Aircraft Birdstrikes and Prevention Measures with Focus on JFK - Research Paper Example

 Aircraft Birdstrikes and Prevention Measures with Focus on JFK Birds, referred to as ‘feathered bullets’ in the aviation field, are now recognized as a major hazard to aviation safety worldwide. In the United States the problem is alarming and reaching almost 20 strikes per day. Despite many well planned bird control programs, birdstrikes are still on the rise. Studies have attributed the rise in aircraft birdstrikes to a sharp rise in bird population, increased air traffic, and noise reduction of aircraft engines. JFK International Airport (JFKIA) is the 12th busiest airport in the world and is of considerable significance. This study examined the birdstrike prevention programs in place at JFKIA and evaluated the effectiveness of these prevention programs. It was revealed that despite an elaborate bird management program in place at JFKIA, during the study period from 2000 to 2009, there has been consistent rise in birdstrike incidents. ACT Researcher: Bryan Cunningham Title: Aircraft Birdstrikes and Prevention Measures with Focus on JFK International Airport, New York Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Degree: MSM Year: 2010 Birds, referred to as ‘feathered bullets’ in the aviation field, are now recognized as a major hazard to aviation safety worldwide. In the United States the problem is alarming and reaching almost 20 strikes per day. Despite many well planned bird control programs, birdstrikes are still on the rise. Studies have attributed the rise in aircraft birdstrikes to a sharp rise in bird population, increased air traffic, and noise reduction of aircraft engines. JFK International Airport (JFKIA) is the 12th busiest airport in the world and is of considerable significance. This study examined the birdstrike prevention programs in place at JFKIA and evaluated the effectiveness of these prevention programs. It was revealed that despite an elaborate bird management program in place at JFKIA, during the study period from 2000 to 2009, there has been consistent rise in birdstrike incidents. Table of Contents CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………... 1 Background of the Problem……………………………………………………… 1 Enormity of the Issue…………………………………………………………….. 1 History of Birdstrikes…………………………………………………………… 2 Researcher’s Work Role and Setting…………………………………………… 4 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………… 5 Delimitations…………………………………………………………………… 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………………… 5 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH… 6 State of Public Knowledge……………………………………………………… 6 Increase in Aircraft Birdstrikes………………………………………………… 7 Vulnerable Species……………………………………………………………… 8 Seasonal Variation in Birdstrikes………………………………………………… 10 Vulnerable Aircraft………………………………………………………………. 11 Vulnerable Parts of Aircraft to Birdstrikes………………………………………. 11 Altitudes of Occurrence………………………………………………………….. 12 Causes of Increase in Birdstrikes………………………………………………… 13 Increase in Bird Population……………………………………………………… 13 Increase in Air Traffic……………………………………………………………. 15 Aircraft Engine Improvisations…………………………………………………. 16 Prevention Techniques and Programs……………………………………………. 16 Efforts by Stakeholders to Tackle Strike Problem……………………………….. 20 Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 22 Substantiating Research Statements...…………………………………………… 22 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS……………………………………….. 24 Research Design…………………………………………………………………. 26 Research Model………………………………………………………………….. 27 Selection of Airport……………………………………………………………… 27 Treatment of the Data and Procedures…………………………………………… 28 Scope Limitations………………………………………………………………... 30 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS…………………………………… 31 Results…………………………………………………………………………… 31 Analysis………………………………………………………………………….. 31 Analysis of Birdstrike Prevention Programs at JFKIA………………….………. 32 Analysis of Birdstrike Data……………………………………………………… 36 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION……………………………………………………. 40 Substantiating Statement One (S1)…………………………………………….. 40 Substantiating Statement Two (S2)………………………………………………. 40 CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………... 42 CHAPTER VII: RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………. 45 REFERENCES.………………………………………………………………….. 47 APPENDIX -1…………………………………………………………………… 50 APPENDIX -2…………………………………………………………………… 52 APPENDIX-3……………………………………………………………………. 53 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Number of reported wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA…………………… 8 2. Seasonal variation of bird-aircraft strike…………………………………….. 10 3. Operational model for research……………………………………………….. 27 4. Four variables for testing S2…………………………………………………. 35 5. Reported birdstrikes to aircraft at JFK International Airport (2000 - 2009)… 37 6. Bird aircraft strikes at JFK International Airport since 2000…….........……… 38 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. LIST OF TABLES 1. Bird-Aircraft Strikes by Bird/Species Groups in USA (1990-07)….……… 9 2. Aircraft Parts Most Commonly Struck and Damaged by Birds (Canada and U.S.) (1991-1999)……………………………………………………... 12 3. Increasing Bird Population a Cause for Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard; some Facts………………………………………………………………………... 14 4. List of Airport Bird Control Measure……………………………………… 17 5. Standards Established by International Birdstrike Committee for Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control…………………………………………. 22 6. Identification of Suitable Research Method for Research…………………. 24 7. Contents of Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports – A Manual for Airport Personnel………………………………………………..……. 32 8. Number of Reported Birdstrikes at JFK International Airport Since 2000... 36 9. Bird Aircraft Strikes by Bird/Species Groups in USA (1990 - 2007)……… 50 10. Questionnaire on efficiency of bird-aricraft strike prevention programs and techniques implemented at JFK International Airport………………… 53 11. Bird aircraft strike data pertaining to JFK International Airport for the year 2009………………………………………………………………………... 54 12. 13. 14. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem Of the many consequences of air-space exploitation, bird-aircraft strike is an inexorable outcome. While taking off and landing, and during flying at low altitudes, birds sometimes come in the way of aircraft and collide. When an aircraft is hit by birds, the impact can cause damage to the aircraft, the amount of damage dependent on the momentum of the aircraft and the size of the bird. In the bird-aircraft strike, the bird is the creature of sacrifice. Nevertheless, it can cause even human fatalities, besides causing damage to the aircraft. In the aftermath of bird-aircraft strikes, in some instances, the pilots have been forced to dump the fuel and proceed for an emergency landing. Apart from causing human fatalities and environmental degradation, bird-airstrike causes huge economic loss and is a dent in aviation safety. Enormity of the Issue Aircraft birdstrikes, or BASH (Bird-aircraft strike hazard), is a worldwide phenomenon. Each year huge loss of life and property is reported throughout the world due to birdstrikes. An indication of the nature of the problem and the resulting loss of life and property can be understood by the fact that over 219 people have been killed worldwide due to birdstrikes in the past 21 years. Worldwide, the annual damages have been estimated to be at 1.2 billion USD (Allan & Orosz, 2001). In the U.S the problem of bird-aircraft strike is no different from the rest of the world. According to the report of Birdstrike Committee USA, 2010, 1. 2. Bird and other wildlife strikes cost USA civil aviation over $600 million/year, 1990-2008. 3. Over 9,000 bird and other wildlife strikes were reported for USA civil aircraft in 2009. 4. About 5,000 Birdstrikes were reported by the U.S. Air Force in 2008. 5. From 1990-2004, USA airlines reported 31 incidents in which pilots had to dump fuel to lighten load during a precautionary or emergency landing after striking birds on takeoff or climb.  An average of 11,600 gallons of jet fuel was released in each of these dumps.  History of Birdstrikes The history of bird aircraft collisions is as old as the history of aviation itself. A look at the quote below elucidates the concern of birdstrikes to aviation safety since the dawn of aviation. There is one form of collision which must not be altogether forgotten; the possibility of colliding with birds in flight. We have had one mysterious incident in which the pilot lost control of his aircraft flying over the sea at low height, the pilot’s opinion was that he had been struck on the head by a sea bird, several were flying nearby, but nothing was ever clearly proved. In the East, propellers of aircraft taking off have been broken by kites flying over the aerodrome. I have never heard of an aeroplane encountering a flock of ducks at night; such an eventuality might lead to danger of injury to the pilot, the propeller or wing structure. The best precaution to meet such a danger will be good screening for the pilot and robust metal construction. (Brancker, 1925; cited by Thorpe, 2003, p.2) These were the prophetic words written by Sir Sefton Brancker, the then Director of Civil Aviation in the November 1925 issue of Royal Aeronautical Society Journal, entitled The Lessons of Six Years’ Experience in Air Transport (Thorpe, 2003). Aviation history is replete with birdstrike incidents. The first of which was recorded by Orville Wright in 1905 (Thorpe, 2003). According to Cleary and Thorpe (2005) “the first powered flight by the Wright Brothers occurred in December 1903, and the wildlife strike problem began shortly thereafter. On 7 September 1905, the first reported bird strike, as recorded by Oliver Wright in his diary, occurred when his aircraft hit a bird (probably a red-winged blackbird) as he flew over a cornfield near Dayton Ohio” (p. 2). The earliest known birdstrike to a powered aircraft was on 7 September 1908 when Orville Wright was demonstrating their progress by flying complete circles near Dayton, Ohio. He chased a flock of birds and killed one (Thorpe, 2003). The first birdstrike accident with fatality was in 1912 at Long Beach in California, when a gull (Larus Sp.) lodged into the flying controls of a Wright Flyer, killing Cal Rodger. He was the first person to fly across the USA (Howard, 1998). There have been many incidents of bird strike since then. The largest loss of life in history was in 1960 by Eastern Airlines. During takeoff, a flock of birds were ingested in all four engines and caused the plane to crash into Boston Harbor resulting in 62 deaths out of 72 passengers (Thorpe, 2003). In one of the most recent incidents, US Airways Flight 1549, an airbus A320, ditched into the Hudson River on January 15, 2009, a consequence of hitting a flock of birds. All the passengers were rescued. These are just some examples of birdstrikes and their damaging effects. A list of notable birdstrikes can be found at Appendix 1. Researcher’s Work Role and Setting The gravity of the situation forced the aviation industry and management to work on the issue with greater interest and urgency. Thus, investigation on bird impact has received keener attention. Chamis and Sinclair have done early studies on bird impacts (Hirschbein, 1979). “Consequently, numerical techniques in tandem with computer modeling have become irreplaceable design tools in the development of lightweight bird-proof structures on tight schedules and reasonable budgets” (Nizampatnam, 2007, p.1). Wildlife biologists have been evaluating airfield topography to reduce bird activities in the airfields and in their neighborhoods. For instance, besides monitoring grass heights throughout the airfield, USDA wildlife biologists identified areas of bare ground and areas of standing water, which also attract birds and other wildlife (BASH Flying safety, 2005). This study focuses on three important developments taking place simultaneously in the aviation industry. These are (1) steps to avoid strikes; (2) steps to protect the aircraft; (3) steps to increase inherent ability of the aircraft to withstand birdstrikes. The stakeholders in all the three aspects have been working in their respective ways to reduce the bird-aircraft strike hazard. One of the important objectives of the present study is to review the steps taken by the aviation industry and to study how it has attempted to address this problem in U.S. civilian airfields, with particular reference to JFK Airport. Statement of the Problem “Although not a major a cause of fatalities, bird strikes are a serious safety and economic hazard” (Thorpe, 2003, p.1). With the increase in bird population and in the number of aircraft throughout the world, the number of instances of birdstrikes is constantly on the rise, claiming loss of lives and property damage every year. The problem seems simple, but achieving zero strikes appears only to be possible in theory because of the complexity and costs involved in implementing the solutions, albeit many of them without any guarantee of results (Thorpe, 2003). Delimitations This study’s effectiveness is heavily dependent upon various data pertaining to birdstrike collisions. Often birdstrikes of a minor nature are not reported by the pilots. The researcher has no control over the data collection system available with airlines, pilots’ guilds, airports and wildlife organizations. The researcher also does not have any control to verify this data is considered true. Acronyms and Abbreviations ATIS : Automatic Terminal Information Service BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard CRM : Crew Resource Management FOD : Foreign Object Damage IBSC : International Bird-Strike Committee NGO : Non Governmental Organization SOP : Standard Operating Procedures CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Bird strikes have been occurring since the beginning of aviation. In recent times the aviation industry has started developing technology and taken measures that help in minimizing the incidents of birdstrikes. However, even with the new technology invented, incidents are still on the rise. There is plenty of literature and information available on the subject with a range of topics from history and statistics to control mechanisms and risk assessment. The objective of this literature review is to gain sufficient insight into the problem based on current public knowledge; trend of strikes; steps to increase the inherent ability of the aircraft to withstand birdstrikes; steps to protect the aircraft by altering flight paths; and steps undertaken to avoid the bird population. The following is a critical review of some of the contemporary works and issues pertaining to birdstrikes. It is intended to delve into the various studies underway to find any contradiction of findings in the research efforts on the issue. State of Public Knowledge When the public is aware of an issue where the outcome affects public safety, the intensity of the problem is determined. Dolbeer (2009), in his paper “Birds and aircraft--fighting for airspace in ever more crowded skies” states the collision of aircraft with birds and other wildlife is a growing problem. About 210 aircraft have been destroyed by birdstrikes and other wildlife strikes in the past 20 years (Richardson & West, 2000; Thorpe, 2003, 2005; Dolbeer, 2009). Despite these staggering losses, public knowledge was minimal. Public knowledge and arousing public interest to stakeholders can provide valuable direction to mitigate the problem. Dolbeer (2009) explains that public knowledge has been achieved to a considerable extent in the aftermath of the miraculous ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009, in which all 155 passengers and crew were safely evacuated. This single incident gained significant publicity that could not be achieved in the previous years. The report released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed beyond a doubt that at least one Canadian goose (Branta Canadensis) had been ingested into each engine of the Flight 1549 Airbus 320 after its departure from LaGuardia, Airport, New York (NTSB, 2009). Dolbeer (2009) states that this single, highly-publicized event dramatically demonstrated to the world that birds can bring down large transport aircraft. Increase in Bird Aircraft Strikes In the aftermath of the January 15, 2009 Hudson River ditching, “Bird-aircraft collisions are on the rise. Worldwide, crashes of more than 25 large aircraft were caused by birdstrikes since 1960. Closer home, in the U.S. indicate that the number of bird-aircraft strikes have quadrupled from 1,738 in 1990 to 7439 in 2007. These strikes caused 3,094 precautionary landing, 1442 aborted takeoffs, 312 engine shutdowns and 1162 negative effects” (Dedman; 2009, n.p.). Figure 1: Number of reported wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA. Note. From: Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2007 (Richard A. Dolbeer, Sandra E. Wright, 2008). Vulnerable Species There have been many different types of birds involved in strikes. The Smithsonian Institution Feather Identification Lab states that turkey vultures are the most damaging, followed by Canadian geese, and finally white pelicans (Rice 2005). However, according to Dolbeer (2009) great blue heron, osprey, bald eagle, snow goose, and Canadian geese are the most commonly found birds contributing to strikes. Top ten bird groups/species are gulls, pigeons/doves, raptors, waterfowl, sparrows, shorebirds, swallows, starlings/mynas, blackbirds/orioles and owls, accounting for more than 65 percent of the 45,668 birdstrikes (reported and unreported combined) that took place in the US during 1990 – 2007 (Dolbeer & Wright, 2008). Table 1. Bird-aircraft strikes by bird/species groups in USA (1990-2007) Bird Groups/Species No. of Strikes As percent of total 1. Gulls 7021 20.3 2. Pigeons/doves 4936 14.3 3. Raptors 4545 13.1 4. Waterfowl 2956 8.6 5. Sparrows 2186 6.3 6. Shorebirds 2119 6.1 7. Swallows 1957 5.7 8. Starlings/mynas 1907 5.5 9. Blackbirds/orioles 1334 3.9 10. Owls 1007 2.9 Total of 10 largest bird groups 29968 Total birds 34571 Note. From: Dolbeer, R.A. & Wright, S.E., 2008. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990 - 2007. National Wildlife Strike Database; Serial Report Number 14. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration. Dolbeer and Wright (2008) report that gulls account for by far the largest bird groups involved in strikes with aircraft (20%), followed by raptors (13%) and waterfowl (9%). Gulls have 2.4 times more strikes than waterfowl. However, waterfowl make up 31 percent of all damaging strikes (1326); at least five percent more than those by gulls (119, or 31 percent). Gulls were involved in the highest number of strikes (895, or 27 percent) resulting in a negative effect on flight (Dolbeer & Wright, 2008). This figure corroborates (though not entirely) with Thorpe’s findings. According to Thorpe (2008), in his paper “Update on Fatalities and Destroyed Civil Aircraft due to Birdstrikes with Appendix for 2006 to 2008,” on the global level 39 percent of the bird species known were gulls/lapwings; 16 percent were birds of prey; 15 percent pigeons; 15 percent perching birds; 11 percent were waterfowl; and 4 percent belong to other categories. Seasonal Variation in Birdstrikes It has been found that the time of year and location contributes to the type of birdstrike damage, particularly during spring and fall migrations (Allen, 1999). Dolbeer, Wright, Weller, & Begier (2009) in their study on birdstrikes to civil aircraft in the United States during 1990 – 2008, report that 51 percent of birdstrikes occurred between July and October. This is in agreement with the findings of Transport Canada in Figure 10 below. Figure 10. Seasonal variation of bird-aircraft strike. Note. From: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/TP13549/Images/Chapter7k2.jpg Vulnerable Aircraft Thorpe (2008) reports that the global figures of the total number of birdstrike accidents causing fatalities is 56, killing 262 people and destroying 103 aircraft. Dolbeer et al (2009) points out that within a 19 year duration (1990-2008), the United States reported 49 aircraft destroyed or damaged beyond repair due to wildlife ingestion. About 63 percent were small general aviation aircraft below 2,250 kg maximum takeoff category. Thorpe (2003) had noted from a study involving fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to birdstrikes, 1912 – 2002, that on a global scale, business jets appeared to be responsible for 37 percent of the total accidents. The reason could be because these aircraft often operate with little or nothing in the way of bird control measures. Thorpe (2003) cites another reason could be because most of these aircraft are equipped with older engines, manufactured before the bird ingestion testing. Vulnerable Parts of Aircraft to Birdstrikes Thorpe (2008) cites that on a global basis, the engines continue to be the most vulnerable part of the aircraft in a birdstrike. Bloomberg (2009) states the worst type of damage is ingestion into the engine where fan blades can cause cascading failure. This is where blades break off into each other one after the other while the engine is running at high rpm, causing catastrophic failure and a potentially dangerous crash. On the other hand, Dolbeer et al. (2009) notes in the US during the period 1990 – 2008, the most vulnerable parts of an aircraft were nose/radome, windshield, engine, wing/rotor, and fuselage. Table 2. Aircraft Parts Most Commonly Struck and Damaged by Birds (Canada and U.S.) (1991-1999) CANADA UNITED STATES Aircraft Part Number Struck Number Damaged Percent Damaged Number Struck Number Damaged Percent Damaged Windshield 514 33 6.4 4,195 321 7.7 Wing/Rotor 855 113 13.2 3,030 941 31.1 Fuselage 682 31 4.5 2,665 146 5.5 Nose 750 40 5.3 3,061 235 7.7 Engine 608 96 15.8 3,887 1542 39.7 Propeller 266 12 4.5 819 92 11.2 Radome 251 32 12.7 2,645 405 15.3 Landing Gear 303 8 2.6 1,180 153 13.0 Pitot 43 29 67.4 0 0 0.0 Other 977 168 17.2 1,174 626 53.3 Total 5,249 562 10.7 22,656 4,461 19.7 Note. From: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/TP13549/chapter7.htm Thorpe (2008) notes that “There were 11,060 strike events in which a total of 11,616 engines were reported as struck (10,525 events with one engine struck, 518 with two engines struck, 12 with three engines struck, and 5 with four engines struck). In 3,484 damaging birdstrike events involving engines, a total of 3,596 engines were damaged (3,375 events with one engine damaged, 107 with two engines damaged, 1 with three engines damaged, and 1 with four engines damaged)” (Thorpe, 2008. p. Altitudes of Occurrences The most likely phase of flight aircraft are to encounter birds is during takeoff and landing. Data released from Transport Canada states 40 percent of bird/wildlife strikes occur while the aircraft is still on the ground; mostly when it is taking off or landing. Another 15 percent of strikes occur between one and 99 feet above ground level and a further 16 percent takes place between 100 and 499 feet above ground level. In total, 71 percent of these strikes occur on, or immediately adjacent to, airport properties. Beyond 500 feet, birdstrikes become inversely proportional to the increase in altitude. These figures point to the need to reduce the number of birds at and around airports necessitating both effective wildlife management programs and control of sites as bird-attracting landfills near airports (www.birdstrikecanada.com, 2009). Causes of Increase in Bird Aircraft Strike Dolbeer et al. (2009) identifies three chief causes for an increase in birdstrikes in the US. These are (1) increase in bird population due to conservation programs; (2) noise reduction in newer aircraft; and (3) increase in air traffic. Increase in Bird Population According to the Bird Aircraft Strike Committee, USA sources (2010), the table below shows there has been a significant increase in the bird population in the US. Dolbeer et al. (2009) confirms the findings and state that in the last few decades many wildlife species involved in strikes with aircraft have increased considerably and have adapted to living in urban environments including airports of U.S. and Canada. For instance, from 1980 to 2007, the resident (non-migratory) Canada goose population in the USA and Canada increased at a mean rate of 7.3 percent per year (Sauer et al. 2008; cited by Dolbeer et Al., 2009). Similarly, other species which showed considerable mean annual rates of increase included Bald eagles include (4.6 percent), Wild turkeys (12.1percent), Turkey vultures (2.2 percent), American white pelicans (2.9 percent), Double-crested cormorants (4.0 percent) and Sandhill cranes (5.0 percent) (Dolbeer et al., 2009). Dolbeer and Eschenfelder note that 13 of the 14 species in North America with mean body masses greater than 8 lbs have increased their population considerably over the past 30 years. Of the 14 bird species in North America with mean body masses greater than 8 lbs there has been significant population increases over the past three decades (Dolbeer & Eschenfelder 2003; cited by Dolbeer et al., 2009). Table 3. Increasing bird population a cause for Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard; some facts Waterfowl (31%), gulls (25%), raptors (18%), and pigeons/doves (7%) represented 81% of the reported birdstrikes causing damage to USA civil aircraft, 1990-2008. Over 780 civil aircraft collisions with deer and 280 collisions with coyotes were reported in the USA, 1990-2008. In 1890, about 60 European starlings were released in Central Park, New York City.  Starlings are now the second most abundant bird in North America with a late-summer population of over 150 million birds.  Starlings are "feathered bullets", having a body density 27% higher than herring gulls. The North American non-migratory Canada goose population increased about 4 fold from 1 million birds in 1990 to over 3.9 million in 2009.  About 1,500 Canada geese strikes with civil aircraft have been reported in USA, 1990-2008.  About 42% of these strike events involved multiple birds. A 12-lb Canada goose struck by a150-mph aircraft at lift-off generates the kinetic energy of a 1,000-lb weight dropped from a height of 10 feet. The North American population of greater snow geese increased from about 50,000 birds in 1966 to over 1,000,000 birds in 2008. The nesting population of bald eagles in the contiguous USA increased from fewer than 400 pairs in 1970 (2 years before DDT and similar chlorinated-hydrocarbon insecticides were banned) to over 11,000 pairs in 2008.  Over 110 bald eagle strikes with civil aircraft have been reported in USA, 1990-2008.  Mean body mass of bald eagles = 9.1 lbs (male); 11.8 lbs (female). The Great Lakes cormorant population increased from only about 200 nesting adults in 1970 to over 240,000 nesting adults in 2008, a 1,000+-fold increase. The North American white and brown pelican populations grew at average annual rates of 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively, 1966-2007. At least 15,000 gulls were counted nesting on roofs in USA cities on the Great Lakes during a survey in 1994. About 90% of all birdstrikes in the U.S. are by species federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. From 1990-2009, 381 different species of birds were involved in strikes with civil aircraft in USA that were reported to the FAA. Note. From: Bird Strike Committee USA. (2010, March 08). Understanding and reducing bird and other wildlife hazards to aircraft. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.birdstrike.org: http://www.birdstrike.org/ Large bird populations have increased the concern of the aviation industry because the engines and other components of the aircraft are not tested or certified for birds more than 3.6 kg body mass (MacKinnon et al., 2001; cited by Dolbeer, 2009). According to Dolbeer, (2009, p. 166) “Most components are tested for 1.8-kg birds, maximum. Most disturbing is that it is acceptable for aircraft engines to lose all power after ingesting a large bird (1.8, 2.7, or 3.6 kg bird, depending on size on engine). The only requirements to pass the test are that the engine can be shut down safely and that the damage be contained within the engine casing (FAA 2001). The engines on the Flight 1549 Airbus 320, both of which lost power after ingesting geese, performed exactly as they were certified to perform” (Dolbeer, 2009; p.166). Increase in Air traffic Along with the increase in population of bird species vulnerable to collision with aircraft, air traffic has also shown a significant rise. In the US, from about 310 million in 1980, passengers have gone up to 750 million in 2008; an annual increase of about 3.2 percent per year. Likewise, from about 18 million aircraft movements in 1980, the commercial air traffic grew to 328 million aircraft movements in 2008; increasing at a rate of 1.6 percent per year (Federal Aviation Administration, 2009; cited by Dolbeer et al., 2009). The authors argue that the significant rise in air traffic results in increase in the chance of collision with birds, which is also growing at a considerable rate. Aircraft Engine Improvisations A third reason for increased birdstrikes is due to improvements in technology, where birds are unable to detect engines as opposed to earlier models. Berger (1983) and Kelly (1999) state “birds are less able to detect and avoid modern jet aircraft with quieter turbofan engines (Chapter 3, International Civil Aviation Organization 1999) than older aircraft with noisier (Chapter 2) engines” (Berger 1983, Kelly et al., 1999; cited by Dolbeer 2009; p.166). According to a US Department of Transportation report, in 2005 the passenger fleet has grown by more than 8200 aircraft, of which only 10 percent had three or four engines (US Department of Transportation, 2009; cited by Dolbeer 2009) as opposed to 90 percent of the USA’s 2100 aircraft in 1965 with three-or-four engines. The reason is that “commercial airliners have replaced their older three-or four-engine aircraft fleet with more efficient quieter, two-engine aircraft” (Dolbeer, Wright, Weller, & Begier, 2009; p.3) . In essence, no matter what contributes to the reason for the increase in birdstrikes with aircraft, there is a substantial increase which is a matter of concern. Prevention Techniques and Programs In an early attempt, Harris and Davis (1998) identify seven methods in practice at various airports to control birds. These are (1) habitat control; (2) auditory deterrents; (3) visual repellents; (4) chemical repellents; (5) exclusion methods; (6) Removal methods; (7) Other methods such as lure areas, magnets, microwaves and lasers. A list of methods, practices and equipment is listed in the table below: Table 4.List of airport bird control measure HABITAT MODIFICATION Tall Grass AUDITORY DETERRENTS Shotguns and Rifles with Live Ammunition Pyrotechnics Shotgun-based Flares Pistol-based Rockets and Mortars Gas Cannons and “Exploders” Agri-SX Phoenix Wailer Systems Bird Gard AVA and Bird Gard ABC Av-Alarm Distress and Alarm Calls Calls of Predators High Intensity Sound Ultrasonics Aircraft Engine Noise and Infrasound VISUAL REPELLENTS Scarecrows Reflectors and Reflecting Tape Predator Models Hawk Kites and Balloons Gull Models Falconry Aircraft Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Lights Dyes Smoke CHEMICAL REPELLENTS Tactile Repellents Behavioural Repellents Benomyl and Tersan Methyl Anthranilate - ReJeX-iT Other Taste Aversives EXCLUSION METHODS General Considerations Regarding Actual Physical Barriers Overhead Wires and Lines Foam Bird Balls™ REMOVAL METHODS Traps Live Ammunition-Shooting Surfactants and Water Spray OTHER PRODUCTS AND TECHNIQUES Lure Areas Magnets Microwaves Lasers Note. From: Harris, R.E. & Davis, R.A., 1998. Evaluation of the efficiency of Products and Techniques for Airport Bird Control. LGL Report. Ottawa: Transport Canada Aerodrome Safety Branch. Harris and Davis (1998) divided this study into three categories: (1) highly recommended (2) limited recommendation and (3) not recommended categories. Of these the authors did not recommend nine products and techniques. These include: high intensity sound, microwaves and lasers being dangerous to humans and other mammals. Ultrasound was ineffective to birds. Hazing of aircraft by use of smoke was not practical for use on aircraft. On other measures such as magnets, dyes and aircraft engine noise and infrasound, the research did not suggest them to be strong candidates for bird control. The authors stated that a majority of the products fell in the limited recommendation category. However, products such as auditory, visual and chemical repellents were not highly recommended because of their limited efficiency due to habituation, weak biological basis, limited application, and/or implementation problems. These work best when they are included as parts of an integrated approach. In the highly recommended category, the authors assert that the best passive technique for long-term control is habitat modification since it modifies the habitat that attracts the birds at the airports, thereby addressing the root cause of the problems. They also suggest that a variety of physical measures such as fencing, netting, and overhead wires and lines to exclude birds from identified critical areas at the airport. Bird balls could be used to cover ponds. Physical barriers permanently exclude birds from treated areas, but they must be maintained and monitored. The use of perch barriers such Nixalite, Bird-B-Gone, Avi-Away, and Fine Wires on buildings, signs, and airport light fixtures may also be appropriate (Harris & Davis, 1998). However, Harris and Davis (1998) suggest that since every airfield is unique, an active bird control program is always recommended over any of these measures in isolation. Habitat modification involves the removal and/or alteration of habitat features. Typical actions include the pruning or removal of trees and shrubs; removal of standing water (ponds, puddles); revegetation of barren areas with plant species tall enough to prevent use by open country birds such as gulls; planting of crops less attractive to problem birds, and allowing grassy areas to grow taller. Other techniques address nesting and resting sites provided by airport buildings, and removal of perching sites on airfields. Habitat modification should consider habitat features in the vicinity of the airport as well as on the airport itself. An overview of habitat modification issues and techniques is provided in the Transport Canada Manual (Transport Canada 1994). Bird control products/techniques, such as netting and lines, that prevent access to habitat features that attract birds are discussed under “Exclusion Methods” later. Discussed under “Chemical Repellents” are chemicals that control birds' food sources, such as worm control. Some of these alter the habitat for prey species rather than addressing features that birds use directly. The effectiveness of a tall grass policy on airports has been studied at several locations. (Harris & Davis, 1998, p.5) In subsequent years, there has been a multitude of efforts to study the issue and there have been publications of some useful handbooks for bird/wildlife control in airports. Some of these include works by ACI (2005), CAA (1998), Cleary & Dolbeer (1999), and Transport Canada (2001). However, these volumes lacked in many counts. For instance, not much credible direction was provided toward the levels of investment in time and resources, training and monitoring of bird/wildlife hazard. Further, there have been contrasting provisions with aircraft safety provisions such as levels of fire control equipment and manpower (International Birdstrike Committee, 2006). One common theme in all of these handbooks is that habitat control, though expensive, is by far the best method for controlling bird/wildlife in the airports. Efforts by stakeholders to Tackle Bird Aircraft Strike Problem The United States Bird Avoidance Model (USBAM) concept was conceived in the 1980s. Based on historical data of where large bird concentrations gather, their periods of activity, and migratory patterns, the BAM helps alert pilots and mission schedulers of peak locations and times of bird movement so that missions can be planned around them. The BAM has proven itself to be a very useful tool (Kelly. 1999). Its objective is to create a predictive bird avoidance model using a geographic information system. It was constructed with the best available geospatial bird data to reduce the risk of bird collisions with aircraft. The present day’s BAM is the most complete planning tool available (Burney 1999). Many airliners have specific training program to cope with birdstrikes. The airport management authorities and the aviation industry together are now making concentrated efforts to counter birdstrikes. Deployment of radars is another measure used to characterize the presence and movement of birds. In the past several years, numerous advances have been introduced into radars bringing many potential benefits to the entire aviation industry. In the late 1990s, commercially available avian radar systems were introduced to the marketplace. In less than ten years, development has accelerated as radar companies have entered the market in direct response to the growing awareness of the birdstrike problem and the need for affordable avian radar solutions (Nohara, 2007). Prior to 2000, avian radars were largely used and developed for monitoring birds for BASH management. This period can be characterized by some specialized software, and largely manual methods for target extraction. Cameras and frame-grabbers were used to capture radar video screens. In the past ten years, bird detection radars have contributed significantly towards curbing birdstrike hazards. “A key challenge in use of avian radars at both military and commercial airfields however has been integration of the greatly expanded level of risk information provided by avian radar technology into the current procedures and methods for setting birdstrike risk conditions at airports and airfields” ((Kelly, Merritt, & Andrews, 2007, p.1). The International Birdstrike Committee (2006), in an attempt to standardize and streamline the bird/wildlife control measures in their report, “Recommended practice No. 1: Standards for Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control” provides nine standards for aerodrome bird/wildlife control. These are: Table 5. Standards established by International Birdstrike Committee for aerodrome bird/wildlife control Standard 1 Identifying attractions and habitat management Standard 2 Active bird/wildlife control on the airport Standard 3 Organization: Collaboration and coordination between organisations on the airport Standard 4 Equipment: Portable equipment, static devices, trained predators (Falcons and Dogs) Standard 5 Logging bird/wildlife management activities Standard 6 Bird strike reporting Standard 7 Data required in a Birdstrike report Standard 8 Risk assessment Standard 9 Bird/wildlife management off the airfield Note. From: International Birdstrike Committee, 2006. Standards For Aerodrome Bird/Wildlife Control, Recommended Practices No. 1. [Online] Available at: http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Standards_for_Aerodrome_bird_wildlife%20control.pdf [Accessed 07 July 2010]. Source: The report offers detailed measures to be adopted for this purpose. Clearly, habitat management is featured prominently due to its effectiveness and long-term solution. Summary Given that there is a significant rise in the bird population, the vulnerabilities of the aircraft and the longstanding nature of the problem, birdstrikes are a serious hazard to aviation safety. Research has now revealed many aspects of the problem which were not considered a decade ago. The ultimate goal is not eliminating birds or moving away from birds – but to enable safe flying while being amidst the wildlife. The present study takes on the task for JFK Airport. Two statements will be considered in this study for assessing their veracity. Statement One (S1): Bird control measures are in place at JFK Airport. Statement Two (S2): There is a rise in civil aircraft birdstrikes despite the bird control measures. It is intended that these two statements will reveal the effectiveness of the birdstrike measures so that corrective actions can be undertaken, which remains as the prime objective of this study. CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS Various research methods available were studied to find their suitability for the present study. ‘Research methodology’ is the study of research methods; and a ‘research method’ is a specific approach that may be used in the research process, which describes the ‘what is to be done’ aspect of the research. Therefore, greater emphasis was given on identifying the right research method. An in depth study on the subject revealed that seven methods of research are popular. These are: (1) experiment; (2) quasi-experiment; (3) survey; (4) case study and field study; (5) engineering research; (6) action research; and (7) ethnography. Of these, it was felt that the case study method would be more appropriate for the subject. A case study being an in-depth look at a problem, it has the capacity to produce theoretical advances. The rationale behind this selection is mentioned at the table below: Table 6. Identification of suitable research method for research Research Method Principle Suitability and rationale Experiment Involves testing of the relationship between just two variables, the independent and dependant variable. All other variables are kept constant. This method is unsuitable to the study, because no experimentation can be possible by the researcher due to paucity of funds, resources and time. Quasi-experiment Involves testing of same type of problem as experiments since the results cannot be generalized beyond the group of people used in the study. This method is also unsuitable as experiments cannot be conducted by the researcher in an airport environment due to resource limitations. Survey Involves sampling, interviewing and questioning. The present study will use published secondary data available through various sources. The process does not necessitate survey conducted through sampling, interviewing and questionnaire. Case study/Field study Involves an in depth look at a problem or issue. A case study on the state of bird aircraft strikes and programs adopted at JFK aircraft would be appropriate to test the hypotheses. A field study would be expensive. Engineering research Concerns with ‘building’ of something. The present does not require any building of an equipment or instrument. Action research Involves research methods and approaches to help bring about action to solve problems and to implement change. Not suitable as the objective of the study is not to initiate action to satisfy the problem. The present study does not propose any action to be implemented at JFK Airport and measurement of the effectiveness of the problem. Ethnography Concerns with the ways of life of living human beings. Not suitable as the study necessitates observation of bird-aircraft strike patterns prevention programs at JFK Airport. Research Design Considering that the study required will be a case study approach, and a careful evaluation of the generally adopted designs e.g. (1) interviews, (2) observation, (3) questionnaire, it was felt that an exploratory study seeking to establish ‘what is the present state of aircraft birdstrikes at JFK airport would be appropriate. Conducting structured focused interviews would have only been tangentially relevant and therefore was not considered. However, a questionnaire was prepared for the JFK International Airport wildlife management department for providing details on the programs being implemented for wildlife management and control and bird aircraft strike prevention techniques. An appropriate cover letter was made for the questionnaire. The questionnaire along with the cover letter is placed at Appendix-2. The published statistics on birdstrikes comprise rich sources of information gathered through a very elaborate mechanism of systematic reporting and scientific collection processes. Careful analysis of this data would be sufficient to derive credible insight on the issue. This could enable discovering the significant variables and their interrelationships, while laying the foundations for more scientific research. The following variables were identified: Independent Variable – aircraft birdstrike prevention programs adopted at JFK airport Dependent variable – change in the number of birdstrikes This design also identifies the cause (various programs implemented at the airport) and effects (resultant increase or decrease in birdstrikes) and establishes their relationship. Research Model The following operational model was established for the purpose of the study. Figure 3: Operational model for research Selection of Airport The survey was limited to JFK International Airport (JFKIA). The selection of this airport is based on the fact that JFKIA is the sixth busiest airport in the US and the 12th busiest in the world. The airport is located near the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuse. It stretches over 9000 acres comprising of small islands and marshes housing over 330 bird species. It is also the breeding ground for gulls and geese. According to the reports published by the Federal Aviation Administration, these groups of birds along with mourning doves, comprise the majority of birds that collide with aircraft (birdstrikecontrol.com, 2009). The crucial fact that contributed to selection of JFKIA is due to the realization from the FAA report spanning 19 years (from January 2008 to November 2009) that the highest rate of birdstrikes (1811 strikes) took place at JFK, while LaGuardia Airport had only 954 avian collisions. The report “captured about 20 percent of all wildlife strikes and included the cost of repairs to the planes from the birdstrikes to be more than $267 million” (birdstrikecontrol.com, 2009). The data required for the study was gathered from various sources such as The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, FAA, Department of Agriculture to name a few. The data