BATF flop

The guy actually lived. NFW you say? YFW! He got stuck in the intake ahead of the compressor blades. His helmet got ripped off, FOD'ding the engine, which was immediately shut down by the quick- thinking pilot. They pulled him out with a few broken bones, and one hell of a story for the grandkids when he gets old.

Take a far fetched idea and sprinkle a little truth in it. And so a completely made up story has morphed into truth. Now we know for a fact that the FAA is firing frozen chickens from black powdered cannons at airborne 777s in an attempt to show that frozen chickens are a threat to homeland security.

Oh, they put the cann> T'is true, they do really fire chickens into the engines to simualte a

Still, he must've hit pretty hard considering there was enough suction to *bodily* lift him from the deck into the motor...

Ouch..

Tod "Danger *What* Intake?" Hilty

Yup, got it on tape. They show the chicken in super slo mo being ingested (sliced) by the fan blades. After that test the perform the failed fan blade test. They release a blade from the hub at max rpm to ensure it will be contained within the engine. It's really cool seeing the kevlar jacket bulge.

steve

The purchases are definitely real. In fact a local vendor was contacted just recently by someone attempting to buy large quantities of G80's for use in this "test".

BB wrote:

Get a grip, guys and gals.

There has been occaisional testing in this country in the past to use THAWED frozen chickens (to get around cruelty to animal claims) fired from modified cannons into windshields, engine intakes, etc to determine bird strike damage resistance.

In France a few years back, they tried to copy this in the certification testing for the first ultra-high speed trains. Some moron caused a fortune in damage when they used a still frozen chicken. They claim it was a mistake. I've worked with French engineers. That was NO MISTAKE.

In designing primary flight controls for U.S. combat aircraft, serious work is done to increase the probability of having enough operational capability after a direct strike with a shell to continue to fly the aircraft. The specifications have required it for many years, but it is a tough thing to guarantee. All critical portions of all aircraft, commercial and military, undergo major, major, major failure analysis (fault tree analysis) with failure modes, their effects in all possible combinations, calculated probabilities, etc to assure an acceptably low probability of LOA. Major systems are indeed tested for the most probable and dangerous forms of damage. The use of animals, thawed, frozen, or otherwise is not a preferred thing. There are other tests, however. I think the French engineers could use some lessons in determining what pieces of steel laying on a runway can do to a supersonic jet taking off. Wait, there's another idea the terrorists can use. Throw scrap steel on the runway. Painted the right color, nobody would notice.

Also, everybody knows that when the bad guys start using frozen chickens the airplane will crash without being hit. The flight crew will LAUGH themselves to death, leaving the plane with no pilot.

There is one possible threat from high power model rocketry to aircraft. With all of the heat seeking missiles that have been placed in the hands of terrorists (like the ones we gave to bin Laden to use against the Soviets in Afganistan), a pilot is likely to assume that the tracking smoke and "missile" he sees coming his way is real. An inexperienced pilot is likely to lose control taking unnecesary evasive manuevers, causing a crash. Has the FAA or ATFE trained pilots how to tell the difference between model rockets and missiles? Very unlikely. For the same reason that the military uses smokeless propellent instead of gunpowder (the smoke shows everybody where to shoot to kill the enemy), real one man missiles don't add tracking smoke like model rocket engines. They try to minimize the smoke to protect the person firing the missile. Model rockets have tracking smoke so that people like me can figure out which way it went.

Probably a bigger threat is to drive a large panel truck full of geese on some of the roads that some airports have right off the end of the runway. Open the back door and light firecrackers in the back of the truck and around it to get them to go up into the path of the aircraft. Now the pilot won't be laughing. Oh, wait!! Talking about this may have given a terrorist a good OBVIOUS idea. Next we'll have gag orders on us from ATF because we're giving too many ideas to the terrorists.

To get back to the topic, it's too bad the ATF wasn't trying to use some hybrid engines along with the solid fuel engines to justify their regulating everything called rocketry. With their wonderful adherence to safety rules (no safe distances, firing within feet of exposed propellant in an enclosed space) they probably would have gassed themselves into oblivion. Then when the truck wient up, they would be laughing too hard from the nitrous to save themselves. Yeah, yeah, I know it's not medical grade nitrous. But you can still screw yourself up pretty bad being in a partially enclosed space when you dump liquid nitrous. It just isn't a laughing matter.

Anyway, I'm sure the contractor is laughing all the way to the bank on this boondoggle. The real aircraft people at the airbase must have gotten a good chuckle, too, watching those morons.

And Jerry Irvine, get a life! You can't be producing anything if you're on the forums at these hours.

Remember, keep looking for me up in the sky.

Alex Mericas wrote:

We must ban frozen chickens! They're obviously a threat to national security. ;-)

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m23.aol.com:

If it's the same clip I saw, I belive the poor sod lost most of his hearing too.

You know the military, Tod. They just put those signs and stickers everywhere to give the troops something to do.

No worries, as I have been closely following this discussion.

Chickens as WMD? What will they think of next?

And do you need a LEUP to use BP to fire chickens at 777s? Or is that a cultural activity? Or maybe the cannon is antique? What about a new cannon that has been distressed?

You go too far! The man who would give up chicken for security will have neither!

Or at least go to bed hungry...

the cannon doesn't have to be an actual antique, it can be just a replica of an antique ;)

- iz

Kurt Kesler wrote:

Um.. Zoloft?

tah

How antique is antique? Cars is 25 years. There was plento cannon hardware in wwii that's twice that.

Joel. phx

(3) The term ''firearm'' means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;

(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or

(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

(16) The term ''antique firearm'' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ''antique firearm'' shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

The chickens are already dead. It should be no different to the animal people than eating a chicken dinner. I guess we know now where McDonald's gets their McNuggets from.

That's not chicken :o

Joel. phx