The Tech Behind Preventing Airplane Bird Strikes

the4thdimension writes "CNN is running an article covering the technology used at Sea-Tac for preventing airplane bird strikes, like the one that occurred weeks ago to the now famous Flight 1549. The hardware used ranges from low-tech pyrotechnics, to netting, to lasers, to avian radar. Using a combination of all these technologies, Sea-Tac believes they save hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in avoiding dangerous bird strikes."

Comments

Not that hard.

[RandoX]

We just need to build a fence to keep these Canadian terrorists out. Migrating, my ass.

Re:Not that hard.

[interkin3tic]

Another low tech approach I've heard of: dogs. They chase the birds away. In between takeoffs and landings of course.

Re:Not that hard.

[JCSoRocks]

Dogs would be useful but it'd be a lot more fun if we could get a pterodactyl out there hunting the birds.

Re:Not that hard.

[interkin3tic]

Dogs would be useful but it'd be a lot more fun if we could get a pterodactyl out there hunting the birds.

And then Mothra to hunt the pterodactyl to prevent THEM from getting sucked into engines, and then Godzilla to in turn keep mothras from taking down planes.

Re:Not that hard.

[Ogive17]

What about just building more wind powered generators. I've heard those are bad for migratory birds.

Clean energy and less birds.. guess you could say that's killing two birds with one stone?

*ducks* (or should I say geese?)

Ok, I'm leaving now.

Re:Not that hard.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You ever had to clean a Doberman out of a jet engine? How about the front half of an angry Doberman?

Re:Not that hard.

[fred fleenblat]

There's a turducken joke in there somewhere.

Re:Not that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean have I ever had to clean the front end of an angry doberman? No, but have you ever had to clean out the back end of one?

Re:Not that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lisa: And then you'd need a Godzilla repelling rock
Homer: Does this rock work?
Lisa: Do you see Godzilla around here?
Homer: I'd like to purchase this rock...

Re:Not that hard.

[c6gunner]

Another low tech approach I've heard of: dogs. They chase the birds away. In between takeoffs and landings of course.

Um ... no. Unless those crazy gene-mixing biologists have managed to create flying dogs (with friggin' lasers?), all you're going to do is chase the birds away from the ground - where they're unlikely to cause problems - into the air - where they're very likely to cause problems.

We do occasionally make use of falcons, though. Not sure how widespread the practice is, but it seems to work fairly well.

Re:Not that hard.

[dr_dank]

Those puns were so fowl.

Re:Not that hard.

[pixelpusher220]

The bird strikes happened at a few *thousand* feet in the air, not on the runway.

Now if you've got those flying type dogs...lets talk.

Re:Not that hard.

[interkin3tic]

See, the simpsons quote I was expecting was "We are currently experiencing some godzilla-related turbulence" from when the Simpsons go to Japan.

Re:Not that hard.

[interkin3tic]

all you're going to do is chase the birds away from the ground - where they're unlikely to cause problems - into the air - where they're very likely to cause problems.

Of course, if you scare off the birds BETWEEN FLIGHTS (as I did specify) then you don't have birds on the ground to fly up at those critical times.

TFA talks about at one airport they use blasts not to hit the birds but to scare them away. By your logic, that would be doing nothing but wasting shells and getting the birds up in the air. Either the guy interviewed in the article is about to cause some crashes, or you're not entirely correct.

Re:Not that hard.

[afidel]

Actually there's a company that uses hawks to keep the area around airports clear of nuisance birds. The nice thing about hawks is they aren't blocked by fences so they can keep more than just the grounds of the airport clear.

Re:Not that hard.

[azav]

Falcons ON Dobermans.

With freakin' lasers.

3) Profit!

FTW!

Re:Not that hard.

[boldi]

They also use hawks here, in Hungary, Eu.

The nice thing about hawks is that they don't strike.

Re:Not that hard.

[c6gunner]

Yeah, alright, it MIGHT lower the odds of a bird ingestion on takeoff, which is the worst time for it to happen. But for major airports there's really no such thing as "between flights", at least not on a timescale that would allow for screwing around with dogs. And it really doesn't solve the general problem; namely, bird ingestion in the airspace immediately adjacent to the airport. If you're going to make use of any animals, I'd stick with hawks.

Re:Not that hard.

[autocracy]

Finally! It's about time somebody explained to me what that was. Now how did a duck passed through a turbine become a common holiday dinner? :D

Re:Not that hard.

[willworkforbeer]

Not before reminding us to try the veal.

Here all week are you?

Re:Not that hard.

[eln]

Then you'd need giant gorillas like King Kong to keep get rid of Godzilla. The beauty of the plan is that once winter sets in, the giant gorillas will simply freeze to death.

Re:Not that hard.

[dgatwood]

Dogs would be useful but it'd be a lot more fun if we could get a pterodactyl out there hunting the birds.

Have you ever seen an engine with the outside peeled off from the explosion after hitting a bird? Now imagine that, only with the engine hitting something almost as big as a city bus. In your calculations, take careful note of the trajectory of the engine as it breaks loose from the wing and brings half the wing with it. :-D

Re:Not that hard.

[Cally]

Simpler than that; use Darwinian natural selection. Simply invent a machine the size and shape of a jet-aircraft which zooms around airports emitting loud jet turbine noises, and sucks in and shreds any bird not conditioned to keep well away from such stimuli. Rinse and repeat.

Re:Not that hard.

[mattack2]

The nice thing about hawks is that they don't strike.

I think their prey would disagree.

(double pun there on 'strike')

Re:Not that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of those guys who thinks he has a sense of humor, right?

Re:Not that hard.

[damien_kane]

In your calculations, take careful note of the trajectory of the engine as it breaks loose from the wing and brings half the wing with it. :-D

As long as your name isn't Donnie Darko, you should be OK.

Re:Not that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then Mothra to hunt the pterodactyl to prevent THEM from getting sucked into engines, and then Godzilla to in turn keep mothras from taking down planes.

We need to keep giant ants out of engines now?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/

Re:Not that hard.

[smellsofbikes]

You joke, but this general problem has come up in the past.
Back in the old days when trains were the major form of transportation, there were snowblower engines called Elliot-Jull rotary snowplows that looked pretty much like the compressor sections of jet engines. The blades spun like mad and they cut paths through deep snow. Sometimes the snow would actually be 8 meters deep when they finally got a rotary to it, so they were just smashing into a wall of snow (literally: they'd put three or four engines behind one of these and get up a head of steam (the origin of the term) and smash into a snowfield.)
The problem was that often the railroad bed was sheltered, because they'd cut it through a hill, so a herd of cattle or deer would take cover in the shelter and get buried alive by the snowfall, and then the rotary would come through and run into them.

A flock of seagulls, or even canada geese, is nothing compared to 200 head of cattle, chopped into fragments and then frozen again when the rotary stalled on the debris. They'd have to tow it into the nearest shop and break out the blowtorches, and basically rebuild the entire front of the engine.

Re:Not that hard.

[Propaganda13]

The hawks work great when you have the time to use them. I'm not sure how well they'd work at the major airports which would have minimal time between flights and large areas to cover. Would it just push the birds away from the current hawk area into the current landing/takeoff area?

Re:Not that hard.

[SkyDude]

Simply invent a machine the size and shape of a jet-aircraft which zooms around airports emitting loud jet turbine noises, and sucks in and shreds any bird not conditioned to keep well away from such stimuli. Rinse and repeat.

If I had mod points today, you'd have got 'em all.

Re:Not that hard.

[afidel]

My understanding is with regular patrols the local birds learn to leave the entire patrolled area, not sure what if anything it does for migratory birds (perhaps they see the predator a ways off and avoid the area completely?)

Re:Not that hard.

[interkin3tic]

Again I have to wonder how your theory answers the fact that TFA uses scare tactics.

Re:Not that hard.

[c6gunner]

Again I have to wonder how your theory answers the fact that TFA uses scare tactics.

Quite frankly, after reading through that part of the article, I think Mr. Osmek is just looking for an excuse to make things go boom. I can just imagine the conversation that preceded that:

Boss: So let me get this straight. You're going to use 500lbs of explosives, shells, whistlers, and assorted pyrotechnics per day, in order to keep birds away from the airport?

Osmek: Uh. Yeah! To keep birds away. That's right ....

Re:Not that hard.

[kuactet]

You auk not go there, friend.

Re:Not that hard.

[ErkDemon]

You strap them to the wings, obviously. Duh.

Re:Not that hard.

[hardwarefreak]

Dogs would be useful but it'd be a lot more fun if we could get a pterodactyl out there hunting the birds.

But then you introduce the possibility of pterodactyl strikes, which do far more damage than geese.

Re:Not that hard.

[sholsinger]

Yeah, i was thinking some sort of mesh in front of the turbofans, but yeah, that works too.

Re:Not that hard.

[digitalchinky]

Good idea for reducing bird problems in a few isolated areas where noise is not an issue.

What about safeguards for where the vast majority of bird strikes actually occur - low level flight (0-5000ft) anywhere in the sky. I've had plenty of near misses from sea level to about FL140. By the time you actually see them the closure rates are so high that even the fastest reaction time between brain and a fist full of elevator and/or aileron is often pointless, the creature is already behind you and you surmise: 'fuck, that was close, glad I missed it' and get on with business.

I think the only real solution is RADAR combined with early avoidance - maybe even automate the process somewhat.

Re:Not that hard.

[mpe]

Yeah, i was thinking some sort of mesh in front of the turbofans, but yeah, that works too.

If that mesh isn't strong enough to itself withstand being hit by something travelling at speed the result is likely to be be bird/foreign object plus mesh going into engine. Which greatly increases the possibility of destroying the engine. Additionally such a screen must not impede airflow and not break due to being subjected to repeated flexing.

Re:Not that hard.

[mpe]

Now imagine that, only with the engine hitting something almost as big as a city bus. In your calculations, take careful note of the trajectory of the engine as it breaks loose from the wing and brings half the wing with it. :-D

Of more concern would be the trajectory of the rest of the aircraft.
Loss of parts of wing tends to result in an aircraft which cannot be controlled. American 191 crashed because of the LEDs on the left wing retracting (together with warning systems being unpowered) not because the number 1 engine was sitting on the runway. El Al 1862 crashed because the leading and trailing edge devices on the right wing could not be deployed. GOL 1907 still had both engines attached to the wing. In all three cases one wing generating more lift than the other resulted in an unflyable aircraft.
On the other hand where engines have detached without other damage, which has happened a few times with 732s, the aircraft has landed without further problems.

Re:Not that hard.

[Jurily]

Simpler than that; use Darwinian natural selection. Simply invent a machine the size and shape of a jet-aircraft which zooms around airports emitting loud jet turbine noises, and sucks in and shreds any bird not conditioned to keep well away from such stimuli. Rinse and repeat.

If it worked, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Too many birds, too few aircrafts, too slow evolutionary cycle. Maybe in 100 years we'll start seeing something like that.

Re:Not that hard.

[drinkypoo]

Maybe you could just put an additional set of bird-chopping blades in front of the turbine blades. Actually, I have a better idea: you use a low-grade shaped charge mounted on the center cone of the turbine to just vaporize the bird on the way in. Then it becomes fuel.

Re:Not that hard.

[timbos]

Also, ice will build up on the mesh when the engine flies through a cloud. Ice is a big problem for jet engine manufacturers, and they spend a lot of money and time ensuring that it won't build up on an engine or affect the performance of the engine if it does build up and break off.

Re:Not that hard.

[tomatensaft]

Just put some wind turbines around the airports! That'll kill them all!

Re:Not that hard.

[Cytotoxic]

Then you'd need giant gorillas like King Kong to keep get rid of Godzilla. The beauty of the plan is that once winter sets in, the giant gorillas will simply freeze to death.

Simpsons did it.

Re:Not that hard.

[BelaHedgehog]

Wouldn't they have to use falcons? Hawks might keep rabbits off the runway, but they don't hunt birds.

Re:Not that hard.

[Cally]

Jesus wept, I can't believe I was modded "interesting" up there. Either my brain's gone all funny, or the rest of the world doesn't know crude satire when they see it... :o

Re:Not that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

pturducken?

What about

[Shadow of Eternity]

just putting some titanium chicken wire over the front of the intake so that a bird can't get in?

Re:What about

[John Hasler]

Then you'll get bird plus titanium wire in the engine instead of just bird.

There just isn't a material strong enough. Any structure that would reliably keep the birds out would be unaccepetably heavy and would restrict air flow.

Re:What about

[powerlinekid]

So at high speeds instead of getting one big bird you get thousands of tiny pieces of bird... I'm not entirely sure thats better.

Interesting timing on this article for me since I actually have to fly to Seattle\Tacoma airport next week...

Re:What about

[JCSoRocks]

I'm no aviation expert... but it seems to me that at those speeds that bird would just get sliced into many chicken-wire-hole sized pieces and still go through the engine. On the plus side "chicken" nuggets would be fresh for the next flight! Watch out for the beak!

Re:What about

[dkleinsc]

Then you get birds stuck in the titanium chicken wire, and the engine has a good shot of now sucking in both the bird and the chicken wire. On top of that, even if that doesn't happen, you're still seriously impeding air flow into the engine which is needed to make the engine function.

And according to Wikipedia at least, a typical modern jet engine shunts dead bird parts through a bypass rather than through the engine.

Re:What about

[thesolo]

The issue with a screen over the front of the engine is drag.

It's been looked into extensively already, any screen fine enough to prevent smaller birds from getting sucked into the engine has a massive effect on the engine's performance.

Re:What about

[Beardo the Bearded]

Interesting timing on this article for me since I actually have to fly to Seattle\Tacoma airport next week...

You mean "have to fly most of the wayto Seattle\Tacoma airport next week."

Wear warm clothes.

Re:What about

[pixelpusher220]

actually it would be better. small pieces are *much* less likely to harm the engine than a single 40 lb piece of meat hitting multiple fan blades.

Throwing confetti into it might stall it, but you might be able to restart it.

In reality you'd just end up with bird plus the grating in the engine with the same results.

Re:What about

[c6gunner]

And according to Wikipedia at least, a typical modern jet engine shunts dead bird parts through a bypass rather than through the engine.

Not quite. What they're talking about there is the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan.

People seem to assume that "the engine" is the entire thing you see hanging off the wing. Really, the engine is a fraction of the diameter of what you're seeing - a lot of the rest is plumbing and bypass ducts. The big fan you see on the front does the same job as a propeller, forcing large quantities of air back at relatively low speeds. On a large turbofan engine, the majority of that air will bypass the actual engine and get shunted out the back end. So depending on which part of the fan is hit, you could end up with bird parts going out with the bypass air instead of getting sucked into the engine. That way you just get damage to the fan, which is much safer and a relatively cheap fix. It's not really something that was designed to make bird-strikes less dangerous, though, it's just an inherent property of large turbofans. The bigger your bypass ratio, the more likely it is that the bird bypasses the engine.

Re:What about

[afidel]

The engines aren't harmed, they are clogged! A basic part of testing new engines is firing chickens into them with an air cannon, the blades survive just fine but the engine might not operate. The idea of the testing is that the blades coming loose or shattering and taking out fuel lines and such is very bad, all commercial airplanes must be able to function with one engine down and multiple strikes are fortunately uncommon.

Re:What about

[MooUK]

I wouldn't necessarily say "survive just fine". I've handled the unserviceable blades from several minor bird strikes, and the impact in some cases is enough to dent three or four adjacent blades. Not to the point where it damages the rest of the engine, I believe, but enough that they need changing.

