‘When’ birds hit a plane


Published/Last Modified on Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:44 PM CDT

J.S. “Si” Brown III

The purpose of this letter is to voice my concern over the landfill/dump that is located off the end of runway 16 at the Acadiana Regional Airport. A hazard has been created by locating this type of business so near our now busy airport.

Recent events have brought this hazard to the forefront of the public eye. Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III, known as “Sully” to the public, skillfully piloted an airbus A320 to a successful emergency landing in the Hudson River because of a catastrophic loss of both engines after a bird strike. The emergency landing was deemed successful because there was no loss of life. However, the $60 million jet aircraft was lost.

Advertisement
Our company has been operating various aircraft out of Acadiana Regional for 50 years. We have been flying a jet out of ARA for more than five years now. The bird strike hazard is inordinately high at this location due to the landfill area off the end of the runway. Every landing that we have conducted to runway 16, birds have been spotted close to the approach path. On two occasions recently, we have had to maneuver the aircraft, low to the ground and slow in airspeed, to avert a midair collision with these birds. This could have had catastrophic results.

It is my opinion that it is not “if” there will be an accident at our airport due to a severe bird strike, but “when.” With military training traffic, helicopter training by three local companies, airliner type aircraft coming to be painted, and normal general aviation traffic, the risk level is inordinately high. Unlike the accident in New York where nothing can be done to avert disaster, here the solution is simple: Relocate the landfill and the majority of the hazard goes away.

Our corporate flying demands that we take known risks and mitigate them down to acceptable levels. This is the nature of flying. However, dealing with the excessive bird population around our airport is unacceptable. Something must be done and soon. The hazard has been identified and negative public opinion will be very strong if an unfortunate accident occurs because we fail to act. I respectfully request that legislation be passed banning this type of business near the approach end of a runway at a public airport.

J.S. “Si” Brown III

President

Bruce Foods Corporation

New Iberia

Copyright © 2010 The Daily Iberian

Comments

    to D. Hertz wrote on Jun 26, 2009 6:53 PM:

    " You may think it's dumb because you are ignorant about this issue, but I know for a fact there is not an increase of bird activity on the airport because of the dump. I am not trying to anger anyone I am just stating fact. Before commenting any further D. Hertz, you should educate yourself on this issue. "

    cpl wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:48 AM:

    " ownu's statement is true, it has not increased the bird activity at the airport. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:30 PM:

    " to: ownu:

    You must just be trying to p1ss someone off with a dumb statement like that. "

    ownu wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:54 PM:

    " The fact is, The dump does NOT increase the bird activity at the airport. "

    to G wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:51 PM:

    " Spanish lake is not in the direct path of a runway. And yes, there are and will always be birds in other places (trash bins, farms), but does that make it ok to put a site that will increase the birds in the patch of the runway? "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 21, 2009 11:04 PM:

    " Hey G, there is no double standard. The issue at hand is the landfill's effect on aviation safety.

    You are trying to divert the attention. "

    G wrote on Jun 20, 2009 8:03 PM:

    " to D.Hertz
    you seem to have double standards on the birds from your other post. If you are against the attraction of birds around the airport then put you your fight against the farmers too. But to you it's not a problem the farmers are closer than the landfill. Spanish lake almost the same distance as the landfill WHICH HOLDS MORE BIRDS. I also saw birds at the monkey farm today, and some of the trash dumpsters at work. No problem there either? "

    RP wrote on Jun 20, 2009 4:14 PM:

    " I am NOT a supporter of Mr. Doerle, however I would like to make a very quick point. What about all the sugar cane fields just feet away from the runways?? When those tractors plow and work in the fields...does that not also attract birds?? What is going to be done about that? "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 19, 2009 10:58 AM:

    " I saw on the news this morning some footage of trash being "transferred" at Doerle's place. It was NOT wood and construction debris. It was ordinary household garbage.

    You people who blindly back Doerle are fooling yourselves. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 19, 2009 10:57 AM:

    " Hey G, you are "wondering" about bird counts? Are we going to "wonder" about the lives of the persons on board the airplanes and helicopters that fly over the landfill?

    If we are going to wonder, then lets wonder on the side of safety. "

    G wrote on Jun 17, 2009 6:23 PM:

    " Has anyone given thought to the fact that spanish lake is near the airport like 1.25 miles as the crow flies. I wonder how many: ducks, geese, pelicans, cranes ( gros bec ) are at the lake in the flight path year round. Yes bird strikes or a danger no matter where you are so don't fly. Yes we work at and near the airport and the birds are all over NOT JUST AT THE LAND FILL. Birds hang out and eat out the trash dumpsters at all the businesses. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 17, 2009 4:10 PM:

    " Well maybe woodpeckers don't eat wood, but what difference does that make? The woodpecker is around wood to get the insects.

    Who cares if the woodpecker is actually EATING the wood or the insect, he is still hanging around the wood, creating a hazard for aviation! "

    To D. Hertz wrote on Jun 17, 2009 10:49 AM:

    " Man... Woodpeckers? Really?? Thats just ignorant. Woodpeckers eat insects. They burrow into wood to get to insects. Just think before you say something like that. You aren't helping your cause at all. "

    Woody the Woodeater wrote on Jun 17, 2009 10:05 AM:

    " Ah, no, birds do not eat wood, not even Woody the Woodpecker. Wood-Pecker, hence the pecking of the wood to look for bugs. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:55 PM:

    " To everyonehasone, you sound like you have one and can be called one.

    Your visiting a landfill a couple of times doesn't seem like sound scientific anaylsis, buy what do I know?

    You are obviously a "Doerler"

    And, birds don't eat wood? Tell that to Woody Woodpecker. "

    EVERYONEHASONE wrote on Jun 16, 2009 6:54 AM:

    " I found a dead bird in my yard. Should I report it as a possible bird strike? Planes do fly over my house. Concerning the landfill and birds. Have any of you been to the land fill? I went a couple of times last year, expecting all kinds of birds, I saw very few, after all most birds do not eat wood. "

    G wrote on Jun 15, 2009 7:27 PM:

    " Back track people this all started because Doerle installed a shredder, and it was located 5000' from the airport. Regulations require it to be 5280' ( Iberia Parish cut him a deal ) so if he moves 280' what will be the next excuse BIRDS. Birds are all over the place. When a plane runs over a field mouse on the runway. What comes to eat it? BIRDS. So kill all the birds then what will be the next excuse? The sun reflects off the tin on his building. There will never be an answer. "

    reason wrote on Jun 15, 2009 5:42 PM:

    " What is missing from this debate is any sense of perspective. The landfill MAY attract birds. The question is does it attract them to any larger extent than does the other activities and features that ring the airport? In other words, has there been in any increase in birds since the landfill has been there that can be directly attributable to the landfill? "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 15, 2009 8:43 AM:

    " To: captain obvious.

    Be more observant. Since the airport board changed dynamics and is now 5/6 aircraft background people, there have been four T hangar projects, a helicopter flight school, and other influx of activity.

    For years the airports in Iberia parish were neglected, now there is movement in the right direction.

    Rome wasn't built in a day. ARA will not turn into a major aviation complex overnight.

    Cheer on the progress, fight the attempts to trash the airport. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:03 PM:

    " To me, its something to strive for. "

    captain obvious wrote on Jun 14, 2009 8:17 AM:

    " Lets not even get started on the Board setup for ARA. That in itself is hopeless! A bunch of individuals looking out for themselves, not the airport. If they would be for the airport, there would be a growing number of businesses at the airport instead of sugar cane fields. "

    missing the point wrote on Jun 13, 2009 3:31 PM:

    " The Wildlife Hazard at ARA was started not started by the landfill, but it does attract all types of wildlife, not just a bird strike. We live in South Louisiana we have great habitat for various species wildlife including: birds, coyotes, foxes, and deer to name a few.
    ARA likely had a wildlife hazard issue before the landfill was established adjacent to the end of the runway. The airport commissioners (all volunteers) are looking out for the airports best interest.That is what are boards and commissions or for. Right? "

