Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For Airplane Safety, Trying To Keep Birds From Planes

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the they-hit-very-few-passenger-pigeons dept.

Transportation 368

The Narrative Fallacy writes "Every year pilots in the US report more than 5,000 bird strikes, which cause at least $400 million in damage to commercial and military aircraft. Now safety hearings are beginning on the crash of US Airways Flight 1549, where a flock of eight-pound geese apparently brought down a plane, plunging it and 155 people into the frigid waters of the Hudson River. Despite having experimented with everything from electromagnetics to ultrasonic devices to scarecrows, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has yet to endorse a single solution that will keep birds out of the path of an oncoming aircraft." (More below.)"The best bet right now is understanding bird behavior, although an intriguing old pilots' tale — that radar can scatter birds — may carry enough truth to ultimately offer a viable technical solution to a deadly problem. 'We need to find out, is that an urban legend or is there some truth to that?' says Robert L. Sumwalt, the vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Federal Aviation Administration already has an extensive program in place for 'wildlife hazard mitigation,' but it seems ill suited to the problem that faced the US Airways flight, which struck geese five miles from the runway — too far for the New York airports to take action — at an altitude of 2,900 feet — too high for radars being installed around the country to detect birds. 'There's no silver bullet,' says Richard Dolbeer, a wildlife biologist and expert on bird strikes. 'There's no magic chemical you can spray or sound you can project that is going to scare the birds away.'"

cancel ×

368 comments

Shoot them (1, Funny)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284807)

"the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has yet to endorse a single solution that will keep birds out of the path of an oncoming aircraft."

Um, shoot them?

Re:Shoot them (4, Funny)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284823)

I knew those sidewinder missiles I purchased for my Boeing 747 were going to come in handy.

Re:Shoot them (5, Funny)

Groo Wanderer (180806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284853)

By 'them', do you mean the planes or the birds?

              -Charlie

Re:Shoot them (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285441)

Many pilots would vote FAA.

Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Linux (-1, Troll)

linuxisashittyos (1574017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284855)

Linux just isn't ready for the airplane control system yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average air traffic controller user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check on the planes in the sky with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (0)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284969)

I'm really getting tired of this...

I know that /. is all about free speech, and no post is deleted... but come on, isn't there a way for at least mod this posts -1 offtopic by default?

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285049)

Huh. Parent is straddling the line between -1 troll and +1 funny.

Not very funny, but not a very good troll, either. Weird.

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (-1, Offtopic)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285141)

So... -1 Funny, or +1 Troll?

Cmon mods, make it happen!

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285485)

So true. My wish for 0+1j Confused has not been granted as well.

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (-1, Offtopic)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285077)

WTF? The trolls are openly signing up for accounts now? Just had to make us use 2 mod points to get you down to -1, huh? 999 internet points to the guy that writes a screen scraper to auto mod down the trolls (linuxisashittyos).

Re:Hopefully That Control System Won't Brunning Li (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285137)

I'm sure this post will offend a lot of people, but it gave me a pretty good laugh (I'm a Linux-only guy). It reminded me more of a Comedy Central Roast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_Central_Roast), than a serious attack on Linux.

Re:Shoot them (1)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284869)

Actually is common practice in many airports to shoot blanks, to scare birds away.

Re:Shoot them (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284915)

Especially since, from what I hear, areas around many airports have been essentially turned into wetlands.

No wonder flocks of birds like the place...

Re:Shoot them (5, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285069)

Especially since, from what I hear, areas around many airports have been essentially turned into wetlands.

(1) Flight 1549 was 5 miles from the airport at the time of the bird strike, meaning that they have to patrol a huge area (especially hard in the NYC metro area) to get rid of all the nesting sites there.

(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.

So, at least in this instance, there was basically nothing you could do about it except have trained pilots well-versed in emergency procedures. In fact, as a general matter, I think it's silly to invest in technology/training/whatever that solves an individual problem when you can invest in other measures that will accrue benefits across a wide variety of (perhaps unexpected) problems.

Re:Shoot them (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285295)

(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.

