; minor damages;
• 31 – Almaty
  SCAT Airlines An24, during the take off run went through a flock of birds receiveing multiple impacts; the crew decided to reject take off at high speed; damages to the windshield, the nose and right hand propeller;

 

 

• 1 – Istanbul
  THY B737, during the initial climb flew through a flock of birds and ingested at least one bird into one of the engines; immediate return; 
• 8 – Montevideo
  Austral ERJ 190, during the takeoff run  went through a flock of birds and ingested birds into the right  engine; takeoff rejected at high speed and flight cancelled; according to some sources the birds would be some Southern Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus), weighing about 1 kg. each,  that would have required  the replacement of some fan blades;
    (The Caracara plancus; photo taken from Wikipedia)
  
• 10 – Denver
  UPS B767, during the initial climb the right engine ingested a bird prompting the crew to request an immediate return; during the approach they declared emergency; damage to right engine fan blades and cowling;
• 11- San Antonio (TX)
  Southwest B737, on landing received a bird strike and suffered minor damage to the horizontal stabilizer;
• 17 – Manchester
  Eurowings CRJ 900, on final approach a bird impacted the right pitot tube; return flight  cancelled and replacement of the pitot tube;
• 18 – Tampa (FL)
  Southwest B737, during  the initial climb flew through a flock of seagulls at about 2000 ft, and suffered at least one bird hit;  given all the parameters normal the crew decided to continue the flight but then, after consulting with maintenance,  decided to return immediately; minor damage to the leading edges of the wings and damage near the windscreen;
• 18 – Parintins (Brasile)
  Azul Linhas Aereas ATR72, on final approach an Urubu (Coragyps atratus) impacted  the right hand side of the nose of the aircraft denting and puncturing the nose; flight cancelled waiting for   spare parts to repair the damage; Parintins' public waste dump is located almost underneath the final approach  about half a mile before the runway threshold;
  
  Urubu (Coragyps atratus); photo taken from Wikipedia 
• 26 – Geneva
  Swiss A319, during the initial climb suffers a bird ingestion into one engine; immediate landing 30’ later;
• 28 – Dallas (TX)
  American MD83, during the landing roll struck a bird that caused damage to the left engine;
• 30 – Biratnagar (Nepal)
  Nepal Airlines Xian MA-60, during the approach a bird impacted the right propeller causing minor damage; 

 

Years ago a “spectre” was wandering in the Italian skies: it looked like a bird but it was not, it was a model aircraft but made ??no sound and flew like an eagle. It was the Falco Robot, a brilliant all-Italian invention born to prevent and mitigate the presence of birds at airports. Basically a remote pilot could direct the  flight of the model, which replicated in an impressive manner the shape of a large bird of prey, whose presence alone scared all the birds around who immediately abandoned the area for several hours. The device was tested at Genoa airport, where he drove to the high seas thousands of gulls settling on the outer breakwater and later at Fiumicino Airport for a month. The excellent results of this experiment were then presented at meetings and published and are also available on this web site.

One would have expected a wide use of the  device in Italy, but since nobody is a “prophet in his own country”, this did not happen. Incidentally instead it met with some success in Latin America.

The patent was then sold to foreigners and the project put back in the drawer.

A few years after we see the outbreak of the drone-mania. Thousands of small machines of various shapes and types, equipped with highly advanced tools or with simple devices are now flying everywhere and even some bizarre restaurant manager  uses them to deliver pizzas to the customer tables. Possible future applications are under study, like mail delivery at home, observation of vast agricultural areas,  maintenance of power lines, so that the ENAC, rightly concerned about their impact on navigation safety, first in the world, adopted an ad hoc regulation, which could also be perfected but it is a step forward in the management of these devices. Devices that are now called APR in Italian (remote controlled aircraft) or SAPR (where “S” stands for system).

