Bird Strike Committee USA

Bird Strike Committee USA
Best Management Practices

For Airport Wildlife Control
15 June 2007
Adapted by the Steering Committee of Bird Strike Committee-USA from
Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control
developed by International Bird Strike Committee
Principal Compiler
Ed Cleary
Federal Aviation Administration
Staff Wildlife Biologist
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
2. BSC-USA Best Management Practices................................................................ 2
2.1 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management............................................................. 2
2.1.1 Background............................................................................................ 2
2.1.2 Identifying attractions............................................................................. 3
2.2 Active Wildlife Control on the Airport............................................................. 4
2.2.1 Background............................................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Aircraft flight schedule modification........................................................ 4
2.2.3 Habitat management.............................................................................. 4
2.2.4 Wildlife dispersal.................................................................................... 5
2.2.5 Wildlife removal...................................................................................... 5
2.3 Organization.................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1 Background............................................................................................ 6
2.3.2 Collaboration and coordination between organizations on the airport....6
2.4 Equipment..................................................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Background............................................................................................ 7
2.4.2 Portable equipment................................................................................ 7
2.4.3 Static devices......................................................................................... 8
2.4.4 Trained predators (raptors and dogs)..................................................... 8
2.5 Logging Wildlife Management Activities........................................................ 8
2.5.1 Background............................................................................................ 8
2.6 Wildlife Strike Reporting................................................................................ 9
2.6.1 Background............................................................................................ 9
2.6.2 Definition of a wildlife strike.................................................................... 9
2.6.3 Analysis of wildlife strike data............................................................... 11
2.6.4 Wildlife remains identification............................................................... 11
2.6.5 Data required in a wildlife strike report................................................. 11
2.6.6 Submission to ICAO............................................................................. 11
2.7 Risk Assessment......................................................................................... 12
2.8 Conclusions................................................................................................. 12
3. References......................................................................................................... 13
4. Summary of BSC-USA Best Management Practices for Airport Wildlife Control 15
1. Introduction
Delegates to the 26th International Birdstrike Committee (IBSC) meeting1[1]

recommended developing a set of standards or best management practices for the
control of hazardous wildlife on airports. Dr. John Allan, Central Science Laboratory,
UK, undertook the task. He presented the draft standards at the 27th IBSC
meeting2[2]. The IBSC adopted the recommended best management practices in
June 2006.
Dr. Allan presented IBSC’s recommended best management practices to the

delegates at the 8th joint meeting of Bird Strike Committee USA (BSC-USA)/Bird
Strike Committee Canada (BSCC)3[3]. BSC-USA’s Steering Committee approved
referring IBSC’s recommended best management practices to the BSC-USA
membership for consideration and possible adoption.
A modified version of IBSC’s recommended best management practices follows. The

changes include “Americanizing” some of the phraseology and spellings and
adapting the best management practices to meet conditions existent in the United
States. For example, IBSC used the term “bird/wildlife.” Historically, birds have been
the central focus of airport wildlife hazard issues. However, data clearly shows birds
are not the only group of wildlife that can pose a threat to aviation safety (see
Dolbeer et al. 2005, Cleary et al. 2006). Mammals and large reptiles can pose a
serious threat. Also, invertebrate species (such as insects and worms) can pose an
indirect threat by attracting other species of wildlife that pose a direct threat. For
these reasons, this document—unless specifically referencing birds, mammals,
reptiles, or other taxa—uses the inclusive term “wildlife”.
Several excellent handbooks exist that describe techniques used to manage the
wildlife strike risk on airports (for example, CAA 1998, Transport Canada 2001, ACI
2005, Cleary and Dolbeer 2005). However, there has been little effort to quantify the
investment in time, personnel, equipment, and training needed to manage wildlife
hazards effectively. This contrasts sharply with other airport safety requirements.
For example, U.S. Federal regulations specify the required number and size of
aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment and the quantity of firefighting agents (Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 139.317) (14 CFR, part 139.317) as well as the
operational requirements (14 CFR, part 139.319). This inconsistency has arisen in
part because the habitat types, the wildlife species present, and the levels of risk
caused by wildlife vary widely among airports. The precise techniques that are
successful at one site might not work at another. The situation is further aggravated
by the differences in resources available at each airport and the attitudes of airport
managers and air carriers.
The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) revised Standards and

Recommended Practices (SARPS) on airport wildlife control became effective in
November 2003. ICAO is updating the guidance material that accompanies the
SARPS. This guidance will, when combined with the various manuals listed above,
1[1]
Warsaw, Poland, May 2003.
2[2]
Athens, Greece, May 2005.
3[3]
St. Louis, Missouri, USA, August 2006.
provide the technical detail needed to set up a wildlife control program. It does not,
however, describe the levels of effort needed to conduct an efficient and successful
program.
This document identifies universally applicable practices. It suggests levels of airport
habitat management, wildlife control equipment, personnel, and other resource that
BSC-USA believes an airport needs to manage the wildlife aircraft strike risk
effectively. The best management practices will give airport managers, state and
national regulators, the insurance industry, lawyers, and other interested people
information about what BSC-USA believes should be the minimum investment in
wildlife control at an airport.
BSC-USA believes these standards should apply to any airport certificated under 14
CFR, part 139 to serve scheduled and unscheduled air carrier operations. Airports
with unusually high wildlife strike risks should invest more resources in strike
prevention than the minimum described below. BSC-USA recognizes that many
reliever and general aviation airports are too small to justify the expense of wildlife
control at the levels described in this document; nonetheless, these airports need to
be aware of wildlife hazards and have management plans in place.
This document distills the collective experience of wildlife and aviation experts into a
set of basic management practices the aviation industry can use. No attempt is made
to provide a detailed scientific underpinning for the best management practices.
Those wishing to explore the science involved should review the scientific literature
and the proceedings of organizations such as IBSC (www.int-birdstrike.com), Bird
Strike Committee USA (www.birdstrike.org), Bird Strike Committee Canada
(www.birdstrikecanada.com), and the German Birdstrike Committee (www.davvl.de).
2. BSC-USA Best Management Practices
2.1 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management
2.1.1 Background
Controlling an airport’s attractiveness to wildlife is fundamental to good wildlife
control. It is more important than wildlife population management for controlling the
overall risk. If an airport provides easily accessible resources to wildlife—food, water,
shelter, or breeding sites—the wildlife will continue trying to return despite any
strategies used to discourage them. The control program will fail unless the airport is
made as unattractive to wildlife as possible.
Habitat management to deter wildlife involves two steps: (1) identifying the attractive
features and (2) imposing changes to either remove the attraction or to deny wildlife
access to it. Habitat management, such as improving drainage, installing fences, and
changing vegetation cover, is often expensive. It can also be difficult to get
resources for programs such as vegetation management that may take years to carry
out, especially when the immediate benefits are not always clear. Long-term
commitment from senior management is essential. A named member of the airport’s
senior management staff should have responsibility for ensuring implementation of all
parts of the wildlife hazard management program. A Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan must identify airport personnel
with responsibility for carrying out various parts of the plan (14 CFR 139.337(f) (1)).
Best management practice 1 – Airport Managers:
Assign a senior airport management staff member responsibility for
carrying out all parts of the wildlife control program.

Take part in local planning and land use decisions for proposed land
development or land use changes within 5 miles of the airport that could
attract hazardous wildlife.
2.1.2 Identifying attractions

Most wildlife aircraft strikes occur on the airport, so the logical place to begin looking
for wildlife attractants, and setting up control programs, is on the airport. Available
food (invertebrates, small mammals, seeds, fruits, nuts, or plants), water (ponds,
ditches, or puddles on the tarmac), shelter (nesting sites, trees, bushes, or buildings),
or the security offered by large open spaces will attract wildlife to an airport.
Sometimes it might be obvious what is attracting the wildlife. In other cases, it might
not be obvious. The attraction will vary from one species to another. Where doubts
exist, get help from a professional wildlife management biologist who is able to
identify wildlife attractants on and near the airport.
Do not limit wildlife hazard assessments and wildlife management programs to the
airport property. ICAO recognizes the need to control hazardous wildlife attractants
near airports, as well. In 2003, ICAO published new standards on airport wildlife
control4[4]. The new standards state the following:
The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the

establishment of garbage disposal dumps or any such other source attracting
wildlife 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 wildlife hazard problem (Amendment 5, Annex 14, Volume 1,
Chapter 9, §9.4.4).
In the United States, wildlife hazard assessments must identify and quantify
hazardous wildlife attractants on and within 5 miles of the airport. The FAA
recommends minimum separation distances between an airport’s air operation area
(AOA) and any known hazardous wildlife attractant. For airports serving mainly
piston-powered aircraft, the FAA recommends a 5,000-foot separation distance; for
airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA recommends a 10,000-foot
separation distance. A 5-mile separation distance is recommended if the attractant
may cause hazardous wildlife to move through the airport’s approach/departure
airspace. Airports that have received Federal grant-in aid assistance must use these
standards (see the most recent version of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33,
Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports).
4[4]
Amendment 5 to Annex 14, Volume 1, Chapter 9, § 9.4 Bird Hazard Reduction.
Conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to identify land use practices and
geographic features on and near the airport attractive to hazardous wildlife.
 Get support from a qualified wildlife damage management biologist as
needed (see the most recent version of FAA AC 150/5200-36,
Qualifications for wildlife biologist conducting wildlife hazard
assessments and training curriculums for airport personnel involved in
controlling wildlife hazards on airports).
 Identify the precise nature of the attractants (such as food, water, or
cover).
2.2 Active Wildlife Control on the Airport
2.2.1 Background
Four basic control strategies are available to solve wildlife problems on airports:
1. Aircraft flight schedule modification;
2. Habitat modification and exclusion;
3. Repellent and harassment techniques; and
4. Wildlife removal.
Integrate all four control strategies into the airport’s wildlife hazard management plan,
as appropriate.
2.2.2 Aircraft flight schedule modification

Although not generally practical for regularly scheduled commercial traffic on larger
airports, flight schedule adjustments might be possible in some situations. Such
changes can lessen the chance of a strike with a wildlife species that has a
predictable pattern of movement.
2.2.3 Habitat management

Habitat modification means changing the environment to make it less attractive or
inaccessible to the problem wildlife. After identifying hazardous wildlife attractants on
or near the airport, develop a management plan to either remove, reduce in quantity,
or deny wildlife access to them, depending on the circumstances at the airport. All
airports are different. The wildlife species attracted to them will vary from region to
region. Therefore, it is not possible to define precisely what types of habitat
management will be effective at a particular site. Typical examples include stopping
agricultural activity on or near the airport5[5], manipulating the species and/or height of
the airport’s AOA ground cover, removing trees and bushes, eliminating or netting
water bodies, excluding wildlife from buildings by netting or other means, and
selecting nonattractive planting around terminals. Regardless of the techniques
used, airport managers should assess the wildlife attractions on and near the airport
5[5]
The FAA recommends a 5,000-foot separation distance between known hazardous wildlife
attractants and any aircraft movement area for airports that serve primarily piston powered aircraft; a
10,000-foot separation distance is recommended between known hazardous wildlife attractants and
any aircraft movement area for airports that serve turban powered aircraft. A 5-mile separation
distance is recommended if the hazardous wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife to move
across the airport. (see the most recent version of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33,
Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports)
and develop a habitat management plan to reduce these attractions to the extent
practicable.
2.2.4 Wildlife dispersal

