Migratory Canada geese were the culprits in the Hudson River plane crash earlier this year, according to a team of Smithsonian Institution and US Department of Agriculture researchers who used DNA barcoding, stable isotope testing, and feather analyses to assess bird remnants pulled from the engines of the downed jet. The research appeared online today in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

“Determining whether these birds were migratory or not was critical to our research and will help inform future methods of reducing birdstrikes,” lead author Peter Marra, a Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center researcher, said in a statement. “Resident birds near airports may be managed by population reduction, habitat modification, harassment, or removal, but migratory populations require more elaborate techniques in order to monitor bird movements.”

Thousands of birdstrikes occur each year in the US — usually during take-offs and landings — at a cost of more than a billion dollars annually. In 2007 alone, there were more than 7,400 reported birdstrikes involving civil aircrafts. The actual number is believed much higher, the authors noted, since it’s estimated that just a fifth of collisions are reported.

In an effort to understand these birdstrikes more completely, the researchers used several different approaches to identify the birds involved in the birdstrike that disabled US Airways Flight 1549 and forced an emergency landing on the Hudson. The Airbus A320 hit a flock of birds shortly after taking off from La Guardia Airport on January 15th, causing both engines to lose power.

“It is important to not only know what species of birds are involved in collisions, but also understand the role that migration plays in the larger picture,” co-author Carla Dove, a researcher at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History Feather Identification Laboratory, said in a statement. “The more information we are able to gather in cases like this, the more we will be able to reduce the risk of birdstrikes in the future.”

First, the researchers used DNA barcoding to assess DNA extracted from bird tissue samples, sequencing 650 base pair region of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I.

Although the samples had been underwater for three to nine days, the team was able to get informative barcode data for a dozen and a half samples. The samples were a 99 to 100 percent species match with Canada goose, Branta Canadensis, sequences in the Barcode of Life Database — an identification supported by the researchers’ feather analyses.

But these results did not provide insights into whether the geese were migratory or resident birds. To test this, the team used stable isotope analysis to compare hydrogen isotopes found in the crash bird feathers with isotope patterns in resident and migratory geese. Vegetation in a bird’s diet influences these profiles, the authors noted, which vary by latitude.

“Because most migratory birds molt their feathers on or close to the breeding site, the feathers obtained from US Airways 1549 engines allow inferences to be made about where these birds nested in the summer of 2008,” they explained.

Using isotope ratio mass spectrometry, the researchers measured hydrogen isotopes in sample feathers and compared them with resident and migratory bird feathers. The migratory specimens — originally collected in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada — came from the Chicago Field Museum. USDA researchers provided feather samples from Canada geese living near La Guardia.

Results from these hydrogen isotope analyses indicated that the feathers resembled migratory geese from Labrador but did not match isotope profiles for resident New York City geese or migratory Newfoundland geese.

Even so, the authors speculate that the birds involved in the Hudson River crash were on a short-distance trek to find food and open water within their wintering grounds, rather than returning from a long-distance migration to their breeding areas.

“Historically, most Canada geese were long-distance migrants,” they explained, “but populations have recently established a year-round residency in much of their former wintering range.”

Those involved say the new research could offer hints about managing geese and other birds near airports. In addition, they noted, knowing what kinds of birds were involved in the crash and the damage they caused is “vital for engineers to improve birdstrike resistance in aircraft and engine components.”

The team called for increased birdstrike reporting as well as the development of a central database for bringing together information on the frequency of strikes, species involved, time of year, and aircraft effects. Without such steps, Marra argued, “we are missing valuable information that could reveal patterns of frequency, location, and species involved — all information that is essential to reducing the frequency of birdstrikes.”

Finally, the researchers noted, similar bird forensics approaches could be used to monitor and prevent other human-wildlife conflicts and to track birds involved in transmitting avian diseases such as West Nile virus and H5N1 influenza.

Qantas and QantasLink have led the field in a new air safety enhancement.  Bird strikes and related damage have been significantly reduced across the entire Qantas and QantasLink B737 and DHC8 fleet by a new and relatively low cost initiative.

The bird strike problem was highlighted when an Airbus A320 passenger jet was forced to ‘splash down’ in New York’s Hudson River after it encountered a flock of Canadian geese heading for a winter in Florida.

Both its engines failed, but a skilful emergency ditching saved all the passengers and crew. However the event highlighted the ever-present hazard that bird strikes pose to commercial passenger aircraft.

It turns out that Qantas was already on the case. The event had highlighted the point that bird strikes are not limited to the lower airspace around airfields; they can occur at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet or even higher, especially when long-distance migratory birds are involved.

It is now known that damage from smaller birds such as swallows, previously thought to be harmless, can inflict undetectable damage to turbine blades because they are small enough to pass through engine compressors to the “hot end.” The scorched remains of their dense bones become embedded in small cooling airflow passages on the turbine blades, causing localised overheating and eventual shortening of blade life, resulting in expensive unscheduled overhauls.

Qantas has now trialled and adopted a relatively low-cost electronic device on its domestic aircraft fleet that significantly reduces the frequency of bird strikes. Pulselite is an electronic switching system that causes an aircraft’s landing lights to pulse 45 times per minute like the flashing lights on emergency vehicles. The technology in effect, better announces an aircraft’s approach, thereby giving a bird more time to get out of the way.

The Qantas evaluation collected data sets from “host” B737 aircraft in the 400 (Classic) and 800 (New Generation – NG) fleets that had the Pulselite system installed. It then compared outcomes against the remaining non-host aircraft in each respective fleet over a minimum period of 12 months operational service. In some statistics from the trials the number of birdstrikes per 1,000 departures was reduced by up to 66%.

Before the trials were completed the statistics were so convincing that the decision was made to equip the entire Qantas B737 fleet with Pulselite. The system is now fully operational in Australasia with a number of other operators, including QantasLink’s Dash 8 100/200/300/Q400 Fleets).

During 2002 – 2003, Sunstate Airlines conducted a 12-month evaluation of the system in five DHC8-300 aircraft. The results, compared to the remaining eight non-Pulselite equipped DHC8 aircraft, clearly demonstrated lamp life improvement of 300%+, wildlife strike reduction of approximately 50% and birdstrike reductions of approximately 35%.

Singapore Flying College (LR-45 Fleet), RAAF VIP SQD 34 (Challenger 604 fleet), National Jet (DHC8), Tenix Corp (DHC8), Gippsland Aeronautics (GA8 Airvan) as well as a number of helicopter and private aircraft operators in Australia also now have the system installed.

Airlines such as Air Nelson (Air Zealand), Horizon Airline (part of the Alaska Air Group), Air Pacific, Air Vanuatu, Jet Connect (Qantas New Zealand) are also customers.

Advantages now acknowledged for the system are enhanced conspicuity to other pilots and to air traffic controllers, and increased landing light bulb life because each lamp operates approximately 150° cooler than normal, diminishing the effects of vibration on the bulb filament, reduced unscheduled engine maintenance/overhaul costs boosting return on investment, and enhanced safety and schedule integrity, as well as improved core safety values.

The system’s control units are a compact set of electrical components that will apply regulated pulsing power to the specified external lights instead of the normal steady “on” position, the only visible difference is an additional selector switch position on the landing light switches, and the system is easily integrated into the aircraft’s existing external lighting and traffic collision and avoidance (TCAS) systems which can automatically activate the system and connected external lighting upon receipt of a TCAS traffic advisory if required.

Pulselite is not normally restricted by aircraft minimum equipment lists, unless required by the operator, and is available in units for general aviation aircraft, large capacity 28 volt D.C. units for larger aircraft, and 115 volt AC. units for military and transport aircraft.

Unit cost ranges from US$295.00 for an average GA type aircraft up to US$4,595.00 for an aircraft in the Boeing B737 category.

The smallest unit weighs 0.28 kgs, has capacity for two lights at 125 Watts, or 1 Light at 250 Watts. The largest units weigh 0.88 kg and can operate on 28 VDC Switching Voltage, or 115VAC Switching Voltage and operate up to 6 circuits of 600 Watts per circuit.

The system is now standard on the high-end Grumman Gulfstream, and available as an option on 85% of all new aircraft in the USA corporate aviation community. The system is mandated in the aerial wildfire fighting community in the USA and now also for firebombing aircraft and rotorcraft in many parts of Australia. It is also mandated in the USA for helicopter tour operators in heavily congested areas such as Grand Canyon, Hawaii and New York etc to make them more conspicuous in the ‘see and avoid’ environments.

A remote-controlled model airplane repeatedly buzzed four Canada geese at a rural airstrip early Friday morning, resulting in much honking.

But don’t blame the ruffled feathers on a misguided hobbyist. The man with his hand on the joystick was biology professor Steven Lima and the harassment of the geese was done in the name of science, to prevent birds from colliding with real planes.

“It would be great if the birds were terrified and got out of the way,” said biologist Brad Blackwell. “But we’ve found the birds react differently, and some of them won’t get out of the way. They become habituated to the threat.”

The research is being conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center, an hour’s drive west of Cleveland and the only federal facility in the country devoted to resolving conflicts between people and wildlife.

The scientists here said that after more than 20 years conducting avian research in relative obscurity, they found everything changed on Jan. 16. That’s when a flock of geese knocked out both engines of a commercial jetliner over New York City, forcing the pilot to ditch in the Hudson River to save the lives of all 155 passengers.

Suddenly, the nation wanted to know about the dangers of bird strikes to aircraft and what measures the government was taking to prevent potential catastrophes.

“The miracle on the Hudson’ really brought this facility into the national spotlight,” acknowledged Gail Keirn, a spokeswoman for the research center.

The biologists explained their latest discoveries in bird-strike deterrents for reporters and photographers on Friday.

The demonstration began on a grassland where barn swallows snatched insects and turkey vultures soared overhead.

A single-engine model plane, about a third the size of a Cessna and outfitted with bright, pulsating lights, took off from the dirt runway. Its mission: A flyover of penned geese — the same species that flew into the US Airways jet’s engines in January, and one of the most common participants in bird strikes.

A bank of six strategically arranged cameras recorded the birds’ reaction to the lights.

These geese honked and cowered in fear — the desired response.

“They don’t seem to have a death wish,” said Scott Philiben, vice president of Precise Flight Inc., of Bend, Ore., which is providing lighting expertise to the research team. “If they see a bright flashing light coming at them, they tend to move out of the way.”

The light experiments are only part of the research to help airports rid runways and flight paths of potential hazards. Biologists at the center have pioneered other dispersal techniques, including broadcasting bird distress calls, posting effigies of hawks and owls, and planting distasteful grasses.

One of its latest studies involves figuring ways to deter bird-attracting earthworms from crawling onto runways after a rainfall. Researchers are comparing the effectiveness of chemicals and barriers.

Alaska and Australia report anecdotal success with the pulsating lights, Philiben said. Qantas Airlines jets equipped with the lights have experienced a 35 percent reduction in bird strikes.

In addition to improving safety, airlines could save millions of dollars. Bird strikes cause $600 million in damage a year. “There’s a huge economic and safety incentive for us to succeed,” Philiben said.

Blackwell said the research will continue for several more months, and the study will eventually include different species of birds. He hopes to publicize his findings in about a year and a half.

Pulsating lights could be one solution to keep birds away from airplanes as officials investigate new ways to reduce the chances of bird strikes at airports across the nation.

According to a Cleveland newspaper, scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center in Ohio are trying out several nonlethal methods to keep fowl off airport runways.

In addition to pulsating lights, officials are trying to deter bird-attracting earthworms from crawling onto runways after it rains.

Other techniques to keep birds away from airports include broadcasting bird distress calls, posting models of hawks and owls, and planting distasteful grasses.

It was Canada geese that got caught in the engines of Flight 1549 in January, forcing the plane to splash land in the Hudson River.

A virtual book of all life on Earth is being created by UK and US scientists.

The online reference work will create a detailed world map of flora and fauna and track changes in biodiversity.

The database, dubbed a “macroscopic observatory”, will be populated with data about local species gathered by members of the public.

Early elements of the giant database, such as automatic species identification systems, are already under construction.

Field guide

Over time the database will log shifts in species and other data such as changes in the density of forests and when plants first flower.

The backers of the idea hope that the vast, virtual book of life will eventually be comparable to the global system used to watch for and record earthquakes.

The ongoing project will constantly gather data so it can plot information about the range and abundance of plants and animals as worldwide temperature and rainfall patterns shift in response to climate change.

Details held on the database will include everything from gross anatomical details down to individual genes.

“We are creating a virtual observatory for world biodiversity, where environmental observations, specimen data, experimental results, and sophisticated modelling can be done across all levels of biodiversity – from genes to ecosystems,” said James Edwards, executive director of the Encyclopedia of Life, in a statement.

The Encyclopedia, based at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, and the London’s Natural History Museum are the key backers of the project. The push to create the observatory was unveiled at the e-Biosphere 09 conference held from 1-3 June in London.

As well as logging long-term changes brought about by climate change, the creators of the online observatory hope it will bring more tangible benefits.

It could give early warnings about invasive species or, for example, give insights into the timing, altitude and route of bird migrations in ways that could reduce bird strike numbers on aircraft.

The observatory would also serve as a hi-tech field guide for anyone who wanted to identify animals, insects, trees or flowers they found while on holiday or near their home.

Within 10 years, expect its backers, all aspects of the database will be available. Some parts of the system, such as images of species, maps of the seas and gene sequences to help with DNA barcoding, are already in use.

The project aims to catalogue local species of flora and fauna

The Jan. 15 ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River vividly illustrated the dangers of midair collisions between birds and aircraft. But what led to the “miracle on the Hudson” happens more often than the public realizes. Bird and wildlife strikes cause more than a half-million hours of aircraft down time and cost U.S. civil aviation more than $500 million annually, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And the threat to air safety is on the rise with the expansion of many wildlife species that are hazardous to aircraft.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, a leader in aviation education and safety, is launching the International Center for Aviation and Wildlife Risk Mitigation to help manage this growing hazard. The new Center, based at Embry-Riddle’s Prescott, Ariz., campus, will bring together top aviation wildlife experts to share and develop new research and management solutions to reduce the dangers and serve as a resource to airports around the world.

The Center is an initiative of national wildlife expert Archie Dickey, an associate professor of aviation environmental science in Prescott, Ariz., who serves as director. Dickey created and has managed the FAA’s web-based wildlife strike database since 1999. The FAA site is a compilation of data about aircraft and wildlife strikes around the country, and data is voluntarily reported by airport officials.

“We created this Center to support data collection efforts, develop better solutions to reduce wildlife strike hazards, and serve as a clearinghouse to share this information with industry and organizations that need it,” Dickey said. “The US Airways landing in the Hudson River was the wake-up call that we needed to accelerate our plan to create this Center, which was several years in the making.”

The new Center is designed to be part of a larger comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. bird strike hazard management system proposed by industry experts and now under review through the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the FAA.

One of the Center’s goals is to bring together and leverage broad industry, academic, and government supporters to gain federal and state funding to establish the Center as the pre-eminent national facility for wildlife/bird strike data collection, research, and development, similar to FAA-sponsored Centers of Excellence now operating at Embry-Riddle and other universities.

The Center is advised by prominent experts in aviation safety, aerospace engineering, aviation law, and pilot training. They include Russell DeFusco, Ph.D., founder of the wildlife management consultancy BASH Inc.; Paul Eschenfelder, aviation consultant and president of Avion Corp.; and Ed Cleary, retired FAA wildlife biologist.

Students enrolled in the Aviation Environmental Science degree program at Embry-Riddle, which Dickey also chairs, will assist with research at the Center.

The new Center will develop and promote solutions for managing wildlife around airports and training pilots and airport personnel to avoid aircraft collisions with birds and wildlife.

Some approaches already show promise, according to Dickey. For example, certain marine radar has been modified to detect birds near airports, and the mowing of airport-area grass to a height of six to 12 inches deters the presence of larger birds.

The Center will work with bird strike committees in North America and abroad to collect, maintain, and disseminate relevant data and research. The Center will develop training programs, management policies, and operational plans regarding aviation and wildlife risk mitigation to effectively and accurately facilitate communication with the scientific community, public, media, and government organizations.

With two aircraft brought down in two months and an ever present danger around the world, what is being done to minimise the risks of bird strikes? Ben Hargreaves investigates

There is an almost unbearable pathos to transcripts of final communications between a doomed airliner and the control tower. In the case of US Airways flight 1549, which successfully ditched in the Hudson River in New York last month, the narrative is one of remarkably bad luck – followed by cool thinking and decisive actions that saved the lives of all 155 people on board.

The flight, which ran into trouble just three minutes after its take-off from LaGuardia airport, made a national hero of former airforce pilot Chesley B Sullenberger III. Sullenberger, who guided the Airbus A320 to rest in the Hudson, avoiding bridges and gliding into the river at the correct angle so the plane would not break up, knew straight away what the problem was with the aircraft. At 8.27pm, the transcript records the captain saying: “Hit birds. We lost thrust in both engines.” Having lost all power, and unable to reach runways at either LaGuardia or nearby Teterboro airports, Sullenberger informs the control tower calmly: “We’re going to be in the Hudson.”

It was by no means unheard of for a flock of large birds, in this case Canada geese, to get sucked into the engines. Last November, a Ryanair flight for Rome from Frankfurt suffered a similar serious bird strike, when it was hit by a flock of thousands of starlings, and was forced to make an emergency landing at Rome-Ciampino airport, which led to the collapse of the plane’s left landing gear. The pilots of the Ryanair craft, like Sullenberger, won plaudits for bringing the aircraft down safely.

Bird strikes have been thrust into the public consciousness since these two incidents, and it’s possible, if you fly regularly, that you have experienced one. Most never result in catastrophe, or are even reported. “Most bird strikes do very little damage,” says John Ling, the engineering programme manager for transport at the IMechE. He says that since a plane can still fly on one engine to suffer severe bird strikes in both engines simultaneously had to make Sullenberger and his crew “desperately unlucky”.

Dr Stuart Bounds, head of dynamic modelling at Atkins Aerospace in Bristol, makes the analogy that bird strikes are similar to cycling along a country road in the summer. “Every now and again an insect hits you, and it’s fine, or at worst you swallow one and you keep going. But very rarely a bee hits you – and that can actually hurt at speed.”

Engineers at aero engine manufacturers work hard to ensure that engines can withstand a bird strike, using guns to fire physical models, or even “euthanised” birds, into gas turbines to assess their ability to withstand damage. Aerospace engineers also test the plane’s wings and fuselage to determine resistance to bird strikes. This is an important part of the work that Atkins Aerospace carries out for its clients, which include Airbus.

“We do a lot of work on the airframe in terms of bird strikes,” says Bounds. In these days of high computing power, the modelling of a strike is carried out through simulation, with physical testing being used to validate the computer model. Bounds and his team use linear finite element analysis packages to model components and test their resistance to a strike. At BAE Systems, engineers also use computer packages to model bird strikes on military aircraft, although there is no substitute for final physical testing. BAE has even developed synthetic birds manufactured from gelatine to be fired from gas guns into aircraft components such as windshields, windows and wings. This helps to ensure the repeatability of physical tests, the company says.

Of particular concern to aerospace engineers are leading edge parts of the wing, which are particularly vulnerable to bird strikes during take-off and landing. Birds hitting the aircraft are not just a headache in terms of safety — strikes hard enough to damage the airframe mean the plane has to be grounded and repaired.

Local media in New Zealand reported earlier this month that a bird strike punched a fist-sized hole in the wing of an Air New Zealand A320 during a flight from Melbourne to Christchurch. The accident was apparently not discovered during the flight but only on later inspection of the aircraft. Technical staff repaired the damage overnight and the aircraft returned to service.

As Bounds and his team model bird strikes, they look to ensure that components will not be compromised by the impact of 4lb birds hitting them at cruising speed.

The “bird” used in simulation is typically cylindrical with hemispherical ends. At speeds of 350 knots, such as when a plane is taking off or landing, the bird essentially behaves like a fluid on hitting the aircraft. The key is to ensure that the strike does not compromise vulnerable parts of the aircraft on the leading edge. “The energy of a bird hitting the leading edge at 300 knots is roughly equivalent to dropping a car from a metre,” Bounds says. A bird strike on the wing could potentially knock out aircraft systems, destroy control surfaces such as slats or ailerons, or even damage the fuel tanks. A hit on the fuselage could result in depressurisation of the cabin. Windscreens also need to be bird-proof as the cockpit is vulnerable.

Engineers at Atkins also simulate other types of dangerous event such as as impact from runway debris and tyre bursts. A bursting tyre caused the Concorde crash in 2000 that killed more than 100 people.

The engineers might focus on the vulnerability of the underside of the aircraft to such accidents. In the case of Concorde, debris from the tyre punctured the lower wing cover on the bottom of the airliner, resulting in a massive fuel leak and explosion. The plane was only allowed to fly again once a perforated Kevlar lining was incorporated into the base of the fuel tanks to protect them. The lining had to be perforated to allow the fuel to circulate around the wing. On Concorde, the fuel was used to help cool the wings’ skin during supersonic flight.

Advances in computer power are likely to improve the quality of bird strike simulation and allow for a greater understanding of how newer materials such as carbon or glass fibre composites behave during a strike. “We have a good understanding of metals but with composites there is more to be learnt,” says Bounds. “There is a continued effort to build computer models of composites and look at the impact of bird strikes.”

While we’re on the subject of flight, ever since that plane landed in the Hudson River a few months ago, the thought of bird-airplane collisions haven’t strayed too far from the media (or my mind each time I fly). In light of all the hoopla, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finally gave in and opened up their bird strike database to the public.

Below is an interactive exploring this data breaking things down by bird type, location, phase of flight, and time of day. Click through to this post to view.

Beware of the Canada Goose and gulls, rats of the sea. The sparrow, Mourning Dove, and European Starling seem to get in the way plenty also, but don’t cause nearly as much damage.

On the flip side – poor birds. What a way to go.