Here's one you don't see every day

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/16/alaska-plane-kills-brown-bear-airport

It's just fortunate (for the plane) that they had already slowed to about 60 knots before impact.

[Jim147]

Any slower they might have just made it mad.

[BobR]

I was watching a bit of a new show "Ice Airport" or something like that about the airport in Anchorage. They were with a grounds guy as he was checking and patching the airport fencing to keep the bears out. So it is a known hazard. When I was stationed at NADC Warminster (North of Philadelphia in Bucks County) we Cuisinarted a deer with a P3 propeller on landing one night. Talk about a mess.   

bob

[dogmush]

This was in Yakutat, which is much smaller and more remote than Anchorage.

The real annoying part for them will be replacing the nacelle in Yak.  I don't think there's much, if any, real maintenance facilities there.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Back when I had just started taking flying lessons(1961), a pheasant flew into the prop on the takeoff roll. The instructor saw it hit the prop but I couldn't see it from my side of the cockpit. After the lesson was over, I went to find what was left of the pheasant. It was cleanly trisected. No damage to the prop.

Woody

[Hawkmoon]

This was in Yakutat, which is much smaller and more remote than Anchorage.

The real annoying part for them will be replacing the nacelle in Yak.  I don't think there's much, if any, real maintenance facilities there.

I wondered about that. I wonder if they will be allowed to fly the plane back to their maintenance shed on one engine.

[BobR]

I wondered about that. I wonder if they will be allowed to fly the plane back to their maintenance shed on one engine.

That is an interesting question, I wonder if they have a single engine ferry procedure? I would bet not, the risks would seem to outweigh the benefits. It will probably be fixed on site. My experience was with a 4 engine turboprop and for us to get permission to do a 3 engine take off and ferry flight nearly took an act of congress. Then again we were military.

bob

[dogmush]

I would imagine that they'll ferry the parts, mechanics and any tools they need to Yakutat on one of their cargo flights or a combi, and fix it there.  As a boat captain with two engines I really didn't like leaving port on one screw.  It's one thing to finish a trip if one engine fails, another to start a trip down one engine.  I can't imagine many 737 pilots would want to take off to do an over water (or over mountain range, depending) flight down an engine.

Google Map "Yakutat Airport" and they have a nice picture of the Alaska Airlines terminal so you can see what they are working with.

Perhaps Flys320s can weigh in on his thoughts.

[Hawkmoon]

Google Map "Yakutat Airport" and they have a nice picture of the Alaska Airlines terminal so you can see what they are working with.

I checked it out on Google Maps -- that's what made me wonder if they might try to ferry it home on one engine. If not that, if they determine that the damage is mostly to the outer cowl and that the engine can run, they may band-aid it together and fly it home, then do an engine replacement.

[BobR]

I would imagine that they'll ferry the parts, mechanics and any tools they need to Yakutat on one of their cargo flights or a combi, and fix it there.  As a boat captain with two engines I really didn't like leaving port on one screw.  It's one thing to finish a trip if one engine fails, another to start a trip down one engine.  I can't imagine many 737 pilots would want to take off to do an over water (or over mountain range, depending) flight down an engine.

Google Map "Yakutat Airport" and they have a nice picture of the Alaska Airlines terminal so you can see what they are working with.

Perhaps Flys320s can weigh in on his thoughts.

I agree with you on this, they will fix it on site or duct tape it together enough to make a flight. I don't believe there is any way they would do a single engine T/O and ferry. I would imagine anytime a twin jet becomes a single jet they declare an emergency with ground control for expedited handling so to take off in what would normally be an emergency condition for flight just doesn't make a lot of sense.

bob

[Fly320s]

No, no single-engine ferrying.  That is a stupid idea.... that I'd like to try.... in a sim.

Depending on the damage, they may be able to fly it out on 2 engines and fix in ANC.

[MillCreek]

No, no single-engine ferrying.  That is a stupid idea.... that I'd like to try.... in a sim.

Depending on the damage, they may be able to fly it out on 2 engines and fix in ANC.

I am reminded of Steve's (Ben's dog) morale patch on his harness: That's a terrible idea. When do we start?

[BobR]

No, no single-engine ferrying.  That is a stupid idea.... that I'd like to try.... in a sim.

Depending on the damage, they may be able to fly it out on 2 engines and fix in ANC.

We used to do stoopid stuff in the sim, like be at 10 miles out at 10K and feather all four engines and try to make the runway. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. The same with doing a loop in the P3. A lot of times it stalled right at the top of the loop, not a good place to be, except in the sim. Every one said doing four engine out stuff was ridiculous, it would never happen in a P3... don't ever say never in aviation.

http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47ditch.html#:~:text=%22A%20P%2D3C%20Ditches%20with,Engines%20Out%2C%20All%20Survive!%22&text=%22The%20fallen%20hunter%2C%20a%20P,All%2011%20crewmembers%20survived.&text=Little%20did%20we%20know%20that,worst%20P%2D3%20mishap%20ever.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950325-1


bob

[Ben]

Every one said doing four engine out stuff was ridiculous, it would never happen in a P3... don't ever say never in aviation.

A NOAA P-3 lost three engines over water back in 2007. Got them started again, but it was kind of a whack-a-mole thing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl64SPlo3tAhUcHzQIHSp2BjAQFjADegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fskybrary.aero%2Fbookshelf%2Fbooks%2F3131.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0azw_TwQvHu-83mSLVfmIA

[RoadKingLarry]

The report said there was no damage. I guess the pucker tracks on the seats faded quickly.

[Hawkmoon]

We used to do stoopid stuff in the sim, like be at 10 miles out at 10K and feather all four engines and try to make the runway. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. The same with doing a loop in the P3. A lot of times it stalled right at the top of the loop, not a good place to be, except in the sim. Every one said doing four engine out stuff was ridiculous, it would never happen in a P3... don't ever say never in aviation.

http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47ditch.html#:~:text=%22A%20P%2D3C%20Ditches%20with,Engines%20Out%2C%20All%20Survive!%22&text=%22The%20fallen%20hunter%2C%20a%20P,All%2011%20crewmembers%20survived.&text=Little%20did%20we%20know%20that,worst%20P%2D3%20mishap%20ever.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950325-1

bob

Sounds a bit like the Gimli Glider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Flying with all engines out was something that was never expected to occur, so it had never been covered in training.
...
In line with their planned diversion to Winnipeg, the pilots were already descending through 35,000 feet (11,000 m)[10] when the second engine shut down. They immediately searched their emergency checklist for the section on flying the aircraft with both engines out, only to find that no such section existed.

Well, :duh: