It is my opinion that it is about time that the airlines themselves accepted some major proactive responsibility to mitigate bird strikes by fitting some existing STC’d on-board systems. They exist for almost every aircraft type to offer at least some level of protection for the aircraft, aircrew and paying passengers by reducing exposure to these types of occurrences.
Why does safety equipment have to wait to be mandated by regulators? After all, the so called ‘black box’ flight recorders were mandated to assist air safety investigators after an accident – not prevent one on each and every flight, i.e. they do not make your particular aircraft ride any safer than it would be without the system being on-board! Yes, we should have them, but we should also have any other systems, technology, and/or equipment that can help ‘reduce’ risk of an air safety incident or accident.
Have the US airline industry and the Regulators not learnt anything from the US Flight 1549 Hudson River ditching which could have been so very, very different?
Why do the US Airline Pilot’s Associations and members not demand such equipment? Why does the FAA not mandate such equipment? Yes, it is out there and has been for several decades. But I forgot that “Safety” is only a word or a useful mantra and not a real budget item in the commercial airline world. “Hey, let’s fit more in-flight entertainment systems, more cells phone accessibility, more internet access, new seat covers, etc – hell, that will sell more seats for sure!” Well pardon my cynical view of airline’s views on SAFETY, but the commercial departments will win out every time.
But all these commercial niceties will not matter a rats rear end if a bird strike ends in fatalities. The FAA and airlines must have some brave gamblers in the upper management who are prepared to leave it all to airport operators to reduce and/or prevent such events. Airport mitigation measures are important for sure, but so are ‘off airport’ mitigation measures – this is where the aircraft spends more flight time and is exposed to bird strike occurrences for a greater period of each and every flight, i.e. less than 60 seconds of every flight is spent on the actual take-off and landing phases of flight on the runways. Once the aircraft is outside the airport fence, what protection does it have then?
Remember, the Hudson River accident (yes, accident)? It did not start within the airport environment, but several miles and thousand feet away with NO ON-BOARD bird strike mitigation system.
Many Australasian airlines have found a way to reduce exposure to such events as have a few enlightened US airline operators. Go back to the NTSB Public Hearing records for this accident and then research the effectiveness of using the aircraft’s existing landing lights in some specific mode or operation and display, e.g. pulse them, to help reduce these events.
The industry needs to get serious before there is a major tragedy and let the airline Operations and Engineering departments have equal access to the funding buckets of the ‘anointed’ Commercial departments – in-flight internet access will not save lives!
In the name of SAFETY – it must be time to get serious and my congratulations to Assistant Inspector General Jeffrey Guzzetti for his report on this matter?
If pilots and airlines were truly interested in their own safety, they would do something about it and equip with some existing on-board systems. Or at least ensure that some of the R&D funding going to airport mitigation measures gets directed to ON-BOARD mitigation systems. Then we might see a reduction in dangerous bird strike occurrences – they have the means, but are they made of the right stuff to do it?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It is my opinion that it is about time that the airlines themselves accepted some major proactive responsibility to mitigate bird strikes by fitting some existing STC’d on-board systems. They exist for almost every aircraft type to offer at least some level of protection for the aircraft, aircrew and paying passengers by reducing exposure to these types of occurrences.
Why does safety equipment have to wait to be mandated by regulators? After all, the so called ‘black box’ flight recorders were mandated to assist air safety investigators after an accident – not prevent one on each and every flight, i.e. they do not make your particular aircraft ride any safer than it would be without the system being on-board! Yes, we should have them, but we should also have any other systems, technology, and/or equipment that can help ‘reduce’ risk of an air safety incident or accident.
Have the US airline industry and the Regulators not learnt anything from the US Flight 1549 Hudson River ditching which could have been so very, very different?
Why do the US Airline Pilot’s Associations and members not demand such equipment? Why does the FAA not mandate such equipment? Yes, it is out there and has been for several decades. But I forgot that “Safety” is only a word or a useful mantra and not a real budget item in the commercial airline world. “Hey, let’s fit more in-flight entertainment systems, more cells phone accessibility, more internet access, new seat covers, etc – hell, that will sell more seats for sure!” Well pardon my cynical view of airline’s views on SAFETY, but the commercial departments will win out every time.
But all these commercial niceties will not matter a rats rear end if a bird strike ends in fatalities. The FAA and airlines must have some brave gamblers in the upper management who are prepared to leave it all to airport operators to reduce and/or prevent such events. Airport mitigation measures are important for sure, but so are ‘off airport’ mitigation measures – this is where the aircraft spends more flight time and is exposed to bird strike occurrences for a greater period of each and every flight, i.e. less than 60 seconds of every flight is spent on the actual take-off and landing phases of flight on the runways. Once the aircraft is outside the airport fence, what protection does it have then?
Remember, the Hudson River accident (yes, accident)? It did not start within the airport environment, but several miles and thousand feet away with NO ON-BOARD bird strike mitigation system.
Many Australasian airlines have found a way to reduce exposure to such events as have a few enlightened US airline operators. Go back to the NTSB Public Hearing records for this accident and then research the effectiveness of using the aircraft’s existing landing lights in some specific mode or operation and display, e.g. pulse them, to help reduce these events.
The industry needs to get serious before there is a major tragedy and let the airline Operations and Engineering departments have equal access to the funding buckets of the ‘anointed’ Commercial departments – in-flight internet access will not save lives!
In the name of SAFETY – it must be time to get serious and my congratulations to Assistant Inspector General Jeffrey Guzzetti for his report on this matter?
If pilots and airlines were truly interested in their own safety, they would do something about it and equip with some existing on-board systems. Or at least ensure that some of the R&D funding going to airport mitigation measures gets directed to ON-BOARD mitigation systems. Then we might see a reduction in dangerous bird strike occurrences – they have the means, but are they made of the right stuff to do it?