WASHINGTON - The ability of aircraft engines to withstand collisions with large birds and pilot training for dual engine failures are among the concerns of a federal safety panel examining the forced landing of an airliner into the Hudson River.
National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt, who will chair the three-day hearing that begins Tuesday, said the accident has made safety officials, the aviation industry and the public more aware of the growing likelihood of bird-plane collisions.
"I flew airplanes for quite a while and I worried about a lot of things, but I never really worried about birds bringing my airplane down," Sumwalt, a former airline pilot, said in an interview. "Now this has caused a whole new focus on this."
In recent decades, many bird populations — including Canada geese — have rebounded thanks partly to environmental regulations. Air travel has also soared since deregulation in the late 1970s encouraged greater competition and lower fares.
With more planes and more birds in the sky, "we have a situation here — almost a numbers game — where eventually something is going to happen," said Michael Begier, national coordinator of the Agriculture Department's airport wildlife hazards program. "We're very fortunate that Flight 1549 was not a catastrophe. It is a warning shot."
The Federal Aviation Administration is testing bird-detecting radar that may help airports manage nearby bird populations. Some experts have also suggested aircraft engines should be designed to withstand bigger birds. Newer engines on commercial airliners have to withstand an 8-pound bird, but Canada geese can weigh twice that.
Radar? Better aircraft engines? Is it just me or are they not thinking of the obvious? Some type of screen in front of the engines. Is there some reason to avoid this?
ReplyDeleteJay says: a screen would compromise airflow. Also, a bird hitting a screen would still get into the engine. Hmmmm.
ReplyDeleteI thought of the airflow bit but thought that with the technology available today they could get around that. Shape the individual "threads" of the screen so that any impeded airflow is negligible.
ReplyDeleteWell, I've done my research and every article I've looked at gave a resounding NO to my screen idea. I will not apply for a patent any longer.
ReplyDelete