World birds strike association

03.09.202203.09.2022 admin 0 Comments

World birds strike association

Отраслевая конференция
по Орнитологическому Обеспечению Безопасности Полётов

Отраслевая конференция «Птицы и полёты авиации» является наиболее представительным современным форумом для получения новой информации авиационными специалистами России и других стран СНГ, обмена мнениями по широкому кругу вопросов в рамках проблемы предотвращения столкновений воздушных судов с птицами и другими животными.

В настоящее время специалистами ОГАО осуществляется подготовка 4-ой отраслевой конференции «Птицы и полёты авиации». Проведение конференции запланировано на март 2023 года в городе Мытищи Московской области.

Отраслевая конференция «Птицы и полёты авиации» обеспечивает работу по основным направлениям:

— обсуждение актуальных деталей практики орнитологического обеспечения и формирование мнений специалистов,

— расширение объема специализированных знаний и повышение уровня квалификации участников в области предотвращения столкновений с представителями живой природы,

— установление рабочих контактов и связей между специалистами аэропортов, авиакомпаний, государственных органов управления воздушного транспорта, Российской академии наук и Отраслевой группы авиационной орнитологии в целях решения задач защиты от опасности, создаваемой представителями живой природы.

Приветственное слово начальника Управления инспекции по безопасности полётов Росавиации А.М. Шайкамалова
на третьей конференции «Птицы и полёты авиации»
(23.11.2021, конференц зал апарт-отеля «Ханой-Москва»)

Учебный курс «Орнитологическое обеспечение
безопасности полётов в аэропорту»

в 2019 году 72% опрошенных участников конференции поддержали инициативу ОГАО по организации и проведению обучающего курса по орнитологическому обеспечению. C 2021 года в рамках отраслевой конференции «Птицы и полёты авиации» проводится обучающий курс по орнитологическому обеспечению безопасности полётов. Выделение учебных часов предусматривается при составлении программы конференции. &nbsp&nbsp(Подробнее)

Информация об участниках конференции

Представители 44 аэропортов приняли участие в конференции за период с 2017 по 2021 гг., включая по странам: Россия — 37 аэропортов, Казахстан — 2 аэропорта, Кыргызстан — 2 аэропорта, Узбекистан — 2 аэропорта, Беларусь — 1 аэропорт. Причём трижды направляли своих представителей 16% аэропортов, дважды направляли своих представителей 34% аэропортов, единожды участвовали 50% аэропортов.

За период с 2017 по 2021 гг. в конференции приняли участие представители: России, Беларуси, Казахстана, Кыргызстана, Узбекистана, Хорватии, Италии и Канады.

World birds strike association. Смотреть фото World birds strike association. Смотреть картинку World birds strike association. Картинка про World birds strike association. Фото World birds strike association

Спонсорская поддержка

Постоянным спонсором отраслевой конференции «Птицы и полёты авиации» является торговая марка «Универсал-Акустик». Представители аэропортов, эксплуатирующих биоакустические средства российской серии «Универсал-Акустик», участвуют в конференции на льготных условиях.

Обучающий курс
по ООБП

О конференции
«Птицы и полёты авиации», проведённой в ноябре 2021&nbspг.

О конференции
«Птицы и полёты авиации», проведённой в марте 2019&nbspг.

О конференции
«Птицы и полёты авиации», проведённой в марте 2017&nbspг.

Видео о конференции

Контакты организатора:
тел.: +7(926)510-22-52

e-mail: birdstrike@mail.ru

Постоянный cпонсор
отраслевой конференции
«Птицы и полёты авиации»
торговая марка
«Универсал-Акустик»

Организатор принимает
заявки на распространение информации рекламного характера в рамках проведения конференции.

World Birdstrike Association

Implementing SMS in airports: Wildlife Management as an exemplar

8 December 2014 | By Dr Nicholas B Carter, World Birdstrike Organisation

When birdstrikes occur the consequences can be disastrous. Dr Nicholas Carter of the World Birdstrike Association explains how an effective safety management system can help mitigate wildlife hazards.

Read the latest issue

All subscriptions include online membership, giving you access to the journal and exclusive content.

Content

Topics

Advertising & Editorial

T: +44 (0)1959 563311
F: +44 (0)1959 563123

Cookie	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertising-targeting	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category «Advertising & Targeting».
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent WordPress Plugin. The cookie is used to remember the user consent for the cookies under the category «Analytics».
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category «Necessary».
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent WordPress Plugin. The cookie is used to remember the user consent for the cookies under the category «Performance».
PHPSESSID	This cookie is native to PHP applications. The cookie is used to store and identify a users’ unique session ID for the purpose of managing user session on the website. The cookie is a session cookies and is deleted when all the browser windows are closed.
viewed_cookie_policy	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
zmember_logged	This session cookie is served by our membership/subscription system and controls whether you are able to see content which is only available to logged in users.

Cookie	Description
advanced_ads_browser_width	This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and measures the browser width.
advanced_ads_page_impressions	This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and measures the number of previous page impressions.
advanced_ads_pro_server_info	This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and sets geo-location, user role and user capabilities. It is used by cache busting in Advanced Ads Pro when the appropriate visitor conditions are used.
advanced_ads_pro_visitor_referrer	This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and sets the referrer URL.
bscookie	This cookie is a browser ID cookie set by LinkedIn share Buttons and ad tags.
IDE	This cookie is set by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
li_sugr	This cookie is set by LinkedIn and is used for tracking.
UserMatchHistory	This cookie is set by Linkedin and is used to track visitors on multiple websites, in order to present relevant advertisement based on the visitor’s preferences.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	This cookie is set by YouTube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.

Cookie	Description
cf_ob_info	This cookie is set by Cloudflare content delivery network and, in conjunction with the cookie ‘cf_use_ob’, is used to determine whether it should continue serving “Always Online” until the cookie expires.
cf_use_ob	This cookie is set by Cloudflare content delivery network and is used to determine whether it should continue serving “Always Online” until the cookie expires.
free_subscription_only	This session cookie is served by our membership/subscription system and controls which types of content you are able to access.
ls_smartpush	This cookie is set by Litespeed Server and allows the server to store settings to help improve performance of the site.
next-i18next	This cookie is served by the Swapcard app/website to detect and store the user’s language.
one_signal_sdk_db	This cookie is set by OneSignal push notifications and is used for storing user preferences in connection with their notification permission status.
YSC	This cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.

When Birds Strike

Since the earliest days of manned flight, pilots have sought to safely share the skies with their avian counterparts—with mixed results.

On September 7, 1905, less than two years after Orville Wright became the first man to make a controlled flight in a powered, heavier-than-air craft, he was the first to report a bird strike.

That first strike wasn’t totally accidental, however. According to the Wright brothers’ diaries, it happened while Orville was flying circles near a cornfield in Dayton, Ohio. He had apparently been chasing flocks of birds for a while before he hit one. The dead bird lay on the airplane’s wing until Orville made a sharp turn and dumped it off.

For aviation pioneer Cal Rodgers, a bird strike resulted in far more serious consequences. Piloting a Wright EX biplane that he called Vin Fiz, Rodgers had in 1911 become the first person to cross the United States by air. But during a demonstration flight in Long Beach, Calif., on April 3, 1912, his aircraft collided with a seagull that became entangled in the control cables. Rodgers then lost control and crashed into the Pacific—the first bird strike fatality.

As time went on, and the number of aircraft plying the skies increased, it became clear that pilots would have to learn to share the skies in order to fully realize the dream of flight. It would turn out to be a hard lesson, one that aviation experts have long struggled to resolve even as airplanes became far faster, and generally safer, to fly.

The first turbojet-powered airplane, the Heinkel He-178, made its maiden flight on August 24, 1939, at Marienehe, Germany, with Erich Warsitz at the controls. On his second flight three days later, Warsitz became the first jet pilot to report a bird strike. A bird was sucked into the engine, causing a loss of thrust, but Warsitz managed to land safely. Birds would become a recurrent problem for jets.

The largest commercial aircraft ever to be destroyed by a bird strike was a DC-10. Attempting to take off from JFK International Airport in New York on November 12, 1975, the airliner flew through a flock of seagulls, some of which were ingested into the no. 3 engine, resulting in a fire in the right wing. Fortunately, the pilot successfully aborted the takeoff and stopped the plane on a taxiway, where all 139 people onboard were safely evacuated. But the fire consumed the DC-10.

By far the worst bird strike accident occurred on October 4, 1960, just after Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, a Lockheed L-188 Electra, took off from Boston’s Logan Airport and ran into a flock of common starlings. Losing power in three engines, the airliner crashed into Boston Harbor. In all, 62 people died—the greatest single loss of life from any bird strike.

The worst bird strike–related accident to military aircraft in the United States occurred on September 22, 1995, when a U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane encountered a flock of Canada geese while taking off from Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. After both port-side engines lost power due to ingested material, the E-3 crashed two miles from the runway, killing all 24 crew members. Worldwide, the worst military accident due to a bird strike came nearly a year later in the Netherlands, on July 15, 1996. A Belgian C-130 Hercules with a crew of four carrying 37 army musicians was trying to land at Eindhoven Air Base when several hundred starlings and lapwings, not visible from the control tower, suddenly flew into its path. The pilot attempted a go-around, but both left engines were inoperable due to ingested birds. The Hercules struck the ground and burst into flames, after which communication problems resulted in a delayed response from emergency personnel. Tragically, 34 on board perished.

While most bird strikes occur at low altitudes (below 500 feet) and close to airports, the danger isn’t limited to those areas. On November 23, 1962, after United Airlines Flight 297, a Vickers Viscount 745D, lifted off from Newark International Airport, it flew into a flock of whistling swans at 6,000 feet over Maryland. A strike damaged the horizontal stabilizer, resulting in loss of control of the aircraft, which crashed near Ellicot City, killing all 17 onboard. It was the first major commercial flight to crash due to a bird strike at cruising height.

Even aircraft flying at high altitudes are not necessarily safe. The record for the highest bird strike is 37,000 feet, in an incident on November 29, 1973, during a commercial flight over Abijan, Ivory Coast, in West Africa. Although the airliner lost one engine, it landed safely. The bird was later identified as a Ruppell’s griffon vulture, thought to be the highest-flying bird in the world.

Business jets have suffered their share of bird strikes as well. On February 26, 1973, after a Learjet 24 encountered cowbirds following takeoff from Georgia’s DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, the left engine shut down and the jet crashed, killing all seven aboard. When a Cessna 500 crashed minutes after leaving Wiley Post Airport in Oklahoma City on March 4, 2008, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators determined that the loss of control was due to structural damage to the wing—the result of strikes by one or more American white pelicans. The two pilots and all three passengers died.

Helicopters are less prone to strikes near airports than fixed-wing aircraft, as their slower forward speeds on takeoff and landing make collisions far less likely. But the low altitudes at which choppers often fly increases their risk farther from terminals. Although strikes on the rotor assembly have only rarely caused accidents, birds hitting the windshield are more common. A medium to large bird can go right through a standard windshield. Usually the pilot recovers sufficiently to land, but there have been a few fatal encounters.

Seven minutes after a dual-engine Sikorsky S-76C helicopter took off from Amelie, La., on January 4, 2009, on a charter flight to an offshore oil rig, a red-tailed hawk crashed through the windshield. NTSB investigators later said they thought the impact also dislodged a fire extinguisher that struck the engine control levers, reducing power to the engines. The two pilots, understandably disoriented, could not regain control of the helicopter, and they plus six of the seven passengers onboard died when it crashed.

Just two years ago, on January 8, 2014, an American HH-60G Pave Hawk was flying 100 feet above the ground on a nighttime training mission near Cley, in Norfolk, England, when it apparently startled some geese in a game preserve. After several birds crashed through the Pave Hawk’s windshield, rendering both pilot and copilot unconscious, the helicopter went down, killing them and two others on board.

Even greater disasters have been averted in recent years, usually due to the skill of the pilots. The best known of these took place on January 15, 2009, when Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger successfully landed a powerless Airbus A320-200 in the Hudson River—the “Miracle on the Hudson.” Running into a flock of Canada geese after taking off from LaGuardia, the Airbus ingested so many of the birds that both engines shut down. A similar accident occurred the following year in the Netherlands on June 6, when a Royal Air Maroc Boeing 737-400 with 162 people on board struck a flock of geese after departing Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport. In that case, the pilot managed to turn the badly damaged airliner around and land back at the airport.

How big a problem are we really dealing with here? To assess the risk in the U.S., beginning in 1990 the Federal Aviation Administration mandated that all wildlife strikes were to be recorded, regardless of whether damage had resulted from the strike. The official FAA Wildlife Strike Report, which can be filled out on paper or electronically, includes information on the aircraft involved, when and where the strike occurred and the species of bird or animal struck. If only unidentifiable remains are left on an aircraft, feathers or blood/tissue samples can be sent to the Smithsonian Institution’s Feather Identification Lab, established in 1960 in response to the fatal Logan Airport crash. The lab has since entered into interagency agreements with the Air Force, Navy and the FAA. The advent of DNA bar coding in 2006 has significantly improved the positive identification ratio.

The total number of strikes soared from 1,851 in 1990 to 11,315 in 2013, a new record and an increase of more than 600 percent. Certainly part of this can be attributed to pilots becoming more amenable to reporting strikes, but an increase in bird populations has also been noted. The vast majority of bird strikes, however, don’t harm aircraft or passengers. In 2013 only 601 strikes produced any damage, 5 percent of the total strikes.

Birds of all types fall victim to strikes. The latest FAA report listed 482 different species involved in collisions, most of them smaller birds that did little if any damage to aircraft. Of the strikes that did cause damage, waterfowl led the list, involved in 30 percent of incidents. They were followed by gulls (22 percent), raptors (20 percent) and pigeons or doves (7 percent). The most damaging species include snow geese, vultures, northern pintails and Canada geese. A single large bird can take down a medium-size plane. After a Dornier 228-200 carrying 19 people struck a vulture and crashed in Nepal in September 2012, all onboard died. But the greatest threat comes from flocks of larger birds, particularly geese. While the Miracle on the Hudson and Holland incidents had happy endings, that hasn’t always been the case.

Of course, birds aren’t suicidal monsters looking for planes to crash into. In fact, birds don’t hit aircraft—aircraft, which fly much faster, hit birds. Either a bird or flock doesn’t hear a plane coming, or the bird can’t get out of the way in time.

If birds weren’t enough, however, pilots also have to worry about other critters that wander onto runways, the reason official reports refer to “wildlife strikes.” Fewer than 5 percent of all strikes reported involve something other than a bird, but they still cause significant problems. Moose and caribou have been struck by aircraft in Alaska, while in Florida collisions with alligators happen almost every year, and gopher tortoise strikes have recently been increasing. Armadillos have been hit in Texas, pronghorn antelope in Arizona. Leading the list are white-tailed deer, whose U.S. population is estimated at 15 million. More than 1,000 deer strikes were recorded in the FAA’s 24-year study period, and significant damage is typical. Next on the list is the coyote, with more than 400 collisions. In all, the FAA listed 42 species of terrestrial mammals and 11 species of reptiles involved in accidents.

Even domesticated animals have run afoul of aircraft. Collisions with cattle have destroyed airplanes, and yes, dogs and cats have had encounters too. In fact, the first recorded terrestrial wildlife strike involved a dog. On July 25, 1909, the same day he would become the first person to fly a plane across the English Channel, Louis Blériot was warming up the engine of his Blériot XI when an unfortunate farm dog ran into his propeller blades.

There have also been some downright strange mishaps. On September 10, 2013, when a Gulfstream IV flown by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hit something on the runway at MacDill AFB in Florida, it turned out to be a fish—a sheepshead that had most likely been dropped by an osprey.

A small homebuilt aircraft was landing at North Carolina’s Miller Air Park Airport on March 13, 2006, when the pilot felt the plane hit something. As the aircraft rolled down the grass runway, its nose gear began to collapse. When the nose hit the ground, the plane flipped over—a total loss. The pilot, OK aside from a cut to the head, scrambled out and discovered the remains of a cottontail rabbit.

So what has been done to lessen the risk? In the 1980s, the FAA started taking steps to address the problem, hiring its first staff biologist in 1983. In 1989 FAA officials began collaborating with the Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, which developed an Airport Wildlife Hazards Program and provided direct assistance to airports across the country. The National Wildlife Research Center’s Ohio field station works to develop management strategies to reduce wildlife hazards to aircraft and produce science-based recommendations, policies and procedures to control wildlife at airports and other locations where they present a hazard to aviation safety. Wildlife Services personnel began working with officials at major airports such as JFK and ORD to address their wildlife issues. The two agencies published the first manual on mitigating wildlife strikes at civil airports in 1999, at which time they were assisting 363 airports. By 2010, more than 800 airports were provided assistance.

Since most bird strikes occur when aircraft are close to the ground, either taking off or landing, much of the control effort has been centered around airports and nearby areas. In fact, the FAA has addressed the issue of wildlife strikes in its airport certification process, which includes an explanation of wildlife control strategies. And since 2004, the FAA has required every airport that meets or exceeds a certain size to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Airport officials must survey their site, determining the types and numbers of birds and other wildlife typically found there and the threats they pose to aircraft. Then the airport must produce a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and submit it to the FAA for approval.

The Bird Strike Committee USA is a volunteer organization formed in August 1991 to promote the collection of data on wildlife strikes, facilitate the exchange of that information and foster the development of systems to reduce the hazard. The group includes representatives from the FAA, USDA, Department of Defense, aviation industry and airports. It holds conferences to exchange ideas, and also works closely with the Bird Strike Association of Canada. Both groups meet annually at the Bird Strike North America Conference. It is particularly important that both nations work together because migratory birds that spend time north and south of the border are a major hazard. About 90 percent of all bird strikes in the U.S. involve species federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Many other countries also have bird strike committees, and there’s also the World Birdstrike Association, headquartered in the Netherlands. Officially formed in June 2012, the WBA was the successor to the International Bird Strike Committee, established in November 2008 to coordinate information between nations.

Progress is clearly being made in identifying strike zones and warning pilots and airports about how to make flying safer. Efforts to reduce the bird and wildlife strike threat will continue worldwide, but this is a problem sure to challenge aviators as long as birds and beasts lurk nearby.

Retired meteorology professor Ed Brotak has written extensively on the effects of weather, biology/ecology and natural hazards to aviation. Further reading: Bird Strike: The Crash of the Boston Electra, by Michael Kalafatas.

Online resources include the FAA Wildlife Strike Database (wildlife.faa.gov) and websites of the Bird Strike Committee USA (birdstrike.org), Bird Strike Association of Canada (canadianbirdstrike.ca) and World Birdstrike Association (worldbirdstrike.com).

When Birds Strike was originally published in the May 2016 issue of Aviation History. Subscribe here!

World birds strike association

The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World

WBA Conference Nov-Dec 2022

World Birdstrike Association World Conference bringing all aviation stakeholders together for voices to be heard, actions to be planned and to mutually address wildlife strike risk. Let’s do it TOGETHER.

Venue: Civil Aviation Training Centre (CATC), Bangkok Thailand

General topics:

Calling for Sponsors:

Awards:

Calling for Nominations for

Please register your interest, choosing the sponsor type and contact us at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Participants Fees:

Watch our website for updates at: www.worldbirdstrike.com

World Birdstrike Association Europe Conference at British Irish EXPO June 2022

WBA Draft Amended Statutes

The draft statutes comments have been closed. All comments and suggestions will be reviewed by the board and our legal consultant

Thank you for all your contributions.

WBA wishes to thank all participants and Sponsors for the successful Webinar on 7-8th March 2022.

WBA wishes to thank all participants for the webinar attendance. We look forward to more interactions in the future.

WBA Board

Board Member: Regions coordinator

Board Member: Membership

Gary Cooke is a B787 pilot for American Airlines and a retired USAF C-5 pilot and safety officer. Gary has over 40 years’ aviation experience flying military, corporate, general, and commercial flying and has focused his safety efforts in reducing bird/wildlife strike risk within aviation. Most recently Gary started the Bird Strike Working Group for the National Business Aviation Association, and as such has represented NBAA as a steering committee member for the BSC-USA.

He also represents NBAA on the WBA where he has been a board member and has had a key role in developing the Global Action Plan for reducing B/W strike risks in Aviation. Gary has written and presented numerous papers on identifying bird/wildlife hazards and reducing the risk in aviation specific to pilots.

Gary and his wife Margaret Golden have four grown children and reside in Savannah, Georgia, USA.

Lalita Vaswani is engaged in Software development on a broad spectrum and provides SAP Consulting, Change Management & Development Services to medium and large enterprises in the Oceania cluster.

Former air-crew, creator and Founder of StrykerAV – An airfield intelligence, web application.

passionate about providing Airside safety to Airports and all related stakeholders.

Active ongoing involvement with the World birdstrike Association, sharing and seeking expert advice from regulators like ICAO, Civil Aviation Authorities from across the world to ensure airside safety which is of paramount importance.

Christian holds a degree in forest science and business administration from the universities of Goettingen /Germany and Stellenbosch /South Africa. After University he started a two years clerkship at the Federal Forest administration and then worked for 5 years in the private forest sector. After three years with an international management consultancy, he was responsible at the Federal forest administration for environmental compensation and replacement measures military training facilities. 2017 he started as managing director of the German Birdstrike committee (DAVVL) in Bremen. DAVVL is responsible for 28 international and municipal Airports in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Luxemburg and gives expertise to 10 Airlines e.g. Lufthansa Group, Airbus, Eurowings.

I am very experienced ornithologist, ecologist and aviation safety expert. I am bird identification specialist in the Polish Rarities Committee. I used to field work from high Arctic to the Persian Gulf, in museum collections in Poland, Russia, USA including DNA sequencing. I have been working with Wildlife Hazard Management (WHM) in civil and military aviation for several years. I have created and conduct WHM Program in Polish Armed Forces. I also work as consultant for aerodromes projects, renewable energy and in project using radars in bird strike avoidance, among others.

I am director of ecology in World Birdstrike Association and vice-chairman of the Polish Wildlife Strike Committee. I conduct WHM courses for many organizations including civil and military Committees for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents, cooperate with Civil Aviation Authorities, NATO experts and nature protection organizations.

I am an author or co-author of more than a 100 publications, presentations, and posters concerning aviation safety, bird identification and ecology. I have also illustrated many, mostly ornithological, articles in different Polish and international magazines, books and leaflets.

Recently involved in the WBA-EUR Board, Michel Glorieux has started his career in France in the late 1980’s in CDG airport joining former Swissair airline ground operations, after studying Tourism in Paris, Scotland and Germany.

In 1994 he moved to Geneva, Switzerland and step by step assumed different positions within Swissport ground handling company that he finally led as the General Manager for GVA base until 2014. Then in 2015 after 26 years spent in different airport ground handling positions, he joined BTEE SA and took over the responsibility of the Wildlife control team for Geneva International Airport after 3 months intensive training in the different fields required to fulfill his mission, from legal aspects to passive and active prevention as well as ornithology basics amongst many other topics.

In parallel, Michel is also managing Airtrace International training Center, a division of BTEE SA, working with more than 200 different airports worldwide, providing training sessions in different airport related areas and mainly in the wildlife hazard management domain.

WBA Board

Board Member: Regions coordinator

Board Member: Membership

Gary and his wife Margaret Golden have four grown children and reside in Savannah, Georgia, USA.

Lalita Vaswani is engaged in Software development on a broad spectrum and provides SAP Consulting, Change Management & Development Services to medium and large enterprises in the Oceania cluster.

Former air-crew, creator and Founder of StrykerAV – An airfield intelligence, web application.

passionate about providing Airside safety to Airports and all related stakeholders.

Bird Strikes | The Risks and Mitigation

The presence of Birds and other animals on and near an airport poses a serious hazard to aviation safety, especially aircraft’s operational safety.

Bird Strike on aircraft results in significant costs, in terms of human lives, and material damage to aircraft.

Scientists think that birds own their ability to identify threats to both instinct and learning. Experiments suggest that young birds may be genetically wired to avoid risks. But they need to watch experienced birds in action refine their know-how.

By watching their parents in the act of mobbing, youngsters gain critical knowledge that may save their skin. Of course, this ability works for non-bird strike hazards.

This short introduction about bird strikes to aviation. Therefore, I am sure you may need to know more about this subject.

In this article, I will let you know the basics information about Bird Strikes, Bird Strikes mitigation measures, and what kind of advanced technologies are used.

What is the meaning of bird strike?

A bird strike is defined as a collision between a bird and an aircraft which is in flight or on a takeoff or landing roll.

Simply, when bird hits the aircraft (during the flight) at different points it’s called » Bird Strikes «.

How Dangerous is a Bird Strike?

Most impacts between aircraft and wildlife – such as “bird-strike”- occur at airports and in their immediate vicinity. Approximately 80% of impacts occur below 300ft altitude during take-off and landing.

The risk of impact, during a landing or take-off phase, is linked to several contingent factors: type of birds presents in the airport, the intensity of the activity, the number of individuals, the direction, the position, and in general to factors typical of the airport under consideration.

Furthermore, contingent factors include geographical location, proximity to foraging areas for the bird or sources of attraction such as landfills and cultivated fields, the presence of wetlands, the fact of being positioned along particular migration routes for certain bird species, and the management of airport sediments and much more.

I will give you an example of “bird-strike” as one of many wildlife strikes to aviation. When birds hit the aircraft turbine and get caught in the engine, this event is referred to as a jet engine ingestion (since the bird is ingested by the engine).

After being stuck in the engine, the birds can disrupt the rotatory motion of the fan blades, resulting in a partial or complete failure of that engine.

