Re: Can you say: Payne Stewart ? - Explosive Decompression? Try it yourself, numbnuts.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:46:41 GMT, "LawsonE" > wrote:
>
> > All I've been pointing out is that there is no "absolute" verdict you
> > can
> > give on this subject since it would depend on what was hit, where, and
> > with
> > what. The worst case would be shooting holes in avionics, or causing
> > some
> > kind of engine trouble that might lead to further destruction. A
> > slightly
> > less dangerous case (I'm guessing) would be where a bullet hit the
> > forward
> > windscreen, punching a hole in it. Anyone who wants to tell me that the
> > structural integrity of any material with a hole punched in it is the
> > same
> > as the non-damaged material, is full of it. No-one has cited a test or
> > incident where a bullet was shot into the front windscreen while the
> > plane
> > was travelling 500mph, and even if there are such incidents, the
> > conditions
> > are so extreme that one or two examples probably don't say anything
> > about
> > the "average" case.
>
> There are airplanes, including 747s, that have continued to fly quite
> nicely, if rather noisily in the cockpit, after striking Canada geese
> with the windscreens, cracking them.

Horrible mental image of a bird reaching up and goosing a 747...

> Aircraft windscreens are a)
> over-designed for bird strikes, b) made of numerous layers laminated
> with the same sort of stuff used in car windshields, and c) backed up
> by cockpit/cabin pressurization systems with considerably more
> capacity than they use in normal flight.
>
> I might also point out that the windscreen in front of the captain is
> entirely separate from the windscreen in front of the first officer,
> so damage on one side won't affect the other side. The side
> windscreens are also separate, as are the eyebrow windscreens, where
> present. Since forward vision is not required to land an airplane,
> particularly a highly-automated airliner, damage to one windscreen is
> not any big deal.

Mary, are there any provisions to protect the pilot on the damaged from
at least the annoyance of wind? If nothing else, it's going to be COLD.
>
> I freely concede that a windscreen with a bullet hole in it is not the
> same as an undamaged windscreen, but the undamaged windscreen is
> sufficiently strong that the damage from the bullet hole is not enough
> to render the damaged windscreen useless or hazardous.

[Newps]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

>>
>>There are airplanes, including 747s, that have continued to fly quite
>>nicely, if rather noisily in the cockpit, after striking Canada geese
>>with the windscreens, cracking them.

The RJ's that everybody is flying now crack windshields like they are
going out of style. Just last week we had one land here so spider
webbed that the captain could see nothing out his side. They apparently
are very simple to replace as they were on the road again in less than
24 hours.

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:35:56 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> wrote:


> Mary, are there any provisions to protect the pilot on the damaged from
> at least the annoyance of wind? If nothing else, it's going to be COLD.

Usually the windows don't break. They just crack, admitting pureed
bird*, if present. (Eeeuuugh!) In such cases, cockpit heat is good
enough to keep the crew warm.

I think, but don't know and haven't looked, that the rules require
landing soon if the windshield is actually broken out, whereas the
rules allow the flight to continue if it's only cracked. In the only
case I have first-hand knowledge of, they hit the goose and cracked
the windshield while climbing out from San Francisco and continued to
London Heathrow.

*The usual cause of windshield cracking in flight, although
temperature stress can cause it, as can mechanical stress. The X-15
had one of each of the latter two, for example. Like airliners,
research aircraft rarely have any sort of battle damage, so I don't
have any bullet strike accounts to relay for Dryden aircraft.

ObMilitaryAircraft: The convertible F-18 that Bill Dana flew was the
result of a canopy latch problem, not a bird strike or battle damage.
I know a guy who lost a T-38 canopy in flight, again from a mechanical
problem. In both cases, it was pretty bad, cold and windy and too
noisy to hear anyone on the radios. The checklist says something like
crank your seat all the way down, tighten your chin strap and O2 mask,
announce the situation on the relevant frequencies, and land or trap.

In the case of a bird strike on a high-performance airplane with
canopy, the problem is that the canopy usually doesn't hang around
long enough to ward off the subsequent birds, and they smack into the
front-seat pilot's head and face. This is one of the important
reasons why pilots are supposed to keep their clear visors down and
locked.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:21:05 GMT, Newps > wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >>There are airplanes, including 747s, that have continued to fly quite
> >>nicely, if rather noisily in the cockpit, after striking Canada geese
> >>with the windscreens, cracking them.
>
> The RJ's that everybody is flying now crack windshields like they are
> going out of style. Just last week we had one land here so spider
> webbed that the captain could see nothing out his side. They apparently
> are very simple to replace as they were on the road again in less than
> 24 hours.

