Bird-Strike Prevention for COPA Airlines

Submitted by: OMAR YOUNIS Project Advisor: TAHAR EL-KORCHI Project Sponsor: COPA AIRLINES

5/4/2015

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to investigate bird-strikes on aircraft. This study addresses

issues with respect to detection, mitigation, and proposes various solutions for addressing this

problem specific to COPA Airlines and Tocumen International Airport in Panama. This study

explores the causes of bird-strikes and the environment that promotes bird-strikes. It explores various technologies for detection, such as radar and different methods for keeping birds away from the airport and flight paths. Recommendations for detection such as using an avian radar, wildlife management and changing the environment on and off the airport to make them unattractive to birds are proposed.

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 1 Table of Figures ...... 3 Table of Tables ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Background ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 A Brief History of Bird-Strikes ...... 8 Most Common Species of Birds Involved in Bird-Strikes ...... 10 COPA and Tocumen International Airport ...... 19 Wildlife around Airports ...... 24 Aircraft Design and Regulations ...... 26 Damage caused by Bird-Strikes ...... 28 Countermeasure to Mitigate Bird-Strikes ...... 30 Introduction ...... 30 Environment Manipulation and Management at Airports ...... 31 Technology Strategies to Mitigate Bird-Strikes ...... 39 Best Practice Used by Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ...... 41 COPA Airlines and Tocumen International Airport ...... 45 Introduction ...... 45 Tocumen International Airport ...... 46 ...... 48 Birds Involved ...... 49 ...... 50 The COPA Airline Fleet ...... 53 Bird-Strikes at Tocumen International Airport ...... 56 Tocumen’s Current Wildlife Management ...... 60 Data Collection and Processing Methods ...... 62 Suggested Strategies for COPA Airline and Tocumen International Airport...... 63 Introduction ...... 63 Technological Solutions ...... 63 Wildlife Management Solutions ...... 64

Environmental Changes ...... 64 Awareness and Education for the Public ...... 66 Conclusion ...... 67 Appendices ...... 69 Appendix A - Airport Diagram of Seattle-Tacoma International ...... 69 Appendix B – Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s Approved Plants List (Port of Seattle, n.d.) ...... 70 Appendix C – Raw Data of Number of Flights the Tocumen International Airport Serves from 2011- 2015 (Provided by Tocumen International) ...... 74 Appendix D – Raw Data of Bird-Strikes involving COPA Airlines from 2013 – 2015 (Provided by COPA Airlines) ...... 75 References ...... 83

Table of Figures Figure 1: Image of Raptor Migration Pattern in North America from the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Website (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 2015) ...... 15 Figure 2: Ring-billed Gull Migration Pattern from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.) ...... 17 Figure 3: Migratory Patterns of Canadian Geese from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2007) ...... 18 Figure 4: Image of Panama Location Provided by Google Maps ...... 19 Figure 5: Image of Panama Provided by Google Maps ...... 20 Figure 6: Map of Protected Areas in Panama (Maps of the World, Satellite Images of the World) ...... 21 Figure 7: Location of Bird-Strike Damage from Boeing (Nicholson & Reed, 2011) ...... 28 Figure 8: The Separation Distance within which Attractants should be Avoided or Removed (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005) ...... 32 Figure 9: Seattle-Tacoma's Landscaping Zone Plan (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 2015)...... 43 Figure 10: The daily average low and high temperatures over the course of the year (Cedar Lake Ventures Inc., n.d.) ...... 46 Figure 11: An Aerial View of Tocumen International Airport from Google Maps (Anderson, 2013) ...... 47 Figure 12: Location of onsite wildlife attractants (Anderson, 2013) ...... 48 Figure 13: Location of offsite wildlife attractants (Anderson, 2013) ...... 48 Figure 14: Black Vulture Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)...... 50 Figure 15: Turkey Vulture Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.) ...... 51 Figure 16: Barn Owl Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.) ...... 52 Figure 17: Barn Swallow Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.) ...... 53 Figure 18: A Chart Showing the Breakdown of the COPA Airline's Fleet Based on Aircraft Type ...... 54 Figure 19: A Chart Showing the Breakdown of the COPA Airline's Fleet Based on Aircraft Model...... 54 Figure 20: The percentage of the total number of flights per month which resulted in a bird-strike based and COPA provide data ...... 56

Figure 21: Total bird-strikes which occurred in 2013-2014 compared to the aircraft involved ...... 57 Figure 22: Total bird-strikes that cause damage which occurred in 2013-2014 compared to the aircraft involved ...... 58 Figure 23: Breakdown of bird-strikes during the takeoff and landing phase of flights ...... 59 Figure 24: Locations of wildlife survey points at Tocumen International Airport in Panama (Anderson, 2013) ...... 60

Table of Tables Table 1: Bird Strike Information for the Five Most Commonly Struck Bird Species, USA, 1990-2003 (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005) ...... 10 Table 2: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes from Table 1 ...... 11 Table 3: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes with Damage from Table 1 ...... 11 Table 4: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes with negative EOF from Table 1 ...... 11 Table 5: Decision Matrix using Data from Tables 1-4 ...... 12 Table 6: Data supplied by COPA Airlines on the amount of flights over the course of a four year period 47 Table 7: Specifications of all aircraft in the COPA Airline's Fleet (COPA Airlines, n.d.) ...... 55

Introduction

Ever since aircraft have taken to the skies, wildlife has been one of the more serious hazards facing aviation travel. When a bird, or any airborne animal, collides with an aircraft it is

commonly known as a bird-strike. There are about 102,465 flights per day (Garfors, 2014) and

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reports there were about 11,000 strikes at 650 airports in 2013 (FAA, 2014). This means that about 30 of the 102,465, roughly 0.03% of all flights in a day result in bird-strikes. This may seem to indicate that bird-strikes are a minor

problem in the aviation industry, however according to the FAA the economic losses to the

aviation industry as a result of bird-strikes is about $957 million per year (FAA, 2014). A bird-

strike is usually categorized as a collision between an aircraft and a bird which causes damage

to the aircraft in question. In very rare cases, the damage is extensive enough to result in a plane crash and subsequent passenger fatalities. As air traffic is expected to increase yearly, there was a 2.7% increase in flights from 2013 to 2014 (Garfors, 2014), the probability of a bird- strike increases as well. This affects all airline companies including our sponsor COPA Airlines.

COPA Airlines is an airline company which is strategically located at the Tocumen

International Airport in the center of Panama. Its positioning offers more destinations and a higher frequency of flights than any other hub in Latin America making it the most active airport in the region (Star Alliance, n.d.). Every month, an average of 6,878 COPA Airline flights are serviced by Tocumen International Airport (COPA Airlines, 2015). All these flights inherently share the same airspace with the local bird population. Taking into consideration the fact that

Panama’s bird population is large (Convention on Biological Diversity, n.d.), the probability of a

bird-strike happening increases. For this reason, COPA Airlines is taking steps to address this

potential issue. The company is interested in learning about bird-strikes and the strategies

involved in reducing them and implementing the ones that would work best for them in order

to decrease the number of bird-strikes.

Bird-strikes can have a significant economic, safety and environmental impact on the

involved airline and airport and the surrounding area. Reducing bird-strikes would save airlines

the cost of replacing and repairing aircraft as well as that of paying for any damages that may

occur. Reducing bird-strikes would decrease risk of aircraft damage while increasing safety for

the crew and the passengers on the flight, resulting in a decrease in risk of injury or death.

Decreasing the number of bird-strikes would also result in a decrease in the unnecessary death of local birds.

This report aims to help illuminate the reasons behind bird-strikes, the factors which

cause them and the methods used to mitigate them in order to help COPA Airlines create a plan

to reduce bird-strikes. This paper can also be used as a case study in order to help other

airports and airlines create their own custom plans to help with their own bird-strike problems.

Background

Introduction An airport is a tract of land and water with facilities for the landing, takeoff, shelter, supply and repair of aircraft, especially for commercial aircraft (Dictionary.com, 2015). Since airports vary, bird hazards vary between airports as well. The occurrence of birds at airports varies according to habitat availability, weather, season of year, time of day and its location

(Godin, 2005). For example, a large number of airports are built along migratory routes for birds. Although these factors do contribute to the hazard level birds provide for airports, the main contributing factor are bird attractants at airports.

Even though airports are very noisy which deter birds, airports provide a wide variety of natural and man-made habitats that offer food, water and cover (Godin, 2005). In addition to these, airports are usually built on flat land away from tall objects, such as buildings, which may cause problems for aircraft taking off and landing. These wide open spaces combined with food, water and shelter make airport attractive to birds even if they are quite noisy.

Although airports and their surrounding areas have very appealing environments for birds, not all birds are attracted to airports, and not all birds cause bird-strikes. There are only a handful of species that are hazardous when it comes to bird-strikes: waterfowl, gulls, raptors, pigeons and doves (Nicholson & Reed, 2011). Identifying the species involved and knowing what they look for in habitats will make it easier to change the environment at and around the airport to deter these birds.

Knowing all these facts and looking a little bit into the history of bird-strikes will help

illuminate the problem and will aid in understanding the problem of bird-strikes to then help

eliminate it or, at the very least, reduce the problem.

A Brief History of Bird-Strikes In the past, birds were the kings of the skies. However, it was only a matter of time before humans found a way to take to the skies. The first human-powered flight took place in

December 1903, when Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully flew their experimental aircraft at

Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, USA (Dolbeer, 2013). Birds, from that point on, suddenly had a new player competing for the skies marking the beginning of the bird-strike problem.

The first known bird-strike occurred on September 7th, 1908, when Orville Wright was

demonstrating his and his brother’s progress by flying complete circles near Dayton, Ohio. He

was chasing a flock of birds and ended up killing one of them (Thorpe, 2003). Even though this was the first bird-strike, it wasn’t the first fatal one. The first fatal bird-strike accident was recorded in 1912 in Long Beach, California. A gull had collided with a Wright Flyer and had gotten lodged in the Flyer’s flight controls which resulted in the unfortunate death of Cal

Rodgers (Thorpe, 2003).

Over the years, the problem of bird-strikes have only become more prominent. As more

and more aircraft take to the skies, the problem of bird-strikes becomes more and more

apparent. Since 1912, there have been 42 fatal accidents, 231 deaths and more than 80 civilian aircraft destroyed due to bird-strikes (Thorpe, 2003). Although this suggests that bird-strikes

have been a major problem since that first bird-strike in 1912, only three civilian aircraft were

destroyed and two fatalities were documented worldwide between 1912 and 1959. It wasn’t

until the 1940s with the introduction of jet-powered aircraft that the number of damaging and

fatal bird-strikes increased (Dolbeer, 2013).

In light of this, it isn’t surprising that the most fatal bird-strike induced plane crash

happened in 1960. In October 1960, one of Eastern Airlines’ turboprop-powered Lockheed

Electra passed through a flock of Starlings while airborne, during takeoff. This resulted in the

aircraft ingesting over 200 birds in engines 1, 2 and 4 (Dolbeer, 2013) (Thorpe, 2003). This

caused the plane to yaw and decelerate to stall speed, which then resulted in the plane

crashing into the Boston Harbor in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Sixty-two people died, 59

passengers and 3 crew, as well as 9 passengers being seriously injured (Thorpe, 2003). This

incident remains the deadliest bird-strike induced plane crash to date (Dolbeer, 2013).

As a result of these bird-strikes, many organizations have been created to find new ways

to increase awareness of bird-strikes and decrease the number of bird-strikes. One of these organizations is The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO is a United Nations

(UN) specialized agency created in 1944. It works with its 191 members and global aviation organizations to develop international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) which member follow and reference when developing their own national civil aviation regulations.

There are currently 10,000 SARPs that ICAO oversees which allow today’s global air transport network to operate around 100,000 daily flights safely, efficiently and securely all over the world (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015).

Most Common Species of Birds Involved in Bird-Strikes Not all birds are created equal. In order to understand the problem the bird-strikes pose

and in order to mitigate them, there needs to be an understanding of the factors involved that make up the problem. In this case, these consist of what species of birds are involved in bird-

strikes, what these birds’ migration patterns are, and what altitudes these birds occupy?

All birds are capable of colliding with aircraft; however, some species of birds are more involved in collision than others. Below is a table which illustrates which birds pose the biggest danger to aircraft by having a high likelihood of being the cause of a bird-strike. Table 1 was obtained from FAA Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports manual (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005).

Table 1: Bird Strike Information for the Five Most Commonly Struck Bird Species, USA, 1990-2003 (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005)

Strikes with Negative Reported Strike Strikes with Damage Effect-on-Engine (EOF) Birds 14-year % of total 14-year % of total 14-year % of total total known total known total known Gulls 5,323 25 891 28 710 30 Doves/pigeons 2,966 14 245 8 264 11 Raptors 2,666 12 537 17 351 15 Waterfowl 2,217 10 1,023 32 477 20 Blackbirds/starlings 2,210 10 131 4 156 7 All other known 6,302 29 390 12 406 17 Total known 21,684 100 3,217 100 2,364 100 Unknown 29,470 3,483 1,952 Total Birds 51,154 6,700 4,316

The information in Table 1 can be summarized even further to give a much clearer picture of what is happening. The summaries of Table 1 can be seen in Table 2, Table 3, and

Table 4.

Table 2: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes from Table 1

Birds % of Total Reported Strikes All Other Known 29 Gulls 25 Doves/Pigeons 14 Raptors 12 Waterfowl 10 Blackbirds/Starlings 10

Table 3: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes with Damage from Table 1

Birds % of Total Reported Strikes with Damage Waterfowl 32 Gulls 28 Raptors 17 All Other Known 12 Doves/Pigeons 8 Blackbirds/Starlings 4

Table 4: Percent Distribution of Reported Strikes with negative EOF from Table 1

Birds % of Total Reported Strikes with negative EOF Gulls 30 Waterfowl 20 All Other Known 17 Raptors 15 Doves/Pigeons 11 Blackbirds/Starlings 7

Since the “All Other Known” category encompasses all other bird species not listed, it can be ignored in the ranking of most dangerous birds involved in bird-strikes. With that in mind, a few conclusions can be drawn from the tables.

Looking at Table 2 indicates the most dangerous birds involved in bird-strikes, in order from most dangerous to least: Gulls, Doves/Pigeons and then Raptors. This information is important but slightly misleading. Consistency of strikes is not the only factor in determining

which species of birds are the most dangerous. Strikes that result in damage or engine

malfunction are equally, if not more important. In order to create an accurate list for the most

dangerous species, a decision matrix was created which can be seen in Table 5.

Despite the importance of how often a bird species is involved in bird-strikes, not all

bird-strikes cause damage or negative EOF. Therefore when looking at the most dangerous

species of birds involved in bird-strikes, the strikes which either cause damage or cause

negative EOF are weighted more highly. Finally, when deciding the weighting for strikes with damage over strikes which have negative EOF, the strikes with the highest probability of downing an aircraft will determine which of the two factors should be weighted more. Engine malfunction isn’t the only way for an aircraft to crash after a bird-strike. More often than not,

when a bird collides with an aircraft’s windshield, the damage which follows can be equally or

even more damaging than if a bird strikes the engine. Therefore damage occurring when a bird-

strike happens is weighted more than negative EOF.

Table 5: Decision Matrix using Data from Tables 1-4

Birds Consistency Damage Occurs Negative EOF Total Score (X3) (X5) (X4) Gulls 75 140 120 335 Waterfowl 30 160 80 270 Raptors 36 85 60 181 Doves/Pigeons 42 40 44 126 Blackbird/Starlings 30 20 28 78 All Other Birds 87 60 85 232

The decision matrix above (Table 5) indicates the top three most dangerous birds involved in bird-strikes: Gulls, Waterfowl, and Raptors. Determining the top three most dangerous species is just the first step in understanding the bird-strike problem. Understanding

the birds and their characteristics as well as their migratory patterns are key in order to find a

solution.

Raptors are birds of prey. Unfortunately, this causes some confusion since many birds

regularly feed on animal prey, such as worms, grubs, frogs, etc. (Walton, n.d.). Therefore, there

are three specific anatomical features which determines a raptor bird: strong grasping feet

equipped with sharp talons, a hooked upper beak, and excellent binocular vision (Walton, n.d.).

Raptors are also divided into different groups: Cathartidae (New World Vultures), Falconidae

(Falcons and Caracaras), Accipitridae (Hawks and Eagles), Pandionidae (Ospreys), Sagittariidae

(Secretary Birds), Tytonidae (Barn Owls), and Strigidae (Eared Owls) (Howell Creative Group,

2011). The top ten most popular raptors, amongst all the groups, are the Harpy Eagle, Barn

Owl, Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle, Eurasian Eagle-owl, Red-tailed Hawk, California Condor,

Aplomado Falcon, and Gyrfalcon (The Peregrine Fund, n.d.).

Raptors have excellent vision. Scientist estimate that they can see two to eight times

better than humans. Their eyes are big in order to achieve this level of eyesight. Since most

raptors are hunters, they must be able to see their prey, sometimes from great distances, and

calculate the exact right moment to strike. They must also use their keen vision to identify other member of their species as well as to avoid predators (The Peregrine Fund, n.d.).

