Resolving an inherent dilemma-Wildlife vs. Aircrafts

MGMT 408

Abstract
The recent times since the birth of aviation industry by the Wright Brothers (2005) has seen a massive change in its structure and functioning. As technology advanced more convoluted are the efforts to carry on this gigantic trade of huge mechanical birds on the sky, which nevertheless have to share the natural domain of the birds. One of the major concerns of the aviation industry is also contributed by the obstacles faced to minimize hazards (2012) of wildlife on the human terrain without harming the natural territory. Through this review, a focus is made on the dilemmas faced and efficacy of remedies taken to mitigate the concerns of wildlife strikes in Airport safety.

Introduction The natural population of birds took to air about millions of years ago until, the intelligent and progressive human kind started using its airspace more than 100 years ago. So this great invention which is technically called the “Mechanical Bird” or “Airplane” uses the same airspace as birds making the collisions inevitable. Records show that shortly after Wright Brother’s took to air on 1903 and shortly thereafter the first bird strike was reported on September 7, 1905, when Oliver Wright’s aircraft hit a bird (probably a red-winged blackbird) as he flew over Dayton, Ohio (2005). To one’s surprise birds are not the only threat to an airplane, certain times Deer’s, Coyotes or even alligators wandering into the runway create serious problems during departure and landing (2007). The first mammal strike occurred on 25 July, 1909 at the start of Louis Bleriot’s historic first flight across the English Channel from Les Baraques, France (2005). This happened when a farm dog ran into the propeller. To mention on April 3, 1912 C. Rodgers the first person to fly across continental USA, also died due to a strike of gull along the coast of Southern California (2005). The aircraft collision with the wildlife is commonly referred to as the “Wildlife Strikes”. It has been expensive with facts relating the estimated expense with such damages in the US civil and military aviation to be $600 million in account of direct damage and associated cost and over 500,000 hours of aircraft downtime (2012). Apart from the economic crisis, important is the threat to human life due to these strikes. This strongly warrants the need for a rigorous approach to wildlife management in the airports. Air Travel is a common place in many parts of the world. Air craft is also vital to the military and logistics operation of the United States. With the increasing number of flights for daily ply, more congested is the air traffic. In addition, the aggressive programs for Wildlife protection have also made an impressive increase in the number of wildlife species today. This has led to species such as the Canada Geese, Coyotes, Deer and Turkey to expand into the suburban and urban areas which also include the airports (2011). Jet age has revolutionized air travel in modern times but consequently magnified the wildlife strike problem (2010). In earlier times the piston powered engine were noisy and slow, thus got avoided by any bird or other animal moving towards it to detour. However as technology advanced, modern crafts are fast and quiet, there engine blades being more vulnerable to damage by any wildlife strike. The number of strikes annually reported has increased 5.6-fold from 1,804 in 1990 to a record 10,083 in 2011 (2012). Thus the mentioned factors combined form a basis of the wildlife strike problem. As a result airport managers are facing increasing concern over liability involved aftermath of such an incident.

Effects Despite the number of reported strikes has increased, the number of reported damage due to this strikes have actually declined over the period. The damage to aircraft was 372 in the year 1990 statistics which reached a peak of 765 in the year 2000. To the satisfaction of airport management authority, this has now declined to 541 (29%) as of the year 2011 data (2012).

Human fatalities and injuries due to wildlife strikes The 22-year period from 1990 to 2011 hold reports of 10 wildlife strike that resulted in 24 human fatalities. Categorical data showed a total of 199 strikes causing injuries to 256 numbers of humans.

Economic losses due to wildlife strikes The total of 18,913 reports from 1990 – 2012 indicates the strike to have made an adverse effect on the aircraft. The monetary losses amounted to $431.5 million (2011). Others included expenses such as lost revenue, managing passengers, re-scheduling aircraft and flight cancellation.

Wildlife strikes and aircraft destruction In the survey period form 1990-2011, reports have shown that 57 aircraft were destroyed or damaged beyond repair due to wildlife strikes (2010).The majority were general aviation (GA) aircraft. Terrestrial mammals (primarily white-tailed deer) were responsible for 25 (44 percent) of the incidents. Canada geese (5 incidents) and vultures (3 incidents) were responsible for 42 percent of the 19 incidents involving birds in which the species or species group was identified (2012). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is constantly working onto mitigate the Wildlife Strikes and its hazards. It uses a multifaceted approach in dealing with such unpredictable situations that might stem. The FAA has an extensive research unit focused on the latest developments and also by implementing newer technologies to prevent the cause.

Few of the measures adopted are enumerated below.

Strike Reporting The efforts of FAA guided team have now made reporting a wild life strike much easier. The user friendly version of online strike reporting portal allows a concerned person to report an incident and also mine data from previous databases (2007). The Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), in August 2011, with the initiation of FAA conducted a survey to collect information on wildlife strikes (2012). It was primarily aimed to outreach the people on strike reporting, feedback on strike submission and ways to enhance the system. Subsequently steps were taken to work on the recommendations.

Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Research FAA in collaboration with the USDA has conducted enormous research for the past 16 years in order to make airports safer by reducing the risk of Wildlife. For the last 16 years, the FAA and the USDA have conducted a research program to make airports safer by reducing the risks of aircraft-wildlife collisions. It also aims to improve wildlife management techniques and practices.

