DOCSLIB.ORG

Bird Strike Damage & Windshield Bird Strike Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bird Strike Damage & Windshield Bird Strike Final Report COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE Bird Strike Damage & Windshield Bird Strike Final Report 5078609-rep-03 Version 1.1 EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE Approval & Authorisation Prepared by: N Dennis (fera) D Lyle Approved for issue R Budgey (fera) by: P Kirrane Authorised for issue A M Whitehead by: Record of Revisions Version Description of Revision 0.1 First Draft for review by EASA 0.2 Second Draft responding to EASA Comments 1.0 Draft Final Report 1.1 Final Report This document was created by Atkins Limited and the Food & Environment Research Agency under Contract Number EASA.2008.C49 Copyright vests in the European Community. ATKINS Limited The Barbican, East Street, Farnham, Surrey GU9 7TB Tel: +44 1252 738500 Fax: +44 1252 717065 www.atkinsglobal.com 5078609-rep-03, Version 1.1 Page 2 COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE Executive Summary Background to the Study This report presents the findings of a study carried out by Atkins and the UK Food & Environment Research Agency (FERA). The study was commissioned in 2009 by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), under contract number EASA.2008.C49 [1.]. Its aim was to investigate the adequacy of the current aircraft certification requirement in relation to current and future bird strike risks on aircraft structures and windshields. Bird strikes are random events. The intersection of bird and aircraft flight paths, the mass of the bird and the part of the aircraft struck are all random elements that will determine the outcome. In managing risk all that can be controlled are the design and testing of the aircraft driven by certification specifications, the aircraft’s flight profile and, to a limited extent, the populations of birds near airports. The bird strike data presented in this report covers US, Canada and UK reported bird strikes from 1990 to 2007. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain data from other countries via ICAO, but the data obtained did provide an adequate basis for analysis – approximately 11,000 incidents for which complete data on aircraft type, speed and bird species were available. The study also reviewed worldwide accident and serious incident data. Conclusions 1. Airframe bird strikes are a relatively rare cause of accidents, representing only 0.3% of the total aircraft Fatal Accident Frequency Rate from all causes. However there are significantly more airframe strikes than engine strikes (by a ratio of 4.6 to 1). 51 accidents worldwide have been identified since 1962, of which only 14 (7 of them fatal), fell within the scope of this study. All of these accidents were to CS-23 and CS-27 aircraft. Where accidents have occurred, they have usually been associated with high energy impacts – heavy birds (greater than 2 lb/0.9 kg) encountered at relatively high speed, resulting in Kinetic Energies of impact that are often several times the certification values. 2. The main conclusion from this report is that, given the reported level of accidents, the bird strike requirements in CS-25, and 29 are currently providing an adequate level of safety. However there are indications that the accident rate is increasing (although still very low), and that those species that cause the highest kinetic energy impacts are increasing in population (although the number of strikes recorded as involving the Canada Goose is reducing, this may be due to bird control measures near airports). 3. In CS-23 (excluding commuter) and CS-27 aircraft categories there are currently no specific bird strike requirements and this is reflected in a higher rate of bird strike accidents (particularly windshield penetrations). Based on the accident record to date, a pre-existing requirement that such aircraft withstand collision with a 2lb/1kg bird at 5078609-rep-03, Version 1.1 Page 3 COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE Vmo /V h may have significantly reduced the number of accidents to these categories of aircraft by 26% and 66% respectively. 4. It may, however, be difficult to engineer an effective solution to increasing the bird strike resistance of these aircraft at acceptable cost. Additionally, due to the relatively low turn over rate, a change in the regulations may take some time to be effective. The use of helmets and visors might therefore represent a more practical and timely option 5. Other conclusions are listed below. • 96% of strikes occur during take off, climb, approach and landing. Strikes en- route are much less frequent but 34% of these result in damage when they do occur. Over 800 ft altitude, strikes and damage are dominated by heavier birds such as Canada Geese and Turkey Vultures and the likelihood of damage is much higher. • The certification requirements for CS-23 Commuter Aircraft (2 lb, windshield only) and CS-29 Transport Helicopters (1 kg) result in an undesirably large proportion of bird strikes (5 to 11%) above the certification value. The equivalent value for CS-25 aircraft is around 0.3%. • Although data is very limited, it is noted that for fixed wing aircraft with certification requirements, the few accidents that have occurred are in the range 2.7 to 6.6 times the certification value. • All those accidents which have occurred have involved bird masses above 0.78kg. Most have involved very high values of Kinetic Energy, well above current certification values, and 90% of accidents involved impact KE above 1500 J. • CS-25 aircraft had the highest rate of reported bird strikes (186 