Re:What about

[pixelpusher220]

Ok, no serious harm is done, but they won't operate as you say.

Its still much less likely to fail when throwing many smaller pieces into it rather than one big piece.

Re:What about

[mrops]

Wonder if braided carbon nano fiber wires would be strong enough and thin enough to slice these birds. After all, they are light and strong enough for space elevators!

Light - Check
Strong - Check
Allow air flow - Check
Commonly available - Not Check

Last point, this is where ingenuity and innovation comes in. Further, now that I have this on slashdot, hopefully no one can patent this idea.

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

The new design of the fans in the Engine would cut the birds into pieces and push them out from back.

Re:What about

[mrops]

Ummm..... Correction, when I said Carbon nano fiber, I mean Carbon nanotubes material. The stuff for space elevators.

Re:What about

[LackThereof]

You're a bit off here. It is NOT a requirement that an engine survive a bird ingestion, only that it shut down safely, i.e. without any of the fans coming apart. And engines do tend to take some significant damage when they ingest birds.

To make things worse, the tests are done assuming a 4 lb. bird, but Canada Geese like the ones involved in the recent incident average 7-14 lbs.

And the tests aren't actually done with chickens anymore. They use a block of gelatin now; much easier to clean up.

Re:What about

[afidel]

Block of gelatin, do they at least put a bird ribcage in it?

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

well, the problem isn't only that. at those speeds, it doesn't matter what you put in front of the engine (even if the wire mesh is carbon nanotubes), it would just either smash or slice the birds and pieces will still get into the engine. There is also the issue of damage to the plane frame itself from impact. Avoidance is far better(cheaper and easier) than trying to improve impact tolerance.

Re:What about

[powerlinekid]

Well I'm coming from New York so Seattle's current temperature is a nice change of pace. I'll take rainy and 48 degrees over 15 degrees and snowing.

Then again we are having a warm spell this week...

Re:What about

[Tha Closer]

Ya really I risk my life over a flock of geese! Come on build a freaking jet engine that will cut through a bird that size like a blender. I shouldn't be going into a mid flight crash while geese fly south for the winter. Come on!!

Re:What about

[MobyDisk]

If birds are so tough, how come we don't just make the whole plane out of birds?

Re:What about

[John Hasler]

No problem. Just be prepared to pay five times as much for your tickets.

Re:What about

[LackThereof]

Bird bones are not the concern; they're hollow, lightweight, and brittle. It's the weighty mass of muscle that causes the damage.

Re:What about

[Country_hacker]

Hang on if I'm understanding what everyone is saying. We're going to take hundreds of tons of metal, people, and highly flammable liquid, hurl them into the air at high speeds, not just once but thousands of times per day all over the country, and not expect shit to happen?

Don't get me wrong, I understand we want to do everything in our power to make flight as safe as possible. But this is the first known incident of a dual flameout due to bird strikes in the history of commercial flight, right? I'd say in the 70-odd years we've been doing this, that's low enough to be acceptable risk.

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

I would if I knew my life wasn't in danger for a goose flying in my jet's engine and killing me forever...my life doesn't have a price tag...but if yours does you may as well stay home.

Tech? Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about border collies?

Re:Tech? Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're trying to shoot the ducks, not the pilot.

the secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Always fly over rivers wide enough to land on!

Re:the secret?

[thestreetmeat]

... or fly an ejection seat aircraft.

bird strikes

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret to preventing bird strikes is to constantly gauge their needs and demands. As long as you regularly meet those needs without giving in too much, you can keep them from striking.

Re:bird strikes

[interkin3tic]

I prefer to bully the bird union leaders, and threaten to hire bird scabs in the event of a strike.

Re:bird strikes

[StikyPad]

I think we need some sort of high-tech bird monitoring network, complete with identity cards for each bird, so we can find the bad actors. Naturally we'll want to monitor their communications, so we'll need blanket audio coverage of the entire US, as well as several hundred miles in all directions offshore. We must systematically capture and detain any birds that hang out near airports, and any birds they may have associated or mated with. We should also build fences, very large fences to keep out the birds that aren't here natively, who wish to cross our borders undetected. We must screen any potential migrating birds for poor waste hygiene, erratic flight patterns, or impure thoughts. We should root our their nests of evil, and as a bonus, we can eat their unborn babies, perhaps in an omelet or in some sort of fried rice dish, or we can use them to improve the consistency of our baked goods. One thing is for sure: when the birds strike again, and you can be sure they'll try, the next time it will be OUR fault if they succeed. We had the warning. We have it within our means to stop them. We perhaps lack only the resolve and the patriotism required. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America, land of the free from birds, and the home of The Bravados.

Re:bird strikes

[Nefarious Wheel]

StikyPad, you are my new best friend.

Re:bird strikes

[kat_skan]

Do what I did and outsource their jobs to bats in some god-forsaken Eastern bloc hellhole. Oh, sure, the customers whine endlessly about the thick Romanian accent, and how they have to wait on hold until eleven at night before they get anyone, and how they've got rabies now, but that bunch of jerkoffs will find something to complain about regardless.

Re:bird strikes

[marcosdumay]

Oh, that's of no use. Striking already carries a death penalty... But those annoying creatures still insist on it.

My solution

[Cornflake917]

Kill all birds.

Re:My solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Clog the engines full of other, less air-flow restricting birds...

Re:My solution

[Anonymous Coward]

GW, is that you?

Re:My solution

[ColdWetDog]

Kill all birds.

Uncle Dick and I were working on that, but you voted us out of office.

George.

Re:My solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Avian bird flu... we're working on it!

falconers

[qw0ntum]

I read recently an article about how they actually use falcons at JFK to prevent bird strikes.

This seems to be about that, though I'm not sure if it was the article I saw: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_untitled__falcon01m.html

Re:falconers

[Anonymous Coward]

This method has been used at the Toronto airport for years.

http://www.gtaa.com/en/news/torontopearson_today/details/7499a896-f358-436e-b3f4-f9fbc69bccb9

Re:falconers

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have large talons?

Re:falconers

[TheLink]

Would it help if they made airplanes look like falcons? Or look like a bunch of falcons?

Re:falconers

[El Torico]

A 747 painted similarly to a Flying Tigers P-40 Warhawk? That would scare any bird that saw it.

Re:falconers

[badasscat]

I read recently an article about how they actually use falcons at JFK to prevent bird strikes.

This seems to be about that, though I'm not sure if it was the article I saw: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_untitled__falcon01m.html

DiFulco said the PA doesn't use falconry at LaGuardia because it is "effective against gulls, not geese." He said gulls are "the primary birds at issue at JFK, but not at LGA," where geese pose the main threat.

Then there are some counter-arguments made, but I can understand why they wouldn't be effective against geese. The geese that hit US Airways 1549 were apparently a flock of migrating birds at around 3,000 feet that just happened to wander into an airplane's flight path. They weren't "at" the airport, so I don't see how scaring them away would accomplish anything. Bad luck is bad luck; if they're in the area at all, an airplane can hit them. The gulls that the falcons are used to chase away at JFK loiter around the airport looking for food, especially at the ends of the runways where the water washes up various small fish and garbage. So the falcons are effective because their job is just to keep the gulls away from the airport perimeter and the runways.

I don't really see how you can prevent something like what happened to flight 1549. That happened at 3,000 feet, 3 minutes into the flight, which means about 9 miles from the airport. There's no feasible way I know of to clear that sort of a virtual dome around an airport.

Not to mention that some species of birds can fly at above 20,000 feet (true!), so really, yeah, not much you can do.

I think it's time we all just acknowledge this was a freak accident and move on. You can take reasonable precautions to scare away birds at airports themselves, but there's a limit to what you can do beyond that.

Re:falconers

[Malc]

Toronto FC's home ground of BMO Field used to have a problem with seagulls. Bizarre considering it's a turf and not grass pitch. Then they got a hawk, affectionately named by the fans "Bitchy". There's no problem now.

