Meet the 'Bird Man' of Sea-Tac
www.komotv.com
Feb 13, 2008
SEA-TAC AIRPORT -- Nine times out of 10, when a plane hits a bird, the
aircraft lands without a problem.
But who wants to be in that 10th plane?
"The (birds) can become ingested into engines and it can cause engine
failure, and even worse, the plane could end up crashing," said Steve Osmek.
His job is to make Sea-Tac Airport unwelcome to animals.
He took KOMO 4 News onto runways and other restricted-access areas to show
us first-hand how he keeps airline passengers safe.
"Here we got ring-neck ducks, those are the ones up front," he said pointing
to a pond near the airport.
Osmek and his team harass, trap, and re-locate birds that get too close to
the runways.
High-tech is part of the arsenal.
"It's a green laser," he said, showing off one item. The beam won't hurt the
birds, just frighten them. But this time, the birds don't flinch.
"We're going to ramp up the efforts and go to a pyrotechnic," he said.
Next, he tries firing a shotgun to scare the birds away. Screamers and
bangers do the job too, but before long, the birds will return.
Bird-strikes cause $300 million in damage every year at U.S. airports alone.
Some 163 aircraft have been destroyed in the past 20 years. And worldwide,
nearly 200 people have died from bird-related crashes.
Birds can do anything from shatter windshields to crumble jet engines.
Jack Bettesworth, another member of Osmek's team, showed a male Merlin they
had trapped. Those birds hunt smaller birds.
"If it were to chase a small bird across a runway in front of a jet, it
could very easily be a bird air-strike," Bettesworth said.
This bird will be taken to the north-end of the state. The team has
relocated 165 raptors since 2001 -- all for their own safety.
"I think fairly small birds can do significant damage," he said.
It's not so much the size of the bird, but the speed of the aircraft that
causes the problem if the two collide. It can turn a hawk, or even a tiny
starling, into a feathered bullet.
A few birds are allowed to stay. Six pairs of red-tail hawks know to stay
clear of runways. But some birds never learn.
"The gulls are probably the most problematic birds because they get hit so
often," Osmek said.
As airline travel continues to grow, it becomes clear Osmek's work makes all
the difference.
"I think having a biologist at an airport today is more important than
probably ever before," he said.
We're just six weeks into the new year, and a bird strike has already caused
one precautionary landing at Sea-Tac. Last year, there were two bird-related
incidents.
South African Passenger Planes Turn Back After Midair Hiccups
By the Daily Dispatch Online
January 31, 2008
A Kulula.com passenger aircraft was forced to turn back after a bird flew
TWO passenger aircraft had to turn back to their take-off points yesterday, after a bird flew into the engine of the first aircraft and a false alarm resulted in the second having to return to OR Tambo International.
In the first incident, involving a Kulula.com passenger plane, the aircraft was forced to turn back after a bird flew into an engine during a flight from Durban to Cape Town. Airline spokesperson Glenda Zvenyika said a “bird strike” occurred on flight MN702, 15 minutes after taking off from Durban Airport. The captain was forced to shut down the engine that was hit by the bird. The Boeing 737, which was carrying a crew of six and 130 passengers, landed safely at Durban Airport after circling overhead to burn off excess fuel.
Zvenyika said a standby plane was sent from Johannesburg to pick up the affected passengers.
The KwaZulu-Natal provincial Emergency Medical Rescue Services reported that none of the crew or passengers was injured.
In the second incident, a South African Express flight returned to OR Tambo International Airport 20 minutes after departing for Bloemfontein. However, a smoke alarm that was set off in the aircraft proved to be a false alarm.
“This was a false alarm that could be attributed to a cellular phone that was not switched off after being placed in the baggage compartment,” said SA Express spokesperson Dileseng Koetle.
The aircraft left Johannesburg at 7.30am yesterday and as a safety precaution returned to the airport after the alarm was activated.
All passengers were asked to disembark for a cabin and luggage inspection.
Koetle refuted earlier reports that smoke was seen in the cabin and that the captain of the aircraft had carried out an emergency landing. The crew elected to return to base as a safety precaution, she said. “To avoid a recurrence of this scenario, we urge our passengers to comply and turn off their mobile phones when travelling.”
Technicians found no fault with the aircraft, which departed about an hour after the scheduled time, said Koetle. — Sapa
Navy Abandons Debated OLF Sites
By Elliott West, Raleigh [NC] Chronicle City Editor
January 22, 2008
HYDE COUNTY, NC - A controversial 30,000 acre site in eastern North Carolina
next to a wildlife area that was to become a proposed Navy landing field has
now been removed from consideration, says the Navy.
The US Navy made the announcement today in a statement to the media from the
Department of the Navy.
The proposed Outlying Landing Field (OLF) was to be used by F-18 Hornet jet
pilots as a practice landing area to simulate aircraft carrier landings. The
OLF will still be built, but the Navy said it has eliminated several sites
that were opposed by many North Carolina factions for a variety of
environmental reasons.
"The five sites analyzed in the draft...environmental impact statement
(Bertie, Craven, Hyde, Perquimans, and Washington/Beaufort Counties, NC) are
no longer under consideration as potential OLF sites," said the Navy in a
press release today from the Department of the Navy in Washington DC.
One particular site in eastern North Carolina on the coast near Albemarle
Sound drew considerable opposition because it was adjacent to the Pocosin
wildlife area where a large number of migratory waterfowl are protected.
In addition, many were concerned about bird-strike problems, which could
pose dangers for pilots flying through the area. Many spoke out against the
OLF sites in eastern North Carolina near wildlife areas, from NC Governor
Mike Easley, a Democrat, to US Senator Elizabeth Dole, a Republican. Other
groups including wildlife and activist groups also opposed the OLF on
similar grounds.
In addition, the NC Department of Agriculture decried the loss of thousands
of acres of valuable farmland.
The Navy says that it is still looking at some other sites in North Carolina
and Virginia, albeit less controversial.
