Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Capt. Paul Eschenfelder, Avion Corporation; 16326 Cranwood, Spring, Texas, USA
77379; ph/fax 281-370-3925; eschenfelder@compuserve.com
Steve Hull, Senior Air Safety Investigator, British Airways; P.O. Box 10 London
Heathrow Airport, Hounslow Middlesex, TW6 2JA; +44(0)20 8513 0255;
Steve.e.hull@britishairways.com
ABSTRACT: Each year the world’s airlines lose between $1-2 billion dollars due to
wildlife strikes to aircraft. This is roughly the same level of loss as the carriers pay out
each year for lost luggage. One US airline cites its loses at $2 million a month due to
engine ingestion alone. The last several years have seen both hull loses to air carrier
aircraft and lesser damage. Wildlife strike mitigation is a defense in depth: airplane
certification/construction standards; action by airport operators to minimize wildlife on
and around airports; standards/regulation development by authorities such as ICAO and
national regulators. What is missing is affirmative action by airline operators to develop
and implement policy which will aid in the mitigation of this risk. As the airline
operator, through its employees, is on the tip of the spear with this hazard, sound
avoidance and mitigation policies, detailing actions which may be taken by employees,
should be implemented. This paper will detail common practices for flight crewmembers
which will reduce/eliminate wildlife strikes or mitigate their impact.
INTRODUCTION
Wildlife strikes to aircraft, principally by birds, cost the airline industry about US$1.2
billion in losses, worldwide, each year (Allan). These costs include both direct repair
costs and lost revenue opportunities. Since 1988 over 190 people have been killed,
worldwide, in collisions between their aircraft and birds (Cleary). Wildlife strikes to
aircraft are a worldwide problem (ATSB). In the USA the National Transportation
Safety Board issued 9 safety recommendations in 1999 expressing its concerns with the
conflict between wildlife and aircraft (Hall).
There are two reasons for this hazard. First, worldwide wildlife populations have
expanded geometrically in the last 20-30 years due to changes in laws and improvements
in the environment. As an example the resident Canada goose population increased 5
times during a 20-year period 1980-2000. Likewise aviation continues to expand at a rate
of 2-3% per annum. Secondly, the rules governing the design and manufacture of aircraft
and engines were written before this wildlife population explosion and are not reflective
of current conditions. For instance, current airframe design contemplates a collision with
one four-pound bird. However, in North America, there are 36 species of birds over four
1
pounds, some weighing as much as 20 pounds. Most of these large bird species are
flocking birds. Likewise engine standards for most engines today require a
demonstration of the ingestion of only one four-pound bird. A successful test is not
engine run-on but rather engine failure without fire or explosion (Dolbeer).
DISCUSSION
Certification shortfall
Encounters with large flocking birds are extremely dangerous. One computer model
indicated that, for a B-767 size aircraft, in an encounter with an average Canada goose
flock there was an 18% probability that both engines would ingest birds (Budgey). As
these engines are not designed to survive such an encounter the result could be
catastrophic.
Airframe collisions can and do result in shattered windshields, loss of CRT displays,
control cable malfunctions, depressurizations and other problems. At least four turbojet
aircraft have departed the runway after losing nose wheel steering after a bird impact in
the nose gear area (Cleary). Turbo propeller aircraft with fiberglass blades are
particularly at risk as a collision between wildlife and prop blades can and will cause the
blades to yield resulting in not only blade material entering the fuselage but also
unbalance of the propeller/engine assembly. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of significant
strikes to aircraft in the year 2005 as compiled by the US FAA (Cleary).
Airport activity
There appear to be two different types of birds around airports: resident birds and non-
resident birds. There is evidence that mature resident birds have habituated to the
presence of human activity and, like domestic animals, try to avoid hazardous situations.
They engage in a variety of identifiable actions which seem designed to help them fit into
the ‘traffic pattern’ at the airport (Kelly). Non-resident birds and young resident birds,
however, seem to have little or no awareness as to the hazard of aircraft. These birds
react to aircraft as if they are immovable obstacles to be avoided, such as trees, buildings,
etc. As a result they often are late attempting to maneuver away from aircraft, resulting
in a collision. Unfortunately it is difficult for crewmembers to discern which type of bird
they are confronting; therefore all birds should be avoided.