How to Prevent Bird Strikes on Aircraft?

The main strategy on which the action of mitigation of the risk of bird-strike in airports is based on the daily monitoring of birds. The monitoring is supported by the various detection systems and the ecological-environmental management plan of the airport to minimize the sources of attraction for birds and make the airport a hostile place for bird presence.

In aviation safety, technology is one of the perfect three safety defenses [ beside Regulation and Training]. So advanced technology is used in new detection systems to strengthen safety measures in mitigation of the risk of bird-strike in airports.

Bird Strike risk reduction strategies may base on one or many of the following control measures:

1- Bird & Drone Detection Systems

Using of bird’s detection radar or detection systems. Detection systems are capable of effectively recognizing and classifying bird species and calculating their trajectory, and immediately orchestrating the actions required to remove species from the area to be kept safe (Such as B.C.M.S VENTUR system).

2- Habitat Management

This can be influenced by specific measures e.g., shorter vegetation, the netting of water reservoirs, passive bird control measures on building, and falconry.

3- Use of Predators

The use of peregrine and other falcons with various teams distributed over the day can create hostilities in the affected territory.

4- Bird Robots

Flying models in the form of predators are used and controlled by experienced pilots.

Bird reacts to acoustic stimuli. This is used by predator’s cry- and blank firing systems. These imitate predators and the warning cries of the birds to be controlled.

Acoustic Device acoustic signals up to 150 dB can be directionally beamed up to 1,500 meters. It transmits bird cries and other noises that disturb birds.

7- Visual Methods

Research has shown that birds perceive light at 532nm wavelength particularly well. Using a laser system is effective. The laser must only be directed downwards to be safe.

8- Netting

For historical reasons, airports are often close to landfill sites. These are irresistible attractions to birds. The only solution is the large-area netting of the landfills, and also the neighboring reservoirs, hangars, and other buildings.

9- Bird Houses

Birds houses is used to attract birds so that they can be easily controlled and the population reduced by exchanging the eggs.

Additional methods may be used by the airport authority following the National Civil Aviation Authority requirements.

Pilots can avoid flocks of birds by delaying takeoff or landing in the presence of bird activity. Below 10,000 feet, Pilots should keep speed below 250 knots if operationally possible. Below 2,000 feet, Pilots should climb at the maximum rate to reduce the flight time exposure to a strike hazard.

Conclusion

Preventing is better than a cure, in another word, keeping aircraft and birds apart where possible by using advanced technology besides other traditional bird strike risk reduction measures.

Airport authorities should use bird detection systems and it should be associated with an appropriate policy of ecological and environmental management of the airport, established based on accurate and detailed naturalistic research.

— ICAO Airport Services Manual, Part 3 — Wildlife Hazard Management (Doc 9137).

Bird strike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bird strike—sometimes called birdstrike, bird ingestion (for an engine), bird hit, or bird aircraft strike hazard (BASH)—is a collision between an airborne animal (usually a bird or bat) [1] and a moving vehicle, usually an aircraft. The term is also used for bird deaths resulting from collisions with structures such as power lines, towers and wind turbines (see Bird–skyscraper collisions and Towerkill). [2]

A significant threat to flight safety, bird strikes have caused a number of accidents with human casualties. [3] There are over 13,000 bird strikes annually in the US alone. [4] However, the number of major accidents involving civil aircraft is quite low and it has been estimated that there is only about 1 accident resulting in human death in one billion (10 9 ) flying hours. [5] The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause little damage to the aircraft; [6] however, the collision is usually fatal to the bird(s) involved. [ citation needed ]

The Canada goose has been ranked as the third most hazardous wildlife species to aircraft (behind deer and vultures), [7] with approximately 240 goose-aircraft collisions in the United States each year. 80% of all bird strikes go unreported. [8]

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) received 65,139 bird strike reports for 2011–14, and the Federal Aviation Administration counted 177,269 wildlife strike reports on civil aircraft between 1990 and 2015, growing 38% in seven years from 2009 to 2015. Birds accounted for 97%. [11]

My Bird World Lite 4+

Снимки экрана (iPhone)

Описание

My Bird World, co-produced with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, was named TOP 10 TRIED AND TRUE CLASSROOM APPS by Teacherswithapps.com. In this LITE version, you can play all four delightful games and win up to 4 North American Birds. If you like it, you can upgrade to the full game of 20 birds.

Have fun playing two games to win birds and place them in different habitats. Then play two more games to win food for your birds! Every time you feed a bird, you’ll learn more about it and hear it sing.

“With these intriguing and fun challenges, learn about North American birds, including their songs, food choices, and habitats. The game is filled with fascinating facts, real bird calls, and great photos!”
– Nancy Trautman, Director of Education, The Cornell Lab of Ornithology

“. is a fun way to engage young birders and the perfect gateway into the world of birding. A thumb’s up for My Bird World. ”
– Princeton University Press

“It’s great for children, but plenty of adults are getting hooked on it too.”
– The Miami Herald

• Play MATCH FACTS and INFESTATION PREDATION to win birds. Once you’ve won a bird and placed it in a habitat, you can feed your bird, hear it sing, and move it to other habitats. To win food, play MEMORY and FLIGHT PATTERNS.

• Place your birds in five beautiful habitats – woods, field, shore, lake and marsh – and move them from one habitat to another to see where they like to live.

• Over 40 stunning photographs of 20 birds, both perched and flying.

• Amazing audio includes bird songs and calls from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s world famous Macaulay Library, the world’s largest collection of natural sounds.

• The four games in My Bird World LITE teach a variety of learning skills: memory, reading, sound and visual pattern recognition, and bird identification.

• With My Bird World LITE, you can win and feed up to FOUR birds.

How dangerous is bird strike on airplane?

A bird strike occurs when a moving airplane collides with a bird. The bird can hit any part of an airplane and in all cases it will be called a bird strike. When an aircraft crashes with another type of animal, like a bat, coyote or even deer, such an incident is called a wildlife strike. According to the latest reports, around 98% of wildlife strikes are bird strikes.

How common are bird strike incidents?

As birds fly at lower altitudes, most frequently plane collisions with them occur during a takeoff, initial ascent approach, or landing. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, 90% of bird strike incidents happen around airports. As per the Federal Aviation Administration, about 63% of the bird-related accidents occur during daylight hours, because birds typically fly during the day.

The majority of bird strikes are caused by unknown bird species. Perching birds, sparrows, and starlings account for 22% of strikes. Shorebirds, gulls, and terns cause around 11% of bird strikes. Larger gulls that usually fly in big flocks are more often involved in incidents where significant damage is caused. Raptors, such as hawks, eagles, and vultures, account for only 9% of bird strike incidents, but pose a greater threat to flight safety.

Size of aircraft matters

When a bird ꟷ even a small one ꟷ hits a plane, you would hear a bang sound. If a small bird is sucked into an engine, it usually goes through the core of the engine and reaches air conditioning systems. People onboard might smell an odor similar to roasted chicken.

If a bird is flying very close to the windows, you might also assume that some of them might hit either wings, engines, or the stabilizer of the aircraft. In such a case, the aircraft crew tells air traffic controllers that they might have a bird strike and there might be a need for the so-called bird strike inspection upon the arrival. If the plane crew thinks that there might have been a bird strike, first they would check the engine parameters to make sure that the engines are not fluctuating.

The damage from the bird strike depends on several factors. First of all, it is the size of the aircraft. Smaller planes and propeller-driven machines are more likely to sustain structural damage, such as penetration of windscreen, control surfaces, or empennage. The windscreen penetration could also potentially injure pilots or other people on board, which may lead to loss of control and have disastrous consequences.

Large aircraft usually sustain engine malfunction or even complete failure if a bird flies into them. More than ⅓ of bird strikes involve engines. If a bird is sucked into an engine, it may lead to severe damage to the first compressor rotor (fan blades). This can result in severe vibration, loud bangs, and a total loss of engine thrust. Bird strikes can inflict damage to not only on the engines of a large aircraft but to parts, including wings, nose, windshield, and fuselage, too.

During landing or takeoff, bird strikes can cause damage to extended landing gear, which can lead to sufficient malfunction of brakes or nose gear steering systems. In turn, it can result in directional control problems during a subsequent landing roll. In rare cases, aircraft collision with birds can occur at higher altitudes. This may lead to structural damage to the aircraft hull and rapid depressurization.

It is also important how many birds impact with the aircraft. For instance, ducks, geese, and swans account only for 2% of bird strike incidents. However, since these birds tend to fly in massive flocks, they can cause more significant damage to the plane.

How airport administration prevents bird strikes?

A complete engine failure after a crash with a feathered creature can severely compromise flight safety. Therefore, to prevent or at least to minimize the risk, airports are taking steps to try to stop bird strikes.

Complete engine failure due to a bird strike can severely compromise flight safety. Therefore, to prevent or at least minimize the risk, airports are taking steps to prevent damage. Certain steps are taken to prevent damage to some extent.

The first thing that an airport’s administration can do is to reduce bird habitats around the airport and its runway(s). Open areas of grass and water, shrubs, trees provide food and roosting sites for birds. For this reason, airports tend to cut down trees with nests, reduce rainwater pooling, and substitute cattle grazing for grain crops.

Migrating birds that follow well-defined flight paths can create a hazard if their flight paths are near an airport. To prevent that, airport administration broadcasts bird distress signals or uses pyrotechnic bird-scaring cartridges. In fact, some bigger airports can also use trained peregrine falcons to keep gulls and geese away from the landfills. Large flocking birds can also be detected using specialized, ground-based radar equipment.

However, the responsibility to minimize the bird strike problem falls not only on airports. Before aircraft are cleared for usage, they undergo a serious set of tests. They include bird strike engine testing as well.

Bird Strikes: How common are they?

With spring in full swing, most people notice the flowers blooming, the air getting warmer, and the daylight hours becoming longer. But for those of us who travel by air, you might also be noticing the large flocks of birds migrating back north this time of year.

Although bird strikes can happen any time of the year, airline officials may be on heightened alert during the colder months when larger flocks of birds take to the skies. Many people remember the story of “Sully” Sullenberger and US Airways flight 1549 that struck a large flock of Canadian geese during takeoff out of LaGuardia Airport on January 15, 2009. In this extremely rare incident, the Airbus A320 suffered bird strikes to both engines, resulting in total power loss to both sides. Stories like this can be unsettling for passengers who are about to take to the skies, but it’s important to take note of the rarity of these incidents and look at the facts before avoiding booking your next flight.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, over 10,000 bird strikes occur each year, averaging more than 26 hits a day. So why are bird strikes becoming more common? Is it a result of better incident reporting by airline pilots, or does the environment we live in have something to do with the increased rates of occurrence? In an annual report released by the FAA/USDA in 2013, three factors have been linked to these rapid increases.

Have no fear!

It’s clear that the facts show bird strikes as being a significant threat to the aviation world, however it’s imperative to note what type of threats birds pose. Usually bird strikes only cause minimal damages to the plane, resulting in more of an inconvenience to maintenance crews and airline schedules, rather then to the passengers themselves. Very few fatalities have occurred to human life as a result of a bird strike. In most instances, passengers are completely unaware that their plane has come in contact with a bird, and the flight usually continues on its way. If damage does occur however, pilots are trained to find the nearest airport to safely land the plane and proceed with maintenance inspections before carrying on with the original flight plan.

Let’s put your odds into perspective!

In today’s world, air travel is considered to be one of the safest modes of transportation. Most people don’t think twice about driving in a car, even though the odds of being in a fatal car crash are staggering around 1 in 112. When it comes to air travel safety and bird strikes, aviation experts are continuously looking for ways to improve overall safety. Airports take this issue very seriously and have put numerous techniques into place to prevent these strikes from even happening.

The reality is, bird strikes are going to happen, but the odds of this occurrence being life threatening to passengers is exceedingly low. Although easier said then done, nervous passengers need not to worry and should try to relax. If need be, reduce your stress by flying at night when the odds of a bird strike are drastically lower, or perhaps take a closer look at the numbers. Your odds are definitely in your favor, and airports take your safety very seriously by creating an environment that is ideal for planes to land. So the next time you look up to see a flock of geese soaring by, don’t cringe at the thought of flying in the skies next to them, enjoy their beauty and know that airports are doing their very best to keep you (and the birds) safe!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Gmail Facebook Twitter Link

Suggest as cover photo

Would you like to suggest this photo as the cover photo for this article?

Thank you for helping!

Your input will affect cover photo selection, along with input from other users.

Thanks for reporting this video!

This browser is not supported by Wikiwand 🙁
Wikiwand requires a browser with modern capabilities in order to provide you with the best reading experience.
Please download and use one of the following browsers:

An extension you use may be preventing Wikiwand articles from loading properly.

If you’re using HTTPS Everywhere or you’re unable to access any article on Wikiwand, please consider switching to HTTPS (https://www.wikiwand.com).

An extension you use may be preventing Wikiwand articles from loading properly.

If you are using an Ad-Blocker, it might have mistakenly blocked our content. You will need to temporarily disable your Ad-blocker to view this page.

World birds strike association

Flight crews can reduce the possibility and effects of a bird strike by increased awareness and by following recommended procedures.

Bird strikes are a lesser hazard to aviation than other well-known hazards such as loss of control in flight, controlled flight into terrain, and runway excursions, but they can and do present risk that needs to be addressed. The first bird strike was recorded by the Wright brothers in 1905, and the aviation wildlife hazard has been a risk to aviation ever since. The January 15, 2009, ditching of US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson River in Weehawken, New Jersey, was the dramatic result of dual engine thrust loss arising from an airborne encounter with a flock of Canada geese. Although Boeing airplanes meet and exceed the government regulations for bird strikes, accidents and serious incidents can occur. Aviation wildlife hazards encompass birds on the ground and in flight, terrestrial animals (e.g., deer, coyotes, cattle, camels), and even airborne animals such as fruit bats; however, this article focuses on bird strikes in particular. Operators and flight crews should be aware of the risk of bird strikes, prevention strategies, and actions to take following a bird strike.

This article discusses the characteristics of bird strikes, presents practical information for flight crews, highlights the importance of reporting bird strikes, and provides resources for additional bird-strike information.

Characteristics of bird strikes

Experts within the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force expect the risk, frequency, and potential severity of wildlife-aircraft collisions to grow over the next decade, based on increasing air traffic, bird populations, and the trend to twin-engine aircraft. (Download PDF.)

While bird strikes usually inflict most damage on the engines, all areas of an airplane can be damaged (see figs. 1 and 2). Airplane damage and effect on flight from bird strikes are closely correlated to kinetic energy, derived from the mass (determined by bird species) and the square of the speed of the collision. (A 20 percent increase in speed raises the kinetic energy by 44 percent.)

Figure 1: Example of bird-strike damage

Bird-strike damage can be quite severe and can shut down jet engines.

Figure 2: Locations of bird-strike damage

Three-quarters of bird strikes involve the wing or engines, but they can damage almost any part of an airplane.

Single or multiple large birds, relatively small numbers of medium-size birds, and large flocks of relatively small birds are all problematic and have resulted in accidents. In the United States, a list of birds most hazardous to flight has been identified: large flocking waterfowl (Canada goose); gulls; pigeons and doves; blackbirds, starlings, and sparrows; and raptors (hawks and kestrels). Most bird strikes occur on or near the ground, highlighting the need for wildlife management on airport grounds and in the vicinity. (Download PDF.)

The aviation bird-strike hazard is a global and industrywide issue affecting all aviation stakeholders, including pilots, mechanics, airlines, airport operators, air traffic controllers, wildlife personnel, aviation safety analysts, airplane and engine manufacturers, flight training organizations, and the traveling public. Boeing participates in national and international groups dedicated to exploring and addressing the problem of bird strikes, and Boeing airplanes meet and exceed regulatory bird-strike requirements. Boeing has many design features, including system separation, system redundancy, and structural attributes, to protect against bird strikes beyond the four-pound regulatory general bird-strike FAA requirement (eight pounds for empennage).

Common misconceptions about bird strikes

A number of widespread misconceptions about bird strikes may give pilots a false sense of security and prevent them from reacting appropriately to the threat of a bird strike or an actual event. These misconceptions include:

In fact, none of these statements is scientifically proven.

Source: Bird Strike Committee USA

Preventive Strategies

Airports are responsible for bird control and should provide adequate wildlife control measures. If large birds or flocks of birds are reported or observed near the runway, the flight crew should consider:

To prevent or reduce the consequences of a bird strike, the flight crew should:

Source: Bird Strike Committee USA

Additional Resources

Additional information is available online through a number of industry groups. Information includes significant strike events, key issues to reduce strikes, risk assessment, system information, papers and newsletters, and discussion forums.

The importance of reporting bird strikes

Flight crews and maintenance and line personnel are encouraged to report all bird strikes because data are essential to quantify and manage the hazard. Reporting bird strikes enables aviation authorities to monitor the risk to aviation and the effectiveness of wildlife hazard mitigation measures. Bird-strike data, together with knowledge of the operational environment, are utilized by Boeing as a basis of many airplane design features beyond regulatory requirements. Bird-strike data also help researchers understand the nature of strikes and develop a scientific approach to reduce the cost and safety consequences of bird strikes.

Aviation stakeholders should report all known or suspected bird strikes to their national or recognized wildlife strike data repository (e.g., the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database in the United States) and share the strike information with the airport operator, the airline safety department, and the aircraft and engine manufacturers. Each of these individual reports will be combined into a single composite data record. Reporters should provide as much information as possible, including:

If bird remains are available, trained personnel should identify the species involved, or the bird remains should be collected using the correct procedure (as outlined here) and bird-strike collection kit and shipped to a qualified laboratory. It is crucial to determine the species of the bird or birds involved in a bird strike and the location of the strike, so that wildlife management can take appropriate actions. Effective wildlife management involves controlling attractants, often species-specific, including food, foraging, roosting, and nesting opportunities. Managing the environment may be necessary, even to the extent of grass type and height, insects, rodents, and invertebrates, along with water sources and land use, such as agriculture.

In the event of a bird strike, maintenance personnel should follow the appropriate maintenance procedures for bird strike inspection in the Airplane Maintenance Manual. Maintenance personnel must be cognizant of the possibility that the bird remains can contain infectious material. The bird strike should be reported by the flight crew in the pilot’s log or by the maintenance crew in the maintenance log. After a bird strike, the airplane should be inspected for possible damage to airplane structure and airplane systems.

In the United States and Canada, bird-strike information can be reported online or via FAA form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report.

How airlines can get involved

Airlines and other stakeholders can help address the ongoing problem of bird strikes by participating in local, regional, national, or international aviation wildlife hazard activities, such as bird-strike committees or equivalent groups.

Airlines can also form their own internal aviation wildlife hazard group and designate a single point of contact for coordinating all aviation wildlife hazard activity, both internally and externally.

Although it is not possible to avoid all bird strikes, flight crews can take steps to reduce the chance of a bird-strike event. If a bird strike does occur, the appropriate action can improve the flight crew’s ability to maintain control of the airplane and land safely.

This information from the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual provides flight crews and flight operations personnel with practical information about preventing and managing bird-strike events.

Prevention strategies

Bird strikes during takeoff roll

If a bird strike occurs during takeoff, the decision to continue or reject the takeoff is made using the criteria found in the Rejected Takeoff maneuver of the QRH. If a bird strike occurs above 80 knots and prior to V1, and there is no immediate evidence of engine failure (e.g., failure, fire, power loss, or surge/stall), the preferred option is to continue with the takeoff followed by an immediate return, if required.

Detecting a bird strike while in flight

Responses to a known or suspected bird strike

Multiple engine failure or thrust loss

Severe engine damage

Strong engine vibration

Multiple engine ingestion and abnormal engine indications

Known or suspected multiple engine ingestion, with normal engine indications

Known or suspected strikes with large flocking birds, such as Canada geese

Known or suspected airframe damage or engine damage

Damaged windshield or depressurization

Known or suspected strike with landing gear extended or in takeoff or landing configuration with high lift deployed

Known or suspected strikes to air data and angle-of-attack sensors

Bird strikes during approach or landing

Postflight actions following a known or suspected bird strike

Summary

Bird strikes have always been a part of aviation. While they usually cause no more than minor damage, they can pose a threat to air safety. By being aware of the ongoing possibility of bird strikes and by following recommended procedures, flight crews can reduce the possibility and effects of a bird strike.

For more information, please contact Roger Nicholson.

Angry Birds Epic RPG 4+

Rovio Entertainment Oyj

Screenshots

Description

Unleash the Angry Birds flock in a free turn-based RPG, and join a community of more than 85 MILLION players around the world!

Angry Birds Epic sends you on a sprawling adventure across the tropical beaches, frosty mountains, and deep dungeons of Piggy Island in hundreds of challenging levels. Collect and craft a huge arsenal of weapons, and wield powerful magic to defeat fearsome boss pigs and their many minions. Crush troublesome pigs in battle to win epic loot, craft ever more powerful weapons and level up your party. To victory!

● FIGHT hordes of enemies in turn-based battles. Use the powerful skills of your birds to lead your flock to victory!

● PLAY as heroic knight, mighty wizard, or helpful druid, and assemble the perfect party!

● LEVEL UP and master your birds to defeat mighty boss villains like King Pig, Prince Porky or Wiz Pig.

● CRAFT hundreds of weapons and magical potions! Improve your best equipment even further through powerful enchantments.

● COMPLETE rare equipment sets, and use them to unleash devastating power-effects in battle.

● CHALLENGE real players from around the world in the arena. Progress from wood to diamond league and carve your place at the top the leaderboards.

● JOIN limited time events to earn valuable upgrades and rewards! Follow the flock on Facebook and Twitter for news on upcoming events.

PLEASE NOTE: Logging into Game Center does not save your game data. To save your game progress in Angry Birds Epic, please sign up for a Rovio account or log into an existing one.

Angry Birds Epic is free to play, optional in-app purchases are available.

This game may include:
— Direct links to social networking websites that are intended for an audience over the age of 13.
— Direct links to the internet that can take players away from the game with the potential to browse to any web page
— Advertising of Rovio products and also products from selected partners

This game may require internet connectivity and subsequent data transfer charges may apply.

Balancing nature & security: wildlife & bird strike hazards

W hen it’s bird versus airplane, both lose. The energy released when a 3 kg (6.6 lb) bird is hit by an aircraft traveling 150 mph equals the energy released by dropping a 47 lb object from 100 feet. The results can be devastating.

Just ask Mr Jeff Skiles, First Officer of USAirways Flight 1549, the famed “Miracle on the Hudson” in which Mr Skiles’ captain, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, landed their Airbus A320-214 in the middle of the Hudson River after birds struck both CFM56-5B4/P turbofan engines shortly following takeoff from LaGuardia Airport in New York City. Mr Skiles was a keynote speaker at the inaugural ACI-ICAO Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium that was held at ICAO Headquarters in May 2017.

Mr Skiles’ speech put Symposium participants in a virtual jump-seat as he described how he saw a flock of birds, languidly flapping their wings, already too close to avoid. A split-second later, the birds impacted the plane. Mr Skiles compared the feeling to flying through a hailstorm. Before he could begin to assess the damage, both engines failed. The flight was at minimum speed and he said he felt the aircraft sag in the air. Sully immediately took control, calling out “my aircraft,” while they ran through the checklist to assess and troubleshoot.

Ms Angela Gittens, Director-General of Airports Council International (ACI), told delegates, “Wildlife strikes affect airports, small and large, in all regions of the world. It is both a risk to aviation safety and a financial burden. We are committed to working with ICAO, regulators, and the rest of the industry to reduce hazards from wildlife strikes – a critical element in improving aviation safety.”

Mr Rob van Eekeren, President of the World Birdstrike Association, warned that in the next 20 years, not only will air traffic increase, so will the increased risk of bird strikes as the avian population increases, alters migration patterns, becomes more dependent on human food sources, and settles near urban areas… and airports. If policies are not changed, Mr van Eekeren predicted, “The risk to passengers will increase considerably.”

“Wildlife strikes affect airports, small and large, in all regions of the world. It is both a risk to aviation safety and a financial burden.”

– Ms Angela Gittens, Director-General, ACI

Mr Yong Wang, Chief, Airport Operations and Infrastructure for ICAO’s Air Navigation Bureau (ANB), outlined some of findings from recent updates to the ICAO wildlife strikes analysis database, known as IBIS:

About one-third of bird strikes against aircraft are from perching and shore birds. Fewer than 10 percent are hawks, eagles, and vultures, and only 2 percent ducks, geese, and swans. Three percent are mammals – deer, moose, bears, wolves.

The vast majority of reported strikes are in North America and Europe; nearly 70,000 of the approximately 100,000 reported by 91 States. “Of the wildlife strikes for which the damage was coded (33,376 strikes), 17 aircraft were destroyed, 600 strikes caused substantial damage to the aircraft, and 1,874 strikes caused minor damage,” Mr Wang noted. Wildlife strikes represent 3.6 percent of all aviation accidents.

“Wildlife strikes can cause accidents and serious incidents, costing the aviation industry billions in losses due to aircraft damage, flight delays and other operational impacts,” commented Mr Stephen Creamer, Director of the ANB. “All aviation stakeholders need to work together to formulate a global strategy to address these hazards.”

Mr Creamer advocated long-term efforts to tackle the challenge of wildlife strikes globally, including strengthening regulatory requirements. “States need to have appropriate legislation and regulation to address the safety concerns, including those related to land use around an aerodrome,” he said.