According to the statement, three of the proposed sites were already being
considered. The three previous sites are in Virginia and two new ones are in
North Carolina.
The sites in North Carolina include a site near Hale's Lake located in rural
Camden and Currituck Counties in the northwest part of the state. The Hale's
Lake area would be next to the Blackwater private military force compound
and their own Blackwater private airstrip.
The other North Carolina site is one called "Sandbanks" in Gates County, to
the west of the Hale's Lake site. Of those two sites in North Carolina, the
Hale's Lake site is a more likely candidate since it is closer to the Naval
bases in the Norfolk area.
The process will begin again on the site selection process as there will be
another series of public hearings on the environmental impacts of each site
in March or April of this year.
After butting heads with local politicians in North Carolina over the
previous OLF sites, the Navy seemed to try and strike a conciliatory tone in
regards to the selection of a final OLF landing field area.
"Throughout this process, the Navy will continue to work closely with the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of North Carolina on the new sites
and the Congress on this matter," said the Navy.
"The Navy believes that by working with state and local officials, we can
understand their perspective on the issues and seek common ground on ways to
mitigate impacts and identify potential benefits."
DuPage [IL] Airport Takes Strides to Scare Ducks
By Dan Petrella, dpetrella@mysuburbanlife.com, GateHouse News Service
January 16, 2008
West Chicago, IL -
A duck or a goose may seem like no match for even a small airplane, but the
DuPage Airport takes special steps to prevent planes from striking
waterfowl.
The concern is as much about the safety of pilots and passengers as it is
about protecting wildlife. Plane collisions with birds and other wildlife
cause about $600 million in damage each year to civilian and military
aircraft, according to Bird Strike Committee USA, which is comprised of
representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Defense Department and the aviation industry.
While pilots taking off from DuPage Airport in West Chicago occasionally
strike ducks or other birds, the airport has never had any major accidents
resulting from the strikes.
It uses special tactics to make sure the risk for such incidents is kept to
a minimum.
You cant stop them from flying through the area, said Mark Doles, director
of operations and planning at the airport. What you can do is make it
uncomfortable for them to stay here.
The airport has special permits from the USDA that allow it to harass ducks,
geese and other fowl on the property. Doles said propane cannons and devices
similar to fireworks are used to scare the birds away with loud noise and
bright flashes.
The DuPage area is part of the Mississippi Flyway, one of four major
migratory paths for birds in the U.S. During September and October and again
in March and April, the area sees a large number of mallard ducks and Canada
geese, said Scott Meister, an ecologist specializing in birds with the
Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.
Mallards are dabblers, a classification of ducks attracted to shallow water
with vegetation where invertebrates can prosper, Meister said. The ducks dip
their heads into the water to eat the plants and invertebrates.
Such shallow ponds can be found near the airport runways at the nearby
Prairie Landing Golf Course and DuPage National Technology Park.
Report Abuse
As an employee of Bird-X, Inc. (www.bird-x.com) we've generally found that
bird exclusion methods like propane cannons and fireworks offer only
temporary results (basically birds scatter when the noise occurs and return
afterwards). It would be better to use a long-term solution that offers
continuous support. Remember that even if you get rid of the current birds,
others will fill in if there is no sustainable alteration to the environment
which makes it unnappealing. Still, I applaud Dupage Airport's efforts to
use cruelty free methods to encourage the birds to move elsewhere where they
won't be in danger of a bird strike. I hope for the birds' sake that their
strategies work.
Identifying Birds Means Solving Mysteries
By Jessica Wehrman, Dayton Daily News
January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — In a massive room filled floor-to-ceiling with some 650,000 preserved bird carcasses, Marcy Heacker-Skeans and two other researchers spend their days matching feathers in hopes of preventing one of the deadliest threats to U.S. Air Force aircraft — birds.
Even a small bird in the engine can be deadly, and Air Force lore includes tales of bird-aircraft collisions that ended in tragedy. One of the most tragic: In September 1995, 24 U.S. and Canadian airmen died after an Air Force AWACS over Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska collided with a flock of Canada geese. Heacker-Skeans, a 1982 Northmont High School graduate, started working as a volunteer at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's Feather Identification Lab in 1996, then was hired full-time in 2000. In something of a ornithological version of the crime show "CSI," she matches the feathers and bird detritus scraped off of military and civilian aircraft to feathers from the Smithsonian's massive collection.
Heacker-Skeans, armed with her "Sibley Guide to Birds" and using the carcasses of birds preserved as early as 1860s, figures out the "who" of the puzzle — what type of bird collided with an aircraft. The military provides the "when" and the "where," in reports that accompany the Ziploc baggies of bird feathers and body parts.
By finding out which birds collided with which planes in which circumstances, Heacker-Skeans can give wildlife biologists at air fields crucial information that they can use to prevent it from happening again.
The Air Force, which helps fund the Feather Identification Lab, requires its airmen to record all known bird strikes, and the data collected by the lab is used for complex computer programs that project the risk of bird strikes.
In 2003, the FAA began kicking in money as well. It paid for a geneticist, Nancy Rotzel, who helps identify bird remains too minuscule to be determined through the traditional method of matching feathers.
Bird strikes are as old as flight itself — the first bird strike was recorded by Wilbur and Orville Wright — but the Smithsonian didn't get involved until 1960, when ornithologist Roxie Collie Laybourne, first identified a flock of European starlings as the cause of a fatal airplane crash at Boston's Logan International Airport. Laybourne, who died in 2003 at the age of 93, was a pioneer in the field and served as a mentor to Heacker-Skeans.
Heacker-Skeans got her job in part through will, in part through providence. She moved to Washington in 1994 when her husband, Ron Skeans, a Dayton native and 1983 Meadowdale High School graduate, took a position as a videographer and editor for a company working with the BBC. Heacker-Skeans had been a vet tech, but was in the market for a new career. After a few jobs — real estate, a college admissions office — she went back to school. Asked by her college adviser what she wanted to do, she blurted out her best-case scenario: working in wildlife forensics.