Folklore
Certain mitigation strategies for avoiding birdstrikes, which are endemic in pilot folklore,
simply do not work and should not be relied upon primarily because most strategies
provide no genetic survival benefit for the birds. For example: turning on the radar.
There is no evidence that birds hear in the X-band. Even if they did hear in the X-band
all they would hear is a series of clicking sounds as the radar sweeps. Birds do not know
that clicking noise is a danger. Jet engine noise will frighten birds. Birds have no
reason to believe that a spooling engine is a hazard. Likewise, scientific observation has
deduced that birds tolerate loud volumes of noise without concern (Kelly). Aircraft
lights will frighten birds. Yes, to the degree that birds see them. However if birds are
resting on the runway and facing into the wind it is unlikely they will see or hear an
aircraft during its takeoff roll until it is too late to avoid collision. Likewise if a bird in
2
flight is approached from the rear it cannot see the approaching lights. The above types
of activities detract from effective mitigation and create a false sense of security for flight
crews.
Slow down. The force imparted onto the aircraft at impact is much more dependant on
the aircraft’s speed than the size of the bird. The equation [KE = ½ (mass) times
(velocity squared)] explains it most simply. KE is the kinetic energy imparted onto the
airplane at impact, expressed in foot-pounds per square inch. Obviously speed is the
most important component of the energy force and is one that can be directly controlled
by the crew. Stated in another manner, an aircraft striking a small duck (4 lb.) at 300
knots will experience 31% more energy transfer than the same aircraft hitting the same
duck at 250 knots (MacKinnon).
The same can be said of engines. At high engine rpm (velocity) an engine is much more
likely to be damaged due to the same forces (Reed). This is why an engine ingestion
during takeoff (high engine rpm) is much more hazardous than during the
approach/landing phase. Indeed, some birds ingested during approach have actually
passed completely through the fan stages without damage to the fan and lodged against
the hot section due to low engine rotation speed and the flexibility of the fan sections
(Hartig).
While most strikes occur below 3,000’, strikes occurring above 3,000’ are more likely to
be damaging (Sowden). The reasons for this are the speed of the aircraft and the fact that
larger birds tend to fly at higher altitudes, using the same wind and uplift benefits as
human aviators. The birds have little time for avoidance at higher speeds and impact
forces are greater. While no conclusive study has been done, birds seem to bounce off
airframes at 250 knots or less while penetrating airframes above that speed. While there
is an argument that high-speed flight at low altitude (below 10,000’) may reduce some
costs, those savings are so marginal that the damage from one significant strike at high
speed will completely wipe out those savings (Sowden).
3
Pull up. Enroute, when suddenly confronted with birds, pull up, consistent with good
piloting technique, to attempt to pass over the birds. Birds seem initially to attempt to
maneuver away from conflicting aircraft (de Hoon; Kelly). In some cases they may dive.
Basic aerodynamics dictates that birds will not have enough flight energy to attempt a
sudden climb and they have not been observed doing so. However, commercial aircraft
almost always have some ability to trade airspeed for altitude to pass over the hazard.
No tolerance for large animals. Collisions with large mammals, such as deer, antelope,
domestic cattle, coyotes, etc., have destroyed or damaged all sized aircraft up to and
including B-777. There should be no more tolerance for operations with these types of
animals present than operation into windshear (CFR). The same can be said of
operations in the presence of large flocking birds. Wildlife is a force of nature. Just as
with other natural phenomenon, i.e., thunderstorms, patience is an effective mitigation
technique: wait for the danger to pass.
Report Hazards. Too many locations are susceptible to the “no report – no problem”
syndrome. Write up the appropriate safety/captain report to document the problem and
prevent a future occurrence. Airport wildlife control by airport operators is now an
ICAO standard. Fill out the forms to let the airport operators know where the problem is
and how their control program is working.
Likewise US and Canadian air traffic controllers are required to report to pilots known
wildlife hazards and continue reporting until the hazard has departed. If you see a
wildlife hazard report it immediately to ATC. Use the word “pirep” so that the controller
will realize that the information must be passed to other flights. Ask ATC to forward
your report to the airport operator so that mitigation action can be taken.
