Unreal bird strike

[William Hung[_2_]]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related

The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is real.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-be6a-
:

> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>
> The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is real.

Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .

Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 3:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-be6a-
> :
>
> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>
> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is real.
>
> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>
> Bertie

Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-9b36-
:

> On Jan 5, 3:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
be6a-
>> :
>>
>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>>
>> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is
real.
>>
>> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>

Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
"go" without any question about it.
First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust on
the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have firewalled
them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust. they were
probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened. Note, the full
thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot would
have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would have
spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling would
ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing operators
these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is actually
burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items startinf with
the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever affected engine to
idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire switch to pull and
then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first one bottle of
extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each item, the
handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust lever,
switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up and
shutting down the wrong one.
By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order to
tidy the airplane up for landing.


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 5, 3:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-9b36-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 3:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
> be6a-
> >> :
>
> >> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>
> >> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is
> real.
>
> >> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>
> Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
> and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
> The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
> The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
> place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
> "go" without any question about it.
> First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
> failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
> engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
> rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust on
> the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have firewalled
> them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust. they were
> probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened. Note, the full
> thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
> Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot would
> have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would have
> spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling would
> ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing operators
> these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is actually
> burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items startinf with
> the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever affected engine to
> idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire switch to pull and
> then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first one bottle of
> extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each item, the
> handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust lever,
> switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up and
> shutting down the wrong one.
> By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
> level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
> If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
> flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order to
> tidy the airplane up for landing.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, great explanation. Thank you Bertie.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in news:7ffac1f4-97e1-4fa3-8378-
:

> On Jan 5, 3:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote in news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-
9b36-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 5, 3:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
>> be6a-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>>
>> >> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is
>> real.
>>
>> >> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>>
>> Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
>> and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
>> The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
>> The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
>> place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
>> "go" without any question about it.
>> First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
>> failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
>> engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
>> rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust
on
>> the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have firewalled
>> them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust. they were
>> probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened. Note, the
full
>> thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
>> Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot
would
>> have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would have
>> spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling would
>> ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing
operators
>> these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is actually
>> burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items startinf
with
>> the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever affected engine to
>> idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire switch to pull and
>> then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first one bottle of
>> extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each item, the
>> handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust lever,
>> switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up and
>> shutting down the wrong one.
>> By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
>> level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
>> If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
>> flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order
to
>> tidy the airplane up for landing.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wow, great explanation. Thank you Bertie.
>

No prob! It's easy. I have to make that explanation every time I fly.


Bertie>

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> William Hung > wrote in news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-9b36-
> :
>
>> On Jan 5, 3:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
> be6a-
>>> :
>>>
>>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>>>
>>> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is real.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>
> Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
> and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
> The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
> The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
> place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
> "go" without any question about it.
> First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
> failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
> engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
> rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust on
> the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have firewalled
> them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust. they were
> probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened. Note, the full
> thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
> Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot would
> have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would have
> spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling would
> ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing operators
> these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is actually
> burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items startinf with
> the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever affected engine to
> idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire switch to pull and
> then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first one bottle of
> extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each item, the
> handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust lever,
> switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up and
> shutting down the wrong one.
> By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
> level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
> If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
> flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order to
> tidy the airplane up for landing.

You left Anthony in the dust at "non-handling pilot".

Here's another thought experiment for him: You are the NHP in a real cockpit and incur a
bird-strike flameout right after rotation.

1. Which will you do first: #1 in your pants, or #2 in your pants?

2. What will be your last words on the CVR, "Oh, ****!" or "Merde!"?

3. Who inherits the rice cooker?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:n1Ufj.2328$qV.1876@trnddc03:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Hung > wrote in
>> news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-9b36-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 3:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
>> be6a-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is
>>>> > real.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>>
>> Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
>> and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
>> The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
>> The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
>> place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
>> "go" without any question about it.
>> First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
>> failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
>> engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
>> rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust
>> on the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have
>> firewalled them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust.
>> they were probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened.
>> Note, the full thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
>> Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot
>> would have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would
>> have spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling
>> would ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing
>> operators these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is
>> actually burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items
>> startinf with the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever
>> affected engine to idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire
>> switch to pull and then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first
>> one bottle of extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each
>> item, the handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust
>> lever, switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up
>> and shutting down the wrong one.
>> By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
>> level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
>> If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
>> flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order
>> to tidy the airplane up for landing.
>
> You left Anthony in the dust at "non-handling pilot".


Well, the non handling part should be right up his street.

>
> Here's another thought experiment for him: You are the NHP in a real
> cockpit and incur a bird-strike flameout right after rotation.
>
> 1. Which will you do first: #1 in your pants, or #2 in your pants?
>
> 2. What will be your last words on the CVR, "Oh, ****!" or "Merde!"?
>
> 3. Who inherits the rice cooker?
>


Bwsahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahw!