As mentioned before, another of the raptor’s main tools are their talons. Raptors can utilize their talons in a number of different ways. They are able to catch as well as carry their prey with their feet and talons. They can also use them to break and move branches to their

nests. They can also be used for walking, perching or even for self-defense. These talons are

what make raptors exceptional hunters (The Peregrine Fund, n.d.).

The last of a raptor’s main tools is its beak. Unlike talons, raptors are equipped with a

strong curved beak with sharp edges which they use even before their first meal to break out of

the egg. Raptors use their beaks to cut and eat their food as well as to feed their young (The

Peregrine Fund, n.d.).

Characteristics like these are not the only thing that needs to be understood about raptors. Their migration patterns are equally as important. Raptors usually migrate over level

terrain. High mountain ranges, oceans, and lakes are considered migratory obstacles for raptor

birds. This creates leading lines and concentrates birds along narrow pathways. In North

America, cross winds hit major mountain ridges that run from north to south which creates

updraft which raptor birds find favorable for slope soaring (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 2015).

As raptor birds head for their South American destinations, the major routes for the

soaring species go through Mexico and Central America. The distance of migration varies

among species. Hawk Mountain’s bald eagles, for example, travel only as far as Florida. Other

species like the broad-winged hawk, osprey, and the peregrine falcon, withdraw almost

completely from the United States and Canada, with some individuals traveling thousands of

miles into Central and South America (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 2015). Figure 1 shows a visual

representation of raptor migratory pattern in North America.

Figure 1: Image of Raptor Migration Pattern in North America from the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Website (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, 2015)

Gulls are part of the Laridae bird family. They can be any of 40 different species all of

which have heavily built webbed feet. Gulls are conspicuous and sociable birds which are

abundant breeders in the Northern Hemisphere. They mostly colonial ground nesters, and gulls

which breed inland usually go to the coast in the winter. They also have strong and slightly

hooked bills. Gulls are adaptable birds who are also opportunistic. They feed on insects,

mollusks, and crustaceans on beaches, worms and grubs in plowed fields, fish along shores, and garbage from ships. Some of the larger gulls prey on the eggs and the young of other birds, including their own kind (Montgomery, 2014). They favor habitats near water whether it be lakes, ponds or the ocean; however, they do live around urban, suburban, and agricultural areas as well (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.).

Gulls are migratory birds that migrate to warmer regions during the winter. Many species of Gulls migrate to lower latitudes and usually fly during night time, early morning or late in the afternoon. Some gulls fly long distances, thousands of kilometers, from the Arctic to

South America, Africa and Southern Asia or in other words the Southern Hemisphere

(Bouglouan, n.d.).

Figure 2: Ring-billed Gull Migration Pattern from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)

Waterfowl are the last of the top three most dangerous birds involved in bird-strikes.

Waterfowl usually refers to geese. Geese are medium to large-sized birds found in Europe, Asia and North America. They are omnivores but mainly feed on insects, grubs, small fish and plankton in water. They prefer aquatic habitats and have webbed feet to make it easier to live.

Usually this means they prefer to live in large ponds, rivers and lake shores. They can weigh anywhere between 3.3lbs – 17lbs. They travel and stay in flocks and have big wingspans which help them in their migration (A-Z Animals, 2013).

Geese are migratory birds that fly south for the winter to be in warmer climates to mate. They usually fly in a V pattern and often honk loudly. Most flock travel with 30 to 100 birds in the group and can travel at speeds of 40 miles per hour. They can also maintain

17 altitudes of around 2,000 feet. Figure 3 shows the migratory route for Canadian Geese

(University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2007).

Figure 3: Migratory Patterns of Canadian Geese from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2007)

COPA and Tocumen International Airport Panama is located in Central America with coastlines bordering the Caribbean Sea and the North Pacific Ocean; it is also between Colombia and Costa Rica as seen in Figure 4 and

Figure 5. Panama is known all over the world for its famous canal, a major shipping corridor as well as a source of income for the country. Even though the country is famous for its canal, its biodiversity is less known to the world.

Figure 4: Image of Panama Location Provided by Google Maps

Figure 5: Image of Panama Provided by Google Maps

Panama has variety of ecosystems which include several types of humid tropical forests, coastal and marine ecosystems, and freshwater systems. About 34.43% of the total land area of

Panama is protected by their National System of Protected Areas. Figure 6 shows the areas which are protected in Panama (Maps of the World, Satellite Images of the World).

Figure 6: Map of Protected Areas in Panama (Maps of the World, Satellite Images of the World)

The country’s vegetation is classified into 24 categories recognized by UNESCO, which

include forest, savannah, marshland, albinas, mangroves, aquatic plant formations both floating

and submerged, moorland vegetation, areas producing firewood, forest plantations both

homogeneous and heterogeneous and 7 others that do not fall within the UNESCO

classification system, which include productive systems and coral reefs (Convention on

Biological Diversity, n.d.). Unfortunately, because of its unique resources provided by Panama’s biodiversity, demands for agricultural lands and extensive livestock grazing have increase its deforestation rate to 50,000 hectares a year.

Despite all this, Panama’s wildlife is quite impressive. Birds in Panama are the most diverse type of wildlife with a count of about 972 different species registered (Convention on

Biological Diversity, n.d.). According to Richard Condit, “Southern Central America has more

forest bird species than any other region in the world, except Amazonia and the northern and

central Andes, each of which is vastly larger than southern Central America” (Condit, 2001).

Because of the vast number of different species and the sheer number of birds, the

likelihood of a bird-strike happening increases greatly. This can be a big problem for COPA

Airline and Tocumen International Airport.

The Tocumen International Airport in Panama is located about 15 miles from down

town Panama City. Since 2003, the airport has been operated by Tocumen SA, a private

company whose shares are 100-percent owned by the Panamanian government (Kasarda,

2011). Tocumen International started to undergo large expansions and modernization projects

in 2006 which continue to this day (Kasarda, 2011). The airport hopes to continue to be expanded and upgraded to create an airport city that will be developed on the 300 acres near the main runway (Kasarda, 2011). This is Tocumen International Airport which serves as the hub of one of the world’s fastest growing and most successful airlines, COPA Airlines.

COPA Airlines is the national airline of Panama whose aircraft widely connect Panama to

North, South, and Central America as well as to the Caribbean. COPA Airlines has 180 flights to

55 destinations in 27 countries (Kasarda, 2011). Today COPA Airlines, in conjunction with its recently acquired COPA Airlines Colombia branch, is the lead provider for passengers and cargo flights. It also became a member of the Star Alliance in June 2012 (Star Alliance, n.d.). COPA

Airlines’ net income is about US$326.4 million and generates revenues of US$2,249 million as of

2012.

As mentioned before, bird-strikes may seem like only a minor problem in the aviation world, but they cause serious economic loss. The FAA estimates that about $957 million dollars are lost per year as a result of bird-strikes (FAA, 2014). Therefore, this raises the question of whether it is better to keep a plane grounded for a day when there is heavy bird traffic, or whether it is worth flying the plane and risking a bird-strike? When a plane is grounded at an airport, it incurs some cost: mainly parking costs. These costs are usually under a fee called the landing fee which is different between airports. The Haneda Airport in Tokyo is the most expensive airport to land in the world. This means that the most an airliner would have to pay to land or ground their plane would be around $6,850.

However, if an airliner decides to risk a bird-strike and fly anyway, the cost starts to skyrocket even if a bird-strike occurs. Even more costs are incuued when a plane is flying fuel cost, crew cost, navigation charge and ground handling charges; these consist of check in, bag loading and unloading and pushback from the gate. If the aircraft is unfortunate enough to encounter a bird-strike, the additional cost which is added to the already existing flying cost is astronomical. Airliners may need to pay to replace or repair the aircraft’s engines, windshield, fuselage, wings, or any of these in combination. If people happen to be injured or even killed, the medical and legal costs would be quite substantial to the airliner as well. Therefore, if there is a heavy amount of birds passing over the airport, it is always better to wait than to risk a flight.

Wildlife around Airports About 92% of bird-strikes involving commercial civil aircraft in the USA occur at or below

3,500 feet about sea level (FAA, 2014). Therefore, it is safe to assume that the majority bird- strikes occur during the landing and takeoff phases of the aircraft’s flight. This means that the

birds are at relatively low elevations and are living either on or around the airport’s limits. But

what makes these birds want to live on or around airports? As mentioned before, no two

airports are exactly alike (Godin, 2005). Although bird hazards vary from airport to airport, what causes the variance is the amount and the availability of wildlife attractants.

Wildlife attractants are things which wildlife look for in order to find a viable and favorable habitat. The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment vary considerably depending on several factors, including land-use practices on or near the airport (Bennett, 2007). Birds make-up 97% of the reported wildlife strikes which makes them the type of wildlife which airports attract the most (Federal Aviation

Administration, 2012). Birds, as well as other type of wildlife, look for a combination of wildlife attractants: food, water, and shelter which encompasses cover and areas that are ideal for nesting.

As far as attractants for birds go, food is a big one. Birds require relatively large amounts of food. Most airports support an abundance and variety of foods such as seeds, berries, grass, insects, grubs, earthworms, small birds, and small mammals (Godin, 2005). Airports often have wide open fields near their runways relatively free from human activity. This is so aircraft don’t collide with any trees or other tall object around them, but these spaces often offer support to these food sources. Wildlife often use airport as foraging grounds rather than nesting and

resting areas (DeVault, Blackwell, & Belant, 2013). Also, the abundance of food is not what drives wildlife to select a particular food source; it is in fact its availability. One reason why raptors are often found in airport territory is because of the availability of other birds as well as the wide open spaces which makes it easier for the raptors to hunt (DeVault, Blackwell, &

Belant, 2013).

Other sources of food are areas of careless waste disposal of food as well as landfills located near airports. It is known that at some airports personnel feed birds during their lunch breaks (Godin, 2005). This give the birds an easy food source but also gives them an incentive to stay around the airport. As far as careless waste disposal, airports often have inadequate garbage disposal systems that give access to food for the birds (Godin, 2005). Landfills offer a similar problem. They are providing food sources and loafing areas that attract and support thousands of gulls, starlings, pigeons, and other species (Godin, 2005). This could add to the bird-strike problem around airports.

Food is not the only attractant for birds; water is also a major attractant. Water attracts all species of birds, especially waterfowl. Birds need it for drinking, bathing, feeding, roosting and protection (Godin, 2005). Sources of water on airport territory can be as simple as rain.

When it rains pools of water, although temporary, can appear on airport grounds. Airports can also allow permanent bodies of water on airport grounds near runways. This water is usually used for landscaping, flood control or even waste water purposes but can be an excellent resource for birds.

As for shelter, airport lands relative to off-airport areas help to limit refuge and loafing

areas for some types of birds (DeVault, Blackwell, & Belant, 2013). The ones that do use airports for shelter usually use shrubs, trees and even airport structures for shelter (Godin,

2005). The thing that these birds are looking for are areas free from hum disturbance which airport can provide. There are several main land uses which attract the most dangerous birds for bird-strikes: putrescible-waste disposal operations, wastewater treatment facilities, wetlands, and dredge spoil containment areas (Federal Aviation Administration, 2012).

Aircraft Design and Regulations To ensure that aircraft don’t suffer catastrophic malfunctions when struck by single or

multiple birds, industry standards for aircraft parts were created. The engine, windshield and the airframe are usually the most critical.

The current standards, for both multiple and single bird engine ingestions into a single fixed wing aircraft engine, are (SKYbrary, 2014):

• That at a typical initial climb speed and takeoff thrust, ingestion of a single bird of

maximum weight between 1.8kg and3.65kg dependent upon engine inlet area shall

not cause an engine to catch fire, suffer uncontained failure or become impossible

to shut down and shall enable at least 50% thrust to be obtained for at least 14

minutes after ingestion. These requirements to be met with no thrust lever

movement on an affected engine until at least 15 seconds have elapsed post impact.

• That at a typical initial climb speed and takeoff thrust, ingestion of a single bird of

maximum weight 1.35kg shall not cause a sustained thrust or power loss of more

than 25%, shall not require engine shut down within 5 minutes and shall not result in

hazardous engine condition.

• That at a typical initial climb speed and takeoff thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up

to 7 medium sized birds of various sizes between weight 0.35kg and weight 1.15kg,

with the number and size depending upon the engine inlet area, shall not cause the

engine to suddenly and completely fail and it shall continue to deliver usable but

slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period of 20 minutes after ingestion.

[Engines with inlet sizes of less than 0.2 m2 (300 square inches) only have to meet

the standard for a single bird of this weight]

• That at a typical initial climb speed and takeoff thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up

to 16 small sized birds of weight 0.85kg, with the number dependent upon the

engine inlet area, shall not cause the engine to suddenly and completely fail and it

shall continue to deliver usable but slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period

of 20 minutes after ingestion. [Direct testing to this standard may not be required if

the medium bird multiple standard is demonstrated or if this bird size can pass the

inlet guide vanes into the rotor blades]

As for the airframe, current standards for the impact of a single bird with a large aircraft airframe are that the airplane must be capable of continued safe flight and landing after hitting a 1.8 kg bird at the more critical of (SKYbrary, 2014):

• Cruise Speed at mean sea level or

• 85% of Cruise Speed at 8,000 feet altitude

Finally for the windshield integrity after single bird impact requires that the inner ply

must be non-splintering and the panes directly in front of the pilots must withstand, without

penetration, a 1.8 kg bird at cruise speed at mean sea level (SKYbrary, 2014).

Damage caused by Bird-Strikes As mentioned before, bird-strikes cause the aviation industry worldwide around $957 million per year (FAA, 2014). But where does damage occur on the aircraft? All parts of the aircraft are vulnerable to a strike at any time during the flight, but statistically, different parts of the plane are more likely to be hit due to their orientation. Figure 7 shows which parts of the plane are statistically more likely to be hit by a bird (Nicholson & Reed, 2011). Around three- quarters of bird-strikes involve the wing or wings since they have a greater area facing forward than other part of the aircraft.

Figure 7: Location of Bird-Strike Damage from Boeing (Nicholson & Reed, 2011)

Location of the bird-strike on the plane is not the only factor here. Speed plays a big role

in the amount of damage inflicted by birds on aircraft. The forces which the aircraft encounters

is kinetic, therefore the equation = is what is at play here; ‘KE’ being the kinetic 1 2 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 2 𝑚𝑚𝑉𝑉 energy, ‘m’ being the mass of the bird, and ‘V’ being the velocity of the bird relative to the

aircraft. The more kinetic energy that is involved in the bird-strike the more damage that will

occur. Based on kinetic energy equation, as the velocity of the plane increases the kinetic

energy involved is quadrupled. This is part of the reason why jet powered aircraft suffer more

damage in bird-strikes than propeller driven aircraft.

Another fact to consider when comparing jet powered aircraft to propeller powered

aircraft are the rotation speeds and blades of the engines. For jet engine, the rotation speed is

very high and there are multiple blade in the engine as well. If a bird is ingested into the engine, it could displace one of the engine blades into another one creating a domino effect and destroying the engine. Jet engines are also very vulnerable to ingesting birds during takeoff when the engine is rotating at maximum speed and the altitude of the plane is very low.

Countermeasure to Mitigate Bird-Strikes

Introduction As mentioned before, since about 92% of bird-strikes involving commercial civil aircraft

in the USA occur at or below 3,500 feet above sea level (FAA, 2014), it is safe to assume that the

birds are living near or on airport territory. This is due to the multiple attractants at airports

which the birds favor. Even though there are many factors which attract birds to airports, there

are a multitude of solutions for the problems at hand. These solutions are countermeasures to

bird-strikes, and they can be divided into two basic categories: Environmental Strategies, and

Technological Strategies.

Environmental strategies involve altering the natural environment around and near the airport. This is to attempt to make the environment around the airport less attractive or inaccessible to the wildlife in question. Since all wildlife requires food, water and shelter to survive, by reducing or removing any combination of these attractants, the population of wildlife at the airport would decrease drastically (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). For any plan that aims to reduce bird-strikes, a wildlife management plan needs to encompass some level of habitat modification.

Altering the natural environment is not the only technique used as an environmental strategy. Using repellent and harassment techniques also falls under the environmental strategy category. These techniques are intended to make the wildlife feel uncomfortable and

possibly fearful when in the airport environment. Adding natural predators to the environment,

as well as shooting the wildlife achieves this. Other techniques which are less violent use

trapping device to catch and relocate the undesired wildlife at airports.

For a more modern solution, technological strategies are implemented. These strategies

involve techniques which use modern day technology to track, predict, or scare undesirable wildlife in airport territory. The type of technologies used to achieve these involve radar, radio controlled equipment, and devices which generate sound.

Ultimately, no one technique will work on its own to reduce wildlife at airports. It is the combination of these techniques which grants success in this task. To figure out what combination would work best for the airport, we must know what techniques are available to us in order to make an informed decision.

