<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How often do natural and unnatural flights collide?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:31:02 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/1 Somewhere, Dave Winfield is wondering

Whether the pilot is going to be arrested.

]]> Somewhere, Dave Winfield is wondering

Whether the pilot is going to be arrested.

]]> Comment #2 by biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:52:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/2 Cars hit a lot more birds than planes do, by far

My wife hit a large bird right here in Seattle a few weeks ago. She didn't stop to see what it was but another motorist did. I'm guessing it was a distracted raptor shooting for another bird.

I worked at Purdue airport for a number of years. I never actually hit a bird but had a few close calls. Hitting birds in general aviation prop jobs was no big deal. It always happened while in the pattern, during takeoff, or on final. Other than a few small dents I never saw any serious damage.

Boeing tests aircraft structure by shooting chickens at them with an air cannon. Large turbofan engines can handle your average sized birds, but a flock of geese is just out of the design envelope.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Cars hit a lot more birds than planes do, by far

My wife hit a large bird right here in Seattle a few weeks ago. She didn't stop to see what it was but another motorist did. I'm guessing it was a distracted raptor shooting for another bird.

I worked at Purdue airport for a number of years. I never actually hit a bird but had a few close calls. Hitting birds in general aviation prop jobs was no big deal. It always happened while in the pattern, during takeoff, or on final. Other than a few small dents I never saw any serious damage.

Boeing tests aircraft structure by shooting chickens at them with an air cannon. Large turbofan engines can handle your average sized birds, but a flock of geese is just out of the design envelope.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #3 by PermieWriter http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:17:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/3 Bird damage

And skyscrapers hit a lot more birds than cars or planes (okay, it's the bird hitting the building, but same deal). Buildings kill about a billion birds a year in the U.S., three times as many as are killed by cats (take that, Audubon Society).

Okay, who's going to tell the air cannon chicken joke?

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

]]> Bird damage

And skyscrapers hit a lot more birds than cars or planes (okay, it's the bird hitting the building, but same deal). Buildings kill about a billion birds a year in the U.S., three times as many as are killed by cats (take that, Audubon Society).

Okay, who's going to tell the air cannon chicken joke?

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

]]> Comment #4 by biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:27:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/4 I just heard that the engines are missing

Boeing engines are designed to snap off via three hollow shear pins if design loads are exceeded, as would happen in a water landing or when hitting a truck on the runway. This keeps the wing box intact, which is where all the fuel is stored. They can even come off in flight if you can put enough load on them.

Which reminds me of the day we realized they could snap off during a gear up landing ...we will see how that works out someday. The theory is that the plane will decelerate faster than the free ranging engines.

The Airbus engineers did good ...always wondered if the idea would work in a water landing.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> I just heard that the engines are missing

Boeing engines are designed to snap off via three hollow shear pins if design loads are exceeded, as would happen in a water landing or when hitting a truck on the runway. This keeps the wing box intact, which is where all the fuel is stored. They can even come off in flight if you can put enough load on them.

Which reminds me of the day we realized they could snap off during a gear up landing ...we will see how that works out someday. The theory is that the plane will decelerate faster than the free ranging engines.

The Airbus engineers did good ...always wondered if the idea would work in a water landing.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:21:30 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/5 gulls (a story for grist) canadoids and shear-pins

Initial reports suggest geese were to blame. These are likely migrant Brant, in for the winter, or resident 'Canadoid' geese. The Canadoids are a human-created hybrid of different subspecies of Canada Goose. Unlike 'natural' Canadas, they don't really migrate. Many people have suggested bumping 'Canadoid' off, as they cause a lot of problems in urban areas and compete with/genetically pollute, 'natural' Canadas. Maybe this accident will lend some impetus to this?

