Bird Strikes: A Common Aviation Hazard

(CBS/AP)  An air traffic controllers union official says a US Airways pilot reported a ``double bird strike'' less than a minute after takeoff and was headed for an emergency landing when he ditched into the Hudson River.

National Air Traffic Controllers Union spokesman Doug Church says the Airbus 320 reported the bird strikes about 30 to 45 seconds after takeoff from New York's LaGuardia Airport and asked to return to the ground. As the controller began to turn the aircraft, the pilot radioed that he saw an airport below him and asked what it was.

Church said the controller ``That's Teterboro'' in nearby New Jersey. The pilot asked to land there. The last transmission between the pilot and controller was the controller's order to divert to Teterboro for an emergency landing.

"Bird strikes have been a hazard since the dawn of aviation. The first officially recorded bird strike was by Wilbur Wright in 1905, and the first death by bird came in 1912," Wired reported in 2005. "Now each year birds cause more than $600 million in damage to civilian and military aircraft, and 163 injuries and nine deaths have been reported for civilians since 1990, according to the FAA."

"Airbus actually puts out a series of flight operations briefing manuals kind of like on-line references for pilots, and there's a whole separate subcategory called bird strikes," reports WCBS's Pablo Guzman. "Among some of the main points are that Pilots may expect to encounter from two to five bird strikes during their career. The FAA reported over 33,000 bird strikes of civil aircraft between 1990 and 2000."

Among the most recent instances, a multiple bird strike caused a Ryanair 737 to make an emergency landing at Rome's Ciampino Airport on Nov. 10, 2008. The plane lost significant power in both engines, but landed safely. Five people suffered minor injuries.

Bird Strike Committee USA is a volunteer organization led a 10- to 15-person steering committee consisting of representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and representatives from the aviation industry.

According to the committee:

Large commercial aircraft like passenger jets are certified to be able to continue flying after impacting a 4 pound bird, even if substantial and costly damage occurs and even if one engine has to be shut down. However, 36 species of birds in North America weigh over 4 pounds and most of these large birds travel in flocks. About 30 percent of reported strikes by birds weighing more than 4 lbs to civil aircraft in USA, 1990-2002, involved multiple birds. Even flocks of small birds (e.g., starlings, blackbirds) and single medium sized birds (e.g., gulls, ducks, hawks) can cause engine failure and substantial damage.

Large commercial jets are designed so that if any one engine is unable to continue generating thrust, the airplane will have enough power from the remaining engine or engines to safely complete the flight. However, because many birds travel in flocks, there is always a possibility that birds will be ingested into multiple engines.

Waterfowl (31 percent), gulls (26 percent) and raptors (18 percent) represented 75 percent of the reported bird strikes causing damage to USA civil aircraft, 1990-2007.

The North American non-migratory Canada goose population increased 3.6 fold from 1 million birds in 1990 to over 3.5 million in 2007. Over 1,400 Canada geese strikes with civil aircraft have been reported in USA, 1990-2007. Over 40 percent of these strike events involved multiple birds.

A 12-pound Canada goose struck by an aircraft moving at 150 mph on takeoff generates the force of a 1,000-pound weight dropped from a height of 10 feet.

[legacyabq]

Birds around airports ARE a clear and present danger.
--Posted by lf1952 at 05:15 AM

Oh come on already.. Every time a news story comes out everyone wants to solve all these supposed PROBLEMS.. Look, thousands and thousands and thousands of airplane flights take place every month with NO PROBLEMS.. Nobody needs to DO anything, except accept life and reality has its quirks, and chit happens.. Big deal..
Birds are not a serious threat..

If anything, we should eradicate the predatory jetliners! *** stupid noisy polluting ***, who needs to get anywhere so *** fast?
We''re just hurrying to our inevitable deaths..
Let''s all slow down a little and enjoy life while we have it, eh?

[legacyabq]

irmcvet971 at 07:18 AM

LOL, I think he was joking Vet! :-)

[observer2020]

The Air Force is taking an environmental stand to this problem. They have hired falconeers to clear the runways before takeoffs and before landings. It''s really rather amazing to watch these birds chase away birds that seriously outweigh them with quick effiency then fly back to their handlers without ruffling a feather. Maybe this is something that the commercial airports should put into action.

[creeper00]

Clearly, there does need to be more effort on bird eradication around airports. Hopefully, we can make an distinction between "all" and those actively threatening human life.

Posted by lf1952 at 05:15 AM : Jan 16, 2009

Nice thought but probably not applicable in this instance. Reports are that the aircraft was at 3,000 feet when it supposedly struck the birds. Those birds weren''t interested in anything on the ground near the airport. They were just passing through.

[gangesdak]

No one is feeling sorry for the birds.

[irmcvet971]

The obvious answer is to all off all birds,
it is more than apparent that airplanes and
the important people in them is of far
greater significance than any form of
wild life. Eradicate the bird. All birds.
Just call Exxon, or Bayer they already have
the chemicals with which to do it.

Posted by usafirst1 at 04:55 AM : Jan 16, 2009

Oh come on! Killing the birds isn''t necessary! Good grief!! I worked at the Naval Air Rework Facility in Cherry Point for years and they have very effective ways of preventing Birds and other flying objects from getting in the path of jets. You could kill off HALF of the birds in this country and still a few would stray into air space. We would still suffer the SAME problem PLUS our Environment would pay a VERY heavy price. Birds are VERY important, as our C.O. used to tell us. We didn''t kill them then and we shouldn''t do so NOW. Sieg Heil Y''all.

[lf1952]

Clearly, there does need to be more effort on bird eradication around airports. Hopefully, we can make an distinction between "all" and those actively threatening human life.

Birds around airports ARE a clear and present danger.

The trick is to get rid of them (removing food sources close to airports being of primary importance) and not hurt the rest of the bird population. Hard to do when airports are near bodies of water - which is, of course, where we like to put them to avoid flying over homes.

Chemicals don''t do much - if the food is there, other birds WILL find it, so poisoning the current "residents" doesn''t accomplish much.

[lf1952]

Clearly, there does need to be more effort on bird eradication around airports. Hopefully, we can make an distinction between "all" and those actively threatening human life.

Birds around airports ARE a clear and present danger.

The trick is to get rid of them (removing food sources close to airports being of primary importance) and not hurt the rest of the bird population. Hard to do when airports are near bodies of water - which is, of course, where we like to put them to avoid flying over homes.

Chemicals don''t do much - if the food is there, other birds WILL find it, so poisoning the current "residents" doesn''t accomplish much.

[lf1952]

We need to immediately stop all flying. We cannot have birds murdered in this callous manner!! We should not wait until PETA sues. All aviation should recognize their responsibility to stop this needless slaughter!
Ah....the above is intended to be sarcastic, for those who might immediately agree

That said, the entire crew needs to get credit for managing this incident. As we would always hold the Captain responsible, he should likewise get the primary credit for this airmanship.

However, the rest if the crew - First Officer and Flight Attendants - need to be widely recognized for their efforts. The media seems to ignoring that, unfortunately.
Who knows, maybe the First Officer made the landing while the Captain kept situational awareness!!!

[grizzster]

All we are saying...is give geese a chance...

Grizzster