Environment Manipulation and Management at Airports When manipulating the environment of the airport in order to decrease the population

of birds near and around airports, there are three things which need to be manipulated: food,

water and shelter. All wildlife require these as mentioned before, and by removing these from airport limits, the population of the undesirable wildlife will decrease, reducing bird-strikes in

the process. These attractants should also remain a certain distance from the airport in order to protect aircraft arriving and departing from the airport, as well as in the airport as well. Figure 8

shows how far attractants should be in proximity to the airport for it to be safe. Any attractants

within these limits should be removed.

Figure 8: The Separation Distance within which Attractants should be Avoided or Removed (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005)

Initially, managing the food, water and cover at airports may prove to be expensive.

However, it is a more permanent solution and, if done correctly, doesn’t usually need to be revisited again. Therefore if the cost is reduced over serval years, it will prove to be less expensive in the long run (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). They are also generally seen by the public as

more humane methods of removing wildlife from airports, in comparison to shooting or harassing the wildlife.

There are multiple sources of food on or near airports. They range from agricultural crops, to handouts from people on airport property. Some of the more rural resources consist of grain elevators, feed mills, sewer treatment plants, improperly disposed food waste, etc.

Some more rural sources are sanitary landfills, feedlots or even spilled grain in the surrounding areas. Managing these sources to reduce bird-strikes can be quite straight forward.

Before altering the current airport environment to manage the attractants, being aware of the wildlife and the particular food sources they are attracted to is the first step. This will allow the airport to not waste its resources removing potential sources which do not cause wildlife to be on or in the vicinity of the airport. Therefore, the first step is to observe and collect data on the birds to see which food source is attracting them. Once the attractant has been identified, then the attractant can be dealt with.

If it is discovered that the food source is related to feeding of the birds by people, then the solution is quite simple, prohibit bird feeding within a distance of 5 miles. This coincided with the FAA’s recommendation of distance, shown in Figure 8, an attractant should be from the airport to protect it. Working with local government as well as landowners would be the most ideal plan. This would deter the surrounding population on and around airports from feeding the birds, eliminating the attractant.

If landfills and improper food disposal methods are the problem, then implementing bird-proof storage for food waste as well as good sanitation and litter control programs would

be best (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). As always, removing the attractant the recommended distance away as illustrated in Figure 8 is the best approach. However, if this option is not possible, the previous strategy mentioned before would suffice. This would allow for proper disposal of food waste as well as keep them out of birds reach. It would also allow for food waste to be eliminated from locations where birds could previously get to.

Other techniques that eliminate food are to remove trees and other plants from the street side of the airport that can produce food and seeds. Even though these usually make the airport look more appealing to passengers and workers, they can prove to be reliable food sources for birds. Vast grass lands suffer the same problem. They not only produce seeds for birds but also attract insects and rodents as well. These, in turn, attract other birds such as raptors and gulls which feed on the insects and rodents. The management this food cycle can be complex. Usually a combination of insecticide, herbicides and rodenticide are needed to maintain it (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005).

Although food is a problem, water is like a magnet to birds. Still, water is particularly attractive to them, so it must be eliminated as best as possible. In order to do this, modifications to the area must be made in order to allow for fast drainage of water on airport property. Avoiding retention ponds, open drainage ditches, outdoor fountains and other wetland sites on or around the airport is highly recommended (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). Making any water retention feature able to drain all its water within 48 hours is highly recommended as well. The faster the water moves, the less attractive it is to wildlife. If it is impossible to drain the water away fast enough, then physical barriers, such are tarps, should be used to block the birds from the attractant. Also, encouraging any off-airport storm water treatment plants near

the airport to implement wildlife management programs of their own would be beneficial to the airport.

Shelter is essential for wildlife; it is needed for birds to rest, roost, escape and

reproduce. If an airport makes it easy for birds to gain shelter, the birds would have a new

home and would be a constant problem for the airport. A lot of birds will leave the area if

shelter is no longer available making it an ideal solution to get rid of certain species of birds.

The best way to do this is to manage landscape of the airport by avoiding creating dense areas

of cover which would be ideal for roosting or even by thinning the canopy of trees while

increasing the distance between them. This can help eliminate nests on airport grounds.

Another strategy is to add vegetation to the landscape which is either unattractive or

even mildly toxic to the birds. This generally will deter the birds in question or even their food

supply of insect and rodents. Finally, removing any and all unnecessary post, fences or any

other structures will help deter birds. These are ideal places for birds to roost but also allows

the landscape to be as clear as possible.

Modifying the environment’s available resources isn’t the only way to reduce wildlife on

and near the airport. Another common technique is to use trapping to catch the wildlife in

question before relocating them to an area far away from the airport. There are two ways to

trap birds on or near airports. One is chemical trapping where a chemical is introduced to the

birds which immobilizes them without killing them. The second way is to use traps which

capture the birds alive.

When using chemical trapping, the most commonly used chemical is alpha chloralose.

This is a registered chemical with the FDA as an immobilizing agent for capturing waterfowl and

pigeons (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). The down side to this chemical is that not everyone is allowed to use it. Only people who are certified worker with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Wildlife Services can use it. The chemical is usually added to bread bate and the effects of the chemical wear off between 8 - 24 hours.

The other option is live trapping. This method has the advantage of being selective. If an undesired bird is caught in a trap, it can easily be released without the bird being harmed. The only problem is that these traps require a lot of man power. They need to be constantly checked, reset and rebaited. They can use decoys and bait to catch their targets and there are a variety of traps to choose from: the Bal-charti, Swedish goshawk and the sliding padded pole to name a few. Trapping is usually used to capture raptors at the airports. Once a raptor is caught, it needs to be banded and relocated into a suitable habitat at least 50 miles away from the airport (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). Another trapping technique are net launchers which are ideal for capturing individual or a small group of problematic birds from about 50 feet away.

Another way to manage the wildlife, as mentioned briefly before, is to make the environment uncomfortable or even dangerous for the target birds to stay at the airport. One way to achieve this is to add other animals, who are trained into the environment. Birds of prey, especially falcons, have been used in multiple airports to disperse and scare off birds. The advantage of using birds of prey is that naturally the birds have an innate fear of these raptors because they are their natural predators. Unfortunately, falconry programs can be very expensive. The birds which are used need to be cared for by the crew which trained them.

Finally, it is still not entirely clear whether or not falconry on airports actually helps reduce bird-

strikes at that airport.

Visual deterrents can also be used to keep birds away. Essentially visual repellents act

on the simple principal of scarecrows, although some can be a little more technologically

advanced. Simple visual repellents can range from silhouettes or even models of natural predators such are raptors and coyotes, to flags raised on airport property. Sometimes, these

models and silhouettes are mechanized and programed to move in certain patterns which

make birds think that they are real. These are moved to different areas of the airport where

they are needed. This method of using visual deterrents are in effect short term solutions as it

loses its effectiveness over time.

One visual deterrent that has been successfully used in recent years is the display of

dead birds in a “death pose”. It’s the death pose which causes this technique to be effective.

“Dead birds lying supine on the ground or in the roost are generally ignored or might even

attract other birds.” according to the FAA (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). They further prove this by

stating that, “Several experiments and field demonstrations have shown that a dead turkey

vulture hung by its feet in a vulture roosting or perching area, will cause vultures to abandon

the site.” The only down side is that certain permits must be obtained before using this

technique.

Shooting birds is another approach to mitigating birds on or near airports. This is the

more lethal approach and usually falls under two different categories: nighttime shooting and

daytime shooting. Nighttime shooting requires quiet and discrete shootings so as to maximize

the number of birds shot. To achieve this, air rifles are usually employed for the job. Daytime shootings, in comparison, require the act of killing a bird to be as loud and visual as possible to the other birds as to send a message to them. To do this a shotgun is employed as it reinforces visual and auditory repellent techniques (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005). This relays to the birds that it is very dangerous to stay on the airport, making them not want to stay. The noise, in addition to death, makes the birds associate it with danger.

When using shooting as a wildlife control strategy, four rules should be followed to use the strategy properly:

1. Only use people who are trained to use firearms and have the ability to identify

different kinds of wildlife.

2. The person in charge of shooting uses the correct ammunition and firearm for

the situation at hand.

3. Making sure that the person has the necessary federal and state permits to kill

wildlife, while maintaining an accurate records of the species killed and the date

it was killed on.

4. Letting airport security, air traffic control as well as local law enforcement know

of the airport’s shooting program.

This ensures that no problem will arise while the shooting program is in place.

Technology Strategies to Mitigate Bird-Strikes

Manipulating the environment is a great way to prevent bird-strikes, but it takes time

for them to be fully effective. While these techniques are becoming effective over time, there

are some short term solutions which not only help remove wildlife from the airport’s premises,

but also allow for detection of the wildlife in order to plan and prevent aircraft from colliding

with birds. In order to use these techniques, technologies have been used in different way to

help reduce the problem.

Radar is an effective method for tracking aircraft in order to avoid collisions in the air.

Radar isn’t only useful for tracking aircraft but can also track birds. These systems which can track birds are called Avian Radar. Avian Radar mainly uses marine radar technology to detect and track birds (Loomacres Wildlife Management, 2014). They usually offer real-time detection, tracking and alerting of hazardous bird activity at commercial airports (DeTact Inc., 2014). There are many different types of avian radar available for purchase: The MERLIN System (DeTact Inc.,

2014) and The BSTAR System (SRC, 2015) to name a couple. These systems offer a 360 degree detection zone and can detect birds at ground level to aircraft operational altitudes. These radars are very useful because in addition to detecting and warning the airport and pilots of approaching birds, which is also conducts surveys to help predict future possible collisions

When airports use avian radar, they are able to track the trajectory of birds approaching the airport. This allows the air traffic controller to either vector the aircraft or delay takeoff in order to avoid collisions. The difference between the MERLIN System and the BSTAR System is that the BSTAR System has a non-rotating antenna where the MERLIN System doesn’t. These

systems my initially be expensive but the amount of money they save through increasing safety

while decreasing delay and damage cost over time is substantial (DeTact Inc., 2014).

Using falconry on airports my not be viable at times. Each airport is different after all.

Luckily, there is a technological substitute for falconry: radio-controlled (RC) aircraft. RC aircraft

have proven to be excellent auditory and visual repellents. Some RC aircraft are built to look

like falcons in order to scare off other birds. RC aircraft have more control as they are human

operated. They often have more accuracy than falcons do. They can also be delayed as needed and require very little maintenance on top of being cheap to purchase. They can also be rigged to deploy and fire pyrotechnics to repel birds. Unfortunately, they require a trained professional to operate within an airport environment (Cleary & Dolbeer, 2005).

Technology can also deliver very effective auditory repellents in a variety of forms with some being more complex and expensive than others. Propane or even air compressed canons generate a shotgun sound when fired. They have been used by many airports and are usually stationed at different locations on the airport’s property. They can be remotely fired or even programed to be fired at different times of the day.

Another method is to use distress-calls and electronic noise-generation systems. These distress-calls can be broadcasted from speakers that are mounted on a vehicle. This initially doesn’t scare the birds, but instead, attracts them to the source of the sound; the birds are investigating the threat. This can then be used with a secondary removal or repellent method, such as pyrotechnics or even firearms.

A more ‘high-tech’ method of auditory repellent is the use of LRAD (Long Range Acoustic

Device). LRAD is a system which can focus acoustics that are exceptionally intelligible in a directional beam in distances in excess of 3,000 meters. It is able to ‘transmit a wide variety of tones and predator calls that are highly effective in deterring wildlife’ (Lopez, 2012). Mobile

LRAD systems can be attached to the backs of vehicles for easy and accurate deployment.

These allow for 360-degree coverage when mounted on the backs of vehicles. The mobile unit’s

drawback is the maximum distance which they can project sound: 2,000 meters instead of the

normal LRAD’s 3,000 meters (Lopez, 2012).

As far as visual technological repellent, one new concept which has shown utility in

recent years is the use of hand-held lasers which project an inch diameter red beam to repel

the birds. It has proven effective against birds such as the Canadian Geese and crows. They

have the advantage of being able to work over long distances, a range of about a quarter of a

mile, and don’t create noise. The only downside is that it loses its effectiveness during the

daytime when the laser is harder to see. If an airport is planning on using laser on airport

property for clearing birds, they must take caution equal to that of firearms (Cleary & Dolbeer,

2005).

Best Practice Used by Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, also known as Sea-Tac, is the 17th busiest airport

in the United States. It serves around 31.5 million passengers and is the gateway to the Pacific

Northwest of the United States. It has a central terminal with four branching concourses as

shown in Appendix A. The airport serves over 20 airlines and has international non-stop flights

to many of the world’s busiest cities: Beijing, China, Calgary, Canada, Dubai, UAE, and Seoul,

South Korea (FlightStats, 2015). What makes Seattle-Tacoma unique is that it was the first airport in the United States to employ a full-time wildlife biologist to develop an ecological

approach to maintaining aviation safety and protecting wildlife (Port of Seattle, n.d.).

Seattle-Tacoma uses many different strategies to deal with their own wildlife hazards.

One of the things it does is implement the use of avian radar in a long-term monitoring effort to

detect potentially hazardous bird activity on and near an airport. It was the world’s first airport

to use avian radar in August 2007 (Port of Seattle, n.d.)

Seattle-Tacoma also reduces its attractants on airport properties with several strategies.

One thing Seattle-Tacoma does is repel raptors via its Raptor Strike Avoidance Program, which

uses nonlethal and harmless traps to catch raptors such as owls and hawks. Then they are

relocated to a safer environment away from the airport. They also control what vegetation is

allowed to be planted on airport grounds. ‘Only plants of minimal interest to wildlife are used for landscaping and all plant varieties that produce fruits, nuts and berries are prohibited.’ (Port

of Seattle, n.d.). For a list plants that Seattle-Tacoma finds acceptable, see Appendix B. These

plants are only allowed to be planted in certain areas as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Seattle-Tacoma's Landscaping Zone Plan (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 2015).

Seattle-Tacoma also uses specially developed grass seed mix that contains fungus to

make it less palatable to some birds and insects, which can attract hazardous wildlife. This mix

is specially formulated to reduce erosion by establishing itself quickly after hydroseeding (Port

of Seattle, n.d.). In wetland areas which need protection, canopies of bushes and other vegetation are used to prevent large flocking birds, such as Canadian geese, from feeding and

nesting at these sites (Port of Seattle, n.d.). Finally, in addition to using harassment devices,

Seattle-Tacoma uses exclusion devices such as netting and fences which repel wildlife from the

airport itself.

Although no two airports are the same, Seattle-Tacoma provides the world with an

example to learn from. The techniques and technologies they use can be adopted by other

airports in an effort to help reduce their wildlife problems.

COPA Airlines and Tocumen International Airport

Introduction As mentioned previously COPA Airlines is the national airline of Panama whose aircraft widely connect Panama to North, South, and Central America as well as the Caribbean. COPA

Airlines has 180 flights to 55 destinations in 27 countries (Kasarda, 2011). Today COPA Airlines,

in conjunction with its recently acquired COPA Airlines Colombia branch, are the lead provider

for passengers and cargo flights. It is also became a member of the Star Alliance in June 2012

(Star Alliance, n.d.). COPA Airlines net income is about US$326.4 million and generates

revenues of US$2,249 million as of 2012.

Its base of operation is Tocumen International Airport in Panama. Tocumen

International is located about 15 miles from down-town Panama City. Tocumen International

started to undergo large expansions and modernization projects in 2006 which continue to this

day (Kasarda, 2011). The airport hopes to continue to expand and upgrad to create an airport

city that will be developed on the 300 acres near the main runway (Kasarda, 2011).

In order to help COPA and Tocumen International Airport with their specific bird-strike

and wildlife hazard problem, an understanding of their unique circumstances must be achieved

to successfully create an effective plan to mitigate the problem.

Tocumen International Airport As mentioned earlier, Tocumen International is located about 15 miles from down-town

Panama City. It is surrounded by urban areas on one side and rural areas on the other as shown

in Figure 11. Panama City has tropical monsoon weather which has short dry seasons. Figure 10

shows how the temperature fluctuates in Panama City over the course of the year.

Figure 10: The daily average low and high temperatures over the course of the year (Cedar Lake Ventures Inc., n.d.)

As Figure 10 shows, over the course of a year the temperature is usually between 72°F

and 91°F. The warm season lasts from February to April with an average daily temperature of

90°F. Usually, April 8th is the hottest day of the year. The cold season lasts between September and November with temperatures fluctuating between 74°F and 87°F. The coldest day of the season is on the 20th of January.

Tocumen International Airport is also a regional hub for commercial flights heading to and from The Caribbean, South America, North America and Central America, as mentioned earlier. Over the past couple of years, Tocumen International has been serving more and more aircraft every year. The airport started by serving 58,017 flights in 2012, an average of 4,835 flights a month, and has managed to grow to the point of having the capacity of serving 86,408 flights in 2014, an average of 7,201 flights a month. Table 6 illustrates this.

Table 6: Data supplied by COPA Airlines on the amount of flights over the course of a four year period

Year Average Flights per Month Total Number of Flights 2011 4,835 58,017 2012 5,834 70,002 2013 6,556 78,671 2014 7,201 86,408

Figure 11: An Aerial View of Tocumen International Airport from Google Maps (Anderson, 2013)

Like all airports, Tocumen International isn’t without its share of on and off site wildlife

attractants.

Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrates these on and off site attractants. On airport property,

there are four major attractants all next to the south most runway: a concrete-lined canal to

the northwest of the runway, a forested area to the west of the runway, a river south of the

runway and vegetated wetlands east of the runway.

Figure 12: Location of onsite wildlife attractants (Anderson, 2013)

Figure 13: Location of offsite wildlife attractants (Anderson, 2013)

As for offsite attractants, the airport has three attractants near it: a cattle

slaughterhouse to the north of the airport, neighborhood trash to the north of the airport, and

the University of Panama to the west of the airport.

These attractants are a problem for Tocumen International. The vegetated wetlands,

the river and the concrete-lined canal are water attractants. As mentioned before, water is one of the strongest wildlife attractants which airports have to deal with. The forested area, mentioned before, offers an area of cover that wildlife can utilize. As for the offsite attractants,

the university, the slaughterhouse and neighborhood trash make excellent sources for food.

The neighborhood trash is usually exposed and not stored properly before it is taken away. This

makes an excellent source of food for scavenger birds. As for the cattle slaughterhouse, the

amount of exposed meat on sight in combination with any improperly disposed of waste

products make an ideal source of food for raptors. As for the University of Panama, the vast

number of people there requires food and generates food waste which birds are attracted to.

Also the buildings in combination with any landscaping that is on sight may prove to make ideal

sources of shelter for birds.

Birds Involved Tocumen International Airport’s bird-strike problem mainly involves raptors. The top

four most problematic species of birds for Tocumen International are: Black Vultures, Red

Vultures, Swallows and Owls. Three of the four species fall under the raptor group which is

most likely due to the multiple food sources available to the wildlife.

Black Vultures can be identified by the sooty black plumage, a bare black head, and neat

white stars under the wingtips. They are compact birds with a big wingspan. They also have

short tails and powerful wingbeats and can weight around 3.5 – 4.8 pounds. Black Vultures

share food with relatives, feeding young for months after they’ve fledged. Black Vultures live

year-round in forested and open areas of the eastern and southern United States and south to

South America as shown in Figure 14 (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.).

Figure 14: Black Vulture Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)

Black Vultures roost in undisturbed stands of tall trees, and roost sites are often close to water and next to obstructions that generate updrafts of air to help the flock take flight in the early morning (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.). They feed almost primarily on carrion which they find mainly by sight. Carrions that they eat include feral hogs, poultry, cattle, donkeys, raccoons, coyotes, opossums, striped skunks, and armadillos. In addition to this, Black

Vultures often investigate dumpsters and landfills to pick at human discards (The Cornell Lab of

Ornithology, n.d.).

The Red Vulture, or turkey Vulture, is a large dark bird with long, broad wings. It is one of the biggest raptors out there. They have long feathers protruding from their wingtips and have long tails that extend past their toe tips in flight (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.).

They migrate during the summer to North America to breed but live in Central and South

America all year round as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Turkey Vulture Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)

Turkey Vultures commonly live around open areas such as roadsides, suburbs, farm

fields, countrysides, and food sources such as landfills, trash heaps, and construction sites. They

often roost on poles, towers, dead trees, and fence posts as well (The Cornell Lab of

Ornithology, n.d.).

Owls, such as the Barn Owl, are silent nocturnal predators which hunt in open fields and

meadows. They fly low when hunting and fly back and forth over open habitats. They hunt primarily small rodents. When hunting, the habitats which they prefer to use are marshes, grasslands, or mixed agricultural fields. During the daytime, they roost in quiet, hidden areas

51 such as abandoned barns and other buildings and dense trees (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.).

They don’t migrate but instead primarily live in all of America, just south of the Canadian border and some parts of the Midwest of the United States as illustrated in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Barn Owl Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)

Swallows, such as the Barn Swallow, are relatively small birds. They have a wingspan of about 11.4 - 12.6 inches and weigh around 0.6 – 0.7 oz. Swallows usually forage in open areas in most of the Americas including suburban parks and ball fields, agricultural fields, beaches, and over open water such as lakes, ponds and coastal waters. They mainly eat flies as well as beetles, bees, wasps, ants, butterflies, moths, and other flying insects (The Cornell Lab of

Ornithology, n.d.). They will also steal food left out by humans. They migrate to North America

in the summer and South America in the winter; however, they do stay year round in Central

America.

Figure 17: Barn Swallow Migratory Patterns (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)

The COPA Airline Fleet COPA Airlines has a fleet of about 91 aircraft which is comprised of three different types

of aircraft: Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, and the Embraer 190AR; Figure 18 shows the

breakdown of this. Within these types of aircraft are different models. Today COPA Airlines

supports the A and B models of the Boeing 737-800 and the Embraer 190;

Figure 19 shows the breakdown of this. As indicated in Figure 18 and Figure 19, most of the fleet

(59%) is made up of Boeing 737-800. In fact, it is the Boeing 737-800B which makes up 32% of the entire fleet. Each aircraft is different in its design and size as well as the amount of people it can carry design and size as well as the amount people it can carry.

Number of Aircraft by Type Boeing 737-700 Embraer 190AR 16% 25%

Boeing 737-800 59%

Boeing 737-700 Boeing 737-800 Embraer 190AR

Figure 18: A Chart Showing the Breakdown of the COPA Airline's Fleet Based on Aircraft Type

Number of Aircraft by Model Embraer 190AR E- 190AR B Boeing 737-700 12% Standard 15%

Embraer 190AR E- 190AR A 13%

Boeing 737-800 737- 800A 28%

Boeing 737-800 737- 800B 32% Boeing 737-700 Standard Boeing 737-800 737-800A Boeing 737-800 737-800B Embraer 190AR E-190AR A Embraer 190AR E-190AR B

Figure 19: A Chart Showing the Breakdown of the COPA Airline's Fleet Based on Aircraft Model

The Boeing 737 series is a short to medium range narrow-body aircraft with twinjets.

The Boeing 737-800 is the replacement for the Boeing 737-700. It is a longer version of the 737-

700 which allows it the ability to carry more passengers. The Embraer 190AR is also a narrow- body twinjet aircraft. The Embraer 190AR is much smaller than the Boeings meaning it can carry less people, but the reduction in weight allows it to travel at faster speed and higher altitudes.

Table 7 shows some specifications of the aircraft regarding the forward facing area of the

fuselage, the amount of people it can carry, the speed at which it can travel, etc.

Table 7: Specifications of all aircraft in the COPA Airline's Fleet (COPA Airlines, n.d.)

Maximum Maximum Cabin Cabin Total Range Wingspan Aircraft Speed Flying Width Height Number (km) (m) (km/h) Altitude (ft) (m) (m) of Seats Boeing 840 5,700 41,000 39.50 3.50 2.14 124 737-700 Boeing 840 5,700 41,000 39.50 3.50 2.14 160 737-800A Boeing 840 5,700 41,000 39.50 3.50 2.14 154 737-800B Embraer 1004.5 4,074 41,000 36.24 2.74 2.00 94 190AR A Embraer 1004.5 4,074 41,000 36.24 2.74 2.00 106 190AR B

Table 7 shows the COPA’s fleet supports aircraft which are small compared to other aircraft. Since they have relatively small forward facing cross-sectional areas, it is harder for

them to collide with birds while in flight.

Bird-Strikes at Tocumen International Airport No two airports are alike. Each airports’ bird-strike problem is not identical to other airports’. In order to offer an effective bird-strike reduction plan, a full understanding of

Tocumen International’s bird-strike problem is needed, and to achieve this, an understanding of the circumstances which lead to bird-strikes.

The probability of a bird-strike occurring relies on multiple factors: time of year, landing phase, type of aircraft involved, etc. Between 2013 to early 2015, COPA Airlines encountered

411 bird-strikes on their aircrafts. Amongst the 411 bird-strikes, 241 of those incidence happened in Tocumen International Airport.

Strike Percentage (2013 - 2014) 0.40% 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00%

Figure 20: The percentage of the total number of flights per month which resulted in a bird-strike based and COPA provide data

Figure 20 shows what percentage of flights are involved in a bird-strike incident for every month between 2013 and 2014. This will give better data since comparing the number of strikes to the total number of flights normalizes the data. Looking at Figure 20 trendline,

distinct peeks are shown between the months of April to May as well as between the months of

September to November. This indicates that the probability of a bird-strike happens in these months. This interestingly coincides with seasonal change periods when the warm and cold seasons happen. Since some of the birds which are problematic for Tocumen International

migrate, it is safe to assume that the reason for this increase in change of having a bird-strike is

due to the bird’s migrating and moving around.

When a bird-strike happens, it doesn’t always result in damage. Some collisions do and

some do not. This can be based on a variety of factors: aircraft type, speed of the aircraft,

weight of bird, etc. Looking at which aircraft is the most involved in bird-strikes irrespective of

damage are shown in Figure 21.

All Collisions (2013-2014)

ERJ-190 Boeing 737-800 42% 40%

Boeing 737-700 18% Boeing 737-800 Boeing 737-700 ERJ-190

Figure 21: Total bird-strikes which occurred in 2013-2014 compared to the aircraft involved

Looking at Figure 21, it is clear that the ERJ-190 is the most likely to be involved in a

bird-strike. It is the smallest of the COPA Airline fleet which indicates that is harder to hit by a

bird due to the small forward-facing cross-sectional area. However this can work both ways.

Since it is a smaller aircraft, it can be harder for birds to seeing to get out of the way compared

to the rest of the COPA fleet. For the data, the ERJ-190 is 42% likely to be involved in a bird-

strike, 2% more than that of the Boeing 737-800. Taking this knowledge and data and

comparing it to bird-strikes which cause damage a different picture of the problem is illustrated.

Collision Data with Damage (2013-2014)

ERJ-190 33%

Boeing 737-800 53%

Boeing 737-700 14%

Boeing 737-800 Boeing 737-700 ERJ-190

Figure 22: Total bird-strikes that cause damage which occurred in 2013-2014 compared to the aircraft involved

Figure 22 seems to show that even though the ERJ-190 is the mostly likely to be involved

in a bird-strike, it is the Boeing 737-800 that has the highest likelihood of taking damage from a

bird-strike. The 737-800 is the largest of the aircraft but travels at slower speeds. This could

mean that that amount of damage taken by the Boeing 737-800 is less when struck by a bird

than the ERJ-190. Since the aircraft is larger, there is more of an area for the bird to hit,

including critical areas such as the engines and windshield.

It is known that around 97% of bird-strikes occur beneath 35,000 feet. Therefore, it is

safe to say that collisions mainly occur during two difference phase of flight: the landing and takeoff phase.

Airport Responsibility In Airport Proximity (Takeoff) In Airport (Approach) 8% 13%

In Airport Proximity (Approach) 26%

In Airport (Takeoff) 53%

Figure 23: Breakdown of bird-strikes during the takeoff and landing phase of flights

Figure 23 shows the likelihood of a collision happening during the takeoff and landing

phases of flight. Usually, it is the landing phase which proves to be the more dangerous phase.

The reason for this is that aircraft tend to spend more time in the 0 – 35,000 feet window, which increases the chance of a bird-strike happening. Interestingly, COPA’s data seems to indicate something different. According to the data, the takeoff phase seems to be the more dangerous of the two. 61% of strikes happened during takeoff. A possible reason for this is that aircraft aren’t taking off fast enough to get over the 35,000 ft limit.

Tocumen’s Current Wildlife Management Currently, the airport is in the beginning stages of developing its own wildlife

management plan. They are aware of the bird-strike problem and that a lot of birds migrate

though Panama and wish to decrease the number of strikes. They first conducted wildlife

surveys of the area at different locations on the airport as shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24: Locations of wildlife survey points at Tocumen International Airport in Panama (Anderson, 2013)

After the surveys were conducted, Tocumen International was able to figure out what

birds were the most problematic. The survey results also revealed the areas where wildlife attractants were. Tocumen International has also started to educate their airport staff in wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. They have also started to discuss possible environmental

60 and technical repellents for the airport itself. Finally, they have been talking to experts to learn how to ID the remains of birds.

Data Collection and Processing Methods

The data and information in this report was gathered in different ways. Most of the general information and numerical data which didn’t involve COPA Airlines and Tocumen

International Airport was gathered via extensive research.

As for the COPA Airlines and Tocumen International Airport specific data, some of it was obtained through research. However, the raw flight data was provided by COPA Airlines. That raw data was interpreted and analyzed to create the results in this report.

Suggested Strategies for COPA Airline and Tocumen International Airport.

Introduction COPA Airlines and Tocumen International Airport have initiated a program to investigate and reduce bird-strikes for their fleet and flights. The purpose of this chapter is to offer suggestions for COPA Airlines and Tocumen International to aid in their efforts in reducing bird- strikes. This chapter will go through the Technical Solutions and the Environmental Changes, as well as other aspects to help aid them in creating an effective plan.

Technological Solutions One of the things that Tocumen should consider is purchasing an avian radar system.

Although they are expensive in the beginning, they do pay for themselves over the years in bird-strike savings. They are also one of the most effective way to reduce bird-strikes while an airport is implementing environmental alterations to repel wildlife. With the aid of avian radar, the control tower can track groups of birds before takeoff and hold aircraft from taking off until the threat is cleared. This will be especially useful to Tocumen International since it appears that 61% of its bird-strikes happen during takeoff. The MERLIN Radar system is a good one to use. It has the added advantage of conducting survey while it is detecting birds. This allows the airport to scout out new potential attractants that the airport hasn’t dealt with.

Since raptors are the main problem at Tocumen International, some auditory methods

would prove ineffective since the raptors have no natural predators. The same is true for visual

repellents. Therefore the best repellent to use against them are propane canons. Propane

canons are cheap to build and purchase and can be set off remotely. They can be placed at

different locations around the airport. Since the sound of the canon mimics a gun shot, it would be more than enough to scare a raptor which is at the top of its food chain. Therefore, it is recommended as far as auditory repellents go to implement the use of propane canons.

Wildlife Management Solutions Apart from using air canons to scare off birds from the airport, there are few options to

choose from when dealing with raptors. However, the most effective method to do this is the

use of traps. Traps do require a lot of labor through maintenance, checking the traps and

setting them up, but it is the best solution to use when dealing with raptors. Once the raptor in question is caught, the animal can be relocated far away from the airport. This is the best solution to use when dealing with raptors in a non-lethal manner.

Environmental Changes Environmental changes are the most effective method of reducing bird-strikes and are

more permanent than other techniques. In the case of Tocuman International’s onsite

attractants, the majority of them are water based. These then, must be removed from the

airport’s property. The wetlands and the river must be removed in particular. The concrete-

lined canal can be managed. In the case of the canal, increasing the draining time of it will

drastically help keep it from attracting birds. The faster the water moves the less birds will be

interested in it.

As for the river and the wetlands, these not only make excellent water sources for birds,

but it is also a potential food source of insects and other food sources that birds will be

attracted to. Also, the still water or even slow moving water are very attractive to birds. The problem with removing these from the airport is that they can be very expensive and time consuming projects. They must be completed at some point, but there are steps which can be taken in order to repel wildlife from these areas. What needs to be done is to make these sources very difficult for birds to have access to. Placing tarps to cover the water sources and placing the propane canons mentioned earlier in these particular areas are the cheapest short-

term solutions to use while working on removing it from the airport completely.

As for the forested area nearby, clearing this would be the most effective method. This

may not be a possible solution however. Therefore, trimming the forests to make it harder for

birds to create nests and reducing the locations where they can roost is the best solution. This

can be quite expensive and, unfortunately, will need to be constantly maintained. Therefore, consulting with wildlife experts on whether to remove the forest or to maintain it should be done.

In addition, as far as what plants are allowed on and near the airport, Tocumen should follow Seattle-Tacoma’s lead in selecting plants. Any plant which can produce fruit, seeds or any other food sources for animals should not be used. Using Seattle-Tacoma’s list of acceptable plants and vegetation to use is highly recommended. This may prove to be expensive and highly

labor intensive but it is the best solution in the long run as this technique will actually be more

economical (see Appendix B for a list Seattle-Tacoma’s approved list of plants and vegetation).

Awareness and Education for the Public Unfortunately, some of the attractants to birds are located off airport property. This

makes them harder to deal with since the airport can’t control these plots of land. To add to the

problem, the attractants in question are prime sources of food for raptors. In terms of the

public, the airport really needs to create awareness programs to educate the surrounding

neighborhood and university of the dangers of incorrect disposal of food as well as feeding the wildlife. As for the local neighborhood trash, the airport needs to work with local government to reduce this problem. Perhaps a combination of incentives and fines to encourage people to properly manage their waste could minimize this societal problem. Something along the lines of

creating fines for people who don’t properly dispose of their waste as well as creating proper

containers which are emptied frequently by the government so that the waste is more or less

completely inaccessible to the birds. These type of plans are impossible to achieve on their own

and require a lot of planning and cooperation with local government to achieve results.

A similar approach can be used with the slaughterhouse. Talking to the slaughter house directly and trying to educate them of the problem at hand. If they are facing a similar problem, work with them and local government to find solutions of proper disposal methods as well as containment methods which make it impossible for birds to get access to.

