Why aren't bird radars placed on the front of commercial aircraft?

  • Why aren't bird radars placed on the front of commercial aircraft? Manfred

    Unfortunately, my skills and understanding of radar and the like are very limited, but if somebody could enlighten me why there is no such thing as a dual bird/weather radar to switch to?

    I've understood there there have been some (successful) attempts with ground station. It would add weight, but i'd guess that perhaps would be offset for some time by a single ruined engine.

  • I don't know that a radar would provide enough of a warning anyway, if it could even see a single bird. And all it takes is one. The majority of birdstrikes happen near the ground, and the things I've seen have tended to be more to keep birds away from airplanes rather than trying to dodge them. They use cannons/noise-makers at many airfields and other means to keep birds away from low aircraft. And I've heard that the spiral painting on the compressor cones of many big jet engines, in addition to giving a visual indication that the engine is running, has a side benefit that, to a bird, it looks like the eyes of a predator and tends to scare the birds away from the engines. There have been mixed studies on the efficacy of that claim, but I don't know that any scientific research has been done to give a real yes or no. Boeing will claim that it doesn't matter. JAL claims that they had fewer birdstrikes on aircraft with painted spinners. I don't really know if it works or not.

    In my experience, you aren't going to see-and-avoid most birds. You're simply moving too fast for either of you to get out of the way. I quit flying with only a few thousand hours, and I've hit several birds. And I don't know very many pilots who haven't either hit one or had a near miss. I've even been hit by a goose in my door when I while I was teaching in a 152, one of the few times that I can actually say the bird hit me and not the other way around.

    The best way to keep from hitting birds is to try to avoid areas where birds are known to be flying, especially during migratory seasons. If you hear reports of a flock of birds at your airport, use a lot of caution. And report them if you see them. Try to minimize low flying. In most small craft, it's unavoidable. Your normal operating altitude is fairly low and right within the area that birds tend to fly. In bigger aircraft, try not to dally at lower altitudes, if you can help it. Climb to your altitude And if you're low to the ground (landing or taking off) don't put the aircraft in danger by trying to dodge birds. And every takeoff should include an idea of what you're going to do if you do hit birds.

    From http://www.birdstrike.org/

    "About 41% of reported strikes with civil aircraft in USA occur while the aircraft is on the ground during take-off or landing and about 75% of strikes occur at less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL). However, over 4,200 strikes involving civil aircraft at heights above 4,500 feet AGL were reported from 1990-2013 in the USA and over 430 of these were at more than 10,500 feet. The world height record for a bird strike is 37,000 feet (Griffon vulture off the coast of Africa)."

  • There really is no such thing as "bird radar". Radar comes in a few frequency bands that have certain advantages depending on the distance, resolution and attenuation you need out of it. The band isn't the only factor here as the band will dictate what size dish you need and your aircraft nosecone will but a distinct upper limit on that. Weather radar is geared toward detecting rain drops and anything bigger than rain (hail, bugs, birds, etc) with reasonable distance and attenuation features (you want to penetrate into a storm). Birds will show up on this radar, though depending on smoothing and processing algorithms you may need a flock of them before they get drawn on the radar, at which point they'll look like some rain. A radar optimized to detect bird sized objects would probably use a wavelength that did not let you see things as small as rain drops and small hail.

    Some other things to keep in mind are that the radar is not always on, and it should be off on the ground except during takeoff when needed. The reason for this is that you do not want to be putting radar energy into people, and they tend to be in the way on the ground. We only turned the radar on for takeoff when there was significant weather around the field and wanted to be prepared for requesting diversions. Aircraft radar tilt can also be adjusted, so we wouldn't be looking at birds in front of us, but clouds above and in front of us.

    Wit that said, our SOP on fields with known heavy bird activity was to takeoff with the radar on and pointed forward because someone had the idea that the birds didn't like being in the radar beam. I have no sources to back that idea up, but it was written into our FOM.

    Now assume you can takeoff and see a flock of birds on the radar. Do you have enough time to do anything about it? If so, what do you do, some maneuver away from them or do you turn into them in hops they take the evasive action?

    Now back to the title question: Why aren't bird radars in the nose cone?