Repellent and harassment techniques are designed to make the area or resource
wanted by wildlife unattractive or to make the wildlife uncomfortable or fearful.
Effective wildlife control requires dispersal of even small numbers of hazardous
wildlife as soon as possible from the airport. This stops them from becoming an
attraction to other wildlife. Their presence suggests there is food or water available
or the airport is a safe place to rest. For these reasons, rapid detection of hazardous
wildlife followed by quick dispersal is required.
On their own, air traffic control (ATC), airport operations, or maintenance personnel
cannot effectively detect all hazardous wildlife. Relying on ATC, airport operations,
or maintenance personnel to notify the wildlife control staff could result in missing
some hazardous wildlife. It will also result in a delayed response when wildlife is
detected. It will take time for the wildlife control specialists to reach the particular
location. Efficient detection requires a mobile patrol using personnel trained and
equipped to disperse wildlife as soon as it is detected. Diverting the wildlife control
staff to other duties will reduce their efficiency.
Bird control at night is more problematic because it is often difficult to detect birds
and to determine where birds dispersed from the airport are going. Control of
nocturnal mammals may only be possible at night when they are active.
2.2.5 Wildlife removal

Habitat modification, exclusion, and repellent techniques are the first lines of action in
any wildlife hazard management plan. However, these actions will not solve every
problem. Therefore, hazardous wildlife sometimes must be removed from an airport
by capturing and relocating or by killing the target animals. Any wildlife removal must
be done humanely and only by people who are trained in wildlife species
identification and the removal techniques used. State and Federal permits are
needed to remove most wildlife on airports.

Using the wildlife hazard assessment as a basis, develop a wildlife hazard
management plan (WHMP) that addresses all issues identified during the
assessment.
 Integrate all four basic control strategies into the WHMP to the extent
possible.
 Keep detailed records of the plan’s development, implementation, and
results.

Have properly trained and equipped wildlife control specialists present on
the airport at least 15 minutes before any air carrier aircraft movement.
 Have wildlife control specialists present on the airport throughout
daylight hours if aircraft movements occur at intervals of less than 15
minutes.
 At night, when conditions warrant, have wildlife control specialists check
runways and taxiways for wildlife regularly and take control actions as
needed.
 Do not require wildlife control specialists to undertake other duties
immediately prior to or while aircraft movements are occurring.
 For airports with few aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long
enough to disperse all hazardous wildlife from the vicinity of the runway.
In this case, deploy the control specialists far enough in advance of
aircraft movements to allow full dispersal of any hazardous wildlife.
2.3 Organization
2.3.1 Background
Airports may adopt various organizational structures for their wildlife control program.
These vary from having wildlife control as a secondary duty of aircraft rescue and
firefighting, maintenance, or operational personnel to employing wildlife management
specialists or full-time wildlife control units. Wildlife control staffed from larger units
has the advantage of more personnel on call and greater flexibility in coping with
sudden increases in wildlife numbers. However, personnel employed mainly in other
roles may regard wildlife control as a secondary or low-status duty that, if only carried
out on rare occasions, is not their personal responsibility. Small, specialized units
staffed by people who have a real interest and training in wildlife and wildlife control
will clearly recognize that responsibility for airport wildlife lies with them. This
ownership of the wildlife problem can be a powerful motivation to improve standards
of wildlife control. Such units may find it difficult to cope with staff illness or sudden
increases in wildlife numbers that require assignment of added personnel.
Regardless of organizational system used, it should deliver the standards described
elsewhere in this document.
2.3.2 Collaboration and coordination between organizations on the airport

Communication between the various groups and organizations on an airport is
essential for good wildlife control. Airport operations, grounds and maintenance
departments, air traffic control, airport fire service, fixed-based operators, airport
restaurants and catering services, airport planners, and air carriers all have a role to
play in identifying and correcting problems. Airport management should ensure that
a system exists (such as an airport wildlife hazard working group or strike prevention
committee) that enables these organizations to take part in the airport’s wildlife
hazard management program.
2.3.2.a Air Traffic Control

Air traffic control personnel must report any unsafe conditions, including hazardous
wildlife on or near the AOA, to the appropriate airport personnel anytime such
conditions are observed. Also, to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and
other circumstances, air traffic controllers are required to—
 Issue advisory information on pilot-reported, tower-reported, or radar-observed
and pilot-verified bird activity; and
 Relay bird activity information to adjacent facilities and to Flight Service
Stations (FSS) whenever it appears the wildlife hazard will become a factor in
the area (see the most recent version of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic
Control).
2.3.2.b Pilots
Pilots have a responsibility to report all unsafe conditions on or near an airport,
including birds or other wildlife that could pose a threat to aircraft safety. Pilots and
other airline or airport personnel should report all known wildlife strikes. Also, pilots
should delay takeoff or landing when hazardous wildlife is present on or near the
AOA.
2.3.2.c Airport tenants

Fixed-based operators, catering services, and airport concessionaires must ensure
their actions do not create hazardous wildlife attractants. Good housekeeping and
sanitation can go a long way toward reducing the attractiveness of an area to birds
and other wildlife.

Develop a system that ensures rapid flow of information about wildlife
hazards among all airport departments. An airport wildlife hazard working
group is a good way of doing this. The working group should include a
representative from each of the key groups and agencies that have a
significant involvement or interest in wildlife issues on the airport.
2.4 Equipment
2.4.1 Background
Certain basic equipment, such as pyrotechnics, distress calls, and sometimes
firearms, is required to adequately control hazardous wildlife on or near an airport.
The equipment needed will depend on the species involved, the size of the airport,
and the number of personnel used.
Wildlife deterrent devices can be broadly divided into visual, acoustic, and lethal
categories. These can be further subdivided into portable and static systems. The
levels of sophistication, and therefore cost, are variable and include the simple
scarecrow (static visual), complex radio-controlled sound generators (static acoustic),
pyrotechnics and vehicle-mounted distress call apparatuses (mobile acoustic),
handheld lasers (mobile visual), traps (static lethal), and guns (mobile lethal). The
choice of system or systems to be used will depend on cost, legal and logistical
constraints, and the species being controlled.
Some of the wildlife control devices available to airports have not undergone a
rigorous scientific evaluation of their effectiveness. It is not possible, therefore, to
recommend particular devices for wildlife control at every airport.
2.4.2 Portable equipment

Portable equipment used by airport personnel on the airport offers the best control,
provided the personnel involved are properly trained and motivated. Wildlife
perceives pyrotechnics or vehicle-mounted distress call generators as direct threats.
Perceived threats are variable in time and location, thus increasing their
effectiveness. This variability is not possible with static systems.
Consistent with relevant wildlife take and firearms-use controls, wildlife control
personnel might need firearms to remove wildlife that cannot be dispersed by
nonlethal means. When using firearms, wildlife control personnel must be properly
trained, have the proper firearms and ammunition, and have the necessary Federal
and state permits.
There is some debate about the need for lethal control in airport wildlife
management. However, most experts agree, to maintain their effectiveness,
nonlethal pyrotechnics and other devices must occasionally be reinforced with lethal
control. The occasional use of lethal control reduces wildlife habituation to nonlethal
control devices and allows selective removal of any wildlife failing to respond to
nonlethal dispersal techniques.
2.4.3 Static devices

Static wildlife scaring devices, such as gas cannons or other sound generators, lose
their effectiveness quickly. Some of the more sophisticated devices that produce
various sounds in random or preprogrammed order can delay habituation. Static
devices are best for short-term use over a limited area and should be used with
portable equipment already described.
2.4.4 Trained predators (raptors and dogs)

Trained raptors and dogs can be effective in dispersing some species of wildlife in
certain situations. Raptors and dogs are only one tool among many. They are not a
panacea. The successful use of raptors and dogs requires a large investment in
training for the animals and their handlers. This training is essential to ensure the
animals themselves do not become a strike risk and to maximize their deterrent
value. Do not underestimate the time and cost involved in incorporating raptors or
dogs into a wildlife control program. The use of trained predators alone is not an
acceptable substitute for the use of other wildlife management techniques.

Provide airport wildlife control specialists with control equipment suitable
to the wildlife species present, the numbers of wildlife present, and the area
to be controlled.
 Provide the wildlife control specialists with proper training in the use of
wildlife control devices.
 Provide suitable devices for removal of wildlife, such as firearms or
traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these
techniques at short notice.
 Keep records of all training provided.
2.5 Logging Wildlife Management Activities
2.5.1 Background
Many air carriers and their insurance companies are taking legal action against
airport managers and regulators to recover the costs of wildlife strike damage. It is
important that airport wildlife control specialists record all wildlife control actions
taken. These records can help prove a satisfactory wildlife control program was in
place if an incident occurs and the program was functioning properly. Data gathered
as part of a wildlife control program is also important in assessing the effectiveness
of control actions taken. There are several different methods for recording data;
everything from simple paper records to sophisticated devices based on pocket PC
technology. The latter save time and effort, especially when entering the data onto a
computer for further analysis. Regardless of the recording methods used, keep a
detailed and comprehensive record of all wildlife control activities. Summarize these
records at least every 12 consecutive months. This will help prove the airport is
following its own policies and procedures.
Best management practice 8 – Airport Wildlife Control Specialists:

Record the following at least every 30 minutes. If air traffic is so infrequent
that wildlife patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, make an entry for each
patrol carried out.
 Areas of the airport patrolled;
 Numbers, location, and species of wildlife seen;
 Action taken to disperse the wildlife;
 Results of the action; and
 General information such as the name of the wildlife control specialists
on duty, time on and off duty, and weather at the start of a duty period.
2.6 Wildlife Strike Reporting
2.6.1 Background
All wildlife management programs must be monitored to see if they are working
effectively and whether they need to be adjusted, extended, or improved. The only
effective way to do this is by collating wildlife strike data for the airport concerned.
Other measures, such as counting the wildlife on the airport, provide useful added
information, but are not a direct measure of the strike risk at the airport.
Report all strikes, whether they cause damage to the aircraft and regardless of the
wildlife species involved. Unless the species struck on the airport are known,
management efforts cannot be directed correctly. Do not penalize airport or air
carrier personnel for reporting wildlife strikes. Even though strikes to large airliners
from small species such as swallows or sparrow-sized birds are unlikely to cause
damage, encourage airport or air carrier personnel to report them.
Never use the total number of strikes at an airport as a measure of strike risk or
the performance of the wildlife control specialists. The number of reported
strikes should increase when a hazardous wildlife control program is started and
airport personnel become aware of the situation and the need to report strikes. The
increase in reported strikes is an artifact of education and effort, not the result of an
increase in the number of strikes. The main risk arises from strikes with larger
species and smaller species that form large flocks (for example, European starlings).
Use a risk assessment that combines strike frequency with likely severity to assess
the risk (see below). Remember, a risk assessment cannot work effectively unless
all strikes are reported.
2.6.2 Definition of a wildlife strike