Conclusion

The following recommendations are suggested to COPA Airlines and Tocumen

International Airport to mitigate the existing bird-strike issues.

As far as technological solutions go, Tocumen International should highly consider

purchasing an avian radar system. This is a great tool which can be considered as a gateway to

making the other strategies easier to complete. In addition, they should consider the

employment of propane canons to scare off birds as their main problematic species of birds are

raptors.

As for managing the wildlife, propane canons can also be used to scare of birds while traps can be used to target specific birds, such as the raptors.

As for environmental manipulation of the airport, the first step should be to create long term plans to eventually remove the attractants if possible. In the meantime, changing the canal in order to make it drain faster is highly recommended. Also covering any open-body of water sources such as the river and wetlands with barriers for the birds, such as tarps, will cut off the birds from the water resource. As for the forested area, a good temporary solution would be to trim down the branches of the trees in order to make it difficult for birds to roost there. Ideally however, removing the forest entirely would be the most effective method.

Finally, only using and allowing plants and vegetation which do not create food sources and are generally unappealing to birds is highly recommended.

For the surrounding environment outside the airport’s limits, the only real effective way to eliminate the attractants is to create awareness campaigns which educate the public in proper disposal and containment of food waste. Working with local government to achieve this and to create better facilities and incentives to mitigate these attractants is highly recommended.

Appendices Appendix A - Airport Diagram of Seattle-Tacoma International

Appendix B – Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s Approved Plants List (Port of Seattle, n.d.)

POS Users: Click Here To October 21, 2008 Approved Plant List for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Download Recent SEA

(Hardiness Zone = 8) Landscape Standards

USE COLUMN DROPDOWN ARROWS TO SORT BY http://www.mobot.org/gardening

ATTRIBUTE. help/plantfinder/common.asp Maximu Maxi (alphabetical) Plant m mum Moistur Category & Height Sprea e Location

Genus Species var. Common Name Type (ft) d Regime Permitted Edward Goucher Shrub- Low

Abeilia grandiflora Abelia Evergreen 5 5 Water LLZ Tree - Conifer-

Abies amabilis Pacific Silver Fir Evergreen 40+ N/A Xeric Mitigation Sites Tree - Conifer- Low Outside AOA &

Abies grandis Fir Grand Evergreen 40+ N/A Water LLZ Low

Acer circinatum Vine Maple Tree/Shrub 30 20 Water LLZ Tree- Outside AOA &

Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple Deciduous 70+ 70 Xeric LLZ Disper Low

Agrostis exarata Spike Bentgrass Shrub 3 sal Water Mitigation Sites Tree- Non-

Alnus rubra Red Alder Deciduous 40+ N/A Xeric Mitigation Sites Ground Cvr - Low

Alopecurus geniculatas Water Foxtail Grass 1 1 Water Mitigation Sites September Charm; Ground Cvr- Non-

Anemone hupehensis Japanese Anemone Deciduous 4 2 Xeric LLZ subspicatus Disper Low

Aster douglasii Douglas Aster Ground Cvr 4 sal Water Mitigation Sites Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Beckmannia syzigachne Slough Grass Grass 3 sal Water Mitigation Sites Bressingham Ruby Ground Cvr - Low Outside AOA &

Bergenia bressingham ruby Berginia Evergreen 1 1 Water LLZ Tree- Non-

Betula glandulosa Swamp Birch Deciduous 70 N/A Xeric Mitigation Sites Tree- Non-

Betula jacquemontii Jacquemontii Birch Deciduous 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Red Birch; Water Tree/Shrub- Non-

Betula occidentalis Birch Deciduous 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Tree- Non- Outside AOA &

Betula papyrifera Paper Birch Deciduous 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Canadian Reed; Blue Disper Low

Calamagrostis canadensis Joint Ground Cvr 4 sal Water Mitigation Sites Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar Evergreen 35 12 Xeric LLZ Maple-leafed Sedge; Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Carex amplifolia Big Leaf Sedge Sedge 2 sal Water Mitigation Sites

Variegata; Variegated Japanese Ground Cvr -

Carex morrowii Sedge Sedge 2 3 Xeric Mitigation Sites Ground Cvr - Non- Outside AOA &

Carex morrowii Ice Dance Evergreen 1 1 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Carex praticola Meadow Sedge Sedge 2 sal Water Mitigation Sites Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Carex stipata Sawbeak Sedge Sedge 2 sal Water Mitigation Sites Point Reyes Creepi

Ceanothus gloriosus Ceanothus Shrub 2 ng Xeric LLZ Creepi

Ceanothus prostratus Mahala Mat Ground Cvr <1 ng Xeric LLZ Tree/Shru b-

Ceanothus thyrisiflorus Victoria Ceanothus Evergreen 9 12 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Cedrus deodara compacta Deodar Cedar Evergreen 40+ 25 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Nootka Cypress Evergreen 40+ 15 Xeric LLZ corbariensis Shru b-

Cistus (hybridus) White Rock Rose Evergreen 5 5 Xeric LLZ Orchid Rock Rose;

Cistus purpureus Purple Rock Rose Shrub 10 6 Xeric LLZ Vine - Evergreen Clematis, Climbing - Non- Outside AOA &

Clematis armandii Armand Clematis Evergreen 20' 3 Xeric LLZ Vine - cirrhosa var. Fern Leaved Climbing - Non- Outside AOA &

Clematis balearica Clematis Evergreen 12 3 Xeric LLZ Tree - Disper

Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood Deciduous 40+ sal Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer-

Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress Evergreen 40+ 25 Xeric LLZ Italian Cypress; Tree- Mediterranen Conifer-

Cupressus sempervirens Cypress Evergreen 40+ 5 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr -

Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Grass 2 2 Xeric Mitigation Sites Ground Cvr - glaucus Grass-

Elymus (racemosa) Giant Blue Wild Rye Herbaceous 5 4 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Grass-

Epimedium rubrum Epimedium Herbaceous 2 1 Xeric LLZ Pink Heather; Ground Cvr - Non-

Erica carnea Springwood Pink Woody 1 3 Xeric LLZ Apple Blossom Shrub -

Escallonia langleyensis Escallonia Evergreen 5 6 Xeric LLZ Winged Euonymus; Shrub -

Euonymus alatus compactus Dwarf Burning Bush Deciduous 10 8 Xeric LLZ Shrub - Wintercreeper Woody-

Euonymus fortunei coloratus Euonymus Evergreen 2 3 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - amethysina ovina Grass- Non-

Festuca glauca Large Blue Fescue Evergreen 1 1 Xeric LLZ Tree - Outside AOA &

Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash Deciduous 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Tree - Outside AOA &

Fraxinus oxycarpa Raywood Ash Deciduous 40+ >70 Xeric LLZ Vancouver Gold Shrub -

Genista pilosa Broom Evergreen 2 3 Xeric Mitigation Sites

macrorrhizum var. Ground Cvr - Outside AOA &

Geranium ingwersens Ingwersens cranebill Clumping 1 3 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Glyceria elata Tall Mannagrass Grass 5 sal Water Mitigation Sites

Ground Cvr - Low

Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily Herbaceous 2 2 Water LLZ Ground Cvr - Low

Heuchera palace purple Palace Purple Herbaceous 2 2 Water LLZ Ground Cvr - Low

Heuchera sanguinea Coral Bells Herbaceous 2 2 Water LLZ Oakleaf Hydrangea Shrub- Low

Hydrangea quercifolia (snow queen) Deciduous 10 8 Water LLZ Ground Cvr - Non-

Iris sibirica Siberian Iris Herbaceous 3 2 Xeric AOA; LLZ Common Laurentia (AKA Isotoma Ground Cvr -

Laurentia fluviatilis axillaris?) Clumping Jean Davis; English Ground Cvr -

Lavandula angustifolia Lavender Herbaceous 5 3 Xeric LLZ Shrub- Non-

Leucothoe axillaris Coast Leucothoe Evergreen 4 6 Xeric LLZ Tree-

Magnolia Galaxy Galaxy Magnolia Deciduous 30 15 Ground Cvr - Nigrescens; Black Grass- Non-

Ophiopogon planiscapus Mondo Grass Evergreen 1 1 Xeric LLZ

Osmanthus delavayi Delavay Osmanthus Shrub 10 10 Xeric LLZ heterophyllus Variegated Holly Shrub-

Osmanthus (Variegatus) Leaf Osmanthus Evergreen 10 8 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Creepi

Oxalis oregana Oregon Oxalis Herbaceous 2 ng Xeric LLZ Shrub- Low

Pachysandra terminalis Japanese Spurge Evergreen 2 3 Water LLZ Shrub-

Philadelphus lewisii Mock Orange Deciduous 20 8 Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr -

Phlox spp. Native Phlox Herbaceous 2 3+ Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Disper Non-

Phyllodoce spp. Mountain Heather Woody 1 sal Xeric LLZ Shrub-

Physocarpus capitatus Pacific Ninebark Deciduous 10 10 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Picea omorika Serbian Spruce Evergreen 60 20 LLZ Tree - Conifer-

Pinus contorta Shore Pine Evergreen 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Pinus monticola Western White Pine Evergreen 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Pinus nigra Austrian Black Pine Evergreen 40+ 20 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Evergreen 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr -

Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern Fern 5 3 Xeric LLZ balsamifera, Tree- Outside AOA &

Populus trichocarpa Black Cottonwood Deciduous 40+ 40 Xeric LLZ Shrub-

Prunus laurocerasus Otto Luyken Laurel Evergreen 5 8 Xeric LLZ Columnar Sargent or sargentii Spire Flowering Tree-

Prunus ‘Columnaris’ Cherry Deciduous Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir Evergreen 40+ 30 Xeric LLZ All Pink Flowered Tree/Shrub - Low

Rhododendron spp. Rhododendrons Evergreen 20 10 Water AOA; LLZ Winter Currant; Red Shrub-

Ribes sanguineum Flowering Currant Deciduous 10 6 Xeric LLZ

Disper

Rosa nutkana Wildrose Shrub 10 sal Xeric LLZ Disper

Rosa piscocarpa Wild Clustered Rose Shrub 10 sal Xeric LLZ Tree/Shrub - Non-

Salix hookeriana Hooker's Willow Deciduous 26 N/A Xeric LLZ Non-

Salix lucida Pacific Willow Shrub 36 N/A Xeric LLZ Non-

Salix scouleriana Scouler's Willow Tree/Shrub 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Non-

Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow Tree/Shrub 23 N/A Xeric LLZ Ground Cvr - Disper Low

Sciprus cyperinus Wool-grass Grass 4 sal Water Mitigation Sites Shrub- Low

Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Herbaceous 4 5 Water Mitigation Sites Shrub- Low

Spiraea douglasii Hardhack Spirea Deciduous 6 10 Water LLZ Shrub- Low

Spiraea thunbergii Thunberg Spirea Deciduous 10 5 Water LLZ Tree/Shrub - Little Gem; Dwarf Conifer- Non-

Thuja occidentalis Aborvitae Evergreen 5 3 Xeric LLZ Tree - Emerald Green Conifer- Non-

Thuja occidentalis Aborvitae Evergreen 20 4 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Outside AOA &

Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar Evergreen 40+ 20 Xeric LLZ Tree - plicata fastigiata, Conifer- Outside AOA &

Thuja plicata 'Hogan' Hogan Red Cedar Evergreen 40+ 20 Xeric LLZ Creepi Asian Jasmine; Star ng/Sca Low

Trachelospermum asiaticum Jasmine Ground Cvr 1 ndent Water Outside AOA Tree - Conifer- Non- Outside AOA &

Tsuga canadensis Canadian Hemlock Evergreen 40+ 30 Xeric LLZ Tree - Conifer- Low Outside AOA &

Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock Evergreen 40+ N/A Water LLZ Ground Cvr - Disper

Tulipa hybrida Tulip (All varieties) Herbaceous 2 sal Xeric AOA; LLZ California Bay;

Umbellularia californica Oregon Myrtle Tree 40+ N/A Xeric LLZ Small Inside-Out Low

Vacouveria planipetalap Flower Ground Cvr 2 N/A Water LLZ Dwarf European Shrub- Low

Viburnum opulus nanum Cranberry Bush Deciduous 5 2 Water LLZ Tree-

Zelkova serrata Sawtooth Zelkova Deciduous

Appendix C – Raw Data of Number of Flights the Tocumen International Airport Serves from 2011-2015 (Provided by Tocumen International)

Appendix D – Raw Data of Bird-Strikes involving COPA Airlines from 2013 – 2015 (Provided by COPA Airlines)

Run Altitu Depart Destinat Loc Tail Occurrenc Aircra Flight Flight Even Classification wa de ure ion atio Numb e Type ft Numb Phase t ID y MSL Date Company Occurrence Title Point Point n er Code Type er s Responsibility O140 1/4/2 HP- 737- Appro Copa Bird Strike during app PTY FLT 204 Airport -13 Bird Strike 03R 10 013 Airlines BSB PTY 1714 800 ach (Approach) O115 1/10/ Birdstrike reportado HP- 737- Copa PTY FLT 438 Climb -13 Bird Strike 03R 400 2013 Airlines en Panamá PTY HAV 1377 700 Bird Strike O197 1/12/ HP- 737- Landin with no Copa Bird Strike PTY FLT 668 -13 2013 1524 700 g damage 03R 0 Airlines CLO PTY Bird Strike con daño O724 8/23/ HP- ERJ- Appro Copa durante app MGA- PTY FLT 710 Airport 3-13 2013 1557 190 ach Bird Strike 03R 50 Airlines PTY MGA PTY (Approach) Bird Strike O8- 1/1/2 HP- 737- Appro with no Copa Bird strike PTY FLT 245 Airport 13 013 1530 700 ach damage N/A 70 Airlines VVI PTY (Approach) Bird Strike O418 5/15/ Bird Strike en lado HP- 737- Landin with no Copa PTY FLT 831 0-13 2013 derecho de fuselaje 1532 800 g damage 03R 0 Airlines JFK PTY Bird Strike O443 1/18/ HP- 737- Appro with no Copa Bird Strike during app PTY FLT 305 Airport -13 2013 1378 700 ach damage 03R 100 Airlines IAH PTY (Approach) O105 Bird Strike 10/17 Bird Strike sin daño HP- 737- Landin 55- with no Copa PTY FLT 272 /2013 CM272 GYE PTY 1730 800 g 13 damage 03R 0 Airlines GYE PTY Bird Strike O150 1/30/ Bird Strike with no HP- 737- Appro with no Copa PTY FLT 154 Airport 2-13 2013 damage PTY 1524 700 ach damage 03R 100 Airlines CTG PTY (Approach) Bird Strike O724 8/3/2 HP- 737- Appro with no Copa Bird Strike during app PTY FLT 436 Airport 5-13 013 1534 800 ach damage N/A 100 Airlines LIM PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Landin O378 with no 4/3/2 Copa HP- 737- g 0-14 damage 03R 0 014 Airlines Bird Strike no damage CTG PTY PTY 1377 FLT 700 160 N/A O133 Bird Strike 12/10 HP- 737- Appro 49- with no Copa Bird Strike LIM-PTY PTY FLT 436 Airport /2013 1834 800 ach 13 damage 03R 200 Airlines LIM PTY (Approach) O303 1/15/ HP- 737- Take- Copa Bird Strike at PTY PTY FLT 441 Airport -13 Bird Strike 03L 0 2013 Airlines PTY MIA 1535 800 off (Takeoff) O269 3/30/ Bird Strike y RTO a HP- 737- Take- O3 Copa PTY FLT 472 Airport 9-13 Bird Strike R 0 2013 Airlines 135 kts PTY LAX 1823 800 off (Takeoff) Bird Strike O341 4/23/ Bird Strike en ventana HP- 737- Take- with no Copa PTY FLT 334 Airport 5-13 2013 frontal sin daños 1536 800 off damage 03L 0 Airlines PTY MIA (Takeoff) O133 Bird Strike 12/24 Bird Strike PTY sin HP- 737- Take- 48- with no Copa PTY FLT 488 /2013 daño 1375 700 off 13 damage 03R 0 Airlines PTY IAD Bird Strike O438 5/30/ Impacto con ave en HP- 737- Take- with no Copa PTY FLT 249 Airport 7-13 2013 carrera 1727 800 off damage 03L 0 Airlines PTY HAV (Takeoff) Bird Strike y O728 8/25/ HP- 737- Take- Copa cancelación de vuelo PTY FLT 120 Airport 0-13 2013 1526 800 off Bird Strike 03R 0 Airlines PTY-MEX-PTY PTY MEX (Takeoff) O103 Copa 10/11 HP- ERJ- Take- 65- Airlines Bird Strike - Take Off PTY FLT-P5 645 Airport /2013 1566 190 off 13 Bird Strike 03L 0 Colombia PTY CLO (Takeoff) Bird Strike Take- O727 with no 1/26/ Copa HP- ERJ- Airport off -14 damage 03R 0 2014 Airlines Bird strike PTY SAL PTY 1557 FLT 190 870 (Takeoff) Bird Strike Copa O841 HP- 737- Landin with no 8/1/2 Airlines Bird Strike - Landing - PTY FLT-P5 642 1-14 1372 700 g damage 03R 0 014 Colombia PTY MDE PTY N/A O113 Bird Strike Landin 49- with no 10/20 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- g 14 damage 03L 0 /2014 Airlines Landing PTY EZE PTY PTY 1823 FLT 800 278 N/A Bird Strike Copa O289 4/4/2 Bird strike with no HP- ERJ- with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 677 Climb 7-13 013 damage 1557 190 damage 03R 2000 Colombia PTY CLO Take- O158 Bird Strike 2/17/ Copa HP- 737- Airport 7-14 21L 0 2014 Airlines Bird Strike at T/O PTY SCL PTY 1717 FLT 800 175 off (Takeoff) Bird Strike O283 4/6/2 HP- 737- with no Copa Bird strike no damage PTY FLT 716 N/A 8-13 013 1526 800 damage N/A NULL Airlines MAR PTY Bird Strike Copa O687 8/1/2 Bird ingestion - HP- ERJ- Landin with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 650 7-13 013 Engine #2 1566 190 g damage 03R 10 Colombia BOG PTY Bird Strike Airport O270 3/28/ Bird Strike con HP- 737- Appro with no Copa PTY FLT 209 Proximity 0-13 2013 parámetros normales 1533 800 ach damage 03R 300 Airlines CUN PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Copa O406 HP- ERJ- Take- with no 4/12/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 536 Airport 5-14 1562 190 off damage 03L 0 2014 Colombia Bird Strike Take-Off PTY SJO (Takeoff) Bird Strike Bird Strike with no Airport O961 10/3/ HP- 737- Appro with no Copa damage CM130 LIM- PTY FLT 130 Proximity 5-13 2013 1380 700 ach damage 03R 300 Airlines PTY LIM PTY (Approach) O329 4/19/ HP- 737- Taxi- Copa Bird strike HP-1826 PTY FLT 112 5-13 Bird Strike N/A NULL 2013 Airlines SCL PTY 1826 800 out Bird Strike Bird Strike during Airport O974 10/5/ HP- 737- Appro with no Copa approach CM227 PTY FLT 227 Proximity 0-13 2013 1725 800 ach damage 03R 300 Airlines MIA-PTY MIA PTY (Approach)

