46

I've heard about lots of bird strike incidents that occured during a takeoff roll or the early phase of takeoff climb but hardly heard of bird strikes on approach or landing. Are bird strikes much less common on approach or landing than on takeoff or initial takeoff climb? If they are, why is it?

kevin
  • 39,731
  • 17
  • 148
  • 278
lemonincider
  • 7,567
  • 6
  • 51
  • 110
  • 18
    You've heard more about bird strikes on take-offs because they're potentially more dangerous (plane climbing at high power with a broken engine isn't a good thing). Landing is more passive - plane will still make a safe landing, disembark passengers and then roll off to get the engine fixed. I guess that landing bird strikes just aren't reported as much as take-off strikes. –  Aug 01 '17 at 06:34
  • 9
    @pete secondary to that, if a plane suffers a bird strike on take-off, it may change it's plans and land, very noticeable. If a plane suffers a bird strike on landing it's still going to land, and the passengers may not even notice. – JeffUK Aug 01 '17 at 08:26
  • 2
    Its surprising that bird strikes happen even at an altitude of 37,000 ft. – Firee Aug 01 '17 at 11:16
  • 3
    @Pete not necessarily. Transport-class planes generally are unable to glide at the standard airport glide-slope! If they have a double engine failure on final approach, they will fall short. British Airways pilots did some serious pilot-fu to get the only mechanically related hull loss of a 777 to crash inside the airport perimeter. Boeing doesn't make engines. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Aug 01 '17 at 15:49
  • Checking AV Herald you'll see bird strikes are a monthly occurrence. and deer/caribou/moose strikes are semi-annual. I wouldn't rely on it for statistics as I think it's one guy who gleans the news each day for airline related stories. – Bageletas Aug 01 '17 at 17:01
  • @Bageletas All accidents and incidents are officially reported and the reports are shared by the regulatory authorities (FAA etc). The AV Herald doesn't have to "glean the news each day" if it has access to those official documents. Usually, the initial report is available within 24 or 48 hours of the incident occurring (though if the initial report triggers an investigation, the final report can take much longer of course). – alephzero Aug 02 '17 at 21:44
  • Flying deer/caribou/moose strikes are rather uncommon. :-) – IconDaemon Aug 03 '17 at 14:07

2 Answers2

68

I've heard about lots of bird strike incidents that occured during a takeoff roll or the early phase of takeoff climb but hardly heard of bird strikes on approach or landing.

This is always a dangerous thing. Only because you hear more bird strikes that occur on takeoff, it does not mean there are more at takeoff.

I found, for example, this report about bird strikes from the year 2000. It says:

[...] 38% of the bird strikes occurred during take-off and climb, and 56% during approach [...]

That means there are more bird strikes during approach than on takeoff. I assume things haven't changed a lot since then.

This question is even answered in the Wildlife FAQ Section of the FAA:

Q: Do most bird strikes occur while in flight, at takeoff, or landing?

A: About 60% of bird strikes with civil aircraft occur during landing phases of flight (descent, approach and landing roll); 37% occur during take-off run and climb; and the remainder occur during the en-route phase.

A more specific statistic:

Bird-Strike Statistics

Source

Possible reason for subjective perception of bird-strikes happening more often during departure

I thought a little about it and came to following possible reason: After a bird-strike on final, the pilots will continue landing. It would be unwise not to land immediately. For the passengers it will look like a normal landing. If the bird damages the engine, there is only a small change of sound, because the engines are running very low.

However, when a bird-strike occurs while taking off, there is immediate action taken by the pilots. And because the engines are at or near full thrust, the sound of a dying engine can be perceived by the passengers. Last but not least, a departing aircraft has a much higher speed than a landing one, which means more damage.

So, for newspapers, a bird-strike at take-off is more dramatic and drama sells.

  • More damage to the plane than a bird-strike on final
  • Passengers not reaching their destination
  • Dramatic passenger interviews about their "near-death-experience"

A newspaper is not interested in a bird-strike on final, where everything went fine and no passenger noticed anything.

To support my theorem, I googled "bird strike" and clicked on the "News"-tab. I looked through every article that had to do something with an bird-strike incident. 5 out of 6 articles were about a bird-strike on take-off. That's over 80%.