It took 8 hours to turn a 747 that struck a snow goose on the way to
Heathrow about a decade and a half, maybe two decades, ago. And this
included getting the replacement windshield in from Washington.
However, the bird strike was reported while the airplane was still in
the air, so it may well have taken more time, time that didn't show up
in the delay.

When we boarded the airplane, it was impossible to tell that anything
had gone amiss. The cockpit didn't even smell of goose entrails,
although what usually happens in such strikes is that the goose is
pureed through the cracks in the windshield. Eeeuuugh.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[fudog50]

Not bad Mary, here is a little more about aircraft windshields and the
requirements for replacing them, and the maintenance effort. Ok, they
are laminated, and each manufacturer puts out specs on how much damage
(layers) and where the damage can occur. If the damage is in the
windshield heat section, or is in a certain structurally unsafe
section, or obscures the pilots scan (safety of flight issues) it's
outta there. It is a relatively easy replacement, the only real issues
are the hundreds of screws, the lengths, making sure you get the right
ones back in the right spot, and the sealant. If it is cold weather
obviously it's gonna take longer for it to seal. It takes additional
time to find hangar space, move assetts, do a respot if it is cold out
and you need 55 deg for a good cure, otherwise you can do it out on
the line. Then you gotta do a pressure check to check for leaks which
requires pressurization of the whole aircraft (neg) on the deck. It's
a requirement for the Navy, not sure about the civvies. I've heard
knuckleheads say, "why do a pressure check? we''ll know if it leaks
when we get to altitude." Usually we take an aircraft off the schedule
for at least 12 hours, (6-12 hours given for cure time, about 2-4
hours for maintenance and the pressure check). Anything less is a
calculable risk made with all professional entities, (ops and
maintenance) dictated by a flight schedule driven by a profit, or
mission accomplishment. Next time you see an aircraft delayed for only
8 hours for a windshield replacement, the only thing that could make
it that fast would be a sealant that has about a less than 2-4 hour
cure time. Wish we could get our hands on some with a milspec.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:59:45 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:35:56 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> wrote:
>
>
>> Mary, are there any provisions to protect the pilot on the damaged from
>> at least the annoyance of wind? If nothing else, it's going to be COLD.
>
>Usually the windows don't break. They just crack, admitting pureed
>bird*, if present. (Eeeuuugh!) In such cases, cockpit heat is good
>enough to keep the crew warm.
>
>I think, but don't know and haven't looked, that the rules require
>landing soon if the windshield is actually broken out, whereas the
>rules allow the flight to continue if it's only cracked. In the only
>case I have first-hand knowledge of, they hit the goose and cracked
>the windshield while climbing out from San Francisco and continued to
>London Heathrow.
>
>*The usual cause of windshield cracking in flight, although
>temperature stress can cause it, as can mechanical stress. The X-15
>had one of each of the latter two, for example. Like airliners,
>research aircraft rarely have any sort of battle damage, so I don't
>have any bullet strike accounts to relay for Dryden aircraft.
>
>ObMilitaryAircraft: The convertible F-18 that Bill Dana flew was the
>result of a canopy latch problem, not a bird strike or battle damage.
>I know a guy who lost a T-38 canopy in flight, again from a mechanical
>problem. In both cases, it was pretty bad, cold and windy and too
>noisy to hear anyone on the radios. The checklist says something like
>crank your seat all the way down, tighten your chin strap and O2 mask,
>announce the situation on the relevant frequencies, and land or trap.
>
>In the case of a bird strike on a high-performance airplane with
>canopy, the problem is that the canopy usually doesn't hang around
>long enough to ward off the subsequent birds, and they smack into the
>front-seat pilot's head and face. This is one of the important
>reasons why pilots are supposed to keep their clear visors down and
>locked.
>
>Mary

[fudog50]

Pureed through the windshield? Where on earth did you get that?
"usually" what happens is that only a few layers of the laminate are
destroyed. "Rarely" does anything make it through all layers and
"Rarely" would any goose puree the entrails into the cockpit. LOL


On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:01:45 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:21:05 GMT, Newps > wrote:
>
>> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>> >>There are airplanes, including 747s, that have continued to fly quite
>> >>nicely, if rather noisily in the cockpit, after striking Canada geese
>> >>with the windscreens, cracking them.
>>
>> The RJ's that everybody is flying now crack windshields like they are
>> going out of style. Just last week we had one land here so spider
>> webbed that the captain could see nothing out his side. They apparently
>> are very simple to replace as they were on the road again in less than
>> 24 hours.
>
>It took 8 hours to turn a 747 that struck a snow goose on the way to
>Heathrow about a decade and a half, maybe two decades, ago. And this
>included getting the replacement windshield in from Washington.
>However, the bird strike was reported while the airplane was still in
>the air, so it may well have taken more time, time that didn't show up
>in the delay.
>
>When we boarded the airplane, it was impossible to tell that anything
>had gone amiss. The cockpit didn't even smell of goose entrails,
>although what usually happens in such strikes is that the goose is
>pureed through the cracks in the windshield. Eeeuuugh.
>
>Mary

