Dr. Curtis interviewed about bird strikes by Columbia University

Earlier this month, Lars Vercelli of the Columbia University School of Journalism interviewed Dr. Curtis about his thoughts on bird hazards to aircraft, and about ways to reduce bird strike risks from a proposed garbage facility near New York's LaGuardia airport.

Over the course of ten days in mid-April 2012, there were several serious incidents involving birds colliding into planes across the US (including a strike described in an earlier AirSafeNews.com story on a passenger who recorded a bird strike with an iPad). While no one was harmed in these strike events, these incidents brought renewed attention to this ongoing aviation concern.

The two videos below incude the report broadcast by Columbia News Tonight, as well as additional comments from Dr. Curtis.

Columbia News Tonight report


Extended comments from Dr. Curtis

Additional bird stirke resources
AirSafe.com bird stirke information page
BirdStrikeNews.com
Bird Strike Committee USA

Bird Strikes and the FAA Rules on Passenger Electronics

On April 19, 2012, Delta Flight 1063, a 757 flying nonstop from JFK Airport in New York to Los Angeles, was forced to return to JFK and make an emergency landing after its right engine experienced a bird strike shortly after takeoff.

One of the passengers, New York Times bestseller Grant Cardone, happen to have been using his iPad to make a video when he caught a glimpse of the flock of birds involved in the strike.

Grant Cardone video of bird strike

Cardone caught the incident on his iPad, despite the fact that electronic devices like iPads are supposed to be turned off during that part of the flight.

The video has gotten Cardone in trouble with the FAA and he's recently received a warning letter letting him know that a record of his rule infringement will be kept for two years. The letter reportedly stated that the FAA will not penalize Cardone so long as he has no other infractions over the next two years.

Why the FAA approach makes no sense
The current FAA regulations on electronic devices were developed in an era when there were few, if any, personal electronic devices on board. It is a safe bet that the average passenger has more than one device with them when they travel. The chance that a frequent flyer will forget to turn off an iPhone, Kindle, iPad, laptop, video game, etc. at least once is likely close to 100%.

Instead of sending threatening letters, it would make much more sense for the FAA to get together with the aviation industry and the flying public and create a set of new regulations that take into account both common sense and the reality that electronic devices will likely become much more popular in airline cabins. This is a point of view emphasized by AirSafe.com creator Dr. Todd Curtis in a May 3, 2012 interview on Washington, DC radio station WTOP.

Related information
Using personal electronic devices in flight
Bird strik hazards to aircraft
WTOP interview with Dr. Curtis on May 3, 2012
Protecting your laptop when you fly

The Miracle on the Hudson, Ejection Database, and A319 Landing Incident

Anniversary of the Miracle on the Hudson
One year after the ditching of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River, the NTSB investigation is still ongoing. While the investigation may not be completed for several months, there is a large amount of information from the investigation that is available for the public to review. The NTSB information page on last June's public meeting about the accident has links to past NTSB press releases, and links to transcripts and videos from the three day public hearing. Additional information on the accident is available at the NTSB's public docket for this investigation.

Ejection Seat Database
If you ever had a question about military plane crashes featuring the use of an ejection seat, then Project Get Out and Walk is worth a visit. The site is an illustrated history of assisted aircrew escape system and has a database of all known ejections and bailouts, with ejections listed by year, country, and aircraft.

United Airlines Emergency Landing at Newark
On January 10th, a United Airlines Airbus A319 (N816UA, flight 634)was damaged when it landed at Newark's Liberty International Airport with its right hand main landing gear retracted. The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Chicago's O'Hare airport, to Newark, and the flight was normal until approach, when the crew experienced problems with lowering the landing gear.

The crew carried out a missed approach, and later landed with the right main gear retracted and came to rest on the runway, damaging the right engine and the underside of the aircraft. All 48 passengers and five crew members evacuated using the emergency slides and there were no major injuries.