Wildlife strike hazards should be assessed through a national procedure for recording and reporting wildlife strikes to aircraft, the collection of information on the presence of wildlife constituting a potential hazard, and an ongoing evaluation of the hazard by competent personnel, Mr Creamer explained.

The “Robird,” a drone which mimics the flight of a falcon, will be integrated into the Edmonton, Canada airport’s wildlife management programme. Developed by Clear Flight Solutions and Aerium Analytics, Robird will help guide birds safely away from air traffic while discouraging nesting near airside operations and glide paths.

Habitat research, dogs and radar

Multiple speakers described various low- and high-tech approaches to mitigating the risk from birds and other wildlife. Dr Travis Devault, Project Leader for the US Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio, encouraged research into habitat use and foraging strategies of hazardous wildlife, which could be used to develop non-lethal methods and tools to reduce wildlife food, water, and cover aractants. He suggested using geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the effects of landscape structures, analyzing andscape paerns and interactions which influence the occurrence of bird strikes.

Some airports are using satellite tracking of hazardous birds. Others are identifying alternative land covers on or near airports, such as non-herbaceous ground covers or solar arrays, as well as development of aircraft lighting techniques and acoustic devices which use sound to disperse wildlife.

Ms Melissa Hoffmann, Senior Wildlife Officer for Airports Company South Africa, described how her team uses dogs to scare birds away from strike danger zones. The dogs are trained as puppies and taught not to wander too close to runways. Breeds include Springer Spaniels, which help to flush birds out of dense tall grass areas and can even sniff out nests and eggs.

Ms Tanya Drapeau, Site Manager, Avisure Pty Ltd., said at Vancouver International Airport in British Columbia, wildlife harassment techniques include pyrotechnics, Australian-style “stock whips,” visual deterrents such as lasers and spotlights to direct wildlife away from danger zones into safer areas, and trained predators such as border collies and falcons.

Mr David Bradbeer, Wildlife Program Specialist, Airside Operations, for Vancouver airport, advised:

Mr Nico Voorbach, Director, ICAO and Industry Affairs, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), said air navigation service providers (ANSPs) can look at changing routes of aircraft, changing Standard Instrument Departure (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STARs), and changing runways.

Captain Ron Abel, President of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), said, in addition to wildlife strike reports, flight crews can offer operational insight to local Runway Safety Teams.

“All aviation stakeholders need to work together to formulate a global strategy to address these hazards.”

– Mr Stephen Creamer, Director, ICAO Air Navigation Bureau.

Pratt & Whitney accident and incident investigator Mr Chris Demers explained how both engine design and regulation have evolved as we gain more knowledge about the threat of bird ingestion. Examples of turbofan engine design improvements include shroudless fan airfoils, automatic surge recovery and automatic restart logic, improved compressor vane retention designs, optimized rain/hail/FOD [foreign object damage] core rejection geometry, and reduced fan rotor speeds.

Mr Steve Osmek, Manager, Airport Biologist for Seale-Tacoma (Washington) Airport, addressed avian radar: “It’s easier to predict where wildlife strikes will happen, versus how they will happen. That’s where the avian radar and FOD sensors come into play. The radar can help identify wildlife hot spots, allowing aircraft to slow down or take appropriate measures before a strike occurs.”

Dr Edwin Herricks, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois Center of Excellence for Airport Technology, declared, “At this point in time, technology will not stop wildlife / aircraft collisions – it is not a silver bullet.” He added, “There is an unfortunate mismatch between expectations of what the technology will do and what the technology can actually do (particularly at low cost).”

Dr Herricks explained, “No single sensor type or design is available to meet local to regional scale requirements for wildlife management, but multiple sensors can be integrated, even fused, to provide a comprehensive picture of wildlife activity. Integration / fusion of multiple sensors is the future.”

He noted that unmanned aerial system (UAS) technologies can benefit wildlife management, whether by flying cameras or harassing wildlife. “We can expect significant improvement in bird radars because birds and drones present similar detection problems.”

ONE AIRPORT AT A TIME

Mr Gilberto Lopez-Meyer, Senior Vice President, Safety and Flight Operations, at the International Air Transport Association (IATA), described one success story at Pulkovo Airport, Saint Petersburg, Russia. In 2011, the airport experienced a high number of bird strikes. A Wildlife Coordinating Commiee was established with representatives from the airport, airlines, ANSPs, and IATA; they commissioned a study which highlighted a local garbage dump nearby. “A package of safety measures was implemented,” said Mr Lopez-Meyer, “including working with the local garbage dump, training of personnel, and the introduction of falcons to keep the other birds away.”

Within three years, the number of bird strikes was significantly reduced and the safety level was recognized as acceptable.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” cautioned Mr Creamer. “Wildlife around the world varies significantly, and the wildlife control programme at each airport will be different.” He said it is essential to apply Safety Management System (SMS) thinking. “Control measures must be weighed and evaluated against requirements, and should lead to the production of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for the airport, including training of personnel to manage an effective wildlife control programme.”

History of Bird Strike Committee Canada

Originally written by Bruce MacKinnon in 1995 for the Airport Wildlife Management Bulletin No. 16, modified and updated by Gary F. Searing

While it is well known that Orville Wright experienced the first ever bird strike near Dayton, Ohio in 1905, we have no knowledge of the first bird strike in Canadian airspace. Also by comparison, while the first known fatality due to bird strikes in the US took place on 3 April 1912 when Cal Rogers’ EX Wright Pusher struck a gull on the coast of California causing him to crash into the ocean where he drown trapped beneath his aircraft, the first known fatalities due to bird strikes in Canada occurred on 2 July 1971 when a Cessna 180 collided with a Bald Eagle near Gibson’s Landing, British Columbia resulting in the deaths of three people. We have some history of Canadian military bird strikes in Canadian airspace dating back to the 1960s. Seven CF-104 and four CT-114 Tutor aircraft crashed in Alberta and Saskatchewan due to bird strikes between 1964 and the present. A Tutor crash at Regina on 31 May 1976 was the first known military fatality (2 aircrew died) due to bird strikes in Canada. To date, there have been four fatal crashes involving civilian aircraft and two with military aircraft resulting in a total of 12 fatalities in Canada. The latest fatality was a CT-114 Tutor aircraft of 431 (Air Demonstration) Squadron (Snowbirds) on May 17, 2020 in the vicinity of Kamloops, British Columbia that claimed the life of Captain Jenn Casey and injured Captain Richard MacDougall. It was caused by striking a 30 gram Western Tanager which most like caused the compressor to stall leading to the crash.

Recording of bird strikes to civilian aircraft began before 1984 when Transport Canada initiated a bird strike data base. During the 30 years for which data are available, there have been about 40,000 strike reports. Strike reporting did not become mandatory until 2006, therefore many strikes have gone unreported. Even today, there are many strikes that occur that are either not known to have occurred by the flight crew or simply ignored for one reason or another. Nevertheless the number of reported strikes has grown to include nearly 2000 strikes per year.

The early history of Airport Wildlife Control in Canada closely parallels the professional career of Victor E. F. Solman. Highlights of his long career in bird strike management include the following major contributions to aviation safety.

Dr. Solman’s efforts over the past 50 years have been fundamental in the development of Airport Control Programs nationally and internationally. His work is reflected in the creation of organizations such as Bird Strike Committee Canada and Bird Strike Committee Europe and the development of a scientific basis for individual wildlife control programs at both civilian and military airports. Proof of his contribution lies in the continuation of initiatives such as

The following is an adaptation of a speech given by Dr. Solman to the first meeting of Bird Strike Committee USA, August 1992 — personal reflections on 50 years of Canadian bird strikes. Dr. Solman’s experiences offer a new and unique view of what is now regarded as an essential component of airport operations — airport wildlife control.

Early Interest in Bird Strikes

In the mid 1950s our meetings with airline, Transport Canada and Defence Canada officials began to answer some pressing questions about bird strikes. The data we collected revealed a pattern that is now familiar:

In the late 1950s turbine-powered aircraft came into use, magnifying the bird strike problem. Piston engines were not usually damaged seriously by bird strikes. Neither were the early turbine engines, with centrifugal compressors as used on Viscount aircraft. These engines, however, could be put out of action when they became plugged by bird carcasses.

In the early 1960s, turbine engines with axial-flow compressors (with or without propellers) were particularly vulnerable to damage by bird strikes. First, they formed a significant part of the frontal area of an aircraft. Second, their relatively small, rapidly rotating compressor blades were open to serious damage by the ingestion of foreign objects such as birds. Third, many engine strikes occurred near the ground, on or just after takeoff, when engine power is most crucial.

Since the 1960s aircraft size, configuration and use have changed; some of these changes have increased engine bird strikes. A study of engine strikes from 1977 to 82 showed that in 4.3 million aircraft movements (landings or take offs), underwing-mounted engines ingested birds 4.4 times more often than tail-mounted engines of the same size and make using the same airports. This study also showed that larger engines ingested birds more often than smaller engines. In the 4.3 million movements studied, there were 17 multiple engine strikes involving 45 engines. These numbers suggest that the need to prevent engine ingestion is not decreasing, given that most new aircraft use underwing engines and many have only two engines.

Migrating Birds

Bird migration has been studied for centuries by visual observations and by marking birds at one point and recovering them at another. We took a more sophisticated approach and used air traffic control radar to monitor migrating birds. The fact that overlapping radar fields cover the country and offshore as well enabled us to study bird migration right across Canada. In North America birds migrate primarily from north to south while Canadian aircraft traffic moves primarily from east to west, increasing the possibility of collisions. Also, most bird migration is below 15,000 feet, focusing the problem area for aircraft mainly on the climb to and descent from cruising altitudes.

Nearly all our radar studies were done using borrowed equipment. In the early 1960s each air traffic control radar installation had at least two display consoles, one regularly viewed by the controller and one emergency backup. To track bird movements we simply put a removable hood and a time-lapse movie camera on each spare console and took pictures of the screen at regular intervals. One frame of movie film was automatically exposed for each sweep of the radar or every 10 seconds. We found the system so useful that for a number of years we made continuous records of bird movements simultaneously across the country. These radar films showed us that

We also put radio transmitters on swans and followed them using ground transport and light aircraft. That gave us data on their routes, altitudes and stopping places between Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia) and the Northwest Territories north of Alberta.

In 1966, using the results of our studies, the Canadian military cut out training flights on nights when larger birds were flying, thereby stopping their losses (one to two each year) of fighter aircraft.

Scheduled commercial operations can’t be turned on and off as easily as military training flights, but because air traffic controllers reported on bird activity seen by radar, they helped pilots reduce the risk and severity of mid-air strikes on migrating big birds.

Associate Committee

In the early 1960s, no single agency in Canada had the resources to deal properly with the bird strike problem. At the request of Transport Canada (TC), Mike (Mac) Kuhring – head of the National Research Council’s aircraft engine laboratory – called together an Associate Committee on Bird Hazards to Aircraft to review the problem, suggest solutions and work with airport and airline authorities on implementation. He chaired this committee until 1973 when Vic Solman took over as chair. The committee brought together officials from Transport Canada, Defence Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, major Canadian airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers, Canadian Airline Pilots Association and National Research Council’s aircraft engine experts. Highlights of the committee’s work include the following

Biological studies were conducted at individual airfields to determine why birds were there and what could be done to keep them away. Studies were also conducted at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bases in Europe used by Canadian forces aircraft. It was soon possible to make specific proposals for modifying individual airfields to make them less attractive to the kinds of birds that caused problems – by removing, as far as possible, the food, water and shelter that attracted problem bird species. By 1963 airfield modifications were being carried out across Canada and new airfields were being designed to minimize bird attractions.

In the 1960s the Associate Committee was asked by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to prepare a chapter on bird hazard reduction for its Aerodrome Manual. The chapter involved 61 pages of text and illustrations in English and was published in ICAO’s five official languages. The chapter included:

The chapter has since been revised to make it more useful in areas where conditions are unlike those in North America.

Associate committee members kept in touch with other agencies in 40 countries doing similar work. Through this information exchange we came to believe that a European organization would be beneficial to reducing bird hazards. After much persuasion, representatives from several countries met with us in Frankfurt, West Germany, in 1966. That was the first meeting of what is now called Bird Strike Committee Europe. This organization evolved into the International Bird Strike Committee (1996) and then the World Birdstrike Association (2012).

By the end of 1976, the Associate Committee had held 69 meetings and produced 7 bulletins, 76 field notes, the ICAO Manual, the book Bird Hazards to Aircraft authored by Hans Blokpoel (winner of the second Bruce Mackinnon Memorial Award) and many other publications. The committee had completed its work and closed in December 1976.

Dr. Hans Blokpoel played a key role in bird hazards to aircraft research and mitigation in Canada. In 1966, at the invitation of the NRC’s Associate Committee on Bird Hazards to Aircraft, he made a study trip across Canada to visit airports and air bases and to have discussions with Canadian authorities. Also in 1966, Hans helped his supervisor Lt.Col. Twijssel in organizing the first meeting of Bird Strike Committee Europe, of which Canada was a member. In 1967 Hans and his wife emigrated to Canada to start radar studies of bird migration at CFB Cold Lake in Alberta. He developed a simple bird migration forecast system mainly using weather predictions. Recruited to the ACBHA in 1967, Hans, a biologist and former pilot in the Netherlands Air Force, led the task of gathering, analyzing and interpreting data which led to the book mentioned above. He continued to conduct radar studies at Winnipeg International Airport and in southern Quebec. In following years, Hans worked as a CWS biologist on colonial waterbirds (gulls, terns, herons, and cormorants) and he continued to be an active member of BSCC even beyond his retirement in 1998 until 2005 when he left the field to focus on his art.

The committee that evolved in 1977 was a government, interdepartmental committee with members from Transport, Defence, Agriculture and Environment Canada. The committee’s responsibility was mainly in the area of implementation rather than research. During the 1980s ICAO published guidelines for the formation of national bird strike committees and in 1984 the name was changed to Bird Strike Committee Canada (BSCC), and new terms of reference were developed. This committee operated until 2008 and was widely representative of the aviation industry. From 1983-2008 semi-annual meetings were held rotating between Ottawa and a location generally elsewhere in Canada (the fall 1992 meeting was held in Panama City, Florida). From 1983 to 2008 there was no “standing” bird strike committee in Canada. Rather, BSCC consisted of a chair or co-chairs and committee members consisted of whoever attended the semi-annual meetings. Thus membership often included guests from the United States or England. BSCC was primarily under the umbrella of Transport Canada although from 1991-1993 members of DND helped chair the committee.

The following are those who have acted as chairs (or co-chairs) of BSCC from 1990 to the present:

BSCC meetings generally consisted of a small group of from 20-40 people and covered the key topics of the day. Transport Canada and Department of National Defence were the most represented agencies, but other agencies like Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the National Museum of Nature and some of the military bases were also often represented. ICAO was also represented at many of the meetings. Later, especially after Transport Canada devolved management of airports to airport authorities, those authorities often sent representatives. The airlines and pilot associations also participated as well as Pratt & Whitney.

Beginning in 1994, Bruce Mackinnon took over as chair (or co-chair with DND) of BSCC. Through Bruce’s leadership and passion the participation in BSCC grew and began to evolve. Over the next 5 years, Bruce worked closely with Bird Strike Committee – USA and would eventually reach an agreement to hold joint meetings that turned into the North American Bird Strike Conferences. During this period he also found funding for a number of valuable publications including Sharing the Skies which is one of the most comprehensive manuals for airport wildlife management.

Program-Related Highlights

Bird Strike Reporting: Although bird strike reporting has always been voluntary, we received accurate information from the major airlines, particularly Air Canada. This was a result of co-operation among pilots, engineers and senior management. For many years we received data on nearly all Air Canada bird strikes. These data helped us to measure our progress and to develop the multiple reporting system now in use.

Electrophoresis: Identifying bird remains from damaged engines is important, particularly for downed military aircraft. An absence of bird remains may suggest other troubles more difficult to identify. Large pieces of feathers can be identified from bird skin collections. For feather fragments too small to identify visually we worked out an amino acid spectrogram system in the 1960s. It could distinguish groups of birds but not species. The present system, called electrophoresis, was developed by Dr. Ouellet at the Canadian Museum of Nature in the 1980s. This process can be used to identify bird remains from a feather sample as small as 10 milligrams.

Ground Cover: The Associate Committee tried to find ground cover plants that would attract fewer birds than grass. Some worked well in small tests but could not be produced in large quantities. We controlled weeds so that their seeds did not attract birds. We found a chemical that worms do not like so it is used now to keep worms from attracting birds and from making runways slippery. We considered paving whole airfields or covering them with artificial turf, but engineers convinced us that would not work as well as grass.

Liability: At one time it was jokingly suggested that airlines should make Transport Canada (TC) pay for bird damage to aircraft that occurred on TC airports. Airline officials countered that TC would raise landing fees to get their money back. However, Associate Committee members knew that if a bird strike resulted in fatalities, all agencies involved would be sued as they were at Boston in 1960 and Atlanta in 1973, and that working together we had to ensure that did not happen. With liability concerns increasing over the years there is an increasing need to demonstrate that good bird control is in place.

Wildlife Control Guidelines: In the late 1970s TC drew up guidelines for wildlife control on airports and issued lists of crops and other land uses that were or were not acceptable on and near airports. They also began training sessions to improve the ability of local airport staff to deal with wildlife problems. TC policy called for

In 1978-79, an outside study commissioned by TC reviewed the costs of bird strikes in relation to the benefits of their reduction. The findings and recommendations included the following

Publications: In the early 1980s TC began to distribute information leaflets to increase awareness of the problem, especially among land use planners and the general aviation community. In the late 1980s a series of Airport Wildlife Management Bulletins was begun. Many bulletins contained information on important recent bird strike incidents as well as dealing with topics like bird recognition, bird control, staff training, research and details on individual airports.

The Present and Future

With Bruce’s untimely death on 6 July 2008, the bird strike community in Canada was left leaderless. There was a huge void to fill especially with Canada hosting the 2009 North American Bird Strike Conference. A committee of bird strike professionals was formed to organize the conference and at that time Gary Searing proposed the idea of forming an association to carry on the work of BSCC. While filling the void left by Bruce was never going to be possible because Bruce single-handedly held the Transport Canada door open to activities and agendas that the newly restructured agency was anxious to remove. As well, Bruce was an inclusive communicator who was able to engage the bird strike community through his own passion and sharing of information.

The first organizational meeting leading to the formation of the Birdstrike Association of Canada was held on 27 November 2008. As well as developing a structure of the organization, the first order of business was to plan and host the 2009 North American Bird Strike Conference. The first general meeting of the Bird Strike Association of Canada (Birdstrike Canada) was held during the mid-September North American Bird Strike Conference in 2009. From that inaugurational meeting in Victoria, B.C. a Steering Committee was formed to set the direction and goals for the association. Gary Searing was appointed as the association’s first Executive Director. In November 2014 Transport Canada formally recognized Birdstrike Canada as Canada’s national Bird Strike Committee according to the guidelines and recommendations of ICAO. The Association changed its name back to Bird Strike Committee Canada in 2016.

Among the accomplishments of the Bird Strike Canada since 2009 are:

The history of BSCC is very much an on-going and evolving story which hopefully will take many more chapters to write as the future unfolds.

Bird strike in aviation

A bird strike (sometimes birdstrike, bird hit, or BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard)) in aviation is a collision between an airborne animal (usually a bird) and a man-made vehicle, especially aircraft. It is a common threat to aircraft safety, and has caused a number of fatal accidents. Bird strikes happen most often during take off or landing, or during low altitude flight. However, bird strikes have also been reported at high altitudes, some as high as 6000 to 9000 meters above ground level. The majority of bird collisions occur near or on airports (90%, according to the ICAO) during takeoff, landing and associated phases. Jet engine ingestion is extremely serious due to the rotation speed of the engine fan and engine design. As the bird strikes a fan blade, that blade can be displaced into another blade and so forth, causing a cascading failure. Jet engines are particularly vulnerable during the takeoff phase when the engine is turning at a very high speed.

Bird strikes can damage vehicle components, or injure passengers. Flocks of birds are especially dangerous, and can lead to multiple strikes, and damage. Depending on the damage, aircraft at low altitudes or during take off and landing often cannot recover in time, and thus crash.

There are three approaches to reduce the effect of bird strikes. The vehicles can be designed to be more «bird resistant», the birds can be moved out of the way of the vehicle, or the vehicle can be moved out of the way of the birds.

Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut-down after «ingesting» a bird weighing up to 1.8 kg (4 lb). The engine does not have to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down. This is a ‘stand alone’ requirement, i.e., the engine must pass the test, not the aircraft. Multiple strikes on twin engine jet aircraft are very serious events, they can disable multiple aircraft systems, requiring emergency action to land the aircraft.

Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one four pound bird collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one 8 pound bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 4 pound bird collision without yielding or spalling.

To reduce birdstrikes on takeoff and landing, airports engage in bird management and control. This includes changes to habitat around the airport to reduce its attractiveness to birds. Vegetation which produces seeds, grasses which are favored by geese, manmade food, a favorite of gulls, all should be removed from the airport area. Trees and tall structures which serve as roosts at night for flocking birds or perches for raptors should be removed or modified to discourage bird use.

Other approaches try to scare away the birds using frightening devices, for example sounds, lights, pyrotechnics, radio-controlled airplanes, decoy animals/corpses, lasers, dogs etc.Firearms are also occasionally employed. A successful approach has been the utilization of dogs, particularly Border collies, to scare away birds and wildlife. Another alternative is bird capture and relocation. Falcons are sometimes used to harass the bird population, as for example on John F. Kennedy International Airport. At Manchester Airport in England the usual type of falcon used for this is a peregrine falcon/lanner falcon hybrid, as its flight range covers the airport.

An airport in New Zealand uses electrified mats to reduce the number of worms that attracted large numbers of sea gulls.

The US Military Aviation Hazard Advisory System uses a Bird Avoidance Model based on data from the Smithsonian Institution, historical patterns of bird strikes and radar tracking of bird activity. This model has been extremely successful. Prior to flight USAF pilots check for bird activity on their proposed low level route or bombing range. If bird activity is forecast to be high, the route is changed to one of lower threat. In the first year this BAM model was required as a preflight tool, the USAF Air Combat Command experienced a 70% drop in birdstrikes to its mission aircraft.

TNO, a Dutch R&D Institute, has developed the successful ROBIN (Radar Observation of Bird Intensity) for the Royal Netherlands Airforce. ROBIN is a near real-time monitoring system for flight movements of birds. ROBIN identifies flocks of birds within the signals of large radar systems. This information is used to give Air Force pilots warning during landing and take-off. Years of observation of bird migration with ROBIN have also provided a better insight into bird migration behaviour, which has had an influence on averting collisions with birds, and therefore on flight safety.Since the implementation of the ROBIN system at the Royal Netherlands Airforce the number of collisions between birds and aircraft in the vicinity of military airbases has decreased by more than 50%.

There are no civil aviation counterparts to the above military strategies. Some experimentation with small portable radar units has taken place at some airports. However, no standard has been adopted for radar warning nor has any governmental policy regarding warnings been implemented.

The first reported bird strike was by Orville Wright in 1905, and according to their diaries «Orville … flew 4,751 meters in 4 minutes 45 seconds, four complete circles. Twice passed over fence into Beard’s cornfield. Chased flock of birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and after a time fell off when swinging a sharp curve.»

The first recorded bird strike fatality was reported in 1912 when aero-pioneer Cal Rodgers collided with a gull which became jammed in his aircraft controls. He crashed at Long Beach, California, was pinned under the wreckage and drowned.

The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, a Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston, flew through a flock of common starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were developed by the FAA.

The Space Shuttle Discovery also hit a bird during the take-off of STS-114 on July 26 2005, although the collision occurred early during take off and at low speeds, with no obvious damage to the shuttle. It is not clear if the bird survived.

NASA also lost an astronaut, Theodore Freeman, to a bird strike, he was killed when a goose shattered the plexiglass cockpit of his T-38, resulting in shards being ingested by the engines leading to a fatal crash.

Aircraft continue to be lost on a routine basis to birdstrikes. In the fall of 2006 the USAF lost a twin engine T-38 trainer to a bird strike (ducks) and in the October 2007 the US Navy lost a T-45 jet trainer in a collision with a bird.

On April 29 2007, a Thomsonfly Boeing 757 from Manchester Airport, UK to Lanzarote Airport, Spain suffered a bird strike when at least one bird, supposedly a heron, was ingested by the starboard engine. The plane landed safely back at Manchester Airport a while later. The incident was captured by a plane spotter, as well as the emergency call picked up by a plane spotter’s radio. The video was later published

1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13.

Модуль 8 «Авіаційна англійська мова (2)»

Тема 6 «Different ways to fly»

Питання для самостійного вивчення:

· огляд рекомендованої літератури, бібліографічних і довідкових джерел, преси англійською мовою.

Завдання для самоконтролю знань

Дата добавления: 2015-10-29 ; просмотров: 475 | Нарушение авторских прав

Bird Strike

What to do in the Event of a Bird Strike

Birds are a significant threat to aviation and their presence presents many potential hazards. A bird strike may be so small that it goes completely unnoticed by the crew until the walk around after landing. However, the potential for something much more catastrophic lingers. Many vividly remember the “Miracle on the Hudson” that occurred when US Airways Flight 1549 was forced to ditch on the Hudson River after striking a flock of Canada Geese. This is one example in which it proved imperative that aviators be familiarized with bird strikes and know how to best respond.