O133 Bird Strike 4/23/ HP- 737- 51- with no Copa Bird Strike PTY-SJO PTY FLT 192 Climb 2013 1716 800 13 damage 03L NULL Airlines PTY SJO03L Bird Strike Copa O496 HK- ERJ- Take- with no 4/30/ Airlines Bird Strike Take-Off PTY FLT-P5 518 Airport 2-14 4601 190 off damage 03L 0 2014 Colombia PTY PTY PUJ (Takeoff) O344 4/23/ Bird Strike con daño HP- 737- Copa PTY FLT 478 Climb 3-13 Bird Strike 03L 2700 2013 Airlines PTY PTY MCO 1713 800 Bird Strike Copa O348 4/23/ Bird strike with no HP- 737- with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 643 Climb 3-13 2013 damage 1371 700 damage 03L 9000 Colombia PTY MDE Bird Strike O361 4/23/ Bird strike no damage HP- 737- with no Copa PTY FLT 470 Climb 2-13 2013 PTY 1724 800 damage 03L 50 Airlines PTY YYZ O125 Bird Strike 12/2/ Birdstrike pty HP- 737- Landin 11- with no Copa PTY FLT 227 2013 1/DEC/13 1723 800 g 13 damage 3r 20 Airlines MIA PTY O359 4/29/ HP- ERJ- Copa Bird strike PTY FLT 870 Climb 1-13 Bird Strike 03L 11000 2013 Airlines PTY SAL 1540 190 O125 Bird Strike Copa Airport HK- ERJ- Appro 32- with no 11/22 Airlines Bird Strike - Landing - PTY FLT-P5 646 Proximity 4560 190 ach 14 damage 03L 300 /2014 Colombia PTY MDE PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Copa Bird strike with no O375 5/3/2 HP- 737- with no Airlines damage during initial PTY FLT-P5 629 Climb 6-13 013 1373 700 damage 03R 3500 Colombia climb PTY BOG Bird Strike Copa O201 HP- ERJ- Landin with no 2/26/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 530 3-14 1562 190 g damage 03R 28 2014 Colombia Bird strike- Landing MDE PTY N/A Bird Strike Copa O559 HK- ERJ- Take- with no 5/12/ Airlines Bird Strike Take-off - PTY FLT-P5 518 Airport 1-14 4505 190 off damage 03L 0 2014 Colombia PTY PTY PUJ (Takeoff) O131 Airport Appro 63- Bird Strike 12/14 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- Proximity ach 14 03R 300 /2014 Airlines - PTY CUN PTY PTY 1711 FLT 800 317 (Approach) Bird Strike O379 5/8/2 HP- 737- Desce with no Copa bird strike PTY FLT 831 9-13 013 1727 800 nt damage 03L 6500 Airlines JFK PTY O392 5/13/ Bird Strike y ATB por HP- 737- Taxi- Copa PTY FLT 277 0-13 Bird Strike 03R 7000 2013 Airlines golondrina en APU PTY SCL 1726 800 out Bird Strike Copa Bird strike with no O382 4/28/ HP- ERJ- Landin with no Airlines damage during PTY FLT-P5 676 3-13 2013 1556 190 g damage 03R 30 Colombia landing CLO PTY O415 5/20/ Bird Strike with HP- 737- Copa PTY FLT 138 N/A 0-13 Bird Strike 03L 0 2013 Airlines Damage PTY MEX 1722 800 Bird Strike Copa O884 HK- ERJ- Landin with no 8/14/ Airlines Bird Strike Landing PTY FLT-P5 686 7-14 4453 190 g damage 03R 30 2014 Colombia PTY GYE PTY N/A Bird Strike Airport O630 7/23/ Bird Strike with no HP- ERJ- Appro with no Copa PTY FLT 103 Proximity 1-13 2013 damage 1558 190 ach damage 03R 400 Airlines PAP PTY (Approach) O102 10/6/ Bird Strike at landing HP- 737- Landin 08- Copa PTY FLT 135 2013 CM135 MEX-PTY 1720 800 g 13 Bird Strike 03R 50 Airlines MEX PTY O130 Bird Strike Landin 66- with no 12/4/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R 50 2014 Airlines PTY LIM PTY PTY 1532 FLT 800 492 N/A O509 6/26/ BIRDSTRIKE A LA HP- 737- Copa PTY FLT 162 N/A 1-13 Bird Strike N/A NULL 2013 Airlines LLEGADA A PTY PTY SJO 1526 800 Landin O752 Bird Strike 6/23/ Copa HP- 737- 9-14 03R 70 2014 Airlines Bird Strike MIA PTY PTY 1714 FLT 800 227 g N/A Bird Strike Landin O621 with no 5/8/2 Copa Bird Strike on landing HP- ERJ- g 3-14 damage 03R 80 014 Airlines PTY POS PTY PTY 1560 FLT 190 315 N/A Bird Strike O141 1/29/ Bird Strike with no HP- 737- Landin with no Copa PTY FLT 758 2-13 2013 damage PTY 1824 800 g damage 03R 100 Airlines GRU PTY Bird Strike Copa Bird strike with no O554 7/12/ HK- ERJ- Take- with no Airlines damage during take- PTY FLT-P5 645 Airport 0-13 2013 4560 190 off damage 03R 98 Colombia off PTY CLO (Takeoff) Bird Strike Airport Appro O284 with no 3/12/ Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- Proximity ach 5-14 damage 03R 400 2014 Airlines approach PTY BSB PTY PTY 1712 FLT 800 204 (Approach) Bird Strike Copa Airport O407 HP- 737- Appro with no 4/9/2 Airlines PTY FLT-P5 658 Proximity 0-14 1376 700 ach damage 03R 400 014 Colombia Bird strike - App BOG PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Bird Strike with not O428 5/26/ HP- 737- Take- with no Copa damage during take PTY FLT 175 Airport 0-13 2013 1822 800 off damage 03R 100 Airlines off PTY PTY SCL (Takeoff) O108 Bird Strike 10/26 Bird strike CM764 HP- 737- Landin 67- with no Copa PTY FLT 764 /2013 CNF-PTY 1834 800 g 13 damage 3R 100 Airlines CNF PTY Bird Strike Copa O762 HK- ERJ- Landin with no 7/5/2 Airlines Bird Strike-Landing- PTY FLT-P5 674 9-14 4454 190 g damage 03R 100 014 Colombia PTY BAQ PTY N/A Bird Strike Airport O987 10/8/ Bird Strike CM195 HP- 737- Appro with no Copa PTY FLT 195 Proximity 5-13 2013 MEX-PTY 1716 800 ach damage 03R 500 Airlines MEX PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Copa Bird strike with no Airport O658 8/2/2 HP- ERJ- Appro with no Airlines damage during PTY FLT-P5 618 Proximity 7-13 013 1562 190 ach damage 03R 600 Colombia approach BGA PTY (Approach) Bird Strike Copa O432 5/30/ Bird strike with no HK- ERJ- Take- with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 612 Airport 9-13 2013 damage during lift-off 4507X 190 off damage 03L 100 Colombia PTY PUJ (Takeoff) Bird Strike O903 9/22/ Bird strike with no HP- 737- Take- with no Copa PTY FLT 703 Airport 7-13 2013 damage PTY 1833 800 off damage 03R 100 Airlines PTY GRU (Takeoff) O128 Bird Strike Bird strike with no 12/11 HP- 737- Take- 94- with no Copa damage during the PTY FLT 240 Airport /2013 1378 700 off 13 damage 03L 100 Airlines take off roll in PTY PTY MCO (Takeoff)

Bird Strike O724 8/8/2 HP- 737- with no Copa Bird Strike sin daño PTY FLT 251 Climb 6-13 013 1534 800 damage 03R 0 Airlines PTY VLN Bird Strike O858 9/9/2 Bird Strike with no HP- 737- Landin with no Copa PTY FLT 250 2-13 013 damage PTY 1532 800 g damage 03R 151 Airlines VLN PTY O483 6/17/ HP- 737- Landin Copa Bird Strike PTY FLT 354 8-13 Bird Strike N/A 180 2013 Airlines CUN PTY 1526 800 g O139 2/22/ Bird Strike en ala HP- 737- Landin Copa PTY FLT 114 2-13 Bird Strike 3R 400 2013 Airlines izquierda GIG PTY 1827 800 g Bird Strike O750 8/16/ HP- 737- with no Copa Bird Strike PTY FLT 277 Climb 4-13 2013 1829 800 damage 03R 5000 Airlines PTY SCL O723 8/19/ Bird Strike en HP- 737- Copa PTY FLT 166 N/A 3-13 Bird Strike N/A NULL 2013 Airlines estabilizador HP-1370 PTY HAV 1370 700 O117 Bird Strike Copa 8/22/ Bird Strike - Initial HP- ERJ- 97- with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 645 Climb 2013 Climb 1562 190 13 damage 03L NULL Colombia PTY CLO Bird Strike Airport O956 9/29/ Bird Strike CM227 HP- 737- Appro with no Copa PTY FLT 227 Proximity 3-13 2013 MIA-PTY 1728 800 ach damage 03R 900 Airlines MIA PTY (Approach) O299 4/1/2 Bird Strike en engine HP- 737- Landin Copa PTY FLT 831 2-13 Bird Strike 03R 400 013 Airlines #1 JFK PTY 1730 800 g O114 Bird Strike Take- 38- with no 10/21 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- Airport off 14 damage 03L 100 /2014 Airlines Take Off PTY PTY MIA PTY 1839 FLT 800 441 (Takeoff) Bird Strike O288 12/24 HP- 737- Take- with no Copa CMP808 Bird Strike PTY FLT 808 Airport -14 /2013 1526 800 off damage 03L 135 Airlines PTY JFK (Takeoff) O463 6/10/ Impacto con ave en HP- 737- Landin Copa PTY FLT 209 2-13 Bird Strike 03R 400 2013 Airlines aproximación CUN PTY 1826 800 g Bird Strike Copa O885 HP- ERJ- Take- with no 8/17/ Airlines BIRD STRIKE-Take Off- PTY FLT-P5 645 Airport 5-14 1566 190 off damage 03R 135 2014 Colombia PTY PTY CLO (Takeoff) O387 5/4/2 HP- 737- Landin Copa Bird Strike con daño PTY FLT 225 1-13 Bird Strike 03R 500 013 Airlines CCS PTY 1713 800 g O120 Bird Strike 11/25 HP- 737- Take- 61- with no Copa BIRD STRIKE PTY-CCS PTY FLT 223 Airport /2013 1720 800 off 13 damage 03R 150 Airlines PTY CCS (Takeoff) Bird Strike O878 9/18/ Bird Strike CM140 HP- ERJ- Landin with no Copa PTY FLT 140 9-13 2013 PTY 1540 190 g damage 03R 500 Airlines MAO PTY Bird Strike Take- O402 with no 4/10/ Copa HP- 737- Airport off 6-14 damage 03L 200 2014 Airlines Bisrdstrike PTY SJU PTY 1380 FLT 700 168 (Takeoff) O102 Bird Strike 10/8/ Bird strike at T/OFF HP- 737- Take- 14- with no Copa PTY FLT 725 Airport 2013 CM725 PTYT-GRU 1822 800 off 13 damage 03L 300 Airlines PTY GRU (Takeoff) Bird Strike O936 9/24/ Bird strike with no HP- 737- with no Copa PTY FLT 157 Climb 4-13 2013 damage PTY 5,000ft 1520 700 damage 03L 5000 Airlines PTY PEI Bird Strike O936 9/24/ Bird Strike with no HP- 737- with no Copa PTY FLT 113 Climb 5-13 2013 damage PTY 8,000ft 1725 800 damage 21L 8000 Airlines PTY GIG Bird Strike Take- O675 with no 6/1/2 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- Airport off 4-14 damage 03L 300 014 Airlines Take off PTY PTY MEX PTY 1728 FLT 800 138 (Takeoff) Bird Strike Copa O929 9/25/ HK- ERJ- with no Airlines Bird Strike PTY FLT-P5 268 Climb 3-13 2013 4559 190 damage N/A NULL Colombia PTY SDQ Bird Strike O770 8/28/ Bird Strike sin daños HP- 737- Take- with no Copa PTY FLT 283 Airport 4-13 2013 PTY-MVD 1539 800 off damage 3R 350 Airlines PTY MVD (Takeoff) O102 Bird Strike con daño 10/15 HP- ERJ- Take- 44- Copa en el radome CM168 PTY FLT 168 Airport /2013 1564 190 off 13 Bird Strike 03L 400 Airlines PTY-SJU PTY SJU (Takeoff) Bird Strike O960 9/29/ Bird Strike with no HP- ERJ- with no Copa PTY FLT 155 Climb 9-13 2013 damage PTY 1567 190 damage N/A 3000 Airlines PTY CTG Bird Strike O956 9/30/ Bird Strike CM700 HP- 737- Taxi- with no Copa PTY FLT 700 5-13 2013 GRU-PTY 1823 800 out damage 21R 0 Airlines GRU PTY Bird Strike Bird Strike with no O984 10/2/ HP- 737- with no Copa damage CM448 PTY- PTY FLT 448 Climb 1-13 2013 1525 700 damage 03L 9100 Airlines SDQ PTY SDQ Bird Strike O266 3/22/ HP- 737- Appro Out of airport with no Copa Bird strike PTY FLT 326 0-13 2013 1526 800 ach (Approach) damage 03R 1300 Airlines CUN PTY O658 8/8/2 HP- 737- Take- Copa ATB por Bird Strike PTY FLT 761 Airport 8-13 Bird Strike 03R 500 013 Airlines PTY LIM 1720 800 off (Takeoff) Bird Strike O971 10/5/ Bird strike during HP- 737- with no Copa PTY FLT 157 Climb 4-13 2013 climb CM157 PTY-PEI 1521 700 damage 03L 4500 Airlines PTY PEI Bird Strike Copa O820 HK- ERJ- Landin with no 7/26/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 501 7-14 4456 190 g damage 03L 500 2014 Colombia Bird strike-App- PTY ADZ PTY N/A O105 Bird Strike 10/22 Bird strike CM160 HP- ERJ- Landin 64- with no Copa PTY FLT 160 /2013 CTG-PTY 1559 190 g 13 damage 03R 700 Airlines CTG PTY Bird Strike Landin O807 with no 7/23/ Copa HP- 737- g 0-14 damage 03R 700 2014 Airlines Bird Strike POA PTY PTY 1722 FLT 800 408 N/A O110 Bird Strike with Airport 11/4/ HP- 737- Take- 79- Copa damage during T/Off PTY FLT 279 Proximity 2013 1821 800 off 13 Bird Strike 21L 800 Airlines CM279 PTY PTY EZE (Takeoff) Bird Strike Copa O191 HK- ERJ- Appro Out of airport with no 2/21/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 553 5-14 4599 190 ach (Approach) damage 03R 1500 2014 Colombia Bird Strike- App SAP PTY

