You can now read 5 articles in a month for free on Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

Report criticizing FAA on bird strikes bolsters plant foes

NEW YORK — A government audit critical of the Federal Aviation Administration’s ­efforts to monitor birds at the nation’s airports is being welcomed by a group fighting construction of a garbage plant near the airport where a plane hit a flock of Canada geese before being forced to land in the Hudson River.

The audit report by Assistant Inspector General Jeffrey B. Guzzetti last week cited a five-fold increase in bird strikes over the last two decades, from 1,770 reported in 1990 to 9,840 reported last year, due in part to growing bird populations. The strikes have led to at least 24 deaths and 235 injuries in the United States since 1988. The report said the FAA’s oversight and enforcement efforts were insufficient.

Continue reading below

‘‘FAA has not developed robust inspection practices, and its inspectors do not have the technical expertise to effectively oversee the program,’’ Guzzetti wrote in the audit, issued last Wednesday.

Planes can be crippled by hitting birds, like when US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport in January 2009 but landed safely in the Hudson River. On April 19, several birds struck Vice President Joe Biden’s plane as it approached Santa Barbara Airport in California, but no one was injured.

Critics say a trash plant could attract birds and other wildlife.

Guzzetti’s report was welcomed by Ken Paskar, president of Friends of LaGuardia Airport, which is trying to stop construction of a waste facility located 2,200 feet from the end of a LaGuardia runway. On Monday, he said that he has asked lawyers to submit the report to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is considering issues related to ­legal challenges to the plant.

‘‘I feel so relieved that an independent federal government agency has reviewed what the FAA has done and has come out in support of everything that we’ve been saying all along,’’ he said.

Guzzetti, in his report, portrayed an FAA that was passive about the dangers of bird strikes, saying inspectors were not adequately recording inspections and were too reliant on interviews with airport personnel. He noted the FAA required one airport to develop a plan in 2003 but it is not done.

Guzzetti said a random look at 40 of 209 airports found inspectors at 21 of the 40 airports did not know whether the airport’s assessments and plans had been reviewed by the FAA or whether they were required to conduct assessments or develop plans.

He said the FAA did not always initiate enforcement actions against noncompliant airports and was hampered because its airport inspectors lacked wildlife hazard expertise.

The FAA does not require wildlife strike reporting. As a result, one airport visited by the Department of Transportation reported 90 percent of strikes while another reported only 11 percent, he said.

Guzzetti said in his report that the FAA was changing its regulations to require that all certificated airports conduct wildlife hazard assessments rather than just airports that have had bad encounters with birds and to periodically update them. He also said the FAA responded to a draft of the report in late July, agreeing to better train its inspectors and require airport operators to keep records of wildlife strikes.

Loading comments...

Wake up with today's top stories.

Want each day's news headlines delivered fresh to your
inbox every morning? Just connect with us
in one of the following ways:
Please enter a valid email will never post anything without asking.
Privacy Policy
Subscriber Log In

You have reached the limit of 5 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of
Marketing image of