The FAA uses the following definition (see the most recent version of FAA AC
150/5200-32, Reporting wildlife aircraft strikes):
1. A pilot reports striking one or more birds or other wildlife;
2. Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as caused by a
wildlife strike;
3. Personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike one or more birds or
other wildlife;
4. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200
feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason for the animal's death is
identified; and
5. An animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative affect on a flight
(for example, aborted takeoff or landing, high-speed emergency stop, or an
aircraft left the pavement area to avoid collision with an animal).
To better understand the risk, include as many strike events as possible in an

inclusive definition. However, including all strike reports in an airport’s dataset raises
problems. For example, if a pilot reports a strike on approach and a check of the
area for a carcass and inspection of the aircraft shows no evidence of a strike, there
is no confirmation that a strike occurred. Other than documenting a possible strike
on or near the airport, such a report provides little useful information (such as wildlife
species, numbers, and damage levels) that can aid in targeting airport wildlife control
efforts. Record unconfirmed strikes but do not subject them to the rigorous analysis
described in paragraph 2.7.
Many countries also record near misses in their wildlife strike databases; the FAA
does not. Defining a near miss is more problematic as it involves the pilot’s
interpretation of how close the wildlife was to the airplane and whether this posed a
threat to safety. Also, at airports located in areas with high bird populations, it might
be difficult for an observant pilot to land or take off without seeing birds at some
distance from the aircraft. Every movement might be regarded as a near miss.
Collecting near miss information could prove valuable, but, as with unconfirmed
strikes, do not include near misses in the airport’s strike statistical analysis. Set up
databases to separate unconfirmed strikes and near misses from other wildlife strikes
when evaluating the dataset.
Best management practice 9 – Airport and Air Carrier Personnel:

There are three categories of wildlife incidents:
1. Confirmed strikes:
 Any reported collision between wildlife and an aircraft for which
evidence in the form of carcass remains or damage to the aircraft is
found.
 Any wildlife found dead on an airport where there is no other obvious
cause of death.
2 Unconfirmed strikes:
 Any reported collision between wildlife and an aircraft for which no
physical evidence is found.
3 Serious incidents:
 Incidents where the presence of wildlife on or around the airport had
a negative affect on a flight; even if there was no contact between the
aircraft and wildlife.
These definitions ensure the maximum quantity of information is gathered and that
only reliable evidence is used in assessing the effectiveness of the wildlife
management program.
Anyone with direct knowledge of a strike should report it. Consistent with the
organizational structure in a particular country or at an individual airport, send all
strike reports to a central location where duplicate strikes can be merged and more
information gathered. Reporting wildlife strikes is the responsibility of all personnel
with direct knowledge of material facts; this includes air carrier personnel, airport
operations, air traffic control, and pilots. It is important the airport has a system for
ensuring that it is aware, as much as is possible, of all strikes that happen on or near
its property.
2.6.3 Analysis of wildlife strike data

Effective analysis of wildlife strike data is important. Separating strikes that occur on
or near the airport6[6] from those that occur further out in the approaches helps to
identify strikes that are likely to be influenced by the airport wildlife management
program. Similarly, separating strikes with species that are over 100 grams in weight
(those more likely to cause damage) and giving greater emphasis to strikes with
flocking birds help to identify trends in the real wildlife strike risk at the airport. An
airport with an increasing rate of wildlife strikes is not necessarily becoming a more
risky place to fly. An increase in strikes because of an increase in incidents with
small species, as long as the rate of strikes with large species and flocking species is
falling, suggests better wildlife control and better reporting of strikes.
It is important to stress: the total number of strikes at an airport is not a good

indicator of risk. Examination of strike data by species involved is essential. Do
this as part of a formal risk assessment (see paragraph 2.7).
2.6.4 Wildlife remains identification

Wildlife strike statistics cannot be properly interpreted without knowing the species
struck. The risk assessment depends on knowledge of the species of wildlife struck
to assess the likely severity of impacts. The airport’s wildlife management program
could target the wrong species if the records of what species are being struck are not
accurate. Wildlife remains recovered following strikes are often fragmentary, but
even the smallest feather fragments may be identifiable. Blood smears can be
identified to species using DNA analysis. Refer to the most recent version of FAA
AC150/5200-32, Reporting wildlife aircraft strikes, for information on sending strike
remains to the Smithsonian Institution for identification. Usually, there is no charge
for this service. Airport wildlife control specialists should ensure that all wildlife
remains are identified as completely as possible.
2.6.5 Data required in a wildlife strike report

The more information recorded about a wildlife strike the better. To the extent
possible, collect the data asked for on the ICAO wildlife strike reporting form. The
FAA, Transport Canada, and the Mexican Aviation Authority have developed their
own reporting forms modeled on the ICAO form. Collect as much information as
6[6]
For the purpose of wildlife strike reporting, the FAA defines “on or near the airport” to mean strikes
occurring within 5 miles of the airport and under 4,000 ft AGL.
possible. Some data items may not be available (such as the altitude of strike). Give
due consideration to missing data during later analyses.
2.6.6 Submission to ICAO

Although not a matter directly for individual airports, Federal regulators should collate
wildlife strike data nationally and send it to ICAO. This helps in assessing the true
levels of wildlife strike risk and its costs to the civil aviation industry.
Best management practice 10 – Airport Managers and Airport Wildlife Control

Specialists:
Set up procedures to ensure all wildlife strikes occurring on or near the
airport are reported.
 Do not use the total number of wildlife strikes as a measure of risk or
the performance of the wildlife control measures at an airport.
 Ensure the identification of all species involved in wildlife strikes is
as complete as possible.
 Record all wildlife strikes and include, to the extent possible, the data
required for the appropriate reporting form.
 Send all strike reports to the FAA.
The FAA will collate all wildlife strike data and send it to ICAO yearly.
2.7 Risk Assessment
Formal risk assessment is routinely used in almost all areas of health and safety
work. Wildlife strike prevention has lagged behind in this field. Wildlife behavior, a
key part of the system being assessed, makes it difficult to accurately predict risk
levels. Techniques are now available that use the frequency of a species being
struck, the amount of time that a species is present in the strike zone, and the
probability of aircraft damage for that species to calculate risk levels for a particular
airport (see Allan 2001). This allows development of risk assessment matrices that
can be updated yearly to evaluate changes in the risk level in response to the wildlife
management measures in place.

Specialists:
Conduct a formal risk assessment of the wildlife strike situation.
 Use the results to help target wildlife management actions and to
monitor their effectiveness.
 Update the risk assessments at least yearly.
2.8 Conclusions
These best management practices present a consensus from leading experts in
wildlife aircraft strike prevention. They provide a foundation for effective airport
hazardous wildlife control programs. In the future, BSC-USA will develop and publish
more Best Management Practices papers dealing with other aspects of the problem.
These best management practices are provided in good faith, and every effort has
been made to ensure the contents are accurate. BSC-USA, the author, and the
BSC-USA membership accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use or implementation of these guidelines.
3. References
ACI. 2005. Aerodrome wildlife hazard prevention and wildlife management

handbook. 1st ed. Airports Council International, Geneva, Switzerland. 50 pages.
Allan, J. 2001. The use of risk assessment in airport bird control. Pages 232-241 in
Bird Strike 2001, Proceedings of the Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada meeting.
Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
CAA. 1998. CAP 680 Wildlife Control on Aerodromes. Civil Aviation Authority,
London, UK. (http://www.caa.co.uk/).
Transport Canada. 2001. Sharing the Skies. TP 13549E. Transport Canada,

Ottawa, Canada. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/).
Cleary, E. C. and R. A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife hazard management at airports, a

manual for airport operators. 2nd ed. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, USA. 348 pages. (http://wildlife-
mitigation.tc.faa.gov/).
Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. 2006. Wildlife strikes to civilian

aircraft in the United States, 1990–2005. Serial Report Number 12.
DOT/FAA/AAS/00-1. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and
Standards, Washington, DC, USA. 64 pages. (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/).
Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and P. Eschenfelder. 2005. Animal ambush at the

airport: the need to broaden ICAO standards for bird strikes to include terrestrial
wildlife. Pages 102-113 in Proceedings of the International Bird Strike Committee
meeting 27 (Volume 1). Athens, Greece. (http://www.int-birdstrike.org/)
4. Summary of BSC-USA Best Management Practices for Airport
Wildlife Control
BSC-USA believes these best management practices should apply to all airports
certificated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 to serve scheduled
and unscheduled air carrier operations.

Assign a senior airport management staff member responsibility for
carrying out all parts of the wildlife control program.

Take part in local planning and land use decisions for proposed land
development or land use changes within 5 miles of the airport that could
attract hazardous wildlife.

Conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to identify land use practices and
geographic features on and near the airport attractive to hazardous wildlife.
 Get support from a qualified wildlife damage management biologist as
needed. (see the most recent version of FAA AC 150/5200-36,
Qualifications for wildlife biologist conducting wildlife hazard
assessments and training curriculums for airport personnel involved in
controlling wildlife hazards on airports).
 Identify the precise nature of the attractant (such as food, water, or
cover).

Using the wildlife hazard assessment as a basis, develop a wildlife hazard
management plan (WHMP) that addresses all issues identified during the
assessment.
 Integrate all four basic control strategies into the WHMP to the extent
possible.
 Keep detailed records of the plan’s development, implementation, and
results.

Have properly trained and equipped wildlife control specialists present on
the airport at least 15 minutes before any air carrier aircraft movement.
 Have wildlife control specialists present on the airport throughout
daylight hours if aircraft movements occur at intervals of less than 15
minutes.
 At night, when conditions warrant, have wildlife control specialists check
runways and taxiways for wildlife regularly and take control actions as
needed.
 Do not require wildlife control specialists to undertake other duties
immediately prior to or while aircraft movements are occurring.
 For airports with few aircraft movements, 15 minutes may not be long
enough to disperse all hazardous wildlife from the vicinity of the runway.
In this case, deploy the control specialists far enough in advance of
aircraft movements to allow full dispersal of any hazardous wildlife.

Develop a system that ensures rapid flow of information about wildlife
hazards among all airport departments. An airport wildlife hazard working
group is a good way of doing this. The working group should include a
representative from each of the key groups and agencies that have a
significant involvement or interest in wildlife issues on the airport.