Bird Strike Airport O206 2/22/ HP- 737- Take- with no Copa Bird Strike sin daño PTY FLT 235 Proximity 2-13 2013 1723 800 off damage 03R 1000 Airlines PTY ORD (Takeoff) O133 Bird Strike 10/9/ HP- 737- Desce 52- with no Copa Bird Strike SCL-PTY PTY FLT 174 2013 1823 800 nt 13 damage 03R 500 Airlines SCL PTY O111 Bird Strike Airport 10/28 BIRD STRIKE WITH NO HP- 737- Take- 35- with no Copa PTY FLT 211 Proximity /2013 DAMAGE CM211 PTY 1526 800 off 13 damage 03R 1200 Airlines PTY UIO (Takeoff) O434 5/14/ HP- 737- Landin Copa Bird Strike PTY FLT 435 5-13 Bird Strike 03R 1000 2013 Airlines MCO PTY 1536 800 g O121 Bird Strike Copa HP- ERJ- Appro Out of airport 18- with no 11/11 Airlines Bird Strike - PTY FLT-P5 537 1556 190 ach (Approach) 14 damage 03L 1500 /2014 Colombia Approach- PTY SJO PTY O106 Bird Strike Copa 10/23 HK- ERJ- Appro Out of airport 24- with no Airlines Bird Strike - App PTY FLT-P5 530 /2013 4506X 190 ach (Approach) 13 damage 03R 2000 Colombia MDE PTY O104 10/17 Bird Strike CM324 HP- 737- 91- Copa PTY FLT 324 N/A /2013 PTY-CUN (Dent) 1536 800 13 Bird Strike N/A NULL Airlines PTY CUN O105 Bird Strike 10/18 Birdstrike no damge HP- 737- Desce 41- with no Copa PTY FLT 473 /2013 CM473 LAX-PTY 1826 800 nt 13 damage 3R 5000 Airlines LAX PTY Appro Out of airport O223 Bird Strike 1/31/ Copa HP- 737- 7-14 N/A 2100 2014 Airlines Bird Strike JFK PTY PTY 1521 FLT 700 807 ach (Approach) Bird Strike Airport O275 3/22/ HP- 737- Take- with no Copa Bird Strike sin daño PTY FLT 136 Proximity 2-13 2013 1823 800 off damage 03L 1400 Airlines PTY MEX (Takeoff) O108 Bird Strike Bird strike with no 10/27 HP- 737- Taxi- 03- with no Copa damage during taxi PTY FLT 111 /2013 1833 800 out 13 damage N/A NULL Airlines PTY PTY SCL Bird Strike at take off O169 3/6/2 HP- 737- Take- Out of airport Copa - AOG when arrive to PTY FLT 765 7-13 013 1717 800 off (Takeoff) Bird Strike 03R 2000 Airlines final destination PTY CNF Bird Strike O319 4/15/ Bird Strike CMP430 HP- 737- Take- Out of airport with no Copa PTY FLT 430 7-13 2013 15APR13. 1713 800 off (Takeoff) damage 03L 2000 Airlines PTY MIA O110 Bird Strike 10/31 Bird strike CM314 HP- ERJ- 93- with no Copa PTY FLT 314 Climb /2013 PTY-POS 1559 190 13 damage 03R 4000 Airlines PTY POS Bird Strike O619 7/30/ Bird Strike during the HP- 737- Take- Out of airport with no Copa PTY FLT 136 9-13 2013 take off 1722 800 off (Takeoff) damage 03L 2000 Airlines PTY MEX O111 Bird Strike 11/3/ BIRD STRIKE No HP- 737- 11- with no Copa PTY FLT 391 Climb 2013 Damage CM391 PTY 1530 700 13 damage 03R 5000 Airlines PTY SJO O109 Bird Strike Take- Out of airport 66- with no 10/6/ Copa Bird Strike - Take Off - HP- 737- off (Takeoff) 14 damage 03R 2500 2014 Airlines PTY PTY JFK PTY 1534 FLT 800 808 O278 3/30/ HP- 737- Landin Copa Bird Strike con daño PTY FLT 473 1-13 Bird Strike N/A NULL 2013 Airlines LAX PTY 1728 800 g O133 Bird Strike 11/8/ HP- 737- Desce 50- with no Copa Bird Strike PTY FLT 872 2013 1823 800 nt 13 damage 03R NULL Airlines GIG PTY Bird Strike Copa O805 8/31/ Birdstrike in HK- ERJ- Appro Out of airport with no Airlines PTY FLT-P5 676 8-13 2013 Approach 4507X 190 ach (Approach) damage 03R 2500 Colombia CLO PTY Bird Strike O961 9/30/ Bird Strike with no HP- 737- Take- Out of airport with no Copa PTY FLT 138 0-13 2013 damage 1831 800 off (Takeoff) damage 03L 2800 Airlines PTY MEX O116 Copa 11/18 Bird Strike - Initial HP- ERJ- 81- Airlines PTY FLT-P5 644 Climb /2013 Climb 1562 190 13 Bird Strike 03L 100 Colombia PTY STI O104 Bird Strike Appro Out of airport 98- with no 9/26/ Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach (Approach) 14 damage 03R 2800 2014 Airlines - PTY SJU PTY PTY 1535 FLT 800 143 O114 Bird Strike Take- Out of airport 39- with no 10/21 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- off (Takeoff) 14 damage 03L 3200 /2014 Airlines Take Off PTY PTY MEX PTY 1539 FLT 800 194 O108 10/25 Impacto con Ave HP- ERJ- Take- Out of airport 14- Copa PTY FLT 722 /2013 CM722 PTY-GDL 1565 190 off (Takeoff) 13 Bird Strike 03R 4000 Airlines PTY GDL O126 Bird Strike 11/27 Bird Strike during HP- 737- 12- with no Copa PTY FLT 120 Climb /2013 climb PTY 1723 800 13 damage 03L 18000 Airlines PTY MEX Bird Strike O417 5/26/ HP- 737- Landin with no Copa Bird Strike en PTY PTY FLT 300 6-13 2013 1712 800 g damage N/A NULL Airlines GYE PTY Bird Strike Copa Bird strike with no O518 6/29/ HK- ERJ- Landin with no Airlines damage during PTY FLT-P5 676 3-13 2013 4559 190 g damage 3R NULL Colombia landing CLO PTY O109 Bird Strike Appro Out of airport 96- with no 10/12 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach (Approach) 14 damage N/A 3000 /2014 Airlines - PTY SJO PTY PTY 1536 FLT 800 796 O110 Bird Strike Copa HK- ERJ- Appro Out of airport 16- with no 10/9/ Airlines Bird Strike - Approach PTY FLT-P5 213 4453 190 ach (Approach) 14 damage 03R 4000 2014 Colombia - PTY AUA PTY

O269 3/29/ Bird Strike sin daño HP- 737- Take- Bird Strike PTY FLT 2470 8-13 2013 en radome 1523 800 off with no Copa damage N/A NULL Airlines PTY YYZ N/A O133 Bird Strike Appro Out of airport 44- with no 11/26 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach (Approach) 14 damage 03R 4000 /2014 Airlines - PTY GIG PTY PTY 1840 FLT 800 872

O326 4/9/2 Bird strike en app PTY HP- 737- Appro Out of airport Bird Strike PTY FLT 135 3-13 013 without damage. 1724 800 ach (Approach) with no Copa damage 03R 5000 Airlines MEX PTY

Bird strike with no O388 5/11/ HP- ERJ- Take- Bird Strike Copa damage during take PTY FLT-P5 635 8-13 2013 1556 190 off with no Airlines off damage 03L NULL Colombia PTY BAQ N/A O642 8/5/2 HP- ERJ- Take- Copa ATB por Bird Strike PTY FLT 438 7-13 Bird Strike 03R NULL 013 Airlines PTY HAV 1569 190 off N/A

O658 7/31/ Bird strike with no HP- 737- Landin Bird Strike Copa PTY FLT-P5 622 4-13 2013 damage 1371 700 g with no Airlines damage 03R NULL Colombia BOG PTY

O223 Bird Strike 3/6/2 Copa Bird Strike PTY- HP- ERJ- Climb 6-14 03L 3100 014 Airlines aeronave AOG PTY PUJ PTY 1569 FLT 190 150 N/A

O671 8/10/ Bird Strike detectado HP- ERJ- Landin PTY FLT 107 3-13 2013 durante 360° 1561 190 g Copa Bird Strike 03R NULL Airlines SDQ PTY Bird Strike Copa O366 HP- ERJ- with no 3/29/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 677 Climb 7-14 1566 190 damage 03R 2000 2014 Colombia bird strike Take-Off PTY CLO N/A

O670 8/11/ Multiple bird strikes HP- 737- Landin Bird Strike Copa PTY FLT-P5 532 8-13 2013 during landing 1371 700 g with no Airlines damage 03R NULL Colombia MDE PTY Bird Strike Copa O389 HP- ERJ- with no 4/6/2 Airlines BIRD STRIKE - Take PTY FLT-P5 635 Climb 0-14 1566 190 damage 03R NULL 014 Colombia Off PTY BAQ N/A Bird Strike Copa O941 9/29/ HP- ERJ- Take- with no Airlines Bird Strike - Rotation PTY FLT-P5 610 1-13 2013 1562 190 off damage 3L NULL Colombia PTY ADZ N/A Bird Strike Copa O419 HK- ERJ- with no 4/11/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 518 N/A 8-14 4454 190 damage N/A NULL 2014 Colombia Bird Strike- Parked PTY PUJ N/A Bird Strike Copa O473 HK- ERJ- with no 4/25/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 615 Climb 5-14 4601 190 damage 03L 1000 2014 Colombia Bird strike Climb PTY PTY CLO N/A Bird Strike O705 8/12/ Bird Strike during HP- 737- Landin with no Copa PTY FLT 716 5-13 2013 landing 1712 800 g damage 21R NULL Airlines MAR PTY O727 8/25/ HP- 737- Landin Copa Bird Strike MIA-PTY PTY FLT 440 9-13 Bird Strike N/A NULL 2013 Airlines MIA PTY 1714 800 g Bird Strike Copa O516 HK- ERJ- Desce with no 5/4/2 Airlines Bird strike during PTY FLT-P5 155 0-14 4456 190 nt damage 03L NULL 014 Colombia initial climb PTY PTY CTG N/A O107 Bird Strike Copa 10/25 HP- 737- Landin 06- with no Airlines Bird Strike- Landing PTY FLT-P5 678 /2013 1376 700 g 13 damage 03r NULL Colombia MDE PTY O117 Bird Strike Copa 11/14 HK- ERJ- Landin 85- with no Airlines Bird Strike - Landing PTY FLT-P5 319 /2013 4454 190 g 13 damage 3R NULL Colombia GUA PTY O120 Bird Strike Copa 11/27 HP- ERJ- Landin 63- with no Airlines Bird Strike- Landing PTY FLT-P5 650 /2013 1562 190 g 13 damage 03R NULL Colombia BOG PTY

O363 4/30/ Bird strike with no HK- ERJ- Appro Bird Strike Copa PTY FLT-P5 687 9-13 2013 damage 4508X 190 ach with no Airlines damage 03R NULL Colombia CTG PTY N/A

O387 5/5/2 Bird Strike con daño HP- 737- Appro PTY FLT 166 2-13 013 aeronave aog 1531 700 ach Copa Bird Strike N/A NULL Airlines REC PTY N/A

O728 8/25/ Bird Strike en app HP- 737- Appro PTY FLT 276 1-13 2013 SCL-PTY-LAX 1822 800 ach Copa Bird Strike N/A NULL Airlines SCL PTY N/A Bird Strike O873 with no 6/28/ Copa HP- 737- Climb 1-14 damage 03L NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY MCO PTY 1375 FLT 700 446 N/A Bird Strike Copa O472 HP- ERJ- Landin with no 4/26/ Airlines Bird Strike Landing PTY FLT-P5 687 0-14 1562 190 g damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia PTY CTG PTY N/A Bird Strike Taxi- O999 with no 7/17/ Copa Bird Strike - Taxi Out - HP- 737- out 7-14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY CUN PTY 1730 FLT 800 316 N/A O128 Bird Strike Landin 63- with no 5/3/2 Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL 014 Airlines PTY MIA PTY PTY 1713 FLT 800 491 N/A O128 Bird Strike Landin 61- with no 5/16/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY SJO PTY PTY 1535 FLT 800 796 N/A Take- O159 Bird Strike 2/18/ Copa Bird Srike con daño HP- 737- 4-14 N/A NULL 2014 Airlines PTY ASU en motor PTY ASU PTY 1713 FLT 800 207 off N/A Desce O873 Bird Strike 7/28/ Copa HP- 737- 2-14 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike LIM PTY PTY 1539 FLT 800 492 nt N/A O128 Bird Strike Landin 62- with no 5/30/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- ERJ- g 14 damage 03L NULL 2014 Airlines PTY MTY PTY PTY 1565 FLT 190 263 N/A Bird Strike Copa O697 HP- 737- Landin with no 6/9/2 Airlines Bird Strike Landing PTY FLT-P5 622 8-14 1374 700 g damage 03R NULL 014 Colombia PTY BOG PTY N/A Bird Strike Copa O825 HK- ERJ- Landin with no 7/24/ Airlines Bird Strike Landing - PTY FLT-P5 676 6-14 4559 190 g damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia PTY CLO PTY N/A

Bird Strike O927 with no 8/12/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 7-14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike SCL PTY PTY 1833 FLT 800 276 N/A O100 Bird Strike Landin 43- with no 7/26/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PUJ PTY PTY 1521 FLT 700 150 N/A Bird Strike Take- O442 with no 4/8/2 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- off 0-14 damage 03L NULL 014 Airlines take off PTY PTY GYE PTY 1539 FLT 800 301 N/A O100 Landin 40- Bird Strike 7/29/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY LIM PTY PTY 1838 FLT 800 436 N/A Take- O481 Bird Strike 4/28/ Copa ATB - Impacto de ave HP- 737- 2-14 N/A NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY IAD PTY 1373 FLT 700 304 off N/A Bird Strike Copa O647 HP- ERJ- Take- with no 5/31/ Airlines Bird Strike - Take Off- PTY FLT-P5 683 7-14 1563 190 off damage N/A NULL 2014 Colombia PTY PTY BOG N/A O100 Take- 02- Bird Strike 7/17/ Copa Bird Strike - Take off - HP- 737- off 14 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY JFK PTY 1822 FLT 800 NA N/A O100 Bird Strike Landin 11- with no 7/30/ Copa Bird Strike -Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY SDQ PTY 1838 FLT 800 308 N/A Bird Strike Take- O946 with no 8/23/ Copa HP- 737- off 2-14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY UIO PTY 1837 FLT 800 159 N/A Bird Strike Landin O921 with no 8/11/ Copa HP- 737- g 3-14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike CCS PTY PTY 1370 FLT 700 220 N/A Bird Strike Copa O981 HP- ERJ- with no 9/10/ Airlines Bird Strike Initial PTY FLT-P5 647 Climb 4-14 1562 190 damage 03L 1200 2014 Colombia Climb PTY PTY MDE N/A Bird Strike Copa O910 HP- ERJ- Landin with no 8/22/ Airlines Bird Strike- Landing- PTY FLT-P5 676 5-14 1557 190 g damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia PTY CLO PTY N/A Bird Strike Take- O971 with no 8/31/ Copa HP- 737- off 6-14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY IAD PTY 1370 FLT 700 488 N/A O128 Bird Strike Copa HP- ERJ- 56- with no 9/15/ Airlines Bird Strike - Climb - PTY FLT-P5 647 Climb 1562 190 14 damage 03L NULL 2014 Colombia PTY PTY MDE N/A O106 Bird Strike 29- with no 9/17/ Copa Bird Strike - Climb - HP- 737- Climb 14 damage 03L NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY HAV PTY 1538 FLT 800 230 N/A O138 Bird Strike Copa Bird Strikes during HP- 737- Take- 49- with no 9/2/2 PTY GYE PTY FLT 301 Airlines the take off PTY GYE 1729 800 off 14 damage 03L NULL 014 N/A O110 48- Bird Strike 9/23/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 14 N/A 110 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY PTY PUJ PTY 1838 FLT 800 110 N/A O106 Bird Strike 30- with no 9/24/ Copa Bird Strike - Initial HP- ERJ- Climb 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Climb - PTY PTY SJO PTY 1568 FLT 190 162 N/A O104 Bird Strike Copa HP- 737- Desce 95- with no 9/26/ Airlines Bird Strike - Descent- PTY FLT-P5 678 1371 700 nt 14 damage 03R 4000 2014 Colombia PTY MDE PTY N/A O110 Bird Strike 44- with no 9/26/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY POS PTY PTY 1373 FLT 700 365 N/A O110 Bird Strike 52- with no 9/26/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines BIRD STRIKE PTY UIO PTY PTY 1522 FLT 800 158 N/A Bird Strike Copa O980 HP- ERJ- Landin with no 9/10/ Airlines Bird Strike Landing PTY FLT-P5 630 6-14 1562 190 g damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia PTY BAQ PTY N/A O110 Bird Strike 47- with no 9/28/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike PTY PTY REC PTY 1373 FLT 700 403 N/A Bird Strike Copa O200 HP- ERJ- Appro with no 1/10/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 530 -14 1562 190 ach damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia Bird Strike -App MDE PTY N/A Bird Strike Take- O969 with no 9/4/2 Copa Bird Strike - Take Off- HP- ERJ- off 4-14 damage 03R NULL 014 Airlines PTY PTY MAO PTY 1556 FLT 190 141 N/A Bird Strike Appro O403 with no 2/27/ Copa Bird Strike on final HP- 737- ach 7-14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines app MIA-PTY MIA PTY PTY 1833 FLT 800 491 N/A O110 Bird Strike 04- with no 9/30/ Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines flight PTY BSB PTY 1824 FLT 800 297 N/A Bird Strike Take- O996 with no 9/6/2 Copa Bird Strike -.Take-off - HP- 737- off 4-14 damage 03L NULL 014 Airlines PTY PTY MIA PTY 1722 FLT 800 430 N/A O101 Bird Strike Landin 46- with no 9/13/ Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY SXM PTY PTY 1380 FLT 700 133 N/A O128 Bird Strike Copa HK- ERJ- Landin 58- with no 9/20/ Airlines Bird Strike - Landing - PTY FLT-P5 634 4507 190 g 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia PTY CUC PTY N/A O109 54- Bird Strike 10/5/ Copa ATB - Bird Strike - HP- ERJ- Climb 14 03L NULL 2014 Airlines Initial Climb - PTY PTY SAL PTY 1569 FLT 190 410 N/A O110 Bird Strike 07- with no 10/5/ Copa HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines Bird Strike in PTY MIA PTY PTY 1538 FLT 800 173 N/A O110 Bird Strike 08- with no 10/5/ Copa Bird Strike during HP- ERJ- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines approach in PTY GUA PTY PTY 1559 FLT 190 141 N/A O110 Take- 50- Bird Strike 9/17/ Copa HP- ERJ- off 14 N/A NULL 2014 Airlines BIRD STRIKE PTY PTY MTY PTY 1568 FLT 190 262 N/A