Re:falconers

[Hatta]

I read recently an article about how they actually use falcons at JFK to prevent bird strikes.

Don't you think clearing birds with an F-16 is a little overkill?

Re:falconers

[Dog-Cow]

but I can understand why they wouldn't be effective against geese.

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I'd guess that falcons just don't hunt geese.

Re:falconers

[qw0ntum]

I'm not sure if that was directed at me but I definitely agree with you that 1549 was a freak accident. Nothing you can do about something like what happened there besides make sure your pilots are trained to perform as admirably as the captain did in this instance.

Re:falconers

[Chris Burke]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I'd guess that falcons just don't hunt geese.

Not too simplistic at all. It's pretty easy to see why, too, when you realize that the Peregrine Falcon, which is a pretty big falcon, has up to a 40 inch wingspan and weights up to about 3 lbs, while a Canada Goose has up to a 70 in wingspan and weights up to 12 lbs.

They mostly eat medium-sized birds like pigeons or ducks. Geese are big birds.

Re:falconers

[Chris Burke]

Though in my quest to find what would prey on an adult goose, I found Predator Bird Services which apparently uses a combination of hawks and frickin eagles to chase them away.

Re:falconers

[Anonymous Coward]

They use them at a lot of airports, but they don't sort out the problems of birds migrating though airspace near the airport.

I was quite amused by the initial idea of them using radar to deal with the situation. A lot of air defense radars on older naval ships have enough power to cook flocking birds within a minute when they lock on, which should solve the problem.
I'm honestly not joking. Aircraft used for simulating missile attacks on naval ships have a minimum airspeed set for the attack run simply to reduce the exposure of the aircrew to radiation, and the temperature in the cockpit tends to rise considerably during the run...

Another idea?

[krray]

I have had another idea [yes, patent pending :-] ... why not a pyramid cone shaped cover protecting the air intake? The cone would extend enough to allow adequate air intake (from now the sides). I'm doing the math to determine if at the top of the cone it should be solid (not open) as that area of intake would be affecting air flow over the top of the wing (thus screwing with lift). Keep in mind that the air intake (where ever it happens) has nothing to do with being able to fly -- nor does the output (thrust). It is the airflow over the wings that gives lift. Just a patented thought (with no obvious implementation [prior art] that I've found yet).

Re:Another idea?

[wcrowe]

This idea was invented by Shampoo...

Re:Another idea?

[Napoleon The Pig]

A couple issues with putting a cone over the inlet of a subsonic engine.

1) If you restrict airflow to only entering from the sides, you're going to have massive separation bubbles as that flow has to turn 90 degrees to enter an axial engine. That results in a loss of efficiency and significantly reduces engine performance.

2) The added weight of this would kill the proposal for any aircraft manufacturer out there.

And not to be pedantic, but the inlet and thrust has a lot to do with whether something flies or not. If you can't get sufficient airflow over the wings to begin with your aircraft isn't going to achieve takeoff.

Re:Another idea?

[edittard]

What a stupid idea. Why not just make the air-intakes face backwards?

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's amazing! You're the 20th person I've heard suggest this idea in the last 3 weeks, but the first to actually think it was original. Well done.

Re:Another idea?

[CannonballHead]

I'm guessing that the faster you go, the less "air" there is going to be behind the engines, since you're more or less creating a vacuum behind it by moving through it, right? Which is why motorcycles can do whatever they do behind semi trucks going ~60MPH on the freeway.

Re:Another idea?

[CompMD]

Because engines don't work like that. You need a LOT of air to run a jet engine. The intake has much to do with being able to fly. By blocking the front of the engine and trusting you can get enough air in from whatever limited space to the sides you have created, you'll force a compressor stall very quickly, if you can get enough air into the engine to start it at all.

There's a reason why there is little variation in jet engine design.

Anyway, putting a cone in front of the engine far enough will generate vortices which will likely propagate over the wing leading to inboard stall, very much "screwing with lift." If they don't propagate over the wing, then they will hit the wing, increasing structural fatigue and possibly inducing dangerous vibration.

Re:Another idea?

[jellomizer]

Pert or Head and Shoulders? Perhaps Suave?

That some pretty smart soap.

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

What some idiots on motorcycles do behind semi trailer trucks is called drafting. When you see semis being powered by jet engines, let me know.

Airplane engines develop thrust by pushing air back behind them whether through props or in the internal combustion chamber of a jet engine. If you don't understand even that basic fact about airplanes - something that's obvious in seconds watching one at an airport, in movies, or even playing with a model - then you should go back to whatever your day job is. Better to shut up and be thought a fool than to say something and confirm that perception.

Re:Another idea?

[CannonballHead]

Drafting was what I was thinking. You're right. I completely forgot about the propulsion part and was entirely focused on air intake. Rather funny, actually, hehe. Incidentally, part of the problem is that I AM at my day job, which is not slashdot posting, so my mind is kinda split.

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the forward facing portion of the cone were to strike a bird going, say, 200mph, I think the bird would probably pass right through it and still be in big enough chunks to damage the turbines. If the cone were completely closed at the forward portion, and left open only at the sides, the effect at high speeds would be a tendency to pull air out of the engine due the Venturi effect.

Re:Another idea?

[icebrain]

Erm...

whooosh...

in every possible sense.

Re:Another idea?

[lgw]

When you see semis being powered by jet engines, let me know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFIGIGY9DUw

I thought everyone knew about these.

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The volume of air intake is sufficient -- the "limited space" is exactly the same (if placed properly) area as a open engine. Thus there has been no indication of compressor stall (thanks, I had to look that one up :). This is, of course, all initially being done in a simulated environment...

Your post, by the way, was probably the best response I've seen in a while. Unlike some of the other douche bags... :)

The biggest problem I've come across so far is even though the area of intake is the same the air flow _is_ now being forced (90 degrees) which is causing a 5-7% loss of efficiency. That alone will kill the idea with any airline carrier...

The other problem (just as big) is the vortices generated around the wing -- enough to cause the wing to snap in half. You nailed that one on the head.

It is still, thank god, just an idea in the design phases -- which may, or may not, ever go anywhere.

Re:Another idea?

[CompMD]

You're sure about that? With an open engine, no added work is required to breathe. Changing the direction of air moving at 600mph in one direction by 90 degrees requires a lot of work. I think your loss of 5-7% efficiency is more than a little optimistic. Imagine driving a car at 100mph and then suddenly turning the wheel all the way to the right.

What kind of "simulated environment" are you talking about? CFD? That would be a very complicated test. Alternately, if you had a access to a low speed or transonic wind tunnel in which you could test a mockup of your engine and cone, you could determine the intake airspeed and identify what windspeeds provide sufficient volumetric flow rate to the engine for it to operate. However, wind tunnel rates (at the cheapest) are going to run you $300/hr. A CFD program capable of modeling your scenario starts at about $20,000 per seat.

I would believe this idea for a stationary engine or one moving at low speed. I think your idea may be neat for a small jet powered car or boat, where the utility would be more like "not getting your hat/hand/flying plastic shopping bag/various other items ingested by the engine."

I try not to discount anyone's crazy ideas, since I've had plenty of my own. Sometimes though it is helpful to have some potential issues pointed out.

I'm only an aerospace engineer when I need to be...

Re:Another idea?

[dunkelfalke]

mig-29 does something like that - to protect the engine from gravel when on the ground, the normal air inlets are close and the engine sucks the air basically from above.

Re:Another idea?

[ChrisMaple]

Would the vortices be a problem for tail-mounted engines like the Boeing 727 has?

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea yet -- haven't even looked into that yet realistically.