Telling a Tale

Pilots are oftentimes like fisherman in their tendency to overzealously share elaborate stories. One of the stories I unwittingly stumbled upon the other day was profoundly bothersome though. I was sitting in our briefing room casually checking my email when two young, inexperienced pilots arrived. Nothing in particular grabbed my attention until I very loudly heard one of them ardently sharing the details of their recent flight. “You should have seen it. It was crazy, there we were on short final and this bird came out of nowhere. I totally dove and dodged it though”. That last sentence caught me. There was much wrong with all of it. And, while they were just beginning their flying career it concerned me that this was a thought, let alone an actionable one, that would be considered as sound in any flyers mind.

Safely Managing Bird Threats

In drivers education they always teach that if any sort of animals jumps out in front of you on the road you avoid putting in rapid corrections or efforts and instead keep the vehicle on its current path while braking. Flying is very similar, the main exception being the potential to “brake” in the air. While there may be times when maneuvering to avoid a bird strike is an option, it is almost never the case during an arrival, and configured on short final is most assuredly not the time. Pilots should also know that birds will almost always dive as a means of avoidance. Other considerations worth keeping in mind when trying to mitigate the risks of birds are migratory seasons and patterns. In the Northern Hemisphere birds migrate in the fall through early winter. They migrate to more southern locations to reach warmer weather. So, their flight pattern is almost always North to South in nature. By keeping these factors in mind pilots can better handle the threat birds present to aviation.

Reducing the Risks

Although it is not possible to avoid all bird strikes, flight crews can take steps to reduce the chance of a bird-strike event. The following information from the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual provides flight crews and flight operations personnel with practical information about preventing and managing bird-strike events.

World Birdstrike Association

The World Birdstrike Association is proud to announce its new website and the transformation of the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) into the newly evolved WBA.

AVIATION PASSENGER PROTECTION FROM BIRD STRIKES TAKEN TO A NEW LEVEL

Preventing bird strike accidents like the Moscow accident in 2007 and the «Miracle on the Hudson» River near-disaster in Jan 2009 is paramount in an ever-increasing green environment and expanding aviation industry. This requires a worldwide coordinated approach: Greener and Safer.

To achieve this, the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) has elected Captain Rob van Eekeren as its new President, changed its name into World Birdstrike Association (WBA) and become a membership organization. Membership is now open for (national) bird strike committees and civil or military entities linked with wildlife strike risk to aviation. Individual membership is also welcome. Bringing aviation wildlife expertise under a global umbrella is a major step forward.

aptain Van Eekeren said; “the WBA will be the global voice for its members. It will provide the platform for pursuing constructive and cooperative relationship with the stakeholders, civil and military and the authorities”.

The aim is to reduce the bird strike risk, reduce the damage costs and maintain safety in an increasing green environment. A number of concrete targets have been defined, including the development of an action plan on the mitigation of the bird strike risk. This action plan will be build on existing knowledge but will also be developed in close cooperation with all relevant stakeholders.
Many specialists, aviation companies, authorities and airports independently produce solutions to reduce the number of wildlife strikes. “The challenge and major safety gain will be to coordinate al these initiatives and focus on effective risk reducing matters” said Captain Van Eekeren.

The IBSC was founded in 1964. Its main goal was to share information from specialists on bird strikes. It has produced and published many papers on the subject.

How many bird strikes are there per year? Any world-wide statistics?

Does anyone know where I could find where the highest rates of bird strikes are?

Along the same lines, other wildlife, such as moose or bears on runways?

2 Answers 2

Bird Strikes Worldwide

According to currently available data, it is estimated that a bird-strike event occurs once every 2000 flights (Khan, Kapania & Johnson, 2010). Further analyses of bird-strike statistics have shown that only 20% of bird strikes are actually reported by aviation staff. This means that the extent of economic and human losses resulting from bird strike could be much higher than what is currently presumed (Chuan, 2006). Consequently, this suggests that conducting further indepth studies on how to better capture reliable bird-strike event statistics and formulating strategies and solutions would be beneficial.

It had been intended to use the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) database of bird strike statistics as a prime source of bird strike information, giving details of worldwide bird strike incidents and accidents. However, despite the best endeavours of fera, Atkins and EASA, it was not possible to gain access to this source of information. Therefore the literature search does not include data from regions such as Asia and Australia. Reporting levels from these regions are low and it is likely that even with access to ICAO data, there would be limited useful information available beyond that already available from UK and USA/Canada sources. It is estimated, based on previous fera Bird Management Unit experience, that the UK and USA/Canadian data obtained represents approximately 50% of all worldwide bird strike reports. Also regions such as Russia, China and South America do not routinely contribute data to the ICAO database.

Wildlife Strikes in the United States of America

The number of strikes annually reported to the FAA has increased 7.4-fold from 1,851 in 1990 to a record 13,668 in 2014. The 2014 total was an increase of 2,267 strikes (20 percent) compared to the 11,401 strikes reported in 2013. For 1990–2014, 156,114 strikes were reported. Birds were involved in 96.9 percent of the reported strikes, terrestrial mammals in 2.2 percent, bats in 0.8 percent and reptiles in 0.1 percent. Although the number of reported strikes has dramatically increased, the number of reported damaging strikes has actually declined since 2000. Whereas the number of reported strikes increased 127 percent from 6,009 in 2000 to 13,668 in 2014, the number of damaging strikes declined 24 percent from 764 to 581. While there was a 20 percent increase in reported strikes from 2013 to 2014, the number of damaging strikes declined 4 percent from 606 to 581. The decline in damaging strikes has been most pronounced for commercial aircraft in the airport environment (at

World Birdstrike Association

The World Birdstrike Association is proud to announce its new website and the transformation of the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) into the newly evolved WBA.

AVIATION PASSENGER PROTECTION FROM BIRD STRIKES TAKEN TO A NEW LEVEL

The IBSC was founded in 1964. Its main goal was to share information from specialists on bird strikes. It has produced and published many papers on the subject.

Chapter 7 — Bird- and Mammal-strike Statistics

Introduction

Aviation-industry decisions delicately balance safety and budgetary concerns while attempting to assess exposure to, probability of and severity of wildlife strikes. Developing effective risk-management strategies therefore relies heavily on the collection and analysis of data derived from bird- and mammal-strike statistics.

This chapter evaluates available data, and examines important trends that may help stakeholders reduce the risk of wildlife strikes.

Getting the definitions down

To ensure consistent statistics, it’s important that all parties reporting wildlife strikes adhere to the same criteria. According to the Bird Strike Committee Canada, a bird strike is deemed to have occurred whenever:

Strikes against other classes of wildlife—primarily mammals—are interpreted with less formality, but embrace the spirit of definitions established for bird strikes.

The case for mandatory reporting

To ensure the highest quality of wildlife-strike statistics, it is crucial that agencies responsible for maintaining databases receive as much information as possible about every strike—even non-damaging strikes and near misses. While damage information is useful in quantifying costs to the aviation industry, non-damaging strikes and near misses are of equal statistical significance when developing a complete picture of the risk at any particular location.

Despite progress made by North America’s aviation industry in reporting wildlife strikes, many continue to go incompletely reported or unreported altogether. Wildlife-management experts believe only 20 percent of all strikes are reported; reporting rates are likely lower in many developing countries where strike reporting is inconsistent or non-existent.

Strike reporting is not mandatory in most jurisdictions. Transport Canada and the FAA actively encourage reporting by aviation industry stakeholders, but currently have no regulatory authority to compel them to do so. Three additional factors contribute to the non-reporting of wildlife strikes:

In 1999, the NTSB recommended to the FAA (in Safety Recommendation A-99-91) that there be a requirement for “all airplane operators to report bird strikes to the Federal Aviation Administration.” The FAA rejected the recommendation on the grounds that:

Regardless of the FAA’s stance, there is ample evidence to indicate that safety would be greatly enhanced through a regulatory requirement to report all wildlife strikes.

Reporting wildlife strikes

Accurate wildlife-strike reporting requires that many industry stakeholders provide input to the data gathering process. The following sections present a brief overview of the strike-reporting process and the impact it may have on wildlife-strike statistics. A full description of the reporting process (including examples of strike-reporting forms) is contained in Appendix C—Bird- and Mammal-strike Reporting Procedures.

Figure 7.1 Schematic Illustrating Bird/Wildlife Reporting Functions in Canada

Who should report wildlife strikes?

Any number of stakeholders may provide either some or all of the information necessary to complete a wildlife-strike report; in fact the truth of an individual wildlife strike may only become clear once the contributions—no matter how small—of various witnesses have been gathered. The greater the amount of information gathered, the more precise the data analysis will be, enabling airport wildlife-management personnel to optimise strike-reduction strategies. The functions of and interactions between various strike-reporting stakeholders are depicted in Figure 7.1 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Pilots report many strikes to ATS providers and may then complete strike reports for submission to Transport Canada. Commercial pilots may also report to their airlines. Pilots are often unaware of or unable to determine all the circumstances of a strike; they may be unsure of the species of bird involved, extent of the damage to the aircraft or resulting repair costs.

Air-traffic service providers may learn of a strike by radio reports from pilots or airport wildlife-management personnel. In the event of any operational impact, ATS providers must report a strike through Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS).

Aircraft maintenance personnel occasionally discover wildlife-strike damage that may not have been previously detected during aircraft inspections.

Airlines often submit strike-report summaries directly to Transport Canada. These reports are derived from information submitted by pilots and aircraft maintenance personnel, and also include information on operational effects, aircraft damage, repair and other associated costs.

Airport maintenance and safety personnel may discover dead birds or mammals during regular FOD inspections of runways and taxiways. Unless another cause of death is evident, it is assumed that aircraft struck the animals. This strike information should be reported to an airport operator or directly to Transport Canada.

Wildlife-management personnel may find dead birds on or near runways while conducting day-to-day operations. These experts also identify struck wildlife species to supplement reports from other sources. This strike information should be reported to ATS personnel, the airport operator or directly to Transport Canada.

Airport operators should collate all airport strike data for submission to Transport Canada.

What information should be reported?

The ideal method of reporting a wildlife strike is to use the Transport Canada Bird/Mammal Strike Report (see Appendix C). In practice, reporters often don’t have all the information to complete every part of the form, and yet it cannot be stressed enough that each form should be filled out to the fullest extent possible.

Damage inflicted to a general aviation aircraft by a single hawk.

In reviewing U.S. and Canadian forms, its interesting to note Transport corresponding FAA form does not make this provision.

The Transport Canada Bird/Mammal Strike Report requests the following information:

Bird identification

If bird-hazard reduction measures are to be undertaken it is essential to know:

Accurate identification of struck species is also becoming more important in response to liability and due-diligence issues, and in development of tools and techniques to manage species involved in strikes.

Identification of living birds

The identification of living birds is relatively straightforward but requires skill and practice. Airport and ATS personnel should be familiar with large and flocking species that frequent airfields and pose potential threats. Binoculars and modern bird guides are required; Transport Canada also distributes posters that illustrate key species found at Canadian airports. However, detailed biological studies necessary in development of effective airport wildlife-management programs require specialized and professional ornithological knowledge.

Dr. Henri Ouellet in the Canadian Museum of Nature laboratory. Dr. Ouellet developed the Keratin Electrophoresis feather identification process for Transport Canada.

Identification of bird remains

Following a bird strike, there is often little to identify a bird; remains may include a relatively intact carcass or be limited to blood smears in an engine. Investigators call on the range of identification techniques described below to determine whether a bird strike occurred and, if so, precisely what species was struck.

Comparison with museum specimens

Experienced ornithologists examine feathers by eye to determine the species or group involved; findings can be verified through comparison with specimens in a museum collection. It’s estimated that 75 percent of struck birds can be identified using this technique.

Microscopic examination of feathers

Feather samples that cannot be identified by eye are examined under a microscope, where a feather’s fine structure—its barbs and barbules—is revealed. Pioneered by Drs. R. C. Laybourne and C. J. Dove at the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., this technique can be used to identify the family or genus of bird involved, but usually does not provide species identification.

Keratin electrophoresis

Electrophoresis is a technique whereby the biochemical structure of feathers is analyzed to identify a bird species. Feathers are made of keratin, a substance similar to human hair and fingernails; keratin proteins provide a fingerprint which is consistent within a particular species. In keratin electrophoresis, feather proteins from an unknown sample are compared with samples from known specimens—a technique developed by Dr. Henri Ouellet of the Canadian Museum of Nature with funding from Transport Canada. The Museum database contains 3,500 profiles from over 800 species of birds. Unfortunately, the service once provided by Dr. Ouellet is not available at this time.

DNA analysis

Following serious engine ingestions, only small amounts of blood or tissue may remain—just enough for DNA analysis. Using modern genetic techniques, the DNA can be amplified through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to obtain samples large enough for analysis. The mitochondrial cytochrome “b” gene is commonly used to identify organisms based on their genes’ nucleotide-coding sequence.

The Birdstrike Avoidance Team at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) in the U.K. is developing this DNA technique for use with bird-strike samples. Comparing birdstrike material with genetic-library sequences shows that a 97- to 99-percent match efficiency is possible if the sequences are from the same or congeneric species. Birds from the same family give matches 87 to 95 percent of the time, but more distantly related species cannot be matched reliably. Dr. J. R. Allan and co-workers at the CSL estimate that this technique could become operational in the U.K. for a relatively small amount of money; a reference library of the most commonly struck families in Europe could be developed for as little as USD$15,000; each sample would cost about USD$150 to process.

Bird- and mammal-strike databases

Bird-strike statistics are maintained by civil-aviation regulatory agencies in many countries; some maintain separate military and civil-strike databases, while others maintain combined databases; however, there is no standard practice whereby these databases are combined or shared.

It falls to a database manager to ensure that multiple reports of the same strike— submitted by different sources at different times—do not skew the data. Where duplicate reports occur, each bears close scrutiny, as together they are likely to provide a better understanding of a specific incident. Careful data collation and verification is essential in maintaining accuracy of a strike database and any trend information derived from it. Once again, it’s extremely important to recognize that bird strikes be recorded to the fullest extent possible. In countering the wildlife-strike problem, priorities can be defined and solutions implemented only following effective data submission, compilation and analysis.

Strike-database information is analyzed to determine a number of trends including:

Three major wildlife-strike databases are:

Many European countries also have sophisticated reporting systems and databases; however, as this book focuses on North America, discussion will be limited to the databases noted above. One further point: neither reporting parameters nor software are standardized among current databases, making exchange of data an extremely difficult and time-consuming task.

Transport Canada

The Aerodrome Safety Branch of Transport Canada maintains this country’s bird/mammal-strike database. Annual summary reports of bird strikes have been published and distributed to stakeholders in essentially the same form since the early 1980s—the longest continuous series of comparable bird-strike data in existence. These reports include information on:

It wasn’t until 1997 that these reports included information on near misses and mammal strikes. Analysis of the most recent nine-year period (1991-99) indicates that there were 6,848 bird strikes in the Transport Canada database. Of those, 5,891 involved civil aircraft and 957 involved military aircraft.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

In the United States, wildlife strikes are voluntarily reported to the FAA on a standard form (FAA Form 5200-7; see Appendix C). Although FAA personnel have monitored these reports since 1965 to determine general patterns of wildlife strikes, no quantitative analyses of these data were conducted until 1995. Through an interagency agreement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center is now responsible for maintaining the FAA strike database and analyzing its data. Detailed annual reports are now published, providing a wealth of information. The reports are cumulative and contain data for the ten-year period from 1990 to 1999 covering 28,150 wildlife strikes—27,433 bird, 681 mammal and 36 reptile strikes.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

As the world civil-aviation body, ICAO has maintained an international bird-strike database—the ICAO Bird Strike Information System (IBIS)—since 1980. Each member country is responsible for submitting yearly bird-strike data; ICAO analyzes the data and produces an annual report. Because reports are received from dozens of countries in as many as five languages, the production of the annual statistics usually lags by two years.

The IBIS database contains information on 89,251 bird strikes from around the world for the period 1980 to 1999 inclusive.

Major bird- and mammal-strike accident database

Apart from the compilation of bird-strike statistics is the collection of bird-strike accident figures. Two well-known researchers in the field have independently developed separate wildlife-strike accident databases.

John Thorpe, retired from the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK—former Chairman of the Bird Strike Committee Europe and honourary Chairman of IBSC—has compiled a worldwide database of all known serious civilian aircraft accidents involving birds. Dr. W. John Richardson of LGL Limited, Canada, has created a database of military- and civil-aircraft incidents involving birds.

Serious incidents are defined in these databases to include:

Highlights

Combining all relevant data from 1912 to 2003, birds are known to have caused 42 fatal accidents, 231 deaths, and the destruction of 80 civil aircraft. This data is undoubtedly underreported, since records from earlier years are incomplete or nonexistent. In all likelihood there have been many unreported accidents caused by birds. This is particularly possible in accidents involving small general-aviation aircraft, since investigations of these incidents are generally not as intensive as those involving commercial aircraft.

Major aircraft accidents

There are several major hull-loss accidents that are worthy of mention:

Major aircraft incidents

While actual hull-loss accidents are dramatic in their scope, they are far outnumbered by serious incidents in which hull losses were barely avoided—incidents that are just as important when developing risk-management strategies. Modern safety management experts recognize that risk-mitigation strategies cannot be developed through aircraft-accident statistics alone; statistically, serious accidents comprise 10 percent or less of meaningful safety data. Increasingly, the aviation industry is embracing other techniques to evaluate hazards:

All serious wildlife-strike incidents need to be carefully reviewed and analyzed using an established risk-management protocol. Unfortunately, a separate database of these serious incidents does not exist at this time, nor does a risk analysis of their potential severity and reoccurrence—potential highlighted in the following examples:

Analysis of bird-strike statistics in civil aviation

The following sections present analysis of bird-strike statistics collected in Canada and the U.S. between 1991 and 1999. Given that the population of the U.S. is about ten-times greater than Canada and that the U.S. has the highest per capita use of aircraft in the world, it’s reasonable to assume there would be ten times more bird strikes per year in the U.S. In fact, annual reported bird strikes averaged 2,857 in the U.S. from 1991 to 1999 compared with 761 in Canada—a ratio of 3.75:1. This higher ratio may be due to the substantially higher Canadian reporting rate, the result of a longer history of concern for the problem, a more aggressive public relations program and a more formal regulatory and policy structure that—until recently—included government ownership of most airports.

When comparing strike statistics it’s important to remember that data are not always representative of actual strike statistics, since many strikes go unreported. For instance, an airport with more reported strikes than another may actually have a better wildlife-management program—and therefore fewer actual strikes—than the airport with fewer reported strikes. The former airport might simply be more thorough at reporting. Numbers of strikes are also a function of the number of aircraft movements. To standardize strike statistics and enable an accurate method of annual data comparison at airports, strike rate—expressed as the number of strikes per 10,000 movements—is the measurement that’s been adopted by the wildlifestrike community.

In the following analyses, the summary data—presented in tables and figures—are based on information reported in the Transport Canada and FAA summary publications. Because each strike report does not contain information on every birdstrike parameter, totals for various categories vary. For example, not all strike reports identify the type of bird struck or the part damaged, so the totals presented are only from reports that did include these data.

Phase of flight

Most bird-strike databases contain statistics noting the phase of flight during which strikes occurred. These statistics are important because each flight phase has a different level of risk. The two most critical are takeoff and landing; overall accident statistics show that most accidents occur during these two phases of flight. From a wildlife-strike perspective, an aircraft is much more vulnerable during takeoff than when landing.

At takeoff, an aircraft’s engines are operating at high power settings, and the aircraft is heavier due to a full fuel load. During takeoff there is very little time—perhaps two

Figure 7.2 Phase of Flight at Time of Bird Strikes. Canada and U.S. (1991-1999) (Canadian data include military strikes)

to three seconds—to react to a wildlife strike, evaluate aircraft or engine damage and decide to reject takeoff or continue to fly. Successful rejected-takeoff and engine-out takeoff maneuvers require precise flying skills and good crew co-ordination, since aircraft performance under these circumstances is limited. Any multiple-system failures caused by a wildlife strike—such as loss of lift-enhancing devices or more than one engine—can render an aircraft unflyable.

There is significantly less risk involved during landing. Impact force and potential for damage are reduced because an aircraft is approaching at lower speeds, under reduced power and carrying a diminished fuel load.

The statistics on bird strikes by phase of flight for Canada and the U.S. between 1991 and 1999 are summarized in Figure 7.2. In comparing the overall statistics, the two nations are similar—37 percent of strikes in Canada occur during takeoff versus 39 percent in the U.S. However, a breakdown of the statistics reveals a different story— in Canada, 31 percent of strikes occur during the takeoff run, 6.5 percent during the climb-out. In the U.S., 20 percent of strikes occur during the takeoff run and 19 percent during the climb-out phase. The difference suggests the two databases may be using slightly different definitions of the takeoff run and the climb-out phases.

Relatively few strikes occur when aircraft are en route at higher altitudes—3.8 percent in Canada and 3.6 percent in the U.S. There are again substantial differences between Canadian and U.S. data for strikes during descent and approach—19 percent vs. 41 percent respectively—and during landing roll—22 percent vs. 16 percent. The overall figures for the landing phase are closer—41 percent in Canada and 57 percent in the U.S. Once more, definitions may vary between databases.

Altitude

Aircraft are most likely to encounter birds during takeoff and landing phases, as the majority of bird flights occur within a few hundred feet of the ground. The highest recorded strike in the FAA database involved an unidentified species of bird reportedly struck by a DC-8-62 at 39,000 ft on October 23, 1991.

Altitude (AGL)	Percent of Known Total
0	40
1-99	15
100-299	11
300-499	5
500-999	7
1000-1499	5
1500-3999	10
>4000	6

Table 7.1 Altitude of Bird Strikes in the U.S. (1991-1999)

U.S. data on bird strikes at altitudes above ground level (AGL) are summarized in Table 7.1. The figure is based on 20,893 reported strikes with known altitudes during the period 1990-1999:

In total, 71 percent of these strikes occur on, or immediately adjacent to, airport properties. Above 500 ft, the number of bird strikes decreases proportionally as altitude increases.

Bird strikes that do occur above 500 ft AGL generally involve flocking birds, particularly migratory waterfowl that can exceed 5 kg. Multiple strikes to several parts of an aircraft are not uncommon in these incidents, creating potential for loss of more than one engine and damage to other major aircraft systems. While chances of a bird strike at altitudes above 500 ft AGL are statistically low, the potential consequences of a high-altitude bird strike may be more significant.

As this data indicates, it is imperative to reduce the numbers of birds at and around airports. This strengthens the case for both effective airport wildlife-management programs and control of sites such as bird-attracting landfills near airports (see Chapter 8).

Figure 7.3 Monthly Bird Strike Distribution in Canada and the United States (1991-1999)
(includes Canadian aircraft at foreign locations and Canadian military aircraft)

Time of year

The frequency of bird strikes varies with the time of year. The percentages of Canadian and U.S. strikes that occur each month are plotted in Figure 7.3 for the years 1991 to 1999. In Canada, relatively few strikes occur during winter months—two to three percent per month from December to March. The number increases in spring when migrating birds return from the south—five to nine percent per month from April to June. Peak numbers occur in summer—14 to 17 percent per month from July to September. These rates are thought to be high for two reasons: large numbers of birds are present after the nesting season—particularly naïve young birds that have no experience with aircraft—and birds begin to migrate from the far north in late summer. Fall strikes—12 percent in October and seven percent in November—mark the period when substantial numbers of birds are still present, but many migrating birds have left Canada. The significance of migratory bird strikes is important. Given the weight and numbers of birds in a flock, knowledge of migratory paths and times is critical to reduce the probability and severity of bird strikes.

The annual pattern of bird strikes in the United States is similar to that in Canada, with some exceptions. Peak strike numbers also occur from July through September— 10 to 14 percent per month—but the number of winter strikes is higher at four to six percent per month from December to March. The higher winter rates reflect the large number of southern airports in the U.S. where migrant birds spend winters.

Time of day

Bird strikes occur at all hours of the day—the vast majority of Canadian strikes during daylight hours. This is not surprising, since fewer birds fly at night when fewer aircraft are flying as well. The 1999 hourly distribution of bird strikes in Canada is presented in Figure 7.4, demonstrating the substantial numbers of bird strikes occurring at all hours of the day. Small increases are evident in the morning—between 08:00 and 10:00—and early evening—15:00 through 17:00—when the numbers of scheduled flights peak.

Figure 7.4 Daily Bird Strike Distribution in Canada in 1999 (includes Canadian aircraft overseas and Canadian military aircraft)

CANADA			UNITED STATES
Aircraft Part	Number Struck	Number Damaged	Percent Damaged	Number Struck	Number Damaged	Percent Damaged
Windshield	514	33	6.4	4,195	321	7.7
Wing/Rotor	855	113	13.2	3,030	941	31.1
Fuselage	682	31	4.5	2,665	146	5.5
Nose	750	40	5.3	3,061	235	7.7
Engine	608	96	15.8	3,887	1542	39.7
Propeller	266	12	4.5	819	92	11.2
Radome	251	32	12.7	2,645	405	15.3
Landing Gear	303	8	2.6	1,180	153	13.0
Pitot	43	29	67.4	0	0	0.0
Other	977	168	17.2	1,174	626	53.3
Total	5,249	562	10.7	22,656	4,461	19.7

Table 7.2 Aircraft Parts Most Commonly Struck and Damaged by Birds Canada and U.S. (1991-1999)

Birds tend to be most active at dawn and dusk, but as sunrise and sunset times vary throughout the year these strike patterns are obscured. Consequently, daily strike-rate patterns revealed in the data are strongly influenced by peak aircraft-activity times. There is also variation in the temporal distribution of strikes among airports. Recent analysis also suggests that North American strike rates may in fact be higher at night.

