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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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*-

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?