Re: [cayugabirds-l] Snowy owl udpates
Gary. I disagree with your analysis of this situation. JFK airport has been there for a long time with many winters of Snowy Owl irruptions. It was mentioned that in earlier years there was an actual expert there who did trap and relocate. So what happened? There should have been a non-lethal management plan that could have been instituted immediately upon arrival of the owls that would have insured the safety of both planes and birds. How could wildlife experts have been caught so unprepared for an event that should have been easily anticipated based on historical occurrences that all they could even imagine doing was exterminating these northern refugees? I am glad they were buried in an avalanche of public outrage. I only wish people could be roused as easily on other issues such as the Department of the Interior and the Obama administration's ill-considered variance to allow Bald and Golden eagle kills at wind farms. Linda Orkin. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Gary Kohlenberg jg...@cornell.edu wrote: I to applaud the quick activism, but I want to point out that the Port Authority's responsibility is safety for planes and passengers. I doubt anyone losing a loved one in a plane crash would be comforted knowing it was caused by a cute Snowy Owl instead of the more common Canada Goose. Boston and New York have two different responses to the same situation, but the motivations are the same. I will hazard a guess that the Port Authority felt a time constraint as they may not have had a trapping / relocating program in place and the hazard is immediate. I don't think anybody is calling for a relocating program for Canada Geese. JFK airport is also much busier than Logan, 7th vs 19th on the airport list. I'm glad they will change their response in the future. Everyone should cut them just a little slack as the term bird strike is really shorthand for holy sh** if that bird had gone in the turbine we're toast ! Jet turbines will and do suck in anything close, just ask the deck crew of any aircraft carrier. The engine may not explode into bits with a bird intake, but it will be wrecked. With any aircraft takeoff or landing is the most hazardous time and that's not when the pilot wants to lose one or more engines. Happy Owl watching, Gary On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Dave Nutter wrote: Thank-you, everyone, for compiling the information (making) videos, and helping the Port Authority mend their ways. I was struck by one irony in the newscast, however. I'm familiar with the term bird-strike, and I had always considered it as shorthand for the pilot saying, We've struck a bird. Yet the news reporters and even Fitz talked about birds striking airplanes. Let's be clear about the relationship. When the airplane is sitting still, the bird does not slam into it the way a confused bird hits a reflective window while fleeing a predator or hits a building or tower while migrating and confused by the lights at night. An idling airplane might actively suck a passing bird into its propellers or jet engine, I suppose, but I doubt birds would often fly that close to a stationary but noisy airplane. When these collisions take place, they are really pretty one-sided. A bird is moving at tens of miles per hour at most, and although birds are very maneuverable, it seems some of them don't get out of the way quickly enough or properly assess the speed, path and danger of moving airplanes. The airplanes, on the other hand, are traveling several times as fast as the birds, perhaps a hundred MPH on the runway and a couple times more than that as they take off and climb. The airplanes are not very maneuverable, although I have been on a small plane whose pilot decided to go around and make a second landing attempt because of a flock of gulls on or near the runway. What happens, occasionally, is that an airplane strikes a bird. The result destroys the bird pretty much every time, I'm guessing. I know that the species of bird is sometimes identified using bits of feathers remaining inside the engine. Airplane windshields are designed to withstand bird strikes. Testing is done by loading dead poultry into a cannon and firing it at the airplane windshield. My guess (correct me if I'm wrong, everybody) is that many bird strikes are on the nose, wings, or tail of the airplane, not the engine, and therefore do not do noteworthy damage to the airplane, although the engines probably take more than their share, based on their size, because they are actively sucking air in. Yes, it's a big problem for an airplane when anything as large, massive, and more-or-less solid as a bird goes through a turbine. And we want to keep the people on that airplane safe. But let's keep it straight: The airplane strikes the bird. A Snowy Owl or (far more dangerous) a flock of hundreds of Canada Geese
[cayugabirds-l] Snowy owl udpates
Thank-you, everyone, for compiling the information (making) videos, and helping the Port Authority mend their ways. I was "struck" by one irony in the newscast, however. I'm familiar with the term "bird-strike," and I had always considered it as shorthand for the pilot saying, "We've struck a bird." Yet the news reporters and even Fitz talked about birds striking airplanes. Let's be clear about the relationship. When the airplane is sitting still, the bird does not slam into it the way a confused bird hits a reflective window while fleeing a predator or hits a building or tower while migrating and confused by the lights at night. An idling airplane might actively suck a passing bird into its propellers or jet engine, I suppose, but I doubt birds would often fly that close to a stationary but noisy airplane. When these collisions take place, they are really pretty one-sided. A bird is moving at tens of miles per hour at most, and although birds are very maneuverable, it seems some of them don't get out of the way quickly enough or properly assess the speed, path and danger of moving airplanes. The airplanes, on the other hand, are traveling several times as fast as the birds, perhaps a hundred MPH on the runway and a couple times more than that as they take off and climb. The airplanes are not very maneuverable, although I have been on a small plane whose pilot decided to go around and make a second landing attempt because of a flock of gulls on or near the runway. What happens, occasionally, is that an airplane strikes a bird. The result destroys the bird pretty much every time, I'm guessing. I know that the species of bird is sometimes identified using bits of feathers remaining inside the engine. Airplane windshields are designed to withstand bird strikes. Testing is done by loading dead poultry into a cannon and firing it at the airplane windshield. My guess (correct me if I'm wrong, everybody) is that many bird strikes are on the nose, wings, or tail of the airplane, not the engine, and therefore do not do noteworthy damage to the airplane, although the engines probably take more than their share, based on their size, because they are actively sucking air in. Yes, it's a big problem for an airplane when anything as large, massive, and more-or-less solid as a bird goes through a turbine. And we want to keep the people on that airplane safe. But let's keep it straight: The airplane strikes the bird. A Snowy Owl or (far more dangerous) a flock of hundreds of Canada Geese may be dumb about how to deal with airplanes, but it's not their fault.--Dave NutterOn Dec 10, 2013, at 03:25 PM, Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edu wrote:Here is a list of updates and links to further information about the Snowy Owls of New York airports. Check out the Today Show link, as well as the others. Great stuff! Thanks to Pat Leonard at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for putting this information together and sharing it!LauraLaura Stenzlerl...@cornell.eduSent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:02 PM To: CLO-L Subject: [clo-l] Snowy owl udpatesHi all,You undoubtedly know we’re in the middle of a massive influx of Snowy Owls and we wanted to get you up-to-date on some of the publicity surrounding it.--Fitz recorded an interview last night that was part of a larger news story that ran this morning on NBC’s Today Show: http://www.today.com/video/today/53788217/#53788217--We and the press office have sent out a Tip Sheet: http://eepurl.com/KsBTX--Kevin caught some video of a LOCAL Snowy Owl this afternoon, a young male hanging around the Lansing fire station. You can see it via Cornell Box here: https://cornell.box.com/s/uk9ftraxfbei8ipf9nmb--Of course we have the great 2011 material shot in the Washington State, where the bird lives. It’s on ourYouTube channel. http://youtu.be/Ufkcx-UqljM --Take a look at even more stunning Snowy Owl video in the Macaulay Library archive, including nesting owls feeding their young.Have a look.--And don’t forget to check the latest live eBird map to see where this beauty is showing up! http://ebird.org/ebird/map/snoowl1?neg=trueenv.minX=env.minY=env.maxX=env.maxY=zh=falsegp=falseev=Zmr=onbmo=11emo=12yr=curEnjoy!Pat Leonard, Staff Writer/Media Relations Cornell Lab of Ornithology (607) 254-2137 pe...@cornell.eduwww.birds.cornell.edu--Cayugabirds-L List Info:Welcome and BasicsRules and InformationSubscribe, Configuration and LeaveArchives:The Mail ArchiveSurfbirdsBirdingOnThe.NetPlease submit your observations to eBird!-- -- Cayugabirds-L List Info: Welcome and Basics Rules and Information Subscribe, Configuration and Leave Archives: The Mail Archive Surfbirds BirdingOnThe.Net Please submit your observations to eBird! --
Re: [cayugabirds-l] Snowy owl udpates