was collected from secondary research only. The study did not necessitate any pilot study or instrument pretest. Treatment of the Data and Procedures Two main types of inputs were considered. These are (1) the programs implemented by JFK Airport to counter birdstrikes and since when; (2) the birdstrike statistics released by various authorities. The study period was taken from 01 January 2000 to 31 December 2009. Previous record of birdstrikes though available since 1990, yet it was felt that older data beyond the year 2000 may not be useful due to changes in the wildlife management techniques and programs. Older data may even adversely impact the findings especially if newer methods developed as a result of new researches have been implemented by the airport. The data was grouped suitably so as to bring out the correlation between the variables. Following empirical formula was established for the purpose: ΣM = M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 ….. (1) Where M1, M2, M2, M4… are bird control measures. Four inequalities were set up as scenarios to substantiate the statements. Scenario 1: ΣM, => Bird control measures have been implemented at JFK Airport. Statement one (H1) is substantiated. Scenario 2: BS 2009 = BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 => birdstrikes programs are inconsequential. Statement Two (H2) is substantiated. Scenario 3 BS 2009 < BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 => birdstrikes programs are effective. Statement Two (H2) is not substantiated. Scenario 4 BS 2009 > BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 => birdstrikes programs are inconsequential and ineffective. Statement Two (H2) is substantiated. Scope Limitations The scope of the study is limited to the birdstrike programs and the trend of birdstrikes at JFK airport. It does not attempt to attribute the increase or decrease of birdstrikes to specific birdstrike programs; nor does it make to quantify the effect of the programs on birdstrikes. CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Results Considering that JFKIA is one of the busiest airports in the US and also the airport with highest birdstrikes, the following two research questions were raised: (1) What bird control measures are in place; (2) what is the trend of birdstrikes to aircraft when these measures are in place. Though, there has been ample studies that decries birdstrikes to aircraft are on the rise, no specific study existed to confirm this proposition. Two statements were considered for substantiation, Statement One (S1): Bird control measures in place at JFK airport. Statement Two (S2): There is rise in collision of birds with civil aircraft despite the bird control measures. The empirical formulae and the research model developed for substantiating the statements have already been discussed in detail in the previous chapter. Careful analysis of the data gathered through various government sources led to the finding that confirmed the generalized notion that, indeed, in spite of an elaborate bird management program during the study horizon year 2000 – year 2009, there has been consistent rise in birdstrike incidents. Analysis The analysis of the study is grouped under two heads. First, analysis of data pertains to birdstrike prevention programs available at JFK, and second, analysis of data pertaining to birdstrikes reported during the study horizon. These are appended in the succeeding pages. Analysis of Birdstrike Prevention Programs at JFKIA JFK, follows a bird avoidance model as prescribed by the FAA. The latest being “Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports - A Manual for Airport Personnel”. The latest edition in force is the Second Edition, July 2005. The manual is a culmination of joint efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and was prepared by Edward C. Cleary, the then Staff Wild Biologist, U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA and Richard A. Dolbeer, the then National Coordination, Airports Program, U.S. Department of Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. The manual delineates every aspect of wildlife hazard management at airports that would be useful from the perspective of the airport personnel. The manual is one of the most comprehensive manuals on wildlife hazard management at airports in the world and comprises of such incisive instructions in the form of chapters as: Table 7.Contents of “Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports - A Manual for Airport Personnel” Chapter Description 1 Introduction to the wildlife strike problem 2 The FAA national wildlife strike database for civil aviation 3 Agencies and organizations impacting wildlife hazard management on airports 4 Federal regulations and departmental policies impacting airport wildlife management 5 Recognizing hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports 6 Developing wildlife hazard management programs at airports 7 Evaluating wildlife hazard management programs at airports 8 Wildlife hazard management training for airport personnel 9 Wildlife control strategies and techniques at airports Note. From: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=icwdm_usdanwrc Chapter six and seven of this manual provides guidance on developing wildlife hazard management programs at airports and evaluating wildlife hazard management programs at airports respectively. JFK is a meticulous compliant of these regulations and therefore has developed elaborate wildlife management programs such as: (1) wildlife hazard assessment including the duration of wildlife hazard assessment and the techniques to be used for such assessments; and (2) wildlife hazard management plan. The wildlife hazard management plan covered such minute details as: Identifying personnel responsible for implementing each phase of the plan; Identifying and providing information on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport; Identifying appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize wildlife hazard; Prioritizing appropriate management measures; Making necessary recommendations on equipment and supplies; Identifying training requirements for the airport personnel who will implement the wildlife hazard management plan; and Identifying when and how the plan will be reviewed and updated. Correspondingly, JFK has an equally elaborate evaluation program for wildlife hazard management plan covering such detailed aspects as: Monitoring and record keeping of hazard assessments, plans and studies; daily log of wildlife control activities; daily log of wildlife strikes; records of significant management actions taken; summary of reports by month and year; and training; Assessment of wildlife hazard management plan; Airport wildlife hazards working groups including function, membership and meetings and meeting reports. In addition to these activities, JFK has an impressive training facility and program that covers such aspects as bird and mammal identification; basic life histories and behavior of common species; wildlife and environmental laws and regulations; wildlife control techniques; and record keeping and strike reporting. Additionally, the airport is adopting some of the best and proven wildlife management and techniques. The following techniques were found to be in the JFK operations specifications. (M1) - Aircraft flight schedule modification; (M2) - Habitat modification and exclusion techniques such as food, cover, water, exclusion techniques, exclusion of birds and exclusion of mammals; (M3) - Repellent techniques such as wildlife patrols and runway sweeps in vehicles, chemical repellents for birds and mammals, audio repellents for birds and mammals, visual repellent for birds and mammals, trained falcons and dogs for repelling birds, radio controlled model aircraft to repel birds and nonlethal projectiles to repel birds; (M4) - Wildlife removal techniques such as capturing birds and mammals, chemical capture of birds and mammals, live-trapping of birds and mammals, killing of birds and mammals, destroying eggs and nests, shooting of birds and mammals, oral toxicants for birds and mammals, fumigants and lethal traps for mammals. Figure 4: Four variables for substantiating S2 A confirmation of adherence of these practices were sought from JFK to ascertain discontinuity if any of these practices. The reply received is located in Appendix 4.A to Appendix 4.K. In light of the positive reply, it is therefore construed conclusively that JFK has one of the most elaborate airport wildlife management programs around. Analysis of Birdstrike Data Analysis of wildlife management and control programs in place at JFK raises another important question. What is the trend of birdstrikes after institution of these programs? To get the answer to this question 10 years data, as planned to be covered under the time horizon, was collected from the FAA website pertaining to JFK International Airport. The data was segregated year-wise and tabulated for analysis. The following table depicts the emerged pattern. Table 8. Number of reported birdstrikes at JFK International Airport since 2000 Year No. of strikes 2000 107 2001 162 2002 148 2003 106 2004 106 2005 128 2006 149 2007 163 2008 144 2009 175 Note. From: wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov, n.d. About the FAA Wildlife Strike Database. [Online] FAA Available at: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx [Accessed 11 July 2010] It was considered, though grouping and analysis of 33 fields of available data via the FAA database provides interesting observations, these fields may not be of much use. The objective of the study was to infer on the general tendency of increase or decrease in the number of birdstrikes to aircraft. Figure 5. Reported birdstrikes to aircraft at JFK International Airport (2000 - 2009). Note. From: wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov, n.d. About the FAA Wildlife Strike Database. [Online] FAA Available at: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx [Accessed 11 July 2010] Figure 6. Bird Aircraft Strikes at JFK International Airport Since 2000. Note. From: wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov, n.d. About the FAA Wildlife Strike Database. [Online] FAA Available at: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx [Accessed 11 July 2010] An important observation of this shows that the birdstrike data increased for two years and then declined consecutively for three years. Thereafter, it remained steady for a year and then the trend was reversed increasing continuously with an exception of 2008. The overall trend line shows ascendancy. Several inferences can be made from these observations. 