Some of the crucial alternatives that needs to be adopted are enlisted below ✓ There should be alternatives to habitat management, in order to reduce the attraction of hazardous species. ✓ Improvised techniques are to be implemented as well, to prevent the access of Wildlife to Storm water ponds in and around the airport ✓ Newer technologies should be also bought in to deter the hazardous species. ✓ To evaluate the Avian Radar Systems for precise detection and tracking of birds on or near the port. ✓ Alternating pulse light on aircrafts can also be used to avert the Wildlife strikes.

Well directed research coupled with efficient techniques will definitely ensure that Wildlife strike on the aircrafts could be minimized to some extant, if not completely. In addition, to address this problem, Airport Managers should at the very first collaborate with qualified airport biologist as per the FAA Circular. After which they must take appropriate actions, under the professional guidance of Wildlife Damage Minimization Department. Any management action taken should be prioritized according to the Hazard level of the species.

Avian Radar Technology This technology is the continued efforts of FAA with the U.S. Air Force to develop a radar system for detecting and tracking birds around the airport environment (2006).
The Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT) at the University of Illinois has served as the FAA’s research partner for the performance assessments of bird radar. This initial Avian Radar System was deployed at the Seattle-Tacoma and Whidbey Island Naval Station in 2007, Chicago O’Hare in 2009, and John F. Kennedy and Dallas-Fort Worth in 2010 and has shown desirable results (2011). This conjunction brings in the expert opinion of wildlife biology, Ornithology, Radar Engineering and also the system integration from government, industry, and academia to evaluate, one of several radar systems used to detect birds.
Despite the fact that this system can detect birds, there is little published information with regards to the accuracy and detection capabilities related to range, altitude, target size, and effects of weather (2007).

Few other concerns that deserves attention are 1. A need to technically evaluate a Candidate Radar System, which includes the Sensor Components and associated Data Delivery Systems. 2. Comparative field evaluations of system accuracy using remote controlled aircrafts and wild birds 3. To assess the integration of radar technology with other more traditional aspects of Wildlife Hazard Management at the airport 4. To study the behavioral aspects of Birds due to Radar Energy

Some futuristic technologies alongside the Bird Radar Technology is the three dimensional (3D) target determination (2007) that will be required to fulfill the necessities of multiple-runway airports.

Wildlife Hazard Management Plans The FAA encourages all airports to conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessment as well as Wildlife Hazard Management Plans (2011), regardless of the fact if an airport has experienced a Wildlife Strike. This assessment will allow an airport to • Trends in which the Wildlife use the airport ( which may include Habitat preferences, seasonal composition, abundance of wildlife species, geography of strikes, time and phase of flight of strikes etc) • To prevent future strike through required chance in species removal around the airport • To evaluate the overall risk of wildlife strikes and the efficacy of the airport’s wildlife hazard mitigation programs and have an annual review over this.

The Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) should be able to provide fundamental wildlife and habitat information for an effective and airport specific Wildlife Hazard Management Program (WHMP). It is the responsibility of the WHMP to outline a plan of action, in order to minimize the risk to aviation safety or human health posed by hazardous wildlife around the airport. To make it more effective, it should routinely monitor the activities and take adequate measures to improve the loopholes.

Role of Bird Strike committee Despite being a central functioning body in mitigating the Bird Strike or Wildlife strikes (2005), it is not the sole responsibility of one group. It has to be the combined effort of many group and individual to reduce such a potential strike on the aircrafts. The Bird Strike committee ensures that all airports have a valid wildlife management plan (2005), directed by the trained biologist. And since the airport environment is subjected to constant change, therefore the plans should be reviewed with inspections either annually or bi-annually. The large airports should have full-time biologist to carry out such duties, whereas smaller airports should seek the help of professional biologist to keep themselves at par with the latest technologies and methods (2011). A zero tolerance for Deer, other large mammals, geese, waterfowl and feeding birds are to be created to mitigate some of the concerns. Care should also be taken to dispose Garbage and Trash containers, which tend to attract birds and other wildlife. An important aspect, which should be noted, is the judicious use of wildlife frightening devices. An indiscriminate use will cause increased habituation and reduce their effectives. To bring about effectives of the measures (2011), a public awareness about Wildlife Strike Report is also to be done. This will serve as a crucial data for the biologist, aeronautical engineers, and the land-use –planners. It will assist them in making a strategy which will be justifiable. The flight crews, ground crews, maintenance workers and the air field support staff should all be encouraged to report details of such strikes (2005).
In conclusion, the serious concern that airport officials have been pondering over can only be weakened by consistent efforts of a large group working in unison. Even the public should be well aware of this increasing national crisis, which pose a great threat to the lives of human. Nature always has its own way to keep a control on the activities of man, but with our efforts, it will be possible to reduce the hazards without tempering nature. Thus a cogent approach to this problem will be the justifiable solution.

References
Airport Wildlife Management by Transport Canada. (2006). Bulletin no. 36
Cleary, Edward C. & Dickey, Archie (2010). Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports. Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 32. National Academy of Sciences.

Cleary, Edward C. & Dolbeer, Richard A. (July, 2005). Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Personnel.
Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near airports. (2007). Advisory Circular by FAA.
Burger, Joanna (2001). Landfills, Nocturnal Foraging, and Risk to Aircraft. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issue Volume 64, Issue 3.

Mullen, Mike (February, 2011). Wildlife Hazard Management Process at Airports.
Reed Joseph International Company, Greensville, MS-Database
Dolbeer, Richard A. (2012). Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States. 1990-2011.
Summary of Wildlife Management Plan Requirements FAR Part 139.337(e) and 139.337(f)
Understanding and Reducing Bird Hazards to Aircraft (2011). Report by Bird Strike Committee, U.S.A.