O128 Bird Strike Appro 64- with no 4/21/ Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines - PTY SDQ PTY PTY 1524 FLT 700 107 N/A O109 98- Bird Strike 10/11 Copa Bird Strike found in HP- 737- N/A 14 N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY HAV PTY PTY 1841 FLT 800 219 N/A O109 Bird Strike 93- with no 10/12 Copa Bird Strike found in HP- 737- N/A 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY EZE PTY PTY 1840 FLT 800 453 N/A O109 Bird Strike 95- with no 10/12 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- Climb 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines climb in PTY PTY LIM PTY 1534 FLT 800 337 N/A O109 Bird Strike Take- 03- with no 10/3/ Copa Bird Strike - Take Off - HP- 737- off 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines PTY PTY GRU PTY 1824 FLT 800 703 N/A O110 Bird Strike 56- with no 10/13 Copa BIRD STRIKE- INITIAL HP- 737- Climb 14 damage 03R 50 /2014 Airlines CLIMB- PTY PTY COR PTY 1837 FLT 800 101 N/A O113 Bird Strike 23- with no 10/18 Copa Bird Strike - Climb - HP- 737- Climb 14 damage 03R 5000 /2014 Airlines PTY PTY MEX PTY 1717 FLT 800 427 N/A O113 Bird Strike 35- with no 10/19 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- Climb 14 damage N/A 1500 /2014 Airlines Take Off PTY PTY MEX PTY 1538 FLT 800 427 N/A Copa O696 HK- ERJ- Appro Bird Strike 6/13/ Airlines Bird Strike- Landing- PTY FLT-P5 644 6-14 4454 190 ach N/A NULL 2014 Colombia Pty CLO PTY N/A O113 Bird Strike 88- with no 10/20 Copa Bird Strike during app HP- 737- 14 damage 03R 800 /2014 Airlines PTY N/A N/A PTY 1722 FLT 800 115 N/A Bird Strike Copa O717 HK- ERJ- Appro with no 6/22/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 519 5-14 4454 190 ach damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia Bird Strike APP- PTY PUJ PTY N/A O110 Bird Strike Take- 09- with no 10/10 Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- off 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines take-off in PTY PTY SDQ PTY 1375 FLT 700 108 N/A O110 Bird Strike Take- 54- with no 10/13 Copa ATB POR BIRD STRIKE HP- 737- off 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY PTY CCS PTY 1537 FLT 800 221 N/A O138 Bird Strike Appro 46- with no 6/24/ Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Approach PTY BSB PTY PTY 1524 FLT 700 298 N/A O110 Bird Strike Landin 06- with no 10/5/ Copa Bird Srike dirng HP- 737- g 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines landing in PTY LIM PTY PTY 1725 FLT 800 760 N/A O115 Bird Strike Copa HP- 737- 30- with no 10/24 Airlines Bird Strike - Climb - PTY FLT-P5 679 Climb 1372 700 14 damage 03L 7000 /2014 Colombia PTY PTY MDE N/A Bird Strike Copa O876 HK- ERJ- Appro with no 8/10/ Airlines PTY FLT-P5 151 4-14 4559 190 ach damage 03R NULL 2014 Colombia Bird strike-App-PTY PUJ PTY N/A O111 Bird Strike Take- 11- with no 10/14 Copa BIRD STRIKE PTY take HP- 737- off 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines off PTY ASU PTY 1530 FLT 700 291 N/A O116 Bird Strike Copa HP- 737- Take- 35- with no 10/27 Airlines Bird Strike - Take Off - PTY FLT-P5 613 1371 700 off 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Colombia PTY PTY MDE N/A O117 Take- 20- Bird Strike 10/27 Copa Bird Strike - Take off - HP- 737- off 14 N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY PTY MIA PTY 1724 FLT 800 441 N/A O120 Bird Strike 44- with no 11/2/ Copa Bird Strike - Initial HP- 737- Climb 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines Climb - PTY PTY LAX PTY 1838 FLT 800 472 N/A O109 Bird Strike Appro 99- with no 9/29/ Copa Bird Strike during HP- 737- ach 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines appoach to PTY PTY SCL PTY 1838 FLT 800 175 N/A O117 Bird Strike Take- 21- with no 10/28 Copa Bird Strike - Take off - HP- 737- off 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY PTY VVI PTY 1723 FLT 800 127 N/A O113 Bird Strike Appro 52- with no 10/20 Copa Bird Strike during app HP- 737- ach 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY SJU PTY PTY 1375 FLT 700 143 N/A O121 Bird Strike 20- with no 11/11 Copa Bird Strike - Initial HP- 737- Climb 14 damage 03L 800 /2014 Airlines Climb - PTY PTY GDL PTY 1373 FLT 700 722 N/A O114 Bird Strike Appro 40- with no 10/21 Copa Bird Strike during app HP- 737- ach 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY IAD PTY PTY 1378 FLT 700 305 N/A O114 Bird Strike Appro 41- with no 10/21 Copa Bird Strike During App HP- ERJ- ach 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY HAV PTY PTY 1567 FLT 190 437 N/A O123 Bird Strike Copa HK- ERJ- Take- 57- with no 11/17 Airlines Bird Strike - Take Off - PTY FLT-P5 348 4601 190 off 14 damage 03L NULL /2014 Colombia PTY PTY AUA N/A O118 Appro 63- Bird Strike 10/31 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 03L NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY SDQ PTY PTY 1712 FLT 800 557 N/A O121 Bird Strike Appro 16- with no 11/5/ Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL 2014 Airlines - PTY MIA PTY PTY 1721 FLT 800 227 N/A O123 Bird Strike Appro 23- with no 11/11 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY MIA PTY PTY 1725 FLT 800 491 N/A O128 Bird Strike 16- with no 11/28 Copa Bird Strike - Climb - HP- 737- Climb 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines PTY PTY JFK PTY 1828 FLT 800 804 N/A O121 Bird Strike Copa HK- ERJ- Landin 21- with no 11/13 Airlines Bird Strike - Landing - PTY FLT-P5 675 4559 190 g 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Colombia PTY UIO PTY N/A O123 Bird Strike Appro 50- with no 11/14 Copa Bird Strike Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY SJO PTY PTY 1369 FLT 700 459 N/A

O130 Bird Strike Glide Slope alert - Landin 06- with no 11/29 Copa Bird Strike - PTY - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines Landing CUN PTY PTY 1831 FLT 800 317 N/A O128 Bird Strike Take- 85- with no 12/2/ Copa RTO - Bird Strike - HP- 737- off 14 damage N/A NULL 2014 Airlines Take Off - PTY PTY MVD PTY 1725 FLT 800 283 N/A O131 Bird Strike Take- 67- with no 12/12 Copa Bird Strike - Take Off - HP- 737- off 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines PTY PTY SCL PTY 1823 FLT 800 494 N/A O126 Appro 15- Bird Strike 11/21 Copa HP- ERJ- ach 14 N/A NULL /2014 Airlines Bids Strike - PTY MAO PTY PTY 1568 FLT 190 140 N/A O138 Bird Strike Appro 40- with no 12/13 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY UIO PTY PTY 1712 FLT 800 210 N/A O134 Bird Strike Landin 57- with no 12/22 Copa Bird Strike - Landing - HP- 737- g 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines PTY MGA PTY PTY 1531 FLT 700 105 N/A O132 Bird Strike Copa HK- ERJ- Appro 12- with no 12/16 Airlines Bird Strike - Approach PTY FLT-P5 675 4506 190 ach 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Colombia - PTY UIO PTY N/A O135 Bird Strike Appro 38- with no 12/24 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage N/A NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY PUJ PTY PTY 1843 FLT 800 109 N/A O138 Bird Strike Appro 41- with no 12/25 Copa Bird Strike - Approach HP- 737- ach 14 damage 03R NULL /2014 Airlines - PTY UIO PTY PTY 1726 FLT 800 210 N/A

References Anderson, A. (2013, July 9). Pilot Project Summary: Panama Tocumen International Airport. Industry/Government Collaboration Wildlife Hazard Mitigation. Panama City, Panama: Federal Aviation Administration.

A-Z Animals. (2013). Goose. Retrieved from A-Z Animals: http://a-z-animals.com/animals/goose/

Bennett, D. L. (2007). Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. Federal Aviation Administration.

Bouglouan, N. (n.d.). Laridae. Retrieved from Oiseaux-Birds.com: http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/page- laridae-migrations-ang.html

Cedar Lake Ventures Inc. (n.d.). Average Weather for Panama City. Retrieved from WeatherSpark Beta: https://weatherspark.com/averages/32639/Panama-City

Cleary, E. C., & Dolbeer, R. A. (2005). Wildlife Hazard Management at Aiports: A Manual for Airport Personnel. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Condit, R. (2001, May). The Status of the Panama Canal Watershed and Its Biodiversity at the Beginning of the 21st Centery. BioScience, pp. 389-398.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (n.d.). Panama - Country Profile. Retrieved from Convention on Biological Diversity: https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=pa#status

COPA Airlines. (2015, April 18). All COPA Airline Flights Serviced by PTY Between 2011 - 2015 . Panama City, Panama.

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Boeing 737-700. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/detalles-tecnicos-boeing-737- 700.aspx

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Boeing 737-800A. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/detalles-tecnicos-boeing-737- 800a.aspx

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Boeing 737-800B. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/detalles-tecnicos-boeing-737- 800b.aspx

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Embraer 190AR A. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/detalles-tecnicos-embraer- 190ar.aspx

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Embraer 190AR B. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/detalles-tecnicos-embraer- 190ar-b.aspx

COPA Airlines. (n.d.). Fleet. Retrieved from COPA Airlines: http://www.copaair.com/sites/cc/en/nuestros-productos/pages/nuestra-flota.aspx

DeTact Inc. (2014). Aircraft Birdstrike Avoidance Radars. Retrieved from DeTact: http://detect- inc.com/merlin.html

DeVault, T. L., Blackwell, B. F., & Belant, J. L. (2013). Identification and Management of Wildlife Food Resources at Airports. In Wildlife in Airport Environments (pp. 79-88). JHU Press.

Dictionary.com. (2015). airport. Retrieved from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airport

Dolbeer, R. (2013). The History of Wildlife Strikes and Management at Airports. In T. L. DeVault, B. F. Blackwell, & J. L. Belant, Wildlife in Airport Environments (pp. 1-6). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

FAA. (2014, September 03). Wildlife Strike FAQS. Retrieved from Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/faq/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2012, May 21). Wildlife Management. Retrieved from Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/management/

FlightStats. (2015, FlightStats.com). (SEA) Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Overview. Retrieved from FlightStats.com: http://www.flightstats.com/go/Airport/airportDetails.do?airportCode=SEA

Garfors, G. (2014, June 02). 100,000 Flights a Day. Retrieved from Gunnar Garfors: Travel and Media: http://www.garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day.html

Godin, A. J. (2005). Birds At Airports. Retrieved from Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management: http://www.icwdm.org/handbook/birds/birdAirport.asp

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary. (2015). Migration Path. Retrieved from Hawk Mountain Sanctuary: http://www.hawkmountain.org/raptorpedia/migration-path/page.aspx?id=352

Howell Creative Group. (2011). Raptor Research Foundation. Retrieved from Raptors of the World: http://www.raptorresearchfoundation.org/education/raptor-world iFlightPlanner. (2015). Seattle-Tacoma Int Airport Diagram. Retrieved from iFlightPlanner: http://ad.iflightplanner.com/1505/00582AD.PDF

International Civil Aviation Organization. (2015). About ICAO. Retrieved from International Civil Aviation Organization: http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/default.aspx

Kasarda, J. D. (2011, June-July). Big plans for Panama. Airport World, pp. 1-8.

Loomacres Wildlife Management. (2014). Avian Radar. Retrieved from Loomacres Wildlife Management: http://www.airportwildlife.com/radarfactsheet.php

Lopez, N. (2012, March). LRADX.com. Retrieved from New Bird Strike Solution Protects PDF: http://www.lradx.com/pdf/LRAD_Airport_Bird_Control.pdf

Maps of the World, Satellite Images of the World. (n.d.). Map of Protected Areas of Panama. Retrieved from Maps of the World, Satellite Images of the World: http://www.vmapas.com/Americas/Panama/Map_Protected_Areas_Panama.jpg/maps-en.html

Montgomery, S. (2014, September 9). Gull. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/249215/gull

Nicholson, R., & Reed, W. S. (2011). Strategies for Prevention of Bird-Strike Events. Retrieved from Boeing: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/

Port of Seattle. (n.d.). Sea-Tac Airport's Comprehensive Program for Wildlife Management. Retrieved from Port of Seattle : http://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Water-Wetlands- Wildlife/Pages/Wildlife-Management.aspx

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. (2015). Landscaping Zones at STIA. Retrieved from Port of Seattle: http://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Water-Wetlands-Wildlife/Documents/wildlife- plantingzones.pdf

SKYbrary. (2014, March 26). Aircraft Certification for Bird Strike Risk. Retrieved from SKYbrery Web Site: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Aircraft_Certification_for_Bird_Strike_Risk#Airframe_Cert ification_Standards

SRC. (2015). BSTAR Avian Surveillance and Warning System. Retrieved from SRC: http://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/radar-and-sensors/bstar-avian-radar.html

Star Alliance. (n.d.). Copa Airlines. Retrieved from Star Alliance: http://www.staralliance.com/en/about/airlines/copa_airlines/

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Barn Owl. Retrieved from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Barn_Owl/id

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Barn Swallow. Retrieved from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Barn_Owl/id

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Black Vulture. Retrieved from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/black_vulture/lifehistory

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Ring-billed Gull. Retrieved from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ring-billed_Gull/lifehistory

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Turkey Vulture. Retrieved from The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/black_vulture/lifehistory

The Peregrine Fund. (n.d.). Beak. Retrieved from The Peregrine Fund: http://www.peregrinefund.org/learn/explore-raptors-feature/Beak

The Peregrine Fund. (n.d.). Explore Raptors. Retrieved from The Peregrine Fund: http://www.peregrinefund.org/explore-raptors

The Peregrine Fund. (n.d.). Talons. Retrieved from The Peregrine Fund: http://www.peregrinefund.org/learn/explore-raptors-feature/Talons

The Peregrine Fund. (n.d.). Vision. Retrieved from The Peregrine Fund: http://www.peregrinefund.org/learn/explore-raptors-feature/Vision

Thorpe, J. (2003). Fatalities and Destroyed Civil Aircraft due to Bird Strikes, 1912 - 2002. Surrey: International Bird Strike Committee.

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant. (2007). Canada Goose - Migration. Retrieved from Migratory Birds of the Great Lakes: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/birds/Canada_Goose_migration.html

Walton, B. (n.d.). What is a Raptor? Retrieved from Soarin' Hawk Raptor Rehab: http://soarinhawk.weebly.com/what-is-a-raptor.html