My knee jerk reaction would be YES though. The same stresses would be introduced with the current idea -- probably causing catastrophic structural separation of the entire tail section. Hard to fly without elevator and rudder control. :*O

Until I started running some of the simulations I never properly understood the enormous forces in play with jet engines. As a pilot with dual prop certification I can wrap my head around the forces involved with smaller aircraft -- and have personally dealt with emergency situations caused by bird strikes. One local pilot (who I don't personally know -- he just flies out of the same airport) had a wind shield bird strike in a single engine Cessna [172] on take off at about 70 knots. The bird went completely through and struck him. Amazingly he 1) survived the strike and 2) returned for the landing.

Anyway -- I digress...

There has to be a economical and efficient "fool proof" solution to this problem. I've simply been targeting the best idea I came up with which would have the best return on investment IF feasible. The other idea I've seen (here) which is worth investigating is flashing lights along the length of the aircraft. So simple it just may work -- and blows my idea away in bang for the buck. Worst case is my idea IS a crack pot idea and I'm out $30K. I can afford it. :)

Re:Another idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The environment started locally (and quickly exhausted the Mac power here :). Fluent's Remote Simulation Facility is amazing. $20K is optimistic -- it's closer to $30K for what I needed.

I was (initially) more concerned about and with rotation speeds -- and the faster you go the less efficient it becomes. I'm only an aerospace engineer when I pretend I am and am learning a lot along the way (the HARD way :). My engineering background is mechanical in nature, though my degrees fall in computer science (CIS/BCS)... In over my head? Perhaps. Still fun as hell though.

At sub-supersonic speeds, well, it isn't working. At all. I know why now.

Another thought in play with this idea is a wing based retracting cover. This works for dealing with efficiency losses as it would only be in use during take off / landing, but mechanically introduces a WHOLE BUNCH of problems which almost negate the idea from take off (pun intended).

I am thinking of what it would take to test the flashing lights (along the body of the air craft) as well. Would the FAA even let me do a "live test" (I'm happy to pilot the test :). I could just do it (open rural private runways all over by me), but getting caught in such a unregistered experimental aircraft could, well, cost me my license. And I do like to fly. Worth some calls in the morning I suppose.
       

Re:Another idea?

[Napoleon The Pig]

Just my opinion, but I think you guys are blowing the vortices out of proportion as far as the size of the problem they create. You're essentially talking about forebody vortices, which usually only cause a problem when dealing with high AoA (angle of attack) flight. A lot of research has been done in controlling and even utilizing these types of vortices. Strakes and other vortex generating devices could be used to limit the size of the vortex or redirect the flow of the air around the aircraft.

If a new aircraft was to be designed the wing section could even take these vortices into account and have beneficial flight characteristics because of them (for instance most supersonic aircraft use vortex lift in order to operate at a higher AoA than would be allowed by the camber of the wing, that wouldn't be the solution in this case, but it illustrates how vortices aren't always bad).

My main concern for this idea, as was stated before, is the flow of air into the engine. If the flow is forced around that turn you''ll have large areas of separation, which in turn causes turbulence problems in the intake. When you have turbulence reach the compressor you have the possibility of a compressor stall. If you don't have a compressor stall you're still losing efficiency of the overall engine due to the flow. The reason pylon mounted engines have cowlings is to help smoothly guide the airflow from all around the engine into the inlet so there's very little turbulence at the compressor face. Without a cowling you'll lose a few % efficiency simply due to the knife-edge the flow has to transition around to get into the inlet.

If you have access to the Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 3, May-June 2007 has a rather interesting article entitled: "Tradeoffs in Jet Inlet Design: A Historical Perspective" by Andras Sobester. It does a good job of explaining how much of a pain in the ass it is to design an inlet and some of the issues involved when trying to do so (bird strikes, unfortunately, are not included on that list).

And unlike CompMD (who has definitely had some good ideas thus far), I'm an aerospace engineer all the time. Plus I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Re:Another idea?

[CompMD]

Fluent starts at $60k for a single perpetual floating license. It wasn't until a couple years ago you could actually buy it, it was only available on lease. If you would like slightly better accuracy but with less speed, you could request the NASA CFD codes such as CFL3D, INS3D, FUN3D, or TetrUSS. Those are free, but its helpful to know some Fortran.

Try not to learn aerospace engineering the hard way, honestly, its very easy to get hurt. I would recommend going shopping for some good books on the subjects you're interested in. DARcorporation has some good books that may help you. Learn as much as you can before building and testing something. Aerospace prototyping does not often give you second chances if you make a mistake. I've been too close to too many projects that have put people in danger, injured them, or killed them; the Spectrum Aeronautical 33 prototype crash, the Grob spn prototype crash, and a Cessna Citation Mustang wing implosion to name a few. I've worked in partnership with or directly for Cessna, Piper, Bombardier/Learjet, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, and Garmin. Plenty of opportunities to see what can go wrong.

Anything retracting that is attached you need to consider cg excursion issues. Are you going to affect your static margin? More generally, how will you affect stability and control? Can the structure handle the additional load?

The FAA may not like the idea of flashing lights on an aircraft, but you should ask. If your aircraft is type'd as an experimental, that's one thing. But if it isn't, yes, at minimum it will cost you your license if you are caught with unapproved modifications such as those you describe. I believe the lighting on an aircraft is regulated. At worst, some drunken redneck will think you're a UFO and shoot you down with his 12 gauge off his back porch. :)

Something I don't thing TFA mentioned is that some airports, Wichita/ICH for example, play predatory bird sounds. I didn't notice it over at Cessna on the east side of the airport, but on the west side of the airport the system was LOUD.

Re:Another idea?

[Guysmiley777]

You also have to consider a few other things. Firstly, the intake shield would have to be made sturdy enough to withstand a large bird impact with no damage, otherwise instead of ingesting a bird you're ingesting chunks of an intake shield. So you'd have to make a movable cover that shields the engines at low speed that's heavy enough to take a 30 pound goose with no effect.

And a permanent shield is absolutely not an option because a jet engine produces thrust by accelerating hot gas out the back faster than it comes in. If you force the air to make a 90 degree bend prior to entering the compressor stages you're giving up a huge amount of power (and thus effeciency) by having to accelerate it back up. This is least "bad" at low speed but at cruise it would be horrible.

It's just not practical. The odds of losing multiple engines on opposite wings due to simultaneous bird-strikes is so minuscule it's just not worth fretting over. Losing a single engine in an ETOPS twin-engine airliner isn't all that big of a deal, they just would abort to the nearest facility. This was a freak accident, 100%.

No, that's not the real secret.

[Polarina]

Simply, extinct all bird life on Earth. The human race has already proven that it possess the technology to evaporate specific animal species.

Or...

[detox.method()]

Scarecrows?

Re:Or...

[UberMorlock]

The idea is to keep the birds away, not give them convenient perches. :)

Falcons

[Frosty Piss]

Here at McChord, we've found the most effective methods involve a combination of ground cover control (eliminate food that the birds eat) and a 24 / 7 team of falcon handlers. But then, we don't have as much traffic as Sea-Tac...

Re:Falcons

[TheLink]

How about make the planes look like huge falcons- paint eyes on them, paint the undersides and wings so they look a bit like soaring raptors from below.

Or paint some falcon pics/silhouttes on various parts of the plane fuselage.

Re:Falcons

[Frosty Piss]

How about make the planes look like huge falcons- paint eyes on them, paint the undersides and wings so they look a bit like soaring raptors from below. Or paint some falcon pics/silhouttes on various parts of the plane fuselage.

Well, they like to clear the birds BEFORE the planes are in the air...

Re:Falcons

[icebrain]

You don't need that much. Just give me a good rifle and some varmint ammo, and put me in a stand.

Re:Falcons

[TheLink]

How often do they need to use the real falcons?

In many airports there are planes every few minutes.

A plane should be big enough to be spotted far away by birds. I think the problem is birds don't care about getting out of its way.

Just wonder whether the birds will be fooled and continue to be fooled.