The temporal patterns of mammal strikes are quite different than those of birds. The FAA database reported 681 mammal strikes during the 1991 to 1997 period; of the 522 mammal strikes in which time was known, 63 percent occurred at night—13 percent occurred at dawn and dusk, and only 24 percent during the day. These patterns reflect the nocturnal and crepuscular behaviour of most mammals that frequent airports in the U.S. and Canada.

Part of aircraft struck

The data presenting parts of aircraft struck by birds is partially related to type of aircraft involved and phase of flight. Data from 1991 to 1999 for Canada and the United States are summarized in Table 7.2. Overall, the fuselage, nose, radome, windshield, wing, rotor and engine are the parts most frequently struck. The numbers of strikes to windshields and engines is proportionally higher in the U.S. than Canada, although the reason is not apparent.

There is marked variation in the likelihood of a strike causing damage. The overall percentage of reported strikes causing damage is 10.7 percent in Canada and 19.7 percent in the U.S. It is not clear whether this difference is real or merely a statistical anomaly; each country uses similar aircraft and the species of hazardous birds are generally the same. It is possible that damaging strikes in the U.S. are more likely to be reported than non-damaging strikes; this would account for the apparent discrepancy between Canadian and U.S. figures.

Effect on Flight	Number of Incidents	% Total Incidents
No Effect/Continued Flight	4224	61.6
Precautionary/Forced Landing	608	8.9
Aborted Takeoff	173	2.5
Engine Ingestion	137	2.0
Engine Shutdown/Failure/Fire	30	0.4
Vision Obscured	61	0.9
Rupture Skin/Airframe	73	1.1
Other Effect	114	1.7
Unreported	1442	21.0
Totals	7002	100.0

Table 7.3 Effects of Bird Strikes on Aircraft in Canada (1991-1999)

Strikes most likely to cause damage are those involving:

Multiple engine strikes are the most dangerous to aircraft safety; they’re also the most expensive to repair.

As one might guess, mammal strikes involve different parts of aircraft than bird strikes. Overall, 607—85 percent—of the reported mammal strikes in the FAA database caused damage to various aircraft parts:

Effect on flight

Bird strikes are of greatest concern when they cause damage and affect the flight of an aircraft. The Canadian experience from 1991 to 1999 is summarized in Table 7.3.

Aircraft Type	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	Total
DeHavilland Dash-8	79	51	71	77	120	69	96	70	97	730
Boeing 737	115	32	62	53	54	36	61	45	38	495
DC-9/MD-80	59	30	38	46	60	47	35	15	27	357
Airbus A320	13	36	49	47	34	36	49	61	30	355
Boeing 767	27	16	22	17	31	25	8	19	11	176
Boeing 727	28	24	8	14	24	14	22	11	6	151
British Aerospace BA146	18	16	14	23	20	18	9	10	10	138
ATR 42	26	7	18	13	10	18	10	11	19	132
Fokker F28	9	0	6	6	18	17	15	16	16	103
Regional Jet CL65	0	0	0	0	11	28	27	26	1	93
Beech King Air	2	3	12	12	7	2	20	20	31	109
Canadair Challenger	11	8	9	2	6	10	0	11	8	65
Boeing 757	3	1	5	0	12	9	7	10	0	47
Boeing 747	3	5	1	10	3	8	5	11	10	56
BA Jetstream 31/41	5	3	5	7	8	0	7	12	5	52
McDonnell-Douglas DC-10	10	0	3	4	8	2	5	2	1	35

Table 7.4 Civil Aircraft Most Commonly Struck by Birds in Canada (1991-1999)

Readers should be aware that there might be more than one effect on any particular flight. In 83 percent of cases, strikes had no effect and flights continued. Precautionary landings were necessary in nine percent of reported bird strikes— many involving emergency procedures on the ground. Aborted takeoffs occurred 173 times—2.5 percent of cases.

Ingestions by engines occurred in two percent of cases, resulting in 30 engine failures, fires and precautionary engine shutdowns. Altogether, one percent of total reported strikes resulted in potentially serious engine problems.

Both Canadian and U.S. data regarding the effects on flight caused by mammal strikes differ from those involving birds. Only 36 percent of the 414 flights with full reported data proceeded without effects. Of these flights, 19 percent—79—involved rejected takeoffs, while 12 percent—49—resulted in precautionary landings.

Types of aircraft struck

All types of aircraft are susceptible to wildlife strikes, although vulnerability may differ. The types of aircraft most frequently struck in Canada are summarized in Table 7.4. The number of strikes per aircraft model is related to:

For example, the most frequently struck aircraft in Canada is the Dash-8—a short-haul aircraft that makes repeated daily takeoffs and landings at many smaller airports lacking effective wildlife-management programs.

Engine ingestions

The greatest concern regarding bird strikes to jet passenger aircraft is extensive damage and loss of power that can result when birds are ingested into engines. Unfortunately, engine manufacturers do not have access to all data on damaging events—a fact that hinders their ability to build more resilient engines. Following an examination of approximately 6,000 bird-ingestion events involving CF6 and CFM high-bypass turbofan jet engines, Tom Alge of GE Aircraft engines recommended that all bird ingestions resulting in engine damage be reported to manufacturers. Non-damaging ingestions—revealed during routine maintenance—are also not reported consistently. Alge found that of the 6,000 ingestions:

Although the frequency of ingestions was similar during departures and arrivals, departure ingestions resulted in damage at twice the rate as that incurred during arrivals.

A 1995 FAA study by Banilower and Goodall examined bird ingestions involving modern high-bypass turbofan engines used on A300, A310, A320, B747, B757, B767, DC-10 and MD-11 aircraft. Between 1989 and 1991 there were 644 ingestion events during 3,163,020 operations by 1,556 aircraft—a worldwide ingestion rate of 2.04 events per 10,000 aircraft operations. The ingestion rate in the U.S. was 0.70 per 10,000 operations compared to 2.52 ingestions per 10,000 operations in the rest of the world. During this three-year period there were 31 multiple-engine ingestion events—a rate of 9.8 per million operations. The FAA study reported that 47 percent of engines that ingested birds suffered some damage; about half of these cases involved significant damage.

The data also showed that ingestion risk fluctuates by location. Canada, the U.S. and some European and Pacific Rim countries enjoyed the lowest risks. The highest occurred at airports in Africa and some South American, Asian and European countries—locations that would gain immediate and significant benefit from effective wildlife-management programs.

Wildlife species involved in strikes

Determining which species of birds and mammals are struck adds value to the design of all aircraft components, as well as airport wildlife-management programs.

CANADA		UNITED STATES
Bird Group	Total # of Strikes	% of Identified Strikes	Total # of Strikes	% of Identified Strikes
Non-Passerines
Waterfowl (i.e. ducks,geese, swans)	273	6.5	1366	11.7
Waterbirds (i.e.heron, crane, loon, coot)	37	0.9	51	0.4
Raptors	341	8.1	1320	11.4
Owls	102	2.4	250	2.1
Shorebirds	307	7.3	834	7.2
Gulls and Terns	1614	38.5	3266	28.1
Pigeons and Doves	125	3.0	1373	11.8
Gallinaceous Birds (i.e. grouse/pheasants)	27	0.6	62	0.5
Other Non-Passerines	54	0.5
Passerines (perching birds)
Crows	65	1.6	208	1.8
Swallows	291	6.9	297	2.6
Blackbirds	20	0.5	671	5.8
Starlings	160	3.8	591	5.1
Snow Bunting	300	7.2	33	0.3
Other Passerines	528	12.6	1253	10.8
Identified Bird Totals	4190	100	11,629	100.0
Unidentified Birds Struck	2658	14,084
Total Birds Struck	6848	25,713

Table 7.5 Identified Bird Groups Commonly Struck in Canada and U.S. (1991-1999)

The species and numbers of strikes in Canada and the United States between 1991 and 1999 are summarized in Table 7.5. The table contains information on a total of 15,819 reported strikes. The species or group involved is identified in 61 percent of reported strikes in Canada and 45 percent in the U.S. By far, the most frequently identified group involved in strikes are gulls and terns—38.5 percent of reported strikes in Canada and 28 percent in the U.S. The overwhelming majority of these strikes involve gulls; less than one percent involve terns. Waterfowl are reported in 12 percent of U.S. strikes, but only 6.5 percent in Canada. Diurnal raptors—such as hawks, eagles and vultures—are involved in 11.4 percent of strikes in the U.S. and 8.1 percent in Canada. Pigeons and doves figure prominently in U.S. strike data— 12 percent compared to only three in Canada. The U.S. has much larger dove populations, and these numbers swell in winter when Canadian doves migrate south. Overall, the passerines—perching birds—constitute 33 percent of reported Canadian strikes and 26 percent in the U.S., although figures vary among species; Blackbirds and starlings are more frequently identified in the U.S., whereas swallows and Snow Buntings are commonly struck in Canada (Table 7.5).

During the 1991 to 99 period, 152 mammal strikes were reported in Canada and 681 in the U.S. The most commonly reported species struck in Canada are:

In the U.S., 65 percent of reports refer to deer—11 percent to Coyote.

Species/Groups	Cause Damage		Affect Flight		Aircraft Downtime		Monetary Loss
Species/Groups	Number	Per Cent	Number	Per Cent	# Hours	Per Cent	Cost*	Per Cent
Gulls/Terns	581	29.8	456	32.9	19,326	20.9	11.4	19.1
Waterfowl	640	32.9	305	22.0	38,268	41.3	33.5	56.1
Raptors (incl. Owls)	334	17.1	208	15.0	24,276	26.2	8.6	14.5
Pigeons/Doves	135	6.9	141	10.2	5,578	6.0	3.8	6.4
Blackbirds/Starlings	73	3.7	91	6.6	1,240	1.3	0.7	1.1
Other Waterbirds	24	1.2	13	0.9	699	0.8	0.2	0.3
Shorebirds	85	4.4	77	5.5	2,994	3.2	1.2	2.1
Corvids (Crows, etc.)	20	1.0	18	1.3	77	0.1	0.0	0.1
Sparrows	19	1.0	36	2.6	20	0.0	0.0	0.0
Grouse/Pheasants	16	0.8	12	0.9	93	0.1	0.0	0.0
Miscellaneous	21	1.1	31	2.2	86	0.1	0.2	0.3
Total Known	1,948	100	1,388	100	92,657	100	59.6	100
Unknown Species	1,889	1,110	21,437	17.8
Total Birds	3,837	2,498	114,094	77.4
* in millions of U.S. dollars

Table 7.6 Identified Bird Groups Commonly Struck. Canada and U.S. (1991-1999)

Damaging strikes

The likelihood that a particular bird strike will cause aircraft damage is related to the size of bird—its weight—and its flocking behaviour, which determines how many individuals are likely to be struck. In both Canada and the U.S., gulls are the most frequently struck bird group—28 to 39 percent (Table 7.5). Gulls are involved in 30 percent of damaging bird strikes (Table 7.6). Waterfowl—primarily ducks and geese—are involved in 33 percent of damaging strikes, but only 12 percent of the overall strikes in the U.S. Raptors, including owls, are also involved in a higher percentage of damaging strikes—17 percent as opposed to 11 percent of the total number of strikes. Pigeons and doves account for 11 percent of U.S. strikes—only 6.4 percent of these cause damage. Other passerines account for 11 percent of overall strikes but less than one percent of those resulting in damage (Tables 7.5 and 7.6).

Relative costs by species

The FAA database presents information on the numbers of hours of aircraft downtime and reported costs of strike incidents. Table 7.6 illustrates how the otherwise strong influence of gull strikes appears to drop:

Hazardous species

When determining bird species that pose the greatest hazard to aircraft safety, a number of factors must be considered including:

There has been little study of the behaviour of birds in response to approaching aircraft. Based on the Canadian and American experience, it’s clear that waterfowl, gulls, raptors, pigeons and doves are the most hazardous species on a continent-wide basis. This is not to say that other species or groups are not more important at specific airports.

A review of the ICAO worldwide database shows similar trends. For example, during the three-year period between 1994 and 1996 there were 743 bird-strike incidents that caused serious damage. The bird species or group was known in 419 of these cases—gulls were the leading cause of serious damage in 32 percent of incidents, followed by raptors—including owls—at 21 percent and waterfowl at 20 percent.

Conclusions

To summarize, it’s important to emphasize the value of bird-strike statistics and the importance of collecting strike data—data that provides:

The collection and evaluation of wildlife-strike data is a cornerstone of a safer aviation environment.

How Bird Strikes Can Affect Jet Engines: Exploring the Causes of Bird Strike Accidents

The Dangers of Bird Strikes

How can a flock of harmless geese kill people? The answer is clear: through a bird strike! Bird strikes have been in the news since 1912 and very little has been achieved on the prevention front. The most disastrous bird strike accident was reported in 1960 when 62 people were killed in an Eastern Airlines aircraft crash after a flock of starlings were sucked into the plane’s engines.

In reality, a considerable amount of the general public is still ignorant about the seriousness and losses caused by bird strikes. A collision between a flying aircraft and a bird (or a flock of birds) can be termed as a bird strike. Bird strike accidents can be extremely serious to airplanes and jets, leading to loss of human life. In other cases, damages to the plane body or machinery can amount to greater financial losses of several millions of dollars.

What Causes a Plane to Crash After a Bird Strike?

The bird that strikes the aircraft might damage the nose, the trailing edge of aircraft’s wing flap or the engine. The size of the bird also matters in determining the extent of destruction it can cause. A tiny bird like sparrow would not be able to cause any damage that would hamper the functionality of the aircraft. However, a flock of geese might cause unrecoverable damage, eventually leading to a plane crash.

The fan blades of the plane engine move at a very high speed to generate sufficient power required by the aircraft to fly. If the bird hits the engine, it may damage or break off one or several fan blades leading to significant engine failure. This kind of accident generally leads to unrecoverable consequences, and no matter how skilled the pilot is, nothing can be done to avoid the imminent disaster.

Where do Bird Strikes Usually Occur?

Bird strikes usually occur at lower altitudes, especially during take-off or landing. This is because the aircraft shares almost the same air space as that of the birds. At many places, the surrounding areas of the airports are open fields and grasslands that attract migratory birds. It is noted that majority of the bird strikes occur during the season of migration when birds fly across the sky in groups.

Are There Any Initiatives to Control the Bird Population Around Airports?

Many airports have bird management initiatives associated with them. Animals like dogs and even predators like hawks are used to scare off birds. Just a few years back, bird populations were controlled by subjecting such bird-rich areas around the airports to gassing.

Because of the advocation of animal activists and other concerned citizens, lethal methods to control bird populations are no longer in use. This has also indirectly led to an increase in accidents due to bird strikes. In fact, environmental laws have greatly contributed in increasing bird populations to unknown levels, causing bird strike hazards to have become an unsolvable question in front of many airport authorities.

Bird Strike Tests on Airplanes

Most of the aircraft used by airlines are subjected to a “bird strike” test before they start their maiden flights, wherein dead birds are shot against the plane’s engine that revolves at maximum speed. Then, the time taken by the plane to recover and land safely is examined under different dimensions such as during take-off and landing. These tests are carried out under the aid of a computer simulation. Many times, such simulation tests fail to cover a situation wherein both the engines of the plane are damaged.

Chesley B Sullenberger III is a hero in the eyes of his nation and his fellow pilots from an event occurring on January 15, 2009. He was the pilot that successfully crash landed a US Airways AirBus A320 on the icy-cold Hudson River, saving the lives onboard the plane. Both the engines of the plane were found to be damaged by a bird strike. We cannot expect such a miracle to happen every time; therefore, it is important that the policy and law makers take necessary action to prevent bird strikes.

Learn more about how technology is helping to decrease the number of bird strikes in the air.

Airport Bird Control Methods

Thousands of airplane bird strikes occur each year, but airports have many safety and conservation measures in place to minimize these potentially damaging and dangerous situations. Thanks to thoughtful airport bird control techniques, the majority of airplane scares involving birds do not result in substantial damage to the aircraft or danger to the passengers. Conscientious airport officials continually monitor nearby wildlife in order to refine bird avoidance procedures, avoid any potential problems, and minimize the impact on birds.

Attraction to Airports

Large flocks of birds are hazardous to aircraft, and unfortunately, birds enjoy the habitat around many busy airports. Because airports are placed on the fringe of large urban centers, they frequently have large tracts of unused, undeveloped land surrounding them as noise and safety buffers. That undeveloped land is attractive to birds, particularly as suitable habitat shrinks due to urban expansion. At the same time, the general bustle of the airport often discourages large predators, giving birds a safer sanctuary. Many airports are also near substantial wetlands or drainage ponds since water is a superb noise dampener, making these areas even more attractive to migratory waterfowl, gulls, and other large birds. Unfortunately, the same birds that are most attracted to these habitats can present the most dangerous threats to aircraft.

Minimizing Bird Strikes

Both large birds and flocks of smaller birds can be dangerous to planes, either by impacting the windscreen or being sucked into the engines. This not only causes significant damage to the plane but can also create hazardous and unsafe flying conditions if critical damage occurs. Because of this, many airports have wildlife control initiatives in place to minimize any interaction between birds and aircraft.

There are three general ways to minimize airplane bird strikes: modifying the birds’ habitat, controlling the birds’ behavior, and modifying aircrafts’ behavior. Airports that are most successful at minimizing bird strikes have employed all three methods through various techniques.

Habitat

Modifying the habitat surrounding an airport so it will not appeal to birds is an easy way to encourage wild birds to seek alternative roosting and feeding grounds. Effective measures include:

Bird Behavior

Several methods can be used to modify birds’ behavior, so they will not stay near an airport. These techniques do not harm the birds but encourage them to avoid the region.

As a last resort, birds may be captured and relocated by authorized wildlife control officials if they cannot be encouraged to leave the area naturally. In extreme cases, birds may be culled with the proper authorization.

Plane Schedules

Learning to work with the birds by modifying flight paths and schedules can help minimize bird strikes. While these methods may not be feasible at all airports, they can be used to help the airport work in harmony with the wildlife surrounding it.

Why Bird Strikes Happen

Despite the best use of multiple deterrent methods and wildlife management, airplane bird strikes still happen. Ornithologists and other researchers examine the snarge, the remains of birds that have impacted with planes, to determine which species are the greatest problem and the most significant risk. With that knowledge, they can continually refine control methods to be more effective without disrupting birds that do not cause problems.

As airports become busier, flights are scheduled more frequently, and alternative habitats continue to shrink, more and more birds will seek refuge near airports, causing potentially dangerous situations. Airports must continuously be on the alert for other fliers in the skies, and as new control and deterrent techniques are developed, it is hoped that bird strikes can continue to be minimized.

Bird strike avoidance strategies

In aviation, colliding with one bird or part of a flock can have devastating consequences. Various strategies help to avoid damage.

author:
Monika Weiner has been working as a science journalist since 1985. A geology graduate, she is especially interested in new developments in research and technology, and in their impact on society.

Collisions with birds, known as bird strikes, are often mild, but still cause some two billion U.S. dollars in damage each year. “In Germany alone, we see about 2,500 instances per year, affecting mostly engines, radomes, the wing leading edge and the landing gear,” reports Christian Hellberg, managing director of DAVVL e.V., a German association for biological flight safety. The association was established in the 1960s to draw up actions for preventing bird strikes. Members include all German commercial airports, airlines, but also aircraft manufacturers and pilot associations.

Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous times: at altitudes of up to 500 meters, aircraft find themselves sharing the airspace with their natural predecessors—and their feathered friends don’t stick to air traffic or statutory regulations. “Flocks of birds are the worst. They can cause serious damage. Airports near the sea, where there are geese and gulls, are at particular risk and continuous monitoring of the airspace is essential.” emphasizes Hellberg.

Natural enemies help prevent bird strikes: To help keep birds away from airports, operators often hire falconers who deploy specially trained birds of prey to hunt on the airport grounds.

Preventing bird strikes on the ground: Mice and rabbit populations at the airport attract predators. Polecats help to hunt them out and drive them away.

Artificial birds for safer airspace: A team of researchers at DLR has developed a bird dummy used to determine the loads that a collision with a bird would generate. Its physical properties are comparable to those of a real bird of the same mass.

Investigating the impact: In the firing facility, a gas canon projects the bird dummy through the air at high velocities. This enables researchers to simulate a bird strike and investigate its impact on different aircraft parts.

To avoid collisions, all airports have their own bird strike and wildlife management officers who specialize in making the airport grounds less attractive for birds: plants that provide nourishment or serve as hiding places or places to nest and brooks and ponds are a no-go. Long-stemmed grasses are best suited as vegetation as small birds cannot alight there and birds of prey cannot hunt.

Another method used alongside “passive deterrence” by manipulating the ecosystem is monitoring: radar and IR cameras are used to detect larger birds or flocks. The information is gathered by the bird strike and wildlife management officers, who then, where necessary, send warnings to air traffic control and pilots.

In the event of an emergency, it is usually only a bird controller who can help. They use active deterrence methods to drive the birds out of the airspace above the airport. These measures range from scarecrows, pyrotechnics, lasers and oxyhydrogen explosions to regular visits by professional falconers who hunt the grounds with their falcons, buzzards and owls. Birdlike drones, Robirds, which are already in use at airports in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States, are not authorized in Germany—at least, not yet.

Hellberg reports that the various preventive measures taken in Germany have succeeded in reducing bird strikes—known as wildlife strikes—by 60 to 80 percent over the last 40 years, while the risk of serious damage to some bird species has risen, because the number of large birds such as geese, cranes, herons and cormorants has increased significantly in some cases. This is due to nature conservation measures and the clampdown on hunting in Europe.

“Our goal is to increase safety by using appropriate structures to prevent catastrophic damage. The components have to be designed in such a way that a bird strike does not result in them being destroyed but only deformed, while, at the same time, retaining their function so that the aircraft is able to continue to fly safely.”

Simulating emergency scenarios

The forces an aircraft has to withstand when it hits a bird weighing up to four kilograms during takeoff at several hundred kilometers per hour are enormous. “They are particularly difficult to calculate as, in aviation, we mainly expect constant, i.e. static, forces to occur during the flight. However, a collision with a bird produces a dynamic structural load that acts for only fractions of a second,” explains Dr. Nathalie Toso from the Institute of Structures and Design at the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Her team develops special computer models and verifies them based on experiments employing an artificial bird—a bird dummy. Using these models, the researchers can digitally simulate collisions at different flight speeds, collision angles and with different sizes of bird. The virtual test environment helps to design components that are particularly vulnerable to bird strikes—wing leading edges, cockpit windows, tail unit leading edge and landing gear—so that they can withstand the impact. “Our goal is to increase safety by using appropriate structures to prevent catastrophic damage. The components have to be designed in such a way that a bird strike does not result in them being destroyed but only deformed, while, at the same time, retaining their function so that the aircraft is able to continue to fly safely,” explains the head of department.

Ensuring the aircraft is still able to fly in an emergency situation is also of paramount importance for engine developers. To this end, engineers factor in an engine’s ability to withstand the high dynamic loads that occur in a bird strike right from the design phase.

World birds strike association

At airports, preventing birds striking aircraft is an on-going challenge.

Our range of bird radars track the exact flight paths of both flocks and individual birds up to 10 kilometres.

They automatically detect and log hundreds of birds simultaneously, including their size, speed, direction and flight path.

With our avian radars, you’ll be tracking in real-time, 24/7, all around your airport.

You’ll have all the information you need to mitigate bird strikes, and even intervene, when necessary.

And of course, unlike human observers, our radars don’t need to rest, and they can see in all weather, day or night.

FMCWX-Band 9650MHzReal-time position and track in full 3D – in all directions all of the time20W average power output1.0s track update rate15km instrumented range

IRIS®

FMCWX-BandReal-time position and track in 3D360-degree coverage2x 12W power output1.0s track update rate5km instrumented range

BIO-ACOUSTIC BIRD DISPERSAL WITH EASY LOGGING

Reduce your bird hazard risk with the leading bio-acoustic bird dispersal technology for international airports.

The safe and reliable dispersal of birds from airports is essential to the health and safety of passengers, staff and wildlife alike.

Through Scarecrow Group, acquired by Robin in 2021, Robin offers airport bird control products using state of the art bio-acoustic technology for bird dispersal and bird strike avoidance.

In addition to dispersing birds, our Scarecrow software solutions provide you the tools required to analyse wildlife activity and then make proactive informed decisions about what action to take to mitigate your bird hazard risks

Many major international airports around the globe rely on Scarecrow’s bio-acoustics technology as an essential component of wildlife management.

Scarecrow systems have been developed in close cooperation with airport clients to provide reliable bird dispersal and control.

With the acquisition of Scarecrow completed in 2021, expect to see more integrated offerings coming soon!

Bird and Wildlife Strikes

Importance to Members

Overview

Technical Information

Additional Resources

From the AOPA Archives

Importance to Members

Pilots share the sky with birds and bird strikes are a real and not uncommon danger. The majority of them go unreported and result in little or no damage to the aircraft, although for the bird, it’s a different story. A bird strike, sometimes referred to as a bird hit, bird strike, or BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard), can happen to anyone at almost any time. Reported birdstrikes are on the rise and occasionally make the news. Media coverage of Captain “Sully” Sullenberger’s celebrated landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in January 2009 captured headlines for many months.

Wildlife strikes also pose a threat to aircraft. In rural and occasionally in urban areas, it is not uncommon for a deer or other animal to wander onto the runway. Pilots must be especially aware, and after taking avoidance action should alert pilots and ground personnel of the hazard. Even though bird and wildlife strikes are for the most part unpredictable and random, there are some precautions that can be taken to lower the odds their occurrence. This subject report develops this idea.

