FAA to Change Tower Obstruction Lights to Protect Birds

[ARFlyer]

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85204&cid=TW413

This is a report from back in March, so forgive me if my search kung fun didn't turn up a thread.

FAA did a study regarding red steady state obstruction lights and found that they lead to increased bird injuries and/or death. The findings stated that the steady red light confuses birds which lead them to hit each other, the ground and/or the obstruction. The FAA released new standards that will change all red steady state lighting to red strobe lighting on all towers.

I think this study will lead to the saving of millions of birds a year. Also red flashing lights are a lot easier to pick out then red steady lights when flying. So I don't see any reason this will affect pilots.

 

[jordane93]

#Birdlivesmatter

 

[Norman]

If the birdbrains would just watch where they're going they wouldn't have this problem.

 

[Hank S]

So when will they require 2000' tall TV towers to be painted red and white? I hate looking for tall gray antennas against a cloudy sky . . . It's great camouflage.

 

[somorris]

I think that is good news, both for the birds and pilots. Strobes are easier to pick out. Hopefully, they won't be going on the fritz all the time!

 

[Unit74]

Uh, hello......see and avoid is the standard. And why are these avians not being required to be adsb out? And at last check, that squawk was in an unrecognized format. Ramp check those suckas.. They surely are not compliant.

 

[LDJones]

If the birdbrains would just watch where they're going they wouldn't have this problem.

And why are they flying at night with no lights??!

 

[weilke]

Good. With LED lighting this shouldn't affect the longevity of the lighting fixtures.

 

[Lindberg]

I don't give a flip about the birds, and I don't know why the FAA spent a single dollar of taxpayer money studying this issue. Figure out what lighting scheme makes the towers most visible to pilots and go with that. Safety of humans is priority one through one hundred. #sorrynotsorry

 

[James331]

Why are we trying to save the lives of birds....at AIRPORTS?

In my flying so far, I've seen nothing that makes me worry about drones, "terrorists", lasers (and yes I have been lased, folks with ADD or any of that stuff, ITS THE BIRDS AND DEER which have tried to kill me a few times, I've nailed a few birds, luckily they were small and impacted structural parts of the plane, not intakes or glass, and I've had a few close calls with deer, some of which at night after I was committed, gotta love how deer almost seem absorb light until you're right on them.

Personally if they could make a light that would instantly kill any bird that went into the glide path for the active runway, that'd be great.

 

[frfly172]

Let's not worry about pilots,or aircraft,at all cost protect the birds

 

[weilke]

Let's not worry about pilots,or aircraft,at all cost protect the birds

They did worry and evaluated the conspicuity of the new lighting pattern. Read the technical paper.

As for 'birds around airports'. These new regs are for TV and radio towers, not for the low-level stuff around airports (water towers, buildings etc.)

 

[rbridges]

Uh, hello......see and avoid is the standard. And why are these avians not being required to be adsb out? And at last check, that squawk was in an unrecognized format. Ramp check those suckas.. They surely are not compliant.

no electrical system on their type certificate=no need to meet ADSB mandate. sheesh.

 

[ARFlyer]

Let's not worry about pilots,or aircraft,at all cost protect the birds

It's not costing taxpayers anything beyond the cost to do the reasearch. The cost of changing the lighting will be borne by the company who owns the telecom tower. I would bet there is some language that states the lights can be changed at the next outage.

The pilots are getting the benefit with towers that blink and not blend into the surrounding background. You try to fly above a densely urbanized area and try to pick out towers from the city below. Airports are hard enough to pick out, towers are about nearly impossible to find.

 

[Lindberg]

They did worry and evaluated the conspicuity of the new lighting pattern. Read the technical paper.

As for 'birds around airports'. These new regs are for TV and radio towers, not for the low-level stuff around airports (water towers, buildings etc.)

The press release says the new systems were found to provide "acceptable warnings to pilots." I don't want "acceptable" warning. I want "superlative" warning. I want "the best" warning. If the Audubon Society wants to study how that warning affects birds, have at it. But there's no reason whatsoever for it to be part of the FAA's decision-making process.

 

[oilburner]

I think way more birds are killed by housecats.
Where's the outrage?

 

[weilke]

The press release says the new systems were found to provide "acceptable warnings to pilots." I don't want "acceptable" warning. I want "superlative" warning. I want "the best" warning. If the Audubon Society wants to study how that warning affects birds, have at it. But there's no reason whatsoever for it to be part of the FAA's decision-making process.

The only change is that the lower intensity lights that are currently lit continuously will blink along with the high intensity lights. The visibility study they did showed that there was no difference at 20 miles out. The problem is that migratory birds home in on a constant light source and end up hitting the tower. By flashing all the lights, that problem is reduced. There is no reason to think that that makes a tower any less visible than the current scheme. What really makes the towers 'pop' is a change to LED or HID beacons as they ramp up to 100% brightness within miliseconds rather than the soft on and off of a incandescent bulb.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I think way more birds are killed by housecats. Where's the outrage?