What about Falconry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised to see TFA not mention anything about Falconry. It has been proven to be more effective, cheaper, and healthier to everyone involved.

I've seen them in operation at my local airport and its effective.

Birds have an innate fear of birds of pray, and will GTFO whenever they see that shape.

It was more than one bird

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The pilot of 1549 was saying his view was completely filled with birds and he ran into a whole flock of birds. All these techniques to buzz/fry one bird is not going to cut it. But the birds do have a motive in avoiding the plane as much as the plane wants to avoid hitting the bird. So if we just let the birds know a plane is on collision course they will move away. They are a lot more agile than an airliner.

Most birds use parallax to get their 3D cues. Think about it, for something that lives in full 3D space, most birds do not have stereoscopic vision. Their eyes are wide apart facing opposite directions with very little overlap. If the plane approaches the birds in such a way that the bearing (direction, angle) of the plane as seen by the bird is constant, the bird thinks the plane is part of the background, it is at infinity! That is why they don't take evasive action. If we put a series of LED lights along the length of the plane and turn them off and on to produce streaks of lights running from nose to tail, it will interrupt their visual cues and make the plane stand out from the background. That will give cues to the birds about the real position of the airplane. They will avoid us, we don't have to avoid them.

Re:It was more than one bird

[flyingfsck]

There is the little matter of the difference in speed between the plane and the bird too...

Re:It was more than one bird

[TheCybernator]

innovative thought!
but how you gonna test it?

Re:It was more than one bird

[Coolpup]

If we put a series of LED lights along the length of the plane and turn them off and on to produce streaks of lights running from nose to tail, it will interrupt their visual cues and make the plane stand out from the background.

Plus they'll look way awesomer at night when flying over my house.

Re:It was more than one bird

[Cally]

If we put a series of LED lights along the length of the plane and turn them off and on to produce streaks of lights running from nose to tail, it will interrupt their visual cues and make the plane stand out from the background.

Plus, it'll look freakin' awesome on a trip, dude!!!

Re:It was more than one bird

[toddestan]

innovative thought!
but how you gonna test it?

I would find some tall buildings that have a problem with birds flying into them, and try installing the system of lights on the building and see if the number of bird strikes go down. That would be a suitable way to run some long term tests and collect a bunch of data at low cost. If that show promise, I would put the system of lights on a slow and/or highly maneuverable plane (a stunt plane would probably work well) and testing the system by flying the plane towards the birds and seeing if they take notice, obviously turning away before striking the birds.

Re:It was more than one bird

[badzilla]

Who cares if it works! I want to fly in a cool-looking plane with waves of LEDs shimmering from port to aft. Pimp my ride!

Re:It was more than one bird

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it seems easy to test. Put this on a commercial plane and just monitor it over a period of time. Use all the other precautions already used but maybe mount cameras on the plane to view bird response when the lights are on and when the lights are off. If the birds change flight path then you know you have something. It wouldn't hurt the passengers because they are already taking precautions as usual. My only concern is that LED s would not be very visible at noon. Do birds respond to images as if they were real? Maybe painting a picture of a falcon at various places on the plane would throw them off and would also show them an object getting closer.

Re:It was more than one bird

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting idea.

I suspect they do have a sense that the airplane is moving but they're unfamiliar with those high speeds so they can't react fast enough.

The birds that are involved in a strike probably only see the airplane from the front, and not for very long.

I wonder if lights along the leading edge of the wing would make a difference. Or if there was any type of strobe or lights that would cause birds to evade.

Birds thrown into engine

[BountyX]

They also throw flocks of dead birds and chickens into jet engines during engine testing. Check out this cool video of birds getting cut to shreds by a jet engine in slow motion. Birds slowly chopped by jet engine

Re:Birds thrown into engine

[clem]

With a special attachment, the engine also makes julienne fries!

Re:Birds thrown into engine

[flosofl]

With a special attachment, the engine also makes julienne fries!

I remember those commercials, but I think you just caused a great many slashdotters to scratch their heads over your seeming non sequitur :)

Indiana Jones

[sobachatina]

Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky.

Re:Indiana Jones

[Itninja]

You almost forgot that was Charlemagne, not Henry Jones Sr.

Re:Indiana Jones

[idontgno]

Dr. Jones (the elder) did in fact properly attribute, but I'm sure Charelemagne never downed a BF-109 with seagulls. Implementation is as important as specification.

engine redesign?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no engineer on these newfangled flying machine contraptions, but shouldn't it be possible to design engines that can't be *destroyed* by something as small and squishy as a bird?

Maybe sourcing air from a reserve when flying at low altitudes, instead of blindly sucking it in. I don't know. Maybe a filter.

Re:engine redesign?

[Volante3192]

If you were an engineer you'd realize it wasn't that easy...

Re:engine redesign?

[Arancaytar]

When traveling in excess of several hundred kilometers per hour, birds are hardly squishier than rocks...

Re:engine redesign?

[Seedy2]

Yes, remove the engine, it's called a glider, sometimes a sail plane.

Too Many Secrets

[paskal]

Oh wait nevermind, SeaTec!

Take a cue from office buildings

[Chris Burke]

All they need to do is paint a bunch of owl silhouettes on the side of the air plane and that should keep the birds away.

Re:Take a cue from office buildings

[pluther]

The problem there is that most modern jet craft move faster than your average office building.

Re:Take a cue from office buildings

[Chris Burke]

The problem there is that most modern jet craft move faster than your average office building.

Oh sure, on average.

Re:Take a cue from office buildings

[Paul Carver]

The problem there is that most modern jet craft move faster than your average office building.

Actually that depends on whether they're going east to west or west to east. Of course that's only considering the rotational speed of the Earth. If you also take into account the orbital velocity and the rotation of the Milky Way modern jet craft are moving at exactly the same velocity as your average office building, at least to any reasonable number of decimal places.

Not 1549 for birds!

[Anonymous Coward]

But 2549.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html

Wind farms

[internerdj]

Just surround the airport with wind power sites and the problem is solved...

Not Often Tom Leher Lyrics Work in a post

[Greyfox]

I've gained notoriety
And caused much anxiety
In the Audobon Society
With my games...

They call it impiety
And lack of propriety
And boy.. a variety
Of unpleasant names

But it's not against any religion...
To want to dispose of... a pigeon...

Re:Not Often Tom Leher Lyrics Work in a post

[PitaBred]

So we're poisoning pigeons in the park!

Re:Not Often Tom Leher Lyrics Work in a post

[cmdrcoffee]

Maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two

Damn Canadians

[Hokie06]

Wouldn't be an issue, if they would just control their damn geese.

Re:Damn Canadians

[pak9rabid]

Wouldn't be an issue, if they would just control their damn geese.

Sounds like a job for Ricky, Julian, and Bubbles

Re:Damn Canadians

[SkyDude]

Wouldn't be an issue, if they would just control their damn geese.

Here's how to control the damn birds

It's always about money...

[zbharucha]

I like it how they say they "save hundreds of thousands of dollars" instead of saying "hundreds of lives". Everything is about money for these people! Disgusting.

Re:It's always about money...

[CompMD]

Sorry, but in engineering an aircraft you put a price tag on everything, including passengers. Look at the number of people who sue Boeing or Airbus whenever a plane crashes (regardless of the reason) and you'll see why.

Re:It's always about money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Although maybe controversial, I very much believe it's possible to avoid all bird impacts near airports if you spend enough money on it. Rather than a single falconer, have four at each site. Use hyper-accurate radar and directional noise or microwave generators to scare or cook birds in the air. Put four engines on all planes.

If Obama statifies the health care system you might have an interesting experince in the US: In every nation where the health care system is national, there is a body to conduct "cost/benefit" analysis - every year of survival has a prize. What some experience is that drugs that will give them additional years to live, or can potentially cure them, are not given to them because the cost/benefit isn't good enough. So yes, even in the most "caring" of countries, it's all about money.

