it 
en
News and Events
ENAC releases the circular APT 01B
On 23 December 2011 ENAC released the third version of the Circular APT 01 (downloadable – in Italian -from the page “Normative” of this website). This is a very important paper as it contains significant updates of the current regulation, that we longed several times also in this website.
Let’s analyze the most relevant novelties.
The circular confirms that reporting all wildlife events to the airport operator is an obligation burdening on every airport staff or organization: therefore it is a rule and not a recommendation or a suggestion. There is also a particular focus on the importance of continuously reporting wildlife presence in the movement area by all those who work in an airport and especially by those who directly control the airport areas. This statement appears to be directed, in our opinion, just towards the ATC, so chasing any possible doubt regarding their role.
Another important novelty regards the ecological study that now must be presented by the airport operator regardless of the occurrence of particular events (multiple strikes, ingestions, damaging collisions etc…). The operator must also present a summarized yearly report on wildlife strikes, but mainly must report to ENAC and other local entities the wildlife attractive sources that has identified outside the airport boundaries, in order to allow the adoption of the proper measures for hazard mitigation.
The biggest novelty however is the replacement of the old method for the risk assessment, based only on a numeric criterion (strikes/10k movements), with a new index called BRI2 (Birdstrike Risk Index ver. 2.0) developed jointly with the Università Cà Foscari of Venice; we already presented this new method in this website on February 2010. This new index considers either the frequency or the severity of the impacts: the first is associated with the airport traffic, the number of birds or other wildlife and their behaviour; the second is associated with the number of impacts recorded, the species involved (mainly in terms of body mass) and the event severity. We will talk at length about this index in the future.
A relevant innovation is the obligation not to employ the BCU (Bird Control Unit) personnel in different duties than bird monitoring and harassment on every airport with more than 50.000 movements per year. As for the monitoring of external areas and the identification of attractive sources, ENAC suggest to adopt some measures like technical meetings with local government units whenever new works or activities are planned, the analysis of thematic maps on surrounding land use, the establishment of direct relationships with other stakeholders who have interests and competences in those areas. We remind that they are not talking about the exercise of a sort of moral suasion towards the neighbours, as it often happens in other countries, but about a real administrative power, through the ENAC’s role, that can even bring to demolitions or activity eliminations if deemed not compatible with the flight safety. In the same way new works or activities must be previously authorized by ENAC.
In one of the circular attachments it’s possible to find a (minimum) training program for the staff who will be employed as BCU; a similar program was already adopted either in ours or in other international consulting companies, but now it is formally suggested to all Italian airports as a general guideline. In this way the ICAO Annex 14 requirement (chapt. 9.4), that demands “competent” personnel to control the airport wildlife hazard, also finds its contents, since ICAO did not provide any guidance to define this competence.
The Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) makes its appearance among the harassment devices, that is a sonic non-lethal weapon, based on high power concentrated sounds, usable as a tool for controlling flocks of birds and for scaring small groups of them.
Many times on this website we criticized the excessive “mashing” of the entire prevention system on the airport operator and on the naturalistic issues, often forgetting that the bird strike problem is basically an aviation problem; therefore also the other actors on the scene have to be more involved. In another circular attachment we finally find a first answer to our considerations. In fact for the first time some “operational guidelines for aircraft operators” are now presented, showing suggestions for a better airlines (and pilots) involvement that go well beyond the traditional (and generic) duty of impact reporting. It is recommended that the aircraft operators control and even solicit the airport operators to carry out their duties in those airports where their airplanes fly regularly. Then the training of flight crew is mostly emphasized, either in flight planning or in wildlife inducted emergency management. There is also a strong call for clear and unequivocal indications to flight crew about the kind of maintenance to ask for after a bird ingestion, and about the decision whether to make a next flight. We hope that aircraft operators would extend this philosophy even to include the opportunity of an immediate landing after a bird ingestion. At last, other novelty, the identification of a “maximum company speed” that allows to minimize damages in case of impact with large bird species, that are predominant at high altitudes. Also in this case we hope that ENAC, ATC and airlines have soon technical meetings in order to discuss about the opportunity to reduce approach speeds at low altitudes, where the probability to hit a bird is higher.
