Ryanair incident at CRL on friday evening (23/6/06)

airazurxtror · Post by **airazurxtror** » 24 Jun 2006, 08:54

According to Belgian newspaper "Le Soir", an engine of the Boeing 737 operating Ryanair flight to Pisa (184 passengers), yesterday around 1915, ingested a bird at take-off and the plane had to land back at CRL.
Has anybody more infos about that incident ?

airazurxtror · Post by **airazurxtror** » 24 Jun 2006, 08:58

Sorry, I had not seen what had already been published here :
viewtopic.php?t=17344
and :
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/belgique ... eroi.shtml

Post by **sn26567** » 24 Jun 2006, 11:46

airazurxtror wrote:Sorry, I had not seen what had already been published here :
viewtopic.php?t=17344

No problem. You were the first to publish the news in English. Let's continue here!

xqxq · Post by **xqxq** » 24 Jun 2006, 13:18

When are belgian journalists, finally going to learn the difference, between a "precautionary landing" and an
"emergency landing" !! :frusty:

Greetz,

Eddy

TAF · Post by **TAF** » 24 Jun 2006, 14:21

As I mentioned on the 'dutch' topic, I was there on the CRL parking when the aircraft landed! It flew by three times over the runway before it made a safe landing. The noise it made was like a veru heavy turbiprop engine, it did not sound like a jet / B737 at all!

airazurxtror · Post by **airazurxtror** » 24 Jun 2006, 21:25

Could you please give us the registration of that plane ?

Flying-Belgian · Post by **Flying-Belgian** » 24 Jun 2006, 22:21

One engine was switched off and a precautionary landing was safely performed... As usual, much ado about nothing. When you watched RTL-TVI (yes I did I conceed

) it was like the 175 pax escaped the faces of death.

How many bird strike a day worldwide ??

FB.

Raphael747 · Post by **Raphael747** » 25 Jun 2006, 01:10

Hello all,

I was also there during the incident... and yes, the sound was really strange... just like a turboprop !

If I'm right I think it's the EI-DHS

Regards,

Raphaël

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 25 Jun 2006, 11:49

xqxq wrote:When are belgian journalists, finally going to learn the difference, between a "precautionary landing" and an
"emergency landing" !!

You are more than free to cross the word belgian from your comment - this is true for reporters from any country. And why? Just because the word emergency makes so much better numbers in hits or copies sold.

Bernhard

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 25 Jun 2006, 16:26

Our building at work suffered a birdstrike tuesday evening. A Rose-ringed parakeet smacked into it. The building did not appear to be damaged, and did not need to make a precautionary landing. The bird was unconscious for a few minutes but eventually was able to resume it's flight.

Birds can't even evade stationary obstacles, never mind a moving plane.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 26 Jun 2006, 17:29

Someone should show the journalists videos of how bird strike testing is peformed. They shoot frozen chickens at the planes with high velocity cannons. FROZEN CHICKENS. I think planes can surely survive unfrozen seagulls or whatever bird it was.

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:30

Birds can't even evade stationary obstacles, never mind a moving plane.

How true Earthman

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:34

Look at what a living kamikaze bird can do

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1047937/L/

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:58

DFW wrote:Someone should show the journalists videos of how bird strike testing is peformed. They shoot frozen chickens at the planes with high velocity cannons. FROZEN CHICKENS. I think planes can surely survive unfrozen seagulls or whatever bird it was.

I think I once saw video footage of RR shooting six ducks or so at once into an engine.

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 27 Jun 2006, 11:14

DFW wrote:Someone should show the journalists videos of how bird strike testing is peformed. They shoot frozen chickens at the planes with high velocity cannons. FROZEN CHICKENS. I think planes can surely survive unfrozen seagulls or whatever bird it was.

That must be a niche market for "frozen chicken manufacturers"

The objective is twofold:

- test the quality of the engine
- test the degree to which the chickens are frozen

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 27 Jun 2006, 14:29

That is untill Amtrak use the gun to test their new High Speed Train and forget to de-frost the chicken....

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 27 Jun 2006, 16:13

I have heard it can badly damage a nacelle if the bird is ingested while thrust reversers are extended (If the bird pieces hit the doors), don't know for grid inversers.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 27 Jun 2006, 17:18

teddybAIR wrote:
DFW wrote:Someone should show the journalists videos of how bird strike testing is peformed. They shoot frozen chickens at the planes with high velocity cannons. FROZEN CHICKENS. I think planes can surely survive unfrozen seagulls or whatever bird it was.
That must be a niche market for "frozen chicken manufacturers" The objective is twofold:

- test the quality of the engine
- test the degree to which the chickens are frozen

Catch the chicken on the other side of the engine. That's how they make Chicken McNuggets.

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 27 Jun 2006, 17:25

Catch the chicken on the other side of the engine

I depends on which flow the chicken choose

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 28 Jun 2006, 01:12

Stepha380 wrote:
Catch the chicken on the other side of the engine
I depends on which flow the chicken choose

You ask to be corrected, so it's "It" not "I", and "chooses" or "chose", not "choose".

Regarding the flow, I'd prefer it to go through the engine core, then it's nice and roasted. If it goes through the bypass flow it will only be ground up. And if it flies out the thrust reversers, you have to scrape it off whatever it splattered on (fuselage, runway, etc).