Re:It's always about money...

[osu-neko]

Precisely. The only way to ensure a corporation places value on people's lives is with trial lawyers. Oddly, people consider them disgusting too.

Re:It's always about money...

[Hatta]

How many lives are lost because of bird strikes? We just had the worst bird strike event in memory, and no one died. Except the birds, I guess.

Re:It's always about money...

[John Hasler]

It is extremely rare for bird strikes to cause loss of life. However, it is quite common for them to damage aircraft. Thus the statement is completely reasonable.

Re:It's always about money...

[dunkelfalke]

according to wikipedia more than 200 since 1988.

Re:You are kidding arent you ?

[sexconker]

Whoosh!

Instead of netting over the water....

[Anonymous Coward]

...maybe they could get some sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads to hunt any water landing fowl. But our cycloptic avian prevention colleague would probably tell us how difficult that would be.

Perhaps if we payed them more...

[LunarEffect]

they wouldn't go on strike...

Pointless

[PPH]

Great effort on the part of SeaTac to keep birds off the runway. But it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference to Flight 1549. From what I've seen online (not quite the official FAA report, but probably close enough), the bird strikes occurred several miles from the runway at around 3000 ft altitude.

In the case of SeaTac, approach and departure altitudes like these are seen as far away from the airport as 20 miles. On a few occasions, I've been watching little Piper Cubs/Cessnas/whatever buzzing around over my house at 3 to 5000 ft altitudes and seen a 747 fly in on approach to SeaTac underneath them. And I'm more than 20 miles from the airport. Its not likely that the FAA can keep the air clear of Canadian geese, bald eagles and other such birds over an area of more than 1200 square miles.

The only solution to preventing another 1549 incident is to keep commercial aircraft at higher altitudes for as long as possible.

Re:Pointless

[fructose]

They already do. The problem is traffic management.

Airlines would love to save gas by going right up to the point where they can cut the engines to idle and then coast in to the airport. But since everyone wants to do that it would create a traffic nightmare. They need a way to line everyone up on the same runway so they can space them out properly. And if it's cloudy, you need a way to make sure you can be lined up on your runway when you come out of the clouds. So they make instrument approaches that use navigation aids on the ground or GPS.

This works well at small airports, but busy ones have too many planes coming in so they make these things called a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). Everyone flies to one of these routes and then they join up to an instrument approach to land.

Airlines would love nothing more than to save gas by doing exactly what you suggest, and people on the ground would also like to not have airplanes buzzing their house at all hours of the day, but it's not even close to practicable.

Re:Pointless

[PPH]

All that is fine. But that single file they line everyone up into needs to be at a higher altitude. Approach through clouds isn't an issue at 20 miles out. ILS approach limits for visibility are on the order of 200ft vertically and half a mile horizontally. If you need to see the runway at more thn a few miles distance, you've got no business landing at SeaTac.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

The only solution? Perhaps a more objective look at the problem will yield a more realistic view of possible solutions.

Birds, specifically of the migratory variety, tend to fly at rather dramatic altitudes for the exact same reasons airliners do: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070722164639.htm.

There are birds of the variety that populate the continental U.S. that have been known to travel between 9,000-20,000 feet, and bird strikes and sightings have occurred at bizarre altitudes all over the world for some time: http://audubonmagazine.org/birds/birds0011.html.

Short of asking all birds to please not hit our airplanes there is no real "solution" to avoiding bird strikes, but the risk to the most critical portions of flight can be mitigated by efforts such as those at SeaTac and McChord AFB.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Instrument approaches could be made steeper. AFAIK they're only at 3 degrees for passanger comfort. Fly into London City (among others) and it's a good deal less comfortable but the 5 degree instrument approach works well. The recent near-disaster at Heathrow showed the dangers of long, low approaches.

Better idea.

[jellomizer]

We know birds hate Snakes.

Lets put Snakes on the planes. That way birds will avoid the plains to avoid the snakes.

I got that idea from a movie, I forgot what it was called.

Re:Better idea.

[navyjeff]

That's great. It starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and airplanes. Lenny Bruce is not afraid.

Re:Better idea.

[Chris Burke]

I think it was called "The Plane With Serpents In It".

Re:Better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some birds eat snakes.

Re:Better idea.

[Fishbulb]

Asps on an Airbus!

Re:Better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

We know birds hate Snakes.

Lets put Snakes on the planes. That way birds will avoid the plains to avoid the snakes.

I got that idea from a movie, I forgot what it was called.

I think it was called "The plane that didn't have to slow down for birds because the snakes scared them away."

Re:Better idea.

[jellomizer]

That is why you put on bigger snakes. Of course that will attract bigger birds. So we put on even larger snakes, which will evolve birds which we can mount and fly on, without the need for an airplane.

Pure Genius.

It wasn't a bird strike

[knappe duivel]

It was a plane strike. Birds have feelings too, you insensitive clods!

Re:It wasn't a bird strike

[RockWolf]

It was a plane strike. Birds have feelings too, you insensitive clods!

Those birds don't any more. Matter of fact, I doubt they felt much at all...

Re:It wasn't a bird strike

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, but I also doubt they saw it coming...

Re:Obligitory Joke

[Chad Birch]

Yep, you sure did kill that. Apparently leaving out half of the text doesn't help.

Keep the birds on the ground

[snspdaarf]

So, remember my darling, When spring is in the air, And them bald-headed birds, Are whispering everywhere, When you see them walking southwards, In their dirty underwear, It's the Tennessee Bird Walk.

Re:Keep the birds on the ground

[snspdaarf]

Sorry about the formatting. I guess I should preview when I preview.

Re:You are kidding arent you ?

[Arancaytar]

Don't feed him. He's been posting this for a long time. ;)

Snakes eat birds.

[Arancaytar]

Put snakes on the plane. Problem solved.

what about audio?

[mapkinase]

What's the audio reception spectrum of birds? Can we add some sound that we do not hear and they hear?

Re:what about audio?

[FooAtWFU]

Airplanes already make a significant amount of noise. What good do you really think adding some supersonic whatevermajig will do?

Re:what about audio?

[flosofl]

Do you mean we should load up the plane with a bunch of those deer whistles?

Re:what about audio?

[mapkinase]

What if they do not hear well in that wavelength range? Basic common sense says that the smaller the animal the higher pitch is the range. Also, singing birds have a high pitch voice.

Surely, the dBs are plenty, but most of it is quite low pitch.

Re:what about audio?

[mapkinase]

They have to be louder (because it has to be detected from a large distance) and most importantly in the ultrasound range that is not audible by humans.

Re:Obligitory Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that isn't a joke. I think that actually happened. I seem to remember it as a foreign country doing the testing... don't remember who though. And I think they were testing windshields.

Now unemployed

[DoofusOfDeath]

Maybe if we just posted Cheney at the end of the runway with a shotgun...

Re:Now unemployed

[Anonymous Coward]

With a dog that laughs at him every time he misses a bird.

Re:Now unemployed

[c6gunner]

Maybe if we just posted Cheney at the end of the runway with a shotgun...

You'd have a lot of dead pilots?

Re:Now unemployed

[DoofusOfDeath]

Maybe if we just posted Cheney at the end of the runway with a shotgun...

You'd have a lot of dead pilots?

No, but there would be a hole in the fuselage where each lawyer was seated.

Further suggetions to combat the effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Inspired by the obvious keeness to help our aircraft engineers with solutions to this problem (including the "place a cone with air intakes on the side in front of the engine"), I have the following:

- Place the jet engine on the tail of the aircraft, and just don't provide an air intake. If there is nothing going in, no birds can either.

- Try propellers instead. It's possible that due to the scientific consensus syndrome most scientists have forgotten about propellers. Go to a jet engine engineer when he is working on a difficult problem, show him a picture of a propeller, and say "Have you tried one of these?"