Let’s analyze the most relevant novelties.
The circular confirms that reporting all wildlife events to the airport operator is an obligation burdening on every airport staff or organization: therefore it is a rule and not a recommendation or a suggestion. There is also a particular focus on the importance of continuously reporting wildlife presence in the movement area by all those who work in an airport and especially by those who directly control the airport areas. This statement appears to be directed, in our opinion, just towards the ATC, so chasing any possible doubt regarding their role.
Another important novelty regards the ecological study that now must be presented by the airport operator regardless of the occurrence of particular events (multiple strikes, ingestions, damaging collisions etc…). The operator must also present a summarized yearly report on wildlife strikes, but mainly must report to ENAC and other local entities the wildlife attractive sources that has identified outside the airport boundaries, in order to allow the adoption of the proper measures for hazard mitigation.
The biggest novelty however is the replacement of the old method for the risk assessment, based only on a numeric criterion (strikes/10k movements), with a new index called BRI2 (Birdstrike Risk Index ver. 2.0) developed jointly with the Università Cà Foscari of Venice; we already presented this new method in this website on February 2010. This new index considers either the frequency or the severity of the impacts: the first is associated with the airport traffic, the number of birds or other wildlife and their behaviour; the second is associated with the number of impacts recorded, the species involved (mainly in terms of body mass) and the event severity. We will talk at length about this index in the future.
A relevant innovation is the obligation not to employ the BCU (Bird Control Unit) personnel in different duties than bird monitoring and harassment on every airport with more than 50.000 movements per year. As for the monitoring of external areas and the identification of attractive sources, ENAC suggest to adopt some measures like technical meetings with local government units whenever new works or activities are planned, the analysis of thematic maps on surrounding land use, the establishment of direct relationships with other stakeholders who have interests and competences in those areas. We remind that they are not talking about the exercise of a sort of moral suasion towards the neighbours, as it often happens in other countries, but about a real administrative power, through the ENAC’s role, that can even bring to demolitions or activity eliminations if deemed not compatible with the flight safety. In the same way new works or activities must be previously authorized by ENAC.
In one of the circular attachments it’s possible to find a (minimum) training program for the staff who will be employed as BCU; a similar program was already adopted either in ours or in other international consulting companies, but now it is formally suggested to all Italian airports as a general guideline. In this way the ICAO Annex 14 requirement (chapt. 9.4), that demands “competent” personnel to control the airport wildlife hazard, also finds its contents, since ICAO did not provide any guidance to define this competence.
The Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) makes its appearance among the harassment devices, that is a sonic non-lethal weapon, based on high power concentrated sounds, usable as a tool for controlling flocks of birds and for scaring small groups of them.
Many times on this website we criticized the excessive “mashing” of the entire prevention system on the airport operator and on the naturalistic issues, often forgetting that the bird strike problem is basically an aviation problem; therefore also the other actors on the scene have to be more involved. In another circular attachment we finally find a first answer to our considerations. In fact for the first time some “operational guidelines for aircraft operators” are now presented, showing suggestions for a better airlines (and pilots) involvement that go well beyond the traditional (and generic) duty of impact reporting. It is recommended that the aircraft operators control and even solicit the airport operators to carry out their duties in those airports where their airplanes fly regularly. Then the training of flight crew is mostly emphasized, either in flight planning or in wildlife inducted emergency management. There is also a strong call for clear and unequivocal indications to flight crew about the kind of maintenance to ask for after a bird ingestion, and about the decision whether to make a next flight. We hope that aircraft operators would extend this philosophy even to include the opportunity of an immediate landing after a bird ingestion. At last, other novelty, the identification of a “maximum company speed” that allows to minimize damages in case of impact with large bird species, that are predominant at high altitudes. Also in this case we hope that ENAC, ATC and airlines have soon technical meetings in order to discuss about the opportunity to reduce approach speeds at low altitudes, where the probability to hit a bird is higher.
Upcoming events
For more information:
For further details please contact:
12/15 September 2011
Niagara Falls (ON) - 13th North American Bird Strike Conference For more information:
25/29 June 2012
Stavanger (Norway), 30th IBSC ConferenceFor further details please contact:
