Wildlife Control on Airports - Essay Example

# 6449 #6449 March 27th, 2008 WILDLIFE CONTROL ON AIRPORTS Airports are amongst the busiest travel pathways used now a days. The bigger an airport is, the greater are the safety precautions and measures provided there in order to deal with any of the unexpected accidents or incidences. One of the most common but disastrous damages faced at airports is, none other than that of the wild animals. Any unexpected exposure of an aircraft to a wild animal coming in its way, can lead to severe damage to the aircraft, as well as the loss of many precious lives. Many species of birds and mammals have been involved in the damaging strikes. For example, a flock of starlings suddenly rising from the ground, a lone kestrel hovering in search of prey, a pair of Canada geese taking flight after grazing in the field, or a deer bounding across a runway, all may end in significant aircraft damage, or in extreme cases a crash and loss of human lives. In addition to strikes, wildlife that are roosting, nesting or burrowing on airports can cause structural damage to buildings, pavement, equipment and aircraft, as well as nuisance and health problems for workers. Given below is the table showing wildlife groups commonly reported as being involved in causing damage to the U.S. aircrafts from year 1993 to 1995. WILDLIFE GROUPS % INVOLVED IN REPORTING DAMAGING STRIKES Gulls 28 Waterfowl 28 Raptors 11 Doves 6 Vultures 5 Blackbirds-Starlings 5 Corvids 3 Wading birds 3 Deers 11 Canids 1 The first reported wildlife-aircraft strike occurred on April 12th, 1912, when a Model EX Wright Pusher collided with a gull and crashed into the ocean, killing the pilot. Since then, more than 400 people have been killed worldwide as a result of bird-aircraft collisions. In 1960, a plane taking off from Boston Logan Airport, struck a large flock of starlings and went down, taking 62 human lives. In 1973, a jet crashed shortly after takeoff from DeKalb-Peachtree Airport in Georgia after colliding with cowbirds, killing eight people on board. In 1975, a plane sucked herring gulls into one of its engines, at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The engine exploded and separated from the plane. The plane caught fire and was destroyed. Luckily, no fatalities occurred, because of timely evacuation of all passangers. In 1992, a twin-engine, commercial aircraft struck a deer while landing at Laredo International Airport at Texas, resulting in extensive damage to the propeller and fuselage. In 1997, an MD-80 aircraft struck more than 400 black birds after takeoff from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The pilot made an emergency landing and was safe, but the plane sustained substantial damage. Following the collision, approximately 100,000 black birds were found roosting near the airport. In 2001, a Learjet collided with two deer on runway at Troy Municipal Airport in Alabama. The aircraft burst into flames. Firefighters kept the flames at bay for 40 minutes, until the pilots could be rescued. Four basic control strategies are available to solve these wildlife problems at airports: 1. Flight schedule modification; 2. Habitat modification and exclusion; 3. Repellent and harassment techniques; 4. Wildlife removal. Flight schedule modification is not generally practical for commercial traffic on larger airports. Pilots could be advised not to depart during a 30 minute period at sunrise or sunset during winter. In some areas, albatrosses and other seabirds are abundant during parts of the year; scheduling night time flights, when birds are not flying, may be the only means of avoiding strikes. In addition, air traffic controllers may need to temporarily close a runway, when unusually high bird activity or a large mammal incursion is seen, until a wildlife control personnel can disperse the animals. Habitat modification means, making the environment less attractive for the wildlife. All wildlife needs water, food and cover to survive. Any action that reduces, eliminates, or excludes one or more of these elements, will definitely give good results regarding the control of wildlife population at airports. Repellent and harassment techniques are designed to make the area or resource desired by wildlife unattractive, or to make the wildlife fearful or uncomfortable. Repellents act by affecting the animal’s senses through chemical, auditory or visual means. But, habituation of these birds and animals to the repellent techniques is a major problem. When used for a long period of time, without modifications, wildlife learns that these techniques are harmless. The repellents become a part of their ‘background noise’ and they ignore them. Habituation to repellent techniques can be reduced by: 1. Using each technique sparingly and appropriately, when the target wildlife is present, 2. Using a variety of repellent techniques in an integrated fashion, 3. Reinforcing the repellents with occasional lethal control directed at abundant problem species such as gulls or geese. Regular patrols of airside areas to disperse birds and other wildlife are very important to reduce the strike incidents. Often, driving a vehicle towards a wildlife will be enough to cause the wildlife to disperse. Regular patrols also permit Wildlife Control Personnel to learn the daily movement patterns, habitat preferences and behavior of wildlife on the airport. It can be helpful in anticipating the problem situations. All wildlife carcasses found during runway sweeps should be removed. Listed below are some of the chemical repellents for birds that are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): 1. Polybutenes; they are applied on the perching structures to make birds uncomfortable and look for some other perching places. 