[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 
know. 

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 <jrccea@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: sort o' ot -- maybe some good news on extant dino's and towers
> To: d_ohmes@yahoo.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.
> JimC
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "don ohmes"
> <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>
> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> 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" --
DeleteReplyForwardMove...