Not long after that, she approached fellow wildlife forensics expert Carla Dove — who today is her boss — giving a presentation in the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. She volunteered for four years, then was hired full-time as a research assistant.
The job, she said, is "everything I ever wanted — the chance to play detective but also work with wildlife."
It's a logical occupation for a woman who, as a small child, prided herself in identifying dog breeds based on the dogs she saw in her neighborhood.
But the work isn't strictly cold science. Occasionally, she'll get a case that eats at her — a life lost, a hair-raising accident or the thought that her evidence bag came from a war zone.
"Every case is a little mystery to solve," she said.
Bird Strike Risk a Major Hazard for Lydd Airport Expansion
Wildlifeextra.com
January 14, 2008
A new report, commissioned by the RSPB, warns that expansion of tiny Lydd Airport in south-east Kent could create a serious bird strike risk to passenger aircraft. The assessment, written by Professor Chris Feare, a bird management expert, describes the site where airport operators want to extend the runway and rebuild the terminal as ‘extremely hazardous’ likening it to the abandoned plan to build an airport at nearby Cliffe Marshes, another magnet for thousands of birds.
View showing expanse of semi-vegitated shingle, Dungeness RSPB reserve, Kent. © Ben Hall (rspb-images.com)
Professor Feare was to assess Lydd’s Bird Hazard Control Plan because the charity’s 1,000-acre Dungeness reserve is next to the airport. Dungeness is the RSPB’s oldest reserve and it’s largest in the south-east. The reserve and surrounding area hosts up to 120,000 birds in winter and the site itself attracts more than 60 breeding species in summer.
Inadequate Knowledge
In his report, Professor Feare says Lydd’s plan to reduce the bird strike threat is vague and inadequately considered, and that pilots may need considerable flexibility to avoid putting their flights in danger.
He says detailed studies of bird migration patterns in spring and autumn would be vital together with research on the altitudes at which different species fly.
Radar System
A radar system, such as that used at RAF Kinloss and La Mercy Airport in South Africa, is a ‘basic requirement’ at Lydd, Professor Feare adds.
He warns: ‘It is…remarkable that such an airport development is being considered in an area where such an abundance of wildlife already exists and receives legal protection, especially as the birds that are numerous in the area include most of the species that are perceived as especially hazardous to air safety in the UK.
Wigeon Anas penelope. © Sue Tranter (rspb-images.com)
‘Much more detail is needed to convince a reader that bird hazard management is being given the priority that it warrants at this site.’
Professor Feare has recommended measures the airport should take to minimise risk, such as netting ponds and lakes, and preventing birds nesting in aircraft hangers and on roofs. He highlights Lydd’s failure to properly address these issues and warns that bird-scaring staff will have to be thoroughly trained and never diverted from their tasks.
Potential Damage to RSPB Reserve
Only light aircraft and small executive jets currently use Lydd and the RSPB has campaigned against the airport’s expansion plans because of the damage extra, larger planes could do to birds and other wildlife at Dungeness.
Experts anticipate considerable disturbance to birds flying to and from feeding and roosting sites and harm to rare plants and insects from higher emissions of pollutants. The RSPB also believes plans for improving existing habitats and creating new wildlife sites would be jeopardized because the airport could object.
Shepway District Council will vote on whether to sanction expansion at Lydd at a special meeting on January 30.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the RSPB, said: ‘The threat posed by so many birds sharing airspace with such large planes is so great it makes the expansion plan utterly irresponsible. Dungeness is one of the UK’s most important sites for wild birds and other wildlife and it is absurd even to contemplate enlarging an airport next to it.’
Italian Judge Grounds AMX Fleet
By Tom Kington, DefenseNews.com
January 11, 2008
ROME — Italy’s active fleet of 70 AMX fighter-bomber aircraft has been grounded by a judge as part of an investigation into a 2005 crash reportedly prompted by a canopy defect.
The indefinite grounding of the fleet will continue as experts appointed by the Sardinia-based magistrate who requested the grounding push on with their investigation of the crash, although the Italian Air Force has already disputed some statistics on AMX accident rates given by the magistrate.
Prosecutor Giancarlo Moi has been probing the Oct. 20, 2005, crash of an AMX near Decimomannu in Sardinia. After the opening of the canopy in midflight, pilot Alberto Faccini was able to aim the AMX away from populated areas and at a deserted field before ejecting to safety.
In July 2006, as part of the investigation, Air Force police officials sequestered technical documents about the canopy from canopy manufacturer Aermacchi, the jet-trainer maker and unit of Finmeccanica.
“There are elements suggesting that the AMX fighters are dangerous and therefore not suitable for flight,” Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera quoted investigators saying. “The investigation continues, and we have asked for all aircraft to be grounded so that all can be checked.”
The investigators were quoted saying that the canopy fault had provoked the crash of “tens” of fighters and the death of 14 pilots, but the Air Force immediately issued a statement saying that 12 AMX fighters had been lost during a total 160,000 fleet flying hours, with the loss of five pilots. Only one aircraft loss — the 2005 crash now being investigated — involved the canopy opening, the Air Force said.
The Italian Air Force has previously grounded the fleet to resolve engine problems.
In September 2007, an AMX from the 32nd squadron at Amendola crashed during a training flight in Poland because of a bird strike. Two pilots, one Italian and one Polish, ejected safely.
An Air Force official said AMX crash rates were not higher than other NATO strike aircraft — 0.75 aircraft losses for 10,000 flight hours. That compared to 0.81 for French Jaguars, 0.62 for British Royal Air Force Jaguars, 1.2 for British Harriers and 1.02 for leased Italian F-16s.
Lower loss rates have been incurred by Italian Tornadoes and Italian MB339 aircraft, with 0.4 for both, he added.
