bird avoidence
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
SOP Bird Avoidance
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris, London and New York
Age: 29
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 !
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
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 !
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Enjoy, if you have any questions as you read the book, post them here so all can share the knowledge.
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
Enjoy, if you have any questions as you read the book, post them here so all can share the knowledge.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris, London and New York
Age: 29
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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. 
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....
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.
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........
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........
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little emphasis is put on scanning for birds as an avoidance technique in todays training.
.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?