[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: sort o' ot -- maybe some good news on extant dino's and towers
Depends on the human. And what kind of bird?
Just kidding. I am assuming zero trade-off, Jim. Are there data that show the
combo of flashing/steady are absolutely necessary? Intuitively, it seems
obvious that a safe flashing-only format could be devised, but I don't really
As I understand it, having only read the abstract, guy-wire bird fatalities are
included in the analysis. Most of the towers sampled, btw, are "110-146m AGL"
w/ 3 being ">=300m".
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, jrc <email@example.com> wrote:
> From: jrc <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: sort o' ot -- maybe some good news on extant dino's and towers
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 12:39 PM
> What would be an acceptable swap-off rate between reduced
> avian fatalites and increased human fatalities? Some of
> these towers stick up a half mile above ground level and
> many general aviation aircraft cruise lower than that.
> Other towers that don't stick up so far, are close
> enough to airstrips to be above the flight path for landing
> and taking off. Would one to one be about right, or should
> we be prepared to sacrifice more birds than humans?
> On a loosely related subject, how should birds be protected
> from tower guy wires? At least we pilots know the
> approximate angle at which the unlit guy wires diverge from
> the tower.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "don ohmes"
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:08 AM
> Subject: sort o' ot -- maybe some good news on extant
> dino's and towers
> > Perhaps adjusting the flash frequency could reduce
> fatalities even further...
> > "Communication towers, lights, and birds:
> successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian
> collisions" --