The Scientific Committee of the Study Center STASA, of which we are a member, recently had a meeting dedicated to the analysis of the problems arising from the use of these tools in the light of the new regulation of the CAA.  Therefore we had the opportunity to bring back to life for some minutes the Falco Robot with the  more modern guise of a SAPR, category to which it would  belong today. We reaffirmed the absolute utility of the device  at least for a tactical use (there was no chance to check its effects also in a strategic key, i.e.  as a permanent deterrent), together with the difficulty of applying the new rules to this very useful product, which risks instead to be banned in the name of that same safety for which it has been created.

The regulation starts from the premise that SAPRs should be subjected to more stringent requirements and rules the closer they operate to an airport; and that is not a good start  for  devices born to operate right on the skies of airports. For the operations to be carried out in critical areas, and therefore at airports, then it should be made ??a request for the use of airspace, which already appears to be incompatible with the nature of the site, since they practically operate within the visual range of the Tower controller. This last assumption then leads to other problems about responsibility: who should be held responsible of the operations, the TWR or the remote pilot? And under what conditions, both the one and the other? What kind of contacts between them must be requested and by what means?

There are also many other concerns about the requirements of the remote pilot, his training, about the usefulness of some technical features of the device (even a transponder) when used in an airport, and so on. Another question regards the insurance, not just to contest its obvious necessity, but for emphasizing the difficulty for the insurer to establish its costs in the absence of historical records and a database of damages.

In conclusion we have a  feeling that the regulator did not take account of this possible and desirable use of SAPRs as a bird dispersal tool at an airport, as well as other possible purposes related to safety (consider, for example, runway inspections, fence controls, apron surveillance  etc ...). On the other hand we think  that the law should address this innovation and set its limits, however without excessive bureaucracy (and costs) that could void the extraordinary potential of these new tools,  in the name of that same safety  it wants to protect .

 

The last month we reported an ingestion of bees into an engine; this month other insects caused an emergency landing (1) due to the occlusion of a pitot tube and the consequent airspeed data disagreement. Among the unfortunately common events, we point out that of day 13, because of the extent of damage, and that of day 14 because it presents again an old question: despite the crew was warned of a probable multiple birdstrike to an engine, in the absence of abnormal parameters they continued the flight , but were forced to divert almost immediately to another airport where they found out the bird ingestion. The old question is the crew training with regard to this type of events, as well as the policy of airlines.

New animal species enroll in the list of victims of wildlife strike, this time was a tapir weighing 250 kg . (30) that proposes the other old issue of airport fences, often missing or inefficient. This does not happen only in small airports in third world countries considering the umpteenth accident caused by a deer on the runway in the U.S.; this time the news is really amazing (30) because it happened at Charleston International Airport (source: FAA) .

• 1 – Montego Bay
  Sunwing B737, during the takeoff run an airspeed disagree message appeared on the display;  the crew continued takeoff, after becoming airborne declared emergency and immediately landed; a post flight inspection found  insects blocking the first officer's pitot tube;
• 2 – Orlando
  Southwest B737, ingested a large bird in the left engine at takeoff causing vibrations and engine to be left at idle; immediate return;
• 3 – near Baltimore
  Priv. Cessna 172, upon landing struck a deer on the runway causing nose gear to collapse;
• 4 – Chania
  Enter Air B737, during the initial climb a bird was ingested into an engine; the crew burned off fuel and returned about 50’ later;
• 5 – Dusseldorf
  Eurowings Canadair CRJ 900, during the final approach a bird impacted the aircraft nose causing damage to radome and weather radar that had to be replaced;
• 7 – Brasilia
  TAP A330, multiple impact duringtake off with some birds ingested into an engine; Immediate return 17’ later; flight postponed to the next day; 
  http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,aviao-que-ia-de-brasilia-a-lisboa-bate-em-ave-e-tem-de-retornar-apos-17-minutos,1163626,0.htm
• 8 – Frankfurt,
  Lufthansa A319, during the initial climb a bird impacted the left engine's cowl causing a dent at the engine inlet; immediate return 25’ later;
  