- Make the jet engines travel faster than the plane. If they hit a bird the pilot will have time to see it coming and steer to avoid it.

- Have the plane be powered by the continuous explosion of dynamite. The blast wave will push away the birds before the enter the engine.

Re:Further suggetions to combat the effect

[ChrisMaple]

Assuming that one of your suggestions (propellers) is actually serious, there are a couple of issues. One is that the propeller still has to be powered by something, like a .. a .. jet engine. Another is that as noisy as jet engines are, props are noisier. Research on props hasn't stopped entirely, and every decade or so Popular Science or some similar magazine will showcase a weird-looking propeller design that features high efficiency or low noise.

How about a proactive approach.

[jhfry]

I would imagine that most flocks, or even single birds, could be detected well in advance of impact by using radar or some other imaging device.

Perhaps using that technology, and some sort of explosive shell (think fireworks), they could clear a path through the flock (at least for the engines).

If the shell was powerful enough, it could actually use the force of the explosion to force the birds out of the flight path. If not, at least it would have the potential of scaring the flock into changing course.

Re:How about a proactive approach.

[corsec67]

If the shell was powerful enough, it could actually use the force of the explosion to force the birds out of the flight path. If not, at least it would have the potential of scaring the flock into changing course.

Plus it would give the people inside the plane an exciting ride, going through a concussion wave like that.

and some sort of explosive shell (think fireworks)

Like Ack-Ack?

Re:How about a proactive approach.

[jhfry]

That's assuming that the concussion was near enough to be felt.

Obviously, with a larger concussion, the explosion would need to take place further ahead of the aircraft.

Re:How about a proactive approach.

[John Hasler]

And the people on the ground would get to enjoy the falling shrapnel, including the occasional unexploded round.

Major point they're missing

[Guysmiley777]

The bird strikes did not occur near the airport. They occurred 2 minutes after takeoff at an altitude of 3,000+ feet. The aircraft was miles from the airport when it lost power.

The techniques they use are valuable because they reduce the bird density right around the airfield, and having a multi-engine failure like what happened with 1549 had would be MUCH less survivable if it occurred immediately after takeoff.

IPv6. NOW!

[Piranhaa]

If we FINALLY move to IPv6, there won't be nearly as many people using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers , and thus, less birds hitting planes.

Seinfeld

[kellyb9]

Oh yes... the deal. They get out of the way of our airplanes and we look the other way when they defacate on our statues.

and yet

[SnarfQuest]

the technology used at Sea-Tac for preventing airplane bird strikes,

All this technology, and it didn't work..

Re:and yet

[Neo Quietus]

Sea-Tac stands for "Seattle-Tacoma", as in Washington state, not New York.

yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

machineguns for airlines!

well... kind of...

Look out the window

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the pilot should look out the window at where they are going, instead of programming the flight director.

Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

deflector dish...

Shark with lasers.

[tjstork]

I'm working on a project to put lasers on sharks. Sharks with lasers can help reduce bird clutter, lowers greenhouse emissions, making our skies safer and saving the planet. Can you give me a billion dollars?

Da Boirds . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . (eliminate food that the birds eat) . . .

So when the falcons eventually eliminate the nasty birds that bring our planes down, which is their food source . . . they will go out seeking alternative food sources . . . like your cat, your dog or your toddler.

Don't trust 'dem boirds.

Re:Da Boirds . . .

[Frosty Piss]

So when the falcons eventually eliminate the nasty birds that bring our planes down, which is their food source . . . they will go out seeking alternative food sources . . . like your cat, your dog or your toddler.

They arn't WILD falcons. They eat rats and mice purchased for the purpose (NOTIFY PETA!!!)

The IT Solution - More Redundancy

[mrroot]

You just need more redundancy. Two engines is not enough redundancy to protect against a double bird strike, but four would have been, right?

I suppose cost could be a factor. Depending on what the airlines consider the value of a human life to be would determine whether this is feasible for them. It comes down to how many 9s the airlines are willing to accept and what they will pay for that "uptime" of their engines.

Re:The IT Solution - More Redundancy

[John Hasler]

> Depending on what the airlines consider the value of a human life to be would determine
> whether this is feasible for them.

How much is it worth to you? Would you ten times as much to fly on a plane with spare engines that could be rotated into place in case of a bird strike? Ten percent more for one with engines able to withstand twice the bird impact of the current ones (and therefor more expensive and less efficient)? Before you answer look up the actual incidence of fatalities traceable to bird strikes. I

Re:The IT Solution - More Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more a case of how far apart the engines are...If you fly through a flock you may well take out all the engines no matter how many there are. I haven't heard of it happening with birds but there was a case where a 747 flew through an eruption cloud from a volcano and all the engines stopped. They had a long somewhat heart stopping glide until they managed to get enough engines going again to make it to the nearest runway.

Redundancy is not easy even in IT or telecommunications...after 40 years in the latter field I am prepared to say that there is always a way that a failure can occur, even if you can't figure out how it could beforehand.

Patent That

[autocracy]

Honest to God, go patent that shit and get it tested RIGHT NOW.

Re:Not that hard. Harder they fall

[saskboy]

Better yet, experience the inside of a plane hitting the ground, as a Canadian after you've been downed by a bird!

I got an idea: prechopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not add a "pre-fan fan/propeller" 1-2 meters on front of the fan that chops up the birds beforehand? That way, the engine fan does not have to bear such one big heavy (and forceful) hit.

Avian Radar

[Zygamorph]

Two thoughts:

1. Birds with little rotating radar dishes mounted on their heads;
2. Mutant birds with anti avian radar lasers mounted on theirs;

Accipiter avian radar

[Bopper]

More information on the Sea-Tac avian radar system is available at the Accipiter Radar Technologies Inc. web page http://www.sicomsystems.com/prod_accipiter_avian.html

Next time you're in D.C...

[Scratch-O-Matic]

...treat yourself to a stop at Gravelly Point Park, located immediately north of Reagan National Airport (best to depart the airport heading north, rather than trying to reach it by driving south toward the airport.) It's at the end of the runway and directly underneath the landing path (takeoffs are less interesting because the planes are much higher by the time they reach the park.)

Two things to note, other than the extremely low jets directly above you:

- The periodic "air cannon" (my description) used to scare away birds. It goes off every couple minutes. Took me quite a while to figure out what the hell it was.

- A bonus is the wake turbulence that passes overhead about 10 seconds after a plane passes. It sounds like ripping paper.

Rats of the sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds reproduce faster then we make air planes. Its a hopeless battle for the skies. Disease ridden poultry terrorists evade customs and and launch biological bird flu attacks. Now they are launching conventional strategic strikes trying to take over our air space. I welcome our new winged rats overlords.

Huh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew that all those hours losing at Duck Hunt could become your career..... stupid laughing dog.

You guys watch too much television ...

[freaker_TuC]

Too much Monty Python ! ;)

LEDs? How about strobe lights?

[jhein]

Strobe lights are actually easier to see and grab your attention at a distance.
Most aircraft (All commercial aircraft) already have them.

I don't know about you...

[painehope]

But I'm a hell of a lot more worried about the idiots they give driver's licenses to than flying.

I have literally seen a guy (who looked like he should have been wearing a 'tard helmet and riding the short bus) fail the written exam 3 times, and then have a DPS officer coach him through an oral exam (due to his claim that English was not his native language - hello, anyone? You might not be able to read street signs, but big red STOP signs and lights are pretty much multilingual). If I can drive in Mexico and Switzerland, why can't people drive in their (supposedly) native countries?

Or pull that cellphone out of their ear. There is this thing called "speakerphone", ya know!

What about...

[hesaigo999ca]

The whole problem is the way the engines are wide open at the front end of the plane, if we were to put some chicken wire then it would avoid anything going in, although the suction would probably be too great for whatever is stuck to get free, they would be able to dislodge it though once they land.

Dropped you.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll drop you again.