TonyWilliams

With unsecured cabin crew wandering around, or pax, aggressively missing birds and breaking some bones in the back will likely get some very close scrutiny.

Chief Pilot: Why did you put 3g's on the plane, and pin your cabin crew on the ceiling, breaking Betty's leg?

Captain: Uh, I saw some birds; didn't want to end up like Sully.

CP; Hey, great, why don't you take a week off (without pay) and then tell me about it, again, then.

Captain: I want my union rep!!!!

CP: Roger that.

USMCFLYR

- Thought that may be the case. I'm guessing that even with everyone safely belted in that there wouldn't be too much maneuvering possible in an airliner - especially when trying to miss a FLOCK of birds.

Using the same reasoning above - imagine the response of some that would be - 'well he maneuvered INTO the path of that one bird. If he hadn't moved then he would have missed it!'



USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

Give me a break - I had no idea when I clicked on this thread there would be people suggesting that the US Air crew was at fault for not avoiding the birds.

USMC - I think you can theorize that aggressive maneuvering to avoid a flock of birds is not always possible, especially when still slow and configured or just cleaning up after takeoff. Going with the odds, rolling an A320 to 60 degrees of bank or trying to aggressively pitch the nose up (with the whopping 2 or so g's it will give you) is more dangerous for passenger aircraft than hitting the bird - kind of like swerving a car to avoid an animal. Had they seen the birds in time, of course they would have maneuvered to avoid - but, last minute avoidance maneuvers in an A320 are not like they are in an F-18.

Even considering that Skiles was the PF - a composite cross-check is 80% out and 20% in. He is still monitoring control, performance, and navigation instruments to ensure he is complying with the desired parameters. There is no HUD on the A320 for the FO. The 80% that he is outside is divided between looking for factor traffic, etc. Also, what was the aspect angle of the birds? Jinrai is an [..] with his "geese are easy to see at 250 kts" comment. Really? How much experience does he have seeing geese at 250 kts? Is he relying on all of your experience seeing them from the ground at a 90 degree aspect at a range of 1000' maximum? It takes less than 3 seconds to close 1,000' at 250 kts - don't forget to subtract the time it takes to recognize that what they are, that they are a threat, and determine an avoidance maneuver (even aborts get 3 seconds decision time). What is the detection range of a flock of geese that are co-altitude and 180 out from you flying straight towards you, or straight away from you - probably less than 1,000'? I think the ass-end cross-section of a goose is about 64 square-inches at most with a lack of contrast to boot depending on the background. I sure hope you really are as good a pilot as you think you are.

In short, to fault them for not seeing and avoiding the birds before impact is ridiculous.

EDIT: Sorry USMC, you posted in the time I typed the reply - I did recognize you were asking a question you likely knew an answer to.

Beagle Pilot

Not commenting on USAir 1549 since I have no idea on the visibility or what they could or could not see.

Most birds or bird flocks are too hard to see until it's too late. If a bird or flock is seen and it appears to be a danger, a simple pull up to miss it by a few feet is about all we can do. It's a good reason to leave the cabin crew in their seats until above 10,000. Mostly it's just the "Big sky, little bird" theory.

I've plowed through flocks on the takeoff roll (aborted) and landing roll-out. Nothing to do except go through them. Pigeons and dove are really, really stupid birds.

dojetdriver

When requested to see the chief pilot about an issue, ALWAYS go in with a union rep first, never after. That is unless the rep specifically called you and said you won't need representation.

USMCFLYR

Here is another update to different ways of approaching birds - or rather bird avoidance.

I was having a discussion about the use of the taxi/landing light. In my previous flying it was a mandatory use and one of the primary reasons was for bird avoidance. Another person piped up and said that he didn't use the taxi/landing light because the light attracted more bugs, and the birds were atttracted to the increase in the bugs and therefore were more likely to come towards your airplane!

Six of one, half dozen of another OR everyone has an opinion?
Rock and a hard place. Decisions, decisions.

USMCFLYR

dojetdriver

Believe it or not, some places teach to turn on the radar for bird avoidance.

Phrog Phlyer

That was proven in an USAF study to not work.

Illuminating the aircraft does have some effect. Anything which increases the aircraft's visibility to birds is good. Even if bugs are attracted to the light and birds like bugs, if the birds can see the bugs being chased by a 250 knot big metal bird, then they will probably get out of the way.

shfo

I believe pulse lights have been proven to scare birds away. Of course only southwest, Horizon and business jets have them installed.

dojetdriver

I didn't say it worked, just saying some places teach it.

Not sure about that, on a clear VFR day with the plane lit up in full disco/lights a shinein' mode, on final I'd hardly say birds are scurrying away from the path of the aircraft.

As an example, go into someplace like JFK sometime with that animal refuge for 31L. Had to adjust the flight path plenty of times while going in there multiple times in a day.

Going into MZT the other day was the same story.