Tony
When on a flight interstate recently I thought exactly the same thing.
Why couldn't a sturdy mesh cone or grid of some sort be fitted over the
front of the engine intake to deflect birds, at least above a certain
size? Surely the experts must have thought of this? Maybe there are good
reasons why it is not feasible.
Greg Little
Greg Little - Principal Consultant
General Flora and Fauna
PO Box 526
Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia
Ph 02 49 556609
Fx 02 49 556671
www.gff.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Tony Russell
Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'Chris Sanderson'; 'Carl Clifford'; 'Birding-Aus (Forum)'
Subject: Canada Goose Cull
In the same way as we stop spam and viruses getting through into our PCs
airliners should have bird filters fitted to the engine intakes.
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Chris Sanderson
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:07 PM
To: Carl Clifford; Birding-Aus (Forum)
Subject: Canada Goose Cull
While in no way defending the cull (which I also think is ridiculous),
I'd like to point out that if airlines could avoid bird strikes they
would. A single White Ibis strike on the Gold Coast a few years back
was estimated to have cost Qantas about $3 million dollars, and any
strike where a bird is ingested into engines is heinously expensive, not
just in terms of mechanical repairs, but lost staff and flight time,
replacement aircraft, and reworking logistics. Believe me when I say if
this were as simple as putting money into it, the problem would have
been solved years ago.
Regards,
Chris
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Carl Clifford
<>wrote:
> Most major bird strikes such as the recent one in New York, don't
> happen within the precincts of an airport, so how do the airlines
> expect the airports to control birds there? I believe there have been
> bird strikes recorded at altitudes of between 6-10,000 metres, and an
> aircraft has been recorded as hitting a Rüppells Vulture at 11,000+
> Metres over Africa. I think it is about time the airlines faced up to
> their responsibilities. But then they cost money, don't they.
>
> Carl Clifford
>
>
> On 20/06/2009, at 12:41 PM, Stephen Ambrose wrote:
>
> the major airline companies take an alternative point of view. Their
> view is that they pay the airport authorities a lot of money to land,
> depart and "park" their planes at airports. Therefore, they believe it
> is the responsibility of the airports to provide a safe environment
> (air-space around the airport) when planes are taking off or coming
into
> land.
>
>
> Stephen Ambrose
> Ryde, NSW
>
>
> ===============================
> 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: ===============================
>
> 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:
>
==========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:
===========
==========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:
===========
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2188 - Release Date:
06/19/09 17:56:00
==============================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:
=============================
|
