airtraffic

Author Topic: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK  (Read 22722 times)

Offline dave

  • Site Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
    • LiveATC.net
Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« on: April 19, 2012, 05:07:31 PM »
Emergency plane landing at JFK Airport forced by possible bird strike

Audio (time-condensed) attached here.

Great job by the pilots and controllers (and ground crew!)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 11:59:40 PM by dave »



Offline graysono

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Greetings from Middle Earth!
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2012, 10:21:38 PM »
Here's how the same situation is handled - on the same type! - in the UK.


Offline ils26

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2012, 08:13:36 AM »
Short video of the bird strike:

The birds are briefly visible at time 0:13.

Offline Blinx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2012, 01:29:36 PM »
Here's how the same situation is handled - on the same type! - in the UK.



Thought of the same thing. Delta was first sort of ignored a few secs, then later no answer from the tower a brief moment. Then again JFK airspace is proably much more busy than manchester
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 01:33:24 PM by Blinx »

Offline Comfirm31L

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2012, 03:01:30 PM »
Wow! Impressive video.

Offline kenadams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2012, 11:50:10 AM »
I have edited the clips a bit differently: less time condensed, perhaps, to show more of the work going on at JFK tower while 1063 was still on the departure frequency. Subtitled:


Offline Airline F/O

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2012, 03:51:36 PM »
Hey Ken,

Thanks for posting this. I fly for Delta and pass through JFK fairly regularly. I don't know if you feel like editing your excellent video, but I can help you with a couple of those callsigns. The one you have labeled ???112 is Cronos 112. Cronos is an airline that runs an all-first class seating model on their B-757s. The other callsign you have labeled 9E 3351 is actually Flagship 3351. Flagship is the callsign for Pinnacle Airlines, flying CRJs as a connection carrier for Delta and United.

Offline keith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • KS Flight Log
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2012, 05:51:00 PM »
Nothing short of inspiring to see all the teamwork between the controllers and the pilots involved.

Now just imagine all the coordination behind the scenes between ground, tower, approach and departure. I imagine that's why tower didn't respond to the pilot when he first declared.

Offline kenadams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 04:37:42 AM »
Airline F/O, thanks for the help: a comment on Youtube already informed me of the Chronos callsign - I had labelled the video accordingly. On the other hand, 9E is the IATA designator of Pinnacle Airlines: I tend to use IATA designators instead of callsigns when subtitling videos in order to save space.

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2012, 07:33:51 PM »
http://consumerist.com/2012/05/faa-scolds-passenger-for-using-ipad-to-shoot-video-during-takeoff.html

Quote
Your failure to comply with flight attendant instructions during a critical phase of flight and an aircraft emergency could have affected the safe outcome of the flight... We have given consideration to all of the facts. In lieu of legal enforcement action (a civil penalty), we are issuing this letter which will be made a matter of record for a period of two years, after which, the record will be expunged.

While one might get away with things like this most of the time, filming it and putting it on the web for all to see increases your chances of attracting the wrong attention.

Offline SirIsaac726

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2012, 09:06:34 PM »
http://consumerist.com/2012/05/faa-scolds-passenger-for-using-ipad-to-shoot-video-during-takeoff.html

Quote
Your failure to comply with flight attendant instructions during a critical phase of flight and an aircraft emergency could have affected the safe outcome of the flight... We have given consideration to all of the facts. In lieu of legal enforcement action (a civil penalty), we are issuing this letter which will be made a matter of record for a period of two years, after which, the record will be expunged.

While one might get away with things like this most of the time, filming it and putting it on the web for all to see increases your chances of attracting the wrong attention.


The FAA just makes me laugh. I still cannot understand why the reasoning for having all electronics off under 10,000 ft. is because of potential interference. At this point, that reason is nothing but bogus and it is clear the average flier feels the same way. Studies have been done to see what kind of electronics are on during takeoff and landing and the amount of electronics emitting a signal (some because people just don't obey the rule and some because people forget that the device in their carry-on is still in the on position) is quite high.

If the FAA really wants to be taken seriously on this rule, it should flat out say that electronics need to be off because, should an emergency occur, the crew would need your undivided attention. Not to mention, it is best for the passengers to be fully aware of their surroundings to have some sort of preparation in an emergency, rather than having no idea what is going on thanks to, let's say, noise-cancelling headphones.

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2012, 10:23:25 PM »


The FAA just makes me laugh. I still cannot understand why the reasoning for having all electronics off under 10,000 ft. is because of potential interference. At this point, that reason is nothing but bogus and it is clear the average flier feels the same way.
I don't believe it is only the FAA that has this policy.
I believe there have been incidents where the use of electronic devices could not be ruled out as a contributing factor.

Offline patmike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2012, 07:35:01 PM »
It's amazing how calm that pilot sounded. he made it sound like it was no big deal. what a pro

Offline Comfirm31L

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2012, 12:05:09 AM »


The FAA just makes me laugh. I still cannot understand why the reasoning for having all electronics off under 10,000 ft. is because of potential interference. At this point, that reason is nothing but bogus and it is clear the average flier feels the same way.
I don't believe it is only the FAA that has this policy.
I believe there have been incidents where the use of electronic devices could not be ruled out as a contributing factor.



Maybe not 1 or 2 electronics, but what if EVERY passanger had something on whether it be a cell phone/Ipad whatever.

Offline Comfirm31L

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2012, 12:06:36 AM »
Hey Ken,

Thanks for posting this. I fly for Delta and pass through JFK fairly regularly. I don't know if you feel like editing your excellent video, but I can help you with a couple of those callsigns. The one you have labeled ???112 is Cronos 112. Cronos is an airline that runs an all-first class seating model on their B-757s. The other callsign you have labeled 9E 3351 is actually Flagship 3351. Flagship is the callsign for Pinnacle Airlines, flying CRJs as a connection carrier for Delta and United.

Cronos also flys PC12s in and out of JFK frequently, which is actually who it was... you can also hear the controller tell Flagship hes 4 in trail to a Pilatus.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 12:09:51 AM by Comfirm31L »

Offline StuSEL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
Re: Delta 1063 bird strike - loss of one engine - return to JFK
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2012, 02:32:05 AM »
The FAA just makes me laugh. I still cannot understand why the reasoning for having all electronics off under 10,000 ft. is because of potential interference. At this point, that reason is nothing but bogus and it is clear the average flier feels the same way. Studies have been done to see what kind of electronics are on during takeoff and landing and the amount of electronics emitting a signal (some because people just don't obey the rule and some because people forget that the device in their carry-on is still in the on position) is quite high.

If the FAA really wants to be taken seriously on this rule, it should flat out say that electronics need to be off because, should an emergency occur, the crew would need your undivided attention. Not to mention, it is best for the passengers to be fully aware of their surroundings to have some sort of preparation in an emergency, rather than having no idea what is going on thanks to, let's say, noise-cancelling headphones.
Good points, except I'm not so sure the actual reason for the ban is for interference reasons. The FCC banned cell phones from aircraft a long time ago when there was a theory that airborne cell phone usage could jam cell tower networks. Now that this risk has been eliminated through modern cell phone network technology, I thought the ban was still there to prevent what you described in your second paragraph.

I'd like to see the language of the actual regulation that prohibits electronics usage below 10,000 feet, and whether or not it actually mentions the prevention of interference. Otherwise, it's something the airlines can change in their passenger announcement scripts.