Low-flying Speed Limits

[Widow]

Low-flying speed limits

Transport Canada wants to slow takeoffs to reduce danger of bird strikes

By CHRISTINA SPENCER, NATIONAL BUREAU

Last Updated: 8th April 2009, 1:46am


Transport Canada wants to lower the speed for aircraft takeoffs because of the potential danger to planes and passengers from bird strikes.

While the airline industry says the proposal reflects what's already happening, the government argues past attempts at persuasion and education "did not eliminate the practice of high-speed departures.

"As a result, Transport Canada concluded that a more effective way to ensure that aircraft are not departing at speeds higher than the safety limit is to ... enforce the proposed speed limit."

The new rules -- which limit maximum airspeed to 250 knots when the craft is under 10,000 ft. above sea level -- will align Canada with international standards, said department spokesman Patrick Charette.

DITCHED IN RIVER

The dangers of birds striking aircraft took on sharp focus in January, when a US Airways commercial flight leaving LaGuardia Airport ran into a flock of birds and had to ditch in the Hudson River.

"The Hudson River incident illustrates what kind of damage a bird strike can cause to an aircraft," Charette said.

He stressed, however, the new Canadian regulations have been under discussion for several years.

In 2007, the latest year for which numbers are available, 1,283 bird strikes of aircraft were reported in Canada. In 57 cases, the strike led to a "precautionary" landing. In 29 cases, takeoff was aborted. There were three forced landings.

The public has 30 days to offer feedback before the federal government decides when the rules will come into force.

Robert Palmer, a spokesman for WestJet, said the new takeoff speed will have little impact because it's already in the company's operations manual.

He also said incidents such as the US Airways collision are rare.

MIGHT NOT NOTICE HIT

"Most bird strikes that occur at airports in Canada are of a much more minor and routine nature, not unlike when you're driving down the highway and you're passed by a large vehicle and piece of gravel gets kicked up and bounces off your windshield.

"You may or may not even notice it."

Les Aalders, vice-president of operations for the Air Transport Association of Canada, said the industry is "quite comfortable" with the new rules.

But he was surprised Transport Canada felt there were still too many high-speed takeoffs.

"I guess that's their opinion. The normal practice is for operators not to do that."

In addition, Aalders noted airlines try to fly as cheaply as possible, and slower speeds save fuel.

Canadian airports also have developed sophisticated "bird harassment" programs to drive the offending fowl away.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/ ... 1-sun.html

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

Not the first time...might aswell get on board with everyone else.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... 002022.htm

[CD]

Here is the link to the Gazette I publication:

Vol. 143, No. 14 — April 4, 2009 - Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI)

The interesting bits regarding the history of the rule are found in the original notice of proposed amendment, which was consulted through the CARAC process back in 2002, as linked by monkeyspankmasterflex:

Issue:

The current CAR permits aircraft on departure to exceed 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL while climbing to a cleared altitude above 10,000 feet MSL. This operation is contrary to FAA Federal Aviation regulations (FARs) and ICAO SARPs, as well as Canadian, American and ICAO IFR departure procedure design.

The 250 KIAS maximum airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL was a rule of flight that was introduced a number of years ago to address the bird strike hazard of modern high-speed aircraft. It was accepted that at 250 KIAS the structural integrity of an aircraft would not be severely compromised should the aircraft have a birdstrike. It was recognized that a birdstrike above this speed would cause severe structural damage to an aircraft.

Air Traffic Control adopted this maximum airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL as an air traffic management tool, especially in a busy terminal area. In time, the initial reason for the 250 KIAS restriction below 10,000 feet MSL was replaced by air traffic reasons, and the birdstrike hazard was ultimately forgotten.

As more modern large aircraft were developed and brought into service, the 250 KIAS maximum below 10,000 feet MSL began to pose a problem for these aircraft. They could easily achieve 250 KIAS and higher airspeeds prior to 10,000 feet and required the crews to reduce thrust and, perhaps, delay changing configuration to comply with the 250 KIAS restriction. This process increased fuel consumption and became an annoyance for passenger comfort.

At the request of air carrier operators, Canadian regulations prior to the issuance of the CARs were interpreted to indicate that the 250 KIAS restriction below 10,000 feet MSL was never intended to apply to aircraft on an IFR departure for aircraft with a cleared altitude above 10,000 feet and Canadian flight operations were therefore permitted to exceed 250 KIAS on departure. This notion was incorporated into the present CARs.

