Talk:Bird strike

KLM Flight 1673 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on April 29, 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bird strike. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Accidents This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Birds Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

The contents of the KLM Flight 1673 page were merged into Bird strike on 2 May 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Is the cost $400M to the US per annum, or 6? There are two figures on the page that contradict the other.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Effsee (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this accident - "The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960 when an Eastern Air Lines Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston flew through a flock of European starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for turbine-powered engines were developed by the FAA." the birds responsible are always reported as European Starlings or just starlings. However while there were a few Starlings found in the wreckage the great majority of the birds found were in fact Blackbirds. Blackbirds are related to Starlings but are a little larger.

"The energy of the impact increases with the cube of the speed difference." I'm not a physicist (though I am a pilot) -- doesn't the impact energy actually increase with the *square* of the relative speed, not cube? Since kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2? 12.208.12.201 03:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, this was probably my mistake when I expanded the article. I have changed the text from cube to square. Thanks for the info -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard another related urban legend: That the spirals painted on the spinners of jet engines are supposed to look like eyes of hawks, or something, and thereby scare off birds. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0233a.shtml simply says they're there to let ground crew know that the engines are turning. Any input? Jeh 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know, you should probably make a link using the caption of the deer in that plane's landing gear because the "disturbing image warning doesn't really help by then, because most people, reading form top to bottom, would have already seen it. Ick.

I have removed an image (there are alot animal impact image in the article) and inserted an image of an engine damage after a bird strike evenet.--195.128.38.35 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I knew that this would happen. In the text as it existed, there was a lot of loose text and redundant information. I chopped it. It got reverted. Here we go.

Most bird strikes happen close to the ground, where the majority of birds are found (in bird airspace). Hence bird strikes happen most often during take off or landing, or during low altitude flight.

Seems to be totally obvious and pointless to specifically mention. Gee whiz, there are more birds at 30ft than at 3000ft?

The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle, although with jet engine aircraft the animal is frequently sucked into the [or an] engine, causing damage to the fans or the housing, or airflow ducts.

Very wordy "of the vehicle" is obviously redundant. Find a shorter way of mentioning jet engines.

The weight of the vehicle can usually be ignored since it is usually much larger than the weight of the animal.

Um, yes. And? This isn't an article about kinematics. This sentence seems really out of place.

although it will result in major injuries or death to the bird.

O RLY

?? Be serious. Why should this be in the article?

High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may

How is this better than "High speed impacts, however, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage"? High speeds produce "considerable energy"? What does that even mean? Considerable kinetic energy? Are you trying to say that going faster causes greater damage? Come on, that's just obvious. We're trying to inform, not define at some minute level.

Is this reversion really justified? How so? Stevage 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The doesn't feature any information about birds getting struck by wind turbines, also referred to as bird strike. This issue has been used in some cases by governments as a reason to oppose wind farms, a hot issue where I'm from. PeterPartyOn 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 link removed - Amatuear footage - Watermark in footage does not correlate with clip information or uploader profile, no clear indication uploader has right to the footage concerned or is linked to the production entity responsible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The physical units used in this article in the following sentence make very little sense:

"The force imparted onto the aircraft at collision is defined by the equation F = (1/2)mass X velocity squared, where F equals kinetic energy in foot pounds per square inch."

1. You can't "impart" force onto an aircraft, you can apply it for a specific time which is really imparting an impulse.
2. The equation F=(1/2)mv² is for kinetic energy not force (see Kinetic energy). So F should be E or E_k.
3. The "in foot pounds per square inch" is:
   1. Irrelevent in this context, no other units are mentioned.
   2. Not related to kinetic energy, or even force. Energy is mass x length² x time^-2. Force is mass x length x time^-2. "foot pounds per square inch" is length^-1 x mass (if pounds is taken as mass) or length^-1 x mass x length x time^-2 = mass x time^-2 (if pounds is taken as weight/force).

I'm going to change this sentence to the following:

"The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative kinetic energy (E_k) of the bird, defined by the equation E_k = (1/2)mass X velocity²"

--James Hogan 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it would be easy enough to make an aerodynamic cone shaped bird deflector grate (cow catcher) that fits on the front of the engine. A sufficiently acute cone would deflect most of the force, as well as the carcass, sideways. Aerodynamic shaped slats would have minimal impact on airflow. Whitis (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd be starving the engine of air that the compressor needs, I assume. Tempshill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still be useful in this article to address why jet engines do not have grates or "cow catchers" - if anyone can find a good authority to cite, then this discussion would improve this article quite a bit. Tempshill (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking as an engineer would be the issue of weight. Birdstrikes are rare, and the higher the baseline weight of an aircraft, the more $ it costs to fly it, especially considering that the material used would have to be strong enough not to break pieces of metal into the engine (far more damaging then birds). Also, you would induce a lot of turbulence right in front of the engine, which reduces its efficiency. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification Laboratory has identified

Canada geese and white pelicans

, all very large birds.

