- Journal List
- Heliyon
- v.9(7); 2023 Jul
- PMC10362354
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Heliyon. 2023 Jul; 9(7): e18115.
Published online 2023 Jul 8. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18115
PMCID: PMC10362354
PMID: 37483807
Filiz Ekici,a Öner Gümüş,b Ahmet Uslu,c and Utku Kaled,e,∗
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
- Data Availability Statement
Abstract
Bird strikes, a risk factor in the aviation industry, are a common problem in certain states of the USA, while they are extremely rare in other states. Similarly, the seasonal distribution of bird strikes is not proportional. This situation poses an unfair situation in the aviation insurance of airline companies in terms of routes taken. The current study, detecting a literature gap related to the principal-agent problem within the aviation sector, evaluates the possible differences in aviation companies' insurance costs, assuming bird strikes are spatially and temporally analyzed in the US, and airline companies are provided with complete information regarding bird-strikes. In this research, QGIS software served in spatial model mappings. In terms of the threshold value, the study results show that making bird-strike insurance aircraft in twenty-one states which were below the threshold value increased the aviation costs of these airline companies, while in the remaining twenty-nine states, non-insurance raised the cost. In this context, as of 2022, it has been determined that not paying an extra premium for bird strikes in twenty-one states below the threshold value will create efficiency, while expending an above-average insurance premium in twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia above the threshold value will create efficiency. The research seeks to answer the following question: Is it fair for airlines operating on routes with low or high bird strike risks to pay the same amount of insurance cost?
Keywords: Bird strike, Aviation, Principal-agent problem, Aviation insurance
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivating factor behind the research
Markets advance with news and information. Standard pricing theory assumes that all participants in the market have the same information. However, in reality, market actors have different information. A number of market actors have more knowledge on the same subject than others [1]. In addition to this situation, another negative effect on the markets is high transaction costs. High transaction costs, which can restrict competition in the market, occur in three conditions regarding service features [2].
•
The first is Bounded Rationality. Bounded Rationality results from incomplete information and a limited ability to process knowledge. The judgment that specific behavior is rational can only be reached by viewing the behaviour in the context of a series of premises. These given include the computational tools that are available to determine the situation in which the behavior occurs, the goals that it aims to achieve, and how the goals can be achieved [3]. However, there is a concept that undermines this rationality, which is bounded rationality. Bounded rationality leads people to adopt basic rules that exhibit more regularity than optimization [4]. In other words, limited rationality means weak rationality. The fact that bird strike cases are not taken into consideration between airline and insurance companies is also an example of bounded rationality. Removing this bounded rationality is one of the main goals of this study.
•
The second is Asset Specificity. For example, it is difficult for a supplier providing dialysis services to kidney patients to exit the market. For this reason, it would be difficult for a new investor to enter such a market.
•
The third is the ambiguity of the contract between the principal and the agent. This uncertainty might allow the agent to exploit the principal and vice versa.
Uncertainty in the principal-agent problem is particularly evident in the insurance market. Indeed, the difficulty in pricing insurance policies arises from the asymmetric information problem where one of the parties to an economic transaction has less information than the other [5]. In asymmetric information, the transaction-making party has more information concerning the traded good or service than the opposite party [6]. Asymmetric information contains moral hazards and adverse selection [7]. In this context, unobserved attitudes producing undesirable results for an uninformed party cause adverse selection [8]. The moral hazard, after a deal, is people's tendency to use a piece of private information for both their own benefit and the loss of the less informed party [9].
Rothschild and Stiglitz [10] argue that everything would be better if individuals were willing to give information concerning themselves to the insurance market. This is because high-risk individuals create an externality, which brings about the adverse selection phenomenon. The adverse selection and moral hazard problems can emerge in aviation, as in many sectors. Since it provides the speed needed by a globalizing economy and reduces distance-related difficulties by traveling far destinations quickly [11], the aviation industry, developing daily, and becoming a part of people's daily lives, is an indispensable tool in many fields from health [12] to tourism [13]. On the other hand, security and risk management are critical in this increasingly important sector [14].
Although aviation risks depend on various sources, the risks accepted in the literature are as follows: (i) Vortex ring [15], (ii) tail turbulence [16], (iii) pilot error [17], (iv) tail strike [18] and (v) bird strike [19]. Aviation accidents that occur when these risks materialize potentially cause massive financial losses and death [20]. A loss of life or financial losses are not the only results of an accident due to the related risks. This can have a wide range of effects, from the airline company stock prices [21] to insurance costs [20]. Considering this area of influence, the importance of the insurance concept in aviation becomes clearer. However, aviation insurance causes the insurance company to take a considerable risk, and the cost to the airline company is proportionally cumbersome [22]. It is known that the cost of bird strikes to the aviation industry alone is about a billion dollars [19].