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 5, 2:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:f03d3e7c-260e-40d5-9b36-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 3:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote in news:4a5c2933-0efd-4acc-
> be6a-
> >> :
>
> >> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE&feature=related
>
> >> > The beginning of the vid looks so unreal, but apparently it is
> real.
>
> >> Yeah, it's real. Herons, I think .
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Looks like they took awhile to shut off the fuel to #2 engine.
>
> Yeah, it's not a priority, really. the engine is on fire all the time
> and from the look of it it was still producing thrust anyway.
> The procedure is this ( though it varies form airline to airline)
> The takeoff was more than likely done at rduced thrust in the first
> place. Looks like the ingestion happend just after rotation so it was
> "go" without any question about it.
> First thing is the non handling pilot calls out the nature of the
> failure. in this case, he probably just said "engine failure, right
> engine" and nothing else is done except to raise the gear at positive
> rate and cancel any aural warnings. the next is to select full thrust on
> the live engine. If they had RR engines, they would have firewalled
> them, if it was Pratts, thye would have set max TO thrust. they were
> probably passing about 200 feet when all this happened. Note, the full
> thrust thing is not required, just nice to do.
> Next, after they were stablised in the climb, they handling pilot would
> have asked to confirm the nature of the problem. the NH would have
> spelled out what he thinks it is in detail and the non handling would
> ask for the engine fire checklist (this is used by most boeing operators
> these days for all engine probs whether or not the engne is actually
> burning) The NH woudl initiate it using the memory items startinf with
> the autothrottle switch to off, the thrust lever affected engine to
> idle, the start switch ( fuel) to off and th efire switch to pull and
> then if there is a fire, to rotate to fire first one bottle of
> extinguishant then the second after 30 seconds. At each item, the
> handling pilot must confirm that he has the correct thrust lever,
> switch, whatever, so as to minimise the chance of screwing up and
> shutting down the wrong one.
> By the time al this is done, you're easily at 1,000' and it's time to
> level off and accelerate, cleaning up.
> If you're coing straight back though, it;s probably best to leave the
> flaps where they are and get into the remeaining checklists in order to
> tidy the airplane up for landing.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>

I have read that the 737 has a higher takeoff weight than landing
weight -- ie you could takeoff heavier than you could land.

Is that so? Is it just a recommendation? If this were to happen in a
737 and you need to land right away, is the weight issue blown off?
(which leads me to suspect that it can be blown off, ie, it is a
recommendation). If not, why would you ever take off heavier than you
could successfully land?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:b01bd161-e97f-43f4-8ce3-f20a5a073705
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>
> I have read that the 737 has a higher takeoff weight than landing
> weight -- ie you could takeoff heavier than you could land.

Yeah, they all do.

>
> Is that so? Is it just a recommendation? If this were to happen in a
> 737 and you need to land right away, is the weight issue blown off?

Yes, you just log it and there is an inspection. Depends on the type, but
it could take three minutes or hours, depending.

> (which leads me to suspect that it can be blown off, ie, it is a
> recommendation). If not, why would you ever take off heavier than you
> could successfully land?
>

To make money hauling ****, of course!

There are two reasons for the lower landing weight. one is structural. The
flaps are out further and the strain on the airframe is larger during
approach. Two, if you bang it onto the runway, the stresses from the higher
wieghts could damage the thing and the other reason can be peformance. the
airplane won't climb as readily with approach flap out. The performance one
is not usually an issue, though. Mostly only if you'r ehot and high or
there are obstacles in the go around.

We can dump fuel n a lot of airplanes for this very reason. The 737 does
not have this facility, though. Mostly it's a long haul thing.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I have read that the 737 has a higher takeoff weight than landing
> weight -- ie you could takeoff heavier than you could land.

That is true for a great many aircraft, especially large aircraft.

> Is that so? Is it just a recommendation? If this were to happen in a
> 737 and you need to land right away, is the weight issue blown off?

It's a strong recommendation. You can either dump fuel until you are under
the maximum landing weight, or you can land overweight. In the latter case,
however, you risk structural damage to the aircraft, which is why the
limitation on landing weight exists.

> If not, why would you ever take off heavier than you could successfully land?

Because you might have a full load of fuel that you'll burn off during the
flight.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> I have read that the 737 has a higher takeoff weight than landing
>> weight -- ie you could takeoff heavier than you could land.
>
> That is true for a great many aircraft, especially large aircraft.
>
>> Is that so? Is it just a recommendation? If this were to happen in a
>> 737 and you need to land right away, is the weight issue blown off?
>
> It's a strong recommendation. You can either dump fuel until you are
> under the maximum landing weight, or you can land overweight. In the
> latter case, however, you risk structural damage to the aircraft,
> which is why the limitation on landing weight exists.
>
>> If not, why would you ever take off heavier than you could
>> successfully land?
>
> Because you might have a full load of fuel that you'll burn off during
> the flight.
>



Nope.



Bertie