So, these geese were illegal immigrants, crossing our sovereign national border without permission, invitation, or documentation, stealing food from decent hard-working American duck flocks, fouling American land and water with their unregulated duckish emissions, and ultimately causing mayhem and near-total disaster on American transportation systems.

We definitely need a better security fence. I hope our Homeland Security Department jumps on this.

Re:Shoot them (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284925)

One existing solution is having a mechanical dummy gun fire blank rounds at certain intervals. Looks like we'll have to wait [slashdot.org] for the real thing...unless you're saying that all of those unemployed Elmer Fudds in the south could be put to better use ;)

Re:Shoot them (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284931)

Hmm.. season open for uncle Jimbo ?

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Kern [wikipedia.org]

Re:Shoot them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285143)

Modded down, because everyone knows what you're talking about, jackass.

Re:Shoot them (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285511)

I for one did not know before today that his last name was Kern and some other details about uncle Jimbo but I forgot everybody else on /. knew absolutely everything about him.
 

Re:Shoot them (1)

rhathar (1247530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285145)

They're coming right for us!

Re:Shoot them (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285119)

Seeing how it's almost time to leave work, and I've got about 5 minutes to burn, let me summarize all the comments/ideas into 1.

Paint the plane gray like a shark, attaching lasers that shoot the birds, with a giant cow catcher as a windshield, with a giant windmill attached to the top, and have a beowolf cluster of Dick Cheney's be the pilots for all of them.

Now there's a solid solution we can try, and 1 of them is bound to end in success.

Re:Shoot them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285381)

But will Linux run it in Soviet Russia?

Re:Shoot them (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285185)

Capital idea! We'll just shoot every single bird that takes to the air within a ten-mile radius of every airport in the world. It should only take about 100 million professional snipers on 24/7 duty.

Re:Shoot them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285247)

Hear, hear.

Sooner and later, evolution will kick in and the birds will start to avoid the airplanes.

Right?

Re:Shoot them (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285289)

Yeah. I have a solution. Stargoat, a Remington 870, and a box of shells.

Good luck (1)

cheezitman2001 (1397905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284809)

I think it's for the birds.

I know one person that can do it (5, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284811)

Dick Cheney will shoot them all in the face. :)

Re:I know one person that can do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28284835)

Which means we will need Beowulf cluster of Dick Cheneys! Imagine that!

Wait... oh my god!

Re:I know one person that can do it (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284953)

Oh god, now I'll have nightmares tonight

Re:I know one person that can do it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28284993)

Dick Chaney only shoots birds whose wings have been clipped to make it easier for that fat, stinking, pile of human shit to play hunter.

Of course Dick Chaney is bound to hit his friends in the face from time to time so I would avoid any "hunting" expeditions with him like death itself.

Re:I know one person that can do it (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284999)

I'm not so sure. Now if we needed a plane full of RIAA lawyers dealt with he's the man to send in. If you're looking to get birds killed you'd have better luck with a slingshots and a bunch of bored teenagers than you would Dick Cheney.

Re:I know one person that can do it (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285451)

Now if we needed a plane full of RIAA lawyers dealt with he's the man to send in

Close, very close. The plan is to fly a plane full of lawyers in formation in front of civilian passengers to take out the birds. I'd almost say, like a human shield, however, the lead plane is full of lawyers...

Re:I know one person that can do it (0)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285453)

Donald Rumsfeld can do it.

why not kill two birds with one stone (2, Interesting)

user317 (656027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284813)

and build some windmills to generate electricity. i thought those take care of birds pretty handedly. or is it just the endangered ones?

Re:why not kill two birds with one stone (3, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285377)

It's enough to stretch wire from high poles to deter birds from flying under them, and this is often used around construction sites.

However the problem here is height, and the fact the aircraft might "mind" objects being in their flight path...

From what I can recall from a documentary I saw on this topic, different breeds of cats (wild cats) are allowed around some airports to hunt birds. I can't find any link relating to this though...

I did, however, manage to find at least one mention of "mock hunters", like this one [popupcity.net] , which are flown around an airport to make real birds think that the place is full of predatory birds.