[Paul Stevens]

fudog50 wrote:
> Not bad Mary, here is a little more about aircraft windshields and the
> requirements for replacing them, and the maintenance effort. Ok, they
> are laminated, and each manufacturer puts out specs on how much damage
> (layers) and where the damage can occur. If the damage is in the
> windshield heat section, or is in a certain structurally unsafe
> section, or obscures the pilots scan (safety of flight issues) it's
> outta there. It is a relatively easy replacement, the only real issues
> are the hundreds of screws, the lengths, making sure you get the right
> ones back in the right spot, and the sealant. If it is cold weather
> obviously it's gonna take longer for it to seal. It takes additional
> time to find hangar space, move assetts, do a respot if it is cold out
> and you need 55 deg for a good cure, otherwise you can do it out on
> the line. Then you gotta do a pressure check to check for leaks which
> requires pressurization of the whole aircraft (neg) on the deck. It's
> a requirement for the Navy, not sure about the civvies. I've heard
> knuckleheads say, "why do a pressure check? we''ll know if it leaks
> when we get to altitude." Usually we take an aircraft off the schedule
> for at least 12 hours, (6-12 hours given for cure time, about 2-4
> hours for maintenance and the pressure check). Anything less is a
> calculable risk made with all professional entities, (ops and
> maintenance) dictated by a flight schedule driven by a profit, or
> mission accomplishment. Next time you see an aircraft delayed for only
> 8 hours for a windshield replacement, the only thing that could make
> it that fast would be a sealant that has about a less than 2-4 hour
> cure time. Wish we could get our hands on some with a milspec.
>

Our shop has done replacements where we told flight ops that the
plane needed to sit for 24 hours for the sealer to cure, but they
flew the plane in less than 12 hours. We haven't had any reports
of pressure leaks, but they did do a lot of complaining about how
the sealer was streaked down the sides of the fuselage, after the
flight.



--
Paul Stevens

Bill 'n' Opus in 2004

[Morton Davis]

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:59:45 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:35:56 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mary, are there any provisions to protect the pilot on the damaged from
> >> at least the annoyance of wind? If nothing else, it's going to be
COLD.
> >
> >Usually the windows don't break. They just crack, admitting pureed
> >bird*, if present. (Eeeuuugh!) In such cases, cockpit heat is good
> >enough to keep the crew warm.
> >
> >I think, but don't know and haven't looked, that the rules require
> >landing soon if the windshield is actually broken out, whereas the
> >rules allow the flight to continue if it's only cracked. In the only
> >case I have first-hand knowledge of, they hit the goose and cracked
> >the windshield while climbing out from San Francisco and continued to
> >London Heathrow.
> >
> >*The usual cause of windshield cracking in flight, although
> >temperature stress can cause it, as can mechanical stress. The X-15
> >had one of each of the latter two, for example. Like airliners,
> >research aircraft rarely have any sort of battle damage, so I don't
> >have any bullet strike accounts to relay for Dryden aircraft.
> >
> >ObMilitaryAircraft: The convertible F-18 that Bill Dana flew was the
> >result of a canopy latch problem, not a bird strike or battle damage.
> >I know a guy who lost a T-38 canopy in flight, again from a mechanical
> >problem. In both cases, it was pretty bad, cold and windy and too
> >noisy to hear anyone on the radios. The checklist says something like
> >crank your seat all the way down, tighten your chin strap and O2 mask,
> >announce the situation on the relevant frequencies, and land or trap.
> >
> >In the case of a bird strike on a high-performance airplane with
> >canopy, the problem is that the canopy usually doesn't hang around
> >long enough to ward off the subsequent birds, and they smack into the
> >front-seat pilot's head and face. This is one of the important
> >reasons why pilots are supposed to keep their clear visors down and
> >locked.
> >
> >Mary
>
"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> Not bad Mary, here is a little more about aircraft windshields and the
> requirements for replacing them, and the maintenance effort.

Got two words for you: RETURN KEY. Learn to use it to create paragraphs.
Otherwise, looks good.

-*MORT*-

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, fudog50
> wrote:

> Pureed through the windshield? Where on earth did you get that?
> "usually" what happens is that only a few layers of the laminate are
> destroyed. "Rarely" does anything make it through all layers and
> "Rarely" would any goose puree the entrails into the cockpit. LOL
>

Is there technology that would just admit pate?