  

  
  (Photo taken from avherald.com)
  
• 9 – New York (La Guardia)
  USAir A319, during the initial climb the left engine suffered a lot of vibrations due to the ingestion of birds; immediate return 15’ later with both engines running; flight cancelled;
• 13 – Karlovy Vary
  Ural Airlines A320, birdstrike during the initial climb with probable ingestion into one engine which caused remarkable engine vibrations; immediate return 30’ later; 
• 13 – New York (JFK) UPS B767
  during the approach flew through a flock of large birds, apparently geese at about 800 feet AGL and received damage to the wings and the left hand engine;
• 13 – Sugar Land (TX)
  Priv. Raytheon 400°, at take off a bird was ingested into one engine causing a small fire and a fuel leak; immediate return;
  http://www.click2houston.com/news/bird-strike-causes-engine-fire-plane-to-return-to-sugar-land-airport/25958388
• 14 – West Palm Beach (FL)
  Delta B757, after takeoff the crew was told that another aircraft on the ground had observed birds hitting the right hand engine; in the absence of abnormal parameters the crew decided to continue the flight but then stopped the climb at 14,000 feet and diverted to another airport about 30’ later; a post flight inspection revealed that the right engine had ingested a bird;
• 16 – Enroute between Taiyuan and Hefei (China)
  Hainan Airlines B737, during the flight the aircraft encountered a bump which was believed to be the result of clear air turbulence; a post flight inspection revealed a large dent in the nose cone caused by a bird strike;
  

  

    (Photo taken from avherald.com)
  
• 19 – Filadelfia
  Republic Airlines ERJ175, bird strike on final approach; damage to the leading edge of the right wing;
• 26 – Washington (DC)
  Expressjet CRJ200, during the initial climb the right engine was struck by a bird; immediate return 20’ later;
• 27 – Boston (MA)
  Jetblue A320, at takeoff the crew observed two geese on the runway; moments later one bird struck the nose gear door causing noise and vibrations and forcing to an immediate return; a post flight inspection revealed that the second goose had been ingested by the right engine;
• 30 – Coari (Brazil)
  Total Linhas Aereas ATR42, during the takeoff run collided with a tapir (Tapirus terrestris) which bent the right hand main gear; the crew continued to destination (Manaus)  where performed an emergency landing after having burnt off fuel; the runway of Coari is 1600 mt. long while at Manaus there are 2700 mt.;  an adult tapir can attain an average weight around 250 kg; 
  

  

  (Photo: Emergency Services Manaus taken from avherald.com)
  
• 30 – Charleston (SC)
  Priv. Cirrus SR22, during the landing roll struck a deer on the runway.

The ANSV (National Agency for Flight Safety) released on 29 April the annual report (in Italian) on its activities and on the state of safety in the Italian civil aviation in the year 2013. As usual, the report gives little attention (just 31 lines and three tables) to the phenomenon of birdstrikes.

 

In brief, the Agency reports they received 129 event reports (4.07% of the total), an increase over the previous biennium. Only in one case a formal investigation for accident has been opened, involving a general aviation aircraft that suffered limited structural damage to the left wing. There is no mention of the type of aircraft involved nor it was possible to identify it with absolute certainty. It could be, however, an event occurred on the airport of Bresso (near Milan).

 

Two are the airports most affected by the phenomenon, Palermo and Verona, whose reports are, however, interpreted as a sign of greater “awareness to reporting" rather than indices of local problems. Nothing new as for the species most affected, gulls, kestrels and swifts; nothing new as well with regard to the phase of flight, hour and seasonal distribution , which are similar to those of the past years.

 

Once again, therefore, the report increase is attributed to a supposed greater "awareness to reporting " rather than an increase of bird population at airports, as well as the issue of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the bird removal means appears to be completely ignored. Not a word is dedicated to describing and evaluating the risk status of the Italian airports, now expressed by the BRI2 index, recently adopted by ENAC. So we have to wait the birdstrike annual report from this Agency to get a more accurate analysis of the phenomenon.

