Bird Strike Committee Canada adopted a bird strike definition
which is contained within CARs 302.303(1) and (2). Strikes
involving other animal types (in Canada, primarily mammals) are
interpreted less formally, but follow the intent of the CARs
302.303(1) and (2) definitions (Transport Canada, 2004). CARs
302.303(1) requires that all airport operators keep records of
all animal strikes and CARs 302.303(3) further requires airport
operators to either report each strike within 30 days of occurrence,
or report all strikes annually. Transport Canada does not possess the
regulatory authority to compel strike reporting, but can assess
financial penalties if reporting is not carried out in accordance with
CARs 302.303(3).
Although the majority of airports did keep strike records, eight
small and one regional airport did not.We did not determine if this
lack of animal strike record keeping at small airports is due to
airport managers being unaware of the regulatory requirements
and reporting procedures, or if it is the result of having no strikes to
report and the subsequent perception that there is no need for
a record keeping system.
All national airports were able to describe trends in strikes or
near misses. Of the small and regional airports who stated that they
did not know if animal strikes or near misses were increasing or
not, two regional airports had previously responded to survey
questions indicating that they did keep records of strikes or near
misses; therefore it is not known why they would be unable to
answer this question. Without this basic knowledge of strike
trends, airports are unable to assess if CARs 302.302(1) criteria apply
to them; carry out risk assessments and analysis; or identify and
manage hazard species appropriately.
When asked how the change in strike trends was determined,
all the national airports relied on past records while small airports
appear to be relying on their best estimates and experiences. The
use of experience rather than record keeping is also demonstrated
by the responses to the question on CM outcomes, when the results
of animal control projects were determined, by all airport categories,
largely by anecdotal methods based on experience, rather
than supported by data from record keeping systems. This suggests
that there is a significant gap in accurate data that could lead to
poorly informed practices as well as to a false sense of security on
the part of many small and regional facilities.
Of further concern are the management consequences of
incomplete or poorly maintained records. Records of strikes, animal
activity monitoring and animal control activity logs should be
maintained at CARS mandated airports. Responses to questions
regarding CM outcomes and strike records and trends suggest that
appropriate records may not always be maintained.