Provide airport wildlife control specialists with control equipment suitable
to the wildlife species faced, the numbers of wildlife present, and the area to
be controlled.
 Provide the wildlife control specialists with proper training in the use of
wildlife control devices.
 Provide suitable devices for removal of wildlife, such as firearms or
traps, or the means of calling on expert support to supply these
techniques at short notice.
 Keep records of all training provided.
Best management practice 8 – Airport Wildlife Control Specialists:

Record the following at least every 30 minutes. If air traffic is so infrequent
that wildlife patrols are more than 30 minutes apart, make an entry for each
patrol carried out.
 Areas of the airport patrolled;
 Numbers, location, and species of wildlife seen;
 Action taken to disperse the wildlife;
 Results of the action; and
 General information such as the name of the wildlife control specialists
on duty, time on and off duty, and weather at the start of a duty period.
Best management practice 9 – Airport and Air Carrier Personnel:

There are three categories of wildlife incidents:
1. Confirmed strikes:
 Any reported collision between wildlife and an aircraft for which
evidence in the form of carcass remains or damage to the aircraft is
found.
 Any wildlife found dead on an airport where there is no other obvious
cause of death.
2 Unconfirmed strikes:
 Any reported collision between wildlife and an aircraft for which no
physical evidence is found.
3 Serious incidents:
 Incidents where the presence of wildlife on or around the airport had
a negative effect on a flight; even if there was no contact between the
aircraft and wildlife.
Specialists:
Set up procedures to ensure the reporting of all wildlife strikes occurring on
or near the airport.
 Do not use the total number of wildlife strikes as a measure of risk or
the performance of the wildlife control measures at an airport.
 Ensure the identification of all species involved in wildlife strikes is
as complete as possible.
 Record all wildlife strikes and include, to the extent possible, the data
required for the appropriate reporting form.
 Send all strike reports to the FAA
The FAA will collate all wildlife strike data and send it to ICAO yearly.

Specialists:
Conduct a formal risk assessment of the wildlife strike situation.
 Use the results to help target wildlife management actions and to
monitor their effectiveness.
 Update the risk assessments at least yearly.
Bird Strike Committee USA

Understanding and Reducing
Bird Hazards to Aircraft
Key Issues in Bird and Other Wildlife Hazard

Reduction Efforts
The following is a selected list of key issues for addressing aviation hazards due to bird and
other wildlife strikes. Most bird strikes and all mammal (e.g., deer) strikes take place on or
near airport property, so most key issues concern preventive actions that should be taken by
airport operators. However, it will take the combined efforts of many groups and individuals
to reduce the potential for a serious accident due to this threat.
Ensure that all airports have a valid wildlife management plan.

All airports should have a formal wildlife management plan developed by professional
biologists trained in wildlife damage control. Since airport environments are constantly
changing, these plans should be reviewed with on-site inspections at least every two years.
Ensure that all airports have personnel properly trained and equipped in
wildlife control.
Wildlife management on airports is a complex undertaking with an array of legal, technical
and social aspects. Most large airports need a full-time biologist to carry out the complex
duties of managing wildlife in and around the facility. Smaller airports need the services of
professional biologists for consultation and to train operations personnel in the latest
techniques of wildlife management.
Zero tolerance for deer and other large mammals on airport property.
Aircraft strikes from large animals are an increasing threat that has the potential to cause
injury and death to aircraft occupants.
Zero tolerance for geese and other waterfowl on airport property.

Non-migratory goose populations have grown steadily throughout North America. These
large waterfowl represent a serious threat to aircraft safety due to their size and flocking
behavior.
Zero tolerance for feeding birds and other wildlife on airport property.
The presence of food tends to attract more wildlife to the area. Enforcing a ban of feeding
wildlife on airport property is well within the authority of airport operators and is not in
violation of federal laws and international treaties protecting some species of birds and
animals.
Zero tolerance for uncovered trash and garbage receptacles at the airport.
Garbage and trash containers that are not properly secured can provide food and in some cases
shelter for birds and other wildlife.
Ensure the judicious use of wildlife frightening devices.

Indiscriminate use of frightening or harassment devices such as gas cannons or other
noisemakers will increase habituation and reduce their effectiveness.
Support zoning of areas near airports to minimize attractants to wildlife.

By ensuring that zoning of areas near airports is consistent with efforts to reduce the presence
of birds, deer, and other wildlife, it is less likely that wildlife will build up a significant
population near airport operating areas
Promote the reporting of bird and other wildlife strikes to the appropriate
national authority.
Bird strike reports provide critical data for biologists, aeronautical engineers, and land-use
planners to justify and develop effective programs to reduce damaging bird strikes. Flight
crews, ground crews, maintenance workers, and airfield support staff should all be
encouraged to report the details of any strike or suspected strike.
21-24 June 2010
Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada
Meeting
Salt Lake City, Utah
BSC-USA and AAAE continue Partnership for 2010

Meeting
Click here for Schedule of Events and Technical

Presentations for 2010 meeting.
Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada meetings have grown in popularity

over the past decade. There was a record 450 people in attendance at the
2008 meeting hosted by Orlando-Sanford International Airport in Florida.
Because of the growth in attendance and increased emphasis on training
and interaction with other organizations in the aviation industry, BSC-USA
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Association of
Airport Executives (AAAE) in 2006 to collaborate with meetings held in the
USA. AAAE handles registration and meeting logistics, and BSC-USA
handles the technical program and training sessions. This partnership has
enhanced the quality of meetings and advanced the integration of BSC-USA
and wildlife risk mitigation into the mainstream of the aviation industry.
We are pleased to announce that the 2010 USA/Canada meeting, hosted by

Salt Lake City International Airport on 21–24 June, was an outstanding
success with over 200 attendees.
Papers and technical poster presentations! Click here for

details on submitting the written paper to the Journal “Human-Wildlife
Interactions”.
Menu:
 General Information
 Registration
 Agenda
 Hotel
 Transportation
 Sponsors
 Exhibitors
 Contacts
 Press
 Roster of Attendees
 Call for Posters
Agenda
(subject to change)
MONDAY, JUNE 21
9 a.m.-7:30 p.m. Registration
9:30-11:45 a.m. BSC-USA Steering Committee Meeting
9:30-11:45 a.m. Annual General Meeting of the Bird Strike Association of Canada
1-5 p.m. Early Bird Hands-On Training
6-7:30 p.m. Opening Host Reception with Exhibitors
Hosted by Salt Lake City International Airport
TUESDAY, JUNE 22
7 a.m.-5 p.m. Registration
7-8 a.m. Continental Breakfast
8-10 a.m. Plenary Session
 Welcome Remarks Bird Strike Committee

 Welcome Remarks Salt Lake City International Airport
 Keynote Address: US Airways Flight 1549
Keynote Speaker: Jeff Skiles, First Officer, US Airways
 Update from the FAA

10-10:30 a.m. Coffee Break with Exhibitors
10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Technical Session: Regulations
 Overview and history of the wildlife hazard management plan
(WHMP) at Salt Lake City International Airport
Gib Rokich, Salt Lake City International Airport
 Conservation success and changes in federal legislation:
Implications for eagles and airports
Michelle Gray, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
 When regulations collide: Ideas for further development of the

aviation stormwater design manual
David R. Felstul, Herrera Environmental Consultants
12-1:30 p.m. Buffet Lunch with Exhibitors
1:30-3 p.m. Technical Session: Wildlife Hazard Assessments
 Status of wildlife hazards at general aviation airports in New

York
Jayme L. Patrick, FAA
 Applying GIS and relative hazard scores to produce a
meaningful wildlife hazard assessment
Church Roberts, Johnson Engineering, Inc.
 Breaking and entering: Gaining access to wildlife hazard

assessment contracts
Jay Tischendorf, American Ecological Research Institute
3-3:30 p.m. Break with Exhibitors
3:30-4 p.m. Technical Session: Issues in Airspace
 The effect of weather conditions on bird-aircraft strikes at U.S.

airports
Jinfeng Wang, University of Illnois
 Integrating avian radar into daily operations at NAS Kingsville,

Texas
Eddie Earwood, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
4:30 p.m. Military/Civil Breakout Session
WEDNESDAY, JUNE
23
8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Concurrent Session #1: "Tools and Techniques"
Technical Session: Identification Techniques
 Gulls gone wild: Why DNA is not adequate for 'white-headed

gull' identifications
Sarah Sonsthagen, Smithsonian Institution
 Using FTA cards to collect DNA for birdstrike identifications
Carla J. Dove, Smithsonian Institution
 "No soup for you!": Using dietary analysis to reduce bird-

aircraft collisions
Brian E. Washburn, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National
Wildlife Research Center
8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Concurrent Session #2: "Airport Environments"
Technical Session: Off-airport Issues
 Off-airfield bird hazard management at UK aerodromes

Phil Mountain, Food and Environmental Resource Agency, UK
 Removal of off-airport wildlife hazards:A case study of New
York City Canada geese
Martin S. Lowney, USDA/APHIS/WIldlife Services
 Anadromous salmon stream interaction and conflict with

Ketchikan International Airport
Cheryl Fultz, SEAPRO
10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Concurrent Session #1: "Tools and Techniques"
Technical Session: Applied Methods for Wildlife Control
 Birds under grids and over poop: Deterring waterfowl from

sewage treatment ponds and streams
Thomas W. Seamans, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National
 Summary of Wildlife Services' red-tailed hawk translocation
efforts amoung 19 U.S. Airports, 2008-2010
Laurence M. Schafer, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
 Practical application of vehicle mounted infrared systems in

wildlife control at Hurlburt Field
Rebecca Rushing, Birdstrike Control Program
10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Concurrent Session #2: "Airport Environments"
Technical Session: Radar Technologies
 Integration of real-time bird radar information into civil air

traffic control operations: A roadmap
Ron Merritt, Detect, Inc.
 Towards maximizing situational awareness using airport avian
radars
Tim J. Nohara, Accipiter Radar Corporation
 Using avian radar to predict bird movement at Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport
Elizabeth Woodworth, University of Illinois
12:30-4:30 p.m. Lunch and Tour of Salt Lake City International Airport
Hosted By Salt Lake City International Airport
6-7:30 p.m. Exhibitors Social and Poster Session
THURSDAY, JUNE 24
8:30-10 a.m. Technical Session: Analyzing Data
 Cybertracker and Windows Mobile: An inexpensive solution

for electronic wildlife control data collection
Melody Henderson, Birdstrike Control Program
 A quantified species specific bird hazard index enabling a bird
control decision support system
Inge Both, Royal Netherlands Air Force
 It's a bird, it's a plane, it's visual analytics!