This being the Twitter era, it isn't surprising that there were a few Tweets (Twitter posts) on this event. A passenger on another aircraft with Twitter name @expodebbie said: On runway. Newark just closed. Another aircraft with bad landing- mechanical issues. Emergency vehicles. Zero idea just how bad. 6:28 AM Jan 10th

Below are several photos of the damaged aircraft, plus a video of the actual landing taken from the cockpit of another aircraft.

Amerifligt Aircraft Escapes Disaster After a Serious Bird Strike over Arizona

On 4 November 2009, an Ameriflight Beech C-99 aircraft (N330AV) was cruising at about 11,000 feet in the vicinity of Show Low, AZ when one or more birds struck the aircraft and penetrated the windscreen. The pilot, who was the lone occupant of the cargo aircraft, sustained minor injuries to his face and shoulder and was able to land the aircraft without further incident at Show Low, AZ.



For additional photos from this incident, please visit BirdStrikeNews.com.

Warning: Some of the photos on the BirdStrikeNews.com article may be very disturbing to some viewers.

Related Resources
Bird Strike Risks to Aircraft

Social Media Insights from AirSafe.com

If you have used social media applications like Skype, Twitter, or LinkedIn, or are curious about how you can use social media, you may want to check out two recent posts on AirSafe.com's Bird Strike News site at http://www.birdstrikenews.com.

The first describes how AirSafe.com combines a blog with both a mailing list and Twitter to talk to three very different parts of the AirSafe.com audience at the same time.

The second talks about ten different free social media related applications you can try, from Blogger to Twitter to Google Alerts. For each type of application, AirSafe.com suggests one for you to try.

That post also has links to several examples of social media applications currently used by AirSafe.com.

Next week, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com will be in Victoria, Canada, where he will present the paper "Social Media, Bird Strikes, and Aviation Safety Policy" at the 2009 Bird Strike North America Conference. Attendees at the upcoming conference will have the opportunity to not only attend the presentation, but also to have Dr. Curtis evaluate their organization's approach to using social media.

Using Media Attention to Promote the Need for More Thoughtful Data Analysis

Since the very beginning of AirSafe.com, intense media focus on aviation safety events, typically plane crashes, have presented opportunities to bring the work of AirSafe.com to the attention of the media and the general public. The increasing variety of advanced search and social media applications have made it easier than ever to quickly identify opportunities to promote a greater understanding of aviation safety.

The recent FAA policy proposals concerning public access to their bird and wildlife strike database, and the reversal of those proposals, resulted in something unusual when it comes to the the media and aviation safety--intense media attention that didn't involve a plane crash. AirSafe.com used one of the many free search tools from Google to find newspapers and other news media that were writing about that database, allowing AirSafe.com to take specific steps to engage the public and the media in a further dialogue about issues related to analyzing that database.

When the FAA proposed to severely restrict the public's access to the FAA's bird and wildlife strike database in March 2009, it ignited controversy as well as hundreds of news stories related to the proposed policy change. When the DOT and the FAA reversed course the following month, it led to hundreds of other articles, many of them focusing on the strike record of specific airports and airlines.

This spike in interest represented an opportunity to increase AirSafe.com's audience by using the media coverage to direct people to bird and wildlife strike information on AirSafe.com's web sites and blogs.

The key was that many of these articles allowed readers to leave comments. AirSafe.com left comments on many of these articles, making sure that the comments invited the reader to visit AirSafe.com related online resources that provided additional information about bird and wildlife strike related issues.

Finding the articles was particularly easy, with the most important tool being Google Alerts, a free service that allows you tell Google to search for recently published content that contain specific keywords of interest.

The full plan to take advantage of the sudden public attention had three parts:

1. Use Google Alerts to find out what news stories were coming out online (in this case, the search terms [+faa +"bird strike"] were used).

2. Find the articles with the largest potential audience and either post comments to the article (always mentioning at least one of AirSafe.com's bird strike related resources).

3. If an article from a medium to large media organization had contact information for the writer of the story, I'd make a point to contact that person by phone or email and offer to provide information or answer questions.

By using Google Alerts research to find news articles, I was able to easily find dozens of opportunities to post comments to articles and use those posts to direct readers to some of my resources. In addition, I also found relevant media contacts that I could help or that could help me later.

Each of AirSafe.com's comments were a variation of the following message:

Releasing the data was the right thing to do on the part of the FAA. The right thing to do on the part of the public is to use the data as a way to understand a problem and not as the final answer.

Keep in mind that the FAA bird strike database is voluntary, so you can't just look at the raw numbers. Aggressive reporting is only one reason why there may be many reports in the database from a particular airport or airline.

Aviation organizations like the AirSafe.com Foundation offer many insights into how one should approach aviation safety data. Many of their bird strike examples are at birds.airsafe.org and strikevideos.blogspot.com.

It's not too late to do this kind of thing for your organization. Whether it is for bird strikes or for something else related to aviation, if you have a blog or web site that needs a boost of attention and traffic, and there is a major media frenzy that is relevant to your site or blog, try this three step marketing method yourself. Even if you don't place comments, it is an excellent way to identify reporters whom you may want to approach later.

FAA Backs Down - Will Release Bird Strike Database to Public

Just two days after the deadline for submissions of public comments about their proposal to severely restrict public access to a major bird strike database, the Department of Transportation has overruled the FAA and has announced that the FAA will go in the opposite direction, releasing virtually every bit of data to the public.

The FAA is scheduled to make the database available online on Friday April 24th at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/index.html#access I contacted the FAA on the 23rd, and I was told that there will by 94 data fields available, including just about everything except the phone number of the submitter.

This level of public disclosure is above and beyond the minimum that I suggested in my comments to the FAA, and well beyond what I expected to happen. I certainly look forward to reviewing the database when it becomes available.

For the AirSafe.com audience, I will continue to offer support to anyone who has questions about how to analyze the data. If you do have questions or comments, feel free to contact me at feedback.airsafe.org.

Last Chance to Comment on FAA Database Access Changes

Last month the FAA proposed a rule change that would severely
restrict access to one of the most valuable databases of
bird and wildlife strikes available anywhere. If the FAA
gets its way, it will be almost impossible for the public
to review basic data about bird and wildlife strikes across
the United States.

The FAA invites the public send comments about the proposed rule
changes, and AirSafe.com encourages you to make your
views known to the FAA. If you want to send your comments,
must do so by today. For guidance on how to submit comments,
please follow one of the links below:

How to Send Comments to the FAA
Background on this FAA Proposal
AirSafe.com Bird Strike Information
Response of Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com

AirSafe.com Response to the FAA Bird Stike Database Proposal

The FAA proposal to restrict access to their most extensive database of bird and wildlife strikes has been discussed extensively at AirSafe.com and by major news media. Judging by the response of the public and of a variety of aviation experts, including Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com, it's fair to say that there is very little support for the rule changes. However, being opposed to the rule change doesn't affect some key issues around the FAA's Wildlife Hazard Database. One of those key questions is what kind of data should be made available to the public.

The public is invited to respond to the FAA proposal, and earlier entries in the AirSafe.com News provided information on how to respond. AirSafe.com and the AirSafe.com News encourage its readers to provide input about this issue. Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com has drafted an extensive response to the FAA proposal that refutes several of the arguments made by the FAA and that also provides specific suggestions both for what kinds of additional information should be included in the database, and what kinds of identifying information could be removed from database entries without sacrificing the usefulness of the data to the general public.

Please download and review a copy of this draft response. Feel free to share your comments about this response, either on this blog or by using the AirSafe.com feedback form at feedback.airsafe.org.

Additional Resources
How to Respond to an FAA Recommended Rule Change
Draft Response by Dr. Todd Curtis
FAA Proposal to Restrict Public Access to Safety Data

Send Your Comments to the FAA

The previous post discussed the FAA's proposal to restrict public access to the Wildlife Hazard Database. This post will show you how you can submit comments about this proposal online, and provides an example of what kinds of comments would be the most effective.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rule making by submitting written comments, including data, that deal with the possible impacts that may result from adopting a proposal. The most helpful comments are those that deal with a specific part of the proposal.