per million flying hours) and the lowest proportion of damaging strikes (9%), probably due to better reporting of all strikes. CS-27 (small helicopters) had the highest proportion of strikes resulting in damage at 49% - predominately windshields. • 28% of strikes reported involved multiple birds, and for these the likelihood of damage resulting was approximately twice that for an equivalent single strike. Neither the FAA nor EASA non-engine regulations currently contain any requirements relating to multiple bird strikes of the type that may arise from bird flocking behaviour. Such multiple strikes may result in some “pre-loading” of aircraft structures and windshields and may mean that the current certification analysis and test regimes are inadequate to model this scenario. • The aircraft parts most likely to be damaged are the nose/radome/fuselage and the wing. • KE is a better indicator of damage likelihood than bird mass. The proportion of strikes with KE above the certification value appears to be a useful safety indicator. The current value for CS-25 aircraft is around 0.3%. The certification requirements for CS-23 Commuter Aircraft and CS-29 Large/Transport Helicopters result in a larger proportion of bird strikes (5-11%) above the current certification KE value, which is undesirable and posses a safety risk. • Windshield penetration was a feature of 50% of all accidents. A detailed analysis of windshield strikes showed a strong correlation between impact KE, 5078609-rep-03, Version 1.1 Page 4 COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE certification requirements and probability of damage. Increasing the certification requirement is very effective in reducing the incidence of damage. • Detailed analysis of tail strike data shows no reduction in the probability of damage resulting from the higher FAR Part 25 requirements for empennage for strikes between 1.8 and 3.6 kg. However, 100% of the 13 reported tail strikes above 3.6 kg resulted in moderate or severe damage, compared to only 47% of the strikes to wings. There have been no accidents or serious incidents identified as due to bird impact damage to the tail surfaces since the original Vickers Viscount accident in 1962 that gave rise to this requirement. Only 2.7% of reported bird strikes are to this part of the aircraft. • Apart from a single incident affecting an Airbus 320 in 1989, there have been no accidents or serious incidents causing failure of integrated avionics through shock. • The discussion on the effect of bird strikes on aircraft systems concluded that such effect involved mainly external sensors. However 180 US and 32 UK reports of bird strike damage to landing gear and associated electrical and hydraulic components were noted – approximately 7x10 -7 per flying hour based on CS-25/FAR part 25 aircraft flying hours alone (although this is likely to be a low estimate due to under reporting). Such a strike also resulted in one of the few hull loss accidents to a large transport aircraft. • VLJs have high-speed performance similar to large transport and business jets, but currently have no bird strike requirements. Given the relatively light airframe, single pilot operation and the likelihood that such aircraft will be operated from smaller regional airports and private airstrips, they may be more likely to encounter birds and less likely to be able to withstand the high KE impacts resulting. • The proportion of strikes above the certification value of KE is very similar for the CS-25 Jet and Propeller aircraft (0.27% and 0.31%). Both exhibit very low rate of accidents, so effectively there is no measurable difference in the level of safety provided by CS-25 bird strike requirements between these two categories of aircraft. This confirms that the regulations adequately address the difference in VC between the two types of aircraft. • Some aircraft have a relatively low quoted VC below 8000 ft with a rapid increase in V C above this altitude. This results in a lower value of certification KE, increasing the ratio of impact KE to certification KE for any given impact – especially at the higher speeds above 8000 ft. The effect of KE ratio as a determinant of the likelihood of damage and accidents means that such aircraft will be at increased risk.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Business & Commercial Aviation
    BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION LEONARDO AW609 PERFORMANCE PLATEAUS OCEANIC APRIL 2020 $10.00 AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation AIRCRAFT UPDATE Leonardo AW609 Bringing tiltrotor technology to civil aviation FUEL PLANNING ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Part 91 Department Inspections Is It Airworthy? Oceanic Fuel Planning Who Says It’s Ready? APRIL 2020 VOL. 116 NO. 4 Performance Plateaus Digital Edition Copyright Notice The content contained in this digital edition (“Digital Material”), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Informa. and its affiliated companies, licensors, and suppliers, and is protected by their respective copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights. Upon payment of the subscription price, if applicable, you are hereby authorized to view, download, copy, and print Digital Material solely for your own personal, non-commercial use, provided that by doing any of the foregoing, you acknowledge that (i) you do not and will not acquire any ownership rights of any kind in the Digital Material or any portion thereof, (ii) you must preserve all copyright and other proprietary notices included in any downloaded Digital Material, and (iii) you must comply in all respects with the use restrictions set forth below and in the Informa Privacy Policy and the Informa Terms of Use (the “Use Restrictions”), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Any use not in accordance with, and any failure to comply fully with, the Use Restrictions is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum possible extent. You may not modify, publish, license, transmit (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), transfer, sell, reproduce (including by copying or posting on any network computer), create derivative works from, display, store, or in any way exploit, broadcast, disseminate or distribute, in any format or media of any kind, any of the Digital Material, in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of Informa.