Community
  • 1
Noah Krasser
  • 8,992
  • 3
  • 50
  • 100
  • 23
    I would assume that this is correlated to the time spent in lower altitudes where birds are more frequent. If the initial climb rate after take-off is higher than the usual sink-rate during approach, the aircraft will spend less time in lower altitudes in climbout than during approach. – nabla Aug 01 '17 at 06:21
  • @nabla Good thought! – Noah Krasser Aug 01 '17 at 06:31
  • Thank you for the information. Do you happen to have access to the number or percentage of bird strikes that occurred on a short final? I think the bird strikes on that phase of flight is most dangerous but I've never heard of a single case of that in my life. – lemonincider Aug 01 '17 at 07:35
  • 2
    @lemonincider No, sorry, I couldn't find information about this. But I have to agree, that I think most bird strikes happen on short final. I guess there are less news about this because it's not very dramatic. – Noah Krasser Aug 01 '17 at 07:49
  • 10
    Having seen that graph, I now want to ask a question about the dangers of pie-chart strikes in different phases of flight... – psmears Aug 01 '17 at 13:18
  • 3
    I think bird strikes on approach would be more common also because, at least in GA aircraft, the approach is quieter than the takeoff. A full power climbing aircraft would be much louder, giving birds more warning. – PJNoes Aug 01 '17 at 16:04
  • 1
    Even with these, statistically you still have to wonder why take off incidents are so relatively high compared to landing, like 50%, especially when you compare loiter times at the altitudes involved which is probably below 10%. One has to wonder if the funnel of air sucked into the engines running at max speed during takeoff has a tendency to draw birds into the engines too, more so than in approach where the engines are throttled back. However, effects would be much less significant and presumably controllable since you are already set up to land and presumably have the correct fuel weight. – Trevor_G Aug 01 '17 at 16:37
  • 1
    Also, the reporting could be due a bird strike on approach being much less dangerous than one on take off. Firstly, the aircraft is facing towards the runway, so it doesn't need to manoeuvre. Secondly, the aircraft is reducing speed, rather than trying to gain it, so an engine ingest and shutdown isn't going to be such a problem, – DrMcCleod Aug 01 '17 at 17:18
  • "Last but not least, a departing aircraft has a much higher speed than a landing one, what means more damage." This is not necessarily true, especially during the takeoff run and initial climb-out. Piper recommends 60 mph as a takeoff speed for the Cherokee, while approach speeds are generally quite a bit faster than that, right up until the flare. You spend much longer at or below 1,000 ft. AGL in an approach/landing than in a takeoff, though, and birds tend to be at lower altitudes. – reirab Aug 01 '17 at 19:39
  • If I was a bird, I'd hear the aircraft taking off, and get out of the way. On landing, however, the engines aren't running as loud so it would easier to get caught from behind. – Contango Aug 01 '17 at 23:54
  • 2
    Have to also add.. a bird-strike when the engine is at take-off max-rpm is far more destructive to the engine. It's not so much what the bird does.. it's how much the engine tears itself apart. More RPM = more catastrophic failure per unit initial damage. – Trevor_G Aug 02 '17 at 16:29
  • @PJNoes good point - also perhaps birds pay more attention to things coming up from below, than things descending from above ? – Criggie Aug 02 '17 at 20:33
  • @nabla You are ignoring the fact that if the plane is on the ground before takeoff, it can wait for the airport ground crew to disperse the birds. If it is on landing approach that may not be an option (hitting a bird is usually a smaller problem than hitting the ground crew's vehicle!) and in any case a birdstrike during a low-level pass over the runway at full engine power when going around is a higher risk situation than a strike while landing. – alephzero Aug 02 '17 at 21:51
  • I think it may help that, when you say "bird strike on takeoff," the average person immediately thinks of US Airways 1549. I'm not aware of any sufficiently recent and high-profile counterpart for bird strike on approach/landing. – Kevin Aug 03 '17 at 04:39
9

If its true that birdstrikes are more common on landing, a possible reason for this could be noise.

Aircraft taking off at 100% power are making a lot more noise than an aircraft on final at or near idle. Birds flying through the air may not hear an idling aircraft coming from behind. Keep in mind that a bird flying through the air at 30 or 40 knots has a lot of wind noise around its head, (similar to sticking your head out the window of your car), so unless the aircraft is making a lot of noise (such as during take-off) the bird may not turn its head to see the 737 approaching from behind.

Devil07
  • 8,544
  • 1
  • 36
  • 80
  • 4
    Imagines a sparrow "turning its head" and seeing a 747 "approaching" – tar Aug 02 '17 at 12:59
  • 5
    @tar me thinks a sparrow would go through without even a hiccup from the engine. A Canada-Goose however.... will do a damage. – Trevor_G Aug 02 '17 at 16:25
  • 7
    @tar True story about a 747 flying into Anchorage Alaska: The flight crew noticed they were coming up behind an eagle, which was presumably also heading for land, since it had a large fish in its claws. The eagle did notice the plane and decided to take evasive action - which included dropping the fish. After landing, the remains of a 15 pound salmon were found in #2 engine of the 747. Some you win, some you lose! – alephzero Aug 02 '17 at 21:56