Birdstrikes

[Cptn Titus]

Does anyone know, if turning on the weather radar for take off, help to avoid a birdstrike?

[callum11223344]

haha is this a joke?

[Cptn Titus]

Nope, it is not. It is a question for experienced pilots flying airline jets. My company has changed the SOPs in order to include turning on the radar just before take off. There has been numerous birdstrikes, and it seems that the weather radar provides, though little, some help. Any comments?...

[lomapaseo]

No supporting data, including instrumenting the little buggers and measuring their response.

Might as well paint keep away signs on the radome and engine inlets.

[belowMDA]

Having it on didn't help me the other day when I smoked three on landing! :8

Our procedures have us turning it on just after initiating the taxi. It is used as a tool to help gauge wx around the airport rather than scaring the birds away. A shotgun works better for that job I think.

[pasoundman]

Cptn Titus
Does anyone know, if turning on the weather radar for take off, help to avoid a birdstrike?

Is this idea based on the hope of cooking them and causing them to 'fall out of the sky' (and out of the way) before they can get ingested ?

I've heard of military radars being capable of 'shooting down' birds in flight.

[OutOfRunWay]

Microwave and Radar emissions do disturb birds, and I vaguely remember some university doing tests about this at my local airport, but the transmission power from aircraft weather radars is just too small to have any effect at all, especially if youre heading towards that buzzard with 180kt.


OORW

[wobble2plank]

Maybe you'll get a return just before hitting, if its a bloody big bird :E

[Canuckbirdstrike]

The old urban legend surfaces again....

Aircraft weather radar has absolutely no effect on birds. While bird senses are much better than humans, there is just not enough power in the aircraft units for them to sense the waves. Lots of research has been done on this and unless you are talking an AWACS or other very powerful military radars there is no chance this will work. The urban legend flows from some early very powerful military radar systems.

For further information on this issue and strategies to reduce bird strikes go to the Transport Canada website and look for the link to the on-line copy of the book "Sharing the Skies". Yes, I am one of the authors and no I don't get a commission on the sales!

I have worked in this area for years and can assure you that there is no scientific evidence that this works.

[timbash]

I concur, turning on the radar will have no discernable effect on birds.

[roljoe]

But, switching on all available onboard bright lights will be more efficient,..

birds are quite sensitive to light sources...specially when those sources are not located as they would be in their mind (like the sun)..

Still not the ultimate way to avoid birdstrike, but...in waiting for it..

[Dream Land]

The old urban legend surfaces again....

Aircraft weather radar has absolutely no effect on birds.IMO, absolutely correct, also our lights are always on for take off, no help there either.

[Capt Claret]

I flew the 146 for some 5 years. So many bird strikes that the Ops people caled me a chick magnet, and they weren't being complementary. :sad:

In the 2 and a bit years I've flown the 717, I've only experienced one bird strike. The ports, routes, and times are constant between the two types.

I'd be interested in any theory as to why the 717 has been significantly less prone to bird strike.

[call100]

You killed them all with your 146!!!!!!:eek::)

[RemoteDiagnostic]

I would say that the engine position makes the difference.

[Centaurus]

Amazing how some pilots just love to bore down at high speed (320 knots plus) below 10,000 and even below 5000 ft risking lives in an area where birds fly and the damage to the windows (and crew) could be fatal. Good fun and macho and all that stuff but potentially deadly. Maybe they rely on their radar to frighten birds out of the way...read earlier posts re radar myths.

[rcl7700]

Again no proof, but in a period of 2 months I hit everything in the air that had feathers (they didn't call me the chick magnet, but they should've). I don't know if this is common in the CRJ, but they mostly hit close to the cockpit so it was easy to keep track of one's kills. This also coincided with the end of the rainy season in Mexico, and I was switching my radar off and switching to terrain on approach and initial climb (no clouds, many mountains). The cheif pilot finally wrote me an email asking me if I was using radar on approach and landing. In each strike my radar was off. It has been on ever since and I haven't killed anything (at least to my knowledge). The birds are happier, maintenance is happier, and I haven't had to write a report in close to a year. Radar on seems to work for me.

rcl

[Cptn Titus]

Thanks guys, for all the posts.

[stilton]

How would anyone know :confused:

[CaptainSandL]

I too had never heard of a bat strike, then I saw this in the newspaper yesterday...

Bird in engine grounds plane
04/05/2008

Prague - A Boeing 737 passenger plane of the budget airline Ryanair had to make an emergency landing at Brno in the Czech Republic after a bird was sucked into one of its jet engines, the airport said on Sunday.

The plane had taken off from Brno for London's Stanstead airport on Saturday when the incident occurred and it turned back, said the airport manager.

"It was a member of ground staff who noticed an unusual sound from one of the engines," he said.

The plane had to complete its takeoff climb then circle for some time in order to empty its reserve tanks as a safety measure.

During the emergency landing the plane also hit a bat, the official said.

None of the 150 passengers and crew were injured.

[Canuckbirdstrike]

Well of course bats are mammals not birds. I can also assure you that there is no scientific data nor is there any reason to believe that bats can detect weather radar. Bats use echo location with sound, just at a frequency that we cannot detect. Therefore turning on the radar has no effect. Unfortunately, the urban legend of turning on radar to "scare away" birds has permeated our industry and therefore there are still many companies and airports that put references to it in their SOP's.

As an aside bat strikes are not that uncommon. as for mammal strikes in general there are lots of them. In North America the most comonly struck mammals are deer. Around the world there are all kinds of unusual things struck by aircraft including fish, cows, turtles and the list goes on.

[lomapaseo]

Bats are typically struck when they come out of their caves at night to feed.

I can't recall any other crew reported bat strikes except in that time window. Of course like most strikes (birds or bats) they are not associated with symptoms to the crew. Also in most cases even the ground examinations wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a big bug or a bat strike.

[Bolty McBolt]

I flew the 146 for some 5 years. So many bird strikes that the Ops people caled me a chick magnet, and they weren't being complementary.

In the 2 and a bit years I've flown the 717, I've only experienced one bird strike. The ports, routes, and times are constant between the two types.

I'd be interested in any theory as to why the 717 has been significantly less prone to bird strike.

Hey Claret...

On the 146 were the bird strikes on the nose of the aircraft or did some fly into the back..

Have been told the 146 is the only aircraft you check both ends or the aeroplane for birdstrikes.. :ok:

To add, On many aircraft the radar fires up on engine start.eg 737 NG A330etc in PWS mode so unless switched to off it will be running anyway

[porch monkey]

Bolty, ya beat me to it....:}

[Capt Claret]

Now now Bolty & monkey, every one knows it's Twin Otters what can take a bird strike up the chuff. :oh:

[Canuckbirdstrike]

Just remember that impact force goes up with the square of speed and that the certification standard is for a "single 4 lb bird" and the aircraft will be able to "continue for a safe landing". Add to this that above 1,000 ft. AGL you are most likely to be hitting larger birds such as raptors and waterfowl and you have a recipe for a disaster. Oh, and the last point is that with only tw exceptions all the large bird populations (greater than 4 lbs) are increasing in both numbers and average weight. Also be aware that many of these birds are not migrating long distances as they have done in the past and staying resident.

It is not safe to operate above 250 knots below 10,000 feet. If you do, you are rolling the dice.

[ITCZ]

or, in English, Correlation does not imply Causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).

Two blokes walk down a city street. One notes that his mate has put a banana in his left ear.

"Hey Bob, whats with the banana in your ear?"

"Bill, it keeps away the elephants."

"Bob, there are no elephants in Bourke Street!"

"See Bill - it works!"

If somebody wants to believe something, then sometimes the word of the scientist is not enough!

[Jetstream Rider]

Well said ITCZ.

t is not safe to operate above 250 knots below 10,000 feet. If you do, you are rolling the dice.

Surely depends on the aeroplane? We have a bird speed restriction of 313kts below 8,000ft in the 757 and 767. Rumours are that speed only applies to one type but is used on both for commonality. It can't be THAT dangerous as there aren't loads of crashes happening because of birdstrikes on aircraft faster than 250 knots below 10,000ft. And why 250 knots? Why not 270 or 210 or 237? It seems convenient that the ATC speed restriction is the same as the "safe bird speed limit"?

[lomapaseo]

Surely depends on the aeroplane? We have a bird speed restriction of 313kts below 8,000ft in the 757 and 767. Rumours are that speed only applies to one type but is used on both for commonality. It can't be THAT dangerous as there aren't loads of crashes happening because of birdstrikes on aircraft faster than 250 knots below 10,000ft. And why 250 knots? Why not 270 or 210 or 237? It seems convenient that the ATC speed restriction is the same as the "safe bird speed limit"?

Birds are one of many environmental threats to air safety and like all threats the combinations of variables of speed, aircraft type, location of strike, weight of bird all play a part in whether it's going to be a bad day or just another delay or cancellation,

As such there is no on-off light switch to say that you are safe or unsafe. It's all a matter of probabilities of the combinations..

For current part 25 aircraft, the data suggests that we must be safe enough since it has produced millions of hours of safe flying in the bird filled skies. Sure there have been structural penetrations and even some injuries but only a handful of accidents due to structural failure of the aircraft. Thus the current design criteria (jump this high) responsibly have resulted in an aircraft surviving these in-flight strikes in the 150-250 kt range.

But should there be a meaningful statistical change in the encounter ballistics (number of birds larger than 4 lbs and/or higher aircraft speeds) then the results are going to shift to more accidents per million hours. It's only a question of how many zeros, if any, in front of the numerator.

Like any of our environmental related hazards, it’s the balance between product capability and avoidance tactics that produce our "safe enough" results.

[Jetstream Rider]

Of course there is no on/off switch. What I am saying is that flying above 250 knots below 10,000ft is not a statistically significant danger to the aircraft or its occupants in most situations.

Flying near flocks of migratory birds, low over forests in Africa or near thermalling flocks of birds is of course a different story. I just think that saying flying above 250 knots below 10,000ft is rolling the dice is a misleading and not quite correct statement. I see the point though, although I'm happy in most non restricted situations to go blatting along at 290 knots without worrying too much below 10,000ft, in fact it was SOP before the 250 below 10 was introduced to the UK.

[tournesol]

Psychologically, you may feel safer by tuning the Wx radar. But I beleive it is a midwife tale.
Have a look at Venice airport, Italy Jepp 10-9. They instruct the pilots to switch on the Wx radar for take off and landing due to birds in the vicinity. I dont know who gave them this false idea.
Birds have the 5 senses possed by humans (I seem to recall reading somewhere that they hear at same freq as humans)
But who knows for sure other than the birds themselves ?

[ChristiaanJ]

IIRC some animals (including possibly pigeons) are equipped with a magnetic compass (!) in the form of a separate 'sensor' with a small piece of magnetite, which you could probably classify as a sixth sense.
However, it is equally unaffected by microwaves as the other five senses, so yes, it's a midwife tale.

[IFLY_INDIGO]

little off the subject, but I thought I share it with you all.. I think it would be a good idea to cross check the airspeed and altitude readings immediately after bird hit, to ensure the bird has not hit one of the probes...

say what?

[4engines]

Good Suggestion Skipper!!:ok:
Cheers

[Sir George Cayley]

You need me on your aircraft.

I've managed to scare Birds away for many, many years:ok:


Sir George Cayley

[ChristiaanJ]

Since this IS TechLog, may I ask a question?

Large flocks of birds DO show up on radar. IIRC ground-based meteo-type radars are even used regularly to follow bird migration.

So my question is: what's the minimum range setting on a typical aircraft Wx radar? And is that setting ever used at lower levels?

It will never catch that one heron just after take-off. But it might just catch that huge flock of Canada Geese at 5000 ft, or the vultures at 10,000 ft...

I'm only a radar geek. I just wondered.

CJ

[Capt Claret]

I would say that the engine position makes the difference.

Besides wing mounted vs aft fuse mounted, what do you mean?

[md-100]

Why don´t golfers use a wx radar? The could save a lot of lifes:}:}