Andrew T. Wade, Simon Fraser University
10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Technical Session: Aircraft and Altitudes
 Increasing trend of damaging strikes to air carrier aircraft

outside the airport boundary: Implications for mitigation
measure
Richard A. Dolbeer, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
 Differential susceptibility of aircraft to bird strikes
Gary F. Searing, Airport Wildlife Management International
 Object detection and avoidance by birds: It's not a matter of

"outrunning" a jet
Bradley F. Blackwell, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National
12-1:30 p.m. Lunch on own
1:30-3 p.m. Technical Session: Reducing Wildlife Hazards
 Soft skills: A tool box unexploited

John E. Ostrom, Metropolitan Airports Commission
 Native and naturalized turf species utilized at airports managed
for wildlife hazards in the Northeastern U.S.
Kirstin Dorsch, State University of New York College at
Oneonta
 Observations of the effects of specific sounds emitted from a

planar magnetic transducer on wild avian and mammal
populations
Clinton C. Ready, Middle Georgia College
3-3:15 p.m. Closing Remarks
John Ostrom, Chair, BSC-USA
3:15-3:30 p.m. Invitation to 2011 meeting in Canada
3:30-4:30 p.m. BSC-USA/Canada Committee Discussion
All Candidates Welcome
Copyright © 2008 AAAE · Design based on a template by Andreas Viklund

Bird Strike Committee-USA
Significant Bird and other Wildlife

Strikes
The following is a selected list of wildlife strikes to civil and military aircraft.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through an interagency agreement with the Federal
Aviation Administration, compiles a database of all reported bird/wildlife strikes to U.S. civil
aircraft and to foreign carriers experiencing strikes in the USA. Over 87,000 strike reports
from over 1,650 airports have been compiled, 1990-2008 (over 7,500 strikes in 2008). The
FAA estimates that this represents only about 20% of the strikes that have occurred. The
following historical examples of strikes from 1905-1989 and examples from the database
from 1990-2008 are presented to show the serious impact that strikes by birds or other
wildlife can have on aircraft. These examples demonstrate the widespread and diverse nature
of the problem and are not intended to criticize individual airports. Many of the strike
examples reported here occurred off airport property during descent, approach or climb.
Civil Aircraft (USA)

