Slashdot Mirror
For Airplane Safety, Trying To Keep Birds From Planes
The Narrative Fallacy writes "Every year pilots in the US report more than 5,000 bird strikes, which cause at least $400 million in damage to commercial and military aircraft. Now safety hearings are beginning on the crash of US Airways Flight 1549, where a flock of eight-pound geese apparently brought down a plane, plunging it and 155 people into the frigid waters of the Hudson River. Despite having experimented with everything from electromagnetics to ultrasonic devices to scarecrows, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has yet to endorse a single solution that will keep birds out of the path of an oncoming aircraft." (More below.)
"The best bet right now is understanding bird behavior, although an intriguing old pilots' tale — that radar can scatter birds — may carry enough truth to ultimately offer a viable technical solution to a deadly problem. 'We need to find out, is that an urban legend or is there some truth to that?' says Robert L. Sumwalt, the vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Federal Aviation Administration already has an extensive program in place for 'wildlife hazard mitigation,' but it seems ill suited to the problem that faced the US Airways flight, which struck geese five miles from the runway — too far for the New York airports to take action — at an altitude of 2,900 feet — too high for radars being installed around the country to detect birds. 'There's no silver bullet,' says Richard Dolbeer, a wildlife biologist and expert on bird strikes. 'There's no magic chemical you can spray or sound you can project that is going to scare the birds away.'"
Dick Cheney will shoot them all in the face. :)
I knew those sidewinder missiles I purchased for my Boeing 747 were going to come in handy.
I have a bad feeling about this...
Most people don't realize this, but birds are very smart. They learn very quickly after getting hit by an airplane or being sucked into an engine, they NEVER do it a second time. People are usually not that smart, but birds learn quickly.
-Charlie
By 'them', do you mean the planes or the birds?
-Charlie
When I was stationed in Dover in the early '70s, a C-5A came in while I was working on the flightline with its windhield broken, a big bloody hole in it. It had hit a pretty large bird, IIRC a big duck, which decapitated the co-pilot. Bird strikes have been aviation's bane since there was such a thing as aviation.
Free Martian Whores!
Especially since, from what I hear, areas around many airports have been essentially turned into wetlands.
No wonder flocks of birds like the place...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Regardless of how much money they can throw at a technical solution, nothing will be as cost effective as paying a bunch of guys in blaze orange vests to shoot at birds near the airports.
"What'd ya do today, Jake?"
"Shot at pigeons."
"Really? I thought the range was only open on weekends."
"Not them pigeons. I got me a job with the airport. I'm shootin' real pigeons, plus geese and anything else with wings. I just wish that darn airport were closer to Sesame Street. I've always hated that Big Bird..."
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
C'mon, no one's mentioned automatic turrets above every engine? I would pay money to have a window seat if turrets were installed...
Are flocks too small to pick up on the plane's radar? If not, fly around them.
Especially since, from what I hear, areas around many airports have been essentially turned into wetlands.
(1) Flight 1549 was 5 miles from the airport at the time of the bird strike, meaning that they have to patrol a huge area (especially hard in the NYC metro area) to get rid of all the nesting sites there.
(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.
So, at least in this instance, there was basically nothing you could do about it except have trained pilots well-versed in emergency procedures. In fact, as a general matter, I think it's silly to invest in technology/training/whatever that solves an individual problem when you can invest in other measures that will accrue benefits across a wide variety of (perhaps unexpected) problems.
How about two giant aerodynamic scarecrows on each wing?
Here in Brazil, they are training falcons to scare birds away from airport zones.
Seeing how it's almost time to leave work, and I've got about 5 minutes to burn, let me summarize all the comments/ideas into 1.
Paint the plane gray like a shark, attaching lasers that shoot the birds, with a giant cow catcher as a windshield, with a giant windmill attached to the top, and have a beowolf cluster of Dick Cheney's be the pilots for all of them.
Now there's a solid solution we can try, and 1 of them is bound to end in success.
The planes velocity is too fast to move birds out of the flight path of planes. What needs to happen is make the planes capable of hitting a Canadian goose at 400 mph...
Maybe we should add a warning signal for the birds. Like a really loud noise.
They tried that with the concord but it didn't work, so they gave up on the idea.
That is a very well written post. Unfortinately that is not what happened. But good job bashing Airbus.
