There are three approaches to reduce the effect of bird strikes. The vehicles can be designed to be more bird-resistant, the birds can be moved out of the way of the vehicle, or the vehicle can be moved out of the way of the birds.
Vehicle design Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut down after ingesting a bird weighing up to . The engine does not have to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down. This is a standalone requirement, meaning the engine alone, not the aircraft, must pass the test. Multiple strikes (such as from hitting a
flock of birds) on twin-engine jet aircraft are very serious events because they can disable multiple aircraft systems. Emergency action may be required to land the aircraft, as in the January 15, 2009 forced ditching of
US Airways Flight 1549. As required by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)'s CS 25.631 or the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s 14
CFR § 25.571(e)(1) post Amdt 25-96, modern jet aircraft structures are designed for continued safe flight and landing after withstanding one bird impact anywhere on the aircraft (including the flight deck windshields). Per the FAA's 14 CFR § 25.631, they must also withstand one bird impact anywhere on the
empennage. Flight deck windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one bird collision without yielding or
spalling. For the empennage, this is usually accomplished by designing redundant structures and protected locations for control system elements or protective devices such as splitter plates or energy-absorbing material. Often, one aircraft manufacturer will use similar protective design features for all of its aircraft models, to minimize testing and certification costs.
Transport Canada also pays particular attention to these requirements during aircraft certification, considering there are many documented cases in North America of bird strikes with large
Canada geese which weigh approximately on average, and can sometimes weigh as much as . At first, bird strike testing by manufacturers involved firing a bird carcass from a gas cannon and
sabot system into the tested unit. The carcass was soon replaced with suitable density blocks, often
gelatin, to ease testing. Current certification efforts are mainly conducted with limited testing, supported by more detailed analysis using
computer simulation, although final testing usually involves some physical experiments (see
birdstrike simulator). Based on US
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations following US Airways Flight 1549 in 2009, EASA proposed in 2017 that engines should also be capable of sustaining a bird strike in
descent. During descent,
turbofans turn more slowly than during
takeoff and
climb. This proposal was echoed a year later by the FAA; new regulations could apply for the
Boeing NMA engines.
Wildlife management of
China Eastern behind a flock of birds at
London Heathrow Though there are many methods available to wildlife managers at airports, no single method will work in all instances and with all species. Wildlife management in the airport environment can be grouped into two broad categories: non-lethal and lethal. Integration of multiple non-lethal methods with lethal methods results in the most effective airfield wildlife management strategy.
Non-lethal Non-lethal management can be further broken down into habitat manipulation, exclusion, visual, auditory, tactile, or chemical repellents, and relocation.
Habitat manipulation One of the primary reasons that wildlife is seen in airports is an abundance of food. Food resources on airports can be either removed or made less desirable. One of the most abundant food resources found on airports is turfgrass. This grass is planted to reduce runoff, control erosion, absorb jet wash, allow passage of emergency vehicles, and to be aesthetically pleasing. However, turfgrass is a preferred food source for species of birds that pose a serious risk to aircraft, chiefly the Canada goose (
Branta canadensis). Turfgrass planted at airports should be a species that geese do not prefer (e.g.
St. Augustine grass) and should be managed in such a way that reduces its attractiveness to other wildlife such as small rodents and raptors. Wetlands are another major attractant of wildlife in the airport environment. They are of particular concern because they attract waterfowl, which have a high potential to damage aircraft. With large areas of impervious surfaces, airports must employ methods to collect runoff and reduce its flow velocity. These best management practices often involve temporarily ponding runoff. Short of redesigning existing runoff control systems to include non-accessible water such as subsurface flow wetlands, The implementation of covers and wire grids must not hinder emergency services.
