Wildlife collisions with aircraft: A missing component of land-use planning for airports

Abstract

a b s t r a c tProjecting risks posed to aviation safety by wildlife populations is often overlooked in airport land-use planning. However, the growing dependency on civil aviation for global commerce can require increases in capacity at airports which affect land use, wildlife populations, and perspectives on aviation safety. Our objectives were to (1) review legislation that affects airports and surrounding communities relative to managing and reducing wildlife hazards to aviation; (2) identify information gaps and future research needs relative to regulated land uses on and near airports, and the effects on wildlife populations; and (3) demonstrate how information regarding wildlife responses to land-use practices can be incorporated into wildlife-strike risk assessments. We show that guidelines for land-use practices on and near airports with regard to wildlife hazards to aviation can be vague, conflicting, and scientifically ill-supported. We discuss research needs with regard to management of stormwater runoff; wildlife use of agricultural crops and tillage regimens relative to revenue and safety; the role of an airport in the landscape matrix with regard to its effects on wildlife species richness and abundance; and spatial and temporal requirements of wildlife species that use airports, relative to implementing current and novel management techniques. We also encourage the development and maintenance of datasets that will allow realistic assessment of wildlife-strike risk relative to current airport conditions and anticipated changes to capacity. Land uses at airports influence wildlife populations, and understanding and incorporating these effects into planning will reduce risks posed to both aviation safety and wildlife species.Published by Elsevier B.V.

Fuselage Damage Locator System

“…Many of the fuselage damages are clear. It appears that many wildlife strike aircrafts [15] and in such cases the damage is usually quite large. Since the establishment of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Wildlife Strike Database at 1990, 99,411 reported wildlife strikes to airplanes have been reported.…”

Bird use of grain fields and implications for habitat management at airports

“…Among 10 small airports in Indiana, USA, land coverage of soybean (10.3%) and corn (9.5%) fields were intermediate to short grass (e.g., airport grassland; 40.2%) and runway systems (8.1%; DeVault et al, 2009). Investigating bird use of agricultural crop fields and their potential hazards could inform airport personnel of the associated wildlife strike risk of row crops adjacent to air operations areas and encourage establishment of alternative land uses, including haying, biofuel crops, native warm season grasses, and solar arrays (Blackwell et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2011Martin et al, , 2013DeVault et al, 2012DeVault et al, , 2013bDeVault et al, , 2014.…”

Large Mammal Use of Seminatural Grasslands and Implications for Aviation Strike Risk

“…Common airport landscapes of intermittent grasslands, wooded areas, and sometimes row crops, do not deter deer and coyote use (Wright et al 1998;Blackwell et al 2009;DeVault et al 2009). Existing data on mammalian use of native warm-season grass polycultures and switchgrass monocultures are restricted predominately to small mammals (Kamler et al 2005;Schmidt et al 2013), despite aircraft strike risk concerns of deer and coyotes .…”

“…We determined potential hazards to aircraft and whether either treatment demonstrated promise as an alternative land cover for airports according to deer and coyote use. We predicted less use of switchgrass fields than native warm-season grass fields because greater plant species diversity in polycultures would complement deer and coyote diets, such as greater forage quality and increased small mammal prey, respectively (Wright et al 1998;Blackwell et al 2009;DeVault et al 2009;Schmidt et al 2013). …”