Co-built by Italy’s Alenia Aeronautica and Brazil’s Embraer, the AMX was first delivered to the Italian Air Force in 1989. Of the 136 acquired, 12 have crashed and 54 are out of service or being retired from service, leaving an active fleet of 70 aircraft, which Italy plans to replace with the Joint Strike Fighter.
Italy flew the aircraft in missions during the Kosovo war. Military planners then eyed a possible deployment in Afghanistan, but the idea was scotched by resistance from left-wing parties within the Italian government.
The bulk of the active fleet has recently been involved in an upgrade program involving firms such as Finmeccanica unit Galileo Avionica, with the first completed aircraft appearing at last year’s Paris Air Show.
GPS navigation, Joint Direct Attack Munition armaments, improved communications and identification-friend-or-foe capabilities are being been added, while head-up capabilities have been enhanced. A crash recorder has also been added, as have precision approach capability and digital mapping.
Of the first 52 to be upgraded, 42 are single-seaters that will also get night-vision goggle capability.
The Air Force official said the upgrade also includes an audio warning to pilots should the canopy of the aircraft become loose.
Airport 'At Risk of Bird-Strike'
BBC News, UK
January 10, 2008
Dungeness has tens of thousands of birds, the RSPB has said
Expanding an airport next to a Kent nature reserve which is a magnet for
tens of thousands of birds could put flights in danger, a report has said.
The study by a Leeds University professor was commissioned by the RSPB,
which is opposing the expansion of London Ashford Airport (LAA) in Lydd.
Professor Chris Feare was asked to look at bird-hazard control at the
airport.
But LAA chief Zaher Deir said it had been proven birds and aviation could
co-exist in the same surroundings.
Plan 'non-starter'
Professor Feare's report said the proposals for an extended runway and new
passenger terminal could pose an "extremely hazardous" bird-strike threat.
And he said pilots may need to exercise considerable flexibility to avoid
putting their flights in danger.
He recommended measures to be taken at the airport to minimise risk, such as
netting ponds and lakes, and preventing birds nesting in aircraft hangars
and on roofs.
Airport planners want a longer runway and new terminal building
RSPB chief Graham Wynne said the report proved expansion was "a
non-starter".
He said the 75-year-old, 1,000-acre Dungeness reserve had up to 120,000
birds in the winter, and more than 60 breeding species in the summer.
Concerns raised by the RSPB are that larger planes could harm birds and
other wildlife, with disturbance and pollution.
Mr Deir said: "It is not the number of passengers that matters, it is the
effective management of bird-control systems around any airport that really
counts."
He said the findings of three bird surveys had been submitted to Shepway
Council, which will consider the plans this month.
Bird Strike on Two Engines Brought Down AN-12
at Moscow [7 Killed]
By David Kaminski-Morrow, Air Transport
Intelligence News
December 19, 2007
Bird strikes on the starboard engines of a Russian-operated Antonov An-12
freighter caused the aircraft to lose control and crash just seconds after
it took off from Moscow Domodedovo Airport earlier this year.
Russias Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) says the bird impact took place
at a height of 70-75m (230-245ft), while the aircraft was travelling at
160kt, and caused the virtually simultaneous shut-down of both engines on
the right wing.
Investigators are recommending improvement of information transfer between
air traffic control and the airport division responsible for monitoring bird
activity.
The aircraft, operated by Moscow-based Atran, was conducting flight 9655
from Moscow to Komsomolsk-on-Amur via Omsk and Bratsk with a shipment of
aviation fittings bound for the KnAAPO aircraft production plant.
Owing to the destruction of the flight-data recorder by fire, MAK has
derived its conclusions largely from the cockpit-voice recorder, radar
information and the testimony of witnesses to the 29 July accident.
Although the An-12 was departing in early-morning darkness, Domodedovos
automatic terminal information service included a cautionary statement
regarding birds albeit for runway 32R rather than the An-12s departure
runway 32C. Such bird warnings were usually included in the ATIS information
as a matter of course, says MAK, adding that the reports did not reflect the
reality of the ornithological situation.
It states that visual monitoring of birds, given the time of night, would
have been almost impossible. However the cockpit-voice recorder indicates
that the crew commented on the presence of birds.
The crew started the four Ivchenko AI-20 engines at 04:01 and made no
comments about the functioning of the An-12s systems. MAK says the aircraft
was within weight and balance limits.
Controllers cleared the aircraft to take off and, after rotating, the
aircraft climbed normally for a few seconds. But about 15s after lift-off,
with the An-12 just 300m past the end of the runway, the CVR recorded a
sound similar to a compressor stall. One of the crew members stated that the
outboard starboard engine had failed before a second engine, the starboard
inboard, also stopped operating.
MAK investigators discovered small parts of organic origin as well as
feathers in the exhaust ducts of the two starboard engines.
It says the engines were hit by at least two birds large enough to stop the
powerplants operating. The flight operations manual of the An-12, it adds,
does not contain recommendations to the crew for controlling the aircraft
after simultaneous loss of both engines on the same side during take-off.
The pilots battled to keep the aircraft airborne as it lost height but about
a minute after the engine loss, with the An-12 in a right bank of more than
100, the aircraft struck trees and disintegrated killing all seven
occupants.
MAK highlights three other instances in which An-12s have crash-landed after
encountering birds immediately after take-off.
In August 1993 an An-12 departing Slavgorod in Russia came down when a bird
strike caused two engines, one on each side, to fail, while in June 2004 a
Sudanese Sarit Airlines An-12 lost both starboard engines on departure from
Wau in southern Sudan. In March last year an Armenian Phoenix Avia An-12
lost three engines at Payam in Iran.
MAK says these aircraft were able to retain a degree of control long enough
to attempt a landing because they were flying at a lower height and in
conditions of better visibility. But the Atran crew had little opportunity
to do the same owing to the darkness and the onset of fog.
Investigators are also recommending that Antonov and associated institutes
consider developing a procedure for crews in the event of simultaneous
shut-down of two same-side engines on the An-12.