    • The weather radar can see birds, it would be redundant.
    • A bird radar (optimized for birds) would not be good at seeing weather, so where would the weather radar be placed?
    • In a real situation, what would a bird radar enable you to do with a positive detection with the time you have to react to it? Probably not much.
    • Weather is a much more common threat than flocks of birds, so if you can only have 1 radar system, you want the weather radar.

Related questions and answers
  • Primary target: An aircraft not reporting mode-C, the only thing the controller has is the return on the radar. When a controller reports a primary target as traffic to other aircraft, the controller does not have the altitude of the target. Given this, I conclude that ATC radar does not have the altitude (angle-up) to the target, and only provides azimuth. So then without the altitude, how does the radar-system know where to put the target laterally on the screen? Example, a radar picks up a target that is 10 miles from the station. If the target is 0 AGL, the proper position would be 10

  • , the writer of the article, or I (or some combination thereof) misunderstand something about flight recorders and their behavior in water. My questions are these: Do flight recorders float on water? If so, why? I know that flight recorders are equipped with underwater locator beacons. Are they also equipped with radio beacons (either an active transmitter or a some passive device like a corner... 447, which crashed in the Atlantic), where the recorders were found some time later on the ocean floor. Additionally, it seems reasonable to me that one would want to have the recorders not float so

  • Unfortunately, my skills and understanding of radar and the like are very limited, but if somebody could enlighten me why there is no such thing as a dual bird/weather radar to switch to? I've understood there there have been some (successful) attempts with ground station. It would add weight, but i'd guess that perhaps would be offset for some time by a single ruined engine.

  • out in the question for some reason mostly it is "big" aircraft that gets this preferential treatment, but I am not 100% sure why. ...I enjoy tracking air traffic at my local KORD. I listen on LiveATC and use my private virtual radar setup to get "real-time" traffic info. I understand which instructions need to be read back... and that's why I don't hear reply, however on approach side much bigger distances are heard in my area) Thank you I did verify that indeed the aircraft that I don't hear read back from receives

  • there might be some radio interference or static from such as large aircraft behind them? Are there every any issues when refueling aircraft do this sort of thing? What is the resolution of radar? Would one be able to notice the two blips on the screen unless they were literally under or beside each other, or would it still appear as one dot on secondary radar if say they were 200 meters behind and below? ...I just finished reading an interesting post where the author suggests that the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 could have 'hidden' under the cover of Singapore Airlines flight 68 to fly

  • Based on the reading I've been doing of FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic Control (NextGen) plans, I've been wondering if and how radar systems will continue to be used for ATC as NextGen rolls out? Questions include: Is it correct to assert that radar coverage will effectively become a less precise, backup only, data feed? I am suggesting this because my understanding (which could easily be incorrect) is that ADS-B will mandated for most (everyone?) and so aircraft will be actively reporting their precise position without the need for a radar track. Will existing radar coverage eventually

  • Most ATC in the world rely primarily on secondary radar to know where planes are. This requires that the transponder on the plane works correctly. This means that maintenance and deployment of primary radar is no longer a primary concern for airspace regulation. It becomes at best a secondary backup system before they need to pull out the flight progress strips and airways charts. Where are the spots that is not covered by primary radar? I understand that some military ships have primary radar and can act as a mobile radar during operations.

  • Are airspace violations (e.g. entry to class B without clearance) based on primary radar and/or Mode C transponder, or something else? I read that Mode C altitude is based on pressure altitude, i.e., set to 29.92" ... but presumably that's adjusted at the ATC facility based on the current pressure before being used for altitude enforcement. This begs the question, what would stop one (hypothetically), just winding back the altimeter pressure reading to appear to be at a lower altitude? So to summarize: How are airspace violations detected: What data input is used? If Mode C reading

  • the similarities would make training easier. I know a similar project was done on the DC-10s becoming MD-10s, as well as some Saudi MD-90s to be similar to MD-11, but both of these were long-time consuming projects. But I'm wondering if there are any aircraft which have this possibility and if not, why not? I'd see it as an opportunity to Boeing to have a 787 flightdeck shared with say the 777.

  • I was looking through my ADSB Virtual Radar outputs couple days ago and saw a weird re-route for one of the aircraft that looked out of place. Can one of the pilots/ATC guys pitch in to help me understand what may have caused this A/C to do this? Is this "normal"? I would expect if this was a wake turbulence from A/C ahead they would have just asked the rerouting A/C to just slow down? Tail #: N39463

Data information