A plane crashes into the Hudson River. By great good luck, all 155 people aboard survive. The cause of the accident? “A double bird strike.”
So how often do birds, going about their wild-thing business, bring down our massive metal machines? More often than you might think—and yet, way less often than you’d think, considering the fact that the sky is full of birds and planes (87,000 flights a day, says the National Air Traffic Controllers Association). According to The New York Times, 486 commercial aircraft have collided with birds since 2000, with 166 having to do emergency landings like we saw yesterday and 66 aborting takeoffs entirely.
The Times piece recounts several of the more notable bird-strike incidents, and reveals the existence of Bird Strike Committee USA, a group created in 1991 that, according to its website, counts members from the FAA, USDA, and Department of Defense.
BSC-USA tells us that 75 percent of such collisions are with waterfowl, gulls, and raptors; they also report that 90 percent of bird strikes in the U.S. are species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to Scientific American, the last 20 years have seen a boom in reported bird strikes from about 1,500 in 1990 to 8,000 last year, due to recovering avian populations, increasing air traffic, quieter planes, and better reporting. According to Richard Dolbeer, a wildlife biologist they spoke with, 85 percent of the time no damage occurs.
Dolbeer also said the approach to prevention is threefold: managing habitat at the airport (removing standing water, etc.); deploying teams to get the birds the hell away from the airport (with noisemakers, flares, cannons, and what have you); and killing ‘em (with a permit) if need be. He also says there’s bird-detecting radar in the works.
Like backyard bears, this is certainly an example of humans creating our own mess—but since we’re in it for good, let’s hope technology can help. And let’s be glad yesterday ended as well as it did.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Tweet for the bees
James Bond calls for more marine protected areas
Comments
View as Threaded
Sean Casten Posted 3:31 am
16 Jan 2009
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 4:52 am
16 Jan 2009
I worked at Purdue airport for a number of years. I never actually hit a bird but had a few close calls. Hitting birds in general aviation prop jobs was no big deal. It always happened while in the pattern, during takeoff, or on final. Other than a few small dents I never saw any serious damage.
Boeing tests aircraft structure by shooting chickens at them with an air cannon. Large turbofan engines can handle your average sized birds, but a flock of geese is just out of the design envelope.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 12:17 pm
16 Jan 2009
Okay, who's going to tell the air cannon chicken joke?
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:27 pm
16 Jan 2009
Which reminds me of the day we realized they could snap off during a gear up landing ...we will see how that works out someday. The theory is that the plane will decelerate faster than the free ranging engines.
The Airbus engineers did good ...always wondered if the idea would work in a water landing.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 6:21 pm
16 Jan 2009
Initial reports suggest geese were to blame. These are likely migrant Brant, in for the winter, or resident 'Canadoid' geese. The Canadoids are a human-created hybrid of different subspecies of Canada Goose. Unlike 'natural' Canadas, they don't really migrate. Many people have suggested bumping 'Canadoid' off, as they cause a lot of problems in urban areas and compete with/genetically pollute, 'natural' Canadas. Maybe this accident will lend some impetus to this?
JFK airport has for years quietly been shotgunning what by now must be literally hundreds of thousands of gulls because of the supposed danger they present to aircraft. They've pretty much left geese alone because they're worried about the PR backlash of killing them -- people think gulls are awful trash birds whereas they think geese are cute. This is one of the big under-reported enviro crime stories of the NYC area, and it would be great for grist to look into it. It's insane that a lethal control policy would not target the birds that are the real problem -- Canadoid geese, mainly, because of their bulk -- but would wipe out huge numbers of smaller and hence less-problematic species.
Biodiversivist: One of the little problems with these shear pins is that if they are not looked after that well or get old, the engine sometimes comes off when it isn't meant to. There was a recent incident of this in Cape Town where a Boeing 737-200 lost an engine on takeoff. Tho the pilot managed a miracle go-around and safe landing, it led to the bankruptcy of the airline, Nationwide. If you google around you'll find at least 3 other incidents of this type, all involving Boeing 737-200s, in the US. Scary!
BTW on a recent flight into Cape Town the planed did a sudden jink to port just before finals. I was at a starboard window and immediately after saw a sedate chevron of Great White Pelican cruising past just a hundred yards away from the wingtip! Needless to say I congratulated the pilot on his high-class field ornithology...
Whiskerfish
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 3:11 am
17 Jan 2009
Aircraft maintenance is all important. The FAA keeps a close eye on aircraft maintenance schedules. Those pins are inspected at regular intervals for signs of wear or corrosion. An airline that only claims it is inspecting critical parts (to save money) is playing Russian Roulette. For example, most older airliners in service have cracked parts here and there. The cracks are watched for growth and are replaced before the crack reaches critical length.
Airliners are designed to lose an engine and continue to fly, although not very well and not for very long. The pilot has to stomp opposite rudder until he gets it back on the ground. Whenever you see an twin engined plane heading for landing with one prop not spinning it is probably a pilot taking his FAA exam proving he can land a plane with one engine out.
The 777 was the first two engine airliner certified to fly over open ocean using routes that don't put it within gliding range of an airport should it lose power. To get that certification it had to prove with many hours of trouble free flight that the odds were low enough to allow it. Hitting a goose at thirty thousand feet over the Mid-Atlantic would be a very rare occurrence.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
questionthings Posted 7:50 am
21 Jan 2009
Years ago, I learned how to fly a small Cessna, but I no longer see it as a viable mode of transportation. If it wasn't polluting our skies and running into birds, I might think differently. I think it's all about scale: why choose the noisiest, most damaging option? I suspect that paragliders and hang gliders don't pose a risk to birds, but private planes and jets often do.
Another commenter said that they hit small birds in their plane but that besides a few small dents, they never saw any serious damage. I think the birds would claim otherwise--that is, if they weren't dead already.
I guess I just wish humans could think a bit more broadly than about just themselves or just other humans (although that would be a good first step). There are lots of other species on this planet who also have a right to live and thrive. I'd like to see us make decisions not only on how to save human lives but also how to minimize our impacts on other species. For example, if you build your dream mansion in the country and then commute along rural roads full of wildlife to get to your city job, you seem likely to run into birds and other wildlife from time to time.
Sorry if I was a bit long-winded. I'm new to posting like this. :-)
Permalink