1. As brought out by several other researches JFK followed the general trend of increasing birdstrike accidents. The reasons have been sufficiently brought out by previous studies as due to a combined effect of (a) increase in wildlife conservation programs, (b) increase in air traffic and (c) switching over of quieter two-engine aircraft in place of the three or four engine-aircraft. 2. The decline from January 2002 can be attributed to the increased awareness and subsequent implementation of wildlife management and control programs by the airport. 3. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of birdstrikes lasted only for a period of three years and the trend started reversing. This can be attributed to resilience and habituation developed by birds to the techniques of implementation. 4. It is equally interesting to note that the improved version of the manual published by the FAA on “Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports” was started to be implemented with effect from July 2005, yet there was no sign of decline in the number of strikes. On the contrary, the number of strikes started to climb with a small dip in 2008. CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION Substantiating Statement One (S1) The empirical formula for testing Statement One (S1) was established to be: ΣM = M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 ….. (1) Where M1, M2, M2, M4… are bird control measures. Two attributes were assigned as ‘0’ and ‘1’(+ive) corresponding two conditions such as when birdstrike prevention programs are not implemented by the airport ‘0’ zero value is assigned. On the other hand, it is sufficiently and conclusively proved that such programs are in place and practiced; positive value of ‘1’ was assigned. From the official replies received from JFK Airport, it is evident that all four major birdstrike prevention techniques such as: (M1) - aircraft flight schedule modification; (M2) - habitat modification and exclusion techniques; (M3) - repellent techniques; and (M4) - wildlife removal techniques are in place and is being used frequently depending upon the exigency of the situation. Hence, Hypothesis One (H1) is tested and found to be true since, the birdstrike prevention programs M1, M2, M3 and M4 are positive. Substantiating Statement Two (S2) The three inequalities set up were in accordance with the three scenarios to prove or disprove Hypothesis Two (H2) were examined as follows: BS 2009 = BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 => Birdstrike programs are inconsequential. ……………………………… (Ineq. 1) Inequality (1) does not hold well since the birdstrike data pertaining to 2009 is not equal to those in the previous years. BS 2009 < BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 => Birdstrike programs are effective. ……...…………………...…………... (Ineq. 2) Inequality (2) does not hold well since the birdstrike data pertaining to 2009 is not less than those in the previous years. BS 2009 > BS 2008; BS 2007; BS 2006; BS 2005; BS 2004; BS 2003; BS 2002; BS 2001;BS 2000 =>Birdstrikes programs are inconsequential and ineffective…………... (Ineq. 3) Inequality (3) holds well since birdstrike data pertaining to 2009 is more than all the previous years. Hypothesis Two (H2) is proved that there is rise in birdstrikes to aircraft despite prevention programs in place. CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS The importance of JFK airport cannot be obviated due it its strategic and logistical significance. After the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson, it created considerable public awareness and resultant interest in aircraft birdstrikes and prevention programs. No systematic and specific study has been carried out for JFK International Airport. In view of the above, it was felt that two issues need to be studied pertaining to this important airport, which would provide direction to any further course of action on the subject. These issues are: (1) What are the bird control measures in place at JFK; and (2) what is the trend of birdstrikes when these measures are in place. The study revealed a few interesting insights. Firstly, JFK Airport followed the general trend of increasing aircraft birdstrike incidents. Studies show this could be due to a combined effect of (a) increase in wildlife conservation programs, (b) increase in air traffic and (c) switching over to quieter two-engine aircraft in place of the three or four engine-aircraft. Secondly, a decline in birdstrikes was observed from January 2002 and lasted until end of 2004, which can be attributed to the increased awareness and subsequent implementation of wildlife management and control programs by the airport. Interestingly, the decline lasted only for three years and once again the trend started reversing. The decline can be attributed to resilience and habituation developed by birds to the techniques of implementation. Thirdly, and equally interesting to note that the improved version of the manual published by FAA on “Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports” was started to be implemented with effect from July 2005, yet there was no sign of decline in the number of strikes. On the contrary, the number of strikes started to climb with a small dip in 2008. Therefore, it is concluded that the birdstrike programs implemented at JFK Airport has not been effective. The present study was limited by its scope and therefore could not proceed to identify such issues as which particular prevention program has been effective or ineffective. Further, is the rise in birdstrikes is a consequence of conservation programs, or rise in aircraft traffic or due to quieter aircraft engines. It also could not make any assessment on the efficiency of the newer techniques including the advanced avian radars. The Executive Director of JFK International Airport said the airport is implementing a federally approved multilayered approach including habitat modification, egg addling, nest removal, diversion, trapping and shooting when necessary. In addition, the Port Authority announced several additional steps it is taking (WTC Media Center; Press Release Number: 70, 2009): 1. Creating a memorandum of understanding with New York City that will lead to the roundup and removal of thousands of Canada geese from city-owned properties in the vicinity of LaGuardia and JFK. The Port Authority will pay half of the cost of this effort which will be carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2. Installing a state-of-the-art bird radar pilot program at JFK; 3. Hiring of a second airport wildlife biologist - two of only seven in the nation- to enhance a wildlife hazard mitigation program at Newark Liberty International, LaGuardia and JFK that already is one of the most aggressive in the country, featuring a falconry program to reduce the hazard posed by gulls; 4. Hiring of an independent evaluator to review the agency’s FAA-certified Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plans for the three major airports; and 5. Training airport supervisors as certified shotgun instructors to increase the capacity to shoot birds when necessary. From the above it appears that JFK is impractical as to what could be done to mitigate this menace. This brings to question, is the aircraft birdstrike prevention programs effective and adequate; and can the airport protect its aircraft from these innocent enemies and feathered bullets? CHAPTER VII: RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made concerning the status and disposition of this study. The recommendations are made on three broad areas. These are: 1. Generation of insight into the problem. 2. Development of solutions to the problem. 3. Implementation of the prescribed solutions. Since each airport is a different ecological entity, the FAA or the relevant authorities need to institute airport specific studies at least on the important airfields under these broad areas, which may include: 1. The studies need to take a long-haul approach with a holistic view taking into account all the aspects of the problem. 