Birdstrike

[Rabbi O'Genius]

Somewhat surprised to see that the windshield doesn't withstand the impact.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26331570

[Ancient Mariner]

Somewhat surprised to see that the windshield doesn't withstand the impact.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26331570

Aeroplane probably proudly made in the USoA and you know the quality of those.
I bet the windshield was made from burnt sugar.
Per

[Gabriel]

I bet the windshield was made from burnt sugar.

I, on the other hand, bet that it was made of thermoformed polymethylmethacrylate.

[Ancient Mariner]

I bet the windshield was made from burnt sugar.

I, on the other hand, bet that it was made of thermoformed polymethylmethacrylate.

Show off.
Per

[Gabriel]

Seriously now, the windshield of small GA planes are typically made of a thin plate of acrylic (Plexiglass(R) or similar)*, and are neither required, designed or able to sustain a bird strike.

* This is the polymethylmethacylate. Just "acrylic" is a too generic term becuase you have for example acrylic paints, acrylic glues, acrylic resins...

[Gabriel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVq3dfDDFKY

Caution: Video includes blood, guts, and torn body parts.

[Ancient Mariner]

Seriously now, the windshield of small GA planes are typically made of a thin plate of acrylic (Plexiglass(R) or similar)*, and are neither required, designed or able to sustain a bird strike.

* This is the polymethylmethacylate. Just "acrylic" is a too generic term becuase you have for example acrylic paints, acrylic glues, acrylic resins...

Call it plastic then.
Per

[Rabbi O'Genius]

are neither required, designed or able to sustain a bird strike....

Any idea why there is no requirement? Is it just because these events are extremely rare? because they certainly have the potential to incapacitate the pilot, leading to spin/crash/burn/multiple fatality scenarios.

[Rabbi O'Genius]

double post

[Ancient Mariner]

are neither required, designed or able to sustain a bird strike....

Any idea why there is no requirement? Is it just because these events are extremely rare? because they certainly have the potential to incapacitate the pilot, leading to spin/crash/burn/multiple fatality scenarios.

Let me guess, no (few) paying pax involved?
Per

[Gabriel]

Any idea why there is no requirement?

No. but it's not for lack of regulations regarding the windshield.
Note point (h).

§ 23.775 Windshields and windows.
(a) The internal panels of windshields and windows must be constructed of a nonsplintering material, such as nonsplintering safety glass.
(b) The design of windshields, windows, and canopies in pressurized airplanes must be based on factors peculiar to high altitude operation, including—
(1) The effects of continuous and cyclic pressurization loadings;
(2) The inherent characteristics of the material used; and
(3) The effects of temperatures and temperature gradients.
(c) On pressurized airplanes, if certification for operation up to and including 25,000 feet is requested, an enclosure canopy including a representative part of the installation must be subjected to special tests to account for the combined effects of continuous and cyclic pressurization loadings and flight loads, or compliance with the fail-safe requirements of paragraph (d) of this section must be shown.
(d) If certification for operation above 25,000 feet is requested the windshields, window panels, and canopies must be strong enough to withstand the maximum cabin pressure differential loads combined with critical aerodynamic pressure and temperature effects, after failure of any load-carrying element of the windshield, window panel, or canopy.
(e) The windshield and side windows forward of the pilot's back when the pilot is seated in the normal flight position must have a luminous transmittance value of not less than 70 percent.
(f) Unless operation in known or forecast icing conditions is prohibited by operating limitations, a means must be provided to prevent or to clear accumulations of ice from the windshield so that the pilot has adequate view for taxi, takeoff, approach, landing, and to perform any maneuvers within the operating limitations of the airplane.
(g) In the event of any probable single failure, a transparency heating system must be incapable of raising the temperature of any windshield or window to a point where there would be—
(1) Structural failure that adversely affects the integrity of the cabin; or
(2) There would be a danger of fire.
(h) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, the following applies:
(1) Windshield panes directly in front of the pilots in the normal conduct of their duties, and the supporting structures for these panes, must withstand, without penetration, the impact of a two-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane (relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path) is equal to the airplane's maximum approach flap speed.
(2) The windshield panels in front of the pilots must be arranged so that, assuming the loss of vision through any one panel, one or more panels remain available for use by a pilot seated at a pilot station to permit continued safe flight and landing.

[Rabbi O'Genius]

Any idea why there is no requirement?

No. but it's not for lack of regulations regarding the windshield.
Note point (h).
......

(h) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, the following applies:
(1) Windshield panes directly in front of the pilots in the normal conduct of their duties, and the supporting structures for these panes, must withstand, without penetration, the impact of a two-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane (relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path) is equal to the airplane's maximum approach flap speed.

Indeed....it seems Per was on the right track

[Ancient Mariner]

Any idea why there is no requirement?

No. but it's not for lack of regulations regarding the windshield.
Note point (h).
......

(h) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, the following applies:
(1) Windshield panes directly in front of the pilots in the normal conduct of their duties, and the supporting structures for these panes, must withstand, without penetration, the impact of a two-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane (relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path) is equal to the airplane's maximum approach flap speed.

Indeed....it seems Per was on the right track

Follow the money.
Per

[Rabbi O'Genius]

Safety requirements and legislation being aimed at public transport providers does seem justifiable.
Though there are counter examples - like the obligation to wear a seatbelt in a private car, but not on a public bus.

