Printable View
I saw a report on a local news station saying that the FAA refuses to release a list of the airports with the highest number of bird strikes per annum. The reporter feels that this should be put into the public domain, but of course the airports would not want it published. What do you guys think?
I think the FAA is right. Publishing this information would not make anyone safer. The chances of dying in an airliner crash resulting from a bird strike must be somewhere in the several-billion-to-one range, far lower than dying in a crash caused by something else. Also, since it is not mandatory for pilots and airlines to file these reports, the data is far from scientific, and people could draw conclusions from it that might be completely inaccurate. The fact that the media is making such a fuss over this decision does a lot to prove the FAA's reasoning.
You make some good points. My complaint is the way the FAA operates in total, not just regarding bird strikes. This is just one example. Incidentally, the FAA has no problem with expanding a garbage dump located near the east end of Rwy 31 by LGA.
I have a major issue with NextGen, and no one listens to me...
What's the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by mmedford
Heck our flight COEX 5955 CLE-LGA last night took a bird strike into LGA, taking aircraft N265SK out of service all morning
bird strike happen, that's just a fact of operating airplanes and helicopters. i don't see any need for the FAA to make public the information surround bird strikes. it's an accepted risk; the public and especially the media don't need this information.
I think the FAA is right also, and lets say LGA had a better rate of a strike than JFK I doubt people would go to JFK for that reason, this whole bird strike thing has been over hyped by the media and they never tell people the odds, its equal to complaining about pot holes in the street, and arent we all better off not knowing?
I think the information is public domain, but the FAA is completely right. It wouldn't make anyone safer, it's just more numbers to be scrutinized by the media and the public, and likely there'd be "why aren't you doing anything" screaming matches. And as said above, the way the media hypes everything these days, it'd make the less intelligent viewers of the News At Noon more irrationally paranoid than they already are about everything from bird flu to nuclear holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting_falcon_51
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I agree, the FAA should release it quietly....this whole North Korean missile thing is getting hyped but not over hyped, but the bird flu isnt anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planesntrains
Interesting comments....
So, Here's two questions for everyone:
1> Why does the FAA keep " 'vast records' " on where and how often commercial planes are damaged by hitting flying birds" in the first place?
2> Why did the NTSB "recommendation 10 years ago to make it 'mandatory'" that "carriers and airports" report bird strikes? [The FAA apparently refused at the time, which is why now they can say the data is flawed since some entities under report incidents..]
God only knows how this data leaked out....
<<Meantime, the FAA acknowledges the problem is growing along with increases in air travel and in the number of dangerous large birds like Canada geese. It said reports of strikes grew from 1,759 in 1990 to 7,666 in 2007.>>
Here's the link...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_ ... rd_strikes
Tom