1.2. Historical perspective on bird strikes
The “Bird Migration and Sensitive Fauna Areas Report” published by the American Federal Aviation Administration [23] states that the risk of bird strikes becomes more frequent in March/April and August/November, that more than 90% of the strikes occur at 3,000 feet and below, and that the most dangerous bird species are seagulls, waterfowl, vultures, hawks, owls, egrets, blackbirds, and starlings. The four crossing points (Atlantic coast, Mississippi River, Central Flyway, and Pacific Flyway) on the bird migration routes, in particular, are the regions where bird strikes are more frequent. The Wildlife Attack Report prepared by the FAA for 1990–2021 [24] announced that 15,556 bird strikes had occurred in 2021 alone. While the cost of 259,577 strikes between 1990 and 2021 was $950,329,786, the cost of the first five species in bird strikes was approximately $600 million (Table 1).
Table 1
The first five bird species in bird strikes [24].
| Bird Species | Strikes | Cost [$] |
|---|---|---|
| Waterfowl | 6,727 | 300,793,489 |
| Hawks, Eagles, Vultures | 9,086 | 180,568,989 |
| Gulls | 13,735 | 69,942,668 |
| Pigeons, Doves | 19,023 | 27,174,552 |
| Herons, Egrets, Bitterns | 2,438 | 20,433,771 |
Open in a separate window
1.3. The gap and limits in the literature
The literature review on bird strikes in the aviation industry has shown previous studies focusing on various subjects (Table 2). As can be seen in Table 2, these studies have focused on risks, costs, spatial analysis, and aircraft structures and analyzed bird migration routes, the effects of a bird strike on aircraft structure, and financial losses. These strengths of the studies have also revealed a gap in the literature. The conceptualization of the literature gap is as follows: Although the diversity and financial burden in aviation insurance are the same for an insurant, the severity and geographical distribution of risky events differ. In other words, an insurant pays the same aviation insurance rate for bird strikes, regardless of the degree of risk and spatial differences. In this context, to eliminate injustice in this area, insurance premiums in the sector should be evaluated by considering the “risk degree and spatial differences” and the “principal-agent problem.” The current study, performing the temporal and spatial analysis of bird strike data, aims to fill the gap in the literature by presenting various arguments on aviation insurance in the context of the principal-agent phenomenon and getting a different perspective on the civil aviation sector's bird strike issue.
Table 2
Literature review of studies that have focused on bird strikes.
| Refs. | Focus |
|---|---|
| Wade and Nicholson [25] | A temporal and spatial analysis of Canada Goose strikes involving civilian aircraft, depending on the time of day (dawn, day, sunset, and night) in the USA. |
| Smojver and Ivančević [26] | Bird strike damage analysis |
| Dukiya and Gahlot [27] | Detailed analysis of bird strike incidents at Aminu Kano International Airport in Nigeria between 2001 and 2010. |
| Washburn et al. [28] | Comprehensive analysis of wild-animal strike data on civilian helicopters in the USA from 1990 to 2011. |
| Lopez-Lago et al. [29] | Risk assessment analysis for bird strikes. |
| Liu et al. [30] | Design of aircraft structures against the risk of bird strike |
| Australian Transport Safety Bureau [31] | A temporal and spatial analysis of the wild animal strikes in Australia between 2008 and 2017. |
| Roca-González et al. [32] | The cost of wildlife strikes at airports in Spain |
| Puneeth and JayaPrakash [33] | In bird strikes, the effect of the mass on the engine fan blade of an aircraft. |
| Ferra et al. [34] | The comparison of the frequency of wildlife strikes by region in the US civil aviation industry between 1990 and 2015. |
| Guida et al. [35] | A detailed review of the bird strike process |
Open in a separate window
1.4. Contributions of this research
The literature review on bird strikes has shown remarkably that existing studies evaluated the fields of damage, cost, and analysis of the collision process but did not discuss the insurance or principal-agent problem (Table 2). Therefore, there was a significant literature gap in this field. In light of the data obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD), the current study, conducting the temporal and spatial analysis of bird strikes in the civil aviation industry in the United States between 1990 and 2021, suggests a re-evaluation of aviation insurance premiums. This study, first determining the descriptive statistics of bird strikes first, created thematic maps in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment by way of QGIS software to analyze the numbers and spatial distribution of bird strikes at airports and states. This research evaluates the results within the principal-agent problem and discusses how civil aviation insurance should be applied in U.S. states and airports. The study is expected to make the following contributions to the literature: (i) announcing to the researchers, through the example of the USA, who work on the temporal and spatial analysis of bird strike events in civil aviation that deals with the principal-agent problem in civil aviation insurance, is essential; (ii) giving an international perspective to the bird strike problem in aviation from the perspective of insurance; (iii) revealing the necessity of investigating the financial burden of the damage caused by bird strikes from the point of view of the insurant; (iv) demonstrating that flights in heavy bird-strike periods and regions must be insured differently from infrequent bird-strike periods and regions; and (v) presenting an innovative bird strike assessment approach that can serve as a reference in this context.
1.5. The limitations of this research
⁃
This work focuses primarily on the relationship between bird strikes, insurance, and airline companies in the United States. It does not discuss global perspectives, regulations, or experiences from other countries, which could provide valuable insights and comparisons.
⁃
This research primarily emphasizes the importance of insurance in managing the risk of bird strikes but does not delve into alternative strategies or mitigation measures that could be employed to reduce bird strike incidents or their impact on aircraft. Therefore, it does not delve into potential strategies for mitigating bird strike risks, such as implementing bird control measures at airports, improving pilot training and awareness, or using technology to detect and deter birds near aircraft.
⁃
The aviation industry is subject to various regulations and guidelines that influence insurance requirements and safety measures. This study does not address the role of regulatory bodies or industry standards in setting insurance policies and risk management practices.
2. Materials of the study
The bird strike data used in the study comes from the Federal Aviation Administration's National Wildlife Strike Database. The data set contains nearly 245,010 bird strikes in the U.S. civil aviation sector between 01 January 1990, and 31 December 2021, including the date and time, airport name, airport latitude and longitude value, state name, aircraft, engine type, severity, and bird species. The states' border information required for the spatial analysis comes from the Global Administrative Areas database [36]. For the mapping of spatial models, open-source QGIS software is used. Analyses were performed on the annual (1990–2021), seasonal (spring, summer, fall, and winter), and times of day (dawn, day, sunset, and night) at the airports and the states basis to identify temporal patterns of bird strikes in the U.S. Civil Aviation industry. In addition, a database in accordance with the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format was created to determine the spatial models of bird strikes in the U.S. civil aviation sector. After this, the data were transferred to QGIS software, and thematic maps were created to analyze the size and spatial distribution of bird strikes at the airports and states. In addition, the information regarding twenty airports and twenty states where the most bird strikes occurred was evaluated in the context of the principal-agent problem in insurance.
3. Temporal patterns in bird strikes
Based on 1990–2021 data from the Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Strike Database [37] the present study performed annual (from 1990 to 2021) and seasonal (Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter) analyses at different times of the day (dawn, day, sunset, and night) at different airports and states to determine temporal patterns of bird strike events in the U.S. civil aviation industry.
Fig. 1, which presents the annual distribution of aircraft bird strikes from 1990 to 2021, shows that bird strikes have increased steadily during this time. Total wildlife strikes reported in 2021 were up 3,601 compared to 2020, with an increase of 33%. The number of wildlife strikes reported each year increased more than sevenfold compared to 1990, reaching 14,564 in 2021. In the USA, passenger traffic between March and December 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic decreased by 72% compared to the same months of 2019 [38]. The decline in 2020 can be associated with travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fig. 1
The Number of reported bird strikes to civil aircraft in USA, 1990–2021 (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
Fig. 2 shows the annual distribution of damaging bird strike events in the civil aviation sector from 1990 to 2021.
Fig. 2
The number of reported damage strikes to civil aircraft in USA, 1990–2021 (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
The highest number of damaged crashes (747) was in 2019 (Fig. 2). The number of damaging bird and wildlife strikes in the US civil aviation sector reached 18,195 by the end of 2021. Only 7.1% of the total crash incidents resulted in damage.
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of bird strike events in the civil aviation sector between 1990 and 2021.
Fig. 3
Reported time of occurrence of wildlife strikes with civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2021 ([37]).
Fig. 3 shows that of the known bird strike events, 62% occurred during the daytime–the feeding time of the birds 29% at night, 5% at sunset, and 4% at dawn. Reports did not report the time of impact of 101,559 bird strikes.
Fig. 4 shows the seasonal distribution of bird strikes between 1990 and 2021.
Fig. 4
Seasonal distribution of bird strikes for USA, 1990–2021 (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
While the number of bird strikes in the winter is scant, the bird strikes were intensely recorded in the summer (Fig. 4). The critical factor here is climatic differences and their impact on migration. Migratory birds nesting in northern regions travel to warmer areas in the early fall and return in early spring [34]. Therefore, more bird strikes are reported during migration months [39].
4. Spatial models in bird strike
This section analyzed the spatial distribution of bird strikes in all locations in the USA. Most bird strikes occur in or around an airport in a circular area with a radius of 5km. These bird strikes are caused by birds and aircraft sharing the same airspace during the take-off, climb, approach, and landing phases [31].
Fig. 5 shows the twenty airports with the highest number of bird strikes in the United States between 1990 and 2021.
Fig. 5
Airports with most incidents of bird strikes for USA – Top 20, 1990–2021 (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
The top five airports with the highest total number of cases in the United States between 1990 and 2021 are Denver International Airport (3.2%), Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (2.9%), Chicago O'Hare International Airport (2.3%), John F. Kennedy International Airport (1.8%), and Memphis International Airport (1.7%). In order to analyze the size and spatial distