Some recent examples?
Two months ago in Rome, a Boeing 737 operated by Ryanair, flew through a flock of starlings. These are small birds that weigh about 90 grams, or about…[three]…ounces. It hit a large flock of them and there was damage to both engines.The pilot just sort of flew the plane into the runway to control it, and it collapsed the landing gear and caused major damage. Everyone had to be evacuated just like today, and there were some injuries but no fatalities.
Anther recent incident occurred in Belgium last May 2008. A Boeing 747 cargo airplane, operated by Kalitta Air, was leaving the Brussels airport, and it ingested a bird into one of the engines. The pilot made a decision to abort the takeoff. He wasn't able to stop the aircraft before the end of the runway. The plane broke in two and was destroyed. Luckily, it was full of cargo and not passengers. [The entire crew survived.]
Are certain aircraft more likely to get hit than others?
Bird strikes are five times more likely to occur on planes with engines mounted under the wings, such as the Boeing 737 or the Airbus A320, than on planes with engines mounted on the fuselage, like the Boeing MD-80 and some...[smaller]...jets.* It is probably because the airflow over the MD-80 causes the birds to get blown away from the engines.
Are bird strikes on the rise?
IIn 1990 there were only 1,750 strikes reported. Right now, for 2008, there will probably be 8,000 bird strikes reported. In 2007 there were 7,600.
One factor is there's probably better reporting today. I also think there has been an increase in populations of birds because of the various environmental programs put in place in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The resident Canada goose population in the United States, for instance, has increased from one million in 1990 to 3.9 million in 2008.
We're also seeing more and more birds adapt to urban environment, and they find airports very attractive because they provide a large grassy space they can come feed to and rest.
Finally, we've got air traffic increasing 2 percent a year, and the planes are quieter. Most of the noise comes out the back of the engine now, as opposed to propeller-driven aircraft and older jets where noise came out the front. Birds are less able to detect modern aircraft.
How can we cut down the risk of bird strikes?
There's no silver bullet. There's no magic chemical you can spray or sound you can project that is going to scare the birds away. What it takes, and what we advocate for airports worldwide is integrated management with three pillars:
The first pillar is habitat management. Manage habitat in the airport and surrounding area at least two miles from the airport. You don't want to have any bird attractants like landfills that attract gulls or other scavenging birds. On the airport, you want to eliminate standing water because water is a magnet. You want to have good drainage, and manage the grass and keep it mowed. You also want to keep [animal] populations under control so you don't attract birds of prey. You want to eliminate any perching structures on or around the airport and basically make the airport as sterile as possible.
The second pillar is having trained bird-control teams that patrol the airport and harass and disperse any birds that come onto the airport grounds. They use pyrotechnics and noisemakers that flash lights and that will scare—but not kill—the birds. Some airports use trained dogs. A few airports use trained falcons.
The last resort is lethal control or removal of birds from surrounding areas, which is only done under permit because all of these birds are federally protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. Canada geese, for instance, are rounded up in early summer and euthanized.
That takes care of the airport environment. Once the plane gets away from the airport and the plane is gaining altitude there are a few things that hold promise but are not operational. How do we make aircraft more detectable or noticeable by birds? One concept is using pulsating landing lights instead of having steady lights in order to catch the birds' attention so they realize something fast is approaching. We also know birds see in the ultraviolet range beyond what humans see and one idea is to use UV-reflecting paint.
The final thing being worked on is bird-detecting radar. We have radar that detects weather and radar that detects wind shear around airports. You can program radar to filter out weather and show the birds. That would be available to pilots and air traffic control to help pilots steer around concentrations of birds in the air.
*Note (1/16/09): The original sentence identified the MD-80 as a McDonnell Douglas plane. It also was not clearly stated that the MD-80 is a long-range passenger airplane.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentOperational bird radars are available and in use. The USAF has six specialized bird radars and NASA has two it uses for monitoring space shuttle launches. Foreign airports such as Calgary IAP and the Durban IAP also have systems in use. These systems are low cost, automatic, proven and for what the Airbus we just lost cost, we could have these systems at most every airport today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have got to be kidding me. Bird populations are nowhere near historic (define properly), levels. Citing a rise in bird population as a scapegoat is absurd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe previous comment of radar is a good example of technology that isn't used here, due to "it cost money".