They are going to make cats wear red strobes on these tiny cat helmets; got it covered.

 

[ARFlyer]

The press release says the new systems were found to provide "acceptable warnings to pilots." I don't want "acceptable" warning. I want "superlative" warning. I want "the best" warning. If the Audubon Society wants to study how that warning affects birds, have at it. But there's no reason whatsoever for it to be part of the FAA's decision-making process.

How much more warning can a light give you ? The only brighter lights are the daylight strobes. However, no way in he$$ do you want those lights on during the night. There so insanely bright you can see one tower from 60 miles away.

Most, if not all, government agencies have a mandate to protect the environment to every extent possible. I've spent a week reading a 600+ page environmental report on a bridge replacement over the Buffalo National River. Without that report we could have ended up with a bridge that hurts the surrounding environment and in turn tourism. Now we have four possible solutions that the local public is voting on.

 

[3393RP]

It's not costing taxpayers anything beyond the cost to do the research.

My response to this wobbles into a denouncement of wind generated power, so please excuse my rant.

The entities that own the towers will find a way to recoup the costs by raising prices, which will ultimately be borne by those saps at the bottom of the totem pole, you and me. The cost of the strobes, power supplies, new wiring and circuit breakers (if required), and hiring Doty or one of the few other qualified tower maintenance companies could easily exceed thirty or forty thousand dollars per tower for those taller than 1,000'.

It's a typical hypocritical US government action. They allow wind turbines to kill millions of birds every year, including migratory birds, golden and bald eagles. But comm towers are different.

A recently announced policy allows wind turbine operators to face no penalties for killing bald eagles until the number reach 4,200. Golden eagle deaths are to be penalized with an unannounced fine. There are just 40,000 golden eagles in the US, and the decline in their numbers has Increased in recent years.

Under the regulations, reporting by wind turbine operators of the number of eagles killed is voluntary, and Fish and Wildlife Services has refused to publish the number. Fish and Wildlife Services director Dan Ashe was quoted as saying “There’s a lot of good news in here,” calling the plan “a great tool to work with to further conservation of two iconic species.”

I don't consider allowing wind turbine operators to kill 4,200 bald eagles at each geographically separate turbine site "good news". These turbine sites are defacing pristine ridgelines across America. The clear cutting of forests is creating damage that will last for a hundred years. Scars caused by thousands of miles of gravel roads will cause irreversible damage. The erosion of mountainsides due to this irresponsible exploitation of resources will create eyesores which will long outlive the useful life of wind turbines. Replacement technologies will obviate their presence, and leave damage lasting for generations. I freaking hate those things.

Under the new proposal, companies would pay a $36,000 fee for a long-term permit allowing them to kill or injure eagles. Companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than estimated, or if new information suggests eagle populations are being affected.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/05/...ines-would-allow-thousands-more-eagle-deaths/

 

[weilke]

The cost to re-wire the lighting controllers to flash all the fixtures is going to be modest. With incandescent bulbs, there is going to be more frequent bulb changes, with LED fixtures this will become a non-issue.

 

[ktup-flyer]

no electrical system on their type certificate=no need to meet ADSB mandate. sheesh.

Pretty sure birds have a nervous system

 

[Lindberg]

It's not costing taxpayers anything beyond the cost to do the reasearch.

It shouldn't cost the taxpayers anything anything. The research is unnecessary to keep pilots from hitting obstructions. So whether it cost a lot or a little is irrelevant, it should have cost zero. There are plenty of things the government could spend just a little bit of money on. It all adds up to many billions of dollars, every single one of which was taken from someone based on the threat of government force. So it doesn't make me feel any better that I'm not on the hook for any more.

 

[timwinters]

I don't give a flip about the birds

Let's not worry about pilots,or aircraft,at all cost protect the birds

I think it's absolutely hilarious (in an extremely sad way) how the ego-centric homo sapien myopics don't understand that either (most) all species exist on this planet or none do.

The planet will survive, with or without us. But until we get our collective heads out of our collective asses, we won't be along for the ride. And that will likely result in a betterment for all other species...those that survive our ignorant arrogance anyway.

 

[TRocket]

I don't give a flip about the birds, and I don't know why the FAA spent a single dollar of taxpayer money studying this issue. Figure out what lighting scheme makes the towers most visible to pilots and go with that. Safety of humans is priority one through one hundred.

Yes, that.

 

[brian109]

I think way more birds are killed by housecats.
Where's the outrage?

Now what a minute Cats lives matter too

 

[MAKG1]

It shouldn't cost the taxpayers anything anything. The research is unnecessary to keep pilots from hitting obstructions. So whether it cost a lot or a little is irrelevant, it should have cost zero. There are plenty of things the government could spend just a little bit of money on. It all adds up to many billions of dollars, every single one of which was taken from someone based on the threat of government force. So it doesn't make me feel any better that I'm not on the hook for any more.

So, the only purpose of government is to protect your sorry butt?

Wow.