"The best bet right now is understanding bird behavior, although an intriguing old pilots' tale â" that radar can scatter birds â" may carry enough truth to ultimately offer a viable technical solution to a deadly problem. 'We need to find out, is that an urban legend or is there some truth to that?'
Isn't that what the mythbusters are for? c'mon guys.
(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.
So, these geese were illegal immigrants, crossing our sovereign national border without permission, invitation, or documentation, stealing food from decent hard-working American duck flocks, fouling American land and water with their unregulated duckish emissions, and ultimately causing mayhem and near-total disaster on American transportation systems.
We definitely need a better security fence. I hope our Homeland Security Department jumps on this.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
It's enough to stretch wire from high poles to deter birds from flying under them, and this is often used around construction sites.
However the problem here is height, and the fact the aircraft might "mind" objects being in their flight path...
From what I can recall from a documentary I saw on this topic, different breeds of cats (wild cats) are allowed around some airports to hunt birds. I can't find any link relating to this though...
I did, however, manage to find at least one mention of "mock hunters", like this one, which are flown around an airport to make real birds think that the place is full of predatory birds.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
we're past that; we're looking for a more efficient use of stones. our original target was a 5:1 bird/stone ratio, but right now 3:1 is looking more feasible; at 2:1 you have to factor in the weight of a half-flock of rocks added to your cargo.
do not read this line twice.
So true. My wish for 0+1j Confused has not been granted as well.
Ezekiel 23:20
Bull-fucking-shit.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
As right as you may be on all points reguarding THIS incident, there are many many more documented cases of birds destroying engines, windshields, air speed sensors (which you just CAN'T fly without in modern aircraft), etc... so bashing airbus' engineering principles is going to do nothing to help this problem.
Problem is that birds learn. It's easy to make them run away from something, but if nothing bad happens to them, they'll eventually stop running and ignore it.
Also, jet engines already make a pretty loud and conspicuous noise.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Already been done. Chairman Mao once declared war on Sparrows (amongst other alleged pests) because sparrows were seen eating farmers seeds. Unfortunately they also ate locusts. Guess what happened next?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I wasn't talking about 1549, just general idiocy of establishing "Federally protected wetlands" in drainage basins for the airfield itself, for example.
Like in case of Detroit Metro Airport's runway 9R-27L, almost directly across Middlebelt Rd. from a 650m x 415m wetland/flood basin. Notice all the vegetation.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Detroit+Metro+Airport+runway+9R-27L&sll=37.579413,-95.712891&sspn=33.830346,56.162109&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ll=42.202423,-83.326921&spn=0.015546,0.027423&t=k&z=15
Scroll north to see more wetlands. Quoting one buddy: Catch a pic at the right time of day, to be determined by the frickin' birds, and there's hundreds/thousands of waterfowl on that thing or browsing the surrounding fields...some of which are directly under the flight path.
This is the same airport that claims it has no deer within the fence, so therefore no danger of deer on the runway, but drive by the sound abatement berms on the south end early some morning and you'll see herds of them at the edge of the woods. There's a 12+ foot fence the airport managers say keeps 'em out, but no one bothered to tell the deer that.
Or look at main Cyprus airfield
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=34.879876,33.620825&spn=0.050133,0.061197&t=h&z=14
just to the north-west was a large salt lake and all around were about half-a-dozen smaller salt lakes. These mostly dry up in summer (except for a couple of small ones) but are in various degrees of wetness during the winter, when they are the predilected home for thousands of wading birds, from the size of a moorhen up to swans and flamingos. They are also internationally recognised and protected nature reserves. It is a common sight in winter to see flocks of hundreds of flamingos transiting between the lakes, right across the flight paths of the aircraft and they aren't the size of a sparrow, either. Aircraft are often sitting on the end of the runway waiting for clearance for takeoff while "hostile" birds bugger off. Bird strikes are common in winter with perhaps 2 or 3/year requiring aircraft to return after takeoff either because of engine failure (rare), Pitot tubes spearing birds, cockpit glass cracked, control surfaces damaged, flaps unable to close etc. So far, no major accidents have occurred but it is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The white areas are dried salt lakes and the greenish-grey and blue-green areas are wet ones. As you can see, the runway has lakes a few metres from it, on either side!
One that hath name thou can not otter
And then serve the shot birds as meals in the aircraft. It's like two birds with one, er, shot!
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
I quite agree with the FAA here. They should never have let women qualify to become pilots in the first place...
Oh wait...ah, I see... never mind...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
So, at least in this instance, there was basically nothing you could do about it except have trained pilots well-versed in emergency procedures.
I think the story is focused on changing the idea that there is basically nothing you can do.
The search for deterrent measures should not be limited to ground based systems.
We should not have to forever live with engine technology that can't handle that which occurs naturally in its normal operating environment.
We should not have to de-bird large areas just to handle air traffic.
The focus is to manage the problem so that it does not require every pilot execute emergency procedures on a daily basis.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
There's a simple reason for this: no one wants to live next to the airport for some reason. So, the land becomes low-valued, and becomes a wetland. Or, they build the airport next to a wetland because it's cheap, and again because no one else wants to live next to it.
The simply solution is for the government to force airports to be built away from wetlands, near residential areas, and to force people to stay there and not move out or devalue the homes. I'm not sure how they'd do this, but I'm sure they can find a way. Perhaps surveil realtors and find people looking to buy in the area, and grab a few at random and force them to purchase a house near the airport at full price under threat of violence.
Or people could just accept that bird strikes are the price they pay for wanting air travel but not wanting to live near the airports.
How about cow catchers?
I know that was supposed to be funny, but why not have a deflector that can be deployed in front of the engine For an instant, In an instant, and then retract.
Sure it blanks the engine, but it only needs to be there for a couple seconds.
This might be easier to do on tail-mounted engines, like 727's because the deflector (shaped like an air-brake) could deploy from the side of the aircraft.
But a pole protruding forward from the axis of engine could deploy near instantaneous deflectors
which retract just as quickly to bounce birds around the intake.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I imagine being in the middle of the ocean rather than on land greatly reduces the number of birds nearby when carriers launch aircraft.
Birds are deathly afraid of snakes... has anyone yet tried Snakes on a Plane?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I worked on an airport, years ago. At various places around the graded area, we had propane-powered noisemakers that would let off a gunshot-like sound every few minutes. Unfortunately, the birds became accustomed to the sound. The seagulls would still scatter, but only for half a minute. The ravens would merely flutter their feathers and continue doing what they were doing.
Other bird hazard tools included a starter pistol, a pickup truck (to scare them a little more directly), and a rifle.
Then again, this was a very small airport, so the more direct measures were only needed on the occasion that a plane was actually taking off or landing. And, of course, these measures would not have done anything for the Hudson incident, which happened far from the airport.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Birds hate cats, so simply mount a few dozen cats outside the plane near the engines. Don't forget to mount the cats with their feet pointed down, or the plane will flip when you try to land.
Chaff rounds packed with bird seed could also work, but the cats should be more cost effective.
Any animal that pisses off golfers is a species that ought to be treasured and protected.
What strikes me most about a subject like this is what I see as a mass denial by many: life is inherently risky.
At some point there may be a method to keep birds away from aircraft. Or aircraft might operate such a different way that birds are not a threat to them. But that is not the point. Rather so many people seem to think that life should be totally risk free.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Knowing what I know about wildlife in general, I seriously doubt that there is not a single sound pitch that can divert the path of flying birds. To me such an idea is inconceivable. Here in the northwest we have an issue with running into deer, elk, and other wildlife. One clever chap came up with the idea of mounting "deer-whistles" on the front of his car. The whistle emits a high-pitched sound that warns and perturbs deer and other wildlife before they get "amazed" by your head-lights. I guess my question is, due to the fact that sound still travels faster than "most" planes (commercial and most private aircraft anyway) why is it these guys can't find a "whistle" for gees and other birds? There is a call designed for drawing them in to shoot them, why can't their be a "call" to get them to migrate out of your flight path?
-Oz
I like to think outside of the box though, I say arm the birds.
Good God, man. Have you already forgotten the lessons of Hitchcock? Tippi Hedren barely made it through when those feathery sons of bitches were engaging in hand-to-ha... er... hand-to-wing combat. Arm them and we're all doomed!
I know that was supposed to be funny, but why not have a deflector that can be deployed in front of the engine For an instant, In an instant, and then retract. Sure it blanks the engine, but it only needs to be there for a couple seconds.
The compressor stalls (loud noise and flames coming out of the engine) would scare the bejeezus out of anyone near that engine. The fire goes out in a jet engine pretty quick when you take any of the three magical ingredients out of the recipe.
However, a better design does exist and it's not entirely far off from what you suggest. Turboprops of the PT-6 variety (the only type with which I'm familiar) are typically mounted (and operate) in such a way that an inertial separator could stave off engine shutdown due to ingestion of large amounts of foreign material. With the inertial separator deployed air flows around a corner of such a radius that something more massive (such as ice--thus the intent of the device) cannot make the turn and is ejected aft of engine. The drawback of such a device is that it causes power loss and a rise in operating temperature.
To do something like this with a large turbojet/fan engine would require a non-trivial amount of engineering to relocate intakes asymmetrically from the thrustline of the engine(s) thus allowing debris to be ejected without damaging the engine. Not a huge problem. It just adds slightly more complexity and expense and until we're encountering birds more than we encounter ice, things aren't likely to change.
Why not stick a shield in front of the engine?
No, not a disc, but a grid of thin spikes (parallel to the plane), ahead of the engine.
Everyone bitches about not being able to dodge the birds because the plane moves straight and can't turn quickly.
Use that to your advantage. Put a little frame of thin metal poles far enough ahead of the engine that it doesn't block the airflow. If a bird is on a collision course with the engine, it'll hit the spikes and get stuck. Make the spiked long enough to stack several birds. If it breaks, it breaks. You survived a bird attack, and that spiked grid will just fall to earth and hopefully impale some people.
My base does actually use the 12 gauge option, if the other measures work.
They've found that shooting a few birds for real renews the effectiveness of the pure sound shots.
Other options include making the airport not as attractive to birds as other areas outside the flight path. Then you hunt the other areas sufficiently that they don't fill up habitat wise, but not so much you scare the birds away - a brief but intense hunting season, basically.
I don't read AC A human right
What is needed is not so much a screen, but rather a solid angled metal shield
/. analysis can fix it.
Heavy and impedes airflow when deployed
that projects about 1-2 feet in front of the air intake for the engine on take off and landing
Immensly strong support structure. 15 lb bird at 250mph is a LOT of force. And impedes the needed airflow into the engine.
and retracts at cruising altitude.
Heavy, complex retracting mechanism.
Decades of aero engineers have never, ever thought of such solutions, yet 3 minutes of
Amazing.
but if they were armed then they couldnt fly. try it yourself. wave your own really fast.
Any animal that pisses on golfers is a species that ought to be treasured and protected.
There, fixed that for ya.
I think you make it to complicated...
Airports simply need buffer zones around them for security, noise, etc. The problem is that many environmentalists are totally out of touch with reality; since they saw those areas as excellent locations for wildlife habitats, they pushed laws to that effect, on top of ones establishing buffer zones.
A shame, really...those people have generally quite likeable world view, but once in a while there's something like this... (other notable idiocies beeing anti-nuclear and wanting to turn all major rivers into concrete waterways for energy generation (well, tbh they don't realise that what they want would require turning rivers into concrete waterways...))
One that hath name thou can not otter
I like your idea. The issues come into play when you start screwing around with air flow into the engine. I am not sure you could treat it like a turboprop engine. Turbo props use 100% of the air they intake for combustion or whatever bleed air takes their are whereas in a large turbo-fan bypass ratios are starting to hit 11 to 1 and over, interrupting air flow into the engine could give a drastic and very sudden reduction in thrust.
A lot of TurboProp engines use centrifugal rather then axial compressors or a combination of both making air intake much less critical.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Yes, a fence in the sky.
I for a long time said that Canada need to follow the example of their US brethren and build a fence on their southern border to prevent the undesirables from moving north.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If you want an idea, watch this video from a few years back. Keep an eye on the center left of the screen.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
To play devil's advocate for a moment, let's think about how many flights are made daily, and for how many years we've been making them, and this is the first time we've lost an airplane to bird ingestions in all/both engines. Reducing risk is great (multiple engines, redundant systems, etc), and I'm all for it; but I wonder at what point we see diminishing returns for the cost. Should there be an acceptance of these risks at some level?
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!