Re:why not kill two birds with one stone (2, Funny)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285471)

we're past that; we're looking for a more efficient use of stones. our original target was a 5:1 bird/stone ratio, but right now 3:1 is looking more feasible; at 2:1 you have to factor in the weight of a half-flock of rocks added to your cargo.

Obviously (1)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284825)

we need to use flamethrowers.

Re:Obviously (1)

deaddowney (1266084) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284901)

No the answer we were looking for was: "We need some mothafuckin' snakes on these mothafuckin' planes"

Birds are smart (5, Funny)

Groo Wanderer (180806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284829)

Most people don't realize this, but birds are very smart. They learn very quickly after getting hit by an airplane or being sucked into an engine, they NEVER do it a second time. People are usually not that smart, but birds learn quickly.

            -Charlie

Paint the planes... (1)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284831)

...to look like predator birds. (Laser equipped shark-paintings optional if primarily flying over water...)

It's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28284839)

How about cow catchers?

Props. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284849)

Just go back to Prop driven aircraft. The props will take care of the.
Actually I fear that sort of just killing every bird that refuses to leave the area around the airport that there isn't a total solution.

Fricken Laser Beams!!! (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284883)

I'd rather the birds were cooked outside the engine than in.

USAF (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284889)

When I was stationed in Dover in the early '70s, a C-5A came in while I was working on the flightline with its windhield broken, a big bloody hole in it. It had hit a pretty large bird, IIRC a big duck, which decapitated the co-pilot. Bird strikes have been aviation's bane since there was such a thing as aviation.

Re:USAF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285089)

I do not think that the Montgolfier Brothers [wikipedia.org] or their followers had much trouble with birds.

Sharks (1, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284909)

With lasers on their heads.

Best. Plan. Ever.

Re:Sharks (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285067)

With jet engines up their arses, I presume?

Even better: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285133)

Mega Shark! [youtube.com]

Re:Sharks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285489)

This still gets modded funny?? Is anyone else over the whole "sharks with lasers" thing?

Cost factor (5, Funny)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284919)

Regardless of how much money they can throw at a technical solution, nothing will be as cost effective as paying a bunch of guys in blaze orange vests to shoot at birds near the airports.

"What'd ya do today, Jake?"

"Shot at pigeons."

"Really? I thought the range was only open on weekends."

"Not them pigeons. I got me a job with the airport. I'm shootin' real pigeons, plus geese and anything else with wings. I just wish that darn airport were closer to Sesame Street. I've always hated that Big Bird..."

Re:Cost factor (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285253)

Flight 1549 hit the geese five miles from the runway, several thousand feet up. Your hunters must have some pretty impressive shotguns.

Re:Cost factor (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285359)

Conceded. Strike "shotguns". Replace with "gauss rifles".

If everything else failed (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28284933)

Put a clown on each wing

Turrets! (5, Funny)

P2PDaemon (723609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284989)

C'mon, no one's mentioned automatic turrets above every engine? I would pay money to have a window seat if turrets were installed...

Re:Turrets! (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285055)

I wouldn't want a window seat if one of those birds gets through and hits the turret, bending it towards the window.

Re:Turrets! (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285179)

Goose is sappin' mah sentry!

Re:Turrets! (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285265)

Even better, offer remote control to passengers for a premium price.

Re:Turrets! (2, Insightful)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285459)

Yes, but then you include metal rounds as a class of objects that likely will be SUCKED INTO THE ENGINE. If my options for aspirating something are a bird versus a bullet, I think the plane would fair better ingesting a bird. Not to mention the hazard of turning one falling (suckable) objects into many falling (suckable) objects.

Fly Around Them (2, Funny)

anonicon (215837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285005)

Are flocks too small to pick up on the plane's radar? If not, fly around them.

Re:Fly Around Them (3, Funny)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285161)

"fly around them"

Why not fly with them? If you cant beat them, then join them :)

Re:Fly Around Them (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285239)

Why not let them fly the plane? They have thousands of hours experience flying.