 

The AIB concludes its report stating that “it is difficult for an airport operator to mitigate the risk of birdstrikes under such conditions, as it is unrealistic to expect a complete control of or warning capability against birds residing at unspecific locations away from the airport”. We think that such statement, as well as that previously released by the same agency on the impossibility to avoid birdstrikes, is – to put it mildly - rather controversial and with a subtle flavor of capitulation.

From a long time we make on this website a statistical analysis of dual ingestions, i.e. ingestion of birds into two or more engines of the same aircraft. The most known was the one that occurred to the USAir flight 1549 on 15.1.2009, then ditched in the Hudson River. However most of the time, despite the ingestion, all or some engines still deliver the necessary power to land.  

The event that we are considering occurred in Johannesburg on 9 March 2014, when a Cathay Pacific B747 shortly after takeoff flew through a flock of birds, some of which were ingested into both engines located on the right wing.

The B747 however, completely lost only the engine no. 3 (inner right), shut down by the crew, while the n. 4 (outer right), although damaged, continued to work. This allowed to perform normal three engines procedures so that the airplane flew for one more hour consuming fuel before landing back at the South African airport.

It is a fact , however, that a concrete possibility of a complete loss of two engines on the same wing really existed. The question we pose is whether under these conditions the airplane was still maneuverable, given the highly asymmetric thrust, the takeoff weight, the airport altitude, located at about 1700 m. asl, and the many other factors to be taken into account when planning the flight.

We therefore asked for an opinion a leading Italian expert on Flight Safety and Investigations , Captain Renzo Dentesano , who kindly so responded :

" A B747, once the V1 has been reached on the runway, is forced to go airborne, and if it manages to overcome the V2 and mainly the initial climb over the obstacle (which ends with the retraction of the landing gear ), is controllable in flight even with 2 engines on the same wing out of order (better if   at least one on idle ! ) …..... The initial and then the recurrent training at flight simulator requires the carrying out of this emergency procedure once a year and all the maneuvers are reported in the Airline Operation Manual (memory items) - section emergencies …..All the rest…. is stuff for test pilots "

Up to this point is the expert's opinion. We therefore should conclude that one thing is the in-flight engine failure, another one is when it happens at takeoff: the former allows a certain margin for manoeuvre, the latter much less. Instead the assumption of a double engine failure on the same wing at take-off is not taken into consideration at all by airline operation manuals because it goes beyond the aircraft certification requirements . However it is possible that, at the level of flight tests, one can theoretically be able to take off under certain conditions, which certainly do not occur in scheduled flights. Furthermore we have to consider that a remarkable part of bird ingestions occurs just during the takeoff run, either because birds are settling close to the runway, or because they suddenly cross it. In conclusion, if both right engines of the 747 had stopped working after the ingestion (absolutely possible occurrence), there are strong chances that it would have resulted in a catastrophic event. Therefore we consider the Johannesburg incident as one of the most serious events in recent years. And since the flight through a flock of birds at takeoff is a relatively frequent event, the discussion must necessarily focus on the preventive measures on the ground in order to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, that flocks of birds roam uncontrolled and unpredictable within an airport or in the takeoff path.

Below, to be clearer, we report the double ingestion cases occurred only in 2013, fortunately all happily ended, proving they are not so rare events:

19/01/2013 - Orlando, Virgin Atlantic A330 (twin-engine), during the initial climb a number of birds are ingested in both engines one of which must be shut down; about 30’ later landed with only one engine and over the maximum weight allowed; damage to both engines, to the leading edge of both wings and the radome;

16/04/2013 - Dallas, American Airlines MD82 (twin engine), at take off a number of birds were ingested in both engines;

29/11/2013 - Manchester (NH), Southwest B737 (twin engine), at take-off flew through a flock of small birds some of which were probably ingested into both engines that still continued to run regularly;