5 ms·

I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't

by omni 11y ago

I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem on your hands.

hooo 11y ago
No, that's not true at all. Jet engines can typically handle many birds. The AA flight that landed in the Hudson was unique in that it went through a large flock of Canadian geese, which are very large birds. I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.
- code4tee 11y ago
  Birds aren't packed full of lithium ion batteries...
- ksherlock 11y ago
  It doesn't surprise me that military pilots aren't afraid of drones. They're not even afraid of flying into a 1000 pound airplane. Maybe if his plane didn't have an ejection seat... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-force-veteran-disagrees-about-the-f-16-cessna-crash/399437/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-f...
Someone1234 11y ago
> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem." It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop. While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them (in particular during take-off/landing). Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above 250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going to regulate them?! PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.
- delecti 11y ago
  I think most people would exclude air and water from "anything getting sucked into a jet turbine". On the other hand, particulates can be a problem depending on scale, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions spewing ash that grounds planes. Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    To be extra pedantic, Canada assigns birth nationality by both jus soli and jus sanguinis to the first generation born elsewhere. So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there. A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.
- commandar 11y ago
  >While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight. >PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two. Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York: >To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-term_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-te...
clarkmoody 11y ago
5-year old video, but it shows some of the tests jet engines undergo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU
sylvinus 11y ago
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun
deathanatos 11y ago
Jet engine manufacturers run tests, one of which is throwing a chicken at high velocity into the engine. You can find videos[1][2] on YouTube; "bird ingestion test" is what these are called, it seems. (Also, my understanding is that they test with whole chickens, which I hope you're not very likely to run into with an aircraft.) I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2). See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  > "Chicken gun"[3]. I've also heard it called a "rooster booster" :)
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That second video is apparently not of a bird ingestion but of a containment test in case of turbine failure.

by omni 11y ago

hooo 11y ago

No, that's not true at all. Jet engines can typically handle many birds. The AA flight that landed in the Hudson was unique in that it went through a large flock of Canadian geese, which are very large birds. I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.

code4tee 11y ago
Birds aren't packed full of lithium ion batteries...
ksherlock 11y ago
It doesn't surprise me that military pilots aren't afraid of drones. They're not even afraid of flying into a 1000 pound airplane. Maybe if his plane didn't have an ejection seat... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-force-veteran-disagrees-about-the-f-16-cessna-crash/399437/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-f...

Someone1234 11y ago

> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem." It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop. While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them (in particular during take-off/landing). Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above 250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going to regulate them?! PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.

delecti 11y ago
I think most people would exclude air and water from "anything getting sucked into a jet turbine". On the other hand, particulates can be a problem depending on scale, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions spewing ash that grounds planes. Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  To be extra pedantic, Canada assigns birth nationality by both jus soli and jus sanguinis to the first generation born elsewhere. So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there. A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.
commandar 11y ago
>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight. >PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two. Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York: >To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-term_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-te...

clarkmoody 11y ago

5-year old video, but it shows some of the tests jet engines undergo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU

sylvinus 11y ago

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

deathanatos 11y ago

Jet engine manufacturers run tests, one of which is throwing a chicken at high velocity into the engine. You can find videos[1][2] on YouTube; "bird ingestion test" is what these are called, it seems. (Also, my understanding is that they test with whole chickens, which I hope you're not very likely to run into with an aircraft.) I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2). See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

chillingeffect 11y ago
> "Chicken gun"[3]. I've also heard it called a "rooster booster" :)
jacquesm 11y ago
That second video is apparently not of a bird ingestion but of a containment test in case of turbine failure.