Re:Fly Around Them (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285427)

Generally, yes, the flocks are difficult to pick up on radar, due to the small cross-section, and generally squishy nature of birds. The speed of an aircraft is also an issue - moving at 600mph (~880 feet per second) - means the flock (given radar / VFR issues) will probably already be upon you even before you have a chance to react. Even if you did have time to react, an Airbus A320 doesn't exactly (safely) turn on a dime.

I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285015)

Cats... just move all the stray cats to the airport. I'm sure there are plenty to go around.

Good luck with that (0)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285059)

The birds have been flying for longer than humans have been on this Earth, and they're better at it than we'll ever be. You might just as well start work on the matter transporters.

Airbus (-1, Troll)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285073)

AFAIK, the bird themselves didn't actually stop the engines on Sully's Airbus. They just took out the engine sensors. Since Airbus' route all pilot inputs through a computer, and the computer is the final arbitrator of whether or not to allow the action, Sully's attempts to add power were nullified by the computer. With the sensors gone the computer interpreted the engines as over-revving, essentially, so it throttled them back to idle. Most likely if the birds had hit a Boeing product, which has simpler, redundant mechanical linkages to the engines, they would have been able to go around and land safely back at the airport.

Re:Airbus (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285175)

Please provide some reference.

Re:Airbus (-1, Troll)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285197)

Why is this marked as troll? The poster has a good point. A point good enough that, if true, Airbus should look into.

Re:Airbus (5, Insightful)

ryturner (87582) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285237)

That is a very well written post. Unfortinately that is not what happened. But good job bashing Airbus.

Re:Airbus (2, Informative)

leathered (780018) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285495)

Bull-fucking-shit.

Solution for European swallows... (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285075)

...simply attach coconuts to them. African swallow pose more of a challenge.

Scarecrows (4, Funny)

EvilToiletPaper (1226390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285081)

How about two giant aerodynamic scarecrows on each wing?

Apparently .. (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285095)

... these are Kamikaze birds; maybe we should try education?

Ain't gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285105)

Hell I have seen people try everything from chile spray to Border Collies and they can't keep geese off a golf course either. Nothing short of eradication will keep them away from airports and we don't want that.

Falcons (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285113)

Here in Brazil, they are training falcons to scare birds away from airport zones.

Re:Falcons (2, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285299)

Funny, here in poor Central Europe, we also use trained falcons [sokolnictvi.net] (flash required, lame edit, lame sound, no translation, but at least some nice illustrative shots :-)). I guess they are even more underpaid than us. Perhaps the Americans could use F-16s?

high powered water jets (0)

RiotXIX (230569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285131)

or fans that blow them out of the way.
or a barrier around the engine inflow.

I bet there is a solution, just no one gives a fuck to implement it until a few more planes go down, this time in the city.

Seriously some people with a lot of money need to get their shit together.

Re:high powered water jets (1)

RayMarron (657336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285343)

> a barrier around the engine inflow

That's the first thing that popped into my head. Big, diamond-grate cones over the front of the engines (a flat one would probably just get crammed in there with the bird when it hit).

Inevitable, make sturdier planes... (5, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285139)

The planes velocity is too fast to move birds out of the flight path of planes. What needs to happen is make the planes capable of hitting a Canadian goose at 400 mph...

Re:Inevitable, make sturdier planes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285409)

Put a mesh cone over the intakes.
Not too hard to install a mesh with holes too small for a goose but big enough for air - and enough structural integrity that hitting a few things doesn't hurt it.

Re:Inevitable, make sturdier planes... (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285445)

Canada goose. A Canadian goose simply happens to come from Canada. A Canada goose is of a specific species.

Star Wars Actually Works: +1, Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285147)

Not China, Not CCCP ( now Russia) but birds are the REAL enemy.

They only look like birds. To paraphrase Philip K. Dick, some night the bird suits will fall off and they'll come crashing through your roof.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout [youtube.com]

Warning signals (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285165)

Maybe we should add a warning signal for the birds. Like a really loud noise.