* Source: flightglobal.com's sister premium news service Air Transport
Intelligence news
Arik Air [Nigeria] Suffers Operational Difficulties
by Shakirat Abulmajeed, Daily Trust (Abuja)
December 17, 2007
Flight operations of Arik Air have been disrupted
when the airliner grounded two aircraft in its fleet following damages
recorded on Wednesday and Thursday.
Arik Air Media Officer, Adebanji ola said two operational aircraft belonging
to the airliner were damaged: one by a bird strike, the other by a truck
belonging to a service provider.
He said the airliner's Boeing 737-300 aircraft on a scheduled flight from
Calabar to Lagos was struck by a bird at the Calabar Airport on Wednesday,
thereby causing a splash on the nose of the aircraft.
According to him, though the damage was not severe, Arik Air has decided to
ground the aircraft because of its adherence to high level safety standards
and to allow international experts being called in to assess the extent of
damage and carry out the necessary repairs with minimum disruption to its
scheduled flights.
He noted that on Thursday, at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport,
Abuja, one of the airliner's latest acquisitions, a brand new Boeing
737-700NG which arrived from the Boeing Corporation in Seattle, U.S.A. only
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, had its rear service door damaged by a truck
belonging to a service provider.
The grounding of the two aircraft will affect the flight operations of the
airliner.
Arik Air is therefore appealing to its esteemed guests to bear with it for
the disruptions the two incidents may cause to its operations.
Arik Air's Managing Director, Michael McTighe commented on the incidents,
"we sincerely plead with our valued guests to please bear with us as we take
steps to rectify whatever disruption the incidents would cause to our
operations.
"We remain resolute in our commitment to develop new routes and bring air
travel to the doorstep of majority of Nigerians as we deploy additional
aircraft to ensure that Nigerians have a safe, reliable and comfortable
flight this festive season."
Strength in Numbers Powers an Airborne
Invasion
by Beth Casper, Statesman Journal (OR)
December 16, 2007
Big full blueberries hung from the branches of farmer Doug Krahmer's bushes
in June.
They weren't quite blue yet, still clinging to the greenery of spring.
Safe for another week or so -- not from the hands of harvesters, but from
the beaks of birds.
"Until the fruit turns blue, they won't bother us," Krahmer said.
The 6 acres of blueberries in St. Paul are threatened by thousands of
European starlings hungry for the taste of ripe fruit.
Sure, most birds will eat berries when given the chance. The yellow finches
even cause more damage per bird than starlings, Krahmer said.
But what starlings have on every other species is sheer numbers.
"There are thousands of them out in this field at one time," he said.
In addition to their numbers, invasive starlings rely on their smarts and
their ability to adjust to almost any habitat to take over an area.
Their effects can be seen in all sorts of places. Flocks of starlings get in
the way of airplanes, take up cavities that native birds need to nest and
leave plenty of potentially contaminated waste wherever they land.
Their effects can be felt in the pocketbook as well. The birds are
responsible for costing a local dairy farmer $100 per day in cattle feed,
the Portland airport hundreds of thousands of dollars in keeping the birds
away from traveling passengers and Krahmer $10,000 per year to scare them
off his blueberry fields.
It's an issue without a good answer: Starlings can't be eradicated and can
only be controlled with a sustained effort and multiple strategies.
For his part, Krahmer employs propane guns, shiny, crinkly ribbon and stereo
sounds to keep the birds away -- even if it is for just seconds at a time.
"What we are trying to do is keep them disrupted so they stay off the
fruit," Krahmer said. "It's not that they pick up and leave, but they are
disrupted enough and uncomfortable enough that they stop feeding."
A Central Park start
From 100 birds released into Central Park in New York in the early 1890s to
more than 200 million across North America today, European starlings are the
epitome of a successful invasive species.
It all started with Shakespeare, who mentioned starlings in "King Henry IV."
A society dedicated to introducing to America all of the species mentioned
in the works of Shakespeare brought the starling to New York, according to
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
Within 50 years, the birds had reached California and had spanned the
country from Alaska to southern Florida.
The first time they were noticed in Oregon was 1943.
Now, the starling is one of the most abundant species of birds in North
America. In fact, the North American population makes up one-third of the
world's total population of starlings.
Airport aviators
Not only do starlings have the numbers to be a nuisance, their social
behavior compounds the problem.
Starlings flock. Their flocks can be huge. Researchers estimated one flock
at a central Kansas feedlot at 300,000 birds.
"The traditional theory is that it provides them with protection from
predators, and they can learn where foraging sites are, or there are
possibly thermal benefits," said Michael Green, regional land bird biologist
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Starlings are famous for it -- they
form huge (flocks)."
Huge flocks can cause huge problems at an airport.
Birds can get caught in engines, go through airplane windshields or cause
damage to the aircraft during takeoff.
"More damage occurs to aircraft by bird collisions during departure because
the plane is moving much faster than when landing," said Nick Atwell, the
aviation wildlife manager for the Port of Portland.
The worst documented bird strike happened when European starlings were
caught in all four engines of a plane taking off at a Boston airport in
1960. The plane crashed into Boston Harbor, killing 62 people.
But fatal crashes because of bird strikes are rare.
In the past 10 years at the Portland International Airport, more than a
million starlings have been seen on or near the Portland airfield, Atwell
said. Starlings have been involved in 28 collisions with aircraft, and only
two of those incidences resulted in damage to the aircraft, Atwell said.
Airport staff members also have to deal with nuisance issues.
Birds roosting under the glass canopy that covers the area from the Portland
terminal to the garage dropped fecal matter on traveling passengers.
Portland International Airport spent $500,000 to install 200,000 square feet
of netting to keep the birds -- and their droppings -- away.
To keep the birds away from the most dangerous areas, port staff draw
starlings away from the airfield and trap the birds. Close to 31,500
starlings have been euthanized at the airport, and many are sent to nearby
colleges for science classes.