The FAA accepts comments online, by, fax, by mail, or you can deliver it in person. AirSafe.com will focus on the online option. If you want to use another method, the information is provided in the FAA proposal.

The online portal for submitting comments is at http://www.regulations.gov. If you put in the docket number (FAA-2009-0245) in the Search Documents box, you will be taken to a page with a number of options. To add a comment, click on the words "Send a Comment or Submission" or on the comment icon (it looks like a little yellow balloon).

Before you add comments, you may want to spend some time thinking about what you want to write. It is best to comment on one or more specific points in the proposal. I suggest that you take the time to read it over and come to your own conclusions. Below, I'll list the points that will be highlighted by AirSafe.com.

FAA Arguments and AirSafe.com Objections

FAA Argument: Information about bird and wildlife strikes will not be submitted to the database because the disclosure of raw data could unfairly cast unfounded aspersions on the submitter.
AirSafe.com Objection: There are three parts to this objection:

1. Individuals who submit information to the database are not identified.

2. Assuming that it is somehow possible to identify the organization associated with one or more submissions, for example a specific airline or airport, then if someone makes unfair or unsupported claims, then that implies that there was a very poor analysis based on the data. A competent analysis would likely put the raw data in the proper context and neutralize any unfair claims.

3. According to the US government publication Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2007, only one in five bird and wildlife strikes are reported to the FAA's database. The FAA proposal contains no projection or estimate about what affect the proposed rule change would have on those who currently submit data, those who don't submit because of the current disclosure rules, and those who are not submitting for other reasons. Would the proportion of reported strikes go up to 25% if the disclosure rules changed? 50%? 75%? Perhaps it would drop to 15%.

FAA Argument: Releasing information from the database without benefit of proper analysis would produce an inaccurate perception of the individual airports and airlines and also inaccurate and inappropriate comparisons between different airports or different airlines.
AirSafe.com Objection: The fact that individuals or organizations may not understand how to do a proper analysis is not relevant because it is not the FAA's job to judge the competence, motives, or experience of those who may request data from a public database.

FAA Argument: Inaccurate portrayals of airports and airlines could have a negative impact on their participation in reporting bird strikes.
AirSafe.com Objection: As stated before, the FAA has no control over the actions of anyone who requests data. Inaccurate portrayals are always a possibility. However, the FAA has the expertise that should be able to easily counter any inaccurate analysis that unfairly portrays an airline or airport with a better analysis. There are a number of other industry organizations, including any affected airline and airport, that would be very willing to help the FAA to counter these kinds of unfair portrayals.

FAA Argument: The database should be exempt from public disclosure because when the FAA began collecting this data, it assured the entities submitting the data that the submissions would not be made available to the public.
AirSafe.com Objection: A review of the current online form and downloadable paper form for inputs to the Wildlife Hazard Database have nothing that promises that the data would not be available to the public. AirSafe.com's review of historical paper input forms going back to 1997 also show no such written promises. While the FAA may have made promises when the database was first created, the fact that for at least the last 12 years the FAA has apparently not made any promises of data privacy implies that they were not serious about their assurances made nearly 20 years ago.

What Should You Do Now?
If you want to make a comment to the FAA, do it before the deadline of April 20, 2009. Take the time to read the proposal and write down your comments. Follow the links given earlier and submit your comments to the FAA. If you need help or advice, feel free to contact AirSafe.com.

Why the FAA Should Not Block Access to Bird Strike Data

In March 2009, the FAA quietly made a stunning proposal to make it nearly impossible for the public to access a vital aviation safety resource. Since 1990, the FAA's National Wildlife Strike Database has been one of the most important tools for understanding bird and wildlife strike risks to aircraft. With over 100,0000 records, this database has the potential to benefit everyone who flies by giving the aviation safety community and the general public the opportunity to analyze that data in order to discover ways to reduce the threats to aircraft caused by birds and other wildlife. The FAA states several concerns about the database, but none of their arguments support their proposal to block public access to the data.

The FAA admits that over the last 19 years they have collected and used this data to improve safety. One of their concerns with the current database is that there is a serious potential that information related to bird strikes will not be submitted because of fear that the disclosure of raw data could unfairly cast unfounded aspersions on the submitter.

