Thank you to all those involved in making the very first WBA virtual conference a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors who stepped up to help make this happen and to continue the great works of the WBA. Our board worked tirelessly in organizing and producing the event. I was amazed at the effort required for such an event and continue to be impressed by the work ethic of the WBA Board.
You, our members, really made this virtual meeting outstanding. Those of you who volunteered to present, we thank you for providing such interesting content and generating thoughtful discussion.
I would also like to recognize ICAO and EASA for their recognition and participation. We appreciate their keynote addresses and look forward to working together in the future. Without their support, the WBA would not be as effective.
As briefed by WBA Vice President Lalilta Vaswani, we propose a change to how the board will be selected by the membership. We suggest that the WBA Membership nominate then elect a president-elect to serve as vice president for a two-year term. After the two-year term, the president-elect will ascend to the position of president and appoint their board, while the membership nominates/elects a new president-elect. Look for correspondence via email regarding these statute changes and your overall view of the WBA virtual meeting. Your feedback is very important to us.
As you know, there were some initiatives proposed in the meeting. I urge all members to check the WBA website often for any information regarding upcoming meetings/initiatives. I also encourage members to log-in to the secure side of the website for members-only information.
Again, I would like to personally thank our sponsors and you, our members, for continued support of the WBA. As a pilot, I thank all of you for your participation which enhances aviation safety and ultimately helps to protect our precious environment.
Gary Cooke, President
World Birdstrike Association
Draft Amended Statutes
Draft Amended Statutes
The members of the World Birdstrike Association (WBA) having regard to the Constitution Act have voted and adopted this
OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND REGISTERED OFFICE
WORLD BIRDSTRIKE ASSOCIATION (hereinafter: WBA), is officially constituted as an association on June 26th, 2012 at the 30th International Bird Strike Committee conference held in Stavanger, Norway.
WBA is a non-profit association covering both civil and military aviation interests.
The objectives of WBA are to improve flight safety and reduce the cost, regarding all aspects of the bird/wildlife strike risk reduction to aviation.
The principal place of business shall be:
WORLD BIRDSTRIKE ASSOCIATION
DAVVL e.V. German Birdstrike Committee Hanna Kunath Strasse 18 28199 Bremen Germany telephone: +49 421 59702740 Facsimile: +49 421 59702741 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DECISION MAKING AVAILABILITY, ASSETS AND OTHER RESOURCES
WBA is entitled to acquire assets, to take over obligations and to do business with financial institutions.
WBA is entitled to own property, obtained from:
MEMBERS: ADMISSION CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS
Membership categories are established as:
Members have the following obligations:
Members have the following rights:
No members of the WBA shall incur neither a personal liability for the debts or for any other commitments of the WBA nor for any other liability of whatever nature. The WBA shall be solely liable for its debts to be covered with its own assets.
Honourable Members who wish to obtain the same rights as Active Members may apply for admission to this category. The conditions will be determined by Board of Administration.
The WBA shall consist of the following bodies:
The general meeting of the WBA, also known as «General Assembly», is the supreme authority of the WBA. Its chairman is President of the Board of Administration.
The General Assembly elects the Vice President and Secretary and approves the annual and financial reports and the forecast. Members from specific regions elect their representatives from their region.
Members, from Article 7, are entitled to vote. A majority voting system (half plus 1) is used for election and dismissal of the President and other members of the Board of Administration. Dissolving the WBA and for changing the Constitution Act and the Statute requires a 2/3-majority vote of the present members.
The necessary quorum for valid voting on the General Assembly is 2/3 of total present members.
Membership fees and vote rating will be established by the Board of Administration and, subject to majority vote, approved by the members.
Membership is open to national/regional bird/wildlife strike committees and associations or equivalents and all other organizations, entities and individuals which/who show interest in the reduction of the bird/wildlife s-+-trike risk to aviation, and aviation safety
Membership, with respect to individual positions, serves the collective interest of the reduction of the aviation bird/wildlife strike risk.
On the General Assembly members are summoned by the WBA President, Board of Administration or at least 20% of the attending members at the previous General Assembly, no later than two to three months before the General Assembly.
This summon includes the agenda. Only items included in the agenda are addressed. A proposal submitted by a Regional Birdstrike Committee not later than 45 days before the day of the opening of the General Assembly, or by the Board of Administration at any time prior to the opening of the General Assembly is added to the agenda.
In case of an extraordinary General Assembly, members are summoned no later than one month before such extraordinary General Assembly, including the agenda.
After the approval of the agenda, items which are not on the agenda may be discussed, provided the General Assembly decides to do so by a 2/3 majority of the votes cast.
The following items must appear on the agenda of the regular General Assembly: Elections, presentation of the financial report (including the auditor’s report), discussion and approval of accounts and budget, work report, proposals for further activities, items with special focus on achieving the objectives of Article 3.
The General Assembly is the only competent body to decide on the following items:
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
The Board of directors, also known as «Board of Administration», is after the General Assembly, the ‘Board’ will be have final decision making powers.
The Board of Administration acts on behalf of the General Assembly, fulfils all duties arising from this Statute and has the responsibility for achieving the WBA objectives.
The Board of directors, also known as «Board of Administration», is after the General Assembly, the body with the broadest powers. WBA will be managed and administered by the Board of Administration. The Board of Administration is composed of 8 members, promotes gender equality and LGBTQ at least half being of the gender in minority. President, Vice President, Secretary, and 5 Regional Representatives from regions: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia Pacific. The Vice president, Secretary, and Regional Representatives will be elected by the General Assembly at the general meeting approximately every two years or as appropriate. Upon completion of election, the sitting Vice president will assume the position of President. Vice President, Secretary, will be nominated and elected by the General Assembly. The Regional Representatives will be nominated and elected every two years by WBA members from their prospective regions. Nominations for electable positions will be received and published no later than one month prior to the General Assembly election. If nominations for an elected position are not received, the President will nominate. Board members conduct their duty on a voluntary basis or as part of their daily job and will not receive salary by WBA. Expenses other than salary – made for the benefit of WBA are in general reimbursed. Expenses such as website maintenance, domain registrations, SSL certificates and all subscription renewals will be reimbersed by the board The meetings of the Board of Administration shall be held at least once a year unless otherwise agreed by the members. An unlimited number of ad-hoc regional, or local meetings of the Board of Administration may be convened at any time. In some cases, the Board of Administration may hold an online session. In such a way all participants in the online session are connected by a conference line, i.e. all of them can equally participate in exchanging opinions and bring decisions. The Board of Administration acts on behalf of the General Assembly, fulfills all duties arising from this Statute and has the responsibility for achieving the WBA objectives.
In case of leave, resignation or any other reason that may cause transitory or a permanent vacancy of one or more members of the Board of Administration, the substitute predicted in Article 12 § 4 and § 3 of this Article or, if that is not possible, the person chosen by the WBA President will continue to carry on a member duty. This replacement will be carried on for as long as the vacancy lasts, and will never exceed the term for which the substitute is appointed.
At the next General Assembly that member must be approved.
Board members who are clearly contra-productive for the general interest of the WBA, may be removed from their membership by the Board of Administration, after previous oral or written explanations. This decision requires a majority vote (half plus 1) of the Board and with a tie, the vote of the WBA President is decisive.
As executive body of the WBA, the Board of Administration, has duties and obligations to engage, promote, develop, coordinate and disseminate ideas and tasks of WBA, and to execute the decisions of the General Assembly according to provisions of this Statute.
The Board of Administration is responsible for achieving the objectives within a timeframe mutually agreed at the General Assembly.
An individual who was or is WBA President, for a period of 2 years or appropriate, or at the time of election at the General Assembly. (Whichever occurs last)
Once elected, the WBA President will automatically vacate their current position in the WBA or temporarily manage both positions until such time the previous position has been filled. resigns from any other positions held in a body of a member or group of members, no later than three months after the election.
When the WBA President is not able or does not fulfil its obligations, the powers and duties of the WBA President are delegated to the Vice President. This member is designated by order of hierarchy. In the event of such inability being permanent, a new WBA President shall be elected at the next meeting of the General Assembly.
The WBA President represents the WBA on all occasions.
Honorary members are persons who have contributed to the reputation and importance of the WBA in global aviation safety through their active, conscientious and dedicated work, in the highest functions of the WBA and in other bodies on the global and regional level.
Honorary members include: Honorary President, Honorary Vice Presidents and other Honorary members according to decision of the General Assembly.
Honorary members are connected to the WBA through the Advisory Board.
They support WBA Constitution Act and Statute and WBA as world forum and important actor in the reducing process of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation.
The Advisory Board consists of the honorary members and ex Board of Administration members.
The Board of Administration invites honorary members to join this Advisory Board.
Members between themselves elected President and Vice President.
This Advisory Board provides asked and non – asked advice directly to the Board of Administration. A mutually agreed meeting of the advisory board to be considered atleast once a year or as required.
Specialized Task Groups, temporary or standing, may be established by the Board of Administration on specific subjects to advise the Board of Administration. The Task Groups report directly to the Board of Administration via the responsible Board member. The WBA members will get the possibility to vote (half + 1 majority) on the outputs of the Task Groups to make them WBA policy.
REGIONAL BIRDSTRIKE COMMITTEES
Regional WBA Bird/Wildlife Strike Committees maybe established by the Board for specific regions as coordination between the various national bird/wildlife strike committees. These regional committees elect their own board. The Regional President joins the WBA Board of Administration for all matters concerning the specific region.
To delete because all of these is incorporated in the previous articles
Acts and decisions at the General Assembly on the Constitution Act, Statute and their changes, require a 2/3-majority vote. Election of the President and other members of the Board of Directors will be taken by majority (half plus 1) vote.
Minor operational matters such as venue and date of the General Assembly, its proceedings, etc. will be decided by majority vote by the Board of Directors. By a tie, the vote of the President will be decisive.
The necessary quorum for valid voting on the Board of Directors meeting and General Assembly is 2/3 of total members present.
Electronic voting can be used to decide on issues that require endorsement prior to a scheduled meeting.
ENTRY INTO FORCE
This Statute shall enter into force on the fifteenth day following the last date of the voting process.
At the next WBA General Assembly results of the vote will be presented.
This Statute will be published on the WBA website and all comments and suggestions will be reviewed.
Best Practices
Recommended Practices No. 1 Standards For Aerodrome
Bird/Wildlife Control
Issue 1 – October 2006
Summary Of IBSC Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control
These best practice standards should apply to any aerodrome carrying regularly scheduled commercial air traffic, irrespective of the movement frequency or type of aircraft involved.
Standard 1
A named member of the senior management team at the airport should be responsible for the implementation of the bird control programme, including both habitat management and active bird control.
An airport should undertake a review of the features on its property that attract hazardous birds/wildlife. The precise nature of the resource that the they are attracted to should be identified and a management plan developed to eliminate or reduce the quantity of that resource, or to deny birds access to it as far as is practicable.
Where necessary, support from a professional bird/wildlife strike prevention specialist should be sought.
Documentary evidence of this process, its implementation and outcomes should be kept.
A properly trained and equipped bird/wildlife controller should be present on the airfield for at least 15 minutes prior to any aircraft departure or arrival. Thus, if aircraft are landing or taking of at intervals of less than 15 minutes there should be a continuous presence on the airfield throughout daylight hours. The controller should not be required to undertake any duties other than bird control during this time. Note that for aerodromes with infrequent aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long enough to disperse all hazardous birds/wildlife from the vicinity of the runway. In this case the controller should be deployed sufficiently in advance of the aircraft movement to allow full dispersal to be achieved.
At night, active runways and taxiways should be checked for the presence of birds/wildlife at regular intervals and the dispersal action taken as needed.
Bird control staff should be equipped with bird deterrent devices appropriate to the bird species encountered, the numbers of birds present, and to the area that they need to control. Staff should have access to appropriate devices for removal of birds/wildlife, such as firearms or traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these techniques at short notice.
All staff should receive proper training in the use of bird control devices.
Standard 5
Airport bird/wildlife controllers should record the following at least every 30 minutes (if air traffic is sufficiently infrequent that bird patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, an entry should be made for each patrol carried out).
More general information such as the name of the bird controller on duty, time on and off duty, weather conditions etc should be recorded at the start of a duty period.
Standard 6
Bird/wildlife incidents should therefore be defined in 3 categories:
Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which evidence in the form of a carcass, remains or damage to the aircraft is found.
Any bird/wildlife found dead on an airfield where there is no other obvious cause of death (e.g. struck by a car, flew into a window etc.).
Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which no physical evidence is found.
Incidents where the presence of birds/wildlife on or around the airfield has any effect on a flight whether or not evidence of a strike can be found.
Airports should establish a mechanism to ensure that they are informed of all bird/wildlife strikes reported on or near their property.
The total number of birdstrikes should never be used as a measure of risk or of the performance of the bird control measures at an airport.
Airports should ensure that the identification of the species involved in birdstrikes is as complete as possible.
Airports should record all birdstrikes and include, as far as they are able, the data required for the standard ICAO reporting form
National Regulators should collate birdstrike data and submit this to ICAO annually.
Standard 8
Airports should conduct a formal risk assessment of their birdstrike situation and use the results to help target their bird management measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Risk assessments should be updated at regular intervals, preferably annually.
Airports should conduct an inventory of bird attracting sites within the ICAO defined 13km bird circle, paying particular attention to sites close to the airfield and the approach and departure corridors. A basic risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether the movement patterns of birds/wildlife attracted to these sites means that they cause, or may cause, a risk to air traffic. If this is the case, options for bird management at the site(s) concerned should be developed and a more detailed risk assessment performed to determine if it is possible and/or cost effective to implement management processes at the site(s) concerned. This process should be repeated annually to identify new sites or changes in the risk levels produced by existing sites.
Where national laws permit, airports, or airport authorities, should seek to have an input into planning decisions and land use practices within the 13km bird circle for any development that may attract significant numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife. Such developments should be subjected to a similar risk assessment process as described above and changes sought, or the proposal opposed, if a significant increase in birdstrike risk is likely to result.
INTRODUCTION
Several excellent handbooks exist that describe in detail the techniques that can be used to manage the bird/wildlife strike risk on aerodromes (e.g. ACI 2005, CAA 1998, Cleary & Dolbeer 1999, Transport Canada 2001). There has, however, been little attempt to determine the levels of investment in time, manpower, equipment, training and monitoring that are needed to effectively manage the bird/wildlife hazard. This contrasts with other aerodrome safety provisions, such as levels of fire control equipment and manpower, that are precisely defined by regulation. This situation has arisen, in part, because the levels of risk, the habitat type, and the bird/wildlife species present at different aerodromes varies, and the precise techniques that are successful at one site may not work at another. It is also partly due to differences in the levels of resources available at different airports and to differences in the attitude of airport managers and national regulators to the risk posed by bird/wildlife strikes.
The new International Civil Aviation Organisation Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPS) on airport bird/wildlife control became effective in November 2003. The guidance material accompanying the SARPS is in the process of being updated. This guidance will, when combined with the various manuals listed above, provide the technical detail needed to construct a bird/wildlife control programme. It does not, however, describe the levels of effort that are needed if a bird control programme is to operate effectively. It was therefore agreed at the 26 th meeting of IBSC in Warsaw that a set of IBSC standards should be developed by the committee to address this issue.
This paper seeks to identify those areas where universally applicable practices can be identified, and suggests levels of airfield habitat management, bird control equipment, manpower, etc. that, in the opinion of the IBSC membership, an airport should have in place if it is to effectively manage the birdstrike risk to aircraft. It is envisaged that these standards will inform airport managers, national regulators, the insurance industry, lawyers etc. about what they should expect to see invested in bird/wildlife control at an airport. Airports with unusually high bird/wildlife strike risk for whatever reason would be expected to invest more in strike prevention than is described below in order to reduce that risk.
IBSC STANDARDS
Airfield Habitat Management
Controlling the attractiveness of an airport to birds and other wildlife is fundamental to good bird control. Indeed, it is probably more important than bird dispersal in terms of controlling the overall risk. If an airport provides easily accessible resources to birds/wildlife in terms of food, water, shelter or breeding sites, then they will continue to try and return despite any dispersal tactics that are used to dissuade them. The control programme is thus doomed to failure unless the airport is made as unattractive to birds/wildlife as possible. Habitat management to deter birds/wildlife involves two processes, identifying the attractive features and implementing changes to either remove the attraction or to deny access to it.
Habitat management, such as improving drainage, installing fences, modifying vegetation cover etc. is frequently expensive. It is often difficult to obtain resources for programmes which, in the case of vegetation modification, may take a number of years to fully implement, and the benefits of which are not always immediately apparent to airport managers. Commitment to the process from senior managers is therefore essential and a named member of the airport’s senior management should take responsibility for ensuring that this, and other parts of the bird/wildlife hazard management programme are carried out properly.
Overgrown ditches like this provide good shelter and nesting cover for hazardous birds
A named member of the senior management team at the airport should be responsible for the implementation of the bird control programme, including both habitat management and active bird control.
The reasons why birds frequent an airfield are not always obvious. They may be attracted to food such as invertebrates, small mammals, seeds or plants in the grassland; water from ponds, ditches, or puddles on the tarmac, nesting sites in trees, bushes or buildings, or simply the security offered by large open spaces where they can easily see approaching predators. In some cases it may be obvious what resources they are attracted to, but in others it may not. If there is any uncertainty, obtaining the assistance of a professional bird/wildlife prevention specialist is advisable in order to identify what it is that is attracting the birds/wildlife to the airefield. Obviously, the attraction will vary from one species to another.
Cleared and netted drainage channels offer no bird attration whilst maximising their drainage functions
Once the attraction has been identified, a management plan should be developed either to remove it entirely, reduce it in quantity, or to deny access to it. Because airfields around the world are all different and because the bird/wildlife species that frequent them vary from region to region, it is not possible to define precisely what types of habitat management will be effective at a particular site.
Typical examples include manipulating the species and/or height of vegetation cover on the airport, removal of trees and bushes, netting of water bodies, excluding birds from buildings by netting or other means, selection of non-attractive amenity planting around terminals etc.. Whatever techniques are used, all airports should be able to show that they have assessed the bird attractions on their property and developed and implemented a habitat management plan to reduce these attractions as far as is practicable.
Water retention ponds can be proofed against Birds with netting or, as in this case with floating ‘bird balls’
An airport should undertake a review of the features on its property that attract hazardous birds/wildlife. The precise nature of the resource that the they are attracted to should be identified and a management plan developed to eliminate or reduce the quantity of that resource, or to deny birds access to it as far as is practicable.
Where necessary, support from a professional bird/wildlife strike prevention specialist should be sought.
Documentary evidence of this process, its implementation and outcomes should be kept.
Active Bird/Wildlife Control On The Airport
Effective bird/wildlife control requires that even small numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife are dispersed as soon as possible from the airfield. This avoids them becoming an attraction to other birds/wildlife as their presence indicates that there is food available on the airfield and/or that it is a safe place to rest. To achieve this, birds/wildlife need to be detected rapidly once they arrive and then dispersed quickly. Efficient detection cannot be achieved from the ATC tower or the Airfield Operations centre. Relying on Air Traffic Controllers to call out staff to disperse birds/wildlife will result in small numbers being missed. It will also result in a delayed response when birds/wildlife are detected, because it will take time for the controller to reach the particular location. Efficient detection requires the use of a mobile patrol, operated by trained and equipped staff who are able to disperse birds/wildlife immediately they are detected. If these staff are diverted to other duties, such as marshalling aircraft, the control will be reduced in efficiency. Bird/wildlife control at night is more problematic because it is often difficult to detect where birds that are dispersed from the airfield are moving to. Control of nocturnal mammals may only be possible at night when they are active.
A properly trained and equipped bird/wildlife controller should be present on the airfield for at least 15 minutes prior to any aircraft departure or arrival. Thus, if aircraft are landing or taking of at intervals of less than 15 minutes there should be a continuous presence on the airfield throughout daylight hours. The controller should not be required to undertake any duties other than bird control during this time. Note that for aerodromes with infrequent aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long enough to disperse all hazardous birds/wildlife from the vicinity of the runway. In this case the controller should be deployed sufficiently in advance of the aircraft movement to allow full dispersal to be achieved.
At night, active runways and taxiways should be checked for the presence of birds/wildlife at regular intervals and the dispersal action taken as needed.
Organisation
Different aerodromes adopt a variety of organisational structures for their bird/wildlife control programmes. These vary from having bird control as a secondary duty of the
Air Traffic Control or Fire Sections, through staffing bird control from the Airfield
Operations Section to employing specialist wildlife managers or bird control units. Bird control staffed from larger units has the advantage that there are more staff to call upon and greater flexibility to cope with sudden increases in bird numbers. However, staff employed primarily in other roles may regard bird control as a secondary or low status duty which, if they only carry it out on rare occasions, it not really their personal responsibility. Conversely, small specialist units are normally staffed by people who have a real interest in birds and bird control, and who clearly recognise that the responsibility for birds on the airfield lies with them. This ‘ownership’ of the bird problem can be a powerful motivation to improve standards of bird control. Such units may, however, find it difficult to cope with staff illness or sudden increases in bird numbers which require additional staff to be deployed.
Whichever organisational system is in place, it should deliver the standards described elsewhere in this document.
Communication between the various interested gropus and organisations on an airport is essential if good bird/wildlife control standards are to be achieved. Airfield Operations, Grounds Maintenance, Air Traffic Control, Airport Fire Service, Airport Planners, Airlines etc. All have a role to play in identifying and correcting problems that may occur. Airport management should ensure that a mechanism is available (e.g. an airport birdstrike prevention committee) which enables these organisations to participate in the bird/wildlife hazard management process. This will help to ensure that these organisations
Equipment
The type and level of sophistication of the equipment needed to deter birds/wildlife from airfields depends on the species involved and the quantity of manpower that can be deployed. If a single staff member is required to disperse birds/wildlife from a large airport then equipment such as pistol launched pyrotechnics or distress call broadcasting devices will be essential. If more staff can be deployed or is the airport is small, then more basic equipment may suffice.
Bird/wildlife deterrent devices can be broadly divided into visual, acoustic and lethal, and subdivided into portable and static systems. The levels of sophistication, and hence cost, available are highly variable and include the simple scarecrow, (a static visual device), complex radio controlled sound grenerators (static acoustic), pyrotechnic pistols and vehicle mounted distress call apparatus (mobile acoustic), hand held lasers (mobile visual), traps (static lethal) and a shotgun (mobile lethal). The choice of which systems, or combination of systems, to deploy will depend on cost, legal and logistical constraints and, perhaps most importantly, on the species that need to be dispersed. For example, attempting to use a distress call system on a bird species which do not produce such calls is doomed to failure.
Relatively few of the bird/wildlife control devices available to airports have been subjected to a proper scientific evaluation of their effectiveness. It is not possible, therefore, to recommend particular devices as being suitable for bird control at every airport.
The limited use of lethal control is an important part of an effective bird management programme
Portable equipment, that requires a staff member on the airfield to operate it, is generally regarded as offering the best control, providing that the staff involved are properly trained and motivated. Devices such as pyrotechnic pistols, or vehicle mounted distress call generators produce an impression of a direct threat which can be continually varied in time and location by the operator in a manner not available to static systems. In all cases staff should have access to a shotgun to remove birds/wildlife that cannot be dispersed by non-lethal means, providing that the relevant bird protection and firearms legislation in the country concerned permits this. It is vital that staff are properly trained in the safe use of firearms and carry the necessary permits to own or operate the weapon. There is some debate as to the necessity of the use of lethal control in aerodrome bird/wildlife management, but the view of the vast majority of experts is that supporting the non-lethal threat of pyrotechnic and other devices with an element of lethal control is important because it helps to ensure that birds/wildlife do not habituate to the control programme and permits the selective removal of any birds/wildlife that fail to respond to the dispersal techniques deployed.
A mobile patrol equipped with scaring devices such as pyrotechnics and distress calls is the most efficient way to detect and disperse birds.
In general, static bird scaring devices, such as gas cannons or other sound generators, gradually lose their effectiveness over time. Although some of the more sophisticated devices, which generate a variety of sounds in random or pre- programmed order, may delay this habituation, they are generally more suitable for providing short term bird deterrence from limited areas (e.g. ground being reinstated after building works).
Gas Cannons, even if moved regularly, will eventually lose their effectiveness over time.
Trained predators (falcons and dogs) Trained falcons and dogs, which are both potential predators for many species of hazardous birds found on airports, are undobtedly effective in dispersing birds. To work properly, however, considerable investment in the training of both the animals and their handlers needs to be made. This training is essential both to ensure that the animals themselves do not become a strike risk and also to ensure that the deterrent value of deploying the falcon or dog is maximised. Airports should not underestimate the staff time and cost involved in incorporating falcons or dogs in their bird control programmes.
Falcons represent a real threat to birds and will not be ignored. Their use close to aircraft requires great care, skill and considerable expense.
It is also important to remember that falcons and dogs are not effective at dispersing all hazardous birds in all conditions. They should be regarded as one tool amongst many that the bird controller can use. The use of trained predators alone is not an adequate substitute for the other bird management techniques described above.
Bird control staff should be equipped with bird deterrent devices appropriate to the bird species encountered, the numbers of birds present, and to the area that they need to control. Staff should have access to appropriate devices for removal of birds/wildlife, such as firearms or traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these techniques at short notice.
All staff should receive proper training in the use of bird control devices.
Logging Bird/Wildlife Management Activities
There is an increasing tendency towards airlines and/or their insurers embarking on legal action to recover the costs of bird/wildlife strike damage from the airports at which they occur. It is important that airports record the bird control actions that they take in order to be able to show that they had an adequate bird/wildlife control programme in place at the time of an incident and that the programme was functioning properly. Data gathered as part of a bird/wildlife control programme is also important in assessing the effectiveness of the actions taken. A number of different methods for recording these data exist, from simple paper records to sophisticated devices based on pocket PC tecnnology. The latter save time and effort, especially if the data are to be subsequently entered onto a computer for further analysis. Whatever the means of recording used, the important issue is that a comprehensive record of the bird control activities is kept in order to demonstrate that the airport is following its own policies and procedures.
Airport bird/wildlife controllers should record the following at least every 30 minutes (if air traffic is sufficiently infrequent that bird patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, an entry should be made for each patrol carried out).
areas of the airport patrolled,
numbers, location and species of birds/wildlife seen,
action taken to disperse the birds/wildlife,
results of the action.
Birdstrike Reporting
All bird/wildlife management programmes need to be monitored to see if they are working effectively and whether they need to be modified, extended or improved. The only effective way to do this is by collating data on the strikes at the airport concerned. Other measures, counting the birds/wildlife on the airfield for instance, provide useful additional i nformation, but are not a direct measure of the strike risk at the airport. All strikes should be reported, whether or not they cause damage to the aircraft and whatever bird/wildlife species was involved. Unless the airport is confident that it knows what species are being struck on its property it cannot hope to target its management efforts in the correct direction. It is important that airport managers do not penalise staff for reporting birdstrikes. Even though strikes to large jet airliners from small species such as swallows or sparrow-sized birds are unlikely to cause damage to an aircraft, staff should be required to report them. Similarly, the total number of strikes at an airport should never be used as a measure of strike risk or of the performance of the bird/wildife controllers. The main risk arises from strikes with large species, especially birds that form flocks. A risk assessment process that combines strike frequency with likely severity needs to be employed to properly assess the risk (see below). Such a process cannot work effectively unless all strike are reported, however.
There are a wide variety of definitions of precisely what constitutes a bird/wildlife strike. In terms of gathering information to better understand the risk, it is preferable to include as many events as possible in an inclusive definition. Including all strike reports in an airport’s dataset does raise a number of problems, however. For example, if a pilot reports a strike on approach to the airport and a check of the area for a carcass and inspection of the aircraft shows no evidence that a strike has taken place there is no confirmation that a strike has actually occured. Other than the location of the possible strike, such a report provides little useful information (e.g. bird species numbers damage levels etc.) that can aid the airport in targetting its bird control effort. These unconfirmed strikes should be recorded, but do not need to be subjected to the analysis described in 2.7 below.
A number of countries also record near misses in their bird/wildlife strike databases. The definition of a near miss is more problematic as it involves the pilot’s interpretation of how close the birds/wildlife was to the aeroplane and whether this constituted a threat to safety. Also, at airports situated in areas of high bird populations it might be difficult for an observant pilot to land or take off without seeing a bird at some distance from the aircraft and every movement might be regarded as a near miss. Accumulating near miss information may prove valuable, but, like unconfirmed strikes, they should not be included in the airport’s strike statistics used for analysis. Databases etc.should be set up to allow unconfirmed strikes and near misses to be separated from other bird/wildlife strikes when evaluating the dataset.
There are, however, some incidents where a strike does not occur, such as pilots being forced to take evasive action to avoid birds or wildlife, that should be recorded separately as these actions themselves are potentially dangerous and have been caused by the presence of birds.
Bird/wildlife incidents should therefore be defined in 3 categories:
Confirmed strikes: Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which evidence in the form of a carcass, remains or damage to the aircraft is found. Any bird/wildlife found dead on an airfield where there is no other obvious cause of death (e.g. struck by a car, flew into a window etc.).
Unconfirmed strikes: Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which no physical evidence is found.
Serious incidents: Incidents where the presence of birds/wildlife on or around the airfield has any effect on a flight whether or not evidence of a strike can be found.
These definitions ensure that the maximum quantity of information is gathered, but that only reliable evidence is used in assessing the effectiveness of the bird/wildlife management programme. Depending upon the organisational structure in a particular country or at an individual airport, the responsibility for reporting bird/wildlife strikes may lie with a number of different individuals or departments, such as airport operations, air traffic control or pilots. It is important that the airport has a mechanism for ensuring that it is aware, as far as is possible, of all of the strikes that happen on or near its property.
Analysis of birdstrike data
Effective analysis of birdstrike data is particularly important. For example, separating strikes that occur on the airport (under 200 feet on approach and 500 feet on climb out using the ICAO definition) from those that occur further out in the approaches helps to define those strikes that are likely to be influenced by the airport bird management programme. Similarly, separating strikes with species that are over 100g in weight (i.e. those more likely to cause damage), and giving greater emphasis to strikes with flocks all help to identify trends in the real birdstrike risk at the airport. So, for example, an airport with an increasing rate of bird/wildlife strikes is not necessarily becoming a more risky place to fly. If the increase in strikes is due to an increase in incidents with small species, whilst the rate of strikes with large species and flocks is falling, then this is indicative of both better bird/wildlife control and better reporting of strikes. Again it is important to emphasise that the simple total number of strikes at an airport is not a good indicator of risk, and that examination of the data by species struck is essential. This process can be carried out as part of a formal risk assessment process as described in Section 11, page 17.
Bird/wildlife remains identification
Bird/wildlife strike statistics cannot be properly interpreted unless the species struck is known. The risk assessment process depends on a knowledge of the size of bird/wildlife struck to assess the likely severity of impacts, and the airport’s bird management programme may be targetting the wrong bird species if no record of what birds are being struck is kept. Bird/wildlife remains recovered following strikes are often fragmentary but even the smallest feather fragments can be identified and blood smears can be separated to species by the use of DNA analysis. Airports should ensure that all bird remains are identified as completely as possible given the facilities at their disposal.
Data required in a birdstrike report
The more information that is recorded about a birdstrike incident the better. As a minimum, the data required on the ICAO birdstrike reporting form should be collected as fully as possible. If some data items are not available (e.g. altitude of strike) then as much information as possible should be collected and due account taken of the missing data during subsequent analyses.
Airports should establish a mechanism to ensure that they are informed of all bird/wildlife strikes reported on or near their property.
The total number of birdstrikes should never be used as a measure of risk or of the performance of the bird control measures at an airport.
Airports should ensure that the identification of the species involved in birdstrikes is as complete as possible.
Airports should record all birdstrikes and include, as far as they are able, the data required for the standard ICAO reporting form
National Regulators should collate birdstrike data and submit this to ICAO annually.
Submission to ICAO
Although this is not a matter directly for individual airports, countries should be encouraged to collate birdstrike data at the national level and to submit this to ICAO. This assists in assessing the true levels of birdstrike risk and costs to the aviation industry of birdstrikes around the world.
Risk Assessment
Formal risk assessment is now routinely used in almost all aspects of health and safety work. Bird/wildlife strike prevention has tended to lag behind in this field because the involvement of birds and other wildlife (creatures whose behaviour can vary hourly, daily and seasonally, and whose populations can fluctuate over longer periods) as a key component of the system being assessed makes it difficult to accurately predict risk levels. Techniques are now available that make use of the frequency that each species is struck, combined with probability of aircraft damage for that species, to calculate risk levels for a particular airport. These allow risk assessment matrices to be constructed and updated annually in order to evaluate how the risk level is changing in response to the bird management measures in place.
Airports should conduct a formal risk assessment of their birdstrike situation and use the results to help target their bird management measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Risk assessments should be updated at regular intervals, preferably annually.
Bird/wildlife management off the airfield
Providing that best practice in terms of habitat management and active control are put in place on an airfield, the strike risk arising from the airfield itself can be largely controlled in all but the most extreme circumstances. Managing the strike risk that originates from off the airfield is a more complex and difficult challenge. Firstly, the problematic sites need to be identified by means of a hazard assessment. This can pose problems because, for some species, such as gulls, the sites frome which birds that cause a risk at the airport originate can be many miles from the airport itself. Having identified sites that support hazardous birds/wildlife it is then necessary to estimate the risk that they pose to the airport. Birds/wildlife on the airport itself can reasonably be assumed to pose some level of risk as their proximity to the aircraft means that they will eventually cross a runway ot taxiway and may thus be struck. Birds/wildlife at a site remote from the airport may pose no risk at all if they never cross the airfield or its approaches. The same basic principles apply when developing a management plan whether it is on or off the airfield. A risk assessment thus requires either a measurement or an estimation of how often birds/wildlife at an off airfield site will transit the active airspace. Once sites that pose a significant risk are identified, the management principles that are needed to control the risk are similar to those on airfield. They are to identify the attractions, then to manage the habitat to reduce the attraction, or deny the birds access to it. Dispersal tactics can then be deployed to remove any birds that remain. This will require a collaborative approach and positive working relationship with local landowners.
Landfills close to airports can be netted to exclude hazardous birds
Part of the new ICAO standards concerning airport bird control states that:
The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the establishment of garbage disposal dumps or any such other source attracting bird activity on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome unless an appropriate aeronautical study indicates that they are unlikely to create conditions conducive to a bird hazard problem.
Whilst the reference to garbage dumps is clear, ‘any such other source attracting bird activity’ requires a significant degree of interpretation. As with the bird/wildlife attractions on the aerodrome, airport managers may need to seek assistance form specialists when identifying the major bird/wildlife attractions near their airport. They will certainly require some assistance in assessing whether the birds/wildlife using such a site pose a significant risk to flight safety, as this needs an understanding of ecology and behaviour that is unlikely to be available from within the airport’s own staff.
Once sites that support birds/wildlife that are, or might, cause a flight safety problem are identified, management options can be developed. These can range from minor habitat modification, changing cropping or other agricultural practices, major drainage operations or large scale removal of bird/wildlife populations. Again the choice of technique will depend on the particular situation encountered and expert advice should be sought if necessary. Larger scale off-airport bird/wildlife management may also involve liaison with local conservation interests, especially if the sites that need to be managed are nature reserves. In some cases it may be impossible to resolve the conflicting interests of flight safety and conservation, but in trying to do so the airport will be in a better position to show due diligence in the event of an accident or legal claim in the future.
Airports should conduct an inventory of bird attracting sites within the ICAO defined 13km bird circle, paying particular attention to sites close to the airfield and the approach and departure corridors. A basic risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether the movement patterns of birds/wildlife attracted to these sites means that they cause, or may cause, a risk to air traffic. If this is the case, options for bird management at the site(s) concerned should be developed and a more detailed risk assessment performed to determine if it is possible and/or cost effective to implement management processes at the site(s) concerned. This process should be repeated annually to identify new sites or changes in the risk levels produced by existing sites.
Where national laws permit, airports, or airport authorities, should seek to have an input into planning decisions and land use practices within the 13km bird circle for any development that may attract significant numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife. Such developments should be subjected to a similar risk assessment process as described above and changes sought, or the proposal opposed, if a significant increase in birdstrike risk is likely to result.
ACI (2005). Aerodrome Bird Hazard Prevention and Wildlife Management Handbook First Edition. Airports Council International, Geneva.
CAA. (1998). CAP 680 Bird Control On Aerodromes. Civil Aviation Authority, London.
Cleary, E.C. & Dolbeer, R.A. (1999) Wildlife hazard management at airports, a manual for airport personnel. US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC.
Transport Canada (2001). Sharing The Skys – An Aviation Guide To The Management Of Wildlife Hazards. Transport Canada, Ottawa.
World birdstrike association
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
Economic Impacts of Covid-19 on Aviation
ICAO has some statistics on the economic Impact of Covid-19 on Aviation. Please feel free to browse using the link below
WBA Online WHM Courses
The WBA is offering 3 online Wildlife Hazard Management courses;
Please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for details.
Thank you to all those involved in making the very first WBA virtual conference a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors who stepped up to help make this happen and to continue the great works of the WBA. Our board worked tirelessly in organizing and producing the event. I was amazed at the effort required for such an event and continue to be impressed by the work ethic of the WBA Board.
You, our members, really made this virtual meeting outstanding. Those of you who volunteered to present, we thank you for providing such interesting content and generating thoughtful discussion.
I would also like to recognize ICAO and EASA for their recognition and participation. We appreciate their keynote addresses and look forward to working together in the future. Without their support, the WBA would not be as effective.
As briefed by WBA Vice President Lalilta Vaswani, we propose a change to how the board will be selected by the membership. We suggest that the WBA Membership nominate then elect a president-elect to serve as vice president for a two-year term. After the two-year term, the president-elect will ascend to the position of president and appoint their board, while the membership nominates/elects a new president-elect. Look for correspondence via email regarding these statute changes and your overall view of the WBA virtual meeting. Your feedback is very important to us.
As you know, there were some initiatives proposed in the meeting. I urge all members to check the WBA website often for any information regarding upcoming meetings/initiatives. I also encourage members to log-in to the secure side of the website for members-only information.
Again, I would like to personally thank our sponsors and you, our members, for continued support of the WBA. As a pilot, I thank all of you for your participation which enhances aviation safety and ultimately helps to protect our precious environment.
World birdstrike association
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
Thank you to all those involved in making the very first WBA virtual conference a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors who stepped up to help make this happen and to continue the great works of the WBA. Our board worked tirelessly in organizing and producing the event. I was amazed at the effort required for such an event and continue to be impressed by the work ethic of the WBA Board.
You, our members, really made this virtual meeting outstanding. Those of you who volunteered to present, we thank you for providing such interesting content and generating thoughtful discussion.
I would also like to recognize ICAO and EASA for their recognition and participation. We appreciate their keynote addresses and look forward to working together in the future. Without their support, the WBA would not be as effective.
As briefed by WBA Vice President Lalilta Vaswani, we propose a change to how the board will be selected by the membership. We suggest that the WBA Membership nominate then elect a president-elect to serve as vice president for a two-year term. After the two-year term, the president-elect will ascend to the position of president and appoint their board, while the membership nominates/elects a new president-elect. Look for correspondence via email regarding these statute changes and your overall view of the WBA virtual meeting. Your feedback is very important to us.
As you know, there were some initiatives proposed in the meeting. I urge all members to check the WBA website often for any information regarding upcoming meetings/initiatives. I also encourage members to log-in to the secure side of the website for members-only information.
Again, I would like to personally thank our sponsors and you, our members, for continued support of the WBA. As a pilot, I thank all of you for your participation which enhances aviation safety and ultimately helps to protect our precious environment.
Конституционный Акт WBA
english
Введение
Члены Международного комитета по столкновению с птицами (IBSC) учреждают новую организацию в качестве гражданской ассоциации, с роспуском и прекращением деятельности IBSC.
Статья 1. Название
Статья 2. Видение
WBA станет всемирным катализатором повышения безопасности полетов путем снижения риска столкновения воздушных судов с птицами и другими объектами дикой природы, экологически безопасными и наименее затратными способами.
Статья 3. Миссия
Миссия WBA заключается в выражении общего мнения национальных комитетов по столкновения с птицами и объектами дикой природы и других организаций, включая организации гражданской и военной авиации.
WBA формирует основу для конструктивного и кооперативного взаимодействия участников.
WBA функционирует как всемирный форум, целью которого является снижение риска столкновений с птицами в сфере авиации.
Статья 4. Цель
Целью WBA является повышение безопасности полетов с учетом всех аспектов, связанных с птицами и объектами дикой природы, включая меры по уменьшению и снижению риска. WBA поощряет и стремится облегчить международную коммуникацию и сотрудничество членов ассоциации между собой, а также и с органами, устанавливающими отраслевые правила, и агентствами безопасности полетов.
Статья 5. Устав
Главным документом, определяющим деятельность организации, является Устав.
Статья 6. Одобрение
Данный Конституционный акт был официально принят путем анонимного электронного голосования.
Подписано 10 ноября 2012
Для Всемирной Ассоциации по Столкновениям с Птицами
Перевод на русский язык подготовлен специалистами Отраслевой группы авиационной орнитологии компании «Два Крыла»
World birdstrike association
К началу страницы
english
По результатам голосования членов Международного комитета по столкновению с птицами (IBSC), и с учетом Конституционного акта был принят следующий документ.
УСТАВ WBA
ЧАСТЬ I Официальное наименование организации, цели и задачи, и юридический адрес
Статья 1
WORLD BIRDSTRIKE ASSOCIATION (здесь и далее WBA) учреждена 26 Июня 2012 года на 30-ой Конференции Международного Комитета по столкновениям с птицами в Ставангере, Норвегия.
Статья 2
WBA является некоммерческой организацией, осуществляющей свою деятельность в рамках гражданской и военной авиации.
Статья 3
Задачей WBA является повышение уровня безопасности полетов и снижение стоимости ее обеспечения, с учетом всех аспектов снижения риска, вызванного птицами и объектами дикой природы.
Статья 4
Юридический адрес организации: World Birdstrike Association p/a Castle Keukenhof P.O. Box 51 2160AB NL – 2161. LISSE The Netherlands
ЧАСТЬ 2 Права и возможности, активы и другие ресурсы
Статья 5
WBA обладает правом создавать активы, брать на себя юридические обязательства и заключать соглашения с финансовыми организациями.
Статья 6
WBA имеет право обладать собственностью, полученную путем:
» Сбора членского взноса;
» Сбора взносов за участие в ассамблеях, курсах или обучении;
» Получения спонсорства, дотаций, наследства, субсидий или любого другого легального дохода.
ЧАСТЬ 3 Членство: условия вступления, права и обязанности
Статья 7
Устанавливаемые категории членства:
» Основатели: физические и юридические лица, присутствовавшие на одной (или более) конференции Международного комитета по защите от птиц в Ставангере, Кэрнсе или Бразилии, и представители авиационного бизнеса, имеющие особый интерес в снижении риска столкновений с птицами/объектами ДП и утвержденные Советом директоров;
» Активные члены: физические лица старше 18 лет, активно вовлеченные в работу по снижению риска столкновений с птицами и объектами ДП и принятые Советом директоров;
» Ведомственные члены: организации, утвержденные Советом директоров;
» Спонсоры: члены, оказывающие финансовую поддержку путем спонсорства или прямого вложения в мероприятия WBA;
» Почетные члены: физические лица, оказывающие помощь Ассоциации, или получившие данное звание за личные заслуги. Кандидатура предлагается Советом директоров и одобряется Генеральной ассамблеей.
Статья 8
Права и обязанности основателей, активных и ведомственных членов:
» Делать финансовые взносы;
» Следовать Уставу, Регламенту и решениям Генеральной ассамблеи и Совета директоров WBA;
» Открыто выражать свое мнение и голосовать во время ассамблей или по средством электронного голосования;
Почетные члены, желающие пользоваться теми же правами, что и активные члены могут просить о принятии в эту категорию. Условия будут определены в данном Уставе.
ЧАСТЬ 4 Структура
Статья 10
ЧАСТЬ 5 Генеральная ассамблея
Статья 11
Генеральная ассамблея состоит из (всех) членов и при возможности будет собираться раз в два года. В дополнение к этому возможен созыв местных или региональных ассамблей WBA с одобрения Совета директоров.
Генеральная ассамблея избирает Совет директоров и одобряет периодический и финансовый отчет и прогноз.
Членам (часть 7) предписывается голосовать. Выбор на должность и увольнение Исполнительного директора и других членов Совета директоров проходит по правилу большинства (половина+1). Роспуск WBA и внесение изменений в Устав или Конституцию требуют 2/3 голосов. Членские взносы и рейтинги голосования определяются Советом директоров и получают одобрение путем общего голосования членов.
Членство доступно для всех национальных/региональных комитетов и ассоциаций по защите от птиц/объектов дикой природы, или их эквивалентов и другим организациям и образованиям, а также частным лицам, интересующихся проблемой снижения риска столкновения с птицами/объектами дикой природы в авиации.
Совет директоров состоит из 6 (шести) членов, избираемых на 2 года. Все члены Совета директоров могут быть переизбраны и оставаться на должности максимум 6 (шесть) лет, 3 (три) последовательных срока.
Члены Совет директоров исполняют свои обязанности на добровольной основе или как часть постоянной работы, без оплаты труда. Другие расходы в интересах WBA, будут компенсироваться.
Совет директоров состоит из Исполнительного директора, Секретаря, и 4 (четырех) Директоров (финансового, по науке, по политике и по обеспечению качества).
Заседания Совета директоров проводятся не реже одного раза в год, или иначе по решению Совета директоров.
Неограниченное количество специализированных региональных или местных встреч Совета директоров может быть созвано в любое время.
Совет директоров исполняет обязанности, определенные Уставом, действует от имени Генеральной ассамблеи и несет ответственность за выполнение поставленных задач.
Статья 13
При досрочном освобождении должности Совета директоров, в связи с отстранением согласно абзацу 3 Статьи 11 и абзацу 3 данной Статьи или отказом от должности, а также невозможностью дальнейшего исполнения обязанностей, Исполнительный директор назначает другого члена ассоциации для исполнения обязанностей освободившейся должности. Должностное замещение действительно до момента переизбрания Совета директоров на заседании Генеральной ассамблеи.
Член Совета директоров, деятельность которого бесспорно не соответствует интересам WBA, может быть отстранен от должности по решению Совета директоров с обоснованием причин. Решение об отстранении принимается путем голосования совета директоров по принципу большинства (50%+1), в случае равенства голос Исполнительного директора остается решающим.
Статья 14
Совет директоров является исполнительным органом WBA и обязан развивать и распространять идеи и координировать выполнение задач WBA, исполнять решения Генеральной ассамблеи согласно положениям Устава.
Статья 15
Совет директоров несет ответственность за выполнение задач в сроки, установленный Генеральной ассамблеей.
Статья 16
Почетный офицер-покровитель контактирует с WBA через Исполнительного директора. Офицер-покровитель признает Конституцию и Устав WBA, а также роль WBA как международного форума и важного участника процесса снижения риска столкновений с птицами/ объектами дикой природы в авиации.
ЧАСТЬ 8 Комитет участников
Статья 17
В комитет участников входят Исполнительный директор и члены WBA, приглашенные Советом директоров. Комитет взаимодействует с Советом директоров напрямую.
ЧАСТЬ 9 Целевые группы
Статья 18
Совет директоров имеет право создавать специализированные временные или постоянные Целевые группы по конкретным темам и вопросам для поддержки работы Совета директоров. Целевые группы отчитываются непосредственно перед Советом директоров через ответственное лицо. Результаты работы целевых групп, могут быть внедрены в политику WBA после рассмотрения и голосования членов WBA по принципу большинства (50%+1).
ЧАСТЬ 10 Процедура
Статья 19
Решения Генеральной ассамблеи касательно Конституционного акта и Устава и внесение в них изменений принимаются большинством в 2\3 голосов. Избрание Генеральной ассамблеей Исполнительного директора и других членов Совета директоров осуществляется голосованием по принципу большинства (50% +1).
Текущие вопросы, включая место и время проведения Генеральной ассамблеи и ее распорядок утверждается голосованием Совета директоров по принципу большинства, в случае равенства голосов, голос Исполнительного директора является решающим.
Необходимым кворумом для признания голосования (как Совета директоров, так и Генеральной ассамблеи) состоявшимся является присутствие 2\3 всех членов.
Электронное голосование может использоваться для решения срочных вопросов в перерыве между встречами участников.
ЧАСТЬ 11 Введение в действие
Статья 20
Устав вступает в силу на 15 день после окончания голосования. Результаты голосования будут представлены на следующей Генеральной ассамблее.
ЧАСТЬ 12 Публикация
Статья 21
Устав публикуется в сети Интернет на сайте WBA и рассылается по электронной почте.
