Westjet hits geese in Victoria

[jakeandelwood]

Well....I provided a link to a previous thread showing two crashes due to go-arounds from bird strikes. Is anyone familiar with a crash from someone who continued to land.

viewtopic.php?f=118&t=130304

I've never heard of any either, that's why I originally wondered.

[shimmydampner]

What is evident is that we all have a different opinion on what was right.

Actually, seems pretty clear most everyone agrees that landing is better than going around in this situation..

[telex]

It's quite common to pull up to try to miss larger birds, whether by accident or on purpose. (many approaches also end up with the PF pulling back subconsciously to try to better see the landing environment, it's a normal human factors issue) I wonder if in this case, the PF was attempting to miss the birds and pulled up. At a low altitude on approach it does two things: It risks putting the aircraft out of the "stabilized approach" criteria, and also into the threat of a low energy nose up situation. In this case a go around becomes mandatory in many airlines. (I don't know if WS has this in their SOP's but it would surprise me if they didn't.) A go around in this situation, as a poster above alluded to, may make YVR a better option from purely a distance and timing point of view.

Multiple birdstrikes could be considered an emergency. If the runway is reasonably long, one can cast aside the stable approach criteria(if still obviously safe to land) and use the captains emergency authority to continue the approach.

He or she better hope it was the right move if they use that "authority" and they bend tin or injure people.

See the FCTM reference provided above.
Fly through the birds and land is the manufacturer's recommendation.
Always try to follow the manufacturer's recommendation.

[pelmet]

Multiple birdstrikes could be considered an emergency. If the runway is reasonably long, one can cast aside the stable approach criteria(if still obviously safe to land) and use the captains emergency authority to continue the approach.

He or she better hope it was the right move if they use that "authority" and they bend tin or injure people.

See the FCTM reference provided above.
Fly through the birds and land is the manufacturer's recommendation.
Always try to follow the manufacturer's recommendation.

From the 747 FCTM...…

"Crew Actions for a Bird Strike During Approach or Landing
If the landing is assured, continuing the approach to landing is the preferred
option. If more birds are encountered, fly through the bird flock and land.
Maintain as low a thrust setting as possible."

As you said once....Back to school sonny;) Just kidding.

[GRK2]

He or she better hope it was the right move if they use that "authority" and they bend tin or injure people.

See the FCTM reference provided above.
Fly through the birds and land is the manufacturer's recommendation.
Always try to follow the manufacturer's recommendation.

From the 747 FCTM...…

"Crew Actions for a Bird Strike During Approach or Landing
If the landing is assured, continuing the approach to landing is the preferred
option. If more birds are encountered, fly through the bird flock and land.
Maintain as low a thrust setting as possible."

As you said once....Back to school sonny;) Just kidding.

"If the landing is assured..." the big issue here is just that, what happens if that very act of avoidance puts that 747 out of position to make a safe landing? It doesn't take much to get it all wrong in that jet. There's plenty of evidence to show that an unstable approach won't end well especially during the last 500 feet. In many types of transport category jets. It's a big part of the movement to prevent runway excursions. I agree with the FCTM's in my library (and I have a few for sure, including your example.) Having said that, it's still a very risky move to try to land off an unstable approach. I have hit birds in a flare a few times (B744 and 777) and no doubt the startle factor had an effect.
And I'm always heading back to school, not retired just yet! Sonny

[telex]

See the FCTM reference provided above.
Fly through the birds and land is the manufacturer's recommendation.
Always try to follow the manufacturer's recommendation.

From the 747 FCTM...…

"Crew Actions for a Bird Strike During Approach or Landing
If the landing is assured, continuing the approach to landing is the preferred
option. If more birds are encountered, fly through the bird flock and land.
Maintain as low a thrust setting as possible."

As you said once....Back to school sonny;) Just kidding.

"If the landing is assured..." the big issue here is just that, what happens if that very act of avoidance puts that 747 out of position to make a safe landing? It doesn't take much to get it all wrong in that jet. There's plenty of evidence to show that an unstable approach won't end well especially during the last 500 feet. In many types of transport category jets. It's a big part of the movement to prevent runway excursions. I agree with the FCTM's in my library (and I have a few for sure, including your example.) Having said that, it's still a very risky move to try to land off an unstable approach. I have hit birds in a flare a few times (B744 and 777) and no doubt the startle factor had an effect.
And I'm always heading back to school, not retired just yet! Sonny

FCTM makes no mention of the very act of avoidance. It says fly through the bird flock and land.

[pelmet]

It doesn't take much to get it all wrong in that jet. There's plenty of evidence to show that an unstable approach won't end well especially during the last 500 feet. In many types of transport category jets. It's a big part of the movement to prevent runway excursions. I agree with the FCTM's in my library (and I have a few for sure, including your example.) Having said that, it's still a very risky move to try to land off an unstable approach. I have hit birds in a flare a few times (B744 and 777) and no doubt the startle factor had an effect.

Actually, there are thousands of unstable approaches to landings every year and almost every one does end well(ie, no accident)....

"Historically, studies have reported that anywhere from 3% to 5% of all air carrier approaches are unstable and, of those, only 3% to 4% result in a go-around (rejected landing/ missed approach)."
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/rethin ... -training/

That doesn't mean I think that in general, one should continue to land from an unstable approach. But most unstable approaches are only a little bit outside of what I believe are frequently overly tight parameters or on long runways for the operation at hand. It is the grossly outside parameters approaches or smaller outside parameters situations on tight landing performance situations that result in the occasional overrun. So, it all depends on the situation and good judgement is required. If I had plenty of extra room(which is typical for most jet airline flights) I would seriously consider continuing to land after a multiple birdstrike scenario. Of course, if you don't have extra space...different story.

Which is why it is best to decide in advance to minimize any deviations from approach path if a flock of birds suddenly appears in front of you. Could be easier said than done, of course.