This argument only makes sense if the FAA assumes that there is no way to counter an argument based on a biased or incompetent analysis. This is not the case at all. The tools needed to analyze aviation safety data are widely available. If an analysis is unfair or incorrect it should be easy to review the assumptions, the data, the analysis, and determine whether the conclusions were justified.

Another part of the FAA's argument to make this database unavailable to the public is that when the FAA began collecting this data, it assured the entities submitting the data that the submissions would not be made available to the public. While that may have been true 19 years ago, it apparently hasn't been the case for at least the past 12 years The current online submission form and the paper wildlife strike report forms available since at least 1997 made no such promises of secrecy.

In the proposal, the FAA states releasing this information without benefit of proper analysis would not only produce an inaccurate perception of the individual airports and airlines but also inaccurate and inappropriate comparisons between airports and airlines.

The concern of the FAA is clearly not for individual submitters, since they already redact this kind of personal information from the database. Their concerns appear to be for the reputation of airports and airlines. More importantly, this argument implies that the FAA has the attitude that the public doesn't have the ability to properly analyze the data. It's true that the process of asking and answering aviation safety questions can be an extremely difficult task even for aviation safety experts. It's probably true that if most members of the media or the general public attempt to analyze this bird strike data they may come to conclusions that may unfairly highlight an airline or airport. However, this possibility should not be the FAA's concern. The FAA has many roles, but passing judgment on the ability of the public to scrutinize data is not one of them.

The FAA in their proposal states that it is imperative that nothing should stifle flow of information into this database. However, their proposed action will do exactly that. For aviation safety data to be useful, the flow of information has to go in two directions, not just one. Cutting off the pubic from this information makes it less likely that the aviation safety community will learn from the experiences of others and use that knowledge to enhance safety.

The FAA can and should take steps to ensure the privacy of individuals who voluntarily submit safety data. However, protecting airports and airlines from the potential embarrassment of unfair or incompetent data analysis is not a valid reason to close public access to the database. The database exists in part to help prevent accidents and to help save lives. Putting a wall around this database may help to enhance the public's opinion of airlines and airports, but it will not help protect the public from risk. If the FAA's goal is to save lives then the database should remain available to the public, and they should not be allowed to implement their proposed changes.

The public has an opportunity to make its voice heard on this issue. In an upcoming post, AirSafe.com will give you step-by-step instructions from submitting your comments prior to the close of the public comment period on 20 April 2009. AirSafe.com will follow this issue closely, and in the next few days will provide detailed guidance on how to submit your comments to the FAA and prevent this policy change. If you have not done so already, please subscribe to the AirSafe.com mailing list or get AirSafe.com Twitter updates to keep up to date on this critical issue.

Related Information
FAA Proposal to Change Database Access
Background Information on Bird Strike Threats
Bird Strike Committee USA

FAA Wrong to Hide Bird Strike Data

As many of you know, AirSafe.com is a big proponent of allowing the public to have free and open access to aviation safety data. The FAA has proposed regulatory changes that would restrict some bird strike data from public access. The stated reason is that by keeping the data out of public view, that it would be easier to get airports, airlines, and others to volunteer more data.

While that may seem to be a good reason to the FAA, in my opinion this would be a bad policy change. In the coming public comment period, which ends next month AirSafe.com will have quite a bit more to say on the subject. In the meantime, check out the following resources in recent Twitter updates from AirSafe.com:

In 2007 NASA tried to hide safety data as well. Visit http://tinyurl.com/cqgtgb to see my opinion and a podcast on that issue.

How important is a missing piece of bird strike data? Visit http://tinyurl.com/ckw9w5 and see just one example.

The FAA shouldn't keep bird strike information a secret. I'll say more later, but until then check out http://birds.airsafe.org.

If you use Twitter, please go to http://www.twitter.com/airsafe and start following AirSafe.com.

Not a Twitter user yet? This is a good time to check it out. Join Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/airsafe and see if this technology can work for you.

Interview with Bird Strike Expert Dr. Ron Merritt

On January 18th, 2009, three days after the bird strike related ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in New York, Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com interviewed bird strike expert Dr. Ron Merritt. He's currently the president of Detect, Inc., which manufactures bird strike avoidance radars. Dr. Merritt was also at one time the military commander of US Air Force unit responsible for understanding and reducing bird strike hazards to Air Force aircraft. During this wide ranging conversation, they discus a variety of bird strike and wildlife hazard topics, including the need for wildlife experts in the US Airways accident investigation team, wildlife control policy issues, and the history of the key bird strike organizations in the US and Canada.

Interview with Dr. Merritt and Dr. Curtis

Post about the related interview of Dr. Curtis on the Escapes radio program.

For more information on the accident, including videos and background information on bird strike hazards and airliner ditchings, visit:
hudson.airsafe.org

Interview on the Escapes Radio Talk Show

On February 9th, 2009, Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com was interviewed on the "Escapes" radio show hosted by Ann Lombardi of the the Trip Chicks, who along Wendy Swartzell run the Atlanta area travel company Passport to Adventure. During the show, we discussed several of the issues around the previous month's ditching accident involving a US Airways A320 in New York, including what can be done about bird strike hazards, and how passengers should deal with fear of flying.

Listen to the interview

For more information on the accident, including videos and background information on bird strike hazards and airliner ditchings, visit:
hudson.airsafe.org

The "Miracle on the Hudson" and AirSafe.com

Last month's ditching of a US Airways A320 was quite dramatic, and the survival of all on board, due in part to a very quick and very effective rescue operation, has been called the "Miracle on the Hudson" by the public and the media. Two elements of the accident, the ditching and the suspected role of birds in the accident, were of particular interest to AirSafe.com. Dr. Todd Curtis, AirSafe.com's founder, has had a long relationship with bird and wildlife hazard professionals in the US, Canada, and Europe, and had designed and launched the web site of Bird Strike Committee USA.

After the crash, a number of bird hazard items were added to AirSafe.com, including updates of two previous research projects of Dr. Curtis. You can find links to those projects, as well as other links to Bird Strike Committee USA and other bird hazard related information, at http://birds.airsafe.org.

The crash involved a suspected bird strike, a common occurrence that rarely leads to a crash. The ditching aspect of this accident was even more rare, with this event being only the fourth time that a passenger jet airliner has been involved in a ditching. The attention the site attracted, especially an article published in the USA Today newspaper the day after the accident, led AirSafe.com to clarify its definition of ditching, a definition that is much more specific than those provided by the NTSB, FAA, and other major aviation safety organizations (See http://www.airsafe.com/events/define.htm).

You can find many more details about the event, and about issues related to the US Airways ditching, at http://hudson.airsafe.org. Among the resources at that location are:

AirSafe.com podcasts about the US Airways accident
http://www.airsafe.com/plane-crash/us-airways-flight-1549-hudson-ditching.htm

Previous US Airways crashes
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/usair.htm

Other significant A320 events
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a320.htm

An overview of bird strike hazards to aircraft
http://www.airsafe.com/birds.htm

Jet airliner ditching events
http://www.airsafe.com/events/ditch.htm

Selected bird strike videos
http://strikevideos.blogspot.com

Comparison of the US Airways event with seven other bird strike accidents
http://www.airsafe.com/birds/bird-strike-comparisons.pdf

Bird strike study from the AirSafe.com Foundation
http://www.airsafe.org/birds/BirdstrikeRates.pdf

Interview on WGN Radio after the US Airways Ditching (audio - MP3)

On 15 January 2009, a US Airways A320 encountered a flock of birds shortly after takeoff. Both engines lost power, apparently as the result of experiencing multiple bird strikes, and the crew was able to successfully ditch the aircraft in the Hudson River. All five crew members and 150 passengers survived the accident. The following day, Dr. Todd Curtis was a guest of Dean Richards on Chicago's WGN radio. They discussed the US Airways event, how the public's fear of flying is affected by extensive media coverage of airline accidents, and what kind of measures could be taken to deal with the threat of bird strikes.