7 September 1905. From the Wright Brothers diaries, “Orville … flew 4,751 meters in 4
minutes 45 seconds, four complete circles. Twice passed over fence into Beard's cornfield.
Chased flock of birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and
after a time fell off when swinging a sharp curve.” This was the first reported bird-aircraft
strike. Because of the location near Dayton, Ohio and time of year, the bird struck was
probably a red-winged blackbird.
3 April 1912. Calbraith Rodgers, the first person to fly across the continental USA, was also
the first to die as a result of a bird strike. On 3 April 1912, Rodgers’ Wright Pusher struck a
gull, causing the aircraft to crash into the surf at Long Beach, California. Rodgers was pinned
under the wreckage and drowned.
10 March 1960. A Lockheed Electra turbo-prop ingested European starlings into all 4
engines during takeoff from Boston Logan Airport (MA). The plane crashed into Boston
Harbor, killing 62 people. Following this accident, the FAA initiated action to develop
minimum bird ingestion standards for turbine-powered engines.
26 February 1973. On departure from Atlanta, Georgia's Peachtree-Dekalb Airport, a Lear
24 jet struck a flock of brown-headed cowbirds attracted to a nearby trash transfer station.
Engine failure resulted. The aircraft crashed, killing 8 people and seriously injuring 1 person
on the ground. This incident prompted the FAA to develop guidelines concerning the location
of solid waste disposal facilities on or near airports.
12 November 1975. On departure roll from John F. Kennedy International Airport (NY), the
pilot of a DC-10 aborted takeoff after ingesting gulls into 1 engine. The plane ran off runway
and caught fire as a result of engine fire and overheated brakes. The resultant fire destroyed
the aircraft. All 138 people on board, airline personnel trained in emergency evacuation,
evacuated safely. Following this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board
recommended the FAA evaluate the effect of bird ingestion on large, high-bypass, turbofan
engines and the adequacy of engine certification standards. The FAA Initiated a nationwide
data collection effort to document bird strike and engine ingestion events.
25 July 1978. A Convair 580 departing Kalamazoo Airport (MI) ingested 1 American kestrel
into an engine on takeoff. Aircraft auto-feathered and crashed in nearby field, injuring 3 of 43
passengers.
18 June 1983. The pilot of a Bellanca 1730, landing at Clifford TX, saw 2 “buzzards” on
final approach. He added power and maneuvered to avoid them, then continued approach.
This resulted in landing beyond intended point. The middle of runway was higher than either
end; therefore, pilot was unable to see a large canine moving toward the landing area until
aircraft was halfway down runway. A go-around was initiated but the lowered landing gear
hit some treetops causing the pilot to loose control. The aircraft came to rest in a milo field
about 250 yards from initial tree impact after flying through additional trees. Aircraft suffered
substantial damage, and 2 people in aircraft were seriously injured.
6 January 1985. A Beechcraft King Air 90 departing Smith Reynolds Airport (NC) at dusk
hit a large feral dog on runway just at rotation. Aircraft suffered substantial damage.
17 March 1987. A Boeing-737 struck an 80-pound deer at Chicago O’Hare (IL) airport. The
aircraft suffered over $114,000 in damage.
5 November 1990. During takeoff at Michiana Regional Airport (IN), a BA-31 flew through
a flock of mourning doves. Several birds were ingested in both engines and takeoff was
aborted. Both engines were destroyed. Cost of repairs was $1 million and time out of service
was 60 hours.
30 December 1991. A Citation 550, taking off from Angelina County Airport (TX) struck a
turkey vulture. The strike caused major damage to #1 engine and resulting shrapnel caused
minor damage to the wing and fuselage. Cost of repairs was $550,000 and time out of service
was 2 weeks.
2 February 1992. A Piper Cherokee struck a deer at rotation during takeoff from Sandstone
Municipal Airport (MN). The pilot attempted to turn back to airport but impacted into trees
just south of airport. Aircraft was destroyed and pilot seriously injured.
3 December 1993. A Cessna 550 struck a flock of geese during initial climb out of DuPage
County Airport (IL). Pilot heard a loud bang and aircraft yawed to left and right. Instruments
showed loss of power to #2 engine and a substantial fuel leak on the left side. An emergency
was declared and the aircraft landed at Midway Airport. Cost to repair 2 engines was
$800,000 and time out of service was about 3 months.
21 October 1994. A Cessna 210 struck a coyote during landing roll at Higginsville Industrial
Municipal Airport (MO) at night. Nose gear collapsed, causing the propeller to hit runway,
resulting in major damage to engine and crankshaft.
3 June 1995. An Air France Concorde, at about 10 feet AGL while landing at John F.
Kennedy International Airport (NY), ingested 1 or 2 Canada geese into the #3 engine. The
engine suffered an uncontained failure. Shrapnel from the #3 engine destroyed the #4 engine
and cut several hydraulic lines and control cables. The pilot was able to land the plane safely
but the runway was closed for several hours. Damage to the Concorde was estimated at over
$7 million. The French Aviation Authority sued the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey and eventually settled out of court for $5.3 million.
5 October 1996. A Boeing-727 departing Washington Reagan National Airport (DC) struck
a flock of gulls just after takeoff, ingesting at least 1 bird. One engine began to vibrate and
was shut down. A burning smell entered the cockpit. An emergency was declared and the
aircraft, carrying 52 passengers, landed at Washington National. Several engine blades were
damaged.
7 January 1997. An MD-80 aircraft struck over 400 blackbirds just after takeoff from
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (TX). Almost every part of the plane was hit. Pilot
declared an emergency and returned to land without event. Substantial damage was found on
various parts of the aircraft and the #1 engine had to be replaced. The runway was closed for
1 hour. The birds had been attracted to an un-harvested wheat field on the airport.
9 January 1998. While climbing through 3,000 feet, following takeoff from Houston
Intercontinental Airport (TX), a Boeing-727 struck a flock of snow geese with 3-5 birds
ingested into 1 engine. The engine lost all power and was destroyed. The radome was torn
from aircraft and leading edges of both wings were damaged. The pitot tube for first officer
was torn off. Intense vibration was experienced in airframe and noise level in cockpit
increased to point that communication among crewmembers became difficult. An emergency
was declared. The flight returned safely to Houston with major damage to aircraft.
22 February 1999. A Boeing-757 departing Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
Airport (KY) had to return and make emergency landing after hitting large flock of starlings.
Both engines and 1 wing received extensive damage. About 400 dead starlings were found on
runway area.
07 February 2000. An American-owned cargo company’s DC-10-30 departing Subic Bay,
Philippines ingested a fruit bat into 1 engine at 250 feet AGL. Aircraft returned to airport.
Five damaged fan blades had to be replaced. Time out of service was 3 days. Total repair
and related costs exceeded $3 million.
21 January 2001. The #3 engine on an MD-11 departing Portland International Airport (OR)
ingested a herring gull during take-off run. The bird ingestion resulted in a fractured fan
blade. Damage from the fan blade fracture resulted in the liberation of the forward section of
the inlet cowl. Portions of the inlet cowl were ingested back into the engine and shredded. The
pilot aborted takeoff during which two tires failed. The 217 passengers were safely deplaned
and rerouted to other flights. Bird ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
09 March 2002. A Canadair RJ 200 at Dulles International Airport (VA) struck 2 wild
turkeys during the takeoff roll. One shattered the windshield spraying the cockpit with glass
fragments and remains. Another hit the fuselage and was ingested. There was a 14- by 4-inch
section of fuselage skin damaged below the windshield seal on the flight officer’s side. Cost
of repairs estimated at $200,000. Time out of service was at least 2 weeks.
19 October 2002. A Boeing 767 departing Logan International Airport (MA) encountered a
flock of over 20 double-crested cormorants. At least 1 cormorant was ingested into #2 engine.
There were immediate indications of engine surging followed by compression stall and smoke
from engine. The engine was shutdown. Overweight landing with 1 engine was made without
incident. Nose cowl was dented and punctured. There was significant fan blade damage with
abnormal engine vibration. One fan blade was found on the runway. Aircraft was towed to the
ramp. Hydraulic lines were leaking and several bolts were sheared off inside engine. Many
pieces fell out when the cowling was opened. Aircraft was out of service for 3 days. Cost of
repairs was $1.7 million.
8 January 2003. A Bombardier de Havilland Dash 8 collided with a flock of lesser scaup at
1,300 feet AGL on approach to Rogue Valley International Airport (OR). At least 1 bird
penetrated the cabin and hit the pilot who turned control over to the first officer for landing.
Emergency power switched on when the birds penetrated the radome and damaged the DC
power system and instruments systems. The pilot was treated for cuts and released from the
hospital.
04 September 2003. A Fokker 100 struck a flock of at least 5 Canada geese over runway
shortly after takeoff at LaGuardia Airport (NY), ingesting 1 or 2 geese into #2 engine. Engine
vibration occurred. Pilot was unable to shut engine down with the fuel cutoff lever so fire
handle was pulled and engine finally shut down, but vibration continued. The flight was
diverted to nearby JFK International Airport where a landing was made. The NTSB found a
20- by 36-inch wide depression on right side of nose behind radome. Maximum depth was 4
inches. Impact marks on right wing. A fan blade separated from the disk and penetrated the
fuselage. Several fan blades were deformed. Holes were found in the engine cowling.
Remains were recovered and identified by Wildlife Services.
17 February 2004. A Boeing 757 during takeoff run from Portland International Airport
(OR) hit 5 mallards and returned with 1 engine out. At least 1 bird was ingested and parts of 5
birds were collected from the runway. Engine damage was not repairable and engine had to be
replaced. Cost was $2.5 million and time out of service was 3 days.
15 April 2004. An Airbus 319 climbing out of Portland International Airport (OR) ingested a
great blue heron into the #2 engine, causing extensive damage. Pilot shut the engine down as
a precaution and made an emergency landing. Runway was closed 38 minutes for cleaning.
Flight was cancelled. Engine and nose cowl were replaced. Time out of service was 72 hours.
Damage totaled $388,000.
14 June 2004. A Boeing 737 struck a great horned owl during a nighttime landing roll at
Greater Pittsburgh International Airport (PA). The bird severed a cable in front main gear.
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. Aircraft out of
service was 24 hours. Cost estimated at $20,000.
16 September 2004. A MD 80 departing Chicago O’Hare (IL) hit several double-crested
cormorants at 3,000 feet AGL and 4 miles from airport. The #1 engine caught fire and failed,
sending metal debris to the ground in a Chicago neighborhood. The aircraft made an
emergency landing back at O’Hare with no injuries to the 107 passengers.
24 October 2004. A Boeing 767 departing Chicago O’Hare (IL) hit a flock of birds during
takeoff run. A compressor stall caused the engine to flame out. A fire department got calls
from local residents who reported seeing flames coming from the plane. Pilot dumped
approximately 11,000 gallons of fuel over Lake Michigan before returning to land. Feathers
found in engine were sent to the Smithsonian, Division of Birds for identification.
30 March 2005. A SA 227, landing at Dade-Collier Training and Transportation Airport
(FL), hit the last deer in a group of 8 crossing the runway, causing a prop to detach and
puncture the fuselage. Also damaged was the nose wheel steering and right engine nacelle.
Aircraft was a write-off due to cost of repairs $580,000 being close to the plane’s value of
$650,000.
1 September 2005. A Falcon 20 departing Lorain County (OH) Airport hit a flock of
mourning doves at rotation, causing the #1 engine to flame out. As the gear was retracted, the
aircraft hit another flock which caused the #2 engine RPM to roll-back. The pilot was not able
to sustain airspeed or altitude and crash-landed, sliding through a ditch and airport perimeter
fence, crossing a highway and ending in a corn field. Aircraft sustained major structural
damage beyond economical repairs. Both pilots were taken to hospital. Costs totaled $1.4
million.
16 October 2005. A BE-1900 departing Ogdensburg International (NY) struck a coyote
during take-off run. The nose gear collapsed causing the plane to skid to a stop on the runway.
Propeller blades went through the skin of the aircraft. Engine #1 and #2, propellers, landing
gear, nose, fuselage had major damage. Insurance declared aircraft a total loss. Cost of
repairs would have been $1.5 million.
30 December 2005. A Bell 206 helicopter Pilot flying a Bell 206 helicopter at 500 feet AGL
near Washington, LA looked up from instruments to see a large vulture crashing into the
windshield. He was temporarily blinded by blood and wind. After regaining control, the pilot
tried to land in a bean field nearby but blood was hampering his vision and the left skid hit the
ground first causing the aircraft to tip on its side. Pilot was taken to the hospital and had
several surgeries to repair his face, teeth and eye. Aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Cost
of repairs would have been $1.5 million.
1 January 2006. A B-757 ingested a great blue heron into an engine during take-off at
Portland International (OR). Engine was shut down and a one-engine landing was made. Fan
section of the engine was replaced. Time out of service was 15 hours. Cost was $244,000.
3 August 2006. A Cessna Citation 560 departing a General Aviation airport in Indiana hit
Canada geese on the take-off run. Left engine ingested birds causing an uncontained failure.
Aircraft went off the runway during the aborted takeoff. Top cowling and fan were replaced.
ID by the Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Aircraft was out of service for 13 days and costs
were estimated at $750,000.
18 August 2006. A CL-RJ 200 departing Salt Lake City International Airport flew through a
flock of northern pintails (ducks) at 500 feet AGL. Pilot saw 2 birds and felt them hit the
engines. Engines began to vibrate. Aircraft landed without incident and was towed to the
hanger. ID by the Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Time out of service was over 24 hours and
costs to repair engines totaled $811,825.
8 December 2006. The Captain of a B-767 departing JFK International Airport saw 2 birds
during initial climb. After bird was ingested into #2 engine, pilot returned aircraft to JFK on
Alert 3-3. One badly damaged great blue heron was recovered from the runway. Carcass
appeared to have gone through the #2 engine. The engine was replaced and passengers were
put on a replacement aircraft.
15 March 2007. A B-767 departing Chicago O’Hare encountered a flock of birds at <500
feet AGL. People on ground reported flames shooting out of the #1 engine. The aircraft
returned to land without incident and was towed to the terminal. Birds were ingested in both
engines, but only 1 engine was damaged. Remains of nine male canvasback ducks were
found near the departure end of runway 9R. ID by the Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Time
out of service was 12 days. Estimated cost for repairs is $1.8 million. Cost for aircraft’s time
out of service was $309,000.
7 July 2007. A U.S. carrier B-767 flew through a large flock of yellow-legged gulls at 20 feet
AGL during departure at Fiumcino International Airport (Rome, Italy). The pilot dumped
fuel before returning to land on one engine. Besides birds being ingested into both engines,
birds hit the cockpit window, right engine nose cowl, wing, and right main undercarriage. The
main gear struts were deflated. Some of the fan blades had large chunks taken out. The left
engine had many fan blades damaged midway along the blade leading edge. Both engines
were replaced. The replacement engines had to be flown to Rome from the USA. ID by
ornithologist, a member of Bird Strike Committee Italy. Time out of service 1 week.
25 August 2007. Pilot of B-737 departing Texas El Paso Airport reported loud bang in
cockpit at 14,000 feet AGL during climb. Loud rushing air noise, cabin started to
depressurize. Cabin alt horn went off, oxygen masks were donned. Pilot descended to 10,000
feet, notified flight attendants of situation, and then landed at El Paso. Found large hole under
captain’s left foot side. Also, hole in left horizontal stabilizer the size of a football. First
officer’s side of cockpit had a dent. Blood and feathers were found. No birds were seen in
flight. Ground crew said “turkey buzzards” were in area. Bird was identified as marbled
godwit by Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Cost of repairs was $144,064. Time out of service
was 3 days.
28 August 2007. The pilot of a CRJ-700 declared an emergency after a black vulture
smashed in the front fuselage between the radome and the windshield at 2,300 feet AGL on
approach to the Louisville, KY International Airport. The strike ripped the skin, broke the
avionics door, broke a stringer in half and bent 2 bulkheads. Maintenance made temporary
repairs, then aircraft was ferried out for permanent repairs. ID by Smithsonian, Division of
Birds. Cost of repairs was $200,000. Time out of service was 2 weeks.
11 October 2007. A CRJ-700 departing Denver International struck a flock of sandhill
cranes at 1,500 feet AGL. The captain said several “geese” came at them, and they heard 3-4
thuds. The right engine immediately began to run roughly and the VIB gauge was fluctuating
rapidly from one extreme to the other. Captain declared an emergency and said he didn’t think
he was going to make it back to DEN. The aircraft landed safely. The engine fan was
damaged and there were dents along the left wing leading edge slat. ID by Smithsonian,
Division of Birds. NTSB investigated.
23 October 2007. A Piper 44 flying at 3,400 feet AGL disappeared during a night training
flight from Minneapolis, MN to Grand Forks, ND. The instructor and student pilot did not
report any difficulties or anomalies prior to the accident. Wreckage was found 36 hours later,
partially submerged upside down in a bog. The NTSB sent part of a wing with suspected bird
remains inside to the Smithsonian. Remains identified as Canada goose. The damage that
crippled the aircraft was to the left horizontal stabilator. NTSB investigated. Two fatalities.
22 November 2007. Pilot of a B-767 (U.S. carrier) at Nice Cote d'Azur (France) noticed a
flock of gulls on runway during take off. As the aircraft rotated, the flock lifted off the
runway. Shortly after that the crew felt multiple strikes and vibrations and returned to land.
The #2 engine had fan blade damage. One piece of a fan blade broke off and exited out the
front and the core nozzle fell off. The engine was replaced. Birds ID’d as yellow-legged gulls
by Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Time out of service was 12 days. Cost of repairs was
$8,925,000 and other cost was $196,000.
27 November 2007. A CRJ-200 descending into Memphis International Airport (TN)
encountered a flock of large birds, sustaining ingestion into both engines, a cracked nose
panel, damage to the right wing root and left horizontal stabilizer, and left engine anti-ice
cowling. Bird remains were subsequently identified as snow geese. Maintenance made
temporary repairs before aircraft could be flown for more permanent repairs.
29 January 2008. Flight crew of B-747 reported minor noise and vibration shortly after lift-
off from Louisville International Airport. Noise and vibrations later subsided. Upon landing
at destination, damage was found to 3 fan blades on the #2 engine. A piece of a liberated fan
blade penetrated the cowl. Six fan blade pairs, the fan case outer-front acoustic panel and inlet
cowl were replaced. ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
8 April 2008. Shortly after departure, a Challenger 600 suffered multiple, large bird strikes
(American white pelicans) at 3,000 feet AGL. One bird penetrated the nose area just below
the windshield and continued through the forward cockpit bulkhead. Bird remains were
sprayed throughout the cockpit. No injuries reported. Both engines ingested at least 1 bird.
The #1 engine had fan damage: the #2 engine lost power and had a dented inlet lip. ID by
Smithsonian, Division of Birds. NTSB investigated. Cost exceeded $2 million.
20 June 2008. During takeoff run at Chicago O’Hare, a B-747 bound for China ingested a
red-tailed hawk. The flight continued takeoff and climbed to 11,000 feet to dump fuel and
then returned to the airport with one engine out. Several blades had significant damage. Both
the #1 and #2 engines had vibrations but the #2 engine was not damaged. Aircraft taken out
of service for repairs; passengers had to be boarded onto another aircraft.
Date: 24 July 2008

Aircraft: Learjet 60
Airport: Morristown Muni (NJ)
Phase of Flight: Takeoff run
Effect on Flight: Aborted takeoff
Damage: Engine #2 and wing
Wildlife Species: Canada goose
Comments from Report: During takeoff run a flock of 2-10 geese were struck. The #2 engine ingested a
Canada goose causing damage and the wing was also damaged. Takeoff was aborted. Aircraft was out of service
for 8 days and cost totaled $3 million.
Date: 11 September 2008