Для Всемирной Ассоциации по Столкновениям с Птицами
Перевод на русский язык подготовлен специалистами Отраслевой группы авиационной орнитологии компании «Два Крыла»
WHM Course Outline
WBA Online Wildlife Hazard Management courses
The WBA is offering 3 online Wildlife Hazard Management courses;
These courses cover Wildlife Hazard Management (WHM) subjects in compliance with ICAO WHM training requirements. Subjects covered include Ecology, Monitoring, WHM techniques, Regulations, Aerodrome and Aircraft operations as well as Risk assessment. For those having passed the exam, a WBA certification of accomplishment will be awarded.
These online courses are scheduled in weeks 4 and 5 of Jan/Feb 2021. Please find more information here.
Basic
Advanced
Management
Number of Modules
Introduction of practicable WHM
Application of WHM risk management
Design, control, audit
Pre-course knowledge
None required, affection with Wildlife Hazard topics
Basic understanding of wildlife;
Basic understanding of aerodrome and aircraft operations;
Acquainted with relevant WHM (inter-) national regulations and guidance material
Basic understanding of
relevant WHM (inter-) national regulations and guidance material.
Good understanding of aerodrome and aircraft operations
Coarse Goal
Will understand the basics of wildlife hazard management and its practicable application during daily operations
Will be able to perform wildlife hazard risk assessment and to identify and perform appropriate mitigation actions
Will be able to write and evaluate Wildlife hazard management plans.
Applicable for
Examination
Yes, multiple choice
Yes, multiple choice
Yes, open questions
Price per participant
€ 390
€ 390
€ 390
Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
World birdstrike association
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
Introduction
The World Birdstrike Association (WBA) we strive to respect privacy
Who we are?
The World Birdstrike Association works as a catalyst for all Aviation Safety Stakeholders
What information do we collect?
Our membership will require names, and contact details
How do we use personal information?
WBA will use the members contact details
When you sign up as a member, you are giving the WBA consent to contact you with Aviation Safety related information
How do we secure personal data?
The WBA’s approach to data security and the technologies and procedures we use to protect personal information. For example, these may be measures:
How to contact us?
You can contact WBA on
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by World Birdstrike Association and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
Through this website you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of the WBA. We have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, the WBA takes no responsibility for, and will not be liable for, the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond our control
WBA Statutes
The members of the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) having regard to the Constitution Act have voted and adopted this
OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND REGISTERED OFFICE
WBA is a non-profit association covering both civil and military aviation interests.
The objectives of WBA are to improve flight safety and reduce the cost, regarding all aspects of the bird/wildlife strike risk reduction to aviation.
The principal place of business shall be:
World Birdstrike Association
DAVVL e.V. German Birdstrike Committee Hanna Kunath Strasse 18 28199 Bremen Germany telephone.: +49 421 59702740 Facsimile: +49 421 59702741 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DECISION MAKING AVAILABILITY, ASSETS AND OTHER RESOURCES
WBA is entitled to acquire assets, to take over obligations and to do business with financial institutions.
WBA is entitled to own property, obtained from:
MEMBERS: ADMISSION CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS
Membership categories are established as:
Founders, active and institutional members have following obligations and rights:
Honorable Members who wish to obtain the same rights as Active Members may apply for admission to this category. The conditions will be determined by this Statute.
The WBA shall consist of the following:
The General Assembly consists of (all) members and, where practicable will be held once every two years. In addition, regional or local WBA assemblies may be convened with the authority of the Board of Directors.
The General Assembly elects the Board of Directors as a whole and approves the annual and financial reports and the forecast.
Members (from Article 7) are entitled to vote. A majority voting system (half plus 1) is used for election and dismissal of Executive Director and other members of the Board of Directors. Dissolving the WBA and for changing the Constitution Act and the Statute requires a 2/3-majority vote of the members.
Membership fees and vote rating will be established by the Board of Directors and, subject to majority vote, approved by the members.
Membership is open to national/regional bird/wildlife strike committees and associations or equivalents and all other organizations, entities and individuals which/who show interest in the reduction of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation.
Membership, with respect to individual positions, serves the collective interest of the reduction of the aviation bird/wildlife strike risk.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WBA will be managed and administered by the Board of Directors.
The Board consists of President, Secretary and 3 (three) Executive Vice Presidents. For matters concerning a specific region the Board is expanded with a region representative, being the Regional Vice President.
Board members conduct their duty on voluntary basis or as part of their daily job and will not receive salary by WBA. Expenses other than salary – made for the benefit of WBA are in general reimbursed.
The meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at least once a year unless otherwise agreed by the members. An unlimited number of ad-hoc regional, or local meetings of the Board of Directors may be convened at any time.
The Board of Directors acts on behalf of the General Assembly, fulfills all duties arising from this Statute and has the responsibility for achieving the WBA objectives.
In case of leave, resignation or any other reason that may cause transitory or a permanent vacancy of one or more members of the Board of Directors, the substitute predicted in Article 11 § 3 and § 3 of this Article or, if that is not possible, the person chosen by the President will continue to carry on a member duty. This replacement will be carried on for as long as the vacancy lasts, and will never exceed the term for which the substitute is appointed.
At the next General Assembly that member must be approved.
Board members who are clearly contra-productive for the general interest of the WBA, may be removed from their membership by the Board of Directors, after previous oral or written explanations. This decision requires a majority vote (half plus 1) of the board and with a tie, the vote of the President is decisive.
As executive body of the WBA, the Board of Directors, has duties and obligations to engage, promote, develop, coordinate and disseminate ideas and tasks of WBA, and to execute the decisions of the General Assembly according to provisions of this Statute.
The Board of Directors is responsible for achieving the objectives within a timeframe mutually agreed at the General Assembly.
HONORARY OFFICER – PATRON
Honorary Officer – Patron is connected to the WBA through the President.
He supports WBA Constitution Act and Statute and WBA as world forum and important actor in the reducing process of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation.
The Advisory Board consists of the Executive Director and selected stakeholders.
The Board of Directors invites selected stakeholders and national bird strike committees to join this Advisory Board.
This Advisory Board provides asked and non –asked advise directly to the Board of Directors.
Specialized Task Groups, temporary or standing, may be established by the Board of Directors on specific subjects to advise the Board of Directors. The Task Groups report directly to the Board of Directors via the responsible Executive Vice President. The WBA members will get the possibility to vote (half + 1 majority) on the outputs of the Task Groups to make them WBA policy.
REGIONAL BIRDSTRIKE COMMITTEES
Regional WBA Bird/Wildlife Strike Committees maybe established by the Board for specific regions as coordination between the various national bird/wildlife strike committees. These regional committees elect their own board and Regional Vice President. The Regional Vice President joins the WBA Board for all matters concerning the specific region.
Acts and decisions at the General Assembly on the Constitution Act, Statute and their changes, require a 2/3-majority vote. Election of the President and other members of the Board of Directors will be taken by majority (half plus 1) vote.
Minor operational matters such as venue and date of the General Assembly, its proceedings, etc. will be decided by majority vote by the Board of Directors. By a tie, the vote of the President will be decisive.
The necessary quorum for valid voting on the Board of Directors meeting and General Assembly is 2/3 of total members present.
Electronic voting can be used to decide on issues that require endorsement prior to a scheduled meeting.
ENTRY INTO FORCE
This Statute shall enter into force on the fifteenth day following the last date of the voting process.
At the next WBA General Assembly results of the vote will be presented.
This Statute will be published on the WBA website and circulated via e-mail.
Done on 10 November 2012 Revised on 07 December 2016
World birdstrike association
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
The WBA. Aviation Safety Around the World
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.
Archive 2013
As the event is a «normal» runway incursions, we wish to point out however the attention of the crew, their perseverance in demanding the complete bird removal, and unfortunately the tower controller lack of attention, who did not notice by himself the presence of a flock of birds settling on the runway.
Anyway, it is well known the cure that Wizzair dedicates to the bird strike prevention, also proved by this very appreciated presentationat the 2012 WBA conference held in Stavanger.
The “Juzgado Nacional de Primera Istancia en lo Civil y Comercial Federal n. 6” of Buenos Aires released a very important sentenceat the end of a lawsuit regarding damage compensation further to a bird strike. The Argentinian airline Austral sued Aeropuertos Argentina 2000 claiming for a compensation of damages suffered by an its own B737 that impacted with a flock of birds (pigeons) at Newbery airport in Buenos Aires. As they were race pigeons, the owner was identified thanks to a bird ring with his code found inside one engine.
Following a thorough explanation of the verdict, the judge concluded it was a fortuitous case and rejected all the plaintiff requests discharging both the airport and the bird farmer.
ENAC published on their official website the 2012 BSCI Annual Report (in Italian).
As usual we present here a brief summary (in English).
A brief comment on the events of this month; once again a helicopter pilot was injured as a result of an impact of a bird on the windshield and was forced to land. It is not the first case this year and the issue should arouse concern and mainly a reflection over the adequacy and effectiveness of the current certification requirements of these types of aircraft.
Anything new instead regarding the presence of deer on American minor runways; they’re frequent events unfortunately.
This photo has been taken on the 28 th of October at about 08.00 AM at Milan Linate airport. A flock of starlings is taking off for crossing the runway extension while a little airplane is on short final. We think there are some considerations that we may draw from this, and that you may read here.
The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe stated that bird strikes qualified as “extraordinary circumstances” which meant airlines do not have to pay compensation to passengers.
The Court was deciding on the cases of two tourists who were stuck in Gambia in Africa and in Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands because birds got into the jet engines of the planes that had to take them home. In both cases passengers managed to arrive home one day later the scheduled day.
The Court said airlines could not be expected to hold spare planes at every airport in case of a bird strike and added they could not be held responsible for delays.
We consider this decision correct and coherent; it would not be the same if a general discharge of liability had been sentenced in favour of the airport, in this case not sued by the passengers. In our opinion the matter of the airport liability in case of bird strike should be examined individually, as a bird strike to an aircraft at an airport cannot always be considered an extraordinary circumstance.
So far in Italy the few civil lawsuits regarding damage compensation following a bird strike always ended with a recognition of liability (also) of the airport operator.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has issued a tender for 45 bird detection systems to be installed at their air bases, where often abattoirs and rubbish dumps proliferate on their outskirts. The IAF calculates that bird strikes are responsible for about 10% of accidents to military airplanes, especially when they are engaged in low-altitude missions. Most avian radars have a range of about 10 km. and may give pilots vital notice of flock of birds on the aircraft path before landing and take off; radars may also cooperate with ground staff in dispersing birds.
At the present time, given the low cost of local manpower, the bird scaring and dispersal service is only into the hands of human resources: New Delhi airport, for example, employs about 80 bird scarers using fireworks to scare birds away from the runways.
The employment in a military environment (where the same subject manages flight operations, airport and air traffic control) solves one of the most crucial problems arising from avian radars, i.e. who should be the user of the system. As is common knowledge, ATC agencies don’t look favorably on further duties to their personnel, as well as “alien presences” in TWRs.
No initiative concerning avian radars is currently reported underway in Italy.
Some considerations on September occurrences. Deer strikes on small airports in the USA are increasing: three events in this month (2,8,10) plus another one in the last month. According to some estimates, deer in the USA reach the awesome number of 25 millions, one out of 12 inhabitants. Confronted to this, the number of airports clearly lacking in a suitable fence is still very high. Particularly remarkable is the event occurred on the 10 th to a small aircraft on scheduled commercial service.
Bird strikes that cause injures to pilots or passengers are fortunately rare; however it happened twice this month, on the 12 th and on 28 th. In both cases small aircraft were involved, for which the rigorous certification requirements provided for airliners do not apply. These occurrences however, in our opinion, should lead to reconsider this matter. Another remarkable event (7) is the loss of an helicopter due to a abrupt turn to avoid a large flock of birds while enroute.
Finally let’s go back once again to the crew behaviour following a bird strike, especially in case of bird ingestion into an engine after take-off. Seven times out of nine cases reported on this month flight crew elected to land immediately. Two decided instead to continue the flight in the absence of abnormal parameters: in both these circumstances the aircraft received damages and in one case indeed (28 th ) the airplane was forced to land on an alternate airport. One of the problems connected with these different choices is the lack of clear indications in the airline flight manuals on ‘what to do’ in case of bird strike/ingestion.
Fortunately most pilots opt for cautious choices.
Once in a while the wildlife species struck on the runways change; this time they are cows in Indonesia (6 th ): airports should never lack for an adequate fence.
(Photos taken from avherald.com)
According to some newspapers, the Chicago Aviation Department is employing several species of mammals to manage the natural vegetation in remote and fenced airfield areas. The second purpose the airport is aiming for is to keep away other species potentially hazardous to air navigation, such as the coyote.
In wildlife strike expert circles the news has been taken with some skepticism, reminding that the introduction of these animals in a problematic environment like an airport should always be preceded by naturalistic studies and that the cure might even be worse than the disease; actually, according to the experts, these animals may alter the ecosystem in a way that will attract other wildlife species, like birds, not previously present in the area.
The Nepal’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission released their final report on the accident occurred on 28.9.2012 to a SITA Do228 that, while taking off from Kathmandu airport, struck a bird and crashed on the ground killing all its occupants.
The investigation results substantially contradict the first information provided by the Nepali authorities, starting by the bird species (Black kite, Milvus migrans), that we reported at the time (cfr. Archives 2012)
That’s what I was thinking some days ago, disappointed by the continuous failures in the struggle against the winged invaders. Lines of sharp points, images of birds of prey and other doodads were not sufficient: after few days of abandonment of property the implacable birds take possession of your space. And I am supposed to be the expert!
Then I reflected: the problem, on the balconies as well as at airports, is mainly a matter of will and resources deployed. If I really needed to keep my balcony clear, if the problem was not only a bunch of guano at the end of the holidays, it would be sufficient some Euros to a person who daily comes to my house, opens the windows and lets understand that there’s people inside. As usual it’s a cost-benefit matter.
The problem of birds at airports it’s not a matter of guano; it’s a matter that involves the safety of people and airplanes. It’s a matter of ethics too, because somehow the safeguard of human life is connected with the deployment of financial resources. It should be well kept in mind while planning investments for safety.
A second observation concerns the event of the 25 in Cardiff: a bird ingestion into an engine on takeoff that apparently did not cause any effect, only to discover later some damages to the fan blades; if only a small piece of metal had broken away, the entire engine could have been destroyed.
Finally the surprising event of the 23 in Dallas when, with the passengers already on board and the aircraft ready for departure, someone from the ground eventually noticed a conspicuous hole in a wing caused by the impact with a bird. Given the hole size, it is unlikely that the damage occurred at low altitude and speed, and it’s pretty odd that it had not been noticed by the crew itself either in flight or on the ground.
Alberto Paparo, 46, the aircraft model enthusiast from Bologna who in 1997 modeled the prototype of the Falco Robot, specifically designed to remove birds from airports, died after a short illness on June 21st.
Brainchild of Paolo Iori, a dentist with a passion for ornithology, the Falco Robot GBRS initially showed some aerodynamic flaws that caused problems to the flight; Paparo progressively eliminated all the structural defects, used the most suitable materials and, thanks also his extraordinary skill of «remote pilot» made it a formidable deterrent tool.
Although not being an entirely original idea, prototypes had already been built in the 70s and 80s, the Falco Robot GBRS showed significant innovations in terms of incredible resemblance to the birds of prey, a Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in this case, engines, materials used and remote control. These were aspects which Alberto Paparo devoted himself with patience and dedication, as well as with extraordinary technical ability, along with the designer Paolo Iori.
Over the years a small series production was started with further technical improvements.
Despite the undoubted tactical effectiveness (no other means can disperse birds and clear the area in a matter of seconds steering their escape towards a predetermined safe direction), the device did not meet with much success in Italy however, while it aroused great interest in several other countries such as Spain, Latin America, Israel and Canada.
Possible reasons of the project slow down at home were mainly mistrust of novelties and constant demands for more and more data and experimentations on the part of the potential users, who instead slavishly accept devices less effective but perhaps supported by more convincing sponsors.
Dutch authorities recently announced drastic measures to reduce the number of geese around Amsterdam airport (Schiphol). According to this decision about 10,000 geese belonging to several species and living within a radius of 20 km. should be gassed. This weighty decision probably originated from an incident involving a Royal Air Maroc B737 that in 2010 during takeoff flew through a large flock of Canada geese that were settling on the edge of the runway and suffered multiple bird strikes.
The investigation board ascertained that the flight crew made several errors during the following landing procedure that led to fly over intensely populated urban areas at very low altitude (even lower than some buildings). The event however ended without any injury. To be frank, the report omitted to explain how it was possible that a so large flock of big birds could settle on the edge of an active runway without being observed, and dispersed, but the news raised concern anyway. The Board concluded their report urging the Government to take drastic measures for a significant decrease in the number of birds. The Dutch animal rights groups fought to avoid this conclusion, even in Courts, but apparently they lost their battle.
Canada geese are not Europe native, however; they were introduced in Britain in the XIX century to adorn parks and gardens and spread rapidly across the northern part of the continent finding favorable conditions and few predators. This should lead to reflect before artificially creating disturbances to the ecological balance of a region. Furthermore such a massive culling did not prove so far to cause positive long-term effects, as demonstrated in the nineties by the example of New York JFK airport, where about 10,000 gulls were shot down: they returned after a few months more or less in the same number. However, when the situation becomes unbearable, and the risks to people are actual, this measure appears to be unavoidable at least to get an immediate relief. In our humble opinion it would be desirable also an increase in the preventative measures and bird removal procedures inside the airport in order to avoid as much as possible the settling of large flocks of birds around the active runways.
After the ANSV (Agency for Flight Safety and Accident Investigations), also ENAC (Italian CAA) dedicated a short paragraph to wildlife strikes in their annual report 2012. In the chapter “Safety”
ENAC attribute this objective growth in the number of impacts “probably” to the increase of wildlife in the airport environments.
This statement is remarkable since ENAC instead for many years emphasized the increase of bird strike reports just as the result of a greater awareness of the airport operators.
Immediately after however the report points out that the problem is not only ours, quoting a FAA study according to which wildlife strikes quintupled in the last decades in the United States, despite the evolution of bird dispersing techniques.
The paragraph ends citing the tasks and the activities carried out by BSCI over the year.
Putting aside the comparisons with well different situations (here the impacts triplicated in only one decade, anyway), the Americans, among many criticisms, are reacting however, and their main problem regards big sized migratory birds. Here the problem is mainly an airport issue.
Hence the question we ask is the following: if the wildlife presence at airports is in constant increase, as well as the impacts, which aspect of prevention, from general strategy, to stakeholders roles, to practical measures, must be improved, if not changed?
We wait to read in depth analysis and concrete proposals in the BSCI annual report that will be released soon.
The ANSV (Italian Agency for Flight Safety) released their 2012 annual report on the state of safety of civil aviation in Italy. Inside the paper there is room for a brief commented presentation of the significant events based on the 95 bird strike reports received by the Agency. Anyway in the year 2012 ANSV did not recognize in any of these occurrences the conditions for opening a formal investigation. This led the Agency to consider confirmed the general perception of the phenomenon as currently “under control”, much more than in the recent past. We remind however that the 2012 BSCI annual report has not been released yet.
To be frank, it is difficult to understand the underestimation at least of one event occurred at Genoa airport on 24.9.2012, when a British Airways B737 flew through a flock of gulls on take-off. Some birds were ingested into both engines which however behaved differently. The left engine began to heavily vibrate and had to be shut down in flight forcing the crew to return to Genoa with only one engine. The right engine, which never stopped running, was instead shut down after the emergency landing due to abnormal parameters. The aircraft then had to be towed to the parking stand. Dual ingestions already occurred in the past at Genoa: this is the third (known) case of multiple ingestion but the first one involving a twin engine. The first two are far enough in the past and involved two cargo aircraft, a Bae 146 (1989) and an An124 (1997). Instead the incident analysis and mainly the Agency recommendations would be rather useful especially with regard to particular local situations like, for example, the management of the landfill nearby and the airport breakwater.
The South Korean Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) released two final reports regarding serious incidents occurred at Gimpo airport (South Korea) on December 2011 and unreported until now. The most serious occurred on the 4 th of December to a Jeju Air Boeing 737. After take-off, climbing through about 190 ft. the aircraft flew through a flock of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) with both engines ingesting birds and receiving serious damage resulting in severe vibrations of both engines as well as partial loss of thrust. The crew attempted to gradually reduce engine thrust slightly, which helped to stabilise the engines and reduce the vibrations, then climbed the aircraft reaching a maximum of 3200 feet with the thrust available and managed to safely return to Gimpo.
The Investigation Board reported that Gimpo airport has a wildlife control program, which includes the use of bird scare devices and bird patrols responsible to detect movements of birds and scare them away. The bird patrols however only rely on naked eye observations to detect birds moving in the area, then report those bird movements to the tower prompting the controllers, who could then delay departures or arrivals as necessary. Scaring devices are mainly gas cannons and firearms; however these measures prove to be not effective also because of the environmental situation of the airport surrounded by 13km of agricultural land including rivers and streams.
The flight crew was aware prior to departure of the ATIS broadcast reporting bird activity. The Board concluded stating that the probable causes of the serious incident were the missed detection of the flock of birds, so that takeoff was not delayed, and an ineffective system to detect movements of migratory birds.
The second report regards an Asiana Airlines Airbus A330 that on the 25th of December took-off to Tokyo. When climbing through 623 ft. the crew sighted six geese (Anser albifrons) but could not avoid the right hand engine ingesting at least one of them. The right hand engine lost power while vibration indications increased. The crew continued a normal climb schedule up to 4000 ft. but, after a further vibration increase, contacted the airline dispatcher while ATC, in the absence of an emergency declaration but informed about the bird strike, cleared the aircraft to climb to FL230. Following the contact with dispatch the crew decided to stop the climb at 8000 feet and return to Gimpo Airport.
The Board also in this case concluded that the probable causes of the incident were the takeoff not delayed despite the presence of birds in the departure path and the lack of an effective system to detect movements of migratory birds. Therefore they re-iterated the safety recommendations issued in the report above.
This website deals extensively with the investigation board conclusions (see page Investigations and Legal) for two reasons: as first because in their reports the pre-conditions, the probable causes and the contributing factors of each event are generally deeply and thoroughly analyzed, and mainly because the boards release “recommendations” to the various entities involved that sometimes are real orders. In a context still quite vague and neglected as bird strikes, they therefore represent a fundamental tool for prevention and safety purposes.
It cannot be said that Gimpo airport failed to consider the bird hazard: the following is the text currently published on the AIP (although we do not know that in force on December 2011) that also shows a Bird Concentration Chart.
Bird concentrations in the vicinity of the airport
Intense activities of sedentary birds (pigeons and magpies) and seasonal activity of various migrants (wild geese, ducks, white heron and etc..) take place around the runways and the airport boundary during landing and take-off procedures. Between October and March of the coming year, migrant birds (mainly wild geese and ducks) build nests on Han river downstream (24 KM north from Runway 14). The flock’s main activity apt to occur around the Gul-po stream close to the runway 14R and 14L area. Some part of the flock enter into the aerodrome for resting and feeding about an hour before sunrise till sunset. Sometimes the flock flies across the middle of the runways for their group movement in the daytime. The flying height varies from 200 FT to 1 000 FT. Also, White Heron appears from July to October, which is migrant. They build nests randomly on any field around the airport. Due to the resting and feeding activity, the flock activity in the aerodrome occurs from sunrise to sunset. Careful attention is needed during landing approach and take-off.
Aerodrome operator estimates the bird activities and hazard to inform control tower of the possible hazard. Then the tower directly warns the aircraft pilots of the hazard. Dispersal activities for the birdstrike prevention performed by the aerodrome control team include random playback of distress noise (AV-alarm and Gas canon), elimination of the wildlife hazard using firearms and environmental control such as prohibiting wide farming activity.
In brief, and not abstaining from commenting, two important considerations seem to arise from the two reports: a) the traditional sequence based on: ground bird detection – warning to the TWR – delay in take off and/or landing is getting outdated because it’s too slow and unfit for the current air traffic and b) also naked-eye observations are outdated, especially on airports with multiple and/or distant runways. As for a) we think that ATC personnel has to be more involved in the direct observation from the TWR, or even bird control personnel could be placed there, that is really quite a privileged observation point, working together with the ground staff.
As for b) new bird detection technologies (read: avian radars) have become urgent and undelayable; they should be placed in the TWRs and managed by ATC personnel (overcoming their old resistances) or even by bird control units. In any case whoever works in a TWR must be properly trained on bird strike and bird ingestion risks, also in order to impose (not just suggest) to delay takeoffs and landings in case of presence of birds on the flight path. Finally we do not know the bird hazard policies of the two airlines involved but we suspect they are just like everything else, i.e. practically zero. In the face of this and of the consequential aspects in terms of training requirements, pre-flight briefing, emergency management, the wide selection of information provided to the pilots (when provided) risks to appear useless.
Since the very beginning of bird strike prevention in Italy, that started in a scientific and systematic way in the late ‘80s, a great importance has been given to the risk awareness both of airport staff and flight crew. Despite this aspect appears to be quite neglected in the professional pilot training, knowing that birds may be present in a certain airport allows them at least to adopt some basic prevention measures.
The ENAC Circular APT 01 issued in 1999 stated: “…Then the information must be addressed also to flight crew; therefore also ATS awareness is needed, as well as the prevision and the organization for a proper informative action to pilots through BIRDTAM, AIC, pre-flight briefings or even with radio communications.”
The last version of the Circular (2011) is even more specific: “In case of continuous and significant bird/wildlife presence at the airport or in its vicinity, this circumstance must be reported in the AIP, pointing out also the possible presence seasonality, the problematic species, the altitude, the times of presence and all other useful information. In case of discontinuous presences or for particular occurrences a NOTAM must be issued, with clear temporal indications. A permanent NOTAM is not recommended since it does not provide any help.
If the information is provided through the AIP, airports should list the existing harassment devices, exhorting the flight crew to ask the airport operator for their activation before take-off and landing in case of need. The same exhortation should be directed from ATS to pilots whenever it is needed or even only useful.
Thank you to all those involved in making the very first WBA virtual conference a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors who stepped up to help make this happen and to continue the great works of the WBA. Our board worked tirelessly in organizing and producing the event. I was amazed at the effort required for such an event and continue to be impressed by the work ethic of the WBA Board.
You, our members, really made this virtual meeting outstanding. Those of you who volunteered to present, we thank you for providing such interesting content and generating thoughtful discussion.
I would also like to recognize ICAO and EASA for their recognition and participation. We appreciate their keynote addresses and look forward to working together in the future. Without their support, the WBA would not be as effective.
As briefed by WBA Vice President Lalilta Vaswani, we propose a change to how the board will be selected by the membership. We suggest that the WBA Membership nominate then elect a president-elect to serve as vice president for a two-year term. After the two-year term, the president-elect will ascend to the position of president and appoint their board, while the membership nominates/elects a new president-elect. Look for correspondence via email regarding these statute changes and your overall view of the WBA virtual meeting. Your feedback is very important to us.
As you know, there were some initiatives proposed in the meeting. I urge all members to check the WBA website often for any information regarding upcoming meetings/initiatives. I also encourage members to log-in to the secure side of the website for members-only information.
Again, I would like to personally thank our sponsors and you, our members, for continued support of the WBA. As a pilot, I thank all of you for your participation which enhances aviation safety and ultimately helps to protect our precious environment.
Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium Live Blog
Welcome to ICAO Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium live blog on UnitingAviation.com
Posts will appear in chronological order with the oldest post appearing at the bottom of this page. Keep checking back for updates and highlights from the ICAO WSHRS at ICAO Headquarters in Montréal, Canada. For questions or comments on this live blog, please email: unitingaviation@icao.int
*this blog is no longer live
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 13:13
That’s all for us. Thank you for following our live blog from the ICAO / ACI Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium!
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 12:50
Stephen P. Creamer, Director, Air Navigation Bureau (ICAO) is now giving the closing remarks for #WSHRS2017
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 12:24
Capt. Rob Van Eekeren, President, World Birdstrike Association: Over the next 20 years, aviation traffic volumes are expected to at least double. Meanwhile, our prediction for wildlife wildlife is that we will see increased migration to agricultural areas and cities and increased wintering, which means increased risks. It is a complex issue involving the cooperation of multiple stakeholders:
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 11:45
Sarah Brammell, Chair, Bird Strike Committee, USA:
Safety doesn’t happen by accident. As a committee, we can bring new ideas, questions, and requests, acting as a whole stakeholder group and providing leadership in managing wildlife hazards to aviation.
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 11:33
The last session of #WSHRS2017 is on the importance of establishing bird strike / wildlife strike committees. Our final speakers are:
John Weller, Vice Chairman, Bird Strike Committee USA is moderating the session.
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 10:42
An engaging Q & A session followed the presentations this morning. Now it’s time for a short break in the programme to grab some coffee. This break is sponsored by Airbus.
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 10:28
Aircraft engine design can contribute to the mitigation of the threat of bird strike. Chris Demers, Flight Safety Office engineer (Pratt & Whitney) is outlining the development process for engine designs. It includes:
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 10:09
Nico Voorbach, Director, ICAO and Industry Affairs (CANSO) says cooperation is key to enhancing mitigation, which can be achieved by:
– Changing routes of aircraft outside threat zones
– Changing Standard Instrument Departure (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STARs)
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 9:52
Don’t forget to follow ICAO on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook.
Effectively managing wildlife hazards in some areas can be a mammoth task! At #WSHRS2017, expertise is shared at a global level #aviation https://t.co/Aky61SbuVf
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 9:49
Capt. Heriberto Salazar-Eguiluz, AGE Committee Chairman IFALPA says wildlife issues must be assessed from a holistic point of view, and it requires an understanding of the international, national and local regulations concerning:
So what can pilots contribute, in the quest to mitigate wildlife strikes?
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 9:11
Our first session of the day is focused on the responsibilities of all stakeholders when it comes to preventing wildlife strikes. Michael J. Begier, National Coordinator, Airport Wildlife Hazards Program (USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services) will be moderating and giving the initial presentation. The complete panel of speakers are:
Thursday May 18, 2017 – 8:14
Today is the last day of the ICAO / ACI Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium. We’ll be resuming our live coverage at 9AM EST!
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 17:06
That’s all for us for today! Check back tomorrow at 9AM EST for the final day of #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 16:45
Thanks to our final panel of the day for a great discussion. #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 16:27
Edwin Herricks, Professor Emeritus (Illinois University) gives an overview of new and emerging technologies at hand:
Habitat: Using spatial characterization achieved through a wide range of geographic information sciences tools
Technology alone will not stop wildlife hazard collisions—but it can significantly contribute if we appropriately connect capacity to the need at hand.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 16:14
Travis Devault, Project Leader (USDA WS National Wildlife Research Center), outlines areas of research for the prevention of wildlife-aircraft collisions as follows:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 15:57
Pierre Molina, Executive Director (Falcon Environmental Inc.) is detailing how to set KPIs for your Wildlife Hazard Management Programme (WHMP)
Some integral steps to take when setting your KPI:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 15:40
Onto the last session of the day, focusing on emerging technologies and future trends. Andy Baxter, Wildlife Manager, Birdstrike Management Ltd. (Heathrow Airport) will be moderating. The experts are taking the stage to discuss performance, improvement and perspectives:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 15:15
Thank you to our first afternoon panel as they begin our Q&A session. #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 15:01
Ben Shertzer, Wildlife Administrator, Pittsburgh Airport emphasizes that a holistic approach to wildlife strike management includes the involvement of stakeholders in the communities that surround airports.
What can we do with our neighbours and property owners near the airport/aerodrome?
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:56
This presentation was equal parts informative, insightful and adorable.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:46
Melissa Hoffmann, Senior Wildlife Officer (Airports Company South Africa), is part of a team that uses dogs to scare birds away from strike danger zones. The dogs are obtained when they are puppies and are thoroughly trained to ensure they listen to commands and don’t wander too close to runways. Dog breeds used include Springer Spaniels, which help to flush birds out of dense tall grass areas. Interestingly, these spaniels can also sniff out nests and eggs, eliminating potential future wildlife strike risks.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:40
Juergen Ebert, Wildlife Control Coordinator (Frankfurt Airport) details a few ways that aerodromes can control terrestrial animals that are at risk of causing a wildlife strike, including
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:36
#Flashback An Interview with ACI’s Director General. Angela Gittens gave the openning address at #WSHRS2017. Take a minute to read her interview with on UnitingAviation.com
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:25
Juergen Ebert, Wildlife Control Coordinator, Frankfurt Airport, Terrestrial Land Animal Management. #WSHRS207
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 14:00
We’re back and ready to start the afternoon. Our session this afternoon is still base don best practices, but now we’re moving to discuss specific issues. Eoin Ryan, Vice President, International Training (Dublin Airport Authority International) is moderating this portion and the experts are making their way on stage:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 13:00
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 12:35
Siete Hamminga, Co-founder/ Managing Director at Robin Radar Systems, demonstrates Avian Radar that works to mitigate birdstrikes. #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 12:35
Tanya Drapeau, Site Manager (Avisure Pty Ltd.) is presenting some wildlife harassment techniques they use:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 12:25
An excerpt from Tanya Drapeau, Site Manager, Avisure, on the importance and use of pyrotechnics. #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:51
Steve Osmek, Manager, Airport Biologist (Seattle-Tacoma Airport) is talking about the uses of avian radar:
It’s easier to predict where wildlife strikes will happen, versus how they will happen. That’s where the avian radar & FOD Sensors come into play. The radar can help identify wildlife hot spots, allowing aircrafts to slow down or take appropriate measures before a strike occurs.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:48
Nick Atwell, Manager, Aviation Wildlife Hazard (Portland Airport) details the basics of the wildlife programme at their aerodrome:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:41
David Bradbeer, Wildlife Program Specialist, Airside Operations (Vancouver Airport) on habitat management:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:36
The panel on methods and techniques for implementation of best wildlife management practices.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:25
David Bradbeer, Wildlife Program Specialist, Vancouver Airport Habitat Management #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 11:02
We’re continuing the best practices session after our coffee break. Gary Searing, Executive Director of Birdstrike Canada, will be monitoring this portion focused on the methods and techniques of implementing best practices. The following experts are on stage:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 10:30
A question and answer period is underway with Michel Glorieux, Camilla Rosenquist and Anastasios Anagnostopoulos at #WSHRS2017 before our coffee break.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 10:01
Anastasios Anagnostopoulos, Head Wildlife and Biodiversity Management (Athens Airport) is speaking about training for wildlife control officers. How is training provided? Through videos, demonstrations, exercises, case studies etc. that are focused on:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:54
Inside ICAO’s Assembly Hall here at #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:46
Camilla Rosenquist, Wildlife Manager (Copenhagen Airport) says a holistic approach to wildlife risk assessment is necessary and an integral part of best practices. A holistic approach includes considering assessment like a puzzle. The data from various stakeholders (bird controller data, citizen science, local stakeholder accounts, etc.) are the puzzle pieces that, when put together, creates a comprehensive and encompassing assessment.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:40
Camilla Rosenquist, Wildlife Manager (Copenhagen Airport) says a holistic approach to wildlife risk assessment is necessary #WSHRS2017
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:27
Michel Glorieux, Wildlife Manager (Geneva Airport) on the step-by step process of the Aerodrome Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP): 1) Assess perimeter of responsibility of airport 2) Organize the wildlife hazard prevention, appoint wildlife hazard manager 3) Identify your environment — identify what your airport is like, what the natural and anthropic media are and the biological value of the natural media. 4) Identify the inhabitants near your aerodrome by consulting wildlife databases, perform the wildlife diagnostics for your surroundings 5) Take passive measures and develop the plan for changes to the airport environment and define your preventive measures. These measures should be listed in terms of priority in a modification plan, helping to identify frequency and equipment to be used 6) Identify active measures. Define the intervention procedures and methodologies, develop the active prevention schedule. 7) Develop the data collection and statistical analysis programme. Organize the data collection and process it. Publish your statistics. 8) Assess risk. Define the indicative level of the wildlife strike risj at the airport for the perimeter of responsibility 9) Training. Establish the training plan for those responsible for wildlife hazard prevention. 10) Develop your wildlife control programme. Draft the complete document, embodying the concept including risk analyses, procedures and the management of airport media plan.Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:12
Rishi Tarkudin, Director, Safety and Technical (ACI Africa) will be moderating the opening session on best practices. The planning of wildlife management is the first topic, and the following experts are taking the stage:
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 9:03
And we’re off! Day 2 of #WSHRS2017 has officially started. David Gamper, Director, Safety, Technical and Legal Affairs (ACI) is on stage giving the opening remarks before we start our first session.
Wednesday May 17, 2017 – 8:42
Good morning and welcome back to the live blog from the Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium! Attendees are slowly but surely filtering in, presentations are scheduled to start at 9AM EST.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 17:00
A question and answer period to wrap up the first day of the ICAO / ACI Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium (#WSHRS2017). Join us tomorrow at 9:00AM EST.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:52
Don’t forget to follow ICAO on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:50
The final moments of the final session on Day 1.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:40
Not in Montréal? Here are some of the outstanding industry innovators you missed. #WSHRS2017 Sponsors & Exhibitors
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:37
One more coffee break before we come back for a brief Q&A period to wrap up the day. This coffee break is sponsored by IATA. Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:23
Lt. Col. Henrique Rubens Balta De Oliveira, CENIPA, AIG Brasil on the future of wildlife reporting:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:14
Final thoughts from Karn: Wildlife strike problem cannot be managed by a single organization. Good co-operation and effective coordination is required from all concerned. By any means it cannot be wiped out but it can be minimized if better measures can be taken.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:11 Some quick statistics on where bird strikes happened, and when:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 16:01
Recorded bird strikes and the phase of flight in which they occurred:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 15:52
An interesting comparison presented by Deo Chandra Lal Karn:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 15:47
Deo Chandra Lal Karn, Director Domestic Airport Operation and Facilitation Department, CAA of Nepal is on stage now, addressing the challenges in the regulations of wildlife hazard management. He says that bird strike committees also have a large role to play in the mitigating of wildlife strike hazards: • Collect bird activity data and report to higher level committee i.e., Airports Bird Control and Reduction Committee (ABCRC) • Discuss on problem of wildlife hazard management • Manage the wildlife hazard problem at airport • Carry out the directives issued Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 15:42
Stakeholder involvement and collaboration is important in mitigating wildlife strike risks, according to Adjei-Nmashie. That involvement includes:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 15:28
Anita Adjei-Nmashie, Manager Aerodrome Safety & Standards, Ghana CAA has the stage. She’s detailing the components of the wildlife hazard assessments that are conducted following a bird strike: • Analysis of the event or circumstances which prompted the study • Identification of the species, numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences of wildlife observed • Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife • Description of the wildlife hazard to aircraft operations • Recommended actions for reducing identified wildlife hazards to aircraft operations
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 15:00
We’re running through the basic needs of risk-based, compliance-based and performance-based safety:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 14:51
Nick Yearwood of UK CAA has the stage now, emphasizing the collection and analysis of data. He points to that as being a key in delivering a better picture of wildlife risks.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 14:40
Welcome back! We’re ready to start the afternoon. The first session this PM is on regulatory framework. CAAs from different continents will present their own national regulatory framework and share their experiences and challenges. Up first is Nick Yearwood, Strategy and Policy Specialist, UK CAA.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 13:06
Time for lunch! We’ll be taking a quick break and will resume our live coverage of #WSHRS2017 at 2:30PM EST. Thank you to Clear Flight Solutions and Aerium Analytics for sponsoring this lunch.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 12:54
Lots of useful technical information in the past two presentations, some of which is based on the efficiency of the ECCAIRS reporting system. Tom Mistos, Chief, Oversight Support Unit (ICAO) promises a more detailed presentation on that system Thursday.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 12:25
We’re starting the Global Picture session of the #WSHRS2017. This session will deliver a “where we are” status update on a global scale and provide some statistical analysis of wildlife strikes. Taking the stage now are:
An interesting stat to kick us off, cited in Mr. Wang’s presentation: 68% of wildlife strikes happened during the day, 25% happened at night. The remaining happened at dawn or dusk.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 12:00
Thank you to the speakers contributing to the “Uniting the Community” session of #WSHRS2017. The panel included: Gilberto Lopez-Meyer (IATA), Capt. Ron Abel (IFALPA), Nico Voorbach (CANSO), Michael W. Hohm (IBAC) and Xavier Jolivet (ICCAIA)
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 11:56
According to Capt. Ron Abel, pilots can help mitigate wildlife strike hazards by providing: • Wildlife strike reports • Operational perspectives for international coordination • Operational insight on local runway safety teams
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 11:41
Capt. Ron Abel, President of IFALPA, details some of the things that pilots need when it comes to wildlife strike hazards:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 11:38
Lopez-Meyer highlights some successful multi stakeholder coordination efforts:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 11:32
Some key elements of a wildlife management plan, according to Gilberto Lopez-Meyer:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 11:25
Gilberto Lopez-Meyer, SVP Safety & Flight Ops, at IATA says success stories show that a proper wildlife management plan and a cooperative effort from multiple stakeholders are essential factors to reduce wildlife hazard.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:50
That’s all for Jeff Skiles’ keynote speech. Incredibly engaging. We’re now taking a quick coffee break, sponsored by Avisure Pty Ltd.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:40 We’re still live-streaming Skiles’ keynote speech:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:37
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:30
The moment of impact, the plane hits the river and the water flows over. Sully heads out of the cockpit to order evacuation. Skiles details how the incredibly professional crew were helping people into life vests and onto safety rafts. Only once every passenger and crew were off the plane, did Sully turn to Skiles and say “let’s get out of here.” Rafts were surrounding the aircraft in the river, as a New York ferry approaches and throws a boarding net over the side. Skiles details how he sat there with rope in his elbow, his hands too frozen to hold it, as passengers climbed from the raft up onto the ferry.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:25
Skiles is playing the exact tape from the plane. Sully’s short “we are not able” when air traffic control asks him if he wishes to reroute to Teterboro airport has the room wide-eyed and still.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:16
Chills as Skiles is detailing the Mayday call. Air traffic control attempted to direct the plane to Teeterboro airport to land safely, but Skiles and Sully quickly knew that they would never make it there. The Hudson River became the only option. Sully took the public address phone and called out “brace for impact”. In the cockpit, the pilots are focused on slowing the plane down so it doesn’t break apart when it hits the water. Flaps are deployed while the landing gear is still up, at 1,000 feet in the air Skiles has given up on hope of restarting the engines or getting any rotation out of them at all. The pilots know that they need to ditch the airplane—they must land with the wings completely level in order to avoid cartwheeling the airplane.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:12
You can hear a pin drop in the assembly hall as Jeff Skiles tells his story. Nervous and relieving laughter fills the room as he punctuates his tale with humour and describes the heroic professionalism of his flight crew.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 10:00
An incredibly engaging speaker, Skiles is now bringing us through the exact sequence of takeoff. He is detailing his pre-flight checks, the weather that day, and funny anecdotes of his conversation with Sully as they take flight. Skiles describes 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. Skiles describes the feeling similar to when you’re flying through hail. While Skiles knew he had to assess the damage, suddenly both engines failed. At that point, the flight was at minimum speed and Skiles describes feeling the aircraft sag in the air. He recalls how Sully immediately took control, calling out “my aircraft” to indicate that he would fly the plane while Skiles ran through the checklist to assess and troubleshoot. Plane was at 3,000 feet and they were losing 1,000 feet a minute. Watch the live stream here:
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:52
Skiles is putting us right in the jump seat with him as he starts his keynote speech. Running us through, minute by minute, the beginnings of Flight 1549. We are live streaming Skiles’ speech on Twitter; just follow ICAO.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:52
Jeff Skiles, First Officer of “The Miracle on the Hudson” now has the stage. Skiles started flying at the age of 16 and has logged over 23,000 hours in the sky, but only three minutes of that time catapulted him into the public eye. First Officer of US Airways Flight 1549,Skiles and Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger avoided catastrophe after a flock of Canada geese impacted the aircraft, causing both engines to fail. Skiles credits the successful landing in the Hudson River and the safety of all 155 passengers and crew on board to intense training, preparation, teamwork, organization, and learning from other pilots’ successes.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:50
Angela Gittens continues her opening remarks at the ICAO / ACI #WSHRS2017
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:44
Angela Gittens, Director General of Airports Council International on bird strikes: They are a pervasive issue affecting airports small and large in all regions of the world. It is a risk to safety and a financial burden. We are here so stakeholder, manufacturers, all people involved can come together and find solutions.
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:32
Welcome to #WSHRS2017! We’re very excited to kick off this symposium and to welcome Jeff Skiles, First Officer of “the Miracle on the Hudson” as keynote speaker. It’s time for the opening session, as the speakers make their way on stage. The opening remarks will be given by: • Stephen P. Creamer, ICAO – Director Air Navigation bureau • Hajime Yoshimura, ICAO- President Air Navigation Commission • Angela Gittens, ACI – Director General
Tuesday May 16, 2017 – 9:00
Some late registrations and exhibitor set ups taking place this morning, as we’re almost ready to kick off the ICAO / ACI Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium.
Monday May 15, 2017 – 12:00
Check back tomorrow, Tuesday May 16 at 9AM EST for live updates from the ICAO on the Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction Symposium!
Thank you to all those involved in making the very first WBA virtual conference a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors who stepped up to help make this happen and to continue the great works of the WBA. Our board worked tirelessly in organizing and producing the event. I was amazed at the effort required for such an event and continue to be impressed by the work ethic of the WBA Board.
You, our members, really made this virtual meeting outstanding. Those of you who volunteered to present, we thank you for providing such interesting content and generating thoughtful discussion.
I would also like to recognize ICAO and EASA for their recognition and participation. We appreciate their keynote addresses and look forward to working together in the future. Without their support, the WBA would not be as effective.
As briefed by WBA Vice President Lalilta Vaswani, we propose a change to how the board will be selected by the membership. We suggest that the WBA Membership nominate then elect a president-elect to serve as vice president for a two-year term. After the two-year term, the president-elect will ascend to the position of president and appoint their board, while the membership nominates/elects a new president-elect. Look for correspondence via email regarding these statute changes and your overall view of the WBA virtual meeting. Your feedback is very important to us.
As you know, there were some initiatives proposed in the meeting. I urge all members to check the WBA website often for any information regarding upcoming meetings/initiatives. I also encourage members to log-in to the secure side of the website for members-only information.
Again, I would like to personally thank our sponsors and you, our members, for continued support of the WBA. As a pilot, I thank all of you for your participation which enhances aviation safety and ultimately helps to protect our precious environment.
WBA Constitution
C O N S T I T U T I O N A C T
Introduction
The members of the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) having regard to the proposal constitute a new organization as a civil association and consequently IBSC shall thereafter formally dissolve and cease any activity.
Article 1 Name
The organization shall be called World Birdstrike Association (hereinafter: WBA)
Article 2 Vision
The WBA is to be the worldwide catalyst for improving flight safety by reducing the bird and other wildlife (hereinafter: bird/wildlife) strike risk for aviation in a cost- effective way, considering the need for a sustainable environment.
Article 3 Mission
The mission of the WBA is to be a plaftorm for the national bird/wildlife strike committees and other entities, civil and military.
At the same time, the WBA provides the platform for pursuing a constructive and cooperative relationship with all stakeholders.
The WBA acts facilitates a worldwide forum for the reduction of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation.
Article 4 Purpose
The purpose of the WBA is to improve flight safety regarding all aspects of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation, including measures for its mitigation and reduction. This will be achieved by encouraging and facilitating worldwide communication and collaboration amongst all aviation and non-aviation stakeholders as well as rule makers and safety agencies.
Article 5 Statute
The main act would be the Statute which rules the organization of the WBA.
Article 6 Approval
This Constitution Act has been formally adopted by means of an anonymous electronic vote. The revision of the Constitution Act has been formally adopted at the WBA 2016 Conference in Amsterdam.
Global Civil Society Database
World Birdstrike Association (WBA)
Search Open Yearbook
This information is part of the Open Yearbook, a free service of UIA’s subscription-based Yearbook of International Organizations (YBIO). It includes profiles of non-profit organizations working worldwide in all fields of activity. The information contained in the profiles and search functionality of this free service are limited.
The full-featured Yearbook of International Organizations (YBIO) includes over 72,500 organization profiles, additional information in the profiles, sophisticated search functionality and data export. For more information about YBIO, please click here or contact us.
The UIA is a leading provider of information about international non-profit organizations. The aim of the Open Yearbook is to promote the activities of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).
Contact Details
Founded
2012-06 Stavanger Norway
History
Improve flight safety regarding all aspects of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation, including measures for its mitigation and reduction.
Events
3 past events available with paid subscription only.
Activities
Structure
General Assembly (every 2 years); Board of Directors; Advisory Group; Task Groups.
Finance
Members
Type I Classification
Subjects *
UN Sustainable Development Goals **
UIA Org ID
Last News
* Subject classification is derived from the organization names and aims. ** UN SDGs are linked to the subject classification.
Terms of Use
UIA allows users to access and make use of the information contained in its Databases for the user’s internal use and evaluation purposes only. A user may not re-package, compile, re-distribute or re-use any or all of the UIA Databases or the data* contained therein without prior permission from the UIA.
Data from database resources may not be extracted or downloaded in bulk using automated scripts or other external software tools not provided within the database resources themselves. If your research project or use of a database resource will involve the extraction of large amounts of text or data from a database resource, please contact us for a customized solution.
UIA reserves the right to block access for abusive use of the Database.
* Data shall mean any data and information available in the Database including but not limited to: raw data, numbers, images, names and contact information, logos, text, keywords, and links.
Archive 2018
This website has been operating in the field of wildlife strike prevention since 2007 and over the past twelve years has tried to provide not only the news collected in the specialized press, but also comments, observations, articles, in other words all that contributes to increasing the culture of safety in this particular area.
In particular, we believe that we have played, and still play, a useful role by publishing all the known Court judgments about the wildlife strike events, and by presenting the investigation reports issued by the various world authorities following accidents.
Since the last three years, the frequency of updates has been quarterly, a choice made mainly to contain the costs of maintaining and updating the website, which does not receive advertising nor any kind of financial support.
With this choice, however, we also intended to favour the quality of information, albeit at the expense of timeliness.
We take the opportunity to wish our readers a Happy New Year.
The Italian ANSV released the final report on the accident that occurred on 10.11.2008 to the Ryanair B737 EI-DYG aircraft at Rome Ciampino airport. Since the report has been published immediately before the last update of this newsletter, possible comments will be available in the first update of 2019.
The Investigation Committee appointed by the BAGAIA (Banjul Accord Group Accident Investigation Agency) has released the final report on the accident that on 29.07.2017 involved an Antonov An74-100 of the Ukrainian company Cavok Air. It was an accident where the impact with birds played a significant role; we therefore decided to thoroughly analyse the results of the investigation and to formulate our observations in a specific document.
We attended the recently WBA conference. For our meeting report, see here. All the presentations can be downloaded from the WBA website (www.worldbirdstrike.com )
Two dual ingestions characterize the fourth quarter. Although there are still those who define the dual ingestion as a rare event, two episodes in few days (November 5 and 24), and in two different continents, remind us how the problem has to be taken into consideration now also by a statistical point of view. In the first case, both engines of a twin-engine ingested birds, which damaged some of the fan blades but did not affect the inner cores.
In the second, the ingestion of medium-sized birds (Crows) occurred into the engines no. 3 and 4 of a Boeing 747, therefore on the same right wing. It must also be noted that the event took place during the take-off phase of a long-haul cargo flight, so we can assume that the aircraft was quite heavy. Even the emergency management does not appear linear: the pilots first decided to land immediately, but then went around at 1000 ft. to reach the open sea and discharge fuel, and finally returned hastily to landing as the engine no. 4 had begun to show remarkable vibrations.
Both cases were high-risk events that pose the usual problems: on one hand, the need of reconsidering the certification requirements, and on this side something is happening at FAA and EASA. On the other, the training of flight crews with respect to such frequent events whose consequences are difficult to predict. In addition, the need to adopt early warning and remote sensing systems at airports, such as the avian radars that in a few years have reached smaller and smaller size and costs.
The NTSB of the United States released on 5.9.2018 the final report on the event occurred on 10.11.2011 to a Delta Airlines A320 in Minneapolis; the report followed the first information released on 11.8.2018. Incidentally, the event, quite serious, was so far unknown. This reinforces the widespread belief that the known impacts are only a small part of the total.
The Italian press (La Repubblica) recently quoted an article published by four researchers of the California Institute of Technology, entitled «Robotic Herding of a Flock of Birds Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle». Readers can download it here
A couple of months ago we published a worried article (see here the English translation) on a local online newspaper further to the release of a relevant number of griffons inside a natural reserve, but within the radius of 13 km. from Alghero airport. The ENAC initially denied the authorization, needed by the art.711 of the Navigation Code, but later negotiated with the project promoters and approved it although in a smaller scale. Many comments then followed, mostly supporting the article, posted even by very authoritative sources.
After time, and with many of the controversies that followed the article being calmed down, we wish to return to the issue to comment on some aspects that we deem significant.
“Le leggi son, ma chi pon mano ad esse?»(Laws there are, but who set hands to them?)wrote Dante Alighieri in the XIV century, and actually the first disconcerting observation was that nobody knew the articles 707 and 711 of Nav. Code and the limitation maps provided therein. Not the project promoters, not the Europe that funds them, nor any of the many authorities who, seated around a table, approved the project without moving any remark. Not even the local municipality that holds those maps and even makes them available for the public on its official website.
How many towns close to airports are in this situation? How many local authorities ignore the problem? We would like to know the opinion of ANCAI (National Association of Italian Airport Municipalities) on this issue.
The second question is, in our opinion, even more disconcerting and regards the opening of a negotiation between the Aviation Authority and the project promoters. The result was a watered-down compromise (14 griffons instead of 60) but this is not the point. The point is that a dangerous precedent passed, that even in the field of flight safety a negotiation is possible, and that therefore in aviation there are matters that are no more non-negotiable. In this case, we are talking about a waiver to the regulation that ENAC itself issued and the concrete increase of the risk index that the airport had laboriously reduced.
Why ENAC reneged on its negative opinion? Actually, reliable rumors speak of aEuropean funding of about two million euros, not to mention the international loss of face in the case of a project rejected due to the ignorance of the primary legislation by public bodies, universities and various other administrations.
It is therefore not difficult to suppose that significant forces and powers have moved to push to the classic Italian-style solution.
However, if yesterday we have had a negotiation on the number of griffons, who can tell us that tomorrow it will not happen again for landfills, or livestock, or intensive farming and any other attractive sources near an airport?
Let’s hope in an isolated case.
The ANSV (Italian Agency for Flight Safety) recently released the 2017 report on its activities and on the state of safety in the Italian civil aviation. In this report, as well as in that of 2016, bird strikes are not mentioned as an issue that affects safety. The ANSV justifies this choice by the fact that the Agency takes into consideration only the impacts that have actually caused damage to aircraft.
However, in at least one case there was an actual damage to an aircraft: on 28 January 2017 a B777 of Pakistan International Airlines landing at Malpensa suffered a slight damage to the tail due to the impact with a bird «or other object «(a bird or some other object impacted shortly before landing in Milan and caused minor damage to the aircraft, source: Avherald.com). The fact that a possible impact with an unidentified object has been mentioned as an alternative to the bird strike should lead to suppose that it was an impact with an “unmanned aerial vehicle”(or UAV). However, there is no trace of the fact either in the list of bird strikes (not existing) nor in the summary of reports on «drones».
Furthermore, at least two bird ingestions into an engine occurred; in Alghero (14.11.2017) and in Naples (3 May 2017), and it is difficult to think that they did not cause any damage.
The Australian Aeronautical Authority published the final report on the investigation regarding the event occurred to an Air Asia A330 taking off at night from Gold Coast Airport (Queensland). In the event, an engine ingested one or more birds and emitted flames, prompting the crew to divert in emergency to Brisbane where it landed with a single engine and overweight.
On May 15 2018 a workshop on Wildlife Strike was held at Cagliari airport organized by the Italian Flight Safety Committee (IFSC) and the local airport operator (SOGAER).
Valter Battistoni, manager of this website, attended the important conference also presenting a paper entitled: «Damage from bird strike: who is liable?»
All the presentations can be downloaded here.
The most important aspect emerging from the analysis of events occurred in the second quarter 2018 is undoubtedly the presence of four cases (May 1, May 5, May 6 and June 3) in which after an impact with birds the flight was continued » in the absence of abnormal parameters «. Finding out however, after having landed back or diverted to another airport, significant damage to an engine or other anomalies that did not allow the resumption of the flight with the same aircraft. On the other hand, we may seealso several cases in which the crew immediately returned as a precautionary measure. We have spent many words on this subject in the past: therefore let us refer to the comment (in Italian) that we published on the website aerohabitat.eu, which kindly hosted it, about the most significant event of the four mentioned above, and that moreover concerns an Italian airline.
Another significant event occurred in Bilbao on 6 May when metal parts of an aircraft detached and fell as a result of the impact with a griffon, causing danger to people on the ground. There were many comments on this incident and let us refer therefore to the article above in this same page with all the details.
Finally, the event of April 25 at Al Hoceima: in this case it is an incident (accident?) induced by the presence of birds on the runway and the manoeuver to avoid them.
Interesting case of a take-off clearance cancellation by the TWR operator that had observed an animal on the runway (January 7).
The word «observes»does not appear in the ATM manuals of other countries, nor even in the ICAO DOC 4444, which uses instead the more ambiguous term «becomes aware«. India’s regulation thus appears to be a commendable exercise of clarity for safety.
The American NTSB released the factual report regarding the accident suffered by a Southwest B737 on 23.12.2013. The right engine ingested a number of Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) and suffered an uncontained engine failure; there was evidence that a piece of high-speed debris had exited the engine through the outboard fan cowl near the fan plane.
Despite the closure of the Scarpino landfill, the problem of gulls at Genoa airport seems to persist. The November 5 event is similar to others of the past: a flock of gulls settled on the runway suddenly flew up in front of the taking-off aircraft. The most impressive precedent dates back to June 7, 1989, and gave rise to a long sequel of civil proceedings for compensation of the damage suffered by a TNT Bae 146.
In similar circumstances, it was less fortunate and suffered multiple impacts that led to the loss of an engine and the shutdown of two others immediately after the emergency landing. In 1997, however, it was the turn of an Antonov 124 to suffer the same fate but in the trial that followed the defendants managed to prove that the flock of seagulls were not settling on the runway but crossed it at low altitude in an unforeseen and unpredictable way. Despite these two famous court cases, once again we read about flocks of gulls settling on the ground near the runway without anyone, not the bird control, nor the Tower, nor anybody else, seeing and dispersing them.
The Indian Authority AAIB released the final report (http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/VT-SUC.pdf) regarding the investigation on the accident occurred on 4.12.2015 to the aircraft Bombardier Q 400 at the airport of Jabalpur.
During the night landing the aircraft hit a number of wild boars that had entered in the airport and were crossing the runway. The investigation highlighted several breaches in the perimeter wall as well as poor maintenance.
The Australian Authority released the final report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773811/ao-2015-007_final.pdf ) further to the investigation regarding the event of Jan 9 2015, occurred to a SAAB 340 aircraft on Moruya airport. After the landing, a flock of “galhas” took off from the grass west of the runway and impacted the aircraft. The crew carried out a visual examination but did not identify any damage. However, after the next flight the crew observed that the tip of one of the left propeller blades had detached.
Recently, has been brought to our attention the story of a Polish passenger who complained about the delay of her flight asking for the financial compensation as provided for by the European legislation. The airline claimed that the compensation was not due because the delay was caused by a bird strike, which constitutes an «extraordinary circumstance» that exonerates it from liability, as recently established by a sentence of the European Court of Justice
However, the passenger did not believe in the official version and did not lose heart. She therefore invoked the provision of the art. 5 para. 3 of the European Regulation 261/2004 which lays down an obligation for the carrier to prove the actual occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance, a bird strike in this case. Nothing’s that simple, because it would be enough to produce a copy of the bird strike reporting form that, at least in Europe, all carriers must fill to report the event to the Authority.
But this is where the problems start because the airline objected that such information should be considered confidential, and so did the competent authorities the passenger has so far addressed. To be honest, they do not deny that eventually an answer could be given but only at the end of long drawn-out procedures and at the discretion of the authority itself that might even refuse.
A first general consideration concerns the alleged extraordinariness of these events that frankly appears incomprehensible even by looking at public statistics, including ours. Bird strikes are, on the contrary, daily events and a delay due to these is the norm. Evidently, judges do not speak the same language used in aviation. And that would not be a novelty.
A second reflection concerns the protection of the passenger’s rights: opposing to those the protection of the airline privacy is even more incomprehensible because we really do not understand what is the good to be protected. A collision with a bird is not a shame to hide, nor an issue that concerns only certain areas or airports. It is a phenomenon unfortunately widely spread and affecting everyone.
It is therefore legitimate to suspect that, under the pretext of the privacy protection, some airlines hide behind the «extraordinary circumstance» other reasons of delay, this time dependent on the airline itself, which would instead result in financial compensation. In other words, to save money on the back of passengers. And this was certainly not the will of the European legislator or, we believe, of the Court of Justice. A well-known Italian politician once said that thinking the worst of someone is a sin, but most of the time you are spot on.
Archive 2012
The Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (www.erau.edu), a private American university, in their 2013 first newsletter cited a study of Valter Battistoni (page 6), owner and manager of this website, regarding bird ingestions into more engines of the same aircraft.
The article (download here) takes in consideration a note published in this website on last December following the in-depth analysis of the latest case of multiple ingestion occurred in the Russian airport of Nalchik.
The same article also reports another topic often discussed in this website concerning the pilot behaviours after a bird ingestion (or suspected ingestion); while the majority of pilots prudentially lands as soon as possible, others, in absence of abnormal parameters, continue their flight finding out on arrival they had suffered engine damages, or even being forced to divert in emergency hours later. ERAU points out the lack of rules or guidelines for flight crews regarding the threat of bird strikes, and the need of an airline policy guidance. This lack explains why the crews sometimes engage in random.
On last October we released the news of a dual bird ingestion into two engines of a Russian Yak 42, that fortunately is a tri-motor. We commented that event miscalculating and saying it was the fifth case of dual bird ingestion in the last two years. Modern resistant engines, their certification requirements and, in this case their number, make these occurrences somehow easier to handle, but we must not forget that they are always potentially catastrophic. Thanks to our Russian colleagues from AOG (Aviation Ornithology Group) we can now provide more details about that incident.
On 12 October 2012 at 10:30 (local time) a Grozny Avia Yak 42 (RA- 42379) took off from Nalchik airport with destination Moscow-Vnukovo. Nalchik is the capital town of Kabardino-Balkar Republic, in the Caucasus. Its airport has a 2200 mt. long runway.
The Yak 42 is a tri-motor passenger jet with a maximum take-off weight of 54 tonne; it has a standard arrangement for 120 passengers with a maximum range of 3.800 km. It made its first flight in 1975. 38 passengers and 7 crew member were actually on board.
Immediately after the rotation, at a height of 5-10 meters, the aircraft flew through a flock of birds, identified as pigeons since five carcasses were found on the runway. At 10:32, at an altitude of 50 mt., there was a signal of «dangerous vibrations in the left engine» on the instrument panel. The crew reduced the thrust and the signal stopped. At 700 mt. the same signal started again prompting the crew to immediately return to the departure airport, where they land at 10:48. The flight was consequently cancelled.
A post-flight inspection revealed impact signs on the nose cone, on the inboard left flap and on the nbr. 1 and 3 (left and right) engines. The right nose gear landing light was smashed and three fan blades of the left engine and two of the right resulted damaged.
The crew wasn’t warned about birds movements and didn’t observe them flying.
We wrote above that the number of dual ingestions in the last two years was wrong; more accurate researches allowed us to update the datum, which is seven so far, as shown in the list below.
The event occurred on the 5th at Zurich shows once again the need of a policy from the airlines with regard to the behaviours to be adopted by flight crew in case of bird strikes at take-off followed by apparently normal parameters. It’s not the first time that the crew decide to continue into the flight and then divert declaring emergency, and sometimes, after an uneventful flight, inspections find out serious damages to the aircraft. The issue is clearly much more important in case of transoceanic flights operated by twin engines aircraft. We believe that stricter procedures must be adopted including an immediate landing in order to assess the possible damages, even though we are aware of the loss of fuel related costs for landing at the reduced allowed weight.
Two more occurrences in the USA due to impacts with deer: this time (17) a Cessna 550 footed the bill, resulting totally destroyed by the fire; in another case (14) a small aircraft struck two deer in one shot. Here the prevention seems easy: a good fence would be enough.
Finally a geese ingestion into an engine in Berlin (24); these large birds have become a serious problem also in Europe.
In this month we firstly would like to highlight four cases (1,17,22,27) of bird ingestion, or suspected ingestion, into an engine with the crew decision to continue into the flight in absence of abnormal parameters; in all four cases the flight had to be interrupted because of subsequent problems. We remind that a bird ingestion can lead to negative consequences even hours after the event. Situations like these should be better described in airline flight manuals, together with a more thorough crew training on wildlife problems.
One more case of dual ingestion (12), this time in Russia and fortunately occurred to a tri-motor, that brings the total of these events to five since 2010.
Finally another case again of a large mammal impact in the USA (24), this time a coyote at Nashville, certainly not a minor airport.
Brazil follow the Italian path in the field of the legal approach to the fauna control around airports and releases a new law (here in Portuguese) on this topic. It seems to be the second case of a law (in strict legal terms) which regulates this matter, due to the need of overcoming the constitutional principles regarding the rights of property and the freedom of enterprise.
An ASA (Airport Safety Area) is established in an area of 20 km of radius around the airport (more than the ICAO indication of 13 km.), where the land use and the human activities which may attract wildlife are subjected to limits and restrictions. These limits will be posed by a Wildlife Hazard Management National Programme. The restrictions will involve also existing activities that may be regulated, reduced and even closed.
Inside the same area a wildlife management programme is established that may include the relocation of some species, the removal of eggs and nest and even the culling of animals if and when any other control method proved to be unsatisfactory.
Infringements of this law may lead to fines varying from 1.000 to 1.250.000 Real (€ 370 to € 460.000).
On 28 September 2012 at 06:18L a SITA Air Dornier Do228 crashed after take-off from Kathmandu airport following an impact with a large bird, identified as a Black Eagle (Ictinaetus malayensis), weight up to 1,8 kg., and causing the death of 16 passengers and three crew members. According to the most reliable versions, confirmed by Nepali CAA and local Airline Operators Association, the bird collided with the aircraft right engine at about 50 feet above ground (about 4440 feet MSL) causing some parts to separate from the engine and to impact the vertical tail so disabling the rudder. This made the aircraft uncontrollable.
In spite of this the crew tried unsuccessfully to return to the airport and then attempted a landing in the river Manohara bank, immediately outside the airport boundaries. The plane however burst into flames after coming to rest.
Fortunately there have not been many cases of persons who lost their lives following bird strike events, if compared with the total number of victims in the aviation history. However the 19 victims of this accident increase the total amount to 295 out of 56 fatal accidents (source: John Thorpe).
The Dolbeer report highlights the main cause of the phenomenon, identified in the lack of a proper garbage and food waste management. The airport lies in a highly urbanized area with massive waste production often dumped in open areas even inside the airport boundaries or in the rivers nearby, as well as slaughterhouse waste even in areas under the landing and take-off paths. The combination of food wastes, abundant water, and the nearby jungle areas creates an ideal environment (food, water, and shelter) near the airport for birds hazardous to aviation.
The report goes on listing the classic strategies for fighting the phenomenon, starting from the developing of a bird strike database, with the accurate identification of the species struck, the elimination of internal attractive factors, a nest removal policy, the deployment of Bird Control Units, fence and gates management and control, up to the establishment of a national Bird Strike Committee. But the key remains the waste control which implies huge efforts in environmental education for local people and the eradication of atavistic habits.
Four years after on 2005, at the IBSC meeting in Athens, the Nepal delegate Ram Mani Thapaliya presented a paper reporting the initiatives adopted further to the Dolbeer report.
On 24 September a British Airways Boeing 737 taking off from Genoa at 15:40 LT flew through a flock of gulls that suddenly appeared before it. The impact occurred on the runway after V1 but before Vr (rotation speed). Some birds were ingested by both engines which however behaved differently. The left engine began to vibrate heavily and had to be shut down in flight forcing the crew to return to Genoa with only one engine. The right engine, that never stopped running, was instead shut down after the emergency landing due to abnormal parameters. The aircraft had to be towed to the parking stand. Remains of four birds were found but it may be assumed that the flock was bigger. This event is the 21 th case of multiple engine ingestion since 1988 outside the US, where instead the events of this type are roughly about 30 since 1990 (source: FAA). However this case is the 10th in the last four years, plus other five in the US. The worst of it for us is that 6 of these cases occurred in Italy (3 over the last four years).
With regard to the Genoa airport, this is the third case (known) of multiple ingestion but the first involving a twin engine. The first two are far enough in the past and involved a TNT Bae 146 cargo (1989) and a An124 (1997) also cargo, which then started two court cases (see the “Documents” section in this website).
In 2010 (latest figures) the relationship between impacts and 10K movements was equal to 7.72 (2009 = 26.8 and 2008 = 4.4 with a rising trend), well above the ratio of 5, considered as a ‘threshold of attention’. The Genoa airport suffers from its location, two-thirds of it are surrounded by the sea with a breakwater that protects it from the waves but offers a comfortable shelter to gulls and other large birds; also it suffers from the effects of the landfill of Scarpino, well within the radius of 13 Km. suggested as a limit by ICAO and IBSC. Finally a large marina has recently developed around the airport with the presence of commercial activities and restaurants with possible release of food waste.
Given the official data, we should conclude that some of those procedures and devices lost their effectiveness and produced a habituation effect or, in any case, no longer the desired effect.
As the event occurred on the runway, at first glance this would show that the gulls were settling on it or in the immediate vicinity. However it cannot be ruled out a sudden and unpredictable crossing hedgehopping by gulls, which already occurred in the past, as the team of bird control on the ground, as well as the control tower, should have detected the presence of birds if they were on the ground.
In conclusion, we think that things cannot go on in this way, Genoa should probably improve its system of prevention (by the way, the declared 12/15 inspections a day might not be enough), and quickly find the proper countermeasures. We also believe that a great part of the problem regards the management of the breakwater that no longer can be considered «no man’s land», apart from gulls, of course (nobody, airport and port, claims authority over it).
We’ll then see if another court case will emerge from this incident.
The list of events of this month is again and unfortunately pretty copious. First of all, we wish to express our grief for the 19 victims of the Kathmandu accident, probably caused by a bird strike and a very difficult environmental situation, that clearly shows us how much work has still to be done in the field of prevention. We will return in the coming days to this event as soon as more information becomes available.
Worthy of mention and welcome is the presence of three reports from Russia. Only three months ago at the IBSC (now WBA) meeting at Stavanger, Dr. S. Rhyzov complained «the concealment of the real state of the problem of birds” in Russia. Evidently something is changing there. What does not seem to change instead is the problem of impacts of aircraft with large mammals in North America: if two more deer have been struck by small airplanes on minor airport runways in the U.S., it’s a real surprise reading about a coyote struck by an A320 at the intercontinental airport in Calgary, the same city that hosted in 2001 a conference of the North American bird strike committees. Hitting at 150 kts a 12 kg. animal is a potentially very dangerous event; fortunately no damage has been reported, but the decision to continue the flight to its destination raises some concerns.
Finally, two cases reported in Italy: the Fiumicino event will fire up the controversy about the Malagrotta landfill and its planned relocation even closer to that airport, which we hope won’t be implemented. For the Genoa event please see the comment above.
By Cpt. Paul Eschenfelder
Cpt. Paul Eschenfelder served in the US Navy Reserve for several years, then flew for Delta Airlines and reached the rank of A330 Captain. He also participated on the FAA/JAA Engine Certification Task Group for Bird Ingestion. Currently he is Adjunct Professor at Embry Riddle Aeronautic University. He was also member of Bird Strike Committee USA and wrote many articles on bird strike prevention.
The advent of new jet engine technology will exacerbate an old problem. Engine manufacturers are designing, and delivering starting in 2014, a new type of engine. GE calls their new engine ‘LEAP’. Pratt & Whitney is more prosaic in terming their engine ‘geared turbofan’. They will power new B-737 models, the A-320 family and new aircraft from Mitsubishi, Bombardier and Irkut which will enter the single aisle, narrow body fleets of the future. But there is a problem. An old problem. Birds.
While the new engines will be much more fuel efficient, quieter and made of stronger materials, they also will have much larger engine inlets: anywhere from 20-27% larger than current engine inlets on the same aircraft. What had been a 63.5 inch inlet now will likely be an 81 inch inlet. The follow-on engines of the future will be even larger.
Obviously this is a much greater opportunity for large birds, and large flocking birds, to enter the engine. Engine design rules for bird ingestion have not changed. This size of engine needs only to demonstrate that if it ingests one four pound bird that it will not blow up and can be shut down. It does not need to survive the ingestion. The photos below demonstrate this peril.
These photos are from the BFU investigation of the Air Berlin B-737 accident at Hamburg in April, 2010. Note on ‘Foto 1’ the red and blue circles on the B-737’s CFM-56 engine, these designate bird impact points on the engine. The birds in question here were a flock of white-fronted geese, a bird larger than four pounds. Obviously, from the number of impacts, the engine had no chance of survival.
‘Foto 2’ shows the same inlet, but with a yellow circle imposed. The yellow circle will be the size of the new engine inlets. And ‘Foto 3’ shows the same but with a white circle imposed. The white circle will be the size of the inlet on the follow-on engines under development. The impact on future engines with a flock encounter is clear and sinister. This B-737 had bird hits all over its front. Such large inlets with large flocks of large birds may very well jeopardize the aircraft’s chance of survival.
The list of major events of July 2012 appears pretty remarkable. We highlight three cases of continuation of the flight (5, 19 and 30 July) further to a bird strike in absence of “abnormal parameters”. In one of these the crew went on flying for eight hours, realizing only after the post flight ground inspection they suffered damages to the slats. In general we remind that damages caused by birds, especially in case of ingestion into engines, may appear after hours, and even days, after the event and that the initial absence of “abnormal parameters” is not a guarantee of safety. An inspection for assessing possible damages is still the best option, fortunately chosen by most pilots. New impacts with flock of birds settling on the runway are reported again (5, 17 and two events on 23 July); these cases show some evident faults in the bird controller team action.
Very impressive is the strike of 31 at Denver, not only for the large damages to the nose cone but mainly for the lack or unreliability of air speed indications that forced the crew to ask the support of a ground based radar (fortunately available).
The steady trickle of deer strikes is still going on in the secondary runways of the U.S.: three more cases on this month.
(Photo from avherald.com)
Finding timely Court sentences about bird strike damage compensation throughout the world is not easy. We deem however useful to present the decisions we manage to know even though they date back to several years ago.
On February 2012 the Malta International Airport (MIA) has been ordered to pay more than € 250,000 in damages to Air Malta and to an insurance company for the damages an Air Malta plane sustained in a bird strike. The Civil Court concluded that MIA was responsible for the damages due to the lack of an adequate bird strike reduction system. On December 2, 2004 an Air Malta Airbus A320 at take off flew through a sizeable flock of starlings suddenly crossing the plane’s flight path and had to return immediately to Malta. The plaintiff companies (Air Malta and the Insurer) sued the airport basing their claims on the fact that MIA, as the operator of the Malta International Airport, had failed to observe the Convention on International Civil Aviation and had not installed adequate bird control measures. On its part MIA said that the Convention offered guidelines and recommendations and did not impose legal obligations.
The court stated that when MIA was entrusted with the running of the airport, it had been bound by the government to maintain and provide at all times, facilities and operations in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Regulations from time to time. MIA is currently evaluating the contents of the judgement with its legal advisers and will be considering whether it should file an appeal.
The 30th IBSC Meeting will also probably be the last under this denomination. Several innovations will be adopted soon, made necessary also because of the substantial Committee inactivity in recent years. With questionable procedures, even disputed by some members, without any prior discussion nor election, the organization will be called henceforth World Birdstrike Association. The new Chair will be a KLM pilot, the Dutch Cpt. Rob Van Eekeren, and the new Board will consist of Mr. Nick Carter (USA), Mr. Luit Buurma (Netherlands), Mr. Ante Matijaca (Croatia) and Mr.Nick Yearwood (UK). Secretary has been designated, with the same questionable procedures, Mr. Albert De Hoon (The Netherlands). Organizational innovations are also expected, including a membership fee to secure economic self-sufficiency.
It ‘s impossible here to comment on all the presentations and the several papers; the link below allows those interested to access almost all the presentations, including that of the new Chair, where the vision, the mission and the goals of the new WBA are shown, including the program to be implemented over the next two years.
Beyond criticism on the method, it was clear that something had to be done to revitalize a lifeless body without further stimuli in its leadership. Nobody wants to make a battle over principles, this is not the point; the point is rather to make the organization a “worldwide catalyst for an increase of flight safety by reducing the wild life strike risk for aviation on a cost effective way” and to represent for this purpose a “worldwide coordination centre for expertise of all aspects awareness of the reduction of the wild life strike risk to aviation” The only thing we pragmatically may say now is : let’s wait and see.
Italy was present at the meeting at an official level with a delegation of ENAC / BSCI (Ing. Claudio Eminente and the contractor biologist Dr. Alessandro Montemaggiori), and with a private participation with our B.C. & T. (Dr. Valter Battistoni). We remember that Mr. Eminente, in addition to being President of BSCI is also the Chief of the Environment, Airports and Air Transport Department of ENAC.
In general we can safely say that this was a good level meeting. Contrary to some critics who argue that these meetings are just opportunities for biologists «to talk to other biologists», so forgetting that the problem of bird strikes is mainly an aeronautical issue, there have been several and important presentations involving directly the aviation world.
In particular, there have been presentations by airport operators and bird controllers, but also by aircraft operators, ATC representatives, pilots. Many interesting ideas have emerged about the need for a specific training of ATC controllers and pilots on the problems of wildlife, while an entire parallel session was devoted to the minimum training necessary to carry out bird control operations on the field, and the thorny problem of trainer qualification.
Another parallel session was devoted to the complex field of radar remote sensing, in constant development throughout the world, but still far behind in Italy (actually we are still at zero point). In this specific field an innovative contribution came from the Japanese representative.
AIRBUS was represented by a young researcher who described the efforts and researches in progress in order to achieve an embedded bird scaring system on aircraft.
Also EASA and ESA (European Space Agency) showed presentations on the possible roles of respective agencies in preventing the wildlife risks at airports.
The world of helicopter pilots flying to off-shore oil rigs, and the risks associated with the concentration of birds on them, was a discovery for many of the participants.
Another interesting aspect of the meeting was the significant presence of women in virtually all technical and scientific areas covered by the conference, with some really high level presentations.
During the meeting it was also announced that the next meeting of the (new) WBA will be held in Drakensberg, KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) from 15 to 18 September 2014.
To access all the meeting presentations click on the link below: http://gyroconference.event123.no/Avinor/IBSC/program1.cfm
For an overview on the meeting: www.ibscstavanger.org
The plane was forced to make an emergency landing. The airport disagreed with the decision stating they had 12 stationary and one mobile bio-acoustic apparatuses, as well as 80 “mechanical bird-scaring devices”. No details are provided on these devices however.
The NTSB recently recommended to FAA to study the technical feasibility of presenting real-time total lightning data on controller displays at both air route traffic control centres and terminal radar approach control facilities, and incorporate real-time total lightning data on controller displays and in associated weather products for current and future display systems. Lightning are always associated with thunderstorms, and thunderstorms always present severe weather conditions to be avoided.
Also the flocks of birds should be always avoided, but almost always this is unfeasible due to the lack of detection devices and real-time communication procedures.
This recommendation therefore leads us to two considerations: from one side we think that the same attention should be dedicated to the avian radars capable to detect birds on the take-off and landing flight paths; on the other side it is inevitable that these devices will be installed in ATC control centres, despite the presumable opposition of the party concerned.
World birdstrike association
MAX ® has the fastest rotation speed in the market, resulting in track updates every second. This allows uniquely detailed 3D visualisation of bird flight paths, including exports to Google Earth.
MAX ® is a single sensor system, providing full 3D information of all birds in the nearby environment. Height information is provided for all bird tracks, and there’s practically no cone of silence above the radar. Our newest bird detection radar offers true full 3D coverage, meaning you get height data for ALL bird tracks, all around the radar, all of the time.
MAX ® has been built to monitor birds from the start. That’s its entire purpose. The antennas are designed explicitly with avian targets in mind. It finally brings phased array radar technology into the hands of bird control units and ornithologists. Bird movements are displayed in real-time on a computer or mobile device (both iOS and Android).
MAX ® has minimal infrastructure requirements. The computer servers can be placed in already existing server rooms, meaning no shelter or housing is required at the radar location itself. All MAX ® needs is standard power and ethernet.
But developing new hardware isn’t the only thing we’ve done. Because our customers often need to convert bird data into reports and KPIs, we’ve produced an entirely new tool, just for you. Now you can make easy to understand and appealing graphics, in a user-friendly software environment. Just select the variables and time period you want, and the tool will immediately generate impressive graphical representations.
World birdstrike association
If you’re looking for a 3D solution, and you’re concerned with birds in a particular area, like a runway approach funnel, or a specific wind turbine(s), then 3D Fixed will do the job for you. 3D Fixed tracks birds 360 degrees around the radar in 2D, and in a fixed direction (forwards and backwards) in 3D.
The ROBIN 3D Fixed system consists of a horizontal S-band radar combined with a vertical X-band pulse radar. The horizontal S-band radar identifies the presence and number of birds in time, including their location, direction, speed and route, up to 10 kilometres away, all around, day and night.
The X-band radar covers a fixed vertical area of approximately 6 km. By combining both the horizontal and vertical images, 3D information is retrieved. This configuration is typically used in civil aviation for wildlife management and bird strike prevention at airports.
Airport Wild! Loomacres Wildlife Management
Welcome to Airport Wild! Join us as we dive into the wild world of wildlife mitigation and aviation. We bring together wildlife damage experts to discuss tips, tactics and do a few gear reviews to help you bring your Airport Wildlife Management Program to a Higher Level. Please subscribe and leave a review. Each week we will select a reviewer to win a pack of our SNARE seasoning.
Check us out on facebook: https://m.facebook.com/AirportWild
Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiFhKwfPWFplZ1kNoj4xxQ
Business Growth for Wildlife Companies S2 Ep7
Cody Barbour from Baton Leads joins the show to talk about the quick success of his Referral Based company providing leads for Pest Control and Wildlife Removal Companies all over the United States. He walks us through the B2C experience and how to market your company for success. This is a great show for anyone starting a small business in the outdoor industry.
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/airportwild/message
Pest Control & Self Branding with Jasmine «Pest Pro» : S2 Episode 6
Pest Control Technician and Social Media Queen Jasmine Almeter AKA Jasmine Pest Pro joins the show and discusses how she and company Optimum Pest Pro of Rochester NY have carved out quite the niche in the community of pest control both with their social media presence and top notch service.
— Social Media Marketing
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/airportwild/message
Q&A with Airport Wildlife Biologist Jacob Hoffee and Eric Mathieson: S2 Ep 5
Certified Airport Wildlife Biologist Jacob Hoffee from Lincoln, Nebraska and Eric Methieson from Rhode Island tackle questions submitted by our audience regarding best practices, dealing with the public eye, and first hand experience.
Bird strikes Depredation Wildlife Control Data Management Goose Hazing
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/airportwild/message
Newly elected Chair of The Bird Strike Committee USA, Nick Atwell who is also the Natural Resources and Wildlife Manager of the Port of Portland joins our show to discuss the mission and goal of the organization as well as some of the changes that have taken place over the years in the world of Airport Wildlife Control. Nick spotlights their upcoming virtual conference being held on August 16th, 17th and 19th. For registration information visit their website www.birdstrike.org
— Wildlife Management techniques
— Bird Strike Database
— History of Bird Strike Committee USA
— New Technology and Techniques for Wildlife Hazard Management
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/airportwild/message
Wildlife Hazard Management Training with Julia Priolo and Darby Albrecht S2 Ep 3
Airport Wildlife Trainers Julia Priolo and Darby Albrect join the show and talk about some of their role as Trainers for Loomacres Wildlife Management. We touch on some of the FAA requirements that airports and airport staff have to comply with as well as how Covid 19 changed the landscape and paved the way for Virtual Training.
— P139 Airport Certification
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/airportwild/message
The Highs and Lows of an Airport Wildlife Biologist! S2 Ep 2
Brooke Morgan and Cata Wingfield sit down with us and share some of their best and worst experiences being an Airport Wildlife Biologist with Loomacres Wildlife Management. Both have entered a career in wildlife management after breezing through school and doing field work in Fish Hatcheries, Squib Boats, and Idaho back country. Learn what it takes to be successful in the industry and enjoy the free tips from these two.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Australian aviation wildlife strike statistics 2008 – 2017
Why we have done this report
Occurrences involving aircraft striking wildlife, particularly birds, continue to be the most common aviation occurrence reported to the ATSB. Strikes with birds are a potential safety risk and present a significant economic risk for aerodrome and aircraft operators. The aim of the ATSB’s statistical report series is to provide information back to pilots, aerodrome and aircraft operators, regulators, and other aviation industry participants to assist them with managing the risks associated with bird and animal strikes. This report updates the last edition (published in 2016) with data from 2016 – 2017.
What the ATSB found
Between 2008 and 2017, there were 16,626 confirmed birdstrikes reported to the ATSB. The number of reported birdstrikes has increased in recent years, with 2017 having the highest on record with 1,921. Despite being a high frequency occurrence, birdstrikes rarely result in aircraft damage or injuries. Of the 16,626 birdstrikes in this reporting period, 99.8 per cent were classified as incidents, while 19 (
0.1 per cent) were classified as accidents and another five (
0.03 per cent) as serious incidents. Nine birdstrikes, or approximately 0.05 per cent of the birdstrikes in the ten years, resulted in minor injuries to pilots or passengers. There were no reported serious injuries or fatalities associated with a birdstrike occurrence in the ten-year period.
Domestic high capacity aircraft were those most often involved in birdstrikes, and the birdstrike rate per aircraft movement for these aircraft was significantly higher than all other categories. Both the number and rate of birdstrikes per 10,000 movements in high capacity operations have increased in the past two years 2016 – 2017. In contrast, the number of birdstrikes in low capacity operations and general aviation has remained relatively consistent in the most recent two years.
The number of birdstrikes involving a bird ingested into an engine in high capacity air transport operations has risen in recent years with about one in ten birdstrikes for turbofan aircraft involving a bird ingested into an engine. Additionally, over the ten-year reporting period, there have been 11 occurrences involving one or more birds ingested into two engines of turbofan-powered aircraft.
The five most commonly struck flying animals in the 2016 to 2017 period were flying foxes, galahs, magpies, and ‘bats’ (many of which were likely to be flying foxes) and plovers.
Compared to birdstrikes, non-flying animal strikes are relatively rare, with 396 animal strikes reported to the ATSB between 2008 and 2017. The most common animals involved were hares, rabbits, kangaroos, wallabies, and foxes. Damaging animal strikes mostly involved kangaroos and wallabies.
Safety message
Australian aviation wildlife strike statistics provide a reminder to everyone involved in the operation of aircraft and aerodromes to be aware of the hazards posed to aircraft by birds and non-flying animals. The growth of reporting to the ATSB over the last 10 years has helped to understand better the nature of birdstrikes, and what and where the major safety risks lie. As such, timely and thorough reporting of birdstrikes is paramount. This assists the aviation industry to manage better their safety risk. Over the ten years from 2008 to 2017, about 40 per cent of all birdstrikes reported to the ATSB contained no species information. The more detailed the information is provided to the ATSB, the more accurate and useful reports like this one will be.
Context
Each year, the ATSB receives accident and incident notifications from pilots, airlines, aerodrome personnel, air traffic control and others involved in the aviation industry. The reporting of these aviation accidents and incidents, collectively termed occurrences, assists the ATSB in monitoring safety through its core function of independent investigation and the analysis of data to identify emerging trends.
The Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003 provide a list of matters reportable to the ATSB. [1] One routine reportable matter is a collision with an animal, including a bird, for:
In addition to the above, all accidents [2] are immediately reportable to the ATSB, and all occurrences involving injury or difficulty controlling the aircraft (including from a bird or animal strike) are reportable matters for all operation types.
A significant proportion of all occurrences reported to the ATSB involve aircraft striking wildlife, especially birds. Wildlife strikes represent an ongoing challenge to the aviation industry. Birds and other animals are hazards to aviation that will always be present and so need to be managed, both in terms of reducing the likelihood of a wildlife strike and reducing the consequences of strikes that occur.
For the purposes of this report, birdstrikes refer to strikes from all flying animals, including bats and flying foxes, while animal strikes refer to strikes from all flightless animals, including flightless birds such as emus and cassowaries.
This report provides aviation birdstrike and animal strike occurrence data for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. It should be noted that some data may vary when compared with the previous report, Australian aviation wildlife strike statistics: 2006 to 2015, due to ongoing quality improvements in ATSB data.
The Australian aviation wildlife strike statistics report aims to give industry an insight into the number, locations, and types of wildlife strikes in Australia, and describe characteristics of the common birds and animals involved, and the consequences of these strikes.
In response to stakeholder feedback, the ATSB’s wildlife strike statistics report now uses a format that utilises an online interactive tool to display wildlife strike data. This tool allows stakeholders to access and interrogate national data in both a timelier manner, and with greater visibility of the data. Additionally, data tables containing all birdstrike and animal strike data used in this report are available for download from the investigation homepage for more detailed interrogation of the data.
Data sources
ATSB occurrence data
Birdstrike and animal strike occurrence data used in this report have been reported to the ATSB under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation (TSI) Regulations 2003. Only confirmed birdstrikes are included in the report as these are reportable occurrences under the TSI Regulations. This includes birdstrikes reported by pilots that have not been independently verified by aerodrome staff or an engineering inspection. Suspected strikes or near hits with birds or other animals are not reportable matters under the TSI Regulations and, unlike previous reports, are not included in this report. Birdstrike occurrence statistics are updated and published biennially by the ATSB, and can be subject to change pending the provision of new information to the ATSB. When using these statistics, it is important to remember that occurrence data is provided to the ATSB by responsible persons as defined in Part 2.5 of the Regulations. The ATSB accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person or corporation resulting from the use of these statistics.
Wildlife descriptors and grouping
Bird and animal types have been grouped by similar species rather than reporting data on specific species. Type groupings were defined by grouping birds and animals of similar species, size, and/or appearance. These groupings were applied because similar birds are often reported to the ATSB as an incorrect species. In addition to these groupings, the complete list of bird and animal types is now included in the new interactive web tool.
Using the bird ingestion (into an engine) requirements outlined in the United States Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 33.76 as a guide, new bird size categories were developed for the last report. The bird size categories used are outlined below:
Location data
Birdstrikes are sometimes identified during a pre-, or post-flight inspection, where the previous flight crew had no knowledge of striking a bird. In these cases, the location of the birdstrike has been set to ‘unknown’, rather than at the aerodrome where the inspection was carried out. In this report, 1,322 records were identified as having an unknown birdstrike location and as such have been excluded from location reporting.
The proximity of the aerodrome to a birdstrike has been coded as either:
Operation types
Some of the data presented throughout this report has been arranged into operation types. This applies only to data where the aircraft involved in the birdstrike was known. The operation types used were:
Aircraft movements
Aircraft movements were defined as a take-off, a landing, or a circuit. Therefore, an aircraft completing a single sector will have two movements recorded, one for take-off and one for landing. Aircraft movements are used in this report as the normalising variable for all wildlife strike rate calculations.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) data
Aircraft movement information by operation type, weight category, and engine type was provided to the ATSB by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.
Movements were calculated by doubling the number of recorded departures, except in the case of international movements, where arrival and departure information was used.
Airservices Australia data
Movement data by aircraft weight category for specific aerodromes was obtained from movement data published by Airservices Australia. [3]
Birdstrikes across Australia
Birdstrikes numbers by operation type and aircraft type
Figure 1 presents a selection of the data available in a web-based interactive tool that displays the number of reported birdstrikes per year from 2008 to 2017. The interactive tool allows filtering of the data by year, operation type, aircraft type and phase of flight. Additionally, the data can be further interrogated by downloading the birdstrike data table.
Over the ten years between 2008 and 2017, 16,626 birdstrikes were reported to the ATSB. The number of reported birdstrikes has increased in recent years, with 2017 having 1,921 reported birdstrikes, the highest number in the ten-year period.
Figure 1: Number of birdstrikes per year, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Birdstrikes rates by operation type and location
Rates of birdstrikes for each operational group are shown in Figure 2. The data is displayed in a web-based interactive tool that shows the rate of birdstrikes per 10,000 aircraft movements from 2008 to 2017. The data can also be filtered by year and location.
High capacity air transport aircraft continue to have a significantly higher birdstrike rate than all other operation types. It is likely that the speed and size of these aircraft, longer take-off and landing rolls, and large turbofan engines are factors contributing to the higher rate. Birdstrike rates for low capacity aircraft have generally increased over the ten-year study period, while general aviation birdstrike rates remain comparatively low and have not changed significantly over the ten years.
Major class C and regional towered aerodromes have had similar strike rates over the ten years between 2008 and 2017 (Figure 2). Both of their rates have fluctuated over the ten years but have remained significantly higher than the strike rates for the metropolitan class D aerodromes.
Figure 2: Birdstrike rates (per 10,000 movements) per year by operation type and location, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics and Airservices Australia. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Birdstrike locations
This chapter reviews birdstrikes at all reported locations around Australia, for all types of aircraft. The majority of birdstrikes occur within the confines of an aerodrome, that is, within 5 km from the aerodrome or on the aerodrome. This is because birds and aircraft more commonly share the same airspace while the aircraft is on the runway for take-off and landing, and during the climb and approach phases of flight. In addition, even when pilots are not aware of a birdstrike on the ground or in the aerodrome confines, remnants of the bird will often be found and reported by aerodrome staff.
Figure 3 presents a selection of the data available in a web-based interactive tool that displays the locations of birdstrikes reported to the ATSB between 2008 and 2017. The interactive tool allows filtering of the data by year, location type, state, as well as individual aerodromes. The web tool also includes an interactive map to facilitate the examination of all reported birdstrike locations.
Figure 3: Birdstrike locations across Australia, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Significant Australian birdstrikes
This chapter reviews birdstrikes that have been identified as posing a significant threat to the continued safety of flight of an aircraft. Birdstrikes involving ingestion of a bird, or birds, into a turbine engine, and occurrences involving aircraft damage and personal injuries as a result of birdstrikes are considered.
Significant birdstrikes
Figure 4 presents a selection of the data available in a web-based interactive tool that displays the number of reported birdstrikes per year from 2008 to 2017. The interactive tool allows filtering of the data by year, aircraft damage level, injury level and whether there were any birds ingested into engines. An interactive map aids visualisation of the locations of damaging birdstrikes.
Between 2008 and 2017, there were 781 birdstrikes involving one or more birds being ingested into an engine of turbofan-powered aircraft. Additionally, there were 11 occurrences involving bird ingestions into two engines. In the ten-year period, six aircraft were reported to be destroyed as a result of a birdstrike, however, four of these aircraft were remotely piloted aircraft systems. The other two were cases were large birds had flown into the tail rotors of light helicopters.
Figure 4: Damaging birdstrike location, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Birdstrike numbers by bird size and aircraft damage
Figure 5 presents a selection of the data available in a web-based interactive tool that displays the number of reported birdstrikes per year from 2008 to 2017. The interactive tool allows filtering of the data by year, operation type, location, aircraft damage level as well as bird size grouping and bird mass (kg). An interactive map also helps visualisation of the locations of damaging birdstrikes and/or bird size.
Figure 5: Damaging birdstrike location, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Birdstrikes locations by species
Figure 6 presents a selection of the data available in a web-based interactive tool that displays the number of reported birdstrikes per year from 2008 to 2017. The interactive tool allows filtering of the data by year, location, bird type/group as well as the individual bird species (as reported). The interactive map also helps visualisation of the locations of birdstrikes for each bird species.
Nearly 40 per cent of all birdstrikes between 2008 and 2017 involved a bird of unknown species. This is typically the case when pilots don’t have time to identify the species, or indeed, don’t have an opportunity to see the bird before striking it. Where bird type was known, galahs are the species reported to be involved in the most birdstrikes, with 801 between 2008 and 2017. They are followed by plovers (602), bats (582), magpies (516) and flying foxes (464). It is likely, however, that many of the strikes involving animals reported as ‘bats’ actually involved flying foxes.
Figure 6: Birdstrikes by species and location, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Non-flying animal strikes
Animal strikes across Australia
Figure 7 shows ground-based animal strikes in a web-based interactive tool that displays the number of reported animal strikes from 2008 to 2017. Using the interactive tool, the data can be filtered by year, animal type and location. Additionally, the animal strike data table is available from the investigation web page, which can downloaded for further interrogation of the data.
When compared with birdstrikes (which are the most commonly reported type of air safety occurrence to the ATSB), cases of an aircraft striking ground-based animals are not as common. Between 2008 and 2017, 396 animal strikes were reported to the ATSB. Hares, rabbits, kangaroos, wallabies and foxes were the most commonly stuck ground-based animals.
Figure 7: Ground-based animal strikes by location and animal type, 2008 to 2017
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Animal strikes by animal size and aircraft damage level
Figure 8 shows the animal sizes of the ground-based animals involved in strikes between 2008 and 2017. The interactive tool can be used to filter the data on animal size, animal mass (kg) and the damage level to the aircraft involved. Selected occurrences are displayed in an interactive map to show the location of the animal strikes.
Figure 8: Ground-based animal strikes by location, animal size and aircraft damage level, 2008 to 2018
Data source: ATSB. Link to interactive tool 🔗
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
The ATSB is an independent Commonwealth Government statutory agency. The ATSB is governed by a Commission and is entirely separate from transport regulators, policy makers and service providers. The ATSB’s function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, marine and rail modes of transport through excellence in: independent investigation of transport accidents and other safety occurrences; safety data recording, analysis and research; fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action.
The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and other transport safety matters involving civil aviation, marine and rail operations in Australia that fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as participating in overseas investigations involving Australian registered aircraft and ships. A primary concern is the safety of commercial transport, with particular regard to operations involving the travelling public.
The ATSB performs its functions in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and Regulations and, where applicable, relevant international agreements.
Purpose of safety investigations
The object of a safety investigation is to identify and reduce safety-related risk. ATSB investigations determine and communicate the factors related to the transport safety matter being investigated.
It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or determine liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner.
Developing safety action
Central to the ATSB’s investigation of transport safety matters is the early identification of safety issues in the transport environment. The ATSB prefers to encourage the relevant organisation(s) to initiate proactive safety action that addresses safety issues. Nevertheless, the ATSB may use its power to make a formal safety recommendation either during or at the end of an investigation, depending on the level of risk associated with a safety issue and the extent of corrective action undertaken by the relevant organisation.
When safety recommendations are issued, they focus on clearly describing the safety issue of concern, rather than providing instructions or opinions on a preferred method of corrective action. As with equivalent overseas organisations, the ATSB has no power to enforce the implementation of its recommendations. It is a matter for the body to which an ATSB recommendation is directed to assess the costs and benefits of any particular means of addressing a safety issue.
When the ATSB issues a safety recommendation to a person, organisation or agency, they must provide a written response within 90 days. That response must indicate whether they accept the recommendation, any reasons for not accepting part or all of the recommendation, and details of any proposed safety action to give effect to the recommendation.
The ATSB can also issue safety advisory notices suggesting that an organisation or an industry sector consider a safety issue and take action where it believes it appropriate. There is no requirement for a formal response to an advisory notice, although the ATSB will publish any response it receives.
WBA Constitution
C O N S T I T U T I O N A C T
Introduction
The members of the International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) having regard to the proposal constitute a new organization as a civil association and consequently IBSC shall thereafter formally dissolve and cease any activity.
Article 1 Name
The organization shall be called World Birdstrike Association (hereinafter: WBA)
Article 2 Vision
The WBA is to be the worldwide catalyst for improving flight safety by reducing the bird and other wildlife (hereinafter: bird/wildlife) strike risk for aviation in a cost- effective way, considering the need for a sustainable environment.
Article 3 Mission
The mission of the WBA is to be a plaftorm for the national bird/wildlife strike committees and other entities, civil and military.
At the same time, the WBA provides the platform for pursuing a constructive and cooperative relationship with all stakeholders.
The WBA acts facilitates a worldwide forum for the reduction of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation.
Article 4 Purpose
The purpose of the WBA is to improve flight safety regarding all aspects of the bird/wildlife strike risk to aviation, including measures for its mitigation and reduction. This will be achieved by encouraging and facilitating worldwide communication and collaboration amongst all aviation and non-aviation stakeholders as well as rule makers and safety agencies.
Article 5 Statute
The main act would be the Statute which rules the organization of the WBA.
Article 6 Approval
This Constitution Act has been formally adopted by means of an anonymous electronic vote. The revision of the Constitution Act has been formally adopted at the WBA 2016 Conference in Amsterdam.
Archive 2016
The event occurred in Melbourne on November 29 (see below) reopens the (never- closed) chapter of the absence of abnormal parameters after a bird strike. In summary, the crew is aware theyimpacted one (or more?) bird on take-off but, in the absence of abnormal instrumental indications, continued to fly for 10 hours across the Pacific to Hawaii. It should be known (another point to explore) that a bird ingestion into an engine can cause malfunction signals hours and even days later and only an endoscopic inspection can determine whether the engine suffered damage and whether it is suitable for flying. Another point that should be clear is that, supposing the aircraft suffered multiple impacts, the doubt that also the second engine may have been affected, this time without notice, should automatically arise in the crew minds.
In this case, the engine had to be replaced after landing, a sign that the damage was substantial and not repairable on site. It’s true however that the damaged engine continued to properly run for hours, but just the doubt that also the other one could have been affected, should have led to a greater caution.
Caution, however, originates from the education and the training received and the question is, alsogiven specific precedents, which kind of training the pilots receive with regard to bird impact and / or ingestion?
The most egregious precedent regarded the crew of a PAL B777 that on 15.4.2011 flew from Manila to Vancouver and discovered only after landing that one of the engines had been damaged following a bird ingestion and needed to be disembarked and replaced.
But several other cases are reported (British Airways Orlando- Gatwick, Thomas Cook Istanbul- London etc. ) that disclose the inclination of the crews, in the absence of specific training and a company policy, to trust too much in the “absence of abnormal parameters”.
Unless the costs of a prudential return in terms of fuel, time and image do not subconsciously exceed the attention to safety so that one could suppose that «safety first, but after profit»
Finally, after two postponements, the long-awaited meeting of the WBA took place, hosted in the rooms of the Royal Netherlands Navy Command in Amsterdam. Despite the very short time (less than three months) to reorganize the event, originally scheduled in Muscat (Oman), the conference was a great success and was attended by about 150 members both civilians and military.
The meeting lasted five days, the first three devoted to the presentation of documents by the participants (http://www.worldbirdstrike.com/index.php/component/content/article/47-resources/169-amsterdam-presentations-2016) and the following two to the deepening of some topics, having in view the date of May 2017 when the ICAO, the world’s foremost aviation organization, will organize its own conference specifically dedicated to the problems of wildlife strikes (ICAO / ACI Wildlife strike Hazard Reduction Symposium). The occasion was so propitious for an exchange of ideas among the world’s leading experts in order to present joint proposals and direct ICAO towards the needed actions for the prevention of this always-growing phenomenon.
Italy was represented by an official delegation made up of Ing. Claudio Eminente, ENAC Deputy Central Director and current chair of the Bird Strike Committee Italy and Dr. Alessandro Montemaggiori, ornithologist on contract in the same Agency. The Italian Air Force was represented by LT.Col. Filippo Conti.
The ENAC delegation presented a report on the application of BRI (Birdstrike Risk Index) in the Italian airports, while Dr. Battistoni solicited an improvement of the certification requirements for transport aircraft. In particular, he focused on some past incidents highlighting the opportunity to better shield the nose gear steering apparatus, the window and the window frame, guaranteeing in the same time its natural function (i.e. visibility), and suggesting to increase the size of the birds used to establish the airframe resistance standards.
(Valter Battistoni (above) and Alessandro Montemaggioriduring their presentations at the meeting)
It also proposed some changes that ICAO should make to its regulations (Annex 14 para 9.4.1) by inserting the obligation to specify in the reports the bird species impacted. This would be a big aid for implementing specific plans aimed at limiting the hazard. Moreover ICAO should update its IBIS system (ICAO Bird Strike Identification System) and make it accessible to the community of operators and researchers, as well as make it compatible with the European system of data collection ECCAIRS (European Coordination Centre for Accident and Incident Reporting System ).
Finally, as for the information to the pilots on the presence of birds, given the substantial uselessness of NOTAMs, the conference proposed the use of a proper phraseology just limited to the quantification and localization of birds, possibly communicating their species and the movement direction, leaving to the crew the task of assessing the risk level related to their presence.
The BSCI, a branch of the Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC) released its 2015 Report on the phenomenon of wildlife strikes in Italy. As usual, we present here our observations and comments (a short summary in English).
On September 9, 2016, Warner Bros released the movie “Sully: The Untold Story of the Miracle on the Hudson”, based upon the ditching on the river Hudson of an A320 following the ingestion of Canada geese in both engines and their switch off.
The Bird Strike Committee USA published the following paper on regard of it
in which some questionable statements can be found, like “wildlife strikes are relatively unusual events”, and “strikes that result in aircraft damage or injuries are rare”.
Statements supported by statistics, concerning only the USA however, probably aimed at reassuring the American public opinion rather than seriously debate this issue so important for air safety.
With regard to this, we can only add that every month worldwide there are at least about a dozen of cases of bird ingestions into one engine, while at least five dual ingestions, i.e.when both engines (of a twin-engine) are affected, occurred in 2014. Bird ingestions have also caused accidents with the loss of over 160 lives since 1960 and the Hudson event was really close to be a catastrophe.
Are they rare events? Of course they are, if compared to the global number of flights, but why for natural phenomena that so far did not cause victims, such as the volcanic ash, authorities did not hesitate to close the skies of half Europe with huge costs?
Since a long time we are complaining the lack of attention and the few resources dedicated to the prevention against bird strikes: comments like these from BSC USA certainly do not help.
Mark Twain used to say:“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”.
Wanting to demonstrate the effectiveness of infrared systems as an alternative to avian radars, the FAA, in partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is planning to install an “Interceptor” device, manufactured by Pharovision (www.pharovision.com), at La Guardia airport.
“The system comprises a thermal imaging camera, a high resolution daylight charged coupled device (CCD) camera and an image processing computer. The FAA hopes to establish whether delivery of“Interceptor” data, and the quality of information itself, can be sufficient for an air traffic controller to modify the flight paths or delay aircraft departures in order to prevent birdstrikes.
One challenge facing deployment of this type of system is its integration into the daily operations of controllers. The FAA is in the early stages of establishing a concept of operations for incorporating wildlife detection systems in air traffic operations.” (*)
That’s what we hope for since a long time: the tactical function of the remote sensing devices that include the active involvement of air traffic control in bird strike prevention.
Two months before the planned date the World Birdstrike Association has cancelled the meeting that had to be held in Muscat (Oman) from 5 to 8 December 2016.
The reasons of this sudden decision would lie in too many financial and organizational problems they had to face.
The WBA was self-established in 2012, with an abnormal procedure, during the last meeting of the International Bird Strike Committee, the historical organization that for several decades was in charge of the problem at a global level.
On 10 July, the crew of a Wizzair A320 during the landing in Kiev (Zhulyani) observed some birds on the runway. The routine post flight inspection revealed traces of bird ingestion into the right engine but onlya minor damage was visible. After this visual inspection, technicians postponedtheboroscopic inspection at the next overnight stop and released the aircraft for another two routes, from Kiev to Larnaca and back. Both flights took place regularly without any anomaly. Finally, during the overnight stop at the airline base the boroscopic inspection revealed significant internal damage to the engine requiring its replacement beforethe aircraft could fly again.
The case is almost identical to that occurred on 2012 to an Air New Zealand A320.Also in that circumstance maintenance engineers inspected the engine in accordance with the Airbus aircraft maintenance manual and released it back into revenue service later the same day. The Airbus aircraft maintenance manual required parts of the engine to be inspected using a borescope. However, as the bird strike had involved only one engine and no damage had been observed, the aeroplane was allowed to continue its service for up to 10 hours’ flying or one more sector (one more take-off and landing), whichever came first. The engine was then required to undergo the borescope inspection. Therefore, the aeroplane was released to fly under this “continued operating allowance”. On approach to land at Auckland International Airport the same engine suffered a failure due to the internal damage.
The event occurred to Wizzair seems to be the second occurrence reported worldwide in four years of a V2500 engine that required substantial work despite this “continued operating allowance” after a bird ingestion in the engine «core».
A few remarks: if the continued operating allowanceis released only for another take-off and landing, in the case of Wizzair this limit seems to have been exceeded. In addition,flying through a flock of birds and suffering an ingestion is a frequent occurrence as well as not immediately detecting abnormal engine parameters by the crew; therefore, the actual possibility that both engines might have ingested birds should lead to a greater caution in release the aircraft to commercial service without a proper boroscopic inspection.
The final report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770344/ao2013212-final_report.pdf) on a serious incident involving an Etihad A330 in Brisbane on 21/11/2013 has been published. During the period that the aircraft was at the gate, about two hours, some mudwasps(Sceliphroncaementarium) had built their nest inside a pitot tube of the aircraft blocking it completely. The occurrence then caused the loss of data speed that forced the crew to declare emergency and return to landing.
As usual, ENAC (the Civil Aviation Authority) published the report on their activities developed in the year 2015. Also for that year, the usual laconic page (p. 106) has been dedicated to the wildlife strikes, for large segments fully quoting that of 2014. As the report of the Bird Strike Committee has not been released yet, impacts data are still provisional, as reported in the table below:
YEAR
* Preliminarydata to be verified with those from airport operators
At a first glance, it seems that in 2015 the impacts with damages and with ingestion into the engines are doubled with regard to the 2014, data that, if confirmed, will require careful considerations.
Five episodes occurred during this period (6,14,17 February, 7 and 19 March) where an aircraft crew, following a bird strike and presumably aware of the fact, “ in the absence of abnormal parameters” decide to continue the flight. In three of these cases, the aircraft had to return to the departing airport but in the other two the crew continued the long flight to arrive at their final destination. In all of these cases the aircraft suffered damage from the impact and had to undergo maintenance.
Why does this happen so often notwithstanding, fortunately, the majority of pilots behave in a prudential manner, as you can see from the cases listed below?
There are those who maintain that pilots behaviour is conditioned by the airlines inducing them to continue flying to their destination and limiting diversions or a return to the originating airport only when such options are inevitable. Some think that airlines do not have adequate policies on the issue and abandon the pilots to resolving the problems that arise in these situations. Others believe that it is a lack of awareness of the airlines who consider bird strikes as unavoidable events, easily resolved with good insurance cover and that the problem should be dealt with by the airport operators. The truth probably lies with all three but it is also true that pilots behaviours cannot be considered uniform.
For our part we will continue to sustain that where a problem cannot be resolved with engineering solutions, common rules and procedures that agevolate pilots should be introduced, preferably before a pilot finds himself flying over the ocean and the engine, not manifesting “abnormal parameters” unexpectedly cuts out.
In the meantime it is necessary once again to underline that certification requirements based on a single bird impact are becoming more and more insufficient, the first case verified in 2016 regarded a twin-engine involving ingestion in both engines (9 January). The problem, which has become urgent, is the presence of flocks rather than isolated birds on the approach and departure paths as well as within the airport area. The current engines have behaved very well up to now in terms of resistence and reliability, but the flocks are becoming more frequent and substantial.
Each year the prestigious magazine Jane’s Airport Review assigns the ATC Awards to projects and devices that have contributed to improving the safety and efficiency of air traffic. This year the Aerolaser Handheld, proposed by the Bird Control Group, is being considered for one of these awards.
The system is based on laser beams and proved to be a sustainable and animal-friendly bird-repelling device.
Its main feature is the capability of steering birds in a safe and controlled direction, differently from traditional methods which cause birds to flee in uncontrolled directions. Six month tests concluded that the system performs well also in daylight at ranges of 800/1000 mt. and it elicits a reaction from 80% of bird species.
ANSV (National Agency for Flight Safety) released its annual report on its activities and on civil aviation safety in Italy in the year 2015. Also this year few lines (pp.78 and 79) have been dedicated to the bird strike issue while no investigation was initiated for the events occurred in the year under review. The aeronautical press reported at least 13 significant occurrences at Italian airports, that we have mentioned in this website.
World birdstrike association
Summary Of International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control that were produced in 2006 on behalf of the wider bird and wildlife strike community.
IBSC stated that “These best practice standards should apply to any aerodrome carrying regularly scheduled commercial air traffic, irrespective of the movement frequency or type of aircraft involved.”
A named member of the senior management team at the airport should be responsible for the implementation of the bird control programme, including both habitat management and active bird control.
An airport should undertake a review of the features on its property that attract hazardous birds/wildlife. The precise nature of the resource that the they are attracted to should be identified and a management plan developed to eliminate or reduce the quantity of that resource, or to deny birds access to it as far as is practicable.
Where necessary, support from a professional bird/wildlife strike prevention specialist should be sought.
Documentary evidence of this process, its implementation and outcomes should be kept.
A properly trained and equipped bird/wildlife controller should be present on the airfield for at least 15 minutes prior to any aircraft departure or arrival. Thus, if aircraft are landing or taking of at intervals of less than 15 minutes there should be a continuous presence on the airfield throughout daylight hours. The controller should not be required to undertake any duties other than bird control during this time. Note that for aerodromes with infrequent aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long enough to disperse all hazardous birds/wildlife from the vicinity of the runway. In this case the controller should be deployed sufficiently in advance of the aircraft movement to allow full dispersal to be achieved.
At night, active runways and taxiways should be checked for the presence of birds/wildlife at regular intervals and the dispersal action taken as needed.
Bird control staff should be equipped with bird deterrent devices appropriate to the bird species encountered, the numbers of birds present, and to the area that they need to control. Staff should have access to appropriate devices for removal of birds/wildlife, such as firearms or traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these techniques at short notice.
All staff should receive proper training in the use of bird control devices.
Airport bird/wildlife controllers should record the following at least every 30 minutes (if air traffic is sufficiently infrequent that bird patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, an entry should be made for each patrol carried out).
• areas of the airport patrolled,
• numbers, location and species of birds/wildlife seen,
• action taken to disperse the birds/wildlife,
• results of the action.
More general information such as the name of the bird controller on duty, time on and off duty, weather conditions etc should be recorded at the start of a duty period.
Bird/wildlife incidents should therefore be defined in 3 categories: Confirmed strikes:
• Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for
which evidence in the form of a carcass, remains or damage to the aircraft is found.
• Any bird/wildlife found dead on an airfield where there is no other obvious cause of death (e.g. struck by a car, flew into a window etc.).
• Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which no physical evidence is found.
• Incidents where the presence of birds/wildlife on or around the airfield has any effect on a flight whether or not evidence of a strike can be found.
Airports should establish a mechanism to ensure that they are informed of all bird/wildlife strikes reported on or near their property.
The total number of birdstrikes should never be used as a measure of risk or of the performance of the bird control measures at an airport.
Airports should ensure that the identification of the species involved in birdstrikes is as complete as possible.
Airports should record all birdstrikes and include, as far as they are able, the data required for the standard ICAO reporting form
National Regulators should collate birdstrike data and submit this to ICAO
Airports should conduct a formal risk assessment of their birdstrike situation and use the results to help target their bird management measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Risk assessments should be updated at regular intervals, preferably annually.
Airports should conduct an inventory of bird attracting sites within the ICAO defined 13km bird circle, paying particular attention to sites close to the airfield and the approach and departure corridors. A basic risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether the movement patterns of birds/wildlife attracted to these sites means that they cause, or may cause, a risk to air traffic. If this is the case, options for bird management at the site(s) concerned should be developed and a more detailed risk assessment performed to determine if it is possible and/or cost effective to implement management processes at the site(s) concerned. This process should be repeated annually to identify new sites or changes in the risk levels produced by existing sites.
Where national laws permit, airports, or airport authorities, should seek to have an input into planning decisions and land use practices within the 13km bird circle for any development that may attract significant numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife. Such developments should be subjected to a similar risk assessment process as described above and changes sought, or the proposal opposed, if a significant increase in birdstrike risk is likely to result.
Air Traffic
Scientists use DNA sequencing to identify what’s attracting birds to airports, where midair collisions with planes can be devastating.
Mar 1, 2014
ENERGY, NOT GEESE: Converting airport grasslands to biofuel, solar, or wind production may produce alternative energy while reducing the local abundance of wildlife hazardous to aircraft. PHOTO BY DAVID BERGMAN
Because birds and planes share the same airspace, accidents are bound to happen, particularly during takeoff, landing, or low-altitude flight. The severity of a collision depends on several.
To prevent these accidents, officials at many larger airports have taken steps to discourage wildlife from entering their grounds. They’ve raised fences, trimmed landscaping, covered trash bins, installed commercial bird-control systems, brought out dogs, and loaded shotguns. And a few have hired biologists.
“It is important to understand what attracts hazardous wildlife to airport habitats so those habitat components can be altered or removed,” says Travis DeVault, a biologist at the US National Wildlife Research Center’s Ohio field station in Sandusky. DeVault leads a research program dedicated to reducing bird strikes. It’s critical, he says, to “use science to manage hazards at airports and mitigate strike risk.”
It is important to understand what attracts hazardous wildlife to airport habitats so those habitat components can be altered or removed. —Travis DeVault, US National Wildlife Research Center
“Birds come to airports for three things: food, water, and shelter,” says Carter. “We need biologists at airports and Air Force bases to figure out what’s going on.” Food is the primary attractant. Large birds—such as waterfowl, gulls, and raptors—and smaller, flocking species hunt everything from insects to small mammals at airports.
To figure out which foods are attracting birds struck by commercial planes at the Perth Airport in Australia, biologist Michael Bunce and his colleagues sequenced the contents of their guts. The scientists examined 77 avian carcasses collected by airport employees between October 2011 and November 2012, generating more than 150,000 DNA sequences.
With advances in next-generation sequencing, “for the first time, we can get into really complicated substrates, like gut contents, and get a really good handle on what things are eating,” says Bunce, who leads the Ancient DNA Laboratory at Murdoch University in Perth.
“This is a really nice study showing the huge potential of the metabarcoding approach,” explains François Pompanon, an assistant professor of genetics and deputy director at the Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine in Grenoble, France, who was not involved in the Australian study. “[It] is a good proof of concept, and the method could be used for a regular survey in order to set up management schemes.”
Theoretically, such comprehensive analyses of potential ecological drivers of bird strikes should eventually pay for themselves, given the costs of damage they could help avoid. But “the lack of research is a real challenge for airports,” says Bird Strike Association of Canada Executive Director Gary Searing. Across the board, he adds, “there is virtually no money for research.”
And Bunce is convinced that DNA sequencing is an important first step toward modifying airport habitats with an eye to prevention. “It’ll gain traction, it’ll become best practice,” he says. “DNA has promised a lot in the wildlife sector, but it’s nice to be able to deliver something incredibly rapidly.”
Best Practices
Recommended Practices No. 1 Standards For Aerodrome
Bird/Wildlife Control
Issue 1 – October 2006
Summary Of IBSC Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control
These best practice standards should apply to any aerodrome carrying regularly scheduled commercial air traffic, irrespective of the movement frequency or type of aircraft involved.
Standard 1
A named member of the senior management team at the airport should be responsible for the implementation of the bird control programme, including both habitat management and active bird control.
An airport should undertake a review of the features on its property that attract hazardous birds/wildlife. The precise nature of the resource that the they are attracted to should be identified and a management plan developed to eliminate or reduce the quantity of that resource, or to deny birds access to it as far as is practicable.
Where necessary, support from a professional bird/wildlife strike prevention specialist should be sought.
Documentary evidence of this process, its implementation and outcomes should be kept.
A properly trained and equipped bird/wildlife controller should be present on the airfield for at least 15 minutes prior to any aircraft departure or arrival. Thus, if aircraft are landing or taking of at intervals of less than 15 minutes there should be a continuous presence on the airfield throughout daylight hours. The controller should not be required to undertake any duties other than bird control during this time. Note that for aerodromes with infrequent aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long enough to disperse all hazardous birds/wildlife from the vicinity of the runway. In this case the controller should be deployed sufficiently in advance of the aircraft movement to allow full dispersal to be achieved.
At night, active runways and taxiways should be checked for the presence of birds/wildlife at regular intervals and the dispersal action taken as needed.
Bird control staff should be equipped with bird deterrent devices appropriate to the bird species encountered, the numbers of birds present, and to the area that they need to control. Staff should have access to appropriate devices for removal of birds/wildlife, such as firearms or traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these techniques at short notice.
All staff should receive proper training in the use of bird control devices.
Standard 5
Airport bird/wildlife controllers should record the following at least every 30 minutes (if air traffic is sufficiently infrequent that bird patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, an entry should be made for each patrol carried out).
More general information such as the name of the bird controller on duty, time on and off duty, weather conditions etc should be recorded at the start of a duty period.
Standard 6
Bird/wildlife incidents should therefore be defined in 3 categories:
Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which evidence in the form of a carcass, remains or damage to the aircraft is found.
Any bird/wildlife found dead on an airfield where there is no other obvious cause of death (e.g. struck by a car, flew into a window etc.).
Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which no physical evidence is found.
Incidents where the presence of birds/wildlife on or around the airfield has any effect on a flight whether or not evidence of a strike can be found.
Airports should establish a mechanism to ensure that they are informed of all bird/wildlife strikes reported on or near their property.
The total number of birdstrikes should never be used as a measure of risk or of the performance of the bird control measures at an airport.
Airports should ensure that the identification of the species involved in birdstrikes is as complete as possible.
Airports should record all birdstrikes and include, as far as they are able, the data required for the standard ICAO reporting form
National Regulators should collate birdstrike data and submit this to ICAO annually.
Standard 8
Airports should conduct a formal risk assessment of their birdstrike situation and use the results to help target their bird management measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Risk assessments should be updated at regular intervals, preferably annually.
Airports should conduct an inventory of bird attracting sites within the ICAO defined 13km bird circle, paying particular attention to sites close to the airfield and the approach and departure corridors. A basic risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether the movement patterns of birds/wildlife attracted to these sites means that they cause, or may cause, a risk to air traffic. If this is the case, options for bird management at the site(s) concerned should be developed and a more detailed risk assessment performed to determine if it is possible and/or cost effective to implement management processes at the site(s) concerned. This process should be repeated annually to identify new sites or changes in the risk levels produced by existing sites.
Where national laws permit, airports, or airport authorities, should seek to have an input into planning decisions and land use practices within the 13km bird circle for any development that may attract significant numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife. Such developments should be subjected to a similar risk assessment process as described above and changes sought, or the proposal opposed, if a significant increase in birdstrike risk is likely to result.
INTRODUCTION
Several excellent handbooks exist that describe in detail the techniques that can be used to manage the bird/wildlife strike risk on aerodromes (e.g. ACI 2005, CAA 1998, Cleary & Dolbeer 1999, Transport Canada 2001). There has, however, been little attempt to determine the levels of investment in time, manpower, equipment, training and monitoring that are needed to effectively manage the bird/wildlife hazard. This contrasts with other aerodrome safety provisions, such as levels of fire control equipment and manpower, that are precisely defined by regulation. This situation has arisen, in part, because the levels of risk, the habitat type, and the bird/wildlife species present at different aerodromes varies, and the precise techniques that are successful at one site may not work at another. It is also partly due to differences in the levels of resources available at different airports and to differences in the attitude of airport managers and national regulators to the risk posed by bird/wildlife strikes.
The new International Civil Aviation Organisation Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPS) on airport bird/wildlife control became effective in November 2003. The guidance material accompanying the SARPS is in the process of being updated. This guidance will, when combined with the various manuals listed above, provide the technical detail needed to construct a bird/wildlife control programme. It does not, however, describe the levels of effort that are needed if a bird control programme is to operate effectively. It was therefore agreed at the 26 th meeting of IBSC in Warsaw that a set of IBSC standards should be developed by the committee to address this issue.
This paper seeks to identify those areas where universally applicable practices can be identified, and suggests levels of airfield habitat management, bird control equipment, manpower, etc. that, in the opinion of the IBSC membership, an airport should have in place if it is to effectively manage the birdstrike risk to aircraft. It is envisaged that these standards will inform airport managers, national regulators, the insurance industry, lawyers etc. about what they should expect to see invested in bird/wildlife control at an airport. Airports with unusually high bird/wildlife strike risk for whatever reason would be expected to invest more in strike prevention than is described below in order to reduce that risk.
IBSC STANDARDS
Airfield Habitat Management
Controlling the attractiveness of an airport to birds and other wildlife is fundamental to good bird control. Indeed, it is probably more important than bird dispersal in terms of controlling the overall risk. If an airport provides easily accessible resources to birds/wildlife in terms of food, water, shelter or breeding sites, then they will continue to try and return despite any dispersal tactics that are used to dissuade them. The control programme is thus doomed to failure unless the airport is made as unattractive to birds/wildlife as possible. Habitat management to deter birds/wildlife involves two processes, identifying the attractive features and implementing changes to either remove the attraction or to deny access to it.
Habitat management, such as improving drainage, installing fences, modifying vegetation cover etc. is frequently expensive. It is often difficult to obtain resources for programmes which, in the case of vegetation modification, may take a number of years to fully implement, and the benefits of which are not always immediately apparent to airport managers. Commitment to the process from senior managers is therefore essential and a named member of the airport’s senior management should take responsibility for ensuring that this, and other parts of the bird/wildlife hazard management programme are carried out properly.
Overgrown ditches like this provide good shelter and nesting cover for hazardous birds
A named member of the senior management team at the airport should be responsible for the implementation of the bird control programme, including both habitat management and active bird control.
The reasons why birds frequent an airfield are not always obvious. They may be attracted to food such as invertebrates, small mammals, seeds or plants in the grassland; water from ponds, ditches, or puddles on the tarmac, nesting sites in trees, bushes or buildings, or simply the security offered by large open spaces where they can easily see approaching predators. In some cases it may be obvious what resources they are attracted to, but in others it may not. If there is any uncertainty, obtaining the assistance of a professional bird/wildlife prevention specialist is advisable in order to identify what it is that is attracting the birds/wildlife to the airefield. Obviously, the attraction will vary from one species to another.
Cleared and netted drainage channels offer no bird attration whilst maximising their drainage functions
Once the attraction has been identified, a management plan should be developed either to remove it entirely, reduce it in quantity, or to deny access to it. Because airfields around the world are all different and because the bird/wildlife species that frequent them vary from region to region, it is not possible to define precisely what types of habitat management will be effective at a particular site.
Typical examples include manipulating the species and/or height of vegetation cover on the airport, removal of trees and bushes, netting of water bodies, excluding birds from buildings by netting or other means, selection of non-attractive amenity planting around terminals etc.. Whatever techniques are used, all airports should be able to show that they have assessed the bird attractions on their property and developed and implemented a habitat management plan to reduce these attractions as far as is practicable.
Water retention ponds can be proofed against Birds with netting or, as in this case with floating ‘bird balls’
An airport should undertake a review of the features on its property that attract hazardous birds/wildlife. The precise nature of the resource that the they are attracted to should be identified and a management plan developed to eliminate or reduce the quantity of that resource, or to deny birds access to it as far as is practicable.
Where necessary, support from a professional bird/wildlife strike prevention specialist should be sought.
Documentary evidence of this process, its implementation and outcomes should be kept.
Active Bird/Wildlife Control On The Airport
Effective bird/wildlife control requires that even small numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife are dispersed as soon as possible from the airfield. This avoids them becoming an attraction to other birds/wildlife as their presence indicates that there is food available on the airfield and/or that it is a safe place to rest. To achieve this, birds/wildlife need to be detected rapidly once they arrive and then dispersed quickly. Efficient detection cannot be achieved from the ATC tower or the Airfield Operations centre. Relying on Air Traffic Controllers to call out staff to disperse birds/wildlife will result in small numbers being missed. It will also result in a delayed response when birds/wildlife are detected, because it will take time for the controller to reach the particular location. Efficient detection requires the use of a mobile patrol, operated by trained and equipped staff who are able to disperse birds/wildlife immediately they are detected. If these staff are diverted to other duties, such as marshalling aircraft, the control will be reduced in efficiency. Bird/wildlife control at night is more problematic because it is often difficult to detect where birds that are dispersed from the airfield are moving to. Control of nocturnal mammals may only be possible at night when they are active.
A properly trained and equipped bird/wildlife controller should be present on the airfield for at least 15 minutes prior to any aircraft departure or arrival. Thus, if aircraft are landing or taking of at intervals of less than 15 minutes there should be a continuous presence on the airfield throughout daylight hours. The controller should not be required to undertake any duties other than bird control during this time. Note that for aerodromes with infrequent aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long enough to disperse all hazardous birds/wildlife from the vicinity of the runway. In this case the controller should be deployed sufficiently in advance of the aircraft movement to allow full dispersal to be achieved.
At night, active runways and taxiways should be checked for the presence of birds/wildlife at regular intervals and the dispersal action taken as needed.
Organisation
Different aerodromes adopt a variety of organisational structures for their bird/wildlife control programmes. These vary from having bird control as a secondary duty of the
Air Traffic Control or Fire Sections, through staffing bird control from the Airfield
Operations Section to employing specialist wildlife managers or bird control units. Bird control staffed from larger units has the advantage that there are more staff to call upon and greater flexibility to cope with sudden increases in bird numbers. However, staff employed primarily in other roles may regard bird control as a secondary or low status duty which, if they only carry it out on rare occasions, it not really their personal responsibility. Conversely, small specialist units are normally staffed by people who have a real interest in birds and bird control, and who clearly recognise that the responsibility for birds on the airfield lies with them. This ‘ownership’ of the bird problem can be a powerful motivation to improve standards of bird control. Such units may, however, find it difficult to cope with staff illness or sudden increases in bird numbers which require additional staff to be deployed.
Whichever organisational system is in place, it should deliver the standards described elsewhere in this document.
Communication between the various interested gropus and organisations on an airport is essential if good bird/wildlife control standards are to be achieved. Airfield Operations, Grounds Maintenance, Air Traffic Control, Airport Fire Service, Airport Planners, Airlines etc. All have a role to play in identifying and correcting problems that may occur. Airport management should ensure that a mechanism is available (e.g. an airport birdstrike prevention committee) which enables these organisations to participate in the bird/wildlife hazard management process. This will help to ensure that these organisations
Equipment
The type and level of sophistication of the equipment needed to deter birds/wildlife from airfields depends on the species involved and the quantity of manpower that can be deployed. If a single staff member is required to disperse birds/wildlife from a large airport then equipment such as pistol launched pyrotechnics or distress call broadcasting devices will be essential. If more staff can be deployed or is the airport is small, then more basic equipment may suffice.
Bird/wildlife deterrent devices can be broadly divided into visual, acoustic and lethal, and subdivided into portable and static systems. The levels of sophistication, and hence cost, available are highly variable and include the simple scarecrow, (a static visual device), complex radio controlled sound grenerators (static acoustic), pyrotechnic pistols and vehicle mounted distress call apparatus (mobile acoustic), hand held lasers (mobile visual), traps (static lethal) and a shotgun (mobile lethal). The choice of which systems, or combination of systems, to deploy will depend on cost, legal and logistical constraints and, perhaps most importantly, on the species that need to be dispersed. For example, attempting to use a distress call system on a bird species which do not produce such calls is doomed to failure.
Relatively few of the bird/wildlife control devices available to airports have been subjected to a proper scientific evaluation of their effectiveness. It is not possible, therefore, to recommend particular devices as being suitable for bird control at every airport.
The limited use of lethal control is an important part of an effective bird management programme
Portable equipment, that requires a staff member on the airfield to operate it, is generally regarded as offering the best control, providing that the staff involved are properly trained and motivated. Devices such as pyrotechnic pistols, or vehicle mounted distress call generators produce an impression of a direct threat which can be continually varied in time and location by the operator in a manner not available to static systems. In all cases staff should have access to a shotgun to remove birds/wildlife that cannot be dispersed by non-lethal means, providing that the relevant bird protection and firearms legislation in the country concerned permits this. It is vital that staff are properly trained in the safe use of firearms and carry the necessary permits to own or operate the weapon. There is some debate as to the necessity of the use of lethal control in aerodrome bird/wildlife management, but the view of the vast majority of experts is that supporting the non-lethal threat of pyrotechnic and other devices with an element of lethal control is important because it helps to ensure that birds/wildlife do not habituate to the control programme and permits the selective removal of any birds/wildlife that fail to respond to the dispersal techniques deployed.
A mobile patrol equipped with scaring devices such as pyrotechnics and distress calls is the most efficient way to detect and disperse birds.
In general, static bird scaring devices, such as gas cannons or other sound generators, gradually lose their effectiveness over time. Although some of the more sophisticated devices, which generate a variety of sounds in random or pre- programmed order, may delay this habituation, they are generally more suitable for providing short term bird deterrence from limited areas (e.g. ground being reinstated after building works).
Gas Cannons, even if moved regularly, will eventually lose their effectiveness over time.
Trained predators (falcons and dogs) Trained falcons and dogs, which are both potential predators for many species of hazardous birds found on airports, are undobtedly effective in dispersing birds. To work properly, however, considerable investment in the training of both the animals and their handlers needs to be made. This training is essential both to ensure that the animals themselves do not become a strike risk and also to ensure that the deterrent value of deploying the falcon or dog is maximised. Airports should not underestimate the staff time and cost involved in incorporating falcons or dogs in their bird control programmes.
Falcons represent a real threat to birds and will not be ignored. Their use close to aircraft requires great care, skill and considerable expense.
It is also important to remember that falcons and dogs are not effective at dispersing all hazardous birds in all conditions. They should be regarded as one tool amongst many that the bird controller can use. The use of trained predators alone is not an adequate substitute for the other bird management techniques described above.
Bird control staff should be equipped with bird deterrent devices appropriate to the bird species encountered, the numbers of birds present, and to the area that they need to control. Staff should have access to appropriate devices for removal of birds/wildlife, such as firearms or traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these techniques at short notice.
All staff should receive proper training in the use of bird control devices.
Logging Bird/Wildlife Management Activities
There is an increasing tendency towards airlines and/or their insurers embarking on legal action to recover the costs of bird/wildlife strike damage from the airports at which they occur. It is important that airports record the bird control actions that they take in order to be able to show that they had an adequate bird/wildlife control programme in place at the time of an incident and that the programme was functioning properly. Data gathered as part of a bird/wildlife control programme is also important in assessing the effectiveness of the actions taken. A number of different methods for recording these data exist, from simple paper records to sophisticated devices based on pocket PC tecnnology. The latter save time and effort, especially if the data are to be subsequently entered onto a computer for further analysis. Whatever the means of recording used, the important issue is that a comprehensive record of the bird control activities is kept in order to demonstrate that the airport is following its own policies and procedures.
Airport bird/wildlife controllers should record the following at least every 30 minutes (if air traffic is sufficiently infrequent that bird patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, an entry should be made for each patrol carried out).
areas of the airport patrolled,
numbers, location and species of birds/wildlife seen,
action taken to disperse the birds/wildlife,
results of the action.
Birdstrike Reporting
All bird/wildlife management programmes need to be monitored to see if they are working effectively and whether they need to be modified, extended or improved. The only effective way to do this is by collating data on the strikes at the airport concerned. Other measures, counting the birds/wildlife on the airfield for instance, provide useful additional i nformation, but are not a direct measure of the strike risk at the airport. All strikes should be reported, whether or not they cause damage to the aircraft and whatever bird/wildlife species was involved. Unless the airport is confident that it knows what species are being struck on its property it cannot hope to target its management efforts in the correct direction. It is important that airport managers do not penalise staff for reporting birdstrikes. Even though strikes to large jet airliners from small species such as swallows or sparrow-sized birds are unlikely to cause damage to an aircraft, staff should be required to report them. Similarly, the total number of strikes at an airport should never be used as a measure of strike risk or of the performance of the bird/wildife controllers. The main risk arises from strikes with large species, especially birds that form flocks. A risk assessment process that combines strike frequency with likely severity needs to be employed to properly assess the risk (see below). Such a process cannot work effectively unless all strike are reported, however.
There are a wide variety of definitions of precisely what constitutes a bird/wildlife strike. In terms of gathering information to better understand the risk, it is preferable to include as many events as possible in an inclusive definition. Including all strike reports in an airport’s dataset does raise a number of problems, however. For example, if a pilot reports a strike on approach to the airport and a check of the area for a carcass and inspection of the aircraft shows no evidence that a strike has taken place there is no confirmation that a strike has actually occured. Other than the location of the possible strike, such a report provides little useful information (e.g. bird species numbers damage levels etc.) that can aid the airport in targetting its bird control effort. These unconfirmed strikes should be recorded, but do not need to be subjected to the analysis described in 2.7 below.
A number of countries also record near misses in their bird/wildlife strike databases. The definition of a near miss is more problematic as it involves the pilot’s interpretation of how close the birds/wildlife was to the aeroplane and whether this constituted a threat to safety. Also, at airports situated in areas of high bird populations it might be difficult for an observant pilot to land or take off without seeing a bird at some distance from the aircraft and every movement might be regarded as a near miss. Accumulating near miss information may prove valuable, but, like unconfirmed strikes, they should not be included in the airport’s strike statistics used for analysis. Databases etc.should be set up to allow unconfirmed strikes and near misses to be separated from other bird/wildlife strikes when evaluating the dataset.
There are, however, some incidents where a strike does not occur, such as pilots being forced to take evasive action to avoid birds or wildlife, that should be recorded separately as these actions themselves are potentially dangerous and have been caused by the presence of birds.
Bird/wildlife incidents should therefore be defined in 3 categories:
Confirmed strikes: Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which evidence in the form of a carcass, remains or damage to the aircraft is found. Any bird/wildlife found dead on an airfield where there is no other obvious cause of death (e.g. struck by a car, flew into a window etc.).
Unconfirmed strikes: Any reported collision between a bird or other wildlife and an aircraft for which no physical evidence is found.
Serious incidents: Incidents where the presence of birds/wildlife on or around the airfield has any effect on a flight whether or not evidence of a strike can be found.
These definitions ensure that the maximum quantity of information is gathered, but that only reliable evidence is used in assessing the effectiveness of the bird/wildlife management programme. Depending upon the organisational structure in a particular country or at an individual airport, the responsibility for reporting bird/wildlife strikes may lie with a number of different individuals or departments, such as airport operations, air traffic control or pilots. It is important that the airport has a mechanism for ensuring that it is aware, as far as is possible, of all of the strikes that happen on or near its property.
Analysis of birdstrike data
Effective analysis of birdstrike data is particularly important. For example, separating strikes that occur on the airport (under 200 feet on approach and 500 feet on climb out using the ICAO definition) from those that occur further out in the approaches helps to define those strikes that are likely to be influenced by the airport bird management programme. Similarly, separating strikes with species that are over 100g in weight (i.e. those more likely to cause damage), and giving greater emphasis to strikes with flocks all help to identify trends in the real birdstrike risk at the airport. So, for example, an airport with an increasing rate of bird/wildlife strikes is not necessarily becoming a more risky place to fly. If the increase in strikes is due to an increase in incidents with small species, whilst the rate of strikes with large species and flocks is falling, then this is indicative of both better bird/wildlife control and better reporting of strikes. Again it is important to emphasise that the simple total number of strikes at an airport is not a good indicator of risk, and that examination of the data by species struck is essential. This process can be carried out as part of a formal risk assessment process as described in Section 11, page 17.
Bird/wildlife remains identification
Bird/wildlife strike statistics cannot be properly interpreted unless the species struck is known. The risk assessment process depends on a knowledge of the size of bird/wildlife struck to assess the likely severity of impacts, and the airport’s bird management programme may be targetting the wrong bird species if no record of what birds are being struck is kept. Bird/wildlife remains recovered following strikes are often fragmentary but even the smallest feather fragments can be identified and blood smears can be separated to species by the use of DNA analysis. Airports should ensure that all bird remains are identified as completely as possible given the facilities at their disposal.
Data required in a birdstrike report
The more information that is recorded about a birdstrike incident the better. As a minimum, the data required on the ICAO birdstrike reporting form should be collected as fully as possible. If some data items are not available (e.g. altitude of strike) then as much information as possible should be collected and due account taken of the missing data during subsequent analyses.
Airports should establish a mechanism to ensure that they are informed of all bird/wildlife strikes reported on or near their property.
The total number of birdstrikes should never be used as a measure of risk or of the performance of the bird control measures at an airport.
Airports should ensure that the identification of the species involved in birdstrikes is as complete as possible.
Airports should record all birdstrikes and include, as far as they are able, the data required for the standard ICAO reporting form
National Regulators should collate birdstrike data and submit this to ICAO annually.
Submission to ICAO
Although this is not a matter directly for individual airports, countries should be encouraged to collate birdstrike data at the national level and to submit this to ICAO. This assists in assessing the true levels of birdstrike risk and costs to the aviation industry of birdstrikes around the world.
Risk Assessment
Formal risk assessment is now routinely used in almost all aspects of health and safety work. Bird/wildlife strike prevention has tended to lag behind in this field because the involvement of birds and other wildlife (creatures whose behaviour can vary hourly, daily and seasonally, and whose populations can fluctuate over longer periods) as a key component of the system being assessed makes it difficult to accurately predict risk levels. Techniques are now available that make use of the frequency that each species is struck, combined with probability of aircraft damage for that species, to calculate risk levels for a particular airport. These allow risk assessment matrices to be constructed and updated annually in order to evaluate how the risk level is changing in response to the bird management measures in place.
Airports should conduct a formal risk assessment of their birdstrike situation and use the results to help target their bird management measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Risk assessments should be updated at regular intervals, preferably annually.
Bird/wildlife management off the airfield
Providing that best practice in terms of habitat management and active control are put in place on an airfield, the strike risk arising from the airfield itself can be largely controlled in all but the most extreme circumstances. Managing the strike risk that originates from off the airfield is a more complex and difficult challenge. Firstly, the problematic sites need to be identified by means of a hazard assessment. This can pose problems because, for some species, such as gulls, the sites frome which birds that cause a risk at the airport originate can be many miles from the airport itself. Having identified sites that support hazardous birds/wildlife it is then necessary to estimate the risk that they pose to the airport. Birds/wildlife on the airport itself can reasonably be assumed to pose some level of risk as their proximity to the aircraft means that they will eventually cross a runway ot taxiway and may thus be struck. Birds/wildlife at a site remote from the airport may pose no risk at all if they never cross the airfield or its approaches. The same basic principles apply when developing a management plan whether it is on or off the airfield. A risk assessment thus requires either a measurement or an estimation of how often birds/wildlife at an off airfield site will transit the active airspace. Once sites that pose a significant risk are identified, the management principles that are needed to control the risk are similar to those on airfield. They are to identify the attractions, then to manage the habitat to reduce the attraction, or deny the birds access to it. Dispersal tactics can then be deployed to remove any birds that remain. This will require a collaborative approach and positive working relationship with local landowners.
Landfills close to airports can be netted to exclude hazardous birds
Part of the new ICAO standards concerning airport bird control states that:
The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the establishment of garbage disposal dumps or any such other source attracting bird activity on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome unless an appropriate aeronautical study indicates that they are unlikely to create conditions conducive to a bird hazard problem.
Whilst the reference to garbage dumps is clear, ‘any such other source attracting bird activity’ requires a significant degree of interpretation. As with the bird/wildlife attractions on the aerodrome, airport managers may need to seek assistance form specialists when identifying the major bird/wildlife attractions near their airport. They will certainly require some assistance in assessing whether the birds/wildlife using such a site pose a significant risk to flight safety, as this needs an understanding of ecology and behaviour that is unlikely to be available from within the airport’s own staff.
Once sites that support birds/wildlife that are, or might, cause a flight safety problem are identified, management options can be developed. These can range from minor habitat modification, changing cropping or other agricultural practices, major drainage operations or large scale removal of bird/wildlife populations. Again the choice of technique will depend on the particular situation encountered and expert advice should be sought if necessary. Larger scale off-airport bird/wildlife management may also involve liaison with local conservation interests, especially if the sites that need to be managed are nature reserves. In some cases it may be impossible to resolve the conflicting interests of flight safety and conservation, but in trying to do so the airport will be in a better position to show due diligence in the event of an accident or legal claim in the future.
Airports should conduct an inventory of bird attracting sites within the ICAO defined 13km bird circle, paying particular attention to sites close to the airfield and the approach and departure corridors. A basic risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether the movement patterns of birds/wildlife attracted to these sites means that they cause, or may cause, a risk to air traffic. If this is the case, options for bird management at the site(s) concerned should be developed and a more detailed risk assessment performed to determine if it is possible and/or cost effective to implement management processes at the site(s) concerned. This process should be repeated annually to identify new sites or changes in the risk levels produced by existing sites.
Where national laws permit, airports, or airport authorities, should seek to have an input into planning decisions and land use practices within the 13km bird circle for any development that may attract significant numbers of hazardous birds/wildlife. Such developments should be subjected to a similar risk assessment process as described above and changes sought, or the proposal opposed, if a significant increase in birdstrike risk is likely to result.
ACI (2005). Aerodrome Bird Hazard Prevention and Wildlife Management Handbook First Edition. Airports Council International, Geneva.
CAA. (1998). CAP 680 Bird Control On Aerodromes. Civil Aviation Authority, London.
Cleary, E.C. & Dolbeer, R.A. (1999) Wildlife hazard management at airports, a manual for airport personnel. US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC.
Transport Canada (2001). Sharing The Skys – An Aviation Guide To The Management Of Wildlife Hazards. Transport Canada, Ottawa.
(Photos taken from avherald.com)
Monday May 15, 2017 – 12:00
ENERGY, NOT GEESE: Converting airport grasslands to biofuel, solar, or wind production may produce alternative energy while reducing the local abundance of wildlife hazardous to aircraft. PHOTO BY DAVID BERGMAN