I fact-tagged the word "damaging" just now because I think this means that "Turkey vultures cause the most bird strikes". The way it's currently phrased, I'm reading it as "A turkey vulture will cause the most damage to a plane that it happens to strike." Tempshill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference needed and referenced the sentence. The reference says almost exactly what the wiki article says (Wiki: "... has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds". Reference: "...the most damaging birds are turkey vultures"). If you are unsure what that means, you might consider the ^{[clarification needed]} tag, but a reference needed doesn't fit here. 212.10.88.122 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the introductory paragraph of the article, the word 'accidents', links to a page that talks about what an accident is in general. Do we really need that link? I think the link is irrelevant, and most people know what an 'accident' is without having to check the link out. I think the link should be removed. 208.120.218.206 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't and I have removed it following

WP:OVERLINK. 212.10.88.122 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Add the section to the talk page since it has been removed from the main article. This way it does not get lost.-- Chris 73 | Talk 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, while remembering a quotation by Charlemagne, Indy's father downs an attacking aircraft by scaring a flock of birds into its flightpath with his umbrella.
• Among Japanese aviation engineers and pilots, birds sucked into a jet engine are referred as yakitori after the popular dish.^{[citation needed]}
• In the film Thirteen Days, Navy pilot William Ecker called the obvious damages on his aircraft "bird strikes" after the first low-level reconnaissance flight over Cuba in order to avoid international conflict as he was fired upon.
• Comedian Eddie Izzard made reference to bird strike in his comedy performance Glorious, saying that it was less like 'bird strike' and more like 'engine suck'.
• In the OVA "Area 88", Invulnerable Charlie, while trying to down Shin Kazama, was killed when a seagull smashed into his F-16's canopy, causing him to lose control and crash into the water.
• In the film "The Edge" starring Anthony Hopkins, the plane carrying him and his friends flies in to a flock of geese, resulting in a crash in to the lake below.
• At the beginning of the computer game Veil of Darkness the protagonist crashes his freight plane after the vampire Kairn summons a flock of bats to smash into it.
• In the 2003 William Gibson novel Pattern Recognition, the protagonist Cayce Pollard was told in her teens of a pilot's impacting of a duck on a climbout from Sioux City, shattering the windscreen of his plane and causing a glass shard to be permanently buried in his left eye. Her fascination with the story allows her to use the phrase "He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots" in order to back off anxiety attacks, throughout the novel.
• In the 1999 romantic comedy "Forces of Nature" starring Ben Affleck and Sandra Bullock, a bird flies into the engine of the protagonist's plane causing it to veer off the runway.

Agree that this section qualifies for removal from the article as it has contains only trivia. (

Wikipedia:Trivia sections) Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/the-first-bird-strike-captured-on-film

The image is from 1916, and is almost certainly in the public domain. The linked page above speculates that it may be the first photographed bird strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.75.235 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In The United States, the main entity that is tasked with Bird Strike Hazard programs at major airports is the USDA Wildlife Services. There does not seem to be any mention of them in the article. I think it would be a proper addition, but would defer to discussing it here before making any changes to the article. Also, are there any counterparts to this US agency in other countries? Bugguyak (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting new resource is http://www.skybrary.aero/landingpage/ (or http://82.94.179.196/landingpage/ if the name fails to resolve) and they have a list at http://www.skybrary.aero/landingpage/ Shyamal (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why don't they just put grill meshes on the front of the turbines? 80.47.45.116 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Several reasons. it restricts air flow, the grill has to be so strong to prevent pieces of the bird from being ingested at high speeds that the extra weight would cause destabilization of the engine and the added weight costs in fuel are not cost effective. Bugguyak (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would this be ok? to modify the heading and add bugstrike as bugs striking pilots and aircraft is just as much a hazard.Koplimek (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved back the article, titles do not usually have to have every bit covered and "/" is generally avoided. The new section needs citations. The article already covers bat strikes without any change of title. Shyamal (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Flight 263H has achieved enough recognition to have it's own article. 90.209.11.24 (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it had any recognition in

