bird avoidence

[Bird380]

Hello guys, any body who could tell me where i can get meterial for bird avoidence.:ugh:

[nitpicker330]

Turn on ya Landing Lights.
Possibly use Full thrust to give a better climb angle and thus reduce exposure time.

[bubbers44]

Keep a constant scan for birds visually. Tegucigalpa, Honduras has hundreds of turkey buzzards in the valley and the only way to avoid them is visually. Our airline had several 757's grounded there with bird strikes through the engine or caught in the LED causing damage. The Hudson river incident probably wouldn't have happened if one pilot was scanning for birds.

[Shekou2]

The Hudson river incident probably wouldn't have happened if one pilot was scanning for birds.

Are you for real:ugh:

[Green Guard]

he may not be real, but he is sooooo much RIGHT.


...and if nitpicker330 will ONLY look at his instruments with his Landing Lights ON and Full thust, will "Possibly" only attract insects, which in turn will atrract birds...

[lomapaseo]

I presume that you are flying a big aircraft with lots of mass and speed

At high speeds there aint much you can do in the air from the time you recognize birds until you hit one. Thankfully birds have more maneuverability. Take a look at the u-tub videos of a trainer hawk jet intersecting one.

The most effective avoidance is on the ground during taxi out. If you see birds in congregations on or near your runway, don't takeoff until they are cleared.

I'm not a fan of relying on paint schemes, radar, strobe lights or anything else not backed up by valid scientific data.

[bubbers44]

Most of the turkey buzzard we encountered in the valley in over 600 approaches to TGU were at 160 knots below 3,000 ft AGL. Yes, they can easily be avoided at that speed if you are scanning far enough ahead of the aircraft. If they get close enough to catch your attention without scanning farther out it is too late.

Our chief pilot grounded two 757's there probably because he was busy checking out another pilot and was distracted. After over 600 approaches there we got really good at missing multiple flocks and individual turkey buzzards. Once I was avoiding buzzards below 1,000 ft on approach and thought it would cause a go around but we were still able to land after clearing the birds. Maybe you can't avoid birds on approach with a large airliner but we had to to make a successful arrival and departure in and out of the valley.

[Dariuszw]

Here is what I would recommend:
　
Airports are responsible for bird control and must provide adequate bird scaring when necessary. This is also called the "Bird Control Program". Therefore, do not take off if birds are fouling the runway. Advise the tower and expect an airport action.

Switch on the aircraft lights up to 10000 feet at takeoff, and below 10000 feet at landing. It is assumed that lights provide an additional warning to the birds, and help them to localize the aircraft.

Flight crews must react immediately when a birdstrike occurs at takeoff, because there is no time left for analysis. Flight crews should be mentally prepared well before takeoff.

Using the weather radar to scare the birds has proved to be inefficient.

On short final, do not go around, if birds are encountered, but fly through the bird flock and land. Try to maintain a low thrust setting.

The use of reverse thrust on landing after a birdstrike should be avoided. It may increase engine damage, especially when engine vibration or high EGT are indicated.

I also know that there are websites for North America that follow bird migration and bird intensity displaying it on maps but you will have to do the homework Im going now to play with my FS4 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Ok, not to leave you hanging looking for good web sources here is one I like a lot: http://usahas.com/bam/ This is only for good old USofA ! :ok:

[nitpicker330]

Green guard:--- What are you smoking in India?????? For goodness sake please learn to write clearly so others may understand you.:=

Landing lights DO HELP the Birds to see and avoid the Aircraft, they have a much better chance of avoiding you at the last second via a quick manoeuvre than you do of them!!!

Besides there are other safety related reasons for using Landing Lights.

So until someone like NASA can positively confirm that Landing Lights make no difference I will keep using them.:ok:

[Canuckbirdstrike]

Darisuszw, may I suggest you do a little more research on the subject before making definitive recommendations on techniques for bird strike mitigation. Having worked in this area of flight safety for over 20 years and being an active airline pilot I have found that there are far too many "urban legends" about this subject than there are facts.

Bird380, the best single resource on the issue of bird and wildlife strikes is a book called "Sharing the Skies", published by Transport Canada, the Canadian regulatory authority. You can access this entire book online and download the chapters in PDF format. There are other good information sources, but this is the first place to start.

Here is the link for the book:

TP 13549 - Sharing the Skies - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp13549-menu-2163.htm)

Enjoy, if you have any questions as you read the book, post them here so all can share the knowledge.

[AC788]

"meterial" :ugh: "avoidence" :ugh:
Quote:
The Hudson river incident probably wouldn't have happened if one pilot was scanning for birds.
:ugh:

[Machinbird]

You guys can try to flame me if you want, but you generally can see large birds in time if weather and background permits.

Coming back to our base in South Texas at 250 knots with a wingman in parade position, I was able to pick out the circling turkey buzzards in front of us in time to gently maneuver away from the flocks. (Smaller birds aren't so critical)

To do this, you need to closely scrutinize the small spot on the windscreen that birds will be emanating from. You also need to have your cheaters working to best efficiency to maximum your ability to pick those little spots out of the background. Then you have to be ready to act instantaneously. Having to disengage an autopilot wastes valuable time.

That is my bird avoidance program. :} How you work this into your SOPs is your problem. And yes, I wouldn't take a runway that is bird contaminated already.

Whether or not Sully & Skiles could have seen them in time, I have no opinion. At this point in time it is ancient history.

[Canuckbirdstrike]

Machinbird, you are correct, with good local knowledge and practice you can and see large birds. I also agree with your comments about using common sense about using runways with known active bird problems, I would not either.

A little food for thought on small birds, they can be dangerous, not individually, but flocks of starlings have been very deadly.

As for the US1549 accident and the potential avoidance I am of the opinion that based on the aircraft attitude and bird direction it would have been very difficult to see the birds.

[Dariuszw]

Canuckbirdstrike,

Would be helpful not only to me but all the rest of people here if you disagreed with my post in referance to something....anything....:sad: and not just claim my post is stupid because you got 20 years in this business and even read a book. I might be just seventeen but until you got something to back it up ....like I do ;)....I suggest to chill. :cool:

[Lightning Mate]

I think the comments on landing lights are valid - they do help birds locate the aeroplane.

The other thing perhaps worth remembering is that when threatened, birds will instinctively go down and not up.

This is why the one which I collected in a very big way came from above me and I didn't see it, despite being an "eyeballs outside for 99% of the time" person.

......it's a long story........

[bubbers44]

Little emphasis is put on scanning for birds as an avoidance technique in todays training. I don't fault the Hudson crew for not seeing the birds at all. Dealing with so many of them on a daily basis I had to scan for them or suffer the consequences. Try it some time. First they appear as dots then rapidly get bigger. Use the old constant bearing, decreasing range technique to avoid them. Smooth changes will not alarm your passengers. I always got my FO involved too in case I missed one.

The only bird we hit in over 600 landings there it was the FO flying and at 500 ft on take off we both saw the turkey buzzard in our path following our turn so we reversed the turn and the buzzard did too. We reversed again and the buzzard followed. The FO said they always dive so we pulled up as much as we could and the buzzard did likewise. It hit above my windshield and deflected above us. We flew at a lower altitude to MIA in case it popped some rivets. Just a football size blood smear, no damage.

[de facto]

Little emphasis is put on scanning for birds as an avoidance technique in todays training.

But it resulted in..
.at 500 ft on take off we both saw the turkey buzzard in our path following our turn so we reversed the turn and the buzzard did too. We reversed again and the buzzard followed. The FO said they always dive so we pulled up as much as we could and the buzzard did likewise.

Nasty tricky bird wasnt it?:eek:
Cant do these maneuver in my jet...

We flew at a lower altitude to MIA in case it popped some rivets. Just a football size blood smear, no damage.


Expensive assumption..especially for a relatively low speed encounter...what aircraft are you on?

[bubbers44]

B 757. On a 2 hr flight it was only a few hundred pounds extra fuel burn to keep from going to max pressurization and possibly an explosive depressurization. The 757 is very maneuverable so the turns were easy. These turkey buzzards weigh from 5 to 8 lbs so can do a lot of damage even below 200 knots.

[Canuckbirdstrike]

Dariusz, sorry for the delayed reply I have been away working.

Sorry if you feel harshly treated, but your post contained sentences that were prescriptive in their structure and defined "actions" that are not entirely supported by the research, hence my reference to investigating further before posting.

So let's take a look at some of your statements:

Here is what I would provide as comment:
　
"Airports are responsible for bird control and must provide adequate bird scaring when necessary. This is also called the "Bird Control Program". Therefore, do not take off if birds are fouling the runway. Advise the tower and expect an airport action."

Bird "scaring" is only a limited portion of a wildlife management program and as for responsibility, that is a long and complex discussion that is dependent on where you are. The responsibility also ends at the airport boundary. Additionally the vast majority of airports in the world have limited or no bird control programs. Yes major airports in a number of countries do, but get into many parts of the world and they are non-existent. So expecting action may be a moot point.

Switch on the aircraft lights up to 10000 feet at takeoff, and below 10000 feet at landing. It is assumed that lights provide an additional warning to the birds, and help them to localize the aircraft.

This is good advice and it is more than an assumption.

Flight crews must react immediately when a birdstrike occurs at takeoff, because there is no time left for analysis. Flight crews should be mentally prepared well before takeoff.

A broad statement with no context. Mental preparation for any takeoff is an absolute must. Immediate reaction without analysis is a flawed concept. All of this depends on where an event occurs. At 80 knots, not a big deal, just prior to or after V1 is another story in an airline category aircraft, but the key is good decisions and precision handling.

Using the weather radar to scare the birds has proved to be inefficient.

An even stronger statement is required than "inefficient", completely useless would be better.

On short final, do not go around, if birds are encountered, but fly through the bird flock and land. Try to maintain a low thrust setting.

Again context is the issue here, what did you hit, what altitude are you at and perhaps a go-around to avoid hitting birds may be the correct decision.

The use of reverse thrust on landing after a birdstrike should be avoided. It may increase engine damage, especially when engine vibration or high EGT are indicated.

Again a directive sentence without context. Prescribing a requirement to not use reverse thrust may be placing the aircraft in more danger than using it following a bird strike. I also defy most pilots, myself included, to truly assess damage from a bird strike in this circumstance and make an informed decision on the use of reverse thrust. I would suggest that using idle reverse would be in order, that way the option of using more reverse is available AND there is no residual forward thrust from the engines.

You may not like the criticism of your comments, but this site, and particular page are viewed by many and your suggestions were at times incorrect.

[Airbus_a321]

have a nice AIRBUS Flight Operations Briefing Notes .pdf.
Unfortunately I don't know how to share this file with the pprune community. No idea how to put it in my reply.
Any ideas ?

[lomapaseo]

Canuckbirdstrike

...... So let's take a look at some of your statements:

Here is what I would provide as comment: .....



an excellent reply in a technical forum :ok:

It makes it much easier for the rest of us to sort out the pros & cons of the various opinions

[Canuckbirdstrike]

A321, the Airbus document and a similar Boeing document are very basic and quite generic.

My link to the Transport Canada document earlier in this thread is far more detailed. Use in combination with manufacturer's information you get a more rounded view.

Lomapaseo, thanks for the thumbs up. I am more than a little frustrated at times with the misleading material that can appear on this site, particularly about this subject.

The issue of bird and wildlife risk mitigation is complex and as an industry we have not been good at working with wildlife experts to compliment their activities and lower the risks.

There have been two very close calls in the last few years, aircraft were written off, but no one died. We may not be so lucky the next time.

[Escape Path]

Maybe I'm extremely over-simplifying things but I decided to do nothing against birds, at least not when the required manoeuvre would make my aircraft look like a fighter jet. Here's why:

A bird can weight anything from 6 to 12-ish pounds (maybe more, yes), my aircraft weights 12.500lbs at full load. You people in the heavyweights have bigger masses. So the bird is lighter, hence it can manoeuvre more easily and with less effort and in less time as well

One way or another a bird has been flying for millions of years, since it is evolution what has allowed it to fly the way it does, hence it's got millions of years of experience at flying. Us? Well, we've been flying for a bit over 100 years and we were not "designed" to fly anyway, so we're out of our environment when we are in the sky.

So, if you are in a position where an "extreme" or abrupt manoeuvre is required to ATTEMPT to avoid a bird you are the least likely to make the avoidance succeed, whereas the bird can just twist a wing a wee bit and they can fly towards their intended direction with a little help from it's survival instinct. Even so, the bird weights just a few pounds, not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the required effort for the bird is much much less than your effort required to steer the aircraft away from the bird.

Trying to fly away from the bird can have big chances of coming across something similar to this:

The only bird we hit in over 600 landings there it was the FO flying and at 500 ft on take off we both saw the turkey buzzard in our path following our turn so we reversed the turn and the buzzard did too. We reversed again and the buzzard followed. The FO said they always dive so we pulled up as much as we could and the buzzard did likewise

I find it similar to when a car is about to hit you while you're walking on the street; the driver knows he has to dodge you and (regularly) will try to do so and he decides early enough where does he wants to steer. However, if YOU then try to get out of danger by designing your own escape you create a bigger chance for you to be hit by the car. The solution? Stay still and let the driver follow through his manoeuvre. Same with the bird/aircraft scenario; too close to the bird? Don't move, let it dodge you instead of you dodging the bird.

I agree, though, with avoiding the spot where the flock is if you have spotted the flock with sufficient time and distance to do so without a fighter jet-type manoeuvre. If the required manoeuvre is such that it would make you look all Top Gun, you're too close now and you should let the bird dodge you.

[Bahrd]

Thank you all for a very informative thread.
I would like to ask about a somehow related issue: the small balloons with cameras.
This hobby has became popular recently and I wonder to what extent it is safe?
See e.g. the video: The Stratos-Sphere Project : making-of on Vimeo.
In particular, look at:

2:32 - to asses the size of the balloon, and
3:52 - to note the proximity of the plane.

Is it really scary, or am I a paranoid?

[bubbers44]

EP I guess I didn't explain well enough my gentle banks of 10 to 15 degrees didn't resemble F18 evasive tactics. I never had a passenger complain when I was maneuvering around turkey buzzards that if I hadn't used visual avoidance of their multiple flocks would have I am sure had multiple groundings of our 757. You just have to look far in front of you to make it gentle maneuvers. Your battering ram approach of your mass is bigger so why not fly through the flock is flawed. A simple maneuver of not over 15 degrees of bank will easily avoid the problem.

[bubbers44]

Sully, do you have any input on this as far as let the birds do the deviating?

[Machinbird]

I would like to ask about a somehow related issue: the small balloons with cameras.
This hobby has became popular recently and I wonder to what extent it is safe?Not particularly safe at all. It is a big sky, but the payload looks to be large and dense enough to damage an engine/or dent an airframe.

If this is not using a transponder to report its presence, air traffic control would have issues with it. Is it insured against damage to others? The participants might be getting a knock on the door from the government when they realize just what is going on.

[Escape Path]

EP I guess I didn't explain well enough my gentle banks of 10 to 15 degrees didn't resemble F18 evasive tactics. I never had a passenger complain when I was maneuvering around turkey buzzards that if I hadn't used visual avoidance of their multiple flocks would have I am sure had multiple groundings of our 757. You just have to look far in front of you to make it gentle maneuvers. Your battering ram approach of your mass is bigger so why not fly through the flock is flawed. A simple maneuver of not over 15 degrees of bank will easily avoid the problem.

I actually agree with you. What I said was IF you can avoid the bird(s) by doing gentle manoeuvres, such as what you describe, and by looking out far ahead enough, that's the way to do it. What I meant though, was that I've seen pilots that notice birds when they are too close already and then try to somehow miss them by making turns that would make a F-22 look rubbish. It's too late now and by that moment, you should let the bird avoid you instead of the other way around, given that the bird can change flight path more rapidly than you can.