logo
What is a bird strike? How concerned you need to be when flying

What is a bird strike? How concerned you need to be when flying

Independent26-02-2025

As climate change shifts migratory patterns and bird populations grow, the problem posed by birds for airlines, pilots and passengers is becoming more visible.
On 30 December 2024, 179 passengers lost their lives when a Jeju Air flight crashed in South Korea following a suspected 'bird strike'.
A preliminary investigation released last month confirmed that bird strikes played a role in the fatal crash, with feathers and blood stains from Baikal teals, a migratory duck species, found in both engines of the Boeing 737-800.
The deadly incident was not the first time an aircraft has crashed following a collision with a bird.
In 2009, US Airways flight 1549 famously landed on the Hudson River following a collision with a flock of geese migrating through the airspace at a low altitude.
The flock took out both engines during the"Miracle on the Hudson" incident that was, fortunately, survived by all 155 passengers and crew onboard.
With efforts to prevent collisions between birds and aircraft including a frozen chicken cannon, long grass and a Tina Turner playlist, here is everything prospective flyers need to know about bird strikes.
What is a bird strike?
A bird strike is a collision between a bird or airborne animal and an aircraft.
Bird strikes can cause significant damage to aircraft, with a risk of jet engines losing power should they suck in a bird. Struck aircraft will often need to abort their take-off or landing attempts, which can be costly for airlines and their passengers.
How often do bird strikes happen?
Bird strikes are common in the aviation industry and are most likely to occur during takeoff, landing or near airports.
Globally, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that there were just shy of 300,000 'wildlife strikes' between 1990 and 2022.
According to the latest Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) figures, there were 1,432 recorded bird strikes in the UK in 2022. The CAA recorded an average rate of 256 bird strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements in July of the same year.
In 2021, a paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that there are at least 50 billion wild birds worldwide.
The more aircraft movements in an area, the higher the risk of a bird strike.
Bird strike remains, known as 'snarge' are sent to the Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification Laboratory and a lab in York to be correctly identified following collisions in the US and UK.
Of the species hit, the CAA found that the most common collisions were between aircraft and gulls, wood pigeons, pigeons and skylarks.
Are bird strikes dangerous?
It is very rare for a bird strike to be linked with fatalities, and in the majority of collisions, aircraft land safely with very little damage.
Of over 1,400 strikes recorded in 2022, only 45 caused aircraft damage, with just 28 resulting in a flight return or diversion.
Generally, a bird strike will be far worse for the birds involved than for passengers and the aircraft. However, bird strikes have caused several human casualties during aviation accidents when aircraft structures, including the cockpit windscreen, have been severely damaged or an engine has lost power.
According to the FAA, between 1988 and 2023, 76 people died in the US after planes collided with wildlife.
Birds that weigh over four pounds or an encounter with a flock are far more likely to cause damage to an aircraft than a singular bird.
How do airlines prepare for bird strikes?
Bird strikes can have a huge impact on an airline's operations – at great cost.
Commercial jet engines undergo intense testing before they are allowed to operate, with planes designed to be able to operate with just one engine. Most are also required to be able to withstand an impact with a bird that weighs four pounds.
This was originally tested by having frozen chickens fired at all aircraft engines from a gas cannon. Now, simulators and dummy carcasses tend to test the capacity of engines and the resistance of aircraft windshields.
Pilots are also instructed to avoid migratory flight paths and reach a higher altitude quickly when operating in areas where bird strikes are common.
How do airports prevent bird strikes?
Many airports are surrounded by wide open areas, forests and wetlands – but the environment around aviation hubs is tightly controlled.
Bird preventative measures often include the management of local waste disposal sites and keeping the grass long, while flare guns, dogs and lasers are deployed as bird-scaring tactics.
As investigations continue into the cause of the Jeju Air crash in December, all airports in South Korea have been ordered to install bird detection cameras and thermal imaging radars.
At some airports, including Bristol, designated staff members blast the sound of bird species in distress in an auditory repellent to nearby birds.
In 2012, airport chiefs at Staverton, near Gloucester, played Tina Turner hits at high volume from a van that drives around the ground when the bird distress noises 'weren't working properly'.
More severely, after the Hudson incident, around 70,000 birds were controversially culled in New York, with all the geese rounded up from Prospect Park, taken to a hanger and gassed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors
Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors

Telegraph

time2 days ago

  • Telegraph

Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors

Three words sum up the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer's bold pledge to make the UK's Armed Forces 'battle ready' in the wake of the latest defence review. They have nothing to do with enhancing the defence of the realm. Time and again the ambitious programme, set out in the 144-page report, to revitalise our military after more than a decade of woeful decline is undermined by the catch-all caveat 'when funding allows'. Thus, while the review concedes that the Army, which is now smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars, could do with increasing its manpower, the modest uplift proposed by the review will only be implemented if the relevant funds become available. The procurement of other equipment deemed vital to safeguarding our national defence is subjected to the same budgetary constraints. While the review argues that the previous government's decision to cut the number of operational E-7 early warning and control aircraft from five to three needs to be reversed, this, too, will only happen 'when funding allows'. Boeing's E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are deemed to be a vital component in controlling the battlespace during armed conflict with their advanced radar systems, and would be a vital asset in the event of war breaking out with a hostile country like Russia. Yet, despite the review issuing a dire warning about the worsening 'geopolitical context', there is a distinct lack of urgency about the Government's claim to make the country an 'armour-clad nation'. So, when Starmer talks, as he did when announcing the conclusions of Labour's Strategic Defence Review, about making Britain 'safer and stronger', the truth is that he is simply indulging in wishful thinking. This is a Prime Minister who, only a few weeks ago, was talking enthusiastically about putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of his 'coalition of the willing'. But he knew full well that the UK does not have the military resources necessary to sustain such a mission. Starmer's bold plan to dispatch a European 'reassurance' force to Ukraine has now been quietly watered down to a more realistic support mission for the Ukrainian military. The Starmer's empty rhetoric regarding his grand ambitions for the defence review is likely to suffer a similar fate. It will inevitably become clear that, despite his boast that he is overseeing 'the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War', the actual funding being made available is negligible. Starmer's smoke and mirrors defence pledges are part of a long and undistinguished tradition of British governments making ambitious spending commitments for the Armed Forces they have absolutely no chance of fulfilling. Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, for example, made much political capital out of his claim that he had raised defence spending above the minimum 2 per cent of GDP level required by Nato. Closer examination of the figures showed this could only be met by 'efficiency savings' in defence spending that were unachievable. It was the same with Rishi Sunak's pledge last year to raise UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent. The move was immediately compromised by the qualification that such an increase would only be possible 'as soon as the economic conditions allow'. Starmer's policy of over-promising and under-delivering on defence spending is very much in this dishonourable tradition. But the Prime Minister's difficulty is compounded by the fact that the global-threat environment is becoming more dangerous by the day. So his hollow pledges will come under far greater scrutiny than those made by his predecessors. This is particularly the case where the UK's Nato allies are concerned. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has already fired the first shot, over Starmer's ambivalence about when the money will be made available to fund his rearmament programme. Rutte warns that Nato will require the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence as part of his plan to 'equalise' European defence spending with the US. Starmer has indicated his ultimate 'ambition' is to raise spending to 3.5 per cent by 2034, but has given no clear explanation about how to achieve this figure. As one of the main premises of his defence review is that the UK should focus on being a 'Nato first' military force, failing to meet Rutte's ambitious target could prove to be deeply embarrassing. Starmer will need to take care that his empty defence pledges do not further inflame the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. They already believe that the Europeans are taking the US for a ride when it comes to defence spending. Nato's European member states are likely to come under intense American scrutiny at the summit being held in The Hague later this month. If the Trump administration concludes that Starmer's boasts about increasing UK defence spending do not add up, the Prime Minister could find himself in for a very tough ride indeed.

Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X
Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X

The Independent

time2 days ago

  • The Independent

Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X

An academic is facing a private prosecution by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) charity over posts on social media. Three charges have been brought by the CAA alleging that Professor David Miller used a public communications network to send messages of a menacing character, contrary to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The first hearing is set to take place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on July 2, HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirmed. The case relates to posts on X, which Mr Miller is alleged to have published in recent months. The CAA said the first message was posted on November 8 last year in relation to a discussion on violence in Amsterdam after a football match involving an Israeli team. He is alleged to have sent another message on March 20, saying: 'Every genuinely anti-Zionist Jew can count on being kept safe by the movement, when the time comes. Every Zionist Jew must be held accountable and de-Zionised. #DismantleZionism.' On March 24, he is said to have posted another tweet saying: 'Protests are not enough. Listen to our brothers and sisters in Gaza. Those who are interested in ending this genocide must begin by targeting those responsible near them: the entire Zionist movement globally must live in fear of accountability until it is dismantled and its ideology eradicated. And let's be clear, there are Zionists everywhere. In every town and city. Find out where they are. #DismantleZionism.' Mr Miller was previously found to have been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol in October 2021 after making comments criticising Israel. He successfully claimed at an employment tribunal last year that he experienced discrimination based on his anti-Zionist belief. The CAA describes itself as an organisation of volunteers which works to 'expose and counter antisemitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law'.

Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X
Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X

Belfast Telegraph

time2 days ago

  • Belfast Telegraph

Academic faces private prosecution over posts on X

Three charges have been brought by the CAA alleging that Professor David Miller used a public communications network to send messages of a menacing character, contrary to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The first hearing is set to take place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on July 2, HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirmed. The case relates to posts on X, which Mr Miller is alleged to have published in recent months. The CAA said the first message was posted on November 8 last year in relation to a discussion on violence in Amsterdam after a football match involving an Israeli team. He is alleged to have sent another message on March 20, saying: 'Every genuinely anti-Zionist Jew can count on being kept safe by the movement, when the time comes. Every Zionist Jew must be held accountable and de-Zionised. #DismantleZionism.' On March 24, he is said to have posted another tweet saying: 'Protests are not enough. Listen to our brothers and sisters in Gaza. Those who are interested in ending this genocide must begin by targeting those responsible near them: the entire Zionist movement globally must live in fear of accountability until it is dismantled and its ideology eradicated. And let's be clear, there are Zionists everywhere. In every town and city. Find out where they are. #DismantleZionism.' Mr Miller was previously found to have been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol in October 2021 after making comments criticising Israel. He successfully claimed at an employment tribunal last year that he experienced discrimination based on his anti-Zionist belief. The CAA describes itself as an organisation of volunteers which works to 'expose and counter antisemitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store