WP:RSs ? DexDor (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why doesn't the article tell anything about this? These too are bird strikes! Just had this incident TODAY. There was a frighteningly loud "WHOOMP!" and a bird had mistaken my living room window glass for open air. Gladly it was able to get away and I didn't have to take it to the vet, but it could have been worse. Anyways, the article is very "aircraft-fixated" and should get its scope widened. -andy 217.50.48.169 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the article about 'forensic' techniques regarding remains sounds odd. Would it not read more appropriately if the term was changed to laboratory? The related link would still be suitable, but the term forensic would be spared. It's being increasingly used in situations describing generic laboratory operations which aren't always of a forensic nature. Mongoosander (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mjlynch58 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)The beginning of the second paragraph is misleading. It states "Bird strikes are a significant threat to flight safety, and have caused a number of accidents with human casualties.[3]" Bird strikes HAVE NOT caused a number of accidents with human casualties, perhaps depending on how one defines "a number".[reply]

In a paper written for the International Bird Strike Committee, Thorpe, (Thorpe, John. (2003). Fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to bird strikes, 1915-2002. Accessed May 1, 2014. www.int-birdstrike.org/Warsaw_Papers/IBSC26%20WPSA1.pdf.) notes that there have been few bird strikes with human casualties in the US. Thorpe specifically states that bird strikes are not a major cause of human fatalities.

Thorpe summarizes the known data on aircraft bird strikes from 1912-2002 globally as follows.

Transport aircraft and Executive Jets: 10 fatal accidents, 164 deaths, 30 aircraft write offs; Airplanes smaller than 5,700 kg -- 27 fatal accidents, 58 deaths, 42 aircraft write offs; Helicopters -- 5 fatal accidents, 9 deaths, 8 write-offs.

That's a total of 42 fatal accidents, 200 deaths spread out globally since 1912; or an average of 2.2 deaths per year over a 90 year period.

Details for each known accident are in the appendix. Mjlynch58 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update article to include documented cases of unmanned aerial vehicles striking aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.88.92 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416081801/http://wcbstv.com:80/breakingnewsalerts/us.airways.crash.2.909535.html to http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/us.airways.crash.2.909535.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bird strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713141753/http://www.kcra.com/news/18489600/detail.html to http://www.kcra.com/news/18489600/detail.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1546906.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402113509/http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/files/uploads/pdf/journal/spring2013/HWI_7.1_pp16-46_small.pdf to http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/files/uploads/pdf/journal/spring2013/HWI_7.1_pp16-46_small.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bird strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~jaliff/GAJSci65-4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233545/http://www.accipiterradar.com/media/pdf/20120305_Aip_Avian_Radars.pdf to http://www.accipiterradar.com/media/pdf/20120305_Aip_Avian_Radars.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.accipiterradar.com/file/231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402105448/http://www.accipiterradar.com/page/avian-scientific-papers to http://www.accipiterradar.com/page/avian-scientific-papers
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/huslbw55zsht4kfzewb1qu551/T05022012120000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406024558/http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/flying-pests-locust-threat-to-aircraft/1953572.aspx to http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/flying-pests-locust-threat-to-aircraft/1953572.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402092206/https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Climate-Change/Natural-Resources/Species-Ecology-and-Management/RC-200723/RC-200723/%28language%29/eng-US to https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Climate-Change/Natural-Resources/Species-Ecology-and-Management/RC-200723/RC-200723/%28language%29/eng-US

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article says

Many jet engine manufacturers include white spirals in the center of their engines. ... in the air it appears as a white circle which discourages birds from flying into the engine.

This seems dubious.

1) Is there any particular reason to think that a "white circle" might discourage birds from flying into the engine?

2) At typical collision speeds, it seems like birds probably wouldn't be aware of possible danger until it was too late to avoid it.

Do we have any good cites that clarify this issue? Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I have any citations on the issue, but my understanding was that it was for humans, not birds. Having a spiral on the turbine center shaft cover allows maintenance techs and pilots to see if the prop/blades are turning. I find it dubious that birds would recognize that, let alone fear a white circle. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly dubious. No warning would work for birds at the speeds at which ingestion happens. Shyamal (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed because a source for this seems unlikely to exist; and honestly between the WP:OR of "it appears as a white circle which discourages birds from flying into the engine" and "No warning would work for birds at the speeds at which ingestion happens", the second seems far more plausible. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as a common misconception in this brochure from Boeing - https://aerosavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AERO_2011_Q3_article4.pdf Shyamal (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to property damage, collisions between man-made structures and conveyances and birds is a contributing factor, among many others, to the worldwide decline of many avian species.[citation needed]

I'll look into finding a citation for this. Pmaxhogan (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of this is