Times change, aviation adapts. In the past flight crewmembers were passive
participants in wildlife hazard mitigation. Aircraft and engine design/certification and
bird populations were such there was little need for crew action. No longer. Data clearly
validates the problem of wildlife strikes to aircraft. Viewed from a cost basis alone, the
average damaging cost being $244,000, wildlife strikes are not only dangerous but also
quite costly (Allan). In the US the courts have ruled that “…pilots must see what can be
seen…” and react accordingly. Pilots are required to ensure the safety of their aircraft
and their passengers (CFR). The use of the above procedures will aid flight
crewmembers in mitigating the hazard to their aircraft by wildlife.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the following intrepid airmen for their critical comments
in the betterment of this paper: Bruce Mackinnon of Transport Canada; Capt. Mack
Moore of United Air Lines (retired).
4
References cited:
Allan, J., Orosz, A. 2001. The Costs of Birdstrikes to Commercial Aviation. Proceedings
of Birdstrike 2001, Joint Meeting of Birdstrike Committee USA/Canada. Calgary,
Alberta.
Australian Transport Safety Board. August, 2002. The Hazards Posed to Aircraft by
Birds. Discussion Paper.
Budgey, R.; Allan, J. 1999. A Model to Determine the Severity of a Birdstrike with
Flocks of Canada Geese. Proceedings of Birdstrike ’99, Joint Meeting of Birdstrike
Committee USA/Canada. Vancouver, B.C.
Cleary, E., Dolbeer, R., Wright, S. 2005. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United
States 1990-2005. Report of the Associate Administrator for Airports. Federal Aviation
Administration. Washington, D.C.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Parts 91.3, 91.13
Hartig, J. 2005. Lufthansa Technik Engine Failure Analysis. Proceedings of the 27th
Meeting of the International Birdstrike Committee. Athens, Greece.
De Hoon, A., Buurma, L. 2003. From Birds on the Ground to Birds in the Air: Dutch
Bird Avoidance Model for Local Movements. Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the
International Birdstrike Committee. Warsaw, Poland.
Mackinnon, Bruce, Editor. 2001. Sharing the Skies. Transport Canada. Ottawa.
Sowden, R., Kelly, Terry. 2002. Risk Analysis of High Speed Aircraft Departures Below
10,000 Feet. Transport Canada Report. Ottawa.
5
SOME SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE STRIKES TO CIVIL AIRCRAFT
IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 2004 –JUNE 2005
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through an interagency agreement with the Federal Aviation
Administration, compiles a database of all reported wildlife strikes to U.S. civil aircraft and to foreign
carriers experiencing strikes in the USA. We have compiled over 61,000 strike reports from 1,508 airports,
1990-May 2005 (about 6,500 strikes in 2004), but estimate that this represents only about 20% of the
strikes that have occurred. The following examples from 2004-2005 are presented to show the serious
impacts that strikes by birds or other wildlife can have on aircraft. These examples, from throughout the
USA, demonstrate the widespread and diverse nature of the problem. The examples are not intended to
highlight or criticize individual airports because strikes have occurred on almost every airport in the USA.
Many of the strike examples reported here occurred off airport property during approach or departure. For
more information on wildlife strikes or to report a strike, visit www.birdstrike.org. or http://wildlife-
mitigation.tc.faa.gov.
6
Date: 22 January 2004
Aircraft: Augusta Westland Helicopter
Airport: Palm Beach Intl. (FL)
Phase of Flight: Approach (500’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Windshield
Wildlife Species: Osprey
Comments from Report: An osprey crashed into the windshield, forcing the pilot to land at Palm Beach
Intl. Airport. The windshield shattered and caused minor injuries to the pilot, the
only person on board. Most of the windshield departed the aircraft. Interior was
quite a mess. Time out of service was 3 weeks. Cost was $16,000.
7
Date: 19 March 2004
Aircraft: Helicopter
Airport: Oklahoma
Phase of Flight: En Route (3,000’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Windshield
Wildlife Species: Duck
Comments from Report: Duck crashed through the windshield of a medical center helicopter. Paramedic
suffered only bruises to chest and arms. A safe landing was made and the patient
was taken by ambulance to a hospital along with the helicopter crew.