The other thing that I was thinking about this is that they said planes were struck by migrating owls. I couldn't imagine how killing owls that had already arrived could ever solve that problem. Linda Orkin Sent from my iPhone On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Dave Nutter nutter.d...@me.com wrote: Thank-you, everyone, for compiling the information (making) videos, and helping the Port Authority mend their ways. I was struck by one irony in the newscast, however. I'm familiar with the term bird-strike, and I had always considered it as shorthand for the pilot saying, We've struck a bird. Yet the news reporters and even Fitz talked about birds striking airplanes. Let's be clear about the relationship. When the airplane is sitting still, the bird does not slam into it the way a confused bird hits a reflective window while fleeing a predator or hits a building or tower while migrating and confused by the lights at night. An idling airplane might actively suck a passing bird into its propellers or jet engine, I suppose, but I doubt birds would often fly that close to a stationary but noisy airplane. When these collisions take place, they are really pretty one-sided. A bird is moving at tens of miles per hour at most, and although birds are very maneuverable, it seems some of them don't get out of the way quickly enough or properly assess the speed, path and danger of moving airplanes. The airplanes, on the other hand, are traveling several times as fast as the birds, perhaps a hundred MPH on the runway and a couple times more than that as they take off and climb. The airplanes are not very maneuverable, although I have been on a small plane whose pilot decided to go around and make a second landing attempt because of a flock of gulls on or near the runway. What happens, occasionally, is that an airplane strikes a bird. The result destroys the bird pretty much every time, I'm guessing. I know that the species of bird is sometimes identified using bits of feathers remaining inside the engine. Airplane windshields are designed to withstand bird strikes. Testing is done by loading dead poultry into a cannon and firing it at the airplane windshield. My guess (correct me if I'm wrong, everybody) is that many bird strikes are on the nose, wings, or tail of the airplane, not the engine, and therefore do not do noteworthy damage to the airplane, although the engines probably take more than their share, based on their size, because they are actively sucking air in. Yes, it's a big problem for an airplane when anything as large, massive, and more-or-less solid as a bird goes through a turbine. And we want to keep the people on that airplane safe. But let's keep it straight: The airplane strikes the bird. A Snowy Owl or (far more dangerous) a flock of hundreds of Canada Geese may be dumb about how to deal with airplanes, but it's not their fault. --Dave Nutter On Dec 10, 2013, at 03:25 PM, Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edu wrote: Here is a list of updates and links to further information about the Snowy Owls of New York airports. Check out the Today Show link, as well as the others. Great stuff! Thanks to Pat Leonard at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for putting this information together and sharing it! Laura Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:02 PM To: CLO-L Subject: [clo-l] Snowy owl udpates Hi all, You undoubtedly know we’re in the middle of a massive influx of Snowy Owls and we wanted to get you up-to-date on some of the publicity surrounding it. --Fitz recorded an interview last night that was part of a larger news story that ran this morning on NBC’s Today Show: http://www.today.com/video/today/53788217/#53788217 --We and the press office have sent out a Tip Sheet: http://eepurl.com/KsBTX --Kevin caught some video of a LOCAL Snowy Owl this afternoon, a young male hanging around the Lansing fire station. You can see it via Cornell Box here: https://cornell.box.com/s/uk9ftraxfbei8ipf9nmb --Of course we have the great 2011 material shot in the Washington State, where the bird lives. It’s on ourYouTube channel. http://youtu.be/Ufkcx-UqljM --Take a look at even more stunning Snowy Owl video in the Macaulay Library archive, including nesting owls feeding their young. Have a look. --And don’t forget to check the latest live eBird map to see where this beauty is showing up! http://ebird.org/ebird/map/snoowl1?neg=trueenv.minX=env.minY=env.maxX=env.maxY=zh=falsegp=falseev=Zmr=onbmo=11emo=12yr=cur Enjoy! Pat Leonard, Staff Writer/Media Relations Cornell Lab of Ornithology (607) 254-2137 pe...@cornell.edu www.birds.cornell.edu -- Cayugabirds-L List Info: Welcome and Basics Rules and Information Subscribe, Configuration and Leave Archives: The Mail Archive Surfbirds
Re: [cayugabirds-l] Snowy owl udpates
I to applaud the quick activism, but I want to point out that the Port Authority's responsibility is safety for planes and passengers. I doubt anyone losing a loved one in a plane crash would be comforted knowing it was caused by a cute Snowy Owl instead of the more common Canada Goose. Boston and New York have two different responses to the same situation, but the motivations are the same. I will hazard a guess that the Port Authority felt a time constraint as they may not have had a trapping / relocating program in place and the hazard is immediate. I don't think anybody is calling for a relocating program for Canada Geese. JFK airport is also much busier than Logan, 7th vs 19th on the airport list. I'm glad they will change their response in the future. Everyone should cut them just a little slack as the term bird strike is really shorthand for holy sh** if that bird had gone in the turbine we're toast ! Jet turbines will and do suck in anything close, just ask the deck crew of any aircraft carrier. The engine may not explode into bits with a bird intake, but it will be wrecked. With any aircraft takeoff or landing is the most hazardous time and that's not when the pilot wants to lose one or more engines. Happy Owl watching, Gary On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Dave Nutter wrote: Thank-you, everyone, for compiling the information (making) videos, and helping the Port Authority mend their ways. I was struck by one irony in the newscast, however. I'm familiar with the term bird-strike, and I had always considered it as shorthand for the pilot saying, We've struck a bird. Yet the news reporters and even Fitz talked about birds striking airplanes. Let's be clear about the relationship. When the airplane is sitting still, the bird does not slam into it the way a confused bird hits a reflective window while fleeing a predator or hits a building or tower while migrating and confused by the lights at night. An idling airplane might actively suck a passing bird into its propellers or jet engine, I suppose, but I doubt birds would often fly that close to a stationary but noisy airplane. When these collisions take place, they are really pretty one-sided. A bird is moving at tens of miles per hour at most, and although birds are very maneuverable, it seems some of them don't get out of the way quickly enough or properly assess the speed, path and danger of moving airplanes. The airplanes, on the other hand, are traveling several times as fast as the birds, perhaps a hundred MPH on the runway and a couple times more than that as they take off and climb. The airplanes are not very maneuverable, although I have been on a small plane whose pilot decided to go around and make a second landing attempt because of a flock of gulls on or near the runway. What happens, occasionally, is that an airplane strikes a bird. The result destroys the bird pretty much every time, I'm guessing. I know that the species of bird is sometimes identified using bits of feathers remaining inside the engine. Airplane windshields are designed to withstand bird strikes. Testing is done by loading dead poultry into a cannon and firing it at the airplane windshield. My guess (correct me if I'm wrong, everybody) is that many bird strikes are on the nose, wings, or tail of the airplane, not the engine, and therefore do not do noteworthy damage to the airplane, although the engines probably take more than their share, based on their size, because they are actively sucking air in. Yes, it's a big problem for an airplane when anything as large, massive, and more-or-less solid as a bird goes through a turbine. And we want to keep the people on that airplane safe. But let's keep it straight: The airplane strikes the bird. A Snowy Owl or (far more dangerous) a flock of hundreds of Canada Geese may be dumb about how to deal with airplanes, but it's not their fault. --Dave Nutter On Dec 10, 2013, at 03:25 PM, Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edumailto:l...@cornell.edu wrote: Here is a list of updates and links to further information about the Snowy Owls of New York airports. Check out the Today Show link, as well as the others. Great stuff! Thanks to Pat Leonard at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for putting this information together and sharing it! Laura Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edumailto:l...@cornell.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:02 PM To: CLO-L Subject: [clo-l] Snowy owl udpates Hi all, You undoubtedly know we’re in the middle of a massive influx of Snowy Owls and we wanted to get you up-to-date on some of the publicity surrounding it. --Fitz recorded an interview last night that was part of a larger news story that ran this morning on NBC’s Today Show: http://www.today.com/video/today/53788217/#53788217 --We and the press office have sent out a Tip Sheet: http://eepurl.com/KsBTX --Kevin caught some video of a LOCAL Snowy Owl this afternoon, a young male hanging around
Re: [cayugabirds-l] Snowy owl udpates
[image.png] Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Gary Kohlenberg jg...@cornell.edumailto:jg...@cornell.edu wrote: I to applaud the quick activism, but I want to point out that the Port Authority's responsibility is safety for planes and passengers. I doubt anyone losing a loved one in a plane crash would be comforted knowing it was caused by a cute Snowy Owl instead of the more common Canada Goose. Boston and New York have two different responses to the same situation, but the motivations are the same. I will hazard a guess that the Port Authority felt a time constraint as they may not have had a trapping / relocating program in place and the hazard is immediate. I don't think anybody is calling for a relocating program for Canada Geese. JFK airport is also much busier than Logan, 7th vs 19th on the airport list. I'm glad they will change their response in the future. Everyone should cut them just a little slack as the term bird strike is really shorthand for holy sh** if that bird had gone in the turbine we're toast ! Jet turbines will and do suck in anything close, just ask the deck crew of any aircraft carrier. The engine may not explode into bits with a bird intake, but it will be wrecked. With any aircraft takeoff or landing is the most hazardous time and that's not when the pilot wants to lose one or more engines. Happy Owl watching, Gary On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Dave Nutter wrote: Thank-you, everyone, for compiling the information (making) videos, and helping the Port Authority mend their ways. I was struck by one irony in the newscast, however. I'm familiar with the term bird-strike, and I had always considered it as shorthand for the pilot saying, We've struck a bird. Yet the news reporters and even Fitz talked about birds striking airplanes. Let's be clear about the relationship. When the airplane is sitting still, the bird does not slam into it the way a confused bird hits a reflective window while fleeing a predator or hits a building or tower while migrating and confused by the lights at night. An idling airplane might actively suck a passing bird into its propellers or jet engine, I suppose, but I doubt birds would often fly that close to a stationary but noisy airplane. When these collisions take place, they are really pretty one-sided. A bird is moving at tens of miles per hour at most, and although birds are very maneuverable, it seems some of them don't get out of the way quickly enough or properly assess the speed, path and danger of moving airplanes. The airplanes, on the other hand, are traveling several times as fast as the birds, perhaps a hundred MPH on the runway and a couple times more than that as they take off and climb. The airplanes are not very maneuverable, although I have been on a small plane whose pilot decided to go around and make a second landing attempt because of a flock of gulls on or near the runway. What happens, occasionally, is that an airplane strikes a bird. The result destroys the bird pretty much every time, I'm guessing. I know that the species of bird is sometimes identified using bits of feathers remaining inside the engine. Airplane windshields are designed to withstand bird strikes. Testing is done by loading dead poultry into a cannon and firing it at the airplane windshield. My guess (correct me if I'm wrong, everybody) is that many bird strikes are on the nose, wings, or tail of the airplane, not the engine, and therefore do not do noteworthy damage to the airplane, although the engines probably take more than their share, based on their size, because they are actively sucking air in. Yes, it's a big problem for an airplane when anything as large, massive, and more-or-less solid as a bird goes through a turbine. And we want to keep the people on that airplane safe. But let's keep it straight: The airplane strikes the bird. A Snowy Owl or (far more dangerous) a flock of hundreds of Canada Geese may be dumb about how to deal with airplanes, but it's not their fault. --Dave Nutter On Dec 10, 2013, at 03:25 PM, Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edumailto:l...@cornell.edu wrote: Here is a list of updates and links to further information about the Snowy Owls of New York airports. Check out the Today Show link, as well as the others. Great stuff! Thanks to Pat Leonard at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for putting this information together and sharing it! Laura Laura Stenzler l...@cornell.edumailto:l...@cornell.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:02 PM To: CLO-L Subject: [clo-l] Snowy owl udpates Hi all, You undoubtedly know we’re in the middle of a massive influx of Snowy Owls and we wanted to get you up-to-date on some of the publicity surrounding it. --Fitz recorded an interview last night that was part of a larger news story that ran this morning on NBC’s Today Show: http://www.today.com/video/today/53788217/#53788217 --We and the press