Re:Warning signals (5, Funny)

Yacoby (1295064) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285207)

Maybe we should add a warning signal for the birds. Like a really loud noise.

They tried that with the concord but it didn't work, so they gave up on the idea.

Re:Warning signals (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285363)

Was that because of Concorde hitting the bird sooner than the bird could hear it coming?

Re:Warning signals (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285367)

Yeah, shame the Concord was traveling faster then sound. :)

BIRDBRAIN LOGIC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285219)

Is expecting the birds to get out of the way of an aircraft travelling how fast?

      Why not equip planes with specialized forward looking radar to then issue an early warning in the event of a probably strike. At that point a non extreme evasive manuever could take place, save the birds, save the planes and its passengers.

fucking geniuses

"Bird Strikes" (1, Insightful)

dethndrek (870145) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285259)

"Bird Strike" sounds like a terrorist action and as such, all the FAA has to do is declare a "War on Birds" Based on similar actions by other governmental bodies in similar situations, I believe it will be only a matter of years before the birds give up and lay down their wings.

Nethack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285269)

The solution is known for ages: http://www.nethack.de/spoiler/32geno.txt

You find an aircraft. You find a scroll of genocide.
You read the scroll of genocide.
What monster do you want to genocide? [type the name] pilo^H^H^H^Hgoose.
Sent in some goose. Goose don't vote for Christmas. Happy Christmas, pilot!

Scare them away? (1)

iLogiK (878892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285273)

"There's no magic chemical you can spray or sound you can project that is going to scare the birds away."

If a giant, noisy flying metal box with flames on its sides doesn't scare the birds, what will?

duh (3, Funny)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285279)

"The best bet right now is understanding bird behavior, although an intriguing old pilots' tale â" that radar can scatter birds â" may carry enough truth to ultimately offer a viable technical solution to a deadly problem. 'We need to find out, is that an urban legend or is there some truth to that?'

Isn't that what the mythbusters are for? c'mon guys.

As usual, SciFi (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285361)

... is way ahead on this. [wikia.com] (Hmm. Didn't know there was a Wookieepedia.)

A screen (1)

blockhouse (42351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285369)

Why can't aircraft engine manufacturers retrofit engines with a sturdy 2 inch mesh screen over the air intakes of their engines? That would keep birds from being sucked into the intake manifolds.

Re:A screen (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285383)

They would probably cause issues with drag and engine performance at such speeds, though i'm just guessing.

Re:A screen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28285407)

Why can't aircraft engine manufacturers retrofit engines with a sturdy 2 inch mesh screen over the air intakes of their engines?

You just invented a cheese grater for birds.
Now, instead of a ten pound bird going into the intake, you have ten pounds of bird parts going into the engine.

Decals anyone (1)

zmnatz (1502127) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285391)

I think if you painted cool flames on the sides it would scare birds away. Maybe a shark mouth on the nose.

Old problem (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285403)

I believe this first started to be recognized as a significant hazard after WW II on Pacific island air bases. Gooney birds would nest near runways and impact aircraft. An impact with a B-29 wasn't that big a deal and did not affect the engines. Impact with a much faster jet aircraft was a problem and with fighter planes could easily bring down the aircraft.

I recall reading about this a long, long time ago. They tried everything they could to discourage the birds from nesting by the runways. Loudspeakers playing music or other noises didn't work. Shotguns or "bird scarers" didn't work. Egg relocation - physially moving the nest and eggs didn't work. Killing the birds worked, but only so far as they carried out extermination. The problem was there are a lot of birds out there and unless you are actually prepared to kill all of them, it doesn't solve the problem - or, as was found out, even lessen the hazard all that much.

Modern folks need to have studied up on what was done previously so they can skip over all that stuff that didn't work very well. Concentrate on new stuff. And no, I seriously doubt any "electromagnetics" are going to have that much of an effect considering what else has been tried before.

Re:Old problem (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285461)

Mind control might work.

Deer Repeller (1)

br4nd0nh3at (1082179) | more than 5 years ago | (#28285467)

Anyone know if those Deer warning things on cars work for birds? Put those on a plane.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...