8
Date: 14 June 2004
Aircraft: B-737-300
Airport: Greater Pittsburgh Intl. (PA)
Phase of Flight: Landing roll
Effect on Flight: Ran off runway
Damage: Landing gear
Wildlife Species: Great horned owl
Comments from Report: The aircraft struck an owl with the front main gear severing a cable. The
steering failed, the aircraft ran off the runway and became stuck in mud.
Passengers were bused to the terminal. They replaced 2 nose wheels, 2 main
wheels and brakes. Time out of service was 24 hours. Cost was estimated at
$20,000.
9
Date: 31 August 2004
Aircraft: B-737-800
Airport: Chicago O’Hare Intl. (IL)
Phase of Flight: Climb (4,800’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Double-crested cormorant
Comments from Report: One engine ingested a large bird about 5 miles from the airport. A precautionary
landing was made due to engine vibrations. Fluid was leaking from the aircraft.
Six fan blades were replaced. Bird ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
Approximate time out of service was 6 hours. Cost of repairs was estimated at
$61,000; other costs $7,000.
10
Date: 13 October 2004
Aircraft: Rockwell AC 690
Airport: Winder Barrow (GA)
Phase of Flight: Climb (50’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Engine shut down
Damage: Engine, propeller, wing, fuselage, landing gear, tail
Wildlife Species: Canada geese
Comments from Report: The aircraft struck at least 17 geese on climb. The #1 engine failed due to
ingestion. Aircraft diverted to another airport and landed safely. 14 carcasses
found on departure runway. Remains of 3 other geese found on engine inlet.
Time out of service was over 6 days. Cost of repairs was $600,000 and other
costs totaled $2,000. Bird ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
11
Date: 04 November 2004
Aircraft: C-310
Airport: Sundance Airpark (OK)
Phase of Flight: Landing roll
Effect on Flight: Props hit runway
Damage: Landing gear, props, engines and nose
Wildlife Species: White-tailed deer
Comments from Report: The aircraft hit a deer upon landing. Deer hit left prop, then went into lower
nose cone where it took out the front landing gear causing the plane to drop onto
its nose. Both props hit the runway. Initial estimates are $50,000 to $70,000.
Three deer were removed from the private airport.
12
Date: 13 December 2004
Aircraft: BE-90
Airport: Monroe-Walton County (GA)
Phase of Flight: Climb (3’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Other
Damage: Engines, props, wing, landing gear, nose, fuselage
Wildlife Species: White-tailed deer
Comments from Report: Struck a deer during the landing flare. The nose gear collapsed, both prop
assemblies and engine nacelles were condemned. Both engines had substantial
damage. Right flap and fuselage were damaged. Time out of service was 6
months, cost was $710,000.
13
Date: 20 February 2005
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Ultra
Airport: Miami Intl. (FL)
Phase of Flight: Climb
Effect on Flight: None
Damage: Tail
Wildlife Species: Turkey vulture
Comments from Report: Hit a turkey vulture after departure. Impact did not appear to be that hard. No
indications on the controls of any major damage. Reduced speed as a preventive
measure. After landing, found a hole about 1 foot in diameter in the tail. The tail
was replaced. ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Time out of service was 2.5
months. Cost of repairs estimated to be $25,000.
14
Date: 1 April 2005
Aircraft: B-757-200
Airport: Oakland Intl. (CA)
Phase of Flight: Climb (600’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Common loon
Comments from Report: Common loon was ingested into the engine core during climb-out. An
emergency was declared and the aircraft diverted to SFO. Landed safely. Engine
was not shut down. Vibration and burning smell reported by flight attendant.
bent fan blades and damaged nose cowl. Engine was replaced. ID by
Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Costs reported at over $1.5 million.
15
Date: 31 May 2005
Aircraft: B-757
Airport: Lihue Intl. (HI)
Phase of Flight: Take off
Effect on Flight: Engine shut down
Damage: #1 engine
Wildlife Species: Barn owl
Comments from Report: Pilots saw bird go by right side of aircraft then felt a vibration in right engine.
Made a precautionary landing at a nearby airport Found damage to acoustic liner
and several fan blades Engine was removed for repairs. Time out of service was
4 days, cost was over $1 million.
16