2. The study should be taken up as a coordinated approach between all the stakeholders of the airport including the academia. The present practice of sporadic or isolated studies on some airports, though have been helpful in bringing out some important revelations, these are largely uncoordinated and therefore provide an ad hoc perspective when the problem in entirety is considered. 3. The studies must provide the wider picture of the problem pertaining to a specific airport at the same time; it should cover sufficient depth to find out the suitability of the implemented programs. Meanwhile, since the present study was limited in scope, it is recommended that more in depth study in the same direction would be necessary to unravel the accountability and efficacy of the programs implemented at JFK International Airport. It is believed that the present study would pave the way for such studies in future. REFERENCES About the FAA wildlife strike database. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2010, from wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx Allan, J. R. (2000). The costs of birdstrikes and birdstrike prevention. Retrieved July 08, 2010, from www.aphis.usda.gov: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/ nwrc/symposia/economics_symposium/allenHR.pdf Dedman, B. (2009). Birdstrikes becoming a more serious threat. Retrieved July 06, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679145/ns/us_news-life Bird Strike Committee USA. (2010, March 08). Understanding and reducing bird and other wildlife hazards to aircraft. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.birdstrike.org: http://www.birdstrike.org/ birdstrikecontrol.com. (2009). JFK has most birdstrikes, FAA reports. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from http://www.birdstrikecontrol.com/news/birdstrike_news/jfk-has-most-bird-strikes-faa-reports/ Cleary, E. C., & Dolbeer, R. A. (2005). Wildlife hazard management at airports - A manual for airport personnel. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/downloads/ 2005_FAA_Manual_complete.pdf Dolbeer, R. A. (2001). Aerodrome bird hazard prevention: Case study at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from cartome.org: http://cartome.org/jfk-strike.htm Dolbeer, R. A. (2009). Birds and aircraft—fighting for airspace in ever more crowded skies. Human–Wildlife Conflicts, 3 (2), 165–166. Dolbeer, R. A. (2009, Fall). Birds and aircraft—fighting for airspace in ever more crowded skies. Human–Wildlife Conflicts, 165–166. Dolbeer, R. A., & Wright, S. E. (2008). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990 - 2007. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Dolbeer, R. A., Wright, S. E., Weller, J., & Begier, M. J. (2009). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990 - 2008. Federal Aviation Administration. WASHINGTON, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Harris, R. E., & Davis, R. A. (1998). Evaluation of the efficiency of products and techniques for airport bird control. Aerodrome Safety Branch. Ottawa: Transport Canada. Munro, I. (2009). Passenger jet plunges into Hudson River. Retrieved Jul 01, 2010, from http://www.theage.com.au/world/passenger-jet-plunges-into-hudson-river-20090116-7ie3.html?page=-1 International Birdstrike Committee. (2006, October). Standards for aerodrome bird/wildlife control, recommended practices No. 1. Retrieved March 09, 2010, from www.int-birdstrike.org: http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Standards _for_Aerodrome_bird_wildlife%20control.pdf Kelly, T.A., Merritt, R., & Andrews, G.W. (2007) An Advanced Avian Radar Display for Automated Bird Strike Risk Determination for Airports and Airfields. Bird Strike Committee Proceedings 2007. Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada,9th Annual Meeting, Kingston, Ontario.(p.p.1-8). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Nizampatnam, L. S. (2007). Models and methods for bird strike load predictions. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from soar.wichita.edu: http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/bitstream/10057/1494/1/d07030.pdf Thorpe, J. (2003, May 09). Fatalites and destroyed civil aircraft due to birdstrikes, 1919-2002. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.int-birdstrike.org: http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Warsaw_Papers/IBSC26%20WPSA1.pdf Dolbeer, R.A., & Wright, S.E.. (2008, June). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990-2007. Retrieved March 09, 2010, from www.docstoc.com: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5871637/FAA-report-on-bird-plane-collission-statistics Thorpe, J. (2008). Update on fatalaties and destroyed civil aircraft due to birdstrikes with appendix for 2006 to 2008. International Birdstrike Committee. Brasilia, 24 -28 November : International Birdstrike Committee. Thorpe, J. (2003). Fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to birdstrikes, 1912-2002 . IBSC26/WP-SA1, International Birdstrike Committee, Warsaw. WTC Media Center; Press Release Number: 70. (2009). PORT AUTHORITY DETAILS NEW MITIGATION EFFORTS AT NYC REGION’S AIRPORTS, INCLUDING NEWARK, LA GUARDIA AND JFK AIRPORTS. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/press_releasesItem.cfm?headLine_id=1168 11th Joint Meeting of Birdstrike Committee USA & Canada.. (2009, September 17). Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.birdstrikecanada.com: http://www.birdstrikecanada.com/documents/FinalConferenceProgram.pdf APPENDIX 1 Bird Aircraft strikes by Bird/Species Groups in USA (1990 – 2007) Table 8. Bird Aircraft strikes by Bird/Species Groups in USA (1990 -2007) Bird Groups/Species No. of Strikes 1. Gulls 7021 2. Pigeons/doves 4936 3. Raptors 4545 4. Waterfowl 2956 5. Sparrows 2186 6. Shorebirds 2119 7. Swallows 1957 8. Starlings/mynas 1907 9. Blackbirds/orioles 1334 10. Owls 1007 11. Meadowlarks 706 12. Larks 674 13. Crows/jays/magpies 484 14. Egrets 466 15. Herons/bitterns 323 16. Thrushes 306 17. Finches/buntings 243 18. Misc perching birds 144 19. Gallinaceous birds 135 20. Nightjars 132 21. Flycatchers 98 22. Swifts 93 23. Cranes 84 24. Mannikins 81 25. Warblers 73 26. Rails/gallinules 71 27. Mimics 68 28. Cormorants 56 29. Pelicans 49 30. Woodpeckers 44 31. Grebes 43 32. Albatrosses/shearwaters 42 33. Wrens 41 34. Storks/ibises 30 35. Chickadees 19 36. Loons 15 37. Anhinga 14 38. Frigatebirds 11 39. Parrots 11 40. Tropicbirds 10 41. Cuckoos 9 42. Vireos 9 43. Belted kingfisher 7 44. Kinglets 4 45. Towhees 4 46. Hummingbirds 3 47. Red-footed booby 1 48. Total birds 34571 Total unknown birds 45,668 Total known birds 34304 Note. From Dolbeer, R. A., & Wright, S. E. (2008). Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990 - 2007. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration APPENDIX 2 Cover Letter The Chief Wildlife Warden, JFK International Airport, New York Subject: Requirement of information for Study on “Bird-aircraft strikes and prevention measures with focus on JFK International Airport, New York, USA”. Dear Sir, I am a student researcher currently pursuing ______________________ program at _________________. In fulfillment of the study curriculum, I am undertaking an in depth study on “Bird-aircraft strikes and prevention measures with focus on JFK International Airport”. In pursuance of the study I shall need some information on the wildlife management and control programs and techniques being used by the airport. The information is in the form of a questionnaire. You may please tick the answer as you think appropriate to the practices undertaken by your esteemed airport. The answer is likely to take about 30 minutes. The information provided by you will be utilized for the purpose of this study alone and will not be passed to any other person or agencies. The study is likely to provide insight on the efficacy of bird-aircraft strike prevention programs and techniques implemented by the airport and therefore may also be useful to you. Soliciting your kind cooperation in this regard. Thanking you. Sincerely, APPENDIX 3 Questionnaire On Efficacy Of Bird-Aircraft Strike Prevention Programs And Techniques Implemented at JFK International Airport Sl. No. Technique Please tick it if practiced. Since when Remarks on efficiency of the technique if any 1. Aircraft schedule modification a Based on inputs received from avian radars 2. Habitat modification and exclusion techniques a Food exclusion techniques, b Cover exclusion techniques c Water exclusion techniques d Exclusion of birds e Exclusion of mammals 3. Repellent a Wildlife patrols and runway sweeps in vehicles b Chemical repellents for birds c Audio repellents for birds d Visual repellent for birds e Trained falcons for repelling birds f Trained dogs for repelling birds g Radio controlled model aircraft to repel birds h Nonlethal projectiles to repel birds 4. Wildlife removal techniques a Capturing birds b Chemical capture of birds c Live-trapping of birds d Killing of birds e Destroying eggs and nests f Shooting of birds g Oral toxicants for birds Source: APPENDIX 4 Bird Aircraft Strike Data Pertaining to JFK International Airport for the Year 2009 Read More