2. Methyl anthranilate, anthraquinone; Birds have a taste aversion to these products, thus forcing them to avoid the places treated with these repellents. 3. Methyl anthralinate for water/pools; methyl anthranilate formulations are also available for application to pools of standing water near airports and at other places to repel birds from drinking and bathing. Such formulation is also available for use in fogging machines to disperse birds from hangers, lawns and other areas. 4. Avitrol 4-Aminopyridine; it is a frightening agent. Birds eating Avitrol treated bait react with distress symptoms and calls, behaviors that frighten away other birds in the flock. The primary use of this repellent at airports has been in pigeon control around buildings. A number of taste and odor repellents are used to repel deer, rabbits and other mammals from browsing on vegetation. Some of these products may be appropriate for short-term protection of valuable landscaping plants and fruit trees, however, their use at airports to discourage mammals is not recommended. A recent study showed that repellents like predator urine (coyote, bobcat) had no influence on deer movements at feeding sites. Given below are some of the audio repellents for the birds: 1. Propane cannons; generate a shotgun-sounding blast. 2. Distress call and electric noise generating systems; these are broadcasted on speakers mounted on a vehicle. The birds can then be dispersed using the shell crackers etc. 3. Shell crackers and other pyrotechnics; projectiles are fired from guns providing an auditory blast or scream, smoke or flashing light, to frighten birds. Some of them have a range of up to 300 yards. 4. Ultrasonic sound devices; these have not proven to be effective bird repellents, because most birds cannot detect frequencies as high as humans can. Audio repellents for mammals provide only short term repellency for mammals. Some visual repellents have also been used both for birds and mammals, but they proved to be ineffective. These include hawk effigies or silhouettes, eye spot balloons, flags and Mylar reflecting tapes, but they all show only short term effectiveness. There has been interest in recent years in the use of laser rifles. Effectiveness is decreased in sunlit conditions; moreover, extreme caution is required for the use of lasers in an airport environment. Various other techniques used to repel birds and mammals at airports include: 1. Trained falcons and dogs to repel birds, 2. Radio-controlled model aircraft to repel birds, 3. Capturing birds and mammals, 4. Chemical capture of birds, using Alpha-Chloralose as an immobilizing agent, 5. Live trapping birds, 6. Chemical capture of mammals using tranquilizer guns, 7. Live trapping mammals, 8. Killing birds and mammals (last option), 9. Destroying eggs and nests, 10. Oral and contact toxicants for birds, 11. Toxicants and fumigants for mammals. FAA has recommended the following siting criteria when planning new airport developmental projects to accommodate aircraft movements: 1. Airports serving piston-powered aircraft: A distance of 5000 feet is recommended. 2. Airports serving turbine-powered aircraft: A distance of 10,000 feet is recommended. 3. Approach or departure airspace: A distance of 5 statute miles is recommended, if the wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. To conclude, we can say that, habitat modification to reduce food, cover and water are the foundations of the wildlife hazard management programs for airports. In addition, the repellent techniques, and sometimes lethal control of selected species may be necessary to reinforce repellent actions. Removal of a particular animal or group of animals may also become necessary. Finally, the most critical factor is to have motivated and trained professionals having knowledge about wildlife species and the techniques to manage the problems these species create. WORKS CITED 1. “Wildlife control strategies and techniques at airports”. March 27th, 2008. http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/EnglishManual/Chap9.pdf 2. “Advisory circular: Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports”. March 27th, 2008. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5200-33B/150_5200_33b.pdf 3. “WS assistance at airports”. March 27th, 2008. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_wsairport.html Read More