The starlings are also hazed away from the airfield with a gun that makes
loud noises and screams.
Farmers' fiend
Farmers might rate starlings as their most annoying and destructive pest.
Justin Stevenson of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services
has seen 40,000 to 50,000 starlings in one dairy barn. Each of those birds
needs to eat half its body weight every day. The birds weigh between 2.12
and 3.39 ounces.
"The biggest problem that (farmers) see is a loss of grain," Stevenson said.
"As corn (prices) have gone up, farmers are stressed to the point where
every dollar and nickel matters."
At Jim Zielinski's barn in St. Paul, starlings number close to 10,000 birds
in the winter. But the problems are just as severe.
"Starlings just really enjoy living here because it is easy eating,"
Zielinski said. "The feed comes twice a day. They just follow the feed
wagon, and it's free food."
Starlings stand in the feed, oblivious to the cow tongues dipping into the
same food next to them. The birds cost Zielinski $100 per day in loss of
feed in the winter, he said.
"The starlings are only interested in eating the corn and the grain out of
the feed. They don't eat the hay or the silage stocks," Zielinski said.
"They are after the choice parts. So when you pull that out of the cow's
diet, consequently you get less milk."
The birds also leave droppings in the barn, making more work for dairy
farmers having to clean up after them.
"Bird droppings are very corrosive," he said. "You look at the walls in here
and you can see they are pretty well covered. The cement is covered, and it
is just a real problem."
Problems for one dairy farmer are usually problems for a nearby dairy farmer
as well. Starlings tend to spread their activities out across barns --
making it hard for one farmer to tackle the problem alone. Still, Stevenson
helps farmers by using a federally licensed bird pesticide to kill large
numbers of starlings at once.
"We've been trying to develop strategies to show folks that starlings on
Dairy A during the day are roosting at night on Dairy D," Stevenson said.
"We want to get the berry and dairy industry and other livestock-producing
folks to address this as a regional effort.
"You can't keep a highly prolific species down or reduce it or eradicate it
without a year-round approach that does not back off and uses as many tools
as possible."
Nest hogs
Native birds aren't fortunate enough to have ways of keeping starling
populations away.
Starlings nest in cavities -- such as holes in trees -- and high numbers of
starlings can take up all of the best nest spots. That leaves native birds,
such as tree swallows, mountain bluebirds, white-breasted nuthatches and
others without a home.
"Because (starlings) are so aggressive, they can get what they want," said
Kathryn Purcell, research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Forest Service's
Pacific Southwest Research Station in Fresno, Calif. "They see certain
cavities as optimal, and they will get what they want."
Starlings have removed eggs from other birds' nests, pushed native birds out
of nests and usurped all of the spaces in an area for nesting.
Scientists have documented aggressive behavior between species. Starlings
usually win because they are larger.
Researchers suspect that native species populations suffer when starlings
are around, but it has been hard to prove because of other factors, such as
habitat loss.
"A lot of these (native) species are habitat-deficient already -- the oak
woodlands are decimated in the Willamete Valley, and we have fewer snags for
cavities as well," Sallinger said. "Aggressive prolific invasive species and
habitat loss is a lethal combination for the cavity nesters."
Starlings have the advantage of being flexible -- establishing themselves in
a variety of different habitats, both urban and rural.
"They are definitely more concentrated in man-affected environments -- not
necessarily urban areas, also rural and agricultural areas," said Green of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "They nest in association with
buildings, basically anywhere they can find a hole."
Putting up nest boxes with smaller openings can help native birds and keep
starlings out.
But for all their problems, starlings have a positive side.
Their invasiveness is a boon to bird scientists who have to deal with
multiple federal and state regulations in order to handle most other birds.
"The fact that they are so common and unregulated in terms of protections
means you can study them and learn a lot about bird behavior and endocrine
systems," Green said. "People have found out all sorts of things about birds
by studying starlings."
Purcell said that if it weren't for their commonness, people would be
thrilled to see a starling.
"Apparently, starlings have been caged birds in Europe," she said.
"Starlings have a lot of personality. They can learn to mimic sounds, and
they can be really fun to have around. We can't just picture them as
completely evil birds."
bcasper@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6994
More than 20 Incidents at Gibraltar Airport
Panarama, United Kingdom
December 7, 2007
There have been more than 20 mandatory occurrences reports about incidents
at Gibraltar Airport in the first ten months of this year.
The latest incident, at the end of October, was when a Monarch aircraft
entered the runway without clearance. The fault was admitted by the aircraft
crew, and a review of the taxiway marking has been initiated.
The year started with another Monarch flight being affected when a vehicle
entered the runway without clearance whilst the aircraft was taxiing. The
driver was re-briefed on airfield driving procedures.
Also that same month an Iberia aircraft experienced a bird strike after
take-off, the aircraft having to divert to Malaga for inspection.
Then, in April, Gibraltar's primary radar failed as a GB airways aircraft
was being vectored for approach. The aircraft had to continue its approach
visually. As a result of this incident there was a review of power supplies
resulting in reconfiguration of power supplies being completed and no
failures having been recorded since.
That same month, the road barrier and traffic light system failed, resulting
in a Monarch aircraft having to "go round", says the report. A review of the
reliability of the system is being undertaken.
Meanwhile, in June, a Private Cessna aircraft became lost and landed at
Gibraltar without radio contact. An explanation was requested from the pilot
who said that weather and passenger sickness had affected his navigation.
Another bird strike was reported also in June. The bird strike affected a GB
airways aircraft on departure, but the aircraft continued its flight to
Madrid where slight damage to the nose cone was discovered. A review of bird
control procedures was initiated. The case is still open.
The following month there was another bird strike on departure, also
affecting a GB airways aircraft, but no damage was reported.
Two other bird strikes were reported also in July. A bird strike on
departure affected yet another GB airways aircraft, with flight continuing
and no damage reported.
Another GB airways aircraft was affected by a bird strike on landing, with
some damage to the engines discovered. The case remains open.
Meanwhile, a Hanseatic Aviation/Cessna suffered radio failure on approach
and a report from the pilot is still awaited.
On to August when an oil tanker was anchored within the restricted approach
area of runway. But the captain of the GB airways aircraft, on being
advised, elected to continue the approach. The Harbour Master was advised.
There was also a problem with the wingtip clearance of a TAG Aviation/LJ60
which appeared unsafe whilst aircraft was parking. Marshalling procedures
were being reviewed.
Marshalling instructions from NetJets/H25A appeared unsafe to the Air
Traffic Controller, procedures being reviewed.
That was in August. A similar incident occured with another NetJets the
following month.
There was also another bird strike in September also affecting GB airways.
No damage was reported but there was evidence of a bird strike discovered
after landing. Again, the action taken was "review of bird control
procedures initiated".
Another GB airways incident was a bomb threat which had been received by the
RGP. The aircraft was searched by sniffer dogs and nothing found.
And in October, two GB airways flights again suffered bird strikes, one on a
parked aircraft and the other on take-off. There was no damage in either
case.
Other incidents reported in the last 10 months to October included a
passenger found walking on the apron without permission, which resulted in
the person being detained, although no illegal intent was present.
Another incident resulted from engineering works which caused interruption
to ATC radios, while an unidentified aircraft was affected by another
incident,resulting in a controller being suspended from duty when there was
failure to carry out correct controller handover procedure.
Bird Radar Prevents Collisions at Navy's Air
Base
by James Foley, Medill Reports, Washington, DC
December 5, 2007
WASHINGTON--Eagles, egrets and ornery old gulls can be especially
troublesome to Navy test pilots at Patuxent River Naval Air Station,
Maryland where the Navy tests its prototypes and active-use planes. The
western shore of Chesapeake Bay is a major migratory route for hundreds of
bird species year round.
Bird collisions are not only a problem at Pax River. In 1995, a Boeing 707
equipped with sophisticated radar collided with a flock of Canadian geese at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
Five birds were ingested by the planes air intakes, knocking out two of its
four jet engines. Less than two minutes later the Boeing had crashed in a
wooded area a mile from the runway, killing all 24 crew members.
An Air Force investigation concluded that the bird accident was partially
caused because the base lacked an aggressive program to detect and deter
geese.
The problem is so worrisome that the Navy has developed a new radar program
to track bird flocking patterns. At Patuxent, one concern is that live
Ospreys, known to nest on base antennaes, as well as other birds, could
collide with costly aircraft, including the Marines $100 million Osprey
transport plane.
Birds dont recognize planes as planes, said Jim Swift, coordinator of Pax
Rivers Bird/Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) reduction program. Weve heard
reports of red tailed hawks diving at planes to scare them off.
The Defense Department reported 3,000 bird aircraft strikes last year. The
FAA reported that birds cause more than $600 million in damage to civilian
and military aircraft each year.
The Chesapeake is a winter water fowl haven, Swift said. Aircraft and birds
competing for the same airspace dont work out so well. The biggest issue is
flocking birds -- blackbirds, gulls, Canadian Geese.
Fortunately, Pax River has never had a plane crash from a bird strike.
One reason for its pristine record may be the new bird radar system dubbed
eBird Rad that is being used to supplement the traditional habitat
management and dispersal techniques used to keep birds away from runways.
Essentially a modified shipboard radar normally used to monitor weather,
eBird Rad was adapted to see an entire airfield and the airspace immediately
around it, said Swift. The system records and tracks what are considered
bird targets.
We can review 24 hours of data in two minutes and plot bird targets, zooming
in on a specific times and parts of the airfield, Swift said. We then notify
the towers to be on the look out for birds at those times and areas.
Interestingly enough, older birds that have nested around Pax River seem to
avoid the airfields. The ones who are hit are often fledglings just sprung
from their nests.
Although the eBird Rad has yet to develop real-time warning systems, Swift
explained that hes seen the same patterns of blackbirds on radar in the
morning and the flocks leaving in the same direction at sundown.
The good news is birds can be conditioned by using fireworks and other
devices, said Swift.
Pax River is one of five sites- three Navy, one Air Force at Elemendorf,
Alaska and one research and development site, since 1998 that used earlier
versions of the bird radar. Sid Gauthreaux, a Clemson professor, developed
the original radar system to identify bird migration patterns.
Its hard to put a number on how many bird strikes youve prevented, Swift
said. Yes, its an effective tool that makes us aware of birds in the area.
We can see birds we didnt see before, and we spend less man-hours driving
around the airfield looking for birds."
Bird-Control Plan Cruel, PETA Tells
Little Rock [AR] Airport
by Noel E. Oman, The Little Rock [AR] Democrat-Gazette
December 6, 2007
A program at the state's largest airport for controlling birds that
resulted
in the deaths of dozens of birds has drawn criticism from the People for
the
Ethical Treatment of Animals.
But the top official at Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field,
defended
the program as necessary for the safety and health of airport employees
and
customers.
"It is important to understand that birds and other wildlife present a
potential hazard for aircraft operating at the airport and they must be
controlled if we are to ensure that we are doing all we can to meet the
goal
of operating the airport in the safest manner possible," said Ron
Mathieu,
the airport's interim executive director.
Airport officials recently turned to a bird-control program using a
chemically treated bait after the airport experienced a dramatic rise in
the
number of collisions between aircraft and birds, typically known as
"bird
strikes," Mathieu said.
Through Nov. 4, the aircraft taking off or landing at Little Rock
National
have suffered 40 bird strikes in 2007, more strikes than reported in
2005
and 2006 combined, according to figures compiled by the Federal Aviation
Administration and the airport.