How about placing a simple screen in front of the turbine that turns big birds into smaller bird "pieces", before it enters the turbines. Again, it might cost a CEU his bonus for a year to implement that.
How about realizing that the more planes we put in the air, the more accidents are going to happen. Airline travel is so safe today compared to driving a car, that I can't believe we are talking about this issue. Except, news channels put forth their crap and we all eat it up, even though it stinks.
This is a very very well designed aircraft and full credit to the pilot also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdid DDT do something to birds?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, DDT did not do anything to birds - those claims were based on seriously flawed studies. That didn't stop the environmentalists from pushing to get it banned though - an action that has cost perhaps 100 MILLION lives to malaria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should all be grateful to God for saving the life of pilot and his passengers. He must have been divinely inspired to take the action he took.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf God is responsible for saving everyone, why didn't God just divert the birds away from the plane in the first place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure the birds being sucked into engines and pulverized would disagree that no major damage is being done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question should be how to keep birds safe from planes.
I don't see why a piece of equipment similar in concept as the old "cow catcher" on locomotive can't be designed for a jet engine. A simple conical devise "grating" formed in front of the engine intake could either deflect or "cheese cutter like" shred a bird into smaller pieces allowing them to bounce off or pass through a turbo fan without major damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see why a piece of equipment similar in concept as the old "cow catcher" on locomotive can't be designed for a jet engine. A simple conical devise "grating" formed in front of the engine intake could either deflect or "cheese cutter like" shred a bird into smaller pieces allowing them to bounce off or pass through a turbo fan without major damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of testing engines by tossing chicken carcasses into them, maybe they should switch to pigeons and sea gulls. I can't remember the last time I heard of a jet passing through a flock of chickens. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat can't a grille be put over the engine intakes? This would absorb all or part of the energy of bird stikes and reduce the impact on the compressor blades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA problem with screens or grating like you've describe is that they a) cut down on airflow into the engine and b) have the potential for ice to collect on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAirplanes have quieter engines than they had in the past and many times the birds can't hear the aircraft. Maybe a device that emits a signal that birds can hear (similar to a dog whistle) could be place on aircraft to warn the birds to GTF outta the way.
Much can be done and should be done to avoid hitting birds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that if this plane had gone down in flames and everyone died, we'd be looking at the pilot for cause? But, because it came down safely, one of the gods is responsible. Sorry, I prefer to give ALL of the credit to Captain Sully. It was his experience and skill only that kept his passengers safe. If you want one of your gods to get the credit, I'll need proof...not to mention an explanation as to why that god didn't just not put the birds in the path of the plane in the first place..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLive birds used to be used in research rather than frozen trajected ones I believe, the variety of birds both in flocks like starlings/lapwings + individual as baldheaded eagles/geese is far ranging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope there is cohesive global research on this not just each country holding stats.
May I ask somebody, why the motors of a plane are not protected by a sort of a strong sieve (percolater) of a conic shape towards the direction of the flight? Thank you. Pavel Kabrt, pavelkabrt@seznam.cz, Czech Republic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the same question others ask: does anybody know, why the motors of a plane are not covered by a strong conic sort of percolator /sieve/ with its top in front? Thank you, Pavel Kabrt, Czech Republic, pavelkabrt@seznam.cz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisme and my group are in midle school we have been assined to find a solution to our problemm i agree with furgus we should be finding a way to keep the birds and the planes safe not just the planes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author states "There's no magic chemical you can spray or sound you can project that is going to scare the birds away. “
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe is not only wrong he is totally wrong. There certainly is a chemical that gets rid of birds without harming them and does so very effectively. He should read what the EPA has published regarding Methyl Antrhanilate and efficacy on ALL species of birds. Now different means need to be employed to use this chemical but it's efficacy to rid areas of all birds is a fact not a supposition.
Seriously?? DDT didn't do anything to birds?? Wow, can't believe you are so naive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this