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Load Measurement of Ballistic Gelatin Impact Using an Instrumented Tube
    NASA/TM—2012-217661 Dynamic Load Measurement of Ballistic Gelatin Impact Using an Instrumented Tube J.D. Seidt The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio J.M. Pereira Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio J.T. Hammer and A. Gilat The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio C.R. Ruggeri Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio August 2012 NASA STI Program . in Profi le Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected advancement of aeronautics and space science. The papers from scientifi c and technical NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) conferences, symposia, seminars, or other program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA. this important role. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices technical, or historical information from of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, NASA programs, projects, and missions, often organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates concerned with subjects having substantial NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access public interest. to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English- Server, thus providing one of the largest collections language translations of foreign scientifi c and of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. Results are published in both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which Specialized services also include creating custom includes the following report types: thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research results. • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of completed research or a major signifi cant phase For more information about the NASA STI of research that present the results of NASA program, see the following: programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Activity Forecasts BOWERS FIELD AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
    Chapter 3 – Aviation Activity Forecasts BOWERS FIELD AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Chapter 3 – Aviation Activity Forecasts The overall goal of aviation activity forecasting is to prepare forecasts that accurately reflect current conditions, relevant historic trends, and provide reasonable projections of future activity, which can be translated into specific airport facility needs anticipated during the next twenty years and beyond. Introduction This chapter provides updated forecasts of aviation activity for Kittitas County Airport – Bowers Field (ELN) for the twenty-year master plan horizon (2015-2035). The most recent FAA-approved aviation activity forecasts for Bowers Field were prepared in 2011 for the Airfield Needs Assessment project. Those forecasts evaluated changes in local conditions and activity that occurred since the previous master plan forecasts were prepared in 2000, and re-established base line conditions. The Needs Assessment forecasts provide the “accepted” airport-specific projections that are most relevant for comparison with the new master plan forecasts prepared for this chapter. The forecasts presented in this chapter are consistent with Bowers Field’s current and historic role as a community/regional general aviation airport. Bowers Field is the only airport in Kittitas County capable of accommodating a full range of general aviation activity, including business class turboprops and business jets. This level of capability expands the airport’s role to serve the entire county and the local Ellensburg community. The intent is to provide an updated set of aviation demand projections for Bowers Field that will permit airport management to make the decisions necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost-effective facility that meets the area’s air transportation needs.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPETITION in the AIR: BIRDS VERSUS AIRCRAFT Author(S) :Navjot S
    COMPETITION IN THE AIR: BIRDS VERSUS AIRCRAFT Author(s) :Navjot S. Sodhi Source: The Auk, 119(3):587-595. 2002. Published By: The American Ornithologists' Union DOI: 10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[0587:CITABV]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1642/0004-8038%282002%29119%5B0587%3ACITABV %5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. The Auk A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology Vol. 119 No. 3 July 2002 The Auk 119(3):587±595, 2002 PERSPECTIVES IN ORNITHOLOGY COMPETITION IN THE AIR: BIRDS VERSUS AIRCRAFT NAVJOT S. SODHI1 Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Blk S2, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore THE FIRST KNOWN aircraft fatality that was HUMAN SAFETY AND ECONOMICS directly attributable to a bird occurred in 1912, when a gull (Larus sp.) was caught in the con- Incidents.
