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

[B2431]

>From: "=> Vox Populi ©" Vox Populi ©" >
>Date: 1/14/2004 1:31 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Arnold Wolfcaste wrote:
>> "Yardpilot" > wrote in message
>> news:<zhpMb.29488$na.23347@attbi_s04>...
>>> Those delightfully quirky fellows on Myth Busters decided to play
>>> explosive
>>> decompression from a gunshot with a DC-9. They pressurized it and
>>> fired
>>> through the skin from the inside. Nothing. They pressurized it and
>>> fired
>>> through a window. Nothing. Oh, well. Looks like a big, "Neener!
>>> Neener" goes
>>> out to certain folks.
>
>Sure numbnuts, try it in actual flight and see:
>
>By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune
>WASHINGTON - Investigators were sifting Tuesday through a small, blackened
>crater in a South Dakota pasture where the private jet carrying the golfer
>Payne
>Stewart and five other people had crashed, ending an eerie flight that
>millions
>of people, including Mr. Stewart's wife, had followed live on television.
>Bodies still were being recovered from the site.
>
>The Lear 35 had taken off Monday in Orlando, Florida, on a flight that was
>supposed to carry Mr. Stewart, a two-time U.S. Open champion, to a Houston
>golf
>tournament.
>
>But it soon deviated from its flight plan, heading due northwest and
>apparently
>soaring far above the altitudes for which it normally is certified.
>Air-traffic
>controllers were unable to summon any response by radio.
>
>As the plane continued on a doomed 1,400-mile (2250-kilometer) trajectory
>across
>the U.S. heartland, its windows frozen over and its passengers quite possibly
>dead, military jets were scrambled to shadow it, and news reports followed
>its
>progress. People in the Dakotas, directly on its path, kept one wary eye on
>their televisions, another on the skies.
>
>Among those listening in horror was Mr. Stewart's wife, Tracey, a native of
>Australia. From their home in Orlando, she tried to reach her husband via
>cellular phone, according to her brother, Mike Ferguson.
>
>''It's just really bad for my sister to be watching it on CNN, knowing that
>it
>was her husband on board,'' he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
>
>Mr. Stewart, whose knickers and colorful tam-o'-shanters made him one of the
>most recognized of professional golfers, was co-owner of the plane.
>
>Also on the plane were his agents, Robert Fraley and Van Ardan, and the
>pilots,
>Michael Kling and Stephanie Bellegarrigue. Bruce Borland, a golf-course
>designer
>who worked for the professional golfer Jack Nicklaus, was aboard as well, Mr.
>Nicklaus said.
>
>Officials with the National Transportation Safety Board, who flew Monday to
>Mina, South Dakota, in the north-central part of the state, said it might be
>some time before an explanation emerged.
>
>''It's not going to be an easy investigation,'' said Robert Francis, vice
>chairman of the safety board. ''It looks like the aircraft was pretty much
>vertical when it hit the ground. The ground is soft, and it went in fairly
>deep.''
>
>The crash site, in the middle of a flat wheat field, was cordoned off. Black
>cows grazed nearby as about 20 investigators in blue, yellow and white
>jumpsuits
>sifted through the tangled debris.
>
>Aviation specialists speculated that the plane might have suffered a sudden
>decompression at high altitude, which could have rendered the two pilots, as
>well as the passengers, unconscious within seconds. In that scenario,
>bitterly
>cold stratospheric air, minus 70 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 56 centigrade) at
>the
>altitudes involved, could have rushed into the plane, causing windows to fog
>and
>freeze.
>

"Aviation specialists" also speculated the aircraft's pressurization had failed
at a low altitude and the passengers and crew simply went to sleep not knowing
why.

If your "aviation specialists" were correct at least one pilot would have had
time to put his oxygen mask on. Please note the USAF pilots saw no evidence of
explosive decompression which should have left some evidence on the exterior:
ripped skin, blown window, blown hatch etc. There is a big difference between
explosive and sudden decompressions.

Now how about quoting from the final accident report?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

(Rick Durden) wrote:

>Evidence examined thus far indicates that the Payne Stewart crash was
>decompression, but not explosive. The old Lears had some interesting
>systems and according to some reports the company had not maintained
>its airplanes all that well or worked off some of the squawks. Those
>who have flown the old Lears can give a number of different scenarios
>that would generate the gradual loss of cabin pressure that doomed the
>Stewart flight.

Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
it crashed.

Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
the previous week.

According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.

In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.

[fudog50]

Yes,
I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:36:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

(Rick Durden) wrote:
>
>>Evidence examined thus far indicates that the Payne Stewart crash was
>>decompression, but not explosive. The old Lears had some interesting
>>systems and according to some reports the company had not maintained
>>its airplanes all that well or worked off some of the squawks. Those
>>who have flown the old Lears can give a number of different scenarios
>>that would generate the gradual loss of cabin pressure that doomed the
>>Stewart flight.
>
>Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
>who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
>it crashed.
>
>Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
>tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
>space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
>the previous week.
>
>According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
>baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
>at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
>mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
>off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
>cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.
>
>In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
>interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
>the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.
>

[Mike Marron]

>fudog50 > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
>>who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
>>it crashed.

>>Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
>>tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
>>space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
>>the previous week.

>>According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
>>baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
>>at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
>>mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
>>off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
>>cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.

>>In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
>>interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
>>the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.

>Yes,
>I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
>22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
>time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
>I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
>swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
>pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
>hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
>everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
>that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
>that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
>happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
>climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
>cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".

As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
in 1999.

[John Mullen]

Mike Marron wrote:

>>fudog50 > wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>
>>>Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
>>>who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
>>>it crashed.
>
>
>>>Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
>>>tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
>>>space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
>>>the previous week.
>
>
>>>According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
>>>baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
>>>at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
>>>mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
>>>off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
>>>cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.
>
>
>>>In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
>>>interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
>>>the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.
>
>
>>Yes,
>>I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
>>22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
>>time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
>>I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
>>swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
>>pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
>>hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
>>everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
>>that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
>>that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
>>happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
>>climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
>>cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".
>
>
> As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
> ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
> how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
> symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
> discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
> mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
> in 1999.

I reckon the pilots weren't wearing O2 masks. ISTR on a small plane at
high alt, at least one is supposed to wear one at all times, to prevent
just this type of crash.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1999/991025-1.htm

Crew incapacitation due to a loss of cabin pressurization about 20mins
after departure. Continued flight for almost 2h40min before spiralling
out of control, crashing in an open field. Among the passengers was
professional golfer Payne Stewart.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "Incapacitation of the flight crewmembers as a result of
their failure to receive supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin
pressurization, for undetermined reasons. "

[Michael Williamson]

Mike Marron wrote:
>>fudog50 > wrote:

> As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
> ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
> how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
> symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
> discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
> mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
> in 1999.
>

It is especially strange given that there is an altitude alerter
horn which goes off when the cabin exceeds about 10,000' pressure
altitude (IIRC, one thing the recovered CVR tape showed was that
the warning horn was sounding, confirming that the cabin pressure
had in fact exceeded 10,000'), which should have warned the crew of
any insidious problem before they became unable to respond.

Mike

[Mike Marron]

(Arnold Wolfcaste) wrote:

>Stewart's plane supposedly had a slow leak due to poor maintainance.
>The crew and passengers passed out due to lack of oxygen.

>http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/10/26/stewart.crash.sp/

Keyword: "supposedly." And what was the final outcome of the Stewart
families lawsuit against SunJet Aviation?

>I know someone who has worked on military jets, small exec jets like
>lears and high end modern sorts cars. He said modern sports cars like
>Porsches are light years ahead of Lears and other exec jets in
>technology.

Your friend is wrong. Recall Porsche's failed attempt to build a
successful reciprocating aviation engine back in the late 80's.
Yeah, it was a giant leap forward in technology alright -- and
it crashed and burned with a resounding THUD.

The Porsche engine was a dismal failure because it offered an
increase in weight but a decrease in performance. Not only that, the
Porsche engine cost more and burned more gas than a Continental
or Lycoming aircraft engine.

In other words, what your mechanic friend doesn't seem to understand
is that unlike car drivers, airplane drivers couldn't care less about
how flashy or modern a piece of technology is. What we care about is
how well it does its job. The so-called "high-tech" Porsche engine
was just another seemingly good idea to introduce "high-tech"
automotive technology into aviation only to collide with the need for
stark simplicity in aircraft development.

Now, where you CAN see useful advances in aircraft technology that
the automobile world drools over is in avionics. For example, Chelton
Flight Systems has received FAA approval for its "Highway in the Sky"
aircraft navigation pictoral. NASA has been able to teach non-pilots
to navigate an airplane in only a few hours using this new technology.
The Chelton Heads Up Display (HUD) symbology used in the FlightLogic
system for General Aviation aircraft rivals that of even the most
sophisticated jet fighters.

>He left commercial aviation because companies would cut corners on
>maintaining the exec jets. This is why Payne Stewart died.

As an former commercial, single-pilot IFR guy I'm thoroughly familiar
with how charter outfits and flight training schools routinely cut
corners on maintenance. However, I haven't seen any definitive proof
that this is the reason Payne Stewart died.

--
Mike Marron
CFII, Commercial, Multi-Engine, Instrument, A&P

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
>ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
>how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
>symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
>discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
>mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
>in 1999.
>
>
Gee...this makes no sense to me, mind you I know very little
about the Lear 35 but isn't there any indications of the cabin
altitude built into the pressurization controller?, Or do you
suppose that two experienced pilots would just ignore their cabin
altitude?, doesn't compute to me.

What you say about hypoxia effects aren't noticeable by the
victim, an observer (not so affected) may see some however.
You should try a 'chambre ride' sometime, quite surprising.
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:35:52 GMT, S. R. Sheffield > wrote:

>On 16 Jan 2004 12:46:26 -0800, (Jim) wrote:
>
>>Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in message >...
>>
>>> >They are, but if one slips through, would you rather the NEXT response
>>> >be a Glock-armed pilot, or an AMRAAM-armed F-16?
>>
>>> Remember that the passengers themselves are a line of defense too. I
>>> expect that the pilots will only hear of a hijacking attempt after the
>>> passengers finish tying him up.
>>
>>Fine, They are, but if one slips through, would you rather the NEXT response
>>be a Glock-armed pilot, or an AMRAAM-armed F-16?
>>
>>Jim
>Glock armed pilot.
>
>SRS
>
>(There's always THAT last response)
>
Actually, I would prefer a pilot armed with a *real* weapon.

Al Minyard

[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?