JFK airport has for years quietly been shotgunning what by now must be literally hundreds of thousands of gulls because of the supposed danger they present to aircraft. They've pretty much left geese alone because they're worried about the PR backlash of killing them -- people think gulls are awful trash birds whereas they think geese are cute. This is one of the big under-reported enviro crime stories of the NYC area, and it would be great for grist to look into it. It's insane that a lethal control policy would not target the birds that are the real problem -- Canadoid geese, mainly, because of their bulk -- but would wipe out huge numbers of smaller and hence less-problematic species.

Biodiversivist: One of the little problems with these shear pins is that if they are not looked after that well or get old, the engine sometimes comes off when it isn't meant to. There was a recent incident of this in Cape Town where a Boeing 737-200 lost an engine on takeoff. Tho the pilot managed a miracle go-around and safe landing, it led to the bankruptcy of the airline, Nationwide. If you google around you'll find at least 3 other incidents of this type, all involving Boeing 737-200s, in the US. Scary!

BTW on a recent flight into Cape Town the planed did a sudden jink to port just before finals. I was at a starboard window and immediately after saw a sedate chevron of Great White Pelican cruising past just a hundred yards away from the wingtip! Needless to say I congratulated the pilot on his high-class field ornithology...

Whiskerfish

]]> gulls (a story for grist) canadoids and shear-pins

Initial reports suggest geese were to blame. These are likely migrant Brant, in for the winter, or resident 'Canadoid' geese. The Canadoids are a human-created hybrid of different subspecies of Canada Goose. Unlike 'natural' Canadas, they don't really migrate. Many people have suggested bumping 'Canadoid' off, as they cause a lot of problems in urban areas and compete with/genetically pollute, 'natural' Canadas. Maybe this accident will lend some impetus to this?

JFK airport has for years quietly been shotgunning what by now must be literally hundreds of thousands of gulls because of the supposed danger they present to aircraft. They've pretty much left geese alone because they're worried about the PR backlash of killing them -- people think gulls are awful trash birds whereas they think geese are cute. This is one of the big under-reported enviro crime stories of the NYC area, and it would be great for grist to look into it. It's insane that a lethal control policy would not target the birds that are the real problem -- Canadoid geese, mainly, because of their bulk -- but would wipe out huge numbers of smaller and hence less-problematic species.

Biodiversivist: One of the little problems with these shear pins is that if they are not looked after that well or get old, the engine sometimes comes off when it isn't meant to. There was a recent incident of this in Cape Town where a Boeing 737-200 lost an engine on takeoff. Tho the pilot managed a miracle go-around and safe landing, it led to the bankruptcy of the airline, Nationwide. If you google around you'll find at least 3 other incidents of this type, all involving Boeing 737-200s, in the US. Scary!

BTW on a recent flight into Cape Town the planed did a sudden jink to port just before finals. I was at a starboard window and immediately after saw a sedate chevron of Great White Pelican cruising past just a hundred yards away from the wingtip! Needless to say I congratulated the pilot on his high-class field ornithology...

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #6 by biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:11:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/6 Great comment, Whiskerfish

Didn't know that about the hybrid geese or the gulls. I've taken plenty of "jinks" to avoid a bird, or another plane for that matter over the years.

Aircraft maintenance is all important. The FAA keeps a close eye on aircraft maintenance schedules. Those pins are inspected at regular intervals for signs of wear or corrosion. An airline that only claims it is inspecting critical parts (to save money) is playing Russian Roulette. For example, most older airliners in service have cracked parts here and there. The cracks are watched for growth and are replaced before the crack reaches critical length.

Airliners are designed to lose an engine and continue to fly, although not very well and not for very long. The pilot has to stomp opposite rudder until he gets it back on the ground. Whenever you see an twin engined plane heading for landing with one prop not spinning it is probably a pilot taking his FAA exam proving he can land a plane with one engine out.

The 777 was the first two engine airliner certified to fly over open ocean using routes that don't put it within gliding range of an airport should it lose power. To get that certification it had to prove with many hours of trouble free flight that the odds were low enough to allow it. Hitting a goose at thirty thousand feet over the Mid-Atlantic would be a very rare occurrence.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Great comment, Whiskerfish

Didn't know that about the hybrid geese or the gulls. I've taken plenty of "jinks" to avoid a bird, or another plane for that matter over the years.

Aircraft maintenance is all important. The FAA keeps a close eye on aircraft maintenance schedules. Those pins are inspected at regular intervals for signs of wear or corrosion. An airline that only claims it is inspecting critical parts (to save money) is playing Russian Roulette. For example, most older airliners in service have cracked parts here and there. The cracks are watched for growth and are replaced before the crack reaches critical length.

Airliners are designed to lose an engine and continue to fly, although not very well and not for very long. The pilot has to stomp opposite rudder until he gets it back on the ground. Whenever you see an twin engined plane heading for landing with one prop not spinning it is probably a pilot taking his FAA exam proving he can land a plane with one engine out.

The 777 was the first two engine airliner certified to fly over open ocean using routes that don't put it within gliding range of an airport should it lose power. To get that certification it had to prove with many hours of trouble free flight that the odds were low enough to allow it. Hitting a goose at thirty thousand feet over the Mid-Atlantic would be a very rare occurrence.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #7 by questionthings http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:50:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Birds-and-planes/7 anthropogenic comments

I found it a bit disappointing that many of the comments on airplane/bird collisions were so insensitive to birds' right to exist. The grist author expressed happiness that the plane crash ended so well (not for the birds it didn't), and then she appeared to kneel to the technology gods to solve all of our problems for us so that we don't have to confront any ethical issues. It'd be great if someone found a technological way to prevent collisions, but it sure seems hard to keep birds from hitting something the size of a Mack truck flying at them at 400mph.

Years ago, I learned how to fly a small Cessna, but I no longer see it as a viable mode of transportation. If it wasn't polluting our skies and running into birds, I might think differently. I think it's all about scale: why choose the noisiest, most damaging option? I suspect that paragliders and hang gliders don't pose a risk to birds, but private planes and jets often do.

Another commenter said that they hit small birds in their plane but that besides a few small dents, they never saw any serious damage. I think the birds would claim otherwise--that is, if they weren't dead already.

I guess I just wish humans could think a bit more broadly than about just themselves or just other humans (although that would be a good first step). There are lots of other species on this planet who also have a right to live and thrive. I'd like to see us make decisions not only on how to save human lives but also how to minimize our impacts on other species. For example, if you build your dream mansion in the country and then commute along rural roads full of wildlife to get to your city job, you seem likely to run into birds and other wildlife from time to time.

Sorry if I was a bit long-winded. I'm new to posting like this. :-)

]]> anthropogenic comments

I found it a bit disappointing that many of the comments on airplane/bird collisions were so insensitive to birds' right to exist. The grist author expressed happiness that the plane crash ended so well (not for the birds it didn't), and then she appeared to kneel to the technology gods to solve all of our problems for us so that we don't have to confront any ethical issues. It'd be great if someone found a technological way to prevent collisions, but it sure seems hard to keep birds from hitting something the size of a Mack truck flying at them at 400mph.

Years ago, I learned how to fly a small Cessna, but I no longer see it as a viable mode of transportation. If it wasn't polluting our skies and running into birds, I might think differently. I think it's all about scale: why choose the noisiest, most damaging option? I suspect that paragliders and hang gliders don't pose a risk to birds, but private planes and jets often do.

Another commenter said that they hit small birds in their plane but that besides a few small dents, they never saw any serious damage. I think the birds would claim otherwise--that is, if they weren't dead already.

I guess I just wish humans could think a bit more broadly than about just themselves or just other humans (although that would be a good first step). There are lots of other species on this planet who also have a right to live and thrive. I'd like to see us make decisions not only on how to save human lives but also how to minimize our impacts on other species. For example, if you build your dream mansion in the country and then commute along rural roads full of wildlife to get to your city job, you seem likely to run into birds and other wildlife from time to time.

Sorry if I was a bit long-winded. I'm new to posting like this. :-)

]]>