As always, feel free to call AOPA’s Pilot Information Center at 800/USA-AOPA (872-2672) with questions.

Overview

The first pilot to ever be involved in a bird strike is believed to have been Orville Wright in 1908. The first recorded fatality resulting from a bird strike dates all the way back to 1912. Cal Rogers, who made history when he flew across the United States, was performing a demonstration flight in California when his Wright Flyer collided with a seagull. The threat of bird strikes became more serious in the 1950s when the aviation industry began using gas turbines for power and the FAA began testing the engines for bird ingestion capabilities. The engines are able to ingest about three small birds (one and one-half pounds) or one medium bird (two and one-half pounds) without failing. The FAA currently considers a large bird to weigh more than four pounds. There is no aircraft engine certified to ingest a large bird without shutting down.

This subject report will inform readers of the risks and preventive procedures surrounding bird and wildlife strikes. Additionally it will discuss how to properly submit a bird or wildlife strike.

Technical Information

Statistics

The population of birds in the United States has been increasing steadily over the past two decades, including large birds. The Canada goose population has tripled in the last decade, and there are now more than 5 million residing in the United States. These geese weigh an average of 12 pounds. Along with those that live in the United States, there are also between 500 million and 1 billion birds that migrate over the United States each year. This is why more bird strikes occur during the migratory season, which falls between July and November. A majority of bird strikes occur during the day, but about 25 percent occur at night. Birds can often be spotted at altitudes above 20,000 feet, though they usually fly around 7,000 feet above ground level. Bird strikes have even been reported at altitudes as high as 37,000 feet, and birds have been spotted as high as 54,000 feet!

We must also keep in mind the risks of wildlife strikes. According to the FAA’s National Wildlife Strike Database, there have been 898 white-tailed deer strikes in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Deer are more active at night than during the day, and the majority of strikes occur at dusk or at night. Deer are also more active in the Fall. More than half of the total annual strikes occur from September to December.

Avoiding Bird Strikes

About 90 percent of bird strikes take place at or near airports, usually during taking off or landing. One of the first things you should do to avoid a bird strike is to avoid areas in which there is a known risk. You can do this by checking notams for bird activity near airports. The FAA Airport/Facility Directory (A/FD) contains warnings regarding bird hazards. If you are not familiar with an airport, be sure to check the A/FD before flying in.

Some other things that you can do to avoid bird strikes are to avoid areas such as marshlands and landfills because birds like to congregate near them. Also, avoid flying beneath a flock of birds. When birds sense danger in the air they have a tendency to dive. If you are approaching a bird you should pitch up. When flying in an area with birds, you should also turn your lights on, as it’s possible, though not likely, the birds may see you in time to move. However, birds on the ground tend to face into the wind. They will probably have their backs toward you as you are taking off. If startled, the flock may take off and fly directly into your path.

It is also important to be familiar with the patterns of migratory birds. As stated earlier, birds migrate between the months of July and November, with the peak being in September. There are four major migration routes across the United States. These routes are:

Be Prepared

If involved in a bird strike, many pilots seem to forget the first and most important rule of flying: Fly the aircraft. There are many accident reports in which a pilot, attempting to avoid a bird, has lost control of the aircraft or even flown it right into the ground. When trying to steer clear of birds, you must remain in control. If you pitch up to avoid a flock, don’t pitch up so high that you cause a stall. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Avoiding Wildlife Strikes

Remember that deer are naturally camouflaged to blend in with their surroundings. A startled deer hidden in trees near the airport can run at speeds of 20 to 30 mph and could be on the runway before you’ve had time to lift off. And their fixation on lights may keep them frozen if faced with your landing light. For this reason, be prepared to abort a take-off at night, with little notice.

Reporting a Bird or Wildlife Strike

If you encounter birds or wildlife on the airport, you should call the airport management. They have a duty under FAR Part 139 to mitigate wildlife hazards on the airport. You should also report the hazard to air traffic control. ATC has a duty under FAA Order 7110.65, paragraph 2-1-22, to inform other pilots about the hazard, as well as other ATC facilities and automated flight service stations.

If you are involved in a bird or wildlife strike, remember to report it only once you have landed safely on the ground. Be sure to fill out the FAA Bird/Wildlife Strike Report. This form can also be found in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) as Appendix 1 and should be mailed to:

FAA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards
AAS-310
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20591

Additionally, you should fill out a NASA ASRS report.

Bird strike

Lexical domain

position, quantity, names/types of birds, bird scaring in progress, damage to aircraft, delays, bird scaring methods, behaviour of birds

How birdstrikes impact engines

When interactions between birds and aircraft, or “bird strikes,” happen, the consequences can range from a minor dent on a radome to the loss of an engine.

Bird strikes, as defined by the FAA, are collisions between a bird and an aircraft resulting in the death or injury to the bird, damage to the aircraft or both. Near-collisions with birds reported by pilots also are considered strikes.
.

Chris Kmetz, Pratt & Whitney’s chief engineer for systems design and component integration, says most bird strikes on engines do no damage. “When damage is found, it tends to be to the plastic flow path panels and wire mesh acoustic panels, which can become cracked, dented or torn in excess of allowable damage,” he says. “Higher-impact forces—larger birds struck at higher speeds—can cause bends or cusps in the lead edges of the fan blades, which are the first engine components the bird encounters upon ingestion.”

The engine, he notes, will continue to operate after this type of damage, and the hardware can be repaired or replaced easily after landing without removing the powerplant.

.
I n fact, Kmetz points out that the fan blades are the first engine components encountered by an ingested bird, and in the case of large birds, the fan rotor can sustain substantial damage. That raises the possibility of fan-blade detachment, although Kmetz stresses that this is rare. “The fan blades are specifically designed and tested to preclude the detachment of a blade during a bird ingestion event,” he notes. “However, should that occur, the engine-casing system is designed and tested to ensure the detached blade stays contained within the engine and does not damage the aircraft.”

Bird Strike News

An overview of current bird and wildlife strike hazard issues in aviation, featuring a selection of some of the best available online pictures and videos that feature bird and wildlife strikes to aircraft. Featured are events involving airliners, military aircraft. For more bird strike information, visit the Bird Strike Committee USA site at http://birdstrike.org

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Full Size Photos from the Show Low Bird Strike Now Available

Last month’s bird strike involving an Ameriflight Beech C-99 aircraft (N330AV) near Show Low, AZ was a fairly dramatic one involving a windshield penetration, copious amounts of blood and guts (the bird’s) in the cockpit, and an injured pilot who brought the plane in for a safe landing.

One of the employees of the city of Show Low took a number of photographs of the event, some of which you may have seen in either a previous article on this site or in another web site or news program. Below, you will find eight of those photos, and if you click on any of them, you will see the full sized original.

Since these photos are in the public domain, you are free to use them without cost and without asking permission. It would be appropriate to give any photo credits to the city of Show Low, AZ.

NTSB Preliminary Report
NTSB Identification: WPR10IA045
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Wednesday, November 04, 2009 in Show Low, AZ
Aircraft: BEECH C-99, registration: N330AV
Injuries: 1 Minor.

On November 4, 2009, about 0750 mountain standard time (MST), a Beech C-99, N330AV, encountered a bird strike while on approach to Show Low Regional Airport (SOW), Show Low, Arizona. Ameriflight, LLC, was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135. The commercial pilot sustained minor injuries; the airplane sustained damage to the left front pilot windshield.

The cross-country cargo flight departed Phoenix, Arizona, about 0715. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan had been filed.

The pilot reported that shortly after beginning the descent at an altitude of 11,000 feet mean sea level (msl), approximately 20 miles west of Show Low, a bird impacted the upper part of the captain’s windshield, breaking a football size hole in it. A considerable amount of blood, tissue matter, and windshield fragments came into the cockpit.

The captain suffered facial lacerations, bruising, and some lacerations on his chest.

The pilot continued his approach to SOW in spite of the fact the windscreen was nearly opaque. The pilot made radio calls in the blind using the standby hand microphone. He was unable to hear any transmissions due to the wind noise in the cockpit.

The photos from the event can also be found at the following locations:
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image1.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image2.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image3.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image4.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image5.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image6.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image7.jpg
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/Image8.jpg

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Bird Strike near Show Low, AZ Injures Pilot and Damages Aircraft

On 4 November 2009, an Ameriflight Beech C-99 aircraft (N330AV) was cruising at about 11,000 feet in the vicinity of Show Low, AZ when one or more birds struck the aircraft and penetrated the windscreen. The pilot, who was the lone occupant of the cargo aircraft, sustained minor injuries to his face and shoulder and was able to land the aircraft without further incident at Show Low, AZ. The blood in the accompanying photos is from the bird.

Photos by Mike Pflueger

Additional information is available from KSAZ Television in Phoenix.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Australian Transport Safety Bureau Bird Strike Study for 2002-2006

The summary has risen from approximately 750 in 2002 to 1,200 in 2006. The report includes bird and bat strikes that occurred in Australian territory or that involved any strike involving an Australia-registered aircraft. The analysis looked at a variety of variables including location, date, phase of flight, type of flight operation, effect on flight, aircraft damage, and bird size, and bird species.

Bird strike reporting was found to have almost doubled over the five-year reporting period from about 750 in 2002 to 1,200 in 2006. Around 7.5% (383 of 5,103) during the study period resulted in damage. The overall strike rate was about one per 6,407 aircraft movements. There were three injuries, but no fatalities, during this five-year period.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Ten Free Social Media Things You Can Do

Two of the biggest excuses organizations and individuals have when it comes to using social media applications is that it takes too much time to figure out how to use them and takes too many resources once your start using them. True, some social media applications may take a bit of time to learn, but unless you have been on a deserted island for the last ten years, you probably figured out by now how to use email and do basic things on the web like find things with a search engine. If you can do that,figuring out most social media applications should be easy.

Cost is not an issue because once you can get online, which you should be able to do either at home, at work, or at your local library, much of the really good stuff is free. The following ten social media resources are not only free, but should be useful to you in some way, especially if you are trying to make yourself or your organization more visible online.

Before you explore new social media applications, you may want to get a free online email account. Having this kind of account makes using social media much more convenient. Some applications require that you have an account with one of these email services, and most require an email account for administrative purposes. Also, if your main email account is from your organization, you may want an outside account to keep your activities more private. Three of the most popular places for online email accounts are from Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft.
Suggested Resource: Gmail

The following ten social media resources are not only free, but should be useful to you in some way.

1. Blogging
Think of a blog as a web site where just about all the work is done for you. You sign in, write something, hit a button, and it is online. If you’ve thought about starting a web site but have no idea what it takes to do it, a blog is the easiest way to get that experience. Also, if you already have a web site, a blog is an easy way to try quickly try new ideas that may later put on the site. Two of the biggest blog services are Blogger and WordPress. Both of them can get you from login to published blog in less time than a lunch break.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Blogger

2. Micoblogging
This is a stripped down version of a blog, basically little more than a couple of sentences and maybe a link to something online. Examples include Yammer and the much more widely known Twitter. This blogging method that may work best for sending short messages to portable devices like an iPhone or Blackberry, or in conjunction with other resources such as a web site, mailing list, or full sized blog.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Twitter

3. Online File Storage
If you need to share files with one or more colleagues, or you need to access key files from several different computers, and don’t want the hassle carrying around a laptop or thumb drive, or emailing files, you can use one of these services to manage your files in a password protected environment.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Airset

4. Photo Sharing and Storage
If you are interested in sharing photos, services like Flickr and Picasa allow you to store photos online, and even giving you the option of allowing others to access them or download them.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Flickr

5. Intelligence Gathering
If you need to find or track some information online, for example monitoring a developing news story or keeping current on a competitor or industry, Google has a service called Google Alerts that will keep track of them for you and send regular email updates when it finds something.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Google Alerts

6. Video Sharing
Some of the millions of user generated videos are published every day may actually be of interest to you. While you may be able to find them using general search engines like Google or Bing, you may have better luck by searching within video sharing sites like YouTube, Metacafe, and LiveLeak. YouTube is by far the biggest, with the greatest variety of content. Also, if have videos that you want to share, you can follow the AirSafe.com example and create a home page withing the site to showcase your videos.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: YouTube

7. Social Networking
Facebook and Myspace may be the most well known social networking sites, but a site like LinkedIn is more relevant to working professionals, providing a kind of online resume and biography, and allowing others to see you out and contact you.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: LinkedIn

8. Subscribing to Podcasts
There are millions of audio and video podcasts out there that cover a huge range of topics, including a few that would be of interest to you. Both Apple (iTunes) and Microsoft (Zune) distribute free software that allows you to easily manage subscriptons to audio of and video podcasts of every description. The iTunes software also has extensive links to online audio stream of radio stations from around the world.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: iTunes

9. Free Phone Calls
Wouldn’t it be great if you could use the Internet to call someone long distance, even internationally, without spending any extra money? You can download a program like Skype or Googletalk and talk for free with anyone else who has both a connection to the Internet and who has downloaded the same software.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Skype

10. Social Bookmarking
All web browsers allow you to bookmark favorite pages, but if you use several computers, or even several browsers on the same computer, keeping track of your bookmarkes can be next to impossible. Bookmark sharing resources like Delicious, Digg, and StumbleUpon allow you to create an online account where you can store and manage your bookmarks, and then either make them private and password protected, or make them public and available to anyone.
AirSafe.com’s Choice: Delicious

Next Steps
If you are using none of these services, go ahead and try one of them to see if it can help you out in some way. If you are using one or more of them, leave a comment on this blog post and share your experiences, positive or negative, with using these services.

How AirSafe.com Uses Twitter and a Mailing List with Its Blog

Social media applications make it easy to publish and share information with an audience. They can be used individually or they can be used in combination with other online resources and applications. By combining applications, their combined usefulness can be greater than the sum of their individual strengths.

One combination AirSafe.com uses consists of an automated mailing list, a blog, and Twitter. The mailing list had been developed over several years and had been used to send newsletters and breaking news items. The various AirSafe.com blogs are more recent additions, and have been used to provide more details than were possible in a newsletter, and to supplement the main web site.

Twitter is the newest addition to AirSafe.com, and initially had the most problems. Twitter is what is called a microblogging service, which acts like a blog it that it allows users to easily publish something online, but is very limited in that you have a 140 character limit, basically enough for a headline and maybe one link to another resource.

For AirSafe.com, having only enough space for a headline and a link to another resource isn’t a problem since Twitter’s main use was to encourage a subscriber to link to other content such as a particular page on a web site. As a relatively new online service, very few current AirSafe.com visitors would have had an account, and many may never be convinced to subscribe to the service. Incorporating Twitter into AirSafe.com’s content wouldn’t make sense unless there was a way to include the majority of AirSafe.com’s audience that doesn’t use Twitter.

The key breakthrough was using Twitter in combination with other AirSafe.com resources, specifically the site’s automated mailing list and the AirSafe.com News blog site. The mailing list service, which over the last several years has grown to several thousand subscribers, has a feature that allows it to be linked to a blog so that any new blog item leads to an automatic generation of an email that includes a short message and a link to the blog item. A second feature automatically sends out a Twitter message to followers that includes a link back to the new blog posting.

In short, those two features allowed anyone who was either a subscriber to the AirSafe.com mailing list or to the AirSafe.com Twitter account would be automatically notified whenever there was an addition to the blog. Instead of updating three AirSafe.com resources, only one had to be updated to reach three distinct audiences.

The mailing list, blog, and the Twitter account are promoted in different ways to different types of AirSafe.com visitors. By doing a little bit of behind the scenes work, all three audiences could be easily connected.

One of the unexpected benefits was that Twitter and related technologies opened up additional options for finding useful information that was of interest to the audience with the audience. The most useful was the Twitter search function at search.twitter.com. It is a great tool for quickly finding useful links to breaking news stories. For example, after a plane crash, it can be used to search through the hundreds, and sometimes thousands of Twitter messages that users send to one another after a crash. At least a few will have links to news media and other resources that have timely information on an unfolding event.

The blog is the main resource that AirSafe.com uses for breaking news on plane crashes, so when the blog is updated and AirSafe.com subscribers receive a notification of the new blog entry and then visit the blog, they get information from AirSafe.com and also benefit from the work that Twitter users did to find relevant online content.

Next Steps
If you want to see how this stuff works or how it can help you, do one of the following:

Oliver Tambo International Airport, South Africa: Land-Use Conflicts Between Airports and Wildlife Habitats

Airports stimulate tourism and trade and are a vital link in any country’s tourism infrastructure and economy. Large airports such as South Africa’s busiest airport, the OR Tambo International Airport, in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, are usually located on the periphery of cities, usually on land that forms part of the peri-urban economy, reserved perhaps for farming or left undeveloped. As a result, such land often becomes a wildlife haven within the more “urbanized” or developed areas. Unfortunately, this places wildlife, especially birds on a collision course with aircraft. So much so that bird and other animal strikes cost the aviation industry millions of US dollars annually. Therefore, it is essential to reduce the number of wildlife strikes, not only lower the risk of damage to aircraft, increase passenger safety and reduce operational delays, but also prevent a decline in local wildlife populations. Thus, this paper argues that South Africa must improve its management of land-use close to airports to minimize the potential for wildlife strikes. In that regard, this study catalogs the different habitats and land-use types surrounding OR Tambo International Airport, identifying potential bird hazard zones using kernel density analysis. This identifies which areas pose the highest risk of bird strikes. Although land-use and land zoning by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommends a 13 km buffer zone around airports, this study shows that land-use in the buffer zone must also take potential bird strikes into account. Thus, airport operators need to work with land-use planning authorities and neighboring stakeholders to do so.

Introduction

Airports play a critical economic role, serving as hubs for commerce, trade and tourism (Luke and Walters, 2010). Airports are crucial for both job and enterprise creation (Mokhele, 2017). In this regard, the Air Transport Action Group [ATAG], 2020 reported that the global economic impact of air transportation through direct, indirect, or induced means accounts for around 4.1% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product. Within a globalized economy the rise of “airport cities” or “aerotropolises,” where the urban economy takes shape around aviation-related businesses and associated developments has been noted (Kasarda, 2006). One such aerotropolis is Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, South Africa, population 4 million. Ekurhuleni is a sprawling administrative metropolitan area consisting of nine small towns or cities (Alberton, Benoni, Boksburg, Brakpan, Edenvale, Germiston, Kempton Park, Nigel, and Springs) (Mthombeni, 2017). All were once gold mining towns, with some evolving into industrial towns (especially Germiston and Boksburg), but most now dormitory towns, with residents traveling to Johannesburg or Tshwane for work (Bonner and Nieftagodien, 2012). Since the decline of gold mining and deindustrialization, the region has suffered from serious economic decline reporting unemployment rates in the region of 60% (McKay et al., 2017). Within this context, the OR Tambo International Airport (formerly Jan Smuts Airport), is a crucial economic resource, even in the time of COVID-19 and the associated decline in travel and tourism (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2021). It has reported substantial growth since 1994, becoming South Africa’s principal airport as well as the biggest and busiest airport in Africa. In 2011 the City of Ekurhuleni elected to capitalize on this with the objective of being Africa’s first aerotropolis written into its Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework (Hancock, 2011). The aim is to leverage the airport to develop an aviation, manufacturing, industrial, logistics and tourism hub to stimulate economic growth and development in the region (Rogerson, 2018). While international and domestic aerial traffic is at the core of the development and planning of the Ekurhuleni Aerotropolis, a key element of aviation is safety. In that regard, it is posited here that the OR Tambo is uniquely at risk of bird strike hazards, due to the initial site not taking bird hazards into account. In particular, the airport was built to United States of America guidelines and the site was selected based on soil type, accessibility, population density, ground water availability and land not deemed to be suitable for gold mining (Greathead and Hawkins, 1948). Furthermore, South African legislation does not comply with international guidelines with respect to buffer zones. Lastly, South Africa was a pariah state until 1994, with low levels of air traffic and limited international engagement politically, diplomatically or in terms of aviation, thus, there is a mismatch between how the airport operated in the past compared to what is required to operate optimally with regard to mitigating risks from wildlife now.

Collisions between aircraft and birds, pose a threat to both passenger and crew safety (Hasilci and Bogoclu, 2021). Bird strikes are well documented with the first one recorded in 1905 when Orville Wright, one of the aviation pioneers, struck a bird in flight. The first recorded human fatality was in 1912 when pilot, Calbraith Rogers, the first person to fly across the United States of America (USA), drowned after a gull caused his aircraft to crash into the sea (Mackinnon et al., 2001). Since 1912, over 200 people have lost their lives as a result of bird strikes. Since 1988 over 200 aircraft have been wrecked (Dolbeer and Wright, 2008). Marra et al. (2009) reported over 7,400 bird-aircraft collisions in the United States in 2007 alone. This is likely a low figure as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that 80 percent of bird strikes go unreported. Various studies have revealed that most bird strikes occur on, or near an airport when the aircraft is at low altitude during take-off or landing (Dolbeer, 2006, 2011; Transport Canada, 2007; Blackwell et al., 2009). A well-publicized incident was that of US Airways Flight 1549 that crash-landed into the Hudson River, New York, on 15 January 2009. The plane collided with migratory Canadian Geese (Branta canadensis) just 884 m above ground and 8 km from the airport, causing both engines to fail. This event was made into a Hollywood movie in 2016, “Sulley, miracle on the Hudson™” (Marra et al., 2009). Migratory birds are a known hazard, as this flight indicates. Bird strikes cost the aviation industry millions of dollars annually due to aircraft downtime, lost revenue, the cost of putting passengers in hotels, re-scheduling of flights, and flight cancelations. The World Birdstrike Association (formerly known as the International Bird Strike Committee) estimates annual financial losses of US$1.2 billion.

As airport buffer zones attract birds and other wildlife, airport operators must manage bird strike hazards (Ball et al., 2021; Carswell et al., 2021). They do this by deploying three main strategies: (1) directing bird behavior; (2) modifying habitats, and (3) adjusting cockpit actions for landings and take-offs (Dolbeer, 2011; Metz et al., 2021). Habitat modification involves making the airport less suited to birds by keeping the grass short, eliminating bird attracting plants and insects as well as draining open water areas or wetlands (Steele and Weston, 2021). Airports also deploy sonic booms, predator calls (some even keep predators such as falcons on the property), lasers (at night), and trained dogs (Swaddle et al., 2016). Lastly, some airports employ bird spotters or radar operators who liaise with air traffic control to direct pilots to alternative runways (Allan, 2000; Thorpe, 2003). But the World Birdstrike Association notes that although airports were, or are, initially located on the outskirts of urban areas, encroachment by residential and light industrial developments are now a significant problem. As local municipalities usually determine land-use and zoning (residential, business, and industrial), enterprises wanting quick, easy access to airports are often accommodated. Hence farmlands near airports becoming warehousing sites is a common international phenomenon, despite the risk to both birds and people. Aviation safety and security, largely managed by national government, may not even be consulted. At the same time, tourism, and wildlife protection often fall to different organs of state. Thus, there is seldom cooperation between the various stakeholders, despite the need to mitigate impacts of a collision by adopting wildlife–management planning that considers the risks posed by the wildlife hazards associated with off-airport land.

There is extensive international research on conflicts between aircraft and birds. Much examines management efforts by airports, in terms of habitat management, bird hazard control, and wildlife management (Barras and Seamans, 2002; Blackwell et al., 2009, 2013; DeVault et al., 2009, 2014). In South Africa, the research has similarly centered on bird strikes on the runways and immediate airport surrounds (Byron and Downs, 2002; Viljoen and Bouwman, 2016). This is despite surrounding land-uses attracting birds that can pose a risk to aviation safety. Thus, there is a need for research to expand beyond the perimeter of airports (Dolbeer, 2011; Martin et al., 2011). But as each airport is unique, they must each be individually assessed. It is, therefore, argued here that it is necessary to determine land-uses within the vicinity of the OR Tambo International Airport. Thus, this study assesses the land-use within the ICAO prescribed 13 kilometers (km) radius of the OR Tambo International Airport to identify land-uses listed as incompatible or restricted by the ICAO in terms of bird strikes. The study could assist the Ekurhuleni Metro to effectively manage bird strikes.

Literature Review

The impact of a bird strike varies according to the weight of the bird, the speed of impact, and the number of birds involved (Puneeth and JayaPrakash, 2021). Bird flight paths and the overall nature of their flocking behavior also matter. For example, some airports must deal with big flocks of large and heavy migratory Canada Geese (>3.6 kg). From a South African perspective Spur-winged Geese (Plectropterus gambensis) (3.5–5.1 kg) are a problem. It should be noted, however, even a flock of small birds pose threat to aircraft. Likewise, certain activities, such as landfill sites are also a threat, as they attract scavenging birds such as white storks weighing 2.3–4.5 kg (Ciconia ciconia) (Arrondo et al., 2021). As a result, landfills should not be located close to airports and this particular land-use activity is classified as high risk. Complicating the issue is that land-use can change over time. Risks posed by differing land-uses can, however, be mitigated (Coccon et al., 2015; Pfeiffer et al., 2018).