[Ancient Mariner]

Safety requirements and legislation being aimed at public transport providers does seem justifiable.
Though there are counter examples - like the obligation to wear a seatbelt in a private car, but not on a public bus.

In Norway you can stand on a bus, but they fine you GBP 200 if you don't wear a setbelt in a car. The first to save money, the second to make them.
In an airplane the CC goes bananas if you don't wear your seatbelt in light turbulence and here you can travel in a passenger catamaran doing 40 knots in heavy seas without. I wonder which one has the more Gs.
Per

[OldSowBreath]

Why no requirement for seatbelts and airbags on motorcycles?

Why no requirement for brakes on unicycles?

[Gabriel]

Safety requirements and legislation being aimed at public transport providers does seem justifiable.
Though there are counter examples - like the obligation to wear a seatbelt in a private car, but not on a public bus.

In Norway you can stand on a bus, but they fine you GBP 200 if you don't wear a setbelt in a car. The first to save money, the second to make them.
In an airplane the CC goes bananas if you don't wear your seatbelt in light turbulence and here you can travel in a passenger catamaran doing 40 knots in heavy seas without. I wonder which one has the more Gs.
Per

I think there is an opportunity issue too. If you mandated all pax seated in a city bus, then probably the public transportation system would be unfeasible.
On the other hand, in Argentina at least, buses where standing pax are allowed are forbiden to exceed 60 km/h.

The main group of fatalities in automotive accident are pedestrians, but you just can't forbid them from corssing the street or install bridges in every corner.

Regarding the seatbelts in airplanes vs catamarans, the cause of injuries in turbulence on airplanes are when the plane goes -1G, the pax "falls" to the ceiling, and one second later it goes +2G and falls on the armrest or someone else at 4 times the speed it would do under normal gravity from the same height.

While I understand that the ride in a catamaran can be very rough, I can't imagine it ever going negative Gs because there is no negative force "sucking" it down other than the wight, which limits the "low end" of the load factor to 0G, and hence the pax cannot fall upwards, and hence cannot fall back down after that.

[flyboy2548m]

Why no requirement for seatbelts and airbags on motorcycles?

Incidentally, the Honda Gold Wing does offer an airbag. It is for that reason, as well as the fact that it has reverse and a heater that I consider it basically a two-wheeled automobile.

[Ancient Mariner]

I think there is an opportunity issue too. If you mandated all pax seated in a city bus, then probably the public transportation system would be unfeasible.
On the other hand, in Argentina at least, buses where standing pax are allowed are forbiden to exceed 60 km/h.

The main group of fatalities in automotive accident are pedestrians, but you just can't forbid them from corssing the street or install bridges in every corner.

Regarding the seatbelts in airplanes vs catamarans, the cause of injuries in turbulence on airplanes are when the plane goes -1G, the pax "falls" to the ceiling, and one second later it goes +2G and falls on the armrest or someone else at 4 times the speed it would do under normal gravity from the same height.

While I understand that the ride in a catamaran can be very rough, I can't imagine it ever going negative Gs because there is no negative force "sucking" it down other than the wight, which limits the "low end" of the load factor to 0G, and hence the pax cannot fall upwards, and hence cannot fall back down after that.

You never seen a boat in free fall? Most injuries is from ships crashing into waves going from whatever knots to zero in no time or dropping into the wave trough.
Per

[Gabriel]

You never seen a boat in free fall? Most injuries is from ships crashing into waves going from whatever knots to zero in no time or dropping into the wave trough.
Per

I see. The problem is not the negative Gs but the sudden stop against a wall of water.

[Rabbi O'Genius]

You never seen a boat in free fall? Most injuries is from ships crashing into waves going from whatever knots to zero in no time or dropping into the wave trough.
Per

I see. The problem is not the negative Gs but the sudden stop against a wall of water.

Indeed. Whatever the intro, it's the impact* that does the damage.

*velocity change, acceleration, whatever

[Ancient Mariner]

You never seen a boat in free fall? Most injuries is from ships crashing into waves going from whatever knots to zero in no time or dropping into the wave trough.
Per

I see. The problem is not the negative Gs but the sudden stop against a wall of water.

Good Lord.
Per

[PurduePilot]

You never seen a boat in free fall? Most injuries is from ships crashing into waves going from whatever knots to zero in no time or dropping into the wave trough.
Per

I see. The problem is not the negative Gs but the sudden stop against a wall of water.

A big old third derivative. Jerk.

[tds]

A windshield capable of taking, say, a goose at 150 knots would be pretty heavy to lug around for the 99.999999% of flights where you don't hit a goose. An upgrade available for some types is from OEM .125" to .250", but it's marketed mostly as a noise insulation improvement and I bet wouldn't keep out the aforementioned goose. And even that carries a 5-10lb weight penalty. Making a product like this available for any existing certified types would also involve lots of tedious and expensive paperwork for very little marginal safety improvement.

Bird strikes are a really, really long way down the list of things that actually kill people in this type of airplane. Not to mention that a 'flimsy' .125" windshield that you may be able to kick could be a positive safety feature in some accidents.

[3WE]

Seriously now, the windshield of small GA planes are typically made of a thin plate of acrylic (Plexiglass(R) or similar)*, and are neither required, designed or able to sustain a bird strike.

* This is the polymethylmethacylate. Just "acrylic" is a too generic term becuase you have for example acrylic paints, acrylic glues, acrylic resins...

Call it cheap composites then.
Per

Fixed.