Canada may be the only ICAO State that permits aircraft on departure to exceed 250 KIAS. The FARs do not provide an exemption to the 250 KIAS speed restriction for departures. It is also noted that ICAO rules are identical to the FARs.

Justification for Change:

The birdstrike hazard at speeds greater than 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL remains significant as strikes above this speed have been demonstrated to cause severe structural damage to modern aircraft. As well, instrument departure procedure design presumes a speed of 250 KIAS or less, as outlined in the following paragraphs.

Historically, Transport Canada has never developed criteria for the development of instrument procedures. The instrument departure procedure criteria currently being utilized are an adaptation of the FAA TERPS. It is of critical importance to note that the FAA TERPS, and subsequent FAA Orders dealing with instrument procedure development, do not generically recognize speeds in excess of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL. It should also be noted that airborne navigation databases that have coded departure procedures comply with the 250 KIAS restriction. Furthermore, the Standard Instrument Departures and the Noise Abatement Procedures at Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International airport have included a speed restriction of 250 KIAS until above 10,000 feet MSL. These procedures at Toronto are more restrictive than what is currently promulgated in the FARs.

...

In the interests of aviation safety, and in order to comply with ICAO SARPs and to harmonize with FAA rules, it is proposed to remove the current let for speeds greater than 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL.

NPA 2002-022 - Airspeed Limitations

[Liquid Charlie]

They are setting absolutes again -- and of course not mentioning the complete truth. While Europe is 250 kts below fl100 (u also set your altimeter once cleared below transition) ATC will authorize "free speed" on either decent or climb - this is a big tool for atc separation but if you choose to fly 250kts due to SOP you can -- once again Canada coming out with inflexible rules -- they should take up sex at night instead of lying in bed thinking

[Inverted2]

Our company has been using a 250 below 10000 for some time now. Doubt Sully was going anywhere near that fast when he hit the geese after takeoff in LGA.

[Skyhunter]

Coming from a wolrd where speed is life... this is different discussion. We hated it when the military decided to follow this rule in civilian airspace. For different reasons than civilians, or even than our transport guys, if I am low I want to be fast. If I hit something or have a problem it gives me energy I can trade for either time at current altitude or for more altitude. Which might mean a more survivable ejection. This is even more true of single engine. It is interesting to see the other side of this, but some flexibility would be a good thing.

[Doc]

Wonder if the dim wits in Ottawa have to have their jaws wired after their knees keep jerking? Another moron sitting at a desk, making more money than he's worth, trying to justify his existence. I'm still waiting for all the rules, regulations and exams that will follow the "key in the airplane" cross country tour from YQT this past week.

[moreccsplease]

I'm almost positive, it is SOP with AC, Jazz, and Westjet that below 10,000 feet on departure you fly no more than 250 KIAS, and after 10,000 feet you can accelerate to enroute climb speed, which probably has more to do with complying with the US rule (of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet on depature) and keeping everything the same for crews, than anything else, which is more restrictive than TC's current regulation.

The only exception that I know of would be YYZ, which restricts departures to 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet.

[yfly]

I think the birdstrike component here is a convenient excuse. At 3000 feet was US Air exceeding 250kts? Speed is a factor but there have been plenty of engines lost to birds at or near rotation speed. I am all for free speed. 250 below 10,000 with the flex to increase if ATC permits works best for everyone.

[ahramin]

Speed would not have made any difference to US Air 1549. They took birds in both engines which were far larger than that required for certification standards. That will finish you off at any speed.

However, a speed limit of 250 knots below 10 000 feet makes beaucoup sense. Anything faster is asking for trouble as it could turn many survivable birdstrikes into total losses.

In addition, all us IFR people would be safer if we spent more time looking outside, especially in the first 3000 feet.

[Steve Baker]

What is wrong with the current rule? We all know when migratory bird season is with us. What is wrong with accelerating to econ climb speed once above 5000'? Though many airlines may have a policy of 250 kias below fl100, not all do and Mr Boeing feels no need to add an airspeed limitation as long as the window heat is working. To me, this means that the plane can handle bird strikes above 250 without catastrophic failure in the majority of cases. Below 3000', VNAP departure procedures keep the max speed at or below the minimum clean speed anyway.

The person who posted that airlines climb at a lower speed anyway to save fuel is mistaken. Econ climb speed in the 737 at least varies between 280 and 310 kias depending on wind, weight and cost index. Best rate of climb speed is usually around 280.

The skyhunter raises another good point with reference to single engine machines. Though I know that makes up a pretty small fraction of the craft capable of 250+ KIAS, they should still be considered.