Have there ever been any airplane crashes due to birds being sucked into the engines which resulted in human mortalities? Yes, unfortunately, there have been. Here are some examples:
Alaska Boeing E-3 Sentry, September 22, 1995 crash of a United States Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry, 24 fatalities
February 26, 1973, a private Learjet 24 at DeKalb–Peachtree Airport in Chamblee, Georgia, 7 killed
Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, Lockheed L-188 Electra aircraft, Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, October 4, 1960, 62 deaths
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604, Bahir Dar Airport, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 15 September 1988, 35 perished
United Air Lines Flight 297 from Newark International Airport to Atlanta November 23, 1962, 17 slayedResearch suggests that these are the only cases on record.
In addition, there have been many more airplane crashes due to the impact of birds which, miraculously, ended up without the loss of a single life, although in several of these cases there were serious injuries. Perhaps the most famous of these is
US Airways Flight 1549 scheduled from New York City's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte and Seattle, January 15, 2009, Airbus A320. Pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles ditched their plane on the Hudson River. All 155 people on board were saved.
Why have so few lives been lost from this unusual source? For one thing, if a boid (that is how it is spelled in Brooklyn) entangles with an airplane at 30,00 feet, it is very likely indeed that it will crash, taking all passengers with it. However, it this occurs at 300 feet or less, the pilot has a much greater chance of gliding himself and his passengers to safety. Happily, virtually all birds fly at the latter level, not the former. Thus, virtually all connections between fowl and machinery take place upon take off or landing where it is far safer.
Then, too, birds of a certain size are very dangerous, think swans, while their small cousins, hummingbirds for example, are far less so (unless of course there is a large flock of the latter involved.)
What should be done about this menace? Nothing, absolutely, nothing. More people perish in bathtubs every year in the U.S. (about 70) than have died all together, all over the world, from this cause, ever since the Wright brothers introduced their flying machines. We are not about to eschew bathtubs, and to react to birds killing people in this manner is a teeny, tiny threat compared to those far more hazardous bathroom fixtures.
But what about, hypothetically, if these impacts increased dramatically? Suppose that as few as one crash, killing all aboard, occurred for every 10,000 flights. Or, maybe, even one per 100,000? The point is, there is some statistic at which point we human beings would have to do something about this newly serious menace. I do not at all think this is likely; I am no Chicken Little. But this speculation can give us an insight into theoretical economic considerations.
What would we then do? At first glance, we would kill all birds, particularly large ones. Poison them, perhaps. This sounds inhumane, but it would be us against them, and may the better species win! Suffering from a seriously elevated number of deaths from this source would be totally unacceptable. Even worse, perhaps, would be banning air flight, which would cost even more lives in terms of increased poverty (“wealthier is healthier”).
But this would not do either. We need those species for human betterment. The spectacular visions they offer us would only be the tip of the iceberg. University biology departments would suffer without them. Who knows, perhaps, in future, they might supply the remedy for a disease that would otherwise wipe out the human race. Pharmaceutical companies would benefit from keeping them around.
What then? Spectacularly large aviaries, protected by nets, in which our feathered friends could fly around in; maybe not to their heart’s content, as at present. Only a small proportion could be saved in this manner, but at least they would not become extinct.
There is indeed precedent for this sort of thing. There are emporiums and gardens dedicated to allowing people to view butterflies in captivity. They are protected in every way possible, and safeguarded against predators, wind, temperature change, etc. In order to gain access to these establishments, there are not one but two doors; both may not be opened at the same time under any circumstance, lest some of the winged inhabitants of these institutions escape. The same could presumably be contrived for a small part of the bird population, only on a far larger scale. Who would finance these initiatives. The same aforesaid beneficiaries: universities, drug companies, and entrepreneurs in behalf of viewers.