    Birdhunter wrote on Jun 12, 2009 1:02 PM:

    " Mr. Hertz, my research is as extensive and as credible as anyone involved in this subject. That is my point, and I am glad you finally see that. I have seen nothing credible that says the landfill is any more of a threat than a half dozen other features around the airport. I will be glad to change my mind if there is credible scientific evidence that I am wrong. So far, all we have are blowhard politicians and self interested Coteau residents spouting OPINIONS.. "

    Kimbro aka Kim wrote on Jun 12, 2009 12:33 PM:

    " Bird Hunter
    My dad flew in the Airforce for 20+ years. Birds are a hazard, and they do not have to be as large as a goose to create problems. "

    me wrote on Jun 12, 2009 9:01 AM:

    " I can only hope that one day I will be as knowlegable about FAA regulations, bird strikes, landfills, aviation, sheriff's departments, proper handling of cars,proper money managment,and all other matters as DHERTZ "

    wrote on Jun 12, 2009 5:32 AM:

    " NYC To Gas 2,000 Geese In Bid To Protect Aircraft - Hunt At Dozens Of Locations Near JFK, LaGuardia Planned To Avoid Bird Strikes; Hope Is To Avoid Repeat Of Flight 1549

    If we close the landfill, are we going to address the Lake, it's just as close as the landfill? The Seaway? If not, then I suggest the it's not really about the birds. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 11, 2009 8:09 PM:

    " To Birdhunter. It seems that clicking a few times on google maps and your "last time I looked" method of gathering data would not stand a close scientific scrutiny regarding the threat to aviation created by a landfill near a runway.

    Where are the scientists when we need them? Have any ornithologists looked into this problem?

    Personally I am getting tired of the ridiculous comments on this issue (including my own comments). "

    Bird Hunter wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:37 PM:

    " The birds that took down the plane in New York were GEESE. Last time I looked, Gesse don't hang around landfills. But they do hang around WATER, such as the Sea Plane strip right next door to the runway, and they hang around SpanishLake, which is closer to the runway than is the landfill. Go to Google Maps, Google Earth, etc. and take a look. The landfill is almost too small to see compared to the lake, etc. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 11, 2009 6:09 AM:

    " I figured as much, which also makes me wonder which controller chatter you are listening too. Reguardless of whether they want the hassel or not, if they don't report bird activity, they are putting other aircraft in danger and are a contributing factor should an accident happen. For the record most pilots and controllers work together to make things safer, the condescending tone you speak of is a very small minority, also ther are pilots who are very arrogant towards controllers believing their needs are priority over everyone else. They are also a very small minority. "

    CPL wrote on Jun 11, 2009 5:38 AM:

    " So, D Hertz, am I reading this right that you consider a "close call" as nothing?
    Interesting. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:45 PM:

    " You know, I can't answer the question of why a pilot wouldn't want to report a close call with a bird. Maybe pilots don't want the hassle of talking to some arrogant air traffic controller and getting the third degree, about nothing.

    From listening to the chatter, it seems like air traffic controllers seem to take a condescending tone to pilots. If I were a pilot, I wouldn't want to talk to them either. "

    ownu wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:41 AM:

    " I know for a fact that the military aircraft would not fly into ARA if the bird problem was half as bad as Mr. Brown claims it to be. Also, like I said before if Mr. Brown was so concerned for his safety he would have stopped flying in and out of ARA a long time ago. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 10, 2009 6:20 AM:

    " One more question for you D.Hertz, why wouldn't a pilot want to follow the correct procedures of reporting birds or bird incidents especially if their is such a big problem? If there was an issue with birds that would seem the best and quickest way to correct the problem. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 10, 2009 6:13 AM:

    " " How do you know that these reports were not made directly to FAA? You don't. My bet is....they were. Why do you think FAA has become so involved?"

    Because then there would be a record of it and the Tower would have knowledge of it from the FAA, besides the normal procedure is to report it as soon as it is observed for safety concerns.
    Why would a pilot want to contact the FAA directly when all they have to do is inform the Tower? You really should do some research before you embarass yourself. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 10, 2009 6:06 AM:

    " D.Hertz, it's obvious from your uniformed retoric that you have an ax to grind against the government, and your perception of what say you know is influenced by your bias. What ownu, cpl and I are talking about are rules and truth. I'm no fan of government intervention but the local politics on this issue stinks to high heaven. When you realize that this is nothing more than a ****ing contest between a few individuals who care nothing about aviation safety but only about who they can control, the better you will be. "

    To ownu RetiredController wrote on Jun 10, 2009 12:53 AM:

    " How do you know that these reports were not made directly to FAA? You don't. My bet is....they were. Why do you think FAA has become so involved?

    You two are blowing hot air & soon with be airborne.....watch out for the birds! "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:12 PM:

    " In lieu of discussing the bird strike hazard of the landfill, you are chastising the pilots who don't follow some government reporting requirement. You also are relying on government data to support your argument.

    I'm from the FAA and I am here to help you. (this is a joke, for those of you in Lydia) "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:09 PM:

    " Let me guess, you can quote the OMB number on several government forms from memory. You truly enjoy FAA functions. You think the world would be a better place if every pilot subscribed to a view of reporting every aviaton incident and filling a form out in triplicate.
    Bureacratic gobbly guke gone wild.

    I am sure that MOST of the incidents go unreported

    You can't rely on these reporting methods to gauge the threat to aviation.

    If we could rely on government information, our economy wouldn't be in a depression. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:27 AM:

    " ownu is correct. This issue is nothing more than a personal squabble for personal and political issues disguised as a safety issue. "

    ownu wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:49 AM:

    " One more point. If Mr. Brown is really worried about his safety because of the landfill. He would not land at ARA. There are two airports in reasonable driving distance that can accomodate his needs. If the bird problem around the landfill was as dire as Mr. Brown claims, why would he continue to operate out of ARA?
    The answer is because the landfill attracts no more and no less birds than any other location on and around the ARA or any other airport around. "

    Ownu wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:33 AM:

    " First off, if a pilot does not report a bird hazard that he has sighted to the tower, he is putting his aircraft and other aircraft in greater danger. Second, if the pilot takes evasive action to avoid a hazard without reporting it to the tower he is also putting his aircraft and others in danger. Finally, the real issue is, does the landfill cause an inordinately high bird activity at the airport. The answer is, it does not. Public report records and people in HIGH offices will also confirm this.

    It's not about taking sides it's about FACTS! "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 9, 2009 8:43 AM:

    " "And who are all these people out there keeping track of the reports? A bunch of busy bodies with scanners? Employees of ARA, who are Doerle supporters, in disguise?"
    They may be people who know what they are talking about when it comes to Air Traffic Control. The stats are kept and recorded by the FAA and the National Trasportation Safety Board as well as airport records. These stats and information can be requested through the freedom of information act. What does it matter if they support Doerle as long as they are correct. "

    RetiredController wrote on Jun 9, 2009 8:15 AM:

    " "So what if the career pilot doesn't "report" every near miss according to YOUR standards, does that mean that the near misses did not occur?"
    First of all they are everyone's standards (pilots). Second, Pilots, especially career Pilots, who follow the rules when it is convenient, create a greater hazard than birds that don't exist. "

    RetriedController wrote on Jun 9, 2009 8:09 AM:

    " D. Hertz, I suggest that you become more informed before you start commenting on something that you seem to know nothing about.