Dolbeer (2006, 2011) through the analyses of bird strike data collected over many years, noted that over 70 percent of bird strikes with civil aircraft occurred at just 152 m above ground level and approximately 3 km from the runway. Thus, the 3-kilometer zone around an airport is the highest risk zone for bird strikes. But off-airport strikes are also an issue. Dolbeer (2011) undertook a trend analyses of bird strikes on commercial aircraft > 500 feet above ground level, for the period 1990–2009. The author focussed on Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) as this species is most frequently involved in strikes with aircraft in North America. He found risks to commercial aircraft for strikes at > 500 feet are increasing compared to strikes at Keywords : airports, bird strikes, aviation safety, OR Tambo International Airport, land use conflict

Citation: Robinson L, Mearns K and McKay T (2021) Oliver Tambo International Airport, South Africa: Land-Use Conflicts Between Airports and Wildlife Habitats. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9:715771. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.715771

Received: 27 May 2021; Accepted: 04 November 2021;
Published: 26 November 2021.

Wendy Collinson, Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa

Andreea Nita, University of Bucharest, Romania
Didit Okta Pribadi, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia

Copyright © 2021 Robinson, Mearns and McKay. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kevin Mearns, mearnkf@unisa.ac.za

This article is part of the Research Topic

Ecological Impacts of Transportation Networks at Large Extents

Bird strike explained

Event description

Bird strikes happen most often during takeoff or landing, or during low altitude flight. [11] However, bird strikes have also been reported at high altitudes, some as high as 6000to above the ground. Bar-headed geese have been seen flying as high as 10175m (33,383feet) above sea level. An aircraft over the Ivory Coast collided with a Rüppell’s vulture at the altitude of 11300m (37,100feet), the current record avian height. [12] The majority of bird collisions occur near or at airports (90%, according to the ICAO) during takeoff, landing and associated phases. According to the FAA wildlife hazard management manual for 2005, less than 8% of strikes occur above 900m (3,000feet) and 61% occur at less than 30m (100feet).

The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle such as a wing leading edge, nose cone, jet engine cowling or engine inlet.

Jet engine ingestion is extremely serious due to the rotation speed of the engine fan and engine design. As the bird strikes a fan blade, that blade can be displaced into another blade and so forth, causing a cascading failure. Jet engines are particularly vulnerable during the takeoff phase when the engine is turning at a very high speed and the plane is at a low altitude where birds are more commonly found.

The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the point of impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. High-speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle. The energy of a 5kg (11lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275km/h approximately equals the energy of a 100kg (200lb) weight dropped from a height of 15m (49feet). [13] However, according to the FAA only 15% of strikes (ICAO 11%) actually result in damage to the aircraft. [14]

Bird strikes can damage vehicle components, or injure passengers. Flocks of birds are especially dangerous and can lead to multiple strikes, with corresponding damage. Depending on the damage, aircraft at low altitudes or during take-off and landing often cannot recover in time. [15] US Airways Flight 1549 is a classic example of this. The engines on the Airbus A320 used on that flight were torn apart by multiple bird strikes at low altitude. There was no time to make a safe landing at an airport, forcing a water landing in the Hudson River.

Remains of the bird, termed snarge, [16] [17] are sent to identification centers where forensic techniques may be used to identify the species involved. These samples need to be taken carefully by trained personnel to ensure proper analysis [18] and reduce the risks of infection (zoonoses). [19]

Species

Most bird strikes involve large birds with big populations, particularly geese and gulls in the United States. In parts of the US, Canada geese and migratory snow geese populations have risen significantly while feral Canada geese and greylag geese have increased in parts of Europe, increasing the risk of these large birds to aircraft. [20] In other parts of the world, large birds of prey such as Gyps vultures and Milvus kites are often involved. In the US, reported strikes are mainly from waterfowl (30%), gulls (22%), raptors (20%), and pigeons and doves (7%). The Smithsonian Institution’s Feather Identification Laboratory has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds, followed by Canada geese and white pelicans, [21] all of which are very large birds. In terms of frequency, the laboratory most commonly finds mourning doves and horned larks involved in the strike. [21]

The largest numbers of strikes happen during the spring and fall migrations. Bird strikes above 500feet altitude are about 7 times more common at night than during the day during the bird migration season. [22]

Large land animals, such as deer, can also be a problem to aircraft during takeoff and landing. Between 1990 and 2013, civil aircraft experienced more than 1,000 collisions with deer and 440 with coyotes.

An animal hazard reported from London Stansted Airport in England is rabbits: they get run over by ground vehicles and planes, and they pass large amounts of droppings, which attract mice, which in turn attract owls, which then become another birdstrike hazard. [23]

Countermeasures

There are three approaches to reduce the effect of bird strikes. The vehicles can be designed to be more bird resistant, the birds can be moved out of the way of the vehicle, or the vehicle can be moved out of the way of the birds.

Vehicle design

Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut-down after «ingesting» a bird weighing up to 1.8kg (04lb). The engine does not have to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down. This is a ‘stand-alone’ requirement, i.e., the engine, not the aircraft, must pass the test. Multiple strikes (from hitting a bird flock) on twin-engine jet aircraft are very serious events because they can disable multiple aircraft systems, requiring emergency action to land the aircraft, as in the January 15, 2009 forced ditching of US Airways Flight 1549.

Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one 1.8kg (04lb) collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one 3.6kg (07.9lb) bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 1.8kg (04lb) bird collision without yielding or spalling.

At first, bird strike testing by manufacturers involved firing a bird carcass from a gas cannon and sabot system into the tested unit. The carcass was soon replaced with suitable density blocks, often gelatin, to ease testing. Current testing is mainly conducted with computer simulation, [24] although final testing usually involves some physical experiments (see birdstrike simulator).

Based on US NTSB recommendation following the 2009 US Airways Flight 1549, the EASA in 2017, followed a year after by the FAA, proposed that engines should sustain a bird strike not only on takeoff where turbofans are turning at their fastest, but also in climb and descent when they turn more slowly; new regulations could apply for the Boeing NMA engines. [25]

Wildlife management

Though there are many methods available to wildlife managers at airports, no single method will work in all instances and with all species. Wildlife management in the airport environment can be grouped into two broad categories: non-lethal and lethal. Integration of multiple non-lethal methods with lethal methods results in the most effective airfield wildlife management strategy.

Non-lethal

Non-lethal management can be further broken down into habitat manipulation, exclusion, visual, auditory, tactile, or chemical repellents, and relocation.

Habitat manipulation

One of the primary reasons that wildlife is seen in airports is an abundance of food. Food resources on airports can be either removed or made less desirable. One of the most abundant food resources found on airports is turfgrass. This grass is planted to reduce runoff, control erosion, absorb jet wash, allow passage of emergency vehicles, and to be aesthetically pleasing (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ) However, turfgrass is a preferred food source for species of birds that pose a serious risk to aircraft, chiefly the Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Turfgrass planted at airports should be a species that geese do not prefer (e.g. St. Augustine grass) and should be managed in such a way that reduces its attractiveness to other wildlife such as small rodents and raptors (Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010, [27] DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ). It has been recommended that turfgrass be maintained at a height of 7–14 inches through regular mowing and fertilization (U.S. Air Force 2004 [28] ).

Wetlands are another major attractant of wildlife in the airport environment. They are of particular concern because they attract waterfowl which have a high potential to damage aircraft (Federal Aviation Administration 2013 [29] ). With large areas of impervious surfaces, airports must employ methods to collect runoff and reduce its flow velocity. These best management practices often involve temporarily ponding runoff. Short of redesigning existing runoff control systems to include non-accessible water such as subsurface flow wetlands (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ), frequent drawdowns and covering of exposed water with floating covers and wire grids should be employed (International Civil Aviation Organization 1991 [30] ). The implementation of covers and wire grids must not hinder emergency services.

Exclusion

Though excluding birds from the entire airport environment is virtually impossible, it is possible to exclude deer and other mammals that constitute a small percentage of wildlife strikes. Three-meter high fences made of chain link or woven wire, with barbed wire outriggers, are the most effective. When used as a perimeter fence, these fences also serve to keep unauthorized people off of the airport (Seamans 2001 [31] ). Realistically every fence must have gates. Gates that are left open allow deer and other mammals onto the airport. 4.6 meter long cattle guards have been shown to be effective at deterring deer up to 98% of the time (Belant et al. 1998 [32] ).

Hangars with open superstructures often attract birds to nest and roost in. Hangar doors are often left open to increase ventilation, especially in the evenings. Birds in hangars are in proximity to the airfield and their droppings are both a health and damage concern. Netting is often deployed across the superstructure of a hangar denying access to the rafters where the birds roost and nest while still allowing the hangar doors to remain open for ventilation and aircraft movements. Strip curtains and door netting may also be used but are subject to improper use (e.g. tying the strips to the side of the door) by those working in the hangar. (U.S. Air Force 2004, Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010 [27] ).

Visual repellents

There have been a variety of visual repellent and harassment techniques used in airport wildlife management. They include using birds of prey and dogs, effigies, landing lights, and lasers. Birds of prey have been used with great effectiveness at landfills where there were large populations of feeding gulls (Cook et al. 2008 [33] ). Dogs have also been used with success as visual deterrents and means of harassment for birds at airfields (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ). However, airport wildlife managers must consider the risk of knowingly releasing animals in the airport environment. Both birds of prey and dogs must be monitored by a handler when deployed and must be cared for, when not deployed. Airport wildlife managers must consider the economics of these methods (Seamans 2001 [31] ).

Effigies of both predators and conspecifics have been used with success to disperse gulls and vultures. The effigies of conspecifics are often placed in unnatural positions where they can freely move with the wind. Effigies have been found to be the most effective in situations where the nuisance birds have other options (e.g. other forage, loafing, and roosting areas) available. Time to habituation varies. (Seamans et al. 2007, [34] DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Lasers have been used with success to disperse several species of birds. However, lasers are species-specific as certain species will only react to certain wavelengths. Lasers become more effective as ambient light levels decrease, thereby limiting effectiveness during daylight hours. Some species show a very short time to habituation (Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2011 [35] ). The risks of lasers to aircrews must be evaluated when determining whether or not to deploy lasers on airfields. [36] Southampton Airport utilizes a laser device which disables the laser past a certain elevation, eliminating the risk of the beam being shone directly at aircraft and air traffic control tower (Southampton Airport 2014). [37]

Auditory repellents

Auditory repellents are commonly used in both agricultural and aviation contexts. Devices such as propane exploders (cannons), pyrotechnics, and bioacoustics are frequently deployed on airports. Propane exploders are capable of creating noises of approximately 130 decibels (Wildlife Control Supplies [38] ). They can be programmed to fire at designated intervals, can be remote controlled, or motion activated. Due to their stationary and often predictable nature, wildlife quickly becomes habituated to propane cannons. Lethal control may be used to extend the effectiveness of propane exploders (Washburn et al. 2006).Pyrotechnics utilizing either an exploding shell or a screamer can effectively scare birds away from runways. They are commonly launched from a 12 gauge shotgun or a flare pistol, or from a wireless specialized launcher and as such, can be aimed to allow control personnel to «steer» the species that is being harassed. Birds show varying degrees of habituation to pyrotechnics. Studies have shown that lethal reinforcement of pyrotechnic harassment has extended its usefulness (Baxter and Allen 2008 [39] ). Screamer type cartridges are still intact at the end of their flight (as opposed to exploding shells that destroy themselves) constituting a foreign object damage hazard and must be picked up. The use of pyrotechnics is considered «take» by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and USFWS must be consulted if federally threatened or endangered species could be affected. Pyrotechnics are a potential fire hazard and must be deployed judiciously in dry conditions (Commander, Naval Installations Command, 2010, [27] Airport Cooperative Research Program 2011 [35] ).

Bioacoustics, or the playing of conspecific distress or predator calls to frighten animals, is widely used. This method relies on the animal’s evolutionary danger response (Airport Cooperative Research Program 2011 [35] ).However, bioacoustics are species-specific and birds may quickly become habituated to them and they should not be used as a primary means of control (U.S. Air Force 2004, Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010 [27] ).

In 2012, operators at Gloucestershire Airport in the United Kingdom revealed that songs by the American-Swiss singer Tina Turner were more effective than animal noises for scaring birds from its runways. [40]

Tactile repellents

Sharpened spikes to deter perching and loafing are commonly used. Generally, large birds require different applications than small birds do (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Chemical repellents

There are only two chemical bird repellents registered for use in the United States. They are methyl anthranilate and anthraquinone. Methyl anthranilate is a primary repellent that produces an immediate unpleasant sensation that is reflexive and does not have to be learned. As such it is most effective for transient populations of birds (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ). Methyl anthranilate has been used with great success at rapidly dispersing birds from flight lines at Homestead Air Reserve Station (Engeman et al. 2002 [41] ). Anthraquinone is a secondary repellent that has a laxative effect that is not instantaneous. Because of this it is most effective on resident populations of wildlife that will have time to learn an aversive response (Izhaki 2002, [42] DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Relocation

Relocation of raptors from airports is often considered preferable to lethal control methods by both biologists and the public. There are complex legal issues surrounding the capture and relocation of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Prior to capture, proper permits must be obtained and the high mortality rates as well as the risk of disease transmission associated with relocation must be weighed. Between 2008 and 2010, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services personnel relocated 606 red-tailed hawks from airports in the United States after the failure of multiple harassment attempts. The return rate of these hawks was 6%; however the relocation mortality rate for these hawks was never determined (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Lethal

Lethal wildlife control on airports falls into two categories: reinforcement of other non-lethal methods and population control.

Reinforcement

The premise of effigies, pyrotechnics, and propane exploders is that there be a perceived immediate danger to the species to be dispersed. Initially, the sight of an unnaturally positioned effigy or the sound of pyrotechnics or exploders is enough to elicit a danger response from wildlife. As wildlife become habituated to non-lethal methods the culling of small numbers of wildlife in the presence of conspecifics can restore the danger response (Baxter and Allan 2008, Cook et al. 2008, Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010, [27] DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Population control

Under certain circumstances, lethal wildlife control is needed to control the population of a species. This control can be localized or regional. Localized population control is often used to control species that are residents of the airfield such as deer that have bypassed the perimeter fence. In this instance sharpshooting would be highly effective, such as is seen at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Regional population control has been used on species that cannot be excluded from the airport environment. A nesting colony of laughing gulls at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge contributed to 98–315 bird strikes per year, in 1979–1992, at adjacent John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). Though JFK had an active bird management program that precluded birds from feeding and loafing on the airport, it did not stop them from overflying the airport to other feeding sites. U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services personnel began shooting all gulls that flew over the airport, hypothesizing that eventually, the gulls would alter their flight patterns. They shot 28,352 gulls in two years (approximately half of the population at Jamaica Bay and 5–6% of the nationwide population per year). Strikes with laughing gulls decreased by 89% by 1992. However this was more a function of the population reduction than the gulls altering their flight pattern (Dolbeer et al. 1993, [43] Dolbeer et al. 2003, [44] DeVault et al. 2013 [26] ).

Flight path

Pilots should not take off or land in the presence of wildlife and should avoid migratory routes, [45] wildlife reserves, estuaries and other sites where birds may congregate. When operating in the presence of bird flocks, pilots should seek to climb above 3000feet as rapidly as possible as most bird strikes occur below 3000feet. Additionally, pilots should slow down their aircraft when confronted with birds. The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative kinetic energy (

The body density of the bird is also a parameter that influences the amount of damage caused. [46]

The US Military Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) uses near real-time data from the 148 CONUS based National Weather Service Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD or WSR 88-D) system to provide current bird hazard conditions for published military low-level routes, ranges, and military operating areas (MOAs). Additionally, AHAS incorporates weather forecast data with the Bird Avoidance Model (BAM) to predict soaring bird activity within the next 24 hours and then defaults to the BAM for planning purposes when activity is scheduled outside the 24-hour window. The BAM is a static historical hazard model based on many years of bird distribution data from Christmas Bird Counts (CBC), Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), and National Wildlife Refuge Data. The BAM also incorporates potentially hazardous bird attractions such as landfills and golf courses. AHAS is now an integral part of military low-level mission planning, aircrew being able to access the current bird hazard conditions at www.usahas.com. AHAS will provide relative risk assessments for the planned mission and give aircrew the opportunity to select a less hazardous route should the planned route be rated severe or moderate. Prior to 2003, the US Air Force BASH Team bird strike database indicated that approximately 25% of all strikes were associated with low-level routes and bombing ranges. More importantly, these strikes accounted for more than 50% of all of the reported damage costs. After a decade of using AHAS for avoiding routes with severe ratings, the strike percentage associated with low-level flight operations has been reduced to 12% and associated costs cut in half.

Avian radar [47] is an important tool for aiding in bird strike mitigation as part of overall safety management systems at civilian and military airfields. Properly designed and equipped avian radars can track thousands of birds simultaneously in real-time, night and day, through 360° of coverage, out to ranges of 10 km and beyond for flocks, updating every target’s position (longitude, latitude, altitude), speed, heading, and size every 2–3 seconds. Data from these systems can be used to generate information products ranging from real-time threat alerts to historical analyses of bird activity patterns in both time and space. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States Department of Defense (DOD) have conducted extensive science-based field testing and validation of commercial avian radar systems for civil and military applications, respectively. The FAA used evaluations of commercial 3D avian radar systems developed and marketed by Accipiter Radar [48] as the basis for FAA Advisory Circular 150/5220-25 [49] and a guidance letter [50] on using Airport Improvement Program funds to acquire avian radar systems at Part 139 airports. [51] Similarly, the DOD-sponsored Integration and Validation of Avian Radars (IVAR) [52] project evaluated the functional and performance characteristics of Accipiter® avian radars under operational conditions at Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force airfields. Accipiter avian radar systems operating at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, [53] Chicago O’Hare International Airport, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point made significant contributions to the evaluations carried out in the aforementioned FAA and DoD initiatives. Additional scientific and technical papers on avian radar systems are listed below, [54] [55] [56] and on the Accipiter Radar web site. [57]

A US company, DeTect, in 2003, developed the only production model bird radar in operational use for real-time, tactical bird-aircraft strike avoidance by air traffic controllers. These systems are operational at both commercial airports and military airfields. The system has widely used technology available for bird–aircraft strike hazard (BASH) management and for real-time detection, tracking and alerting of hazardous bird activity at commercial airports, military airfields, and military training and bombing ranges. After extensive evaluation and on-site testing, MERLIN technology was chosen by NASA and was ultimately used for detecting and tracking dangerous vulture activity during the 22 space shuttle launches from 2006 to the conclusion of the program in 2011. The US Air Force has contracted DeTect since 2003 to provide the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) previously mentioned.

TNO, a Dutch R&D Institute, has developed the successful ROBIN (Radar Observation of Bird Intensity) for the Royal Netherlands Airforce. ROBIN is a near real-time monitoring system for flight movements of birds. ROBIN identifies flocks of birds within the signals of large radar systems. This information is used to give Air Force pilots warning during landing and take-off. Years of observation of bird migration with ROBIN have also provided a better insight into bird migration behavior, which has had an influence on averting collisions with birds, and therefore on flight safety. Since the implementation of the ROBIN system at the Royal Netherlands Airforce the number of collisions between birds and aircraft in the vicinity of military airbases has decreased by more than 50%.

History

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates bird strikes cost US aviation 400 million dollars annually and have resulted in over 200 worldwide deaths since 1988. [58] In the United Kingdom, the Central Science Laboratory estimates [59] that worldwide, birdstrikes cost airlines around US$1.2 billion annually. This includes repair cost and lost revenue while the damaged aircraft is out of service. There were 4,300 bird strikes listed by the United States Air Force and 5,900 by US civil aircraft in 2003.

The first reported bird strike was by Orville Wright in 1905. According to the Wright Brothers’ diaries, «Orville [. ] flew 4,751 meters in 4 minutes 45 seconds, four complete circles. Twice passed over the fence into Beard’s cornfield. Chased flock of birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and after a time fell off when swinging a sharp curve.» [5]

During the 1911 Paris to Madrid air race, French pilot Eugene Gilbert encountered an angry mother eagle over the Pyrenees. Gilbert, flying an open-cockpit Bleriot XI, was able to ward off the large bird by firing pistol shots at it but did not kill it. [60] [61]

The first recorded bird strike fatality was reported in 1912 when aero-pioneer Cal Rodgers collided with a gull which became jammed in his aircraft control cables. He crashed at Long Beach, California, was pinned under the wreckage, and drowned. [3] [62]

During the 1952 edition of the Carrera Panamericana, eventual race winners Karl Kling and Hans Klenk suffered a bird strike incident when the Mercedes-Benz W194 was struck by a vulture in the windscreen. During a long right-hand bend in the opening stage taken at almost 200km/h, Kling failed to spot vultures sitting by the side of the road. When the vultures were scattered after hearing the virtually unsilenced W194 coming towards them, one vulture impacted through the windscreen on the passenger side. The impact was enough to briefly knock Klenk unconscious. Despite bleeding badly from facial injuries caused by the shattered windscreen, Klenk ordered Kling to maintain speed, and held on until a tire change almost 70km (40miles) later to clean himself and the car up. For extra protection, eight vertical steel bars were bolted over the new windscreen. [63] Kling and Klenk also discussed the species and size of the dead bird, agreeing that had had a minimum 115cm (45inches) wingspan and weighed as much as five fattened geese. [64]

Alan Stacey’s fatal accident during the 1960 Belgian Grand Prix was caused when a bird hit him in the face on lap 25, causing his Lotus 18-Climax to crash at the fast, sweeping right hand Burnenville curve. According to fellow driver Innes Ireland’s testimony in a mid-1980s edition of Road & Track magazine, Ireland stated that some spectators claimed that a bird had flown into Stacey’s face while he was approaching the curve, possibly knocking him unconscious, or even possibly killing him by breaking his neck or inflicting a fatal head injury, before the car crashed. [65]

The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when a Lockheed L-188 Electra, flying from Boston as Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, flew through a flock of common starlings during take-off, damaging all four engines. The aircraft crashed into Boston harbor shortly after takeoff, with 62 fatalities out of 72 passengers. [66] Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were developed by the FAA.

NASA astronaut Theodore Freeman was killed in 1964 when a goose shattered the plexiglass cockpit canopy of his Northrop T-38 Talon. Shards were ingested by the engines, leading to a fatal crash. [67]

In 1988, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604 sucked pigeons into both engines during takeoff and then crashed, killing 35 passengers.

In 1995, a Dassault Falcon 20 crashed at a Paris airport during an emergency landing attempt after sucking lapwings into an engine, which caused an engine failure and a fire in the airplane’s fuselage; all 10 people on board were killed. [68]

On September 22, 1995, a U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (Callsign Yukla 27, serial number 77-0354), crashed shortly after takeoff from Elmendorf AFB. The aircraft lost power in both port side engines after these engines ingested several Canada geese during takeoff. It crashed about 2miles from the runway, killing all 24 crew members on board. [69]

On March 30, 1999, during the inaugural run of the hypercoaster Apollo’s Chariot in Virginia, passenger Fabio Lanzoni suffered a bird strike by a goose and required three stitches to his face. The roller coaster has a height of over 200 feet and reaches speeds over 70 miles per hour. [70]

On November 28, 2004, the nose landing gear of KLM Flight 1673, a Boeing 737-400, struck a bird during takeoff at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The incident was reported to air traffic control, the landing gear was raised normally, and the flight continued normally to its destination. Upon touching down at Barcelona International Airport, the aircraft started deviating to the left of the runway centreline. The crew applied right rudder, braking, and the nose wheel steering tiller but could not keep the aircraft on the runway. After it veered off the paved surface of the runway at about 100 knots, the jet went through an area of soft sand. The nose landing gear leg collapsed and the left main landing gear leg detached from its fittings shortly before the aircraft came to a stop perched over the edge of a drainage canal. All 140 passengers and six crew evacuated safely, but the aircraft itself had to be written off. The cause was discovered to be a broken cable in the nose wheel steering system caused by the bird collision. Contributing to the snapped cable was the improper application of grease during routine maintenance which led to severe wear of the cable.

In April 2007, a Thomsonfly Boeing 757 from Manchester Airport to Lanzarote Airport suffered a bird strike when at least one bird, supposedly a crow, was ingested by the starboard engine. The plane landed safely back at Manchester Airport a while later. The incident was captured by two plane spotters on opposite sides of the airport, as well as the emergency calls picked up by a plane spotter’s radio. [66]

The Space Shuttle Discovery also hit a bird (a vulture) during the launch of STS-114 on July 26, 2005, although the collision occurred soon after lift-off and at low speed, with no obvious damage to the shuttle. [71]

On November 10, 2008, Ryanair Flight 4102 from Frankfurt to Rome made an emergency landing at Ciampino Airport after multiple bird strikes caused both engines to fail. After touchdown, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft briefly veered off the runway. Passengers and crew were evacuated through the starboard emergency exits. [72]

On January 4, 2009, a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter hit a red-tailed hawk in Louisiana. The hawk hit the helicopter just above the windscreen. The impact forced the activation of the engine fire suppression control handles, retarding the throttles and causing the engines to lose power. Eight of the nine people on board died in the subsequent crash; the survivor, a passenger, was seriously injured. [73]

On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 from LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ditched into the Hudson River after experiencing a loss of both turbines. It is suspected that the engine failure was caused by running into a flock of geese at an altitude of about 975m (3,199feet), shortly after takeoff. All 150 passengers and 5 crew members were safely evacuated after a successful water landing. [74] On May 28, 2010, the NTSB published its final report into the accident. [75]

On August 15, 2019, Ural Airlines Flight 178 from Moscow–Zhukovsky to Simferopol, Crimea, suffered a bird strike after taking off from Zhukovsky and crash landed in a cornfield 5 kilometers away from the airport. 74 people were injured, all with minor injuries. [76]

Bug strikes

Flying insect strikes, like bird strikes, have been encountered by pilots since aircraft were invented. Future United States Air Force general Henry H. Arnold, as a young officer, nearly lost control of his Wright Model B in 1911 after a bug flew into his eye while he was not wearing goggles, distracting him.

