On 20/06/2009, at 12:13 , Carl Clifford wrote:
Such a cull is as about as sensible and useful as the mediaeval
practice of culling cats on the grounds that they may become
witches' familiars. Seeing as it invariably the aircraft which
strike the birds, the blame and duty of care, should perhaps be
placed on the aircraft manufactures and operators for not having an
adequate avoidance system. After-all, airliners do have systems to
assist with avoiding other aircraft. Birds are much slower moving
than aircraft and should be fairly easy to detect, especially ones
the size of Canada Geese
I don't agree with the culling by any means - but I have to point out
the TCAS (collision avoidance) relies on each aircraft to have a
transponder in it, which transmits the aircrafts flight parameters to
the other one. (and that means your "general aviation" type aircraft
doesn't have it). The two systems "negotiate" an avoidance - it
relies on predictable behaviour on the part of the aircraft - each
system tells each pilot what to do and he does it without question,
e.g. one aircraft pulls up the other one down. Only stall and ground
proximity warnings have a higher priority than TCAS. I don't belive
that geese can be fitted with transponders nor relied upon to obey the
system's verbal orders when detection triggered.
The radar cross-section of a bird would be pretty small, A weather
radar might do the trick but how to avoid collision? A flock would be
pretty easy to detect but I can't see a reliable avoidance system
being particularly effective.
Putting an expensive aircraft into the Hudson river is hardly a
favourable outcome for the airline so I'd expect that if there was a
simple solution to birdstrike the aircraft manufacturers would already
have implemented one.
regs
scot
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