    " to cpl: Your comments amount to nothing more than buffoonery. You seem to focus on some hyper-technical reporting requirement to some government bureaucracy to bolster your dim view of aviation safety."
    How are CPL's comments buffoonery? They are actually correct and backed up by the next poster citing a reference which you have obviously not read. Aviation rules and regulations are there for a reason not for convenience. "

    To ownu wrote on Jun 9, 2009 6:49 AM:

    " Yeah right! There are also two ordinances on the parish books I could quote you but what good would that do when our illustrious leaders DID NOT abide by?!

    Just cause it possibly was not reported doesn't mean it ain't so. "

    CPL wrote on Jun 9, 2009 5:34 AM:

    " Apparently I'm not the only one who can't read. Now that is .scary. "

    D. Hertz wrote on Jun 8, 2009 10:19 PM:

    " to cpl: Your comments amount to nothing more than buffoonery. You seem to focus on some hyper-technical reporting requirement to some government bureaucracy to bolster your dim view of aviation safety.

    So what if the career pilot doesn't "report" every near miss according to YOUR standards, does that mean that the near misses did not occur?

    And who are all these people out there keeping track of the reports? A bunch of busy bodies with scanners? Employees of ARA, who are Doerle supporters, in disguise?

    What gives? "

    ownu wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:36 AM:

    " I have extensive knowledge that regardless of 5 years or 50 years Bruce Foods aircraft have NEVER reported either birds over the landfill nor have they reported having to make such low altitude manuveurs over the landfill to avoid bird activity. Not only is it required to report such bird activity to the tower but it is also required to tell the tower of evasive manuevers performed. Once again I know this has never been reported. "

    ownu wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:32 AM:

    " Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Pg. 7-4-1 Para 7-4-4 states, "If you observe birds or other animals on or near the runway, request airport management to disperse the wildlife before taking off. ALSO contact the nearest FAA ARTCC, FCC, or TOWER(including non-Federal towers) regarding large flocks of birds and report the: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, BIRD TYPE(geese, ducks, gulls, etc.), Approximate numbers, Altitude, and direction of flight type." Now I hope that clears it up for everyone. To be continued... "

    To cpl wrote on Jun 7, 2009 7:04 PM:

    " Apparently you cannot read. They have been operatiing various aircraft out of ARA for the past 50 years. They have only had their jet for the last 5 years. Please! Also, how do you know they did not report, I'm told it's voluntary for the tower to report to FAA but starting Tuesday FAA will start addressing ALL airports in the U. S.

    If you work at the tower that appears a little scary to me. "

    cpl wrote on Jun 7, 2009 3:08 PM:

    " Ok, I'm just confused. The pilots states they have been flying out of here for 5 years," uh ok, so the pilots thinks he knows bird history? Ah, I don't think so. First of all there has only been one call stating that birds where on final for 16, and that came from a Cub pilot. So if you were so stressed, and had to do manuvers for birds on final, WHIY DIDN'T YOU ADIVESE THE TWR? That is after all your duty as a piilot so that we can pass along that info, "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment related to this story. Use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

•Comments must be approved by an editor or the publisher before appearing on the Web site but are not verified for accuracy nor have we verified the identity of any person supposedly posting an comment. Please consider this as you consider any statement made. A thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

• Please note your comments must attempt to follow basic rules of grammar and punctuation or they will not be posted. Do not use unfamiliar abbreviations or text-like short cuts, like ur for your. Please keep your tone civil. You can say someone's idea is stupid but you cannot say someone is stupid.

• Comments should deal with matters of public concern. Problems with private individuals or private companies are not likely to get posted.

• Questions or comments about items posted should be e-mailed to dailyiberian@bellsouth.net.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

Classifieds

Jobs

Jobs

View All Jobs

Homes

Homes

View All Homes

Autos

Autos

View All Autos


Contact Us

Subscribe
Vacation Hold
General Email

Mailing Address:
The Daily Iberian
P.O. Box 9290
New Iberia, LA
70562-9290

Street Address:
926 East Main St.
New Iberia, LA 70560

Phone:
(337) 365-6773

Fax:
(337)-367-9640

Inside Louisiana:
800-365-6773

Local Weather