In 1968, North Central Airlines Flight 261, a Convair 580, encountered large concentrations of insects between Chicago and Milwaukee. The accumulated insect remains on the windshield severely impaired the flightcrew’s forward visibility; as a result, while descending to land at Milwaukee, the aircraft suffered a mid-air collision with a private Cessna 150 that the Convair’s flightcrew had been unable to see until a split second before the collision, killing the three occupants of the Cessna and severely injuring the Convair’s first officer. [77]

In 1986, a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress on a low-level training mission entered a swarm of locusts. The insects’ impacts on the aircraft’s windscreens rendered the crew unable to see, forcing them to abort the mission and fly using the aircraft’s instruments alone. The aircraft eventually landed safely. [78]

In 2010, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued a warning to pilots about the potential dangers of flying through a locust swarm. CASA warned that the insects could cause loss of engine power and loss of visibility, and blocking of an aircraft’s pitot tubes, causing inaccurate airspeed readings. [79] [80]

Bug strikes can also affect the operation of machinery on the ground, especially motorcycles. The team on the US TV show MythBusters – in a 2010 episode entitled «Bug Special» – concluded that death could occur if a motorist were hit by a flying insect of sufficient mass in a vulnerable part of the body. Anecdotal evidence from motorcyclists supports pain, bruising, soreness, stings, and forced dismount caused by collision with an insect at speed. [81]

In popular culture

External links

Notes and References

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article «Bird strike».

Bird strike

A bird strike—sometimes called birdstrike, bird ingestion (for an engine), bird hit, or BASH (for Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard)—is a collision between an airborne animal (usually a bird or bat [1] ) and a human-made vehicle, especially aircraft. The term is also used for bird deaths resulting from collisions with human-made structures such as power lines, towers and wind turbines (see Bird-skyscraper collisions and Towerkill). [2]

Bird strikes are a significant threat to flight safety, and have caused a number of accidents with human casualties. [3] The number of major accidents involving civil aircraft is quite low and it has been estimated that there is only about 1 accident resulting in human death in one billion (10 9 ) flying hours. [4] The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause little damage to the aircraft; [5] however the collision is usually fatal to the bird(s) involved.

Related to this is a bug strike: an impairment of an aircraft/groundcraft or aviator/driver by an airborne insect.

Event description

Bird strikes happen most often during takeoff or landing, or during low altitude flight. [7] However, bird strikes have also been reported at high altitudes, some as high as 6,000 m (20,000 ft) to 9,000 m (30,000 ft) above the ground. Bar-headed geese have been seen flying as high as 10,175 m (33,383 ft) above sea level. An aircraft over the Ivory Coast collided with a Rüppell’s vulture at the altitude of 11,300 m (37,100 ft), the current record avian height. [8] The majority of bird collisions occur near or on airports (90%, according to the ICAO) during takeoff, landing and associated phases. According to the FAA wildlife hazard management manual for 2005, less than 8% of strikes occur above 900 m (3,000 ft) and 61% occur at less than 30 m (100 ft). [ citation needed ]

The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle such as a wing leading edge, nose cone, jet engine cowling or engine inlet.

The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a car windshield causes relatively little damage. High speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle. The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft). [9] However, according to the FAA only 15% of strikes (ICAO 11%) actually result in damage to the aircraft. [ citation needed ]

Remains of the bird, termed snarge, [10] are sent to identification centers where forensic techniques may be used to identify the species involved. These samples need to be taken carefully by trained personnel to ensure proper analysis [11] and reduce the risks of zoonoses. [12]

The Israeli Air Force has a larger than usual birdstrike risk as Israel is on a major spring and autumn long-distance bird migration route. [ citation needed ]

Species

Most bird strikes involve large birds with big populations, particularly geese and gulls in the United States. In parts of the US, Canada geese and migratory snow geese populations have risen significantly [15] while feral Canada geese and greylag geese have increased in parts of Europe, increasing the risk of these large birds to aircraft. [16] In other parts of the world, large birds of prey such as Gyps vultures and Milvus kites are often involved. [4] In the US, reported strikes are mainly from waterfowl (30%), gulls (22%), raptors (20%), and pigeons and doves (7%). [15] The Smithsonian Institution’s Feather Identification Laboratory has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds, followed by Canada geese and white pelicans, [17] all or which are very large birds. In terms of frequency, the laboratory most commonly finds mourning doves and horned larks involved in the strike. [17]

The largest numbers of strikes happen during the spring and fall migrations. Bird strikes above 500 feet (150 m) altitude are about 7 times more common at night than during the day during the bird migration season. [18]

Large land-bound animals, such as deer, can also be a problem to aircraft during takeoff and landing. Over 1,000 civil aircraft collisions with deer were reported in the U.S. between 1990 and 2013, and another 440 civil aircraft collisions with coyotes were reported during that time. [15]

An animal hazard reported from London Stansted Airport in England is rabbits: they get run over by ground vehicles and planes, and they pass large amounts of droppings, which attract mice, which attract owls, which become another birdstrike hazard. [19]

Countermeasures

Vehicle design

Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut-down after «ingesting» a bird weighing up to 1.8 kg (4 lb). The engine does not have to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down. This is a ‘stand alone’ requirement, i.e., the engine, not the aircraft, must pass the test. Multiple strikes (from hitting a bird flock) on twin engine jet aircraft are very serious events because they can disable multiple aircraft systems, requiring emergency action to land the aircraft, as in the January 15, 2009 forced ditching of US Airways Flight 1549.

Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one 3.6 kg (8 lb) bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) bird collision without yielding or spalling.

At first, bird strike testing by manufacturers involved firing a bird carcass from a gas cannon and sabot system into the tested unit. The carcass was soon replaced with suitable density blocks, often gelatin, to ease testing. Current testing is mainly conducted with computer simulation, [20] although final testing usually involves some physical experiments (see birdstrike simulator).

Many jet engine manufacturers include white spirals in the centre of their engines. While on the ground this serves as an indicator to crew that the engine is running, in the air it appears as a white circle which discourages birds from flying into the engine.

Wildlife management

Non-lethal

Non-lethal management can be further broken down into habitat manipulation, exclusion, visual, auditory, tactile, or chemical repellents, and relocation.

Habitat manipulation

One of the primary reasons that wildlife is seen on airports is an abundance of food. Food resources on airports can be either removed or made less desirable. One of the most abundant food resources found on airports is turfgrass. This grass is planted to reduce runoff, control erosion, absorb jet wash, allow passage of emergency vehicles, and to be aesthetically pleasing (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ) However, turfgrass is a preferred food source for species of birds that pose serious risk to aircraft, chiefly the Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Turfgrass planted at airports should be a species that geese do not prefer (e.g. St. Augustine grass) and should be managed in such a way that reduces its attractiveness to other wildlife such as small rodents and raptors (Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010, [22] DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ). It has been recommended that turfgrass be maintained at a height of 7-14 inches through regular mowing and fertilization (U.S. Air Force 2004 [23] ).

Wetlands are another major attractant of wildlife in the airport environment. They are of particular concern because they attract waterfowl which have a high potential to damage aircraft (Federal Aviation Administration 2013 [24] ). With large areas of impervious surfaces, airports must employ methods to collect runoff and reduce its flow velocity. These best management practices often involve temporarily ponding runoff. Short of redesigning existing runoff control systems to include non-accessible water such as subsurface flow wetlands (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ), frequent drawdowns and covering of exposed water with floating covers and wire grids should be employed (International Civil Aviation Organization 1991 [25] ). The implementation of covers and wire grids must not hinder emergency services.

Exclusion

Though excluding birds from the entire airport environment is virtually impossible, it is possible to exclude deer and other mammals that constitute a small percentage of wildlife strikes. Three meter high fences made of chain link or woven wire, with barbed wire outriggers, are the most effective. When used as a perimeter fence, these fences also serve to keep unauthorized persons off of the airport (Seamans 2001 [26] ). Realistically every fence must have gates. Gates that are left open allow deer and other mammals onto the airport. 4.6 meter long cattle guards have been shown to be effective at deterring deer up to 98% of the time (Belant et al. 1998 [27] ).

Hangars with open superstructures often attract birds to nest and roost in. Hangar doors are often left open to increase ventilation especially in the evenings. Birds in hangars are in proximity to the airfield and their droppings are both a health and damage concern. Netting is often deployed across the superstructure of a hangar denying access to the rafters where the birds roost and nest while still allowing the hangar doors to remain open for ventilation and aircraft movements. Strip curtains and door netting may also be used but are subject to improper use (e.g. tying the strips to the side of the door) by the personnel in the hangar concern (U.S. Air Force 2004, [23] Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010 [22] ).

Visual repellents

There have been a variety of visual repellent and harassment techniques used in airport wildlife management. They include using birds of prey and dogs, effigies, and lasers. Birds of prey have been used with great effectiveness at landfills were there were large populations of feeding gulls (Cook et al. 2008 [28] ). Dogs have also been used with success as visual deterrents and means of harassment for birds at airfields (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ). However airport wildlife managers must consider the risk of knowingly releasing animals in the airport environment. Both birds of prey and dogs must be monitored by a handler when deployed and must be cared for, when not deployed. Airport wildlife managers must consider the economics of these methods (Seamans 2001 [26] ).

Lasers have been used with success to disperse several species of birds. However, lasers are species specific as certain species will only react to certain wavelengths. Lasers become more effective as ambient light levels decrease, thereby limiting effectiveness during daylight hours. Some species show a very short time to habituation (Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2011 [30] ). The risks of lasers to aircrews must be evaluated when determining whether or not to deploy lasers on airfields (Federal Aviation Administration 2012 [31] ).

Auditory repellents

Pyrotechnics utilizing either an exploding shell or a screamer can effectively scare birds away from runways. They are commonly launched from a 12 gauge shotgun or a flare pistol, and as such, can be aimed allowing control personnel to «steer» the species that is being harassed. Birds show varying degrees of habituation to pyrotechnics. Studies have shown that lethal reinforcement of pyrotechnic harassment has extended its usefulness (Baxter and Allen 2008 [33] ). Screamer type cartridges are still intact at the end of their flight (as opposed to exploding shells that destroy themselves) constituting a foreign object damage hazard and must be picked up. The use of pyrotechnics is considered «take» by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and USFWS must be consulted if federally threatened or endangered species could be affected. Pyrotechnics are a potential fire hazard and must be deployed judiciously in dry conditions (Commander, Naval Installations Command, 2010, [22] Airport Cooperative Research Program 2011 [30] ).

Bioacoustics, or the playing of conspecific distress or predator calls to frighten animals, is widely used. This method relies on the animal’s evolutionary danger response (Airport Cooperative Research Program 2011 [30] ).However, bioacoustics are species specific and birds may quickly become habituated to them and they should not be used as a primary means of control (U.S. Air Force 2004, [23] Commander, Naval Installations Command 2010 [22] ).

Tactile repellents

Sharpened spikes to deter perching and loafing are commonly used. Generally, large birds require different applications than small birds do (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ).

Chemical repellents

There are only two chemical bird repellents registered for use in the United States. They are methyl anthranilate and anthraquinone. Methyl anthranilate is a primary repellent that produces an immediate unpleasant sensation that is reflexive and does not have to be learned. As such it is most effective for transient populations of birds (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ). Methyl anthranilate has been used with great success at rapidly dispersing birds from flightlines at Homestead Air Reserve Station (Engeman et al. 2002 [34] ). Anthraquinone is a secondary repellent that has a laxative effect that is not instantaneous. Because of this it is most effective on resident populations of wildlife that will have time to learn an aversive response (Izhaki 2002, [35] DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ).

Relocation

Lethal

Lethal wildlife control on airports falls into two categories: reinforcement of other non-lethal methods and population control.

Reinforcement

Population control

Under certain circumstances lethal wildlife control is needed to control the population of a species. This control can be localized or regional. Localized population control is often used to control species that are residents of the airfield such as deer that have bypassed the perimeter fence. In this instance sharpshooting would be highly effective, such as is seen at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ).

Regional population control has been used on species that cannot be excluded from the airport environment. A nesting colony of laughing gulls at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge contributed to 98-315 bird strikes per year, from 1979-1992, at adjacent John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). Though JFK had an active bird management program that precluded birds from feeding and loafing on the airport, it did not stop them from overflying the airport to other feeding sites. U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services personnel began shooting all gulls that flew over the airport, hypothesizing that eventually the gulls would alter their flight patterns. They shot 28,352 gulls in two years (approximately half of the population at Jamaica Bay and 5-6% of the nationwide population per year). Strikes with laughing gulls decreased by 89% by 1992. However this was more a function of the population reduction than the gulls altering their flight pattern (Dolbeer et al. 1993, [36] Dolbeer et al. 2003, [37] DeVault et al. 2013 [21] ).

Flight path

Pilots have very little training in wildlife avoidance nor is training required by any regulatory agency. However, they should not take off or land in the presence of wildlife and should avoid migratory routes, [38] wildlife reserves, estuaries and other sites where birds may congregate. When operating in the presence of bird flocks, pilots should seek to climb above 3,000 feet (910 m) as rapidly as possible as most birdstrikes occur below 3,000 feet (910 m). Additionally pilots should slow their aircraft when confronted with birds. The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative kinetic energy () of the bird, defined by the equation where is the mass of the bird and is the relative velocity (the difference of the velocities of the bird and the plane, resulting in a lower absolute value if they are flying in the same direction and higher absolute value if they are flying in opposite directions). Therefore, the speed of the aircraft is much more important than the size of the bird when it comes to reducing energy transfer in a collision. The same can be said for jet engines: the slower the rotation of the engine, the less energy which will be imparted onto the engine at collision.

The body density of the bird is also a parameter that influences the amount of damage caused. [39]

The US Military Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) uses near real time data from the 148 CONUS based National Weather Service Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD or WSR 88-D) system to provide current bird hazard conditions for published military low-level routes, ranges, and military operating areas (MOAs). Additionally AHAS incorporates weather forecast data with the Bird Avoidance Model (BAM) to predict soaring bird activity within the next 24 hours and then defaults to the BAM for planning purposes when activity is scheduled outside the 24-hour window. The BAM is a static historical hazard model based on many years of bird distribution data from Christmas Bird Counts (CBC), Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), and National Wildlife Refuge Data. The BAM also incorporates potentially hazardous bird attractions such as landfills and golf courses. AHAS is now an integral part of military low-level mission planning, aircrew being able to access the current bird hazard conditions at www.usahas.com. AHAS will provide relative risk assessments for the planned mission and give aircrew the opportunity to select a less hazardous route should the planned route be rated severe or moderate. Prior to 2003, the US Air Force BASH Team bird strike database indicated that approximately 25% of all strikes were associated with low-level routes and bombing ranges. More importantly these strikes accounted for more than 50% of all of the reported damage costs. After a decade of using AHAS for avoiding routes with severe ratings, the strike percentage associated with low-level flight operations has been reduced to 12% and associated costs cut in half.

Avian radar [40] is an important tool for aiding in bird strike mitigation as part of overall safety management systems at civilian and military airfields. Properly designed and equipped avian radars can track thousands of birds simultaneously in real-time, night and day, through 360° of coverage, out to ranges of 10 km and beyond for flocks, updating every target’s position (longitude, latitude, altitude), speed, heading, and size every 2–3 seconds. Data from these systems can be used to generate information products ranging from real-time threat alerts to historical analyses of bird activity patterns in both time and space. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States Department of Defense (DOD) have conducted extensive science-based field testing and validation of commercial avian radar systems for civil and military applications, respectively. The FAA used evaluations of commercial 3D avian radar systems developed and marketed by Accipiter Radar [41] as the basis for FAA Advisory Circular 150/5220-25 [42] and a guidance letter [43] on using Airport Improvement Program funds to acquire avian radar systems at Part 139 airports. [44] Similarly, the DOD-sponsored Integration and Validation of Avian Radars (IVAR) [45] project evaluated the functional and performance characteristics of Accipiter® avian radars under operational conditions at Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force airfields. Accipiter avian radar systems operating at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, [46] Chicago O’Hare International Airport, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point made significant contributions to the evaluations carried out in the aforementioned FAA and DoD initiatives. Additional scientific and technical papers on avian radar systems are listed below, [47] [48] [49] and on the Accipiter Radar web site. [50]

A US company, DeTect, in 2003, developed the only production model bird radar in operational use for real-time, tactical bird-aircraft strike avoidance by air traffic controllers. These systems are operational at both commercial airports and military airfields. The system has widely used technology available for bird-aircraft strike hazard (BASH) management and for real time detection, tracking and alerting of hazardous bird activity at commercial airports, military airfields and military training and bombing ranges. After extensive evaluation and on-site testing, MERLIN technology was chosen by NASA and was ultimately used for detecting and tracking dangerous vulture activity during the 22 space shuttle launches from 2006 to the conclusion of the program in 2011. The US Air Force has contracted DeTect since 2003 to provide the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS)previously mentioned.

TNO, a Dutch R&D Institute, has developed the successful ROBIN (Radar Observation of Bird Intensity) for the Royal Netherlands Airforce. ROBIN is a near real-time monitoring system for flight movements of birds. ROBIN identifies flocks of birds within the signals of large radar systems. This information is used to give Air Force pilots warning during landing and take-off. Years of observation of bird migration with ROBIN have also provided a better insight into bird migration behaviour, which has had an influence on averting collisions with birds, and therefore on flight safety. Since the implementation of the ROBIN system at the Royal Netherlands Airforce the number of collisions between birds and aircraft in the vicinity of military airbases has decreased by more than 50%.

Incidents

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates bird strikes cost US aviation 400 million dollars annually and have resulted in over 200 worldwide deaths since 1988. [51] In the United Kingdom, the Central Science Laboratory estimates [6] that worldwide, the cost of birdstrikes to airlines is around US$1.2 billion annually. This cost includes direct repair cost and lost revenue opportunities while the damaged aircraft is out of service. Estimating that 80% of bird strikes are unreported, there were 4,300 bird strikes listed by the United States Air Force and 5,900 by US civil aircraft in 2003.

The first reported bird strike was by Orville Wright in 1905. According to the Wright Brothers’ diaries, «Orville … flew 4,751 meters in 4 minutes 45 seconds, four complete circles. Twice passed over fence into Beard’s cornfield. Chased flock of birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and after a time fell off when swinging a sharp curve.» [4]

In 1911 French pilot Eugene Gilbert encountered an angry mother eagle over the Pyrenees Mountains en route from Paris to Madrid during the great aviation race held that year between those two cities. Gilbert, flying an open-cockpit Bleriot XI, was able to ward off the large bird by firing pistol shots at it but did not kill it. [52]

The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when a Lockheed L-188 Electra, flying from Boston as Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, flew through a flock of common starlings during take-off, damaging all four engines. The aircraft crashed into Boston harbor shortly after takeoff, with 62 fatalities out of 72 passengers. [54] Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were developed by the FAA.

NASA astronaut Theodore Freeman was killed in 1964 when a goose shattered the plexiglass cockpit canopy of his Northrop T-38 Talon. Shards were ingested by the engines, leading to a fatal crash. [ citation needed ]

In 1988 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604 sucked pigeons into both engines during takeoff and then crashed, killing 35 passengers.

World birds strike association

Всемирная Ассоциация Кубика (WCA) является освобожденной от налогов организацией 501(c)(3). Мы являемся некоммерческой организацией и приветствуем пожертвования, благодаря которым мы можем проводить больше соревнований во всём мире.

Наша миссия: больше соревнований, больше стран, больше веселья и участников, которые соревнуются в равных и честных условиях.

Кто мы такие

Всемирная Ассоциация Кубика (WCA) проводит соревнования по механическим головоломкам, которые управляются поворачиванием групп элементов и которые известны как ‘twisty puzzles’. Самой известной из этих головоломок является Кубик Рубика, изобретённый профессором Рубиком из Венгрии. По некоторым таким головоломкам проводятся официальные дисциплины WCA.

WCA активно развивалась в последнее десятилетие, и более 100,000 людей участвовали в наших соревнованиях. Несмотря на такой рост, наша организация управляется исключительно волонтёрами, включая организаторов, Делегатов и Руководство WCA. Мы очень благодарны каждому, кто посвящает своё время тому, чтобы WCA продолжала функционировать. С большей финансовой поддержкой мы надеемся выйти на ещё больший уровень профессионализма на наших соревнованиях и продолжать проводить больше соревнований по всему земному шару.

Наш дух: участники со всего мира весело проводят время в дружеской атмосфере, помогают друг другу и ведут себя спортивно.

Наши цели

WCA, улучшая доступность наших соревнований, хочет давать возможность молодёжи по всему миру участвовать и вести наше сообщество. Мы верим, что переживания и впечатления на соревнованиях и внутри нашего сообщества создают возможности развития для вовлечённой молодёжи, а приобщение новых групп людей к головоломкам делает сообщество сильнее. Документ, содержащий Видение и Стратегию Руководства WCA, можно найти здесь.

Что дальше для WCA?

Во Всемирной Ассоциации Кубика более 100,000 участников в 140 странах, и мы не планируем останавливаться! Сообщество куберов постоянно растёт с момента нашего основания в 2004 г., и мы хотим поощрять рост, улучшать доступность соревнований и организовывать их в новых странах. В будущем мы надеемся ещё больше поддерживать наше сообщество, сотрудничая с теми и охватывая тех, кому небезразличны головоломки.

Чемпионат Мира

Каждые два года проводится соревнование, которое определяет чемпиона мира. Для такого соревнования требуется очень тщательное планирование, большой труда волонтёров и финансовые затраты для бронирования помещения и других необходимых для организации вещей.

Структура

Руководство WCA ответственно за ведение организации в целом и выполнение всех обязанностей, которые не осуществляются другими Командами, Комитетами и Консультативным Советом

Команды и Комитеты WCA выполняют повседневные операции.

Делегат WCA — это роль, определяемая Дополнениями к Уставу WCA и описанная в Положениях WCA. Главная задача Делегата — наблюдать за соревнованиями, проходящими под эгидой WCA. WCA Делегат ответственен за то, чтобы все WCA Соревнования проходили в соответствии с Миссией, Духом и Положениями WCA. Существуют Старшие Делегаты, Региональные Делегаты, Делегаты, Младшие Делегаты и Делегаты-стажёры (см. WCA Делегаты).

Старшие Делегаты и Региональные Делегаты, помимо обязанностей обычного Делегата, ещё и управляют Делегатами в своём регионе, к ним также могут обращаться сообщества по региональным вопросам.

Новые Делегаты становятся сначала Младшими Делегатами, им нужно показать, что они способны успешно управлять соревнованиями, прежде чем они станут полноценными Делегатами.

Делегаты-стажёры проходят обучение, чтобы занимать позицию WCA Делегата и могут управлять только теми соревнованиями, на которых присутствует WCA Делегат.

Все участники соревнований автоматически становятся участниками WCA во время их первого соревнования.

Внести пожертвование

Вы можете внести пожертвование с помощью кредитной карты, используя Guidestar здесь или через Paypal здесь. Если вы предпочитаете выписать чек, адрес следующий:

World Cube Association
5042 Wilshire Blvd #43206
Los Angeles, CA 90036
United States of America

Пожертвования можно вычесть из налогов в США.

Источники:

World birds strike association

Отраслевая конференция по Орнитологическому Обеспечению Безопасности Полётов

Учебный курс «Орнитологическое обеспечение безопасности полётов в аэропорту»

Информация об участниках конференции

Спонсорская поддержка

World Birdstrike Association

Implementing SMS in airports: Wildlife Management as an exemplar

Read the latest issue

Content

Topics

Advertising & Editorial

Company Information

Privacy Overview

When Birds Strike

World birds strike association

WBA Conference Nov-Dec 2022

World Birdstrike Association Europe Conference at British Irish EXPO June 2022

WBA Draft Amended Statutes

WBA Board

WBA Board

Bird Strikes | The Risks and Mitigation

What is the meaning of bird strike?

How Dangerous is a Bird Strike?

How to Prevent Bird Strikes on Aircraft?

1- Bird & Drone Detection Systems

2- Habitat Management

3- Use of Predators

4- Bird Robots

7- Visual Methods

8- Netting

9- Bird Houses

Conclusion

Bird strike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Bird World Lite 4+

Снимки экрана (iPhone)

Описание

How dangerous is bird strike on airplane?

How common are bird strike incidents?

Size of aircraft matters

How airport administration prevents bird strikes?

Bird Strikes: How common are they?

Have no fear!

Let’s put your odds into perspective!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Suggest as cover photo

Thank you for helping!

World birds strike association

Characteristics of bird strikes

Common misconceptions about bird strikes

Preventive Strategies

Additional Resources

The importance of reporting bird strikes

How airlines can get involved

Prevention strategies

Bird strikes during takeoff roll

Detecting a bird strike while in flight

Responses to a known or suspected bird strike

Summary

Angry Birds Epic RPG 4+

Rovio Entertainment Oyj

Screenshots

Description

Balancing nature & security: wildlife & bird strike hazards

Habitat research, dogs and radar

History of Bird Strike Committee Canada

Early Interest in Bird Strikes

Migrating Birds

Associate Committee

Program-Related Highlights

The Present and Future

Bird strike in aviation

Bird Strike

What to do in the Event of a Bird Strike

Telling a Tale

Safely Managing Bird Threats

Reducing the Risks

World Birdstrike Association

How many bird strikes are there per year? Any world-wide statistics?

Отраслевая конференция
по Орнитологическому Обеспечению Безопасности Полётов

Учебный курс «Орнитологическое обеспечение
безопасности полётов в аэропорту»