    [Show full text]
  • No Surprises Here
    REPORT 2009 BUSINESS AIRCRAFT FLEET US were having a fire sale trying to NO SURPRISES HERE quickly get rid of their business air- craft in order to avoid government and public scrutiny, countries like Brazil were turning to Business Aviation as a business solution. The result – well, we think the numbers speak for them- selves. So yes, 2009 was a slow year for Business Aviation – as expected. The World Fleet continued to grow, although at a much slower rate than past years (the world fleet grew by seven percent last year, in comparison to this year’s 4.8 percent). And yes, Europe may have been a surprise as it navigated the crisis fairly well, but only saw a 9.7 percent increase in its fleet, which although strong is almost half the size of last year’s world-lead- ing 18 percent. But the slowdowns in Europe and the US are made up for by the 15.3, 27.1 and 13.3 percent growth rates in Africa, Asia/Middle East and South America respectively. FLEET TOTALS Ok, so we changed our minds about (As of End 2009) 2009. Business Aviation is not slowing World Fleet 29,992 down. Business Aviation is simply European Fleet 3,959 changing, shifting and going where Jet Aircraft Worldwide 17,118 business goes – building new Turboprops Worldwide 12,499 economies and ensuring that business gets done. By Nick Klenske ust take a brief glance at the Overview J numbers and it should be blatant- Let us start from the end – or as close No surprise here.
    [Show full text]
  • AC 150/5200-32B, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, 31 May 2013
    Advisory U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Circular Subject: Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes Date: 5/31/2013 AC No: 150/5200-32B Initiated by: AAS-300 Change: 1. Purpose. This Advisory Circular (AC) explains the importance of reporting collisions between aircraft and wildlife, more commonly referred to as wildlife strikes. It also explains recent improvements in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Reporting system, how to report a wildlife strike, what happens to the wildlife strike report data, how to access the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD), and the FAA’s Feather Identification program. 2. Applicability. The FAA provides the standards and practices in this AC as guidance for all public-use airports, aviation industry personnel (e.g., Air Traffic Control, pilots and airline personnel, and engine manufacturers), and others who possess strike information. The FAA strongly recommends that the above aviation representatives and others possessing strike information participate in reporting. 3. Cancellation. This AC cancels AC 150/5200-32A, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, dated December 22, 2004. 4. Background. The FAA has long recognized the threat to aviation safety posed by wildlife strikes. Each year in the United States, wildlife strikes to U.S. civil aircraft cause about $718 million in damage to aircraft and about 567,000 hours of civil aircraft down time. For the period 1990 to 2011, over 115,000 wildlife strikes were reported to the FAA. About 97 percent of all wildlife strikes reported to the FAA involved birds, about 2 percent involved terrestrial mammals, and less than 1 percent involved flying mammals (bats) and reptiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Tire Data
    Aircraft tire Engineering Data Introduction Michelin manufactures a wide variety of sizes and types of tires to the exacting standards of the aircraft industry. The information included in this Data Book has been put together as an engineering and technical reference to support the users of Michelin tires. The data is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate and complete at the time of publication. To be as useful a reference tool as possible, we have chosen to include data on as many industry tire sizes as possible. Particular sizes may not be currently available from Michelin. It is advised that all critical data be verified with your Michelin representative prior to making final tire selections. The data contained herein should be used in conjunction with the various standards ; T&RA1, ETRTO2, MIL-PRF- 50413, AIR 8505 - A4 or with the airframer specifications or military design drawings. For those instances where a contradiction exists between T&RA and ETRTO, the T&RA standard has been referenced. In some cases, a tire is used for both civil and military applications. In most cases they follow the same standard. Where they do not, data for both tires are listed and identified. The aircraft application information provided in the tables is based on the most current information supplied by airframe manufacturers and/or contained in published documents. It is intended for use as general reference only. Your requirements may vary depending on the actual configuration of your aircraft. Accordingly, inquiries regarding specific models of aircraft should be directed to the applicable airframe manufacturer.