Exclusion Though excluding birds (and flying animals in general) from the entire airport environment is virtually impossible, it is possible to exclude deer and other mammals that constitute a small percentage of wildlife strikes. Three-meter-high fences made of chain link or woven wire, with barbed wire outriggers, are the most effective. When used as a perimeter fence, these fences also serve to keep unauthorized people off of the airport. Realistically, every fence must have gates. Gates that are left open allow deer and other mammals onto the airport. 15 foot (4.6 meter) long
cattle guards have been shown to be effective at deterring deer up to 98% of the time. Hangars with open superstructures often attract birds to nest and roost in. Hangar doors are often left open to increase ventilation, especially in the evenings. Birds in hangars are in proximity to the airfield and their droppings are both a health and damage concern. Netting is often deployed across the superstructure of a hangar denying access to the rafters where the birds roost and nest while still allowing the hangar doors to remain open for ventilation and aircraft movements. Strip curtains and door netting may also be used but are subject to improper use (e.g. tying the strips to the side of the door) by those working in the hangar. Dogs have also been used with success as visual deterrents and means of harassment for birds at airfields. The risks of lasers to aircrews must be evaluated when determining whether or not to deploy lasers on airfields. Southampton Airport utilizes a laser device which disables the laser past a certain
elevation, eliminating the risk of the beam being shone directly at aircraft and air traffic control tower.
Auditory repellents Auditory repellents are commonly used in both agricultural and aviation contexts. Devices such as propane exploders (cannons), pyrotechnics, and bioacoustics are frequently deployed on airports. Propane exploders are capable of creating noises of approximately 130 decibels. They can be programmed to fire at designated intervals, can be remote controlled, or motion activated. Due to their stationary and often predictable nature, wildlife quickly becomes habituated to propane cannons. Lethal control may be used to extend the effectiveness of propane exploders. Pyrotechnics utilizing either an exploding shell or a screamer can effectively scare birds away from runways. They are commonly launched from a 12 gauge shotgun or a flare pistol, or from a wireless specialized launcher and as such, can be aimed to allow control personnel to "steer" the species that is being harassed. Birds show varying degrees of habituation to pyrotechnics. Studies have shown that lethal reinforcement of pyrotechnic harassment has extended its usefulness. Screamer type cartridges are still intact at the end of their flight (as opposed to exploding shells that destroy themselves) constituting a foreign object damage hazard and must be picked up. The use of pyrotechnics is considered "take" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and USFWS must be consulted if federally threatened or endangered species could be affected. Pyrotechnics are a potential fire hazard and must be deployed judiciously in dry conditions.
Tactile repellents Sharpened spikes to deter perching and loafing are commonly used. Generally, large birds require different applications than small birds do. Anthraquinone is a secondary repellent that has a laxative effect that is not instantaneous. Because of this, it is most effective on resident populations of wildlife that will have time to learn an aversive response.
Relocation Relocation of raptors from airports is often considered preferable to lethal control methods by both biologists and the public. There are complex legal issues surrounding the capture and relocation of species protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Prior to capture, proper permits must be obtained and the high mortality rates as well as the risk of disease transmission associated with relocation must be weighed. Between 2008 and 2010,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services personnel relocated 606
red-tailed hawks from airports in the United States after the failure of multiple harassment attempts. The return rate of these hawks was 6%; the relocation mortality rate for these hawks was never determined.
