Bird-proof engines, pilot training on NTSB agenda

WASHINGTON — The ability of aircraft engines to withstand collisions with large birds is a chief concern of federal safety investigators opening hearingsTuesday on the forced landing of a USAirways jet in the Hudson River.

National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt, who will chair the three-day hearing, said the accident has made safety officials, the aviation industry and the public more aware of the growing likelihood of bird-plane collisions.

Another area of investigative focus will be the state of training for pilots on handling double-engine failure.

US Airways Flight 1549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York on Jan. 15 and climbed to about 3,000 feet when the Airbus A320 hit a flock of Canada geese and lost thrust in both engines. Capt. Chesley Sullenberger ditched the plane into the Hudson rather than risk crashing in the densely populated area. All 155 people aboard survived.

“I flew airplanes for quite a while and I worried about a lot of things, but I never really worried about birds bringing my airplane down,” Sumwalt, a former airline pilot, said in an interview. “Now this has caused a whole new focus on this.”

In recent decades, many bird populations — including Canada geese — have rebounded thanks partly to environmental regulations. Air travel has also soared since deregulation in the late 1970s encouraged greater competition and lower fares.

With more planes and more birds in the sky, “we have a situation here — almost a numbers game — where eventually something is going to happen,” said Michael Begier, national coordinator of the Agriculture Department’s airport wildlife hazards program. “We’re very fortunate that Flight 1549 was not a catastrophe. It is a warning shot.”

The Federal Aviation Administration is testing bird-detecting radar that may help airports manage nearby bird populations. Some experts have also suggested aircraft engines should be designed to withstand bigger birds. Newer engines on commercial airliners have to withstand an 8-pound bird, but Canada geese can weigh twice that.

“You could probably build an aircraft engine that could withstand a 20-pound bird with today’s technology, but that engine will never fly” because it will be too heavy, Sumwalt said. “We can’t do a whole lot more to beef up the aircraft to withstand birds.”

Disrupting bird habitats close to airports would probably not have helped Flight 1549. An analysis of remains of Canada geese in the plane’s engines showed that they were migratory — perhaps from Labrador, Canada — not part of the Canada geese population that lives year-round in the New York area, according to the National Zoo’s Migratory Bird Center. Moreover, the plane-geese collision occurred several miles from the airport.

Another concern is whether the FAA and airlines need to revise emergency procedures for a double engine failure. Those procedures for pilots usually involve a checklist of many steps, and there are different checklists depending upon the problem. If the plane is flying at a high altitude — airliners typically cruise above 20,000 feet — pilots may have time to identify and correct the problem.

At a low altitude that’s more difficult. Flight 1549’s first officer, Jeffrey Skiles, has said he only made it part of the way through a checklist for restarting the engines before the forced landing.