    [Show full text]
  • ATP® Libraries Catalog
    2 ATP® Libraries Catalog Revision Date May 24 2016 ATP 101 South Hill Drive Brisbane, CA 94005 (+1) 415-330-9500 www.atp.com ATP® Policies and Legal www.atp.com/policy © Copyright 2016, ATP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of ATP. The information in this catalog is subject to change without notice.ATP, ATP Knowledge, ATP Aviation Hub, HubConnect, NavigatorV, and their respective logos, are among the registered trademarks or trademarks of ATP. All third-party trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners and ATP asserts no ownership rights to these items. iPad and iPhone are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. All original authorship of ATP is protected under U.S. and foreign copyrights and is subject to written license agreements between ATP and its subscribers. Visit www.atp.com/policy for more information ATP Customer Support Please visit www.atp.com/support for customer support information ATP® Libraries Catalog – Revision Date: May 24 2016 3 CONTENTS CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 REGULATORY LIBRARIES .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anexo Ii: Datos De Tráfico Y Trayectorias
    MAPAS ESTRATÉGICOS DE RUIDO DE LOS GRANDES AEROPUERTOS. FASE III. MEMORIA TÉCNICA ANEXO II: DATOS DE TRÁFICO Y TRAYECTORIAS Julio 2017 AEROPUERTO DE TENERIFE SUR MAPAS ESTRATÉGICOS DE RUIDO DE LOS GRANDES AEROPUERTOS. FASE III. MEMORIA TÉCNICA 1. COMPOSICIÓN DE LA FLOTA. AEROPUERTO DE TENERIFE SUR Tabla AII. 1. Composición de la flota INDICATIVO TIPO DE AERONAVES CÓDIGO INM % OACI A310 AIRBUS A-310 A310-304 0,0575 A319 AIRBUS A-319 A319-131 1,0164 A320 AIRBUS A-320 A320-211 20,0208 A321 AIRBUS A-321 A321 14,2917 A332 AIRBUS A-330-200 A330-301 0,2653 A333 AIRBUS A-330-300 A330-301 0,9077 A343 AIRBUS A-340-300 A340-211 0,0160 AN12 ANTONOV An-12 C130 0,0128 AN26 ANTONOV An-26 AN26 0,0032 ASTR IAI 1125 Gulfstream G100 IA1125 0,0703 AT45 AEROSPATIALE ATR-42-500 ATR42 0,0016 AT46 AEROSPATIALE ATR-42-600 DHC830 0,0016 AT72 AEROSPATIALE ATR-72 ATR72 0,1055 AT75 AEROSPATIALE ATR-72-500 ATR72 1,5949 AT76 AEROSPATIALE ATR-72-600 ATR72 0,0447 B190 BEECH 1900 BEC190 1,4447 B350 BEECH 300 (B300) Super King Air 350 BEC300 0,0368 B712 BOEING 717-200 717200 0,4794 B733 BOEING 737-300 737300 0,8198 B734 BOEING 737-400 737400 0,2269 B735 BOEING 737-500 737500 0,0975 B737 BOEING 737-700 737700 2,5154 B738 BOEING 737-800 737800 47,4311 B739 BOEING 737-900 737900 0,1231 B744 BOEING 747-400 (international winglets) 747400 0,0016 B748 BOEING 747-8 7478 0,0032 B752 BOEING 757-200 757RR 3,7555 B753 BOEING 757-300 757300 1,6380 B762 BOEING 767-200 767CF6 0,0096 B763 BOEING 767-300 767300 0,6984 B772 BOEING 777-200 777200 0,0128 Julio 2017 AEROPUERTO DE TENERIFE SUR AII.1 MAPAS ESTRATÉGICOS DE RUIDO DE LOS GRANDES AEROPUERTOS.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Hazard Management
    Deer Hazards Reporting Wildlife Strikes Deer and other mammals pose an extreme The FAA has a standard form (FAA Form hazard to aircraft due to their size and the 5200-7) for the voluntary reporting of bird and possibility of a strike during the critical flight other wildlife strikes with aircraft. To improve periods of takeoff and landing. Airports offer an the ease of reporting, strikes can also be excellent habitat for deer and the possibility for reported via the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/ Wildlife wildlife incursions is a potential threat at many documentLibrary/media/form/faa5200-7.pdf. Wisconsin airports. Deer are most active in the It is very important that strikes be reported Hazard early morning and evening by anyone who has knowledge of the strike. It and pilots should take is important to include as much information as extra precaution during possible on FAA Form 5200-7. The Management operations at these time identification of the species of wildlife struck is periods. particularly important. Bird strike remains that can not be identified can be identified by a Pilot Actions local biologist or by sending feather remains in a sealed bag with FAA Form 5200-7 to: Check NOTAMs and airport directories for Federal Aviation Administration information regarding deer activity. If Office of Airport Safety and Standards unsure call ahead by telephone or unicom for deer advisories. AAS-310 800 Independence Avenue, SW Use landing lights during takeoff and Washington, DC 20591 landing. Make a low approach to determine if any deer are present. If necessary, have airport personnel, if available, disperse deer before landing.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2019 Vol
    BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION PILOT REPORT: GLOBAL 7500 CABIN APRIL 2019 $10.00 www.bcadigital.com Business & Commercial Aviation PILOT REPORT OZONE WORK/LIFE BALANCE APRIL 2019 VOL. 115 NO. 4 Global 7500 A bespoke, personal flying flagship without equal ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Bad Ideas Distracted, Disoriented and Wrongly Determined Balancing Work and Life in Business Aviation Cabin Ozone Digital Edition Copyright Notice The content contained in this digital edition (“Digital Material”), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Informa. and its affiliated companies, licensors, and suppliers, and is protected by their respective copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights. Upon payment of the subscription price, if applicable, you are hereby authorized to view, download, copy, and print Digital Material solely for your own personal, non-commercial use, provided that by doing any of the foregoing, you acknowledge that (i) you do not and will not acquire any ownership rights of any kind in the Digital Material or any portion thereof, (ii) you must preserve all copyright and other proprietary notices included in any downloaded Digital Material, and (iii) you must comply in all respects with the use restrictions set forth below and in the Informa Privacy Policy and the Informa Terms of Use (the “Use Restrictions”), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Any use not in accordance with, and any failure to comply fully with, the Use Restrictions is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum possible extent. You may not modify, publish, license, transmit (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), transfer, sell, reproduce (including by copying or posting on any network computer), create derivative works from, display, store, or in any way exploit, broadcast, disseminate or distribute, in any format or media of any kind, any of the Digital Material, in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of Informa.
    [Show full text]
  • An Airlines Perspective by Capt Andrew Carroll Ryanair
    Captain Andrew Carroll Safety Services Office © Ryanair 2014 Birdstrike Hazard Mitigation and Analysis © Ryanair 2014 15th January 2009 © Ryanair 2014 © Ryanair 2014 © Ryanair 2014 © Ryanair 2014 Costs Of A Birdstrike - Operational EU passenger compensation rules: 261/2004 Cost of refreshments if a flight is delayed ( X 189) Up to €400 per passenger if a flight is cancelled ( X 189) Overnight accommodation and transportation cost ( X 195) Wet lease operating cost for a replacement aircraft ~€10,000 per hour 7 © Ryanair 2014 Ryanair’s Network 200 airports 32 countries 1,600+ routes 113m pax p.a. 369 x B737-800’s 320 x B737s on order Over 2000 sectors per day 8 © Ryanair 2014 Recognising the risk © Ryanair 2014 SMS Mental Model Safety Policy & Objectives SMS © Ryanair 2014 Risk Mitigation Using the Bow Tie Methodology © Ryanair 2014 Example of a Full Bow Tie Analysis © Ryanair 2014 Post Event Mitigation Controls © Ryanair 2014 Post Event Mitigation Controls Airframe impact/Engine system malfunctions • Aircraft and system design • Standard operating procedures • Flight crew normal checklist • Captain’s inspection and release to service if there is no damage • QRH Non normal checklists • Recurrent flight crew training © Ryanair 2014 Threats To Ryanair Operations © Ryanair 2014 ARMS Methodology © Ryanair 2014 EU no 139/2014 ADR.OPS B.020 © Ryanair 2014 REPORTING “Without data, you don’t have an SMS” Captain D Maurino Safety Management Advisor, ICAO © Ryanair 2014 Ryanair Risk Assessment Model The Ryanair bird strike risk assessment
    [Show full text]