The world is a much bigger and richer place than that. And yes, you do enjoy the benefits even if you don't understand it.

 

[Lachlan]

Why are we trying to save the lives of birds....at AIRPORTS?

In my flying so far, I've seen nothing that makes me worry about drones, "terrorists", lasers (and yes I have been lased, folks with ADD or any of that stuff, ITS THE BIRDS AND DEER which have tried to kill me a few times, I've nailed a few birds, luckily they were small and impacted structural parts of the plane, not intakes or glass, and I've had a few close calls with deer, some of which at night after I was committed, gotta love how deer almost seem absorb light until you're right on them.

Personally if they could make a light that would instantly kill any bird that went into the glide path for the active runway, that'd be great.

Are there a lot of tall radio towers at your airport? Seems like poor planning.

 

[MAKG1]

Are there a lot of tall radio towers at your airport? Seems like poor planning.

I know of quite a lot of several-hundred foot towers near airports. There is a transmission line next to KPAO and KSQL. Four 500+ foot TV towers under downwind at KDVO. A cluster of 2000 foot monsters near the rwy 20 extended centerline at KSAC. 400+ foot oil refinery stacks on the extended right crosswind for rwy 1 at KCCR. Even the Oracle HQ building on the right crosswind for 30 at KSQL. A huge wind farm on a hillside just west of C83. And so on. Any of these could become a factor on an approach that is less than textbook, especially if you had to dodge something or if the visibility were poor.

 

[Lindberg]

So, the only purpose of government is to protect your sorry butt?

Wow.

The world is a much bigger and richer place than that. And yes, you do enjoy the benefits even if you don't understand it.

The purpose of government is to provide valuable public goods and uphold the social contract. If you want to study bird migration and make suggestions for protecting them, have at it. But the FAA's reason for existence is the safety of aviation, not birds.

 

[MAKG1]

But the FAA's reason for existence is the safety of aviation, not birds.

Which is EXACTLY what they did. Read the article. The bird results came from other agencies, and FAA responded, finding no problem for pilots.

 

[timwinters]

Are there a lot of tall radio towers at your airport? Seems like poor planning.

Check out 3DW. The guy who built the airport also owned the local CBS station. Guess what's right next to the airport...

Well inside the traffic pattern...

It'll wake you up if you're not familiar with it.

 

[bnt83]

#1 Assemble a computer with radar and servo assembly on top of the tower
#2 Program the computer to track and predict airplane position.
#3 Program computer to point and activate a blinding green laser at any approaching aircraft to warn them of obstructions nearby.
#4 Deactivate any legacy lighting systems on the tower equipped with the laser warning system.

Enjoy avian friendly skies!

 

[weilke]

#1 Assemble a computer with radar and servo assembly on top of the tower
#2 Program the computer to track and predict airplane position.
#3 Program computer to point and activate a blinding green laser at any approaching aircraft to warn them of obstructions nearby.
#4 Deactivate any legacy lighting systems on the tower equipped with the laser warning system.

Enjoy avian friendly skies!

This sort of exists. In Norway, they have transponder based systems that flash the lights on powerline crossings of valleys and fjords only when an aircraft comes close. Works like a stationary TAWS. Also broadcasts a radio alert.

 

[bnt83]

This sort of exists. In Norway, they have transponder based systems that flash the lights on powerline crossings of valleys and fjords only when an aircraft comes close. Works like a stationary TAWS. Also broadcasts a radio alert.

That's neat, never heard of one.

 

[Norman]

Check out 3DW. The guy who built the airport also owned the local CBS station. Guess what's right next to the airport...

Well inside the traffic pattern...

It'll wake you up if you're not familiar with it.

How in hell did that get approved?

 

[timwinters]

It's all private, not sure there was any approval needed.

A 600' tower about 600' from the runway will definitely command your attention though!

 

[Lachlan]

I know of quite a lot of several-hundred foot towers near airports. There is a transmission line next to KPAO and KSQL. Four 500+ foot TV towers under downwind at KDVO. A cluster of 2000 foot monsters near the rwy 20 extended centerline at KSAC. 400+ foot oil refinery stacks on the extended right crosswind for rwy 1 at KCCR. Even the Oracle HQ building on the right crosswind for 30 at KSQL. A huge wind farm on a hillside just west of C83. And so on. Any of these could become a factor on an approach that is less than textbook, especially if you had to dodge something or if the visibility were poor.

Seems like poor planning. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Lachlan]

Check out 3DW. The guy who built the airport also owned the local CBS station. Guess what's right next to the airport...

Well inside the traffic pattern...

It'll wake you up if you're not familiar with it.

Seems like poor planning. Do you disagree with that?

I never denied idiots exist or that they allow this sort of thing to happen. It sure does seem like poor planning.

 

[MAKG1]

Seems like poor planning. Do you disagree with that?

Not really. How many hundreds of square miles do you want every Podunk airport to take up? The bigger you make them, the stronger the argument becomes that they should be shut down and the land put to more productive use.