wildlife reserves,
estuaries and other sites where birds may congregate. When operating in the presence of bird flocks, pilots should seek to climb above as rapidly as possible as most bird strikes occur below that altitude. Additionally, pilots should slow down their aircraft when confronted with birds. The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative
kinetic energy (E_{k}) of the bird, defined by the equation E_{k} = \frac{1}{2} m v^{2} where m is the mass of the bird and v is the
relative velocity (the difference of the velocities of the bird and the plane, resulting in a lower absolute value if they are flying in the same direction and higher absolute value if they are flying in opposite directions). Therefore, the speed of the aircraft is much more important than the size of the bird when it comes to reducing energy transfer in a collision. The same can be said for jet engines: the slower the rotation of the engine, the less energy which will be imparted onto the engine at collision. The body density of the bird is also a parameter that influences the amount of damage caused. The
United States Air Force (USAF)'s Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) uses near-real-time data from the
National Weather Service's
NEXRAD system to provide current bird hazard conditions for published military low-level routes, ranges, and military operating areas (MOAs). Additionally, AHAS incorporates weather forecast data with the Bird Avoidance Model (BAM) to predict soaring bird activity within the next 24 hours and then defaults to the BAM for planning purposes when activity is scheduled outside the 24-hour window. The BAM is a static historical hazard model based on many years of bird distribution data from the
Christmas Bird Count, the
Breeding Bird Survey, and
National Wildlife Refuge data. The BAM also incorporates potentially hazardous bird attractions such as landfills and golf courses. AHAS is now an integral part of military low-level mission planning, with aircrew being able to access the current bird hazard conditions at a dedicated website. AHAS will provide relative risk assessments for the planned mission and give aircrew the opportunity to select a less hazardous route should the planned route be rated severe or moderate. Prior to 2003, the USAF BASH Team bird strike database indicated that approximately 25% of all strikes were associated with low-level routes and
bombing ranges. More importantly, these strikes accounted for more than 50% of all of the reported damage costs. After a decade of using AHAS for avoiding routes with severe ratings, the strike percentage associated with low-level flight operations has been reduced to 12% and associated costs cut in half. Avian
radar is an important tool for aiding in bird strike mitigation as part of overall safety management systems at civilian and military airfields. Properly designed and equipped avian radars can track thousands of birds simultaneously in real-time, night and day, through 360 degrees of coverage, out to ranges of and beyond for flocks, updating every target's position (longitude, latitude, altitude), speed, heading, and size every 2–3 seconds. Data from these systems can be used to generate information products ranging from real-time threat alerts to historical analyses of bird activity patterns in both time and space. The FAA and
United States Department of Defense (DoD) have conducted extensive science-based field testing and validation of commercial avian radar systems for civil and military applications, respectively. The FAA used evaluations of commercial three-dimensional avian radar systems developed and marketed by Accipiter Radar as the basis for an
advisory circular and a guidance letter on using
Airport Improvement Program funds to acquire avian radar systems at Part 139 airports. Similarly, the DoD-sponsored Integration and Validation of Avian Radars (IVAR) project evaluated the functional and performance characteristics of Accipiter avian radars under operational conditions at Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force airfields. Accipiter avian radar systems operating at
Seattle–Tacoma International Airport,
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, and
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point made significant contributions to the evaluations carried out in the aforementioned FAA and DoD initiatives. In 2003, a US company, DeTect, developed the only production model bird radar in operational use for real-time, tactical bird–aircraft strike avoidance by air traffic controllers. These systems are operational at both commercial airports and military airfields. The system has widely used technology available for BASH management and for real-time detection, tracking and alerting of hazardous bird activity at commercial airports, military airfields, and military training and bombing ranges. After extensive evaluation and on-site testing, MERLIN technology was chosen by
NASA and was ultimately used for detecting and tracking dangerous vulture activity during the 22
Space Shuttle launches from 2006 to the conclusion of the program in 2011. The USAF has contracted DeTect since 2003 to provide the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS) previously mentioned. The
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, a research and development organization, has developed the successful ROBIN (Radar Observation of Bird Intensity) for the
Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF). ROBIN is a near real-time monitoring system for flight movements of birds. ROBIN identifies flocks of birds within the signals of large radar systems. This information is used to warn air force pilots during take-off and landing. Years of observation of bird migration with ROBIN have also provided a better insight into bird migration behavior, which has had an influence on averting collisions with birds, and therefore on flight safety. Since the implementation of the ROBIN system at the RNLAF, the number of collisions between birds and aircraft in the vicinity of military airbases has decreased by more than 50%. There are no civil aviation counterparts to the above military strategies. Some experimentation with small portable radar units has taken place at some airports, but no standard has been adopted for radar warning nor has any governmental policy regarding warnings been implemented. == History ==