Wildlife strikes has always been a key component of airport wildlife hazard management. Civil Aviation authorities (CAAs) use wildlife strike data to measure airport Wildlife Hazard management Programme (WHMP) effectiveness, determine relative risk of species struck, and adjust or implement wildlife hazard regulations as necessary. On the manufacturing end, strike data is used to determine whether airframes and engines can withstand wildlife strikes as intended in their design.
Image from Shutterstock
However, the variety of benefits mentioned above is only possible with quality data. Use incomplete or inaccurate strike data, and airports will not be able to mitigate wildlife hazards as effectively or evaluate their WHMPs as realistically. Incomplete reporting may occur when airports try to conceal bird strike incidents. The airport may fear that a history of wildlife accidents will keep airlines away. Moreover, as CAAs tend to take wildlife strike numbers as a key performance indicator (KPI), airport staff may not wish to disclose higher numbers to prevent their performance being affected.
Based on global 2008 – 2015 Wildlife Strike Analysis Data from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), 95% of reported incidents originate from Europe and North America. This is indicative of a higher level of compliance of these regions with international strike reporting requests. Within these two regions, there is a clear understanding of the need to report bird strikes, and the importance of developing an open environment where everyone is encouraged to share information. At the end of the day, all stakeholders, be it CAAs or airport operators, have a common goal of improving safety.
Alternatives to wildlife strikes in the evaluation of WHMPs
Other than wildlife strikes, there are other ways of evaluating an airport’s WHMP. These may be divided into lagging and leading indicators. Lagging indicators measure events that have already occurred. These are output oriented, easy to measure but hard to improve or influence. Wildlife strikes are an example of a lagging indicator. Leading indicators measure processes or inputs being implemented to improve or maintain performance. They are input oriented, hard to measure and easy to influence. One example would be the number of dispersal events in a day. Here are some examples of lagging and leading indicators for use in airport wildlife hazard management:
Lagging indicators | Leading indicators |
Number of wildlife strikes | Presence of wildlife at the aerodrome |
Percentage of wildlife strikes resulting in damage or effect on flight | Number of dispersal patrols conducted daily |
Number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 flight movements | Percentage of personnel with wildlife management responsibilities who have received training |
Ideally, a combination of both lagging and leading indicators should be used. With the use of a scorecard tracking multiple indicators will provide a more comprehensive and realistic picture of safety performance for airport WHMPs.
Comments