Recently I have been giving quite a few thoughts on standards of “bird activity high”, or rather the lack of them. If you have 5 minutes, I would appreciate your feedback.
- Do you reduce speed and/or turn on landing lights on approach if you hear “bird activity high” on ATIS?
- Would you reduce speed and/or turn on landing lights if the information was based on a standard?
- Do you include bird activity in your briefing today?
- Would you include this in your briefing if it was based on a standard?
What is the point with these questions, after all?
From time to time pilots are issued warnings about “bird activity high” on ATIS. Ideally, this would prompt a set of actions corresponding to the situation – typically turning on the landing lights, reducing airspeed or a combination of the two.
The question, however, is whether warnings about high bird activity have any real meaning, as long as there is no official standard regulating when airports report “bird activity high.” Even worse, some airports issue warnings per default, thus rendering the information essentially meaningless.
So how could a standard increase the value of these warnings? Do they even matter in the first place? Let us look at the factors at play.
How to reduce risk: Speed is of the essence!
Although bird strikes rarely lead to fatalities, they are the direct cause of significant damage to planes, as well as dents in the profit of airlines.
One of our clients, a major European airline, reports approximately 600-800 bird strikes a year. Each bird strike amounts to an average cost of € 56,000, split almost evenly between costs going towards repairs and indirect costs such as compensation to passengers, re-booking of flights etc.
Therefore, a fair warning leading to an efficient response avoiding a strike or minimizing the potential damage is of the essence.
If there is, in fact, high bird activity in a given area, the operational response to a “bird activity high” could very well be: “Reduce your speed,” as a 15% speed reduction reduces the impact energy by approximately 1/3. As a direct result, the risk to pilots and passengers, as well as related costs of following repairs are reduced significantly.
To understand what the speed means for the impact, I looked at the kinetic energy in the table below:
On an Airbus 321 cruising at 250 knots, a 15% reduction to minimum clean speed 210 knots could have a significant effect. When looking at FAR 25 design criteria and impact speed, it becomes evident that a mere 15% reduction in speed, could bring you within the design criteria – even in case of a collision with an avian heavyweight like a Canada goose.
These points are essential to keep in mind, considering the risk in case of a bird strike on engines or, especially, the windscreen.
Not only are these areas among most critical, but also where the majority of bird strikes actually happen. This should be clear from the illustration below, showing the locations and percentages of impacts, based on statistics from pilot and maintenance reports:
Where is the risk?
The risk of bird strikes increases with proximity to the ground. Most of the time a speed reduction will be possible. The consideration here is, that a speed reduction would also lead to a slightly prolonged airborne time. However, we are talking about 1-2 minutes of the flight, and only when a trustworthy high bird activity message is given.
The data is already being collected – let’s use it!
Most airports have bird control staff that are already recording the bird activity, and are taking action to remove the birds from the aircraft operation area. That means that the data is already there, now we “just” need to apply it by agreeing on a definition of high bird activity.
A note here could be, that the bird activity data will be generated based on what is happening in the airport operations area, not in the surrounding areas where the aircrafts are approaching/departing. It is, however, the only data source we have in most airports.
It is fairly simple to formulate a basic equation, that could work as a basis for determining when to issue a high bird activity warning. For example:
The calculation could also be based on the risk level of the recorded birds (in the airport’s risk matrix), although that would require all airports to use the same risk matrix in order for the information to be standardized.
General operational response
When looking at the operational response to a “bird activity high” statement, we see following possibilities (2):
- Reduce speed;
- Turn on landing lights;
- Include in briefing;
- Low thrust settings;
- No go-arounds – fly through and land;
- If a strike occurs – do not use reverse thrust;
- Include in briefing;
- Turn on landing lights;
- If birds are present – request them to be removed.
Thank you for taking the time to read the article. I look forward to receiving your feedback on this topic by sending me your thoughts at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Written by Peter Hemmingsen (CEO, AscendXYZ)
1: Transport Canada, Bird impact force: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp13549-appendices-appendix12-1-410.htm
2: FLIGHT OPERATIONS BRIEFING NOTES OPERATING ENVIRONMENT BIRDSTRIKE THREAT AWARENESS: https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/181.pdf
3: FAA/USDA wildlife strike report: https://wildlife.faa.gov/downloads/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2015.pdf
4: Boing: Strategies for prevention of bird : https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/