Birds, Airports, And Gun Control: A Necessary Evil?

Birds and planes don't mix, and airports around the world are waging a war on birds to prevent bird strikes. Under federal law, airports can apply for a permit to shoot birds when they pose a threat to airplanes. While most bird-plane collisions only result in minor damage, encounters with larger birds or entire flocks can severely damage a plane. Bird strikes rarely cause fatal human collisions, but they can be dangerous. Airports employ a variety of methods to prevent bird strikes, including scaring them away with loud noises, removing their food sources, and covering up water sources. Some airports also use more advanced methods, such as avian radar, to detect and deter birds. Despite these efforts, the number of bird strikes has continued to rise, leading to scrutiny of airport practices and concerns about the impact on bird populations.

Birds are shot at airports to prevent bird-plane collisions

Federal law in the United States allows major airports to apply for permits to shoot birds when they pose a danger to planes. While this practice is intended to ensure the safety of travelers, it has sparked debates about the effectiveness and ethics of bird culling. Some experts argue that simply culling birds is ineffective, as new birds will move into the vacant habitats. Additionally, bird protection groups have suggested alternative methods, such as planting crops that do not attract birds.

The practice of shooting birds at airports has led to the killing of thousands of birds, including protected species. For example, records from JFK Airport in New York showed that over a five-year period, wildlife control officers had shot 26,000 birds, with more than 1,600 belonging to protected species. Despite the culling, the number of bird strikes has not shown a significant decrease. This has prompted discussions about the futility of killing birds and the need to explore more humane and effective alternatives.

While bird strikes rarely result in fatal collisions for people, they can have severe consequences for aviation safety. To minimize bird strikes, experts suggest avoiding the construction of airports in or near important bird habitats and migratory flight paths. Additionally, advanced radar systems can be employed to monitor bird activity and help airports make informed decisions about departure timings and the deployment of staff to control the bird situation.

Bird strikes can cause dents or minor damage to the plane's exterior

Bird strikes, or bird collisions with planes, can cause dents or minor damage to the plane's exterior. While most bird-plane collisions result in dents or minor damage, encounters with larger birds or entire flocks can cause severe damage to the plane. For example, in 2017, an AirAsia X flight lost an engine after colliding with a large bird or a flock of birds. Similarly, a United flight bound for Denver returned to Fargo, North Dakota, after a bird hit the front of the plane. In another instance, a flight in Scotland's Shetland Islands struck a bird and returned to the airport, with passengers waiting for a replacement flight through the night.

Bird strikes can also cause engine failure and even lead to deaths. In 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 encountered a flock of migrating Canadian geese shortly after taking off from LaGuardia Airport in New York. Both of the plane's engines failed, and the captain, Sully Sullenberger, was forced to pilot an unpowered landing in the Hudson River. Since 1988, 262 bird strike fatalities have been reported globally, and 250 aircraft have been destroyed.

Bird strikes are a common and real risk for aircraft, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States logging more than 10,000 wildlife strikes on planes each year. Bird strikes happen most often during takeoff or landing or during low-altitude flight. Airports employ various methods to prevent bird strikes, including firing air cannons, altering the nearby landscape to be less bird-friendly, and using radar systems to track bird movements.

Airports use other methods to scare birds away, such as pyrotechnics

Airports use a variety of methods to scare birds away and only resort to culling if these measures are unsuccessful. Pyrotechnics, for example, are often used to scare birds, with some airports firing off firecrackers or other explosives.

At Sacramento International Airport, a team of wildlife biologists implements preventative measures aimed at scaring birds away. They try to make the area as unpleasant as possible using horns and pyrotechnics, with one wildlife biologist stating that shooting birds is always a last resort. Similarly, San Francisco International Airport also tries other methods first before shooting birds. Their staff are regularly briefed by a wildlife biologist on how to identify birds before resorting to lethal methods.

Some airports use other methods to deter birds, such as deploying dogs to chase them away or using LED screens with googly eyes to scare them off. Reagan National and Dulles International Airports have a playbook of options, including firing off pyrotechnics and playing bird-of-prey and distress calls via speakers in key locations.

While bird strikes rarely result in fatal collisions for humans, they can still cause significant damage to aircraft. Airports are vulnerable to bird strikes due to their proximity to wetlands and bodies of water, which attract birds. As a result, airports employ various strategies to reduce the bird population in the area and prevent bird-plane collisions.

Bird strikes are rare, and killing birds does little to reduce the number of strikes

Bird strikes are rare, but they can have serious consequences for the safety of those travelling by plane. In the famous 'Hudson Miracle', a flock of geese was sucked into the engines of a US Airways jet, causing the engines to lose power. The pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, saved the lives of all on board by successfully landing the plane in the Hudson River. This incident seared the threat of bird strikes into the minds of aviation crews and passengers.

Despite the dangers, bird strikes rarely result in fatalities. Since 1988, bird strikes have destroyed about 229 planes worldwide, causing more than 250 deaths. In context, there were 265 air crash fatalities in 2013 alone—the safest year on record. The majority of serious air accidents are caused by mechanical failure, bad weather, pilot error, or a combination of these factors.

While bird strikes are rare, airports still take precautions to prevent them. One popular method is firing air cannons to scare birds away from areas of aircraft activity. Airports also often alter the nearby landscape to make it less appealing to birds, filling in ponds or replacing grass with gravel. Some airports get creative with their bird deterrents: Salt Lake City Airport deploys pigs to eat gull eggs, and border collies chase away herons and egrets at Southwest Florida International Airport in Fort Myers.

Under federal law, all major airports can apply for a permit to shoot birds when they pose a threat to airplanes. This programme is designed to keep travellers safe, but it has come under scrutiny. While bird strikes can be dangerous, killing birds does little to reduce their number. Campaigners have pointed out the futility of culling, noting that new birds will simply move into the vacant habitat. For example, after the Hudson incident, New York's three main airports began culling Canada geese. However, DNA testing revealed that the geese involved in the strike were migratory and not resident birds.

Rather than culling, the most effective way of minimising bird strikes is to avoid building airports in or near important bird habitats and migratory flight paths.

Airports are not always built in optimal locations to prevent bird strikes

Following the Hudson incident, New York's three main airports—JFK, La Guardia, and Newark—began culling Canada geese. This led to public outcry and the establishment of GoosewatchNYC, a campaign advocating for co-existence with urban wildlife and humane alternatives to culling. Despite the culling efforts, the number of bird strikes has continued to rise, indicating that this approach may not be effective in mitigating the risk.

To address the issue, some airports have implemented alternative methods to scare birds away, such as firing air cannons, using pyrotechnics, altering the landscape, and deploying trained dogs. These methods aim to make the airport environment unpleasant for birds without resorting to lethal measures. However, the challenge of preventing bird strikes remains a complex issue for airports worldwide.

The siting of airports in proximity to bird habitats and flight paths can have significant consequences for both aviation safety and bird populations. While preventing bird strikes is crucial, exploring alternative locations for airports that minimize the impact on bird habitats could be a more effective long-term solution.

Frequently asked questions