Aircraft: MD-88
Airport: Atlanta Intl. (GA)
Phase of Flight: Climb (5’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Engine shut down, precautionary landing
Damage: Engine #1
Wildlife Species: Rock pigeon
Comments from Report: The number 1 engine was totaled. Odor and haze in cabin. Vibration in engine. Two-
ten birds reported as struck. Aircraft made an emergency landing. ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
Remains taken from nose and runway.
Date: 25 October 2008

Aircraft: MD-90-30
Airport: Salt Lake City (UT)
Phase of Flight: Takeoff run
Effect on Flight: Aborted takeoff
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Ferruginous hawk (juvenile)
Comments from Report: Hawk was ingested on takeoff. Pilot was able to abort takeoff on the runway.
Runway was closed 30 minutes for cleanup. Airline mechanics reported that the cost of 4 tires, 4 brake
assemblies and 4 fan blades would be $554,400. This cost does not include labor and down time. Final estimate
for repairs was around $3.2 million. Airline policy requires pilots be removed from service. ID by Wildlife
Services biologist.
Date: 06 December 2008

Aircraft: A-320
Airport: New Orleans Intl (LA)
Phase of Flight: Climb (500’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Engine shut down and Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Lesser scaup
Comments from Report: During climb-out, 4 birds appeared on the nose out of the dark. Birds tried to dive and
were lost from view on right side followed by a loud thump and #2 engine vibrations. We declared an
emergency, and landed. Post flight inspection found major engine damage. There were many deformed fan and
exhaust blades. ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds.
Large Military Aircraft (Worldwide, at least 107 military aircraft have
been destroyed because of bird strikes, 1990-2008. Most of these incidents
involved fighter or fighter-trainer jet aircraft. The following is a list of larger,
specialized military aircraft that were destroyed because of bird strikes).
15 July 1996; Belgian Air Force Lockheed C-130; Eindhoven, Netherlands: The aircraft
struck a large flock of starlings during approach and crashed short of the runway. All four
crew members and 30 of the 37 passengers were killed.
14 July 1996; NATO E-3 AWACS; Aktion, Greece: The aircraft struck a flock of birds
during takeoff. The crew aborted the takeoff and the aircraft overran the runway. The aircraft
was not repaired, but none of the crew was seriously injured.
22 September 1995; U.S. Air Force E-3 AWACS; Elmendorf AFB, Alaska: During
takeoff as the aircraft was passing rotation speed, the aircraft struck about three dozen Canada
geese, ingesting at least three into engine two and at least one into engine one. The aircraft
was unable to maintain controlled flight and crashed in a forest about 1 mile (1.6 km) beyond
the runway. All 24 occupants were killed.
September 1987; U.S. Air Force B1-B; Colorado, USA: Aircraft lost control and crashed
after a large bird (American white pelican) struck the wing root area and damage a hydraulic
system. The aircraft was on a low level, high speed training mission. Only three of the six
occupants were able to successfully bail out. .
1980; Royal Air Force Nimrod; Kinloss Scotland: Aircraft lost control and crashed after
ingesting a number of birds into multiple engines.
Back to top of page

Bird strike
F-16 canopy after a bird strike
A bird strike—sometimes called birdstrike, avian ingestion (only

if in an engine), bird hit, or BASH (for Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard)—is a collision
between an airborne animal (usually a bird or bat[1]) and a man-made vehicle,
especially aircraft. The term is also used for bird deaths resulting from collisions with
man made structures such as power lines, towers and wind turbines. [2] A bug strike
is an impairment of an aircraft or aviator by an airborne insect.
Bird strikes are a significant threat to flight safety, and have caused a number of
accidents with human casualties.[3] Major accidents involving civil aircraft are quite
low and it has been estimated that there is only about 1 accident resulting in human
death in one billion (109) flying hours.[4] The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause
little damage to the aircraft;[5] however, the collision is usually fatal to the bird.
Most accidents occur when the bird hits the windscreen or flies into the engines.
These cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million [3] within the
United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft
worldwide.[6]
Event description
View of fan blades of JT8D Jet engine after a bird strike.

Bird strikes happen most often during takeoff or landing, or during low altitude flight.
[7]
However, bird strikes have also been reported at high altitudes, some as high as
6,000 m (19,685 ft) to 9,000 m (29,528 ft) above the ground. Bar-headed geese
have been seen flying as high as 10,175 m (33,383 ft) above sea level. An aircraft
over the Côte d'Ivoire collided with a Rüppell's Vulture at the astonishing altitude of
11,300 m (37,073 ft), the current record avian height.[8] The majority of bird
collisions occur near or on airports (90%, according to the ICAO) during takeoff,
landing and associated phases. According to the FAA wildlife hazard management
manual for 2005, less than 8% of strikes occur above 900 m (2,953 ft) and 61%
occur at less than 30 m (100 ft).[citation needed]
A hawk stuck in the nosecone of a C-130
The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle such as a wing
leading edge, nose cone, jet engine cowling or engine inlet. [citation needed]
Jet engine ingestion is extremely serious due to the rotation speed of

the engine fan and engine design. As the bird strikes a fan blade, that blade can be
displaced into another blade and so forth, causing a cascading failure. Jet engines
are particularly vulnerable during the takeoff phase when the engine is turning at a
very high speed and the plane is at a low altitude where birds are more commonly
found.[citation needed]
The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the
speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with
the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a
car windshield causes relatively little damage. High speed impacts, as with jet
aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle.
The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h
(171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped
from a height of 15 metres (49 ft).[9] However, according to the FAA only 15% of
strikes (ICAO 11%) actually result in damage to the aircraft. [citation needed]
Inside of a jet engine after a bird strike
Bird strikes can damage vehicle components, or injure passengers. Flocks of birds
are especially dangerous, and can lead to multiple strikes, and damage. Depending
on the damage, aircraft at low altitudes or during take off and landing often cannot
recover in time, and thus crash.[citation needed]
Remains of the bird, termed snarge,[10] are sent to identification centers where
forensic techniques may be used to identify the species involved. These samples
need to be taken carefully by trained personnel to ensure proper analysis [11] and
reduce the risks of zoonoses.[12]
The Israeli Air Force has a larger than usual birdstrike risk as Israel is
on a major spring and autumn long-distance bird migration route.[citation needed]
Sacramento International Airport has had more bird strikes (1,300 collisions between
birds and jets between 1990 and 2007, causing an estimated $1.6 million in
damage) than any other California airport. Sacramento International Airport has the
most bird strikes of any airport in the west and sixth among airports in the US,
according to the FAA, as it is located along the Pacific Flyway, a major bird migration
path.[13][14]
Species
The animals most frequently involved in bird strikes are large birds with big
populations, particularly geese and gulls in the United States. In parts of the US,
Canada Geese and migratory Snow Geese populations have risen significantly while
feral Canada Geese and Greylag Geese have increased in parts of Europe increasing
the risk of these large birds to aircraft.[15] In other parts of the world, large birds of
prey such as Gyps vultures and Milvus kites are often involved.[4] In the US reported
strikes are divided between waterfowl (32%), gulls (28%), and raptors (17%) (Data
from the BSC USA).[citation needed] The Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification
Laboratory has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds, followed by
Canada geese and white pelicans,[16] all very large birds. In terms of frequency, the
laboratory most commonly finds Mourning Doves and Horned Larks involved in the
strike.[16]
The largest numbers of strikes happen during the spring and fall migrations. Bird
strikes above 500 feet altitude are about 7 times more common at night than during
the day during the bird migration season.[17]
Large land-bound animals, such as deer, can also be a problem to aircraft during
take off and landing, and over 650 civil aircraft collisions with deer were reported in
the U.S. between 1990 and 2004.
Deer entangled in a landing gear
An animal hazard reported from London Stansted Airport in England is rabbits: they
get run over by ground vehicles and planes, and they pass large amounts of
droppings, which attract mice, which attract owls, which become another birdstrike
hazard.[18]
Countermeasures
There are three approaches to reduce the effect of bird strikes. The vehicles can be
designed to be more bird resistant, the birds can be moved out of the way of the
vehicle, or the vehicle can be moved out of the way of the birds.
Vehicle design
A ICE 3 high speed train after hitting a bird
Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut-
down after "ingesting" a bird weighing up to 1.8 kg (4 lb). The engine does not have
to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down. This is a 'stand alone'
requirement, i.e., the engine, not the aircraft, must pass the test. Multiple strikes
(from hitting a bird flock) on twin engine jet aircraft are very serious events because
they can disable multiple aircraft systems, requiring emergency action to land the
aircraft, as in the January 15, 2009, forced ditching of US Airways Flight 1549.
Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) collision;
the empennage (tail) must withstand one 3.6 kg (8 lb) bird collision. Cockpit
windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) bird collision
without yielding or spalling.
At first, bird strike testing by manufacturers involved firing a bird carcass from a gas
cannon and sabot system into the tested unit. The carcass was soon replaced with
suitable density blocks, often gelatin, to ease testing. Currently testing is mainly
conducted with computer simulation, although final testing usually involves some
physical experiments (see birdstrike simulator).
Aircraft Forward Lighting can play an important role in enhancing the detectability of
birds to aircraft. Vision is the primary sensory pathway serving the animal in
detection of approaching objects (e.g., trees, buildings, other birds, and predators)
and adjustment of flight path relative to an object's approach. In a very basic sense,
once a threat is identified, the animal can utilize its high aerodynamic capabilities to
avoid collision. Recent experimental findings suggest that birds will use similar
[19]
strategies in response to aircraft approach
Bird management
A bird control vehicle belonging to Copenhagen Airport Kastrup, equipped with
various tools.
To reduce birdstrikes on takeoff and landing, airports engage in bird management