The most serious bird strikes occurred on July 18 when 10 birds struck a
corporate jet, and on July 27 when a dozen birds struck a regional
commercial jet. Both aircraft were landing at Little Rock National when
the
strikes occurred, Mathieu said. They landed without incident and
suffered no
serious damage. But the bird strike on the commercial jet resulted in an
intensive inspection that delayed an airline flight, Mathieu said.
Bird and other wildlife strikes to aircraft annually cause more than
$600
million in damage to U.S. civilian and military aviation, according to
the
Bird Strike USA Committee. Nearly 200 people have been killed worldwide
as a
result of wildlife strikes since 1988, the committee says.
Mathieu called a news conference Wednesday to explain the bird-control
program after the animal welfare organization complained to the airport
and
to some media outlets. On Sunday, close to 100 birds were found dead in
different parts of the airport, including two parking lots and the
airport's
ramp reserved for cargo aircraft.
Stephanie Bell of PETA sent a fax to airport officials Sunday evening
because of the "alarming complaints received by our office regarding
uisance' pigeons, and possibly other bird species, being cruelly
killed by
individuals employed with or contracted by Little Rock National
Airport." At
issue is the use of Avitrol, a chemically treated bait that its
manufacturer
said will cause birds that eat the bait to "emit distress and alarm
cries
and visual displays used by their species," according to the company Web
site. "This will frighten the flock and cause them to leave the site."
However, the company added that "On some species, Avitrol may be used as
an
avicide," which is a pesticide used to killed birds.
Bell, in her fax, said "poisoning pigeons is extremely cruel" and
"attacks
and impairs birds' nervous systems. Birds who ingest Avitrol become
disoriented and exhibit erratic flight, tremors and convulsions before
death." A telephone call to PETA's main office in Hampton Roads, Va.,
wasn't
returned by Wednesday evening.
The airport turned to Avitrol after officials concluded the bird-control
program in place, which uses netting, pyrotechnics and propane cannons
to
help contain birds, was ineffective.
"When the incidents of bird strikes increase, we must take a more
proactive
approach to control the bird population," Mathieu said. Three companies
competed for the contract, which was won by Presto X of Omaha, Neb. It
will
be paid $9,600 annually. All three companies noted that the flock of
birds
at the airport was "diseased and stressed" and, as a result, some of the
birds will die, Mathieu said. "According to the experts, [the deaths
are]
confined to weak, sick and diseased birds." PETA has waged successful
campaigns to dissuade companies from using Avitrol. In 2005, the
organization pressured a Las Vegas apartment complex against using
Avitrol
to control birds, according to PETA's Web site.
A Careful Weighing of a New Landfill's Risks
by Tom Dennis, Grand Forks {SD] Herald
November 28, 2007
OUR OPINION : A careful weighing of a new landfill's risks
Our view:: The risk that a landfill's birds pose to aircraft can't be
eliminated, but it can be minimized, a federal department wisely declares.
Grand Forks' search for a place to put its and the region's trash took an
important step forward this month. That happened when the U.S. Department of
Agriculture answered the question, Can Grand Forks build a landfill within
five miles of its airport?
The department's answer is a qualified, Yes - if key conditions are met.
The if is important. But so is the yes, because it means Grand Forks can
keep investigating the suitability of key sites in Falconer and Range
townships, northwest of the city.
The agriculture department deserves credit for fully understanding Grand
Forks' need for a new landfill, balancing the risks of various options and
finding a responsible way to say yes.
Any way you look at it, Grand Forks' current landfill is too close to the
Grand Forks airport. Gulls associated with the landfill clearly pose a
hazard to aircraft in the GFK environment, wrote Timothy Pugh, a wildlife
biologist with the agriculture department's Wildlife Services office, in a
letter to Grand Forks City Hall.
The landfill uses various means to deter gulls, which Pugh describes as
highflying, large-bodied, slow-moving birds.
However, gulls are still attracted to the landfill, he writes.
In 2006, bird control logs document gulls at the landfill on a daily basis,
from late March through October, with very few exceptions. Additionally,
airport personnel continue to haze loafing gulls from the airport.
At least one aircraft/gull strike has occurred at GFK each year since 2003.
Seven planes struck gulls at GFK in 2004 alone, and two of those strikes
involved multiple birds of 10 gulls or more.
The Federal Aviation Administration recommends a distance of five miles
between airports and hazardous wildlife attractants such as landfills. And
locating a landfill at a much further distance than five miles is Grand
Forks' safest and most prudent option, Pugh writes.
The letter could have stopped there. But it doesn't. Instead, it presents
Grand Forks with other options - and that fact shows a sophisticated
understanding of risk.
Here's why: No matter where a landfill is located, the risk it poses to
airports in the region never goes down to zero. In part, that's because
landfills outside of the five-mile radius need not take any bird control
measures at all.
Pugh recognizes this. So, in the letter's key passage, he writes the
following:
Wildlife Services believes that a landfill in the GFK area, located three to
five miles from the airport (and) with the exclusion and repulsion measures
outlined above, will likely pose a similar or possibly even less of a hazard
to aircraft than a landfill located five miles from GFK with no exclusion
and repulsion program.
The gull-control programs Pugh describes include using overhead wires,
baling bags - heavy plastic bags into which baled waste is placed - and
other active and aggressive means, including shotguns, to deter most gulls
and kill those few that penetrate the barriers.
If Grand Forks agrees to use such programs at its new landfill, then the
Wildlife Services office likely could support two of the city's proposed
sites, which sit within about three to five miles of the airport, the letter
concludes.
By the way, Pugh and others didn't just evaluate Grand Forks' dilemma from a
faraway office. Wildlife Services officials visited the current landfill,
the proposed landfill sites, the Grand Forks airport and other habitats in
the area, including Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge, the letter
relates.
Furthermore, the federal officials met with local officials and studied
maps, landfill plans, FAA rules and other documents.
The result is a well-thought-out report that points Grand Forks toward a
carefully planned landfill that will pose minimal risk. The city couldn't
ask for much more than that.