Listen to the interview

For more information on the accident, including videos and background information on bird strike hazards and airliner ditchings, visit:
hudson.airsafe.org

Comparison of Eight Bird Strike Accidents, Including US Airways Flight 1549

The 15 January 2009 accident involving US Airways Flight 1549 was one of those rare bird strike events that resulted in the loss of an aircraft. A crash due to a bird strike is a rare event, but over the last several decades there have been several of these accidents that were investigated by authorities in the US and elsewhere. In the 2000 book Understanding Aviation Safety Data, Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com reviewed seven of these accidents and found that there were very clear patterns among them, including the key roles that flight crews had in the accident sequence, both in preventing fatalities as was the case with the US Airways crash, or contributing to an accident that may have been avoided had the crew performed differently.

After last week's accident, that original analysis was updated to include the US Airways accident. The goal was to provide a better model for how bird stike related accidents occur, and more importantly highlight issues that the aviation industry should address in order to reduce bird strike related risks. This method could be applied more broadly, specifically to risks such as runway incursions, which is a problem area that is of great concern to both the FAA and NTSB.

You are invited to not only review this analysis (links below), but also to send comments, suggestions, or even corrections to AirSafe.com at feedback.airsafe.org. Once the review period has ended, AirSafe.com will make this study permanently available on the site.

Download "Comparison of Eight Serious Bird Strike Accidents"
PDF: http://www.airsafe.com/birds/bird-strike-comparisons.pdf
Word: http://www.airsafe.com/birds/bird-strike-comparisons.doc
OpenDocument: http://www.airsafe.com/birds/bird-strike-comparisons.odt

Ditching of a US Airways A320 on the Hudson River in New York

Crash of US Airways Flight 1549
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | Google Video | YouTube

For more videos, visit the AirSafe.com YouTube channel.

On 15 January 2009, a US Airways A320 experienced a loss of power to both engines shortly after taking off from New York's LaGuardia Airport. The crew was able to successfully ditch the aircraft in the Hudson River near midtown Manhattan. Reportedly, the aircraft encountered a flock of birds shortly after takeoff. The aircraft reached an maximum altitude of about 3200 feet before it began to descend. After ditching, all five crew members and 150 passengers evacuated the aircraft. One passenger sustained serious injuries.

According to early reports, the aircraft took off normally toward the north, but the flight crew reported striking a flock of birds about two minutes after takeoff. Both engines lost power, and unable to either return to LaGuardia or to land in nearby Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, the crew turned the aircraft toward the south. After flying over the George Washington Bridge, the crew executed a controlled ditching on the Hudson River just west of midtown Manhattan. The passengers and crew escaped with the help of numerous ferries, tour boats, fireboats, and other vessels in the area.

This was the first crash of an Airbus A320 operated by a US airline. The A320 has had eight events involving passenger fatalities. The first was a 1988 crash involving Air France, and the most recent was a May 2008 crash of a TACA airliner in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

While many jet airliners have crashed in the water, prior research by AirSafe.com revealed only three previous events where the crew of a large passenger jet intentionally ditched the aircraft in a controlled manner. Prior to the US Airways event, the most recent ditching involved a hijacked Ethiopian Airlines 767 in 1996. The others included a 1963 ditching of an Aeroflot jet in Leningrad (present day St. Petersburg), and a 1970 ditching of a DC-9 in the Caribbean.

Fatal and serious bird strike related crashes of large jet aircraft are also quite rare. The last fatal US bird strike accident involving a large jet was the crash of a US Air Force E-3 AWACS in Alaska in 1995. The last time bird strikes led to passenger deaths in the US was in 1960 in Boston. Since 1990, five other large jet airliners have crashed due to bird strikes, but only one involved fatalities.

The NTSB is currently investigating this US Airways accident. For updates on this investigation, and for the latest news from AirSafe.com, visit hudson.airsafe.org.

For related information, visit:
Previous US Airways Crashes
Other Significant A320 Events
Bird Strike Hazards to Aircraft
Jet Airliner Ditching Events