and control. There is no single solution that works for all situations. Birds have been
noted for their adaptability and control methods may not remain effective for long. [20]
Management techniques include changes to habitat around the airport to reduce its
attractiveness to birds.[16] Vegetation which produces seeds, grasses which are
favored by geese,[21] manmade food, a favorite of gulls, all should be removed from
the airport area. Trees and tall structures which serve as roosts at night for flocking
birds or perches should be removed or modified to discourage bird use. [22]
A UH-60 Black Hawk after a collision with a Common Crane, and resulting failure of
the windshield.
Other approaches try to scare away the birds using frightening devices, for example
sounds, lights, pyrotechnics, radio-controlled airplanes, decoy animals/corpses,
lasers, dogs etc.[22] Firearms are also occasionally employed. A successful approach
has been the utilization of dogs, particularly Border collies, to scare away birds and
wildlife.[23] Another alternative is bird capture and relocation. Falcons are sometimes
used to harass the bird population, as for example on John F. Kennedy International
Airport.[16] At Manchester Airport in England the usual type of falcon used for this is a
peregrine falcon/lanner falcon hybrid, as its flight range covers the airport. An airport
in New Zealand uses electrified mats to reduce the number of worms that attracted
large numbers of sea gulls.[16]
Flight path
A UH-60 after collision with a crane (bird), and subsequent failure of the windshield,
as seen from the inside.
Pilots have very little training in wildlife avoidance nor is training required by any
regulatory agency. However, they should not takeoff or land in the presence of
wildlife, avoid migratory routes,[24] wildlife reserves, estuaries and other sites where
birds may congregate. When operating in the presence of bird flocks, pilots should
seek to climb above 3,000 feet as rapidly as possible as most birdstrikes occur below
3,000 feet. Additionally pilots should slow their aircraft when confronted with birds.
The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative
kinetic energy (Ek) of the bird, defined by the equation where m is the
mass and v is the relative velocity (the sum of the velocities of the bird and the
plane). Therefore the speed of the aircraft is much more important than the size of
the bird when it comes to reducing energy transfer in a collision. The same can be
said for jet engines: the slower the rotation of the engine, the less energy which will
be imparted onto the engine at collision.
The body density of the bird is also a parameter that influences the amount of
damage caused.[25]
The US Military Aviation Hazard Advisory System uses a Bird Avoidance Model [26]
based on data from the Smithsonian Institution, historical patterns of bird strikes and
radar tracking of bird activity.[16] This model has been extremely successful. Prior to
flight USAF pilots check for bird activity on their proposed low level route or bombing
range. If bird activity is forecast to be high, the route is changed to one of lower
threat. In the first year this BAM model was required as a preflight tool, the USAF Air
Combat Command experienced a 70% drop in birdstrikes to its mission aircraft.
TNO, a Dutch R&D Institute, has developed the successful ROBIN (Radar Observation
of Bird Intensity) for the Royal Netherlands Airforce. ROBIN is a near real-time
monitoring system for flight movements of birds. ROBIN identifies flocks of birds
within the signals of large radar systems. This information is used to give Air Force
pilots warning during landing and take-off. Years of observation of bird migration
with ROBIN have also provided a better insight into bird migration behaviour, which
has had an influence on averting collisions with birds, and therefore on flight safety.
Since the implementation of the ROBIN system at the Royal Netherlands Airforce the
number of collisions between birds and aircraft in the vicinity of military airbases has
decreased by more than 50%.
There are no civil aviation counterparts to the above military strategies. Some
experimentation with small portable radar units has taken place at some airports.
However, no standard has been adopted for radar warning nor has any governmental
policy regarding warnings been implemented.
Incidents
The Federal Aviation Administration estimates the problem costs US aviation 600
million dollars annually and has resulted in over 200 worldwide deaths since 1988. [27]
In the United Kingdom, the Central Science Laboratory estimates [6] that, worldwide,
the cost of birdstrikes to airlines is around US$1.2 billion annually. This cost includes
direct repair cost and lost revenue opportunities while the damaged aircraft is out of
service. Estimating that 80% of bird strikes are unreported, there were 4,300 bird
strikes listed by the United States Air Force and 5,900 by US civil aircraft in 2003.
The first reported bird strike was by Orville Wright in 1905, and according to the
Wright Brothers' diaries Orville … flew 4,751 meters in 4 minutes 45 seconds, four
complete circles. Twice passed over fence into Beard's cornfield. Chased flock of
birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and after a
time fell off when swinging a sharp curve.[4]
French pilot Eugene Gilbert in 1911 encountered an angry mother eagle over the
Pyrenees Mountains enroute from Paris to Madrid during the great aviation race held
that year between those two cities. The bird feared for the safety of her young which
were perched high in a nest in the mountains and as Gilbert flew past she thought he
was a predator. Gilbert flying a Bleriot XI open cockpit was able to ward off the large
bird by firing pistol shots at her but not killing her.[28]
The first recorded bird strike fatality was reported in 1912 when aero-pioneer Cal
Rodgers collided with a gull which became jammed in his aircraft control cables. He
crashed at Long Beach, California, was pinned under the wreckage and drowned.[3][29]
The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when
Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, a Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston, flew
through a flock of common starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The
plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities out of 72
passengers. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were
developed by the FAA.
On September 22, 1995, a U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (Callsign Yukla
27, serial number 77-0354), crashed shortly after take off from Elmendorf AFB, AK.
The plane lost power to both port side engines after these engines ingested several
Canada Geese during takeoff. The aircraft went down in a heavily wooded area about
two miles northeast of the runway, killing all 24 crew members on board. [30]
The Space Shuttle Discovery also hit a bird (a vulture) during the take-off of STS-
114 on July 26, 2005, although the collision occurred early during take off and at low
speeds, with no obvious damage to the shuttle.[31]
NASA also lost an astronaut, Theodore Freeman, to a bird strike. He was killed when
a goose shattered the plexiglass cockpit of his T-38 Talon, resulting in shards being
ingested by the engines, leading to a fatal crash.[citation needed]
Aircraft continue to be lost on a routine basis to birdstrikes. In the fall of 2006, the
USAF lost a twin engine T-38 trainer to a bird strike (ducks) and in October 2007,
the US Navy lost a T-45 jet trainer in a collision with a bird.
In the summer of 2007, Delta Air Lines suffered an incident in Rome, Italy, as one of
its Boeing 767 aircraft, on takeoff, ingested yellow legged gulls into both engines.
Although the aircraft returned to Rome safely, both engines were damaged and had
to be changed. United Air Lines suffered a twin engine bird ingestion by a Boeing 767
on departure from Chicago's O'Hare Field in the spring of 2007. One engine caught
fire and bird remains were found in the other engine.
Virgin America Flight 837 performed an emergency landing at San Francisco

International Airport on September 3, 2007 due to a bird strike. The plane involved
was "Air Colbert", named for host of The Colbert Report Stephen Colbert.
On April 29, 2007, a Thomsonfly Boeing 757 from Manchester Airport, UK to

Lanzarote Airport, Spain suffered a bird strike when at least one bird, supposedly a
heron, was ingested by the starboard engine. The plane landed safely back at
Manchester Airport a while later. The incident was captured by 2 plane spotters on
opposite sides of the airport, as well as the emergency calls picked up by a plane
spotter's radio. The videos were later published.[32][33]
On November 10, 2008, Ryanair Flight 4102 from Frankfurt to Rome made an
emergency landing at Ciampino Airport after multiple bird strikes put both engines
out of commission. After touchdown, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the
aircraft briefly veered off the runway before the crew regained control. Passengers
and crew were evacuated through the starboard emergency exits. Three passengers
and two crew members were injured, none seriously. [34]
On January 4, 2009, a bird strike is suspected in the crash of a PHI S-76 helicopter
in Louisiana. While the final report has not been published, early reports point to a
bird impacting the windscreen and retarding the throttles, leading to the death of 7
of the 8 persons on board.[35]
On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 from LaGuardia Airport to

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ditched into the Hudson River after
experiencing a loss of both turbines. It is suspected that the engine failure was
caused by running into a flock of geese at an altitude of about 975 m (3,200 feet),
shortly after takeoff. All 150 passengers and 5 crew members were safely evacuated
after a successful water landing.[36] On May 28, 2010, the NTSB published its final
report into the accident.[37]
On September 18, 2009, American Eagle Airlines Flight 5183 from Dallas Texas to
Lawton Oklahoma, collided with over 100 pigeons during takeoff on runway 31L. The
takeoff was aborted and the aircraft sustained minor damage. 34 whole birds were
recovered, hundreds of body parts were also recovered. The aircraft returned safely
to the gate with no injuries.[citation needed]
Bug strike
Flying insect strikes, like bird strikes, have been encountered by pilots since aircraft
were invented. In 1911 future Air Force general Henry "Hap" Arnold as a young
aviator flying a mile high and not wearing goggles nearly lost control of his Wright
Model B after a bug flew in his eye causing distraction. Large numbers of bugs such
as a locust swarm can infiltrate an aircraft engine and bring down a plane. [citation needed]

Bird Strike Committee USA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bird Strike Committee USA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bird Strike Committee USA

Best Management Practices

Adapted by the Steering Committee of Bird Strike Committee-USA from

Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control

developed by International Bird Strike Committee

Delegates to the 26th International Birdstrike Committee (IBSC) meeting1[1]

Dr. Allan presented IBSC’s recommended best management practices to the

A modified version of IBSC’s recommended best management practices follows. The

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) revised Standards and

2. BSC-USA Best Management Practices

2.1 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management

Best management practice 2 – Airport Managers:

2.1.2 Identifying attractions

The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the

2.2 Active Wildlife Control on the Airport

2.2.2 Aircraft flight schedule modification

2.2.3 Habitat management

2.2.4 Wildlife dispersal

2.2.5 Wildlife removal

Best management practice 4 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 5 – Airport Managers:

2.3.2 Collaboration and coordination between organizations on the airport

2.3.2.a Air Traffic Control

2.3.2.c Airport tenants

Best management practice 6 – Airport Managers:

2.4.2 Portable equipment

2.4.3 Static devices

2.4.4 Trained predators (raptors and dogs)

Best management practice 7 – Airport Managers:

2.5 Logging Wildlife Management Activities

Best management practice 8 – Airport Wildlife Control Specialists:

2.6 Wildlife Strike Reporting

2.6.2 Definition of a wildlife strike

To better understand the risk, include as many strike events as possible in an

Best management practice 9 – Airport and Air Carrier Personnel:

2.6.3 Analysis of wildlife strike data

It is important to stress: the total number of strikes at an airport is not a good

2.6.4 Wildlife remains identification

2.6.5 Data required in a wildlife strike report

2.6.6 Submission to ICAO

Best management practice 10 – Airport Managers and Airport Wildlife Control

Best management practice 11 – Airport Managers and Airport Wildlife Control

ACI. 2005. Aerodrome wildlife hazard prevention and wildlife management

Transport Canada. 2001. Sharing the Skies. TP 13549E. Transport Canada,

Cleary, E. C. and R. A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife hazard management at airports, a

Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. 2006. Wildlife strikes to civilian

Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and P. Eschenfelder. 2005. Animal ambush at the

Best management practice 1 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 2 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 3 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 4 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 5 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 6 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 7 – Airport Managers:

Best management practice 8 – Airport Wildlife Control Specialists:

Best management practice 9 – Airport and Air Carrier Personnel:

Best management practice 11 – Airport Managers and Airport Wildlife Control

Bird Strike Committee USA

Key Issues in Bird and Other Wildlife Hazard

Ensure that all airports have a valid wildlife management plan.

Zero tolerance for geese and other waterfowl on airport property.

Ensure the judicious use of wildlife frightening devices.

Support zoning of areas near airports to minimize attractants to wildlife.