From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Comments Invited on Battery Drain and Bird Strike
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:44:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.051013.14824@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>I had a couple of new experiences flying this weekend.  I
>would be open to comments as to how others might have
>handled the same situations.
>
>1.  [Low battery situation]
>On startup, the alternator ammeter read somewhat higher than usual,
>indicating the battery was likely recharging.
>
The first thing I would check when I landed is the logbooks to see
when the battery was last replaced.  At some point in the battery's
life, it just won't hold a charge anymore.  Aircraft batteries are
notoriously small.  My guess is that if it is over 24 months since the
last change, make the battery a leading suspect.  High loadmeter readings
after startup are normal with run-down batteries.  It indicates a high
charge rate, but unfortunately does not indicate that the battery is
accepting the charge.

>2.  [Bird strike situation]
>My first dilemma was whether to continue the landing at this
>uncontrolled, probably unattended airport with a possibly damaged
>aircraft that appeared to be performing normally.  If I were to return to
>Rochester full emergency equipment would be available, whereas there
>might not be anyone on field at Austin to even notice a crash.  On the
>other hand, I was in the pattern to an airport at 800 AGL with flaps
>partially extended and although the aircraft appeared to function normally,
>I could not be sure it would climb as usual.  (There was not sufficient
>time to contact flight service while completing the landing or going
>around.)  I elected to do a full stop landing at Austin.  The landing
>proceeded uneventfully, and upon landing there was no visible damage
>whatsoever outside or inside the cowling, nor were there even any
>feathers or other evidence of impact.
>
The items you mentioned are precisely what the PIC must evaluate and
make a decision on.  I don't think anyone on the net could criticize
you on your decision to continue to a more suitable field.  Obviously
you needed to make a spot decision based on the controllability of the
aircraft, facilities, etc.  Sounds reasonable to me.

>My second dilemma now was whether to return
>to Rochester or to keep the aircraft in Austin
>overnight pending a mechanic's official blessing.
>The aircraft had effectively been flight tested
>after the initial impact, with no noticeable
>abnormalities, and it had been extensively inspected
>by me on the ground without any evidence of damage
>whatsoever.  I therefore chose to return back
>to Rochester (without incident), though I
>wonder if some others might have been more
>conservative.
>
I would caution you about continuing your flight after landing without
a thorough inspection.  I can't comment about your particular situation
since I don't know your background, but if you're the type (generally
speaking) that make people run whenever you pick up a screwdriver,
then spending the night/making other arangements would have been the
wise thing to do.  On the other hand, if you build racing motors for
a living and do most of the work on your own airplane, it might be hard
to find fault.

If this is a rental aircraft, just about your only decision is to leave
the plane on the ground until you have talked with the owner, or flying
club.  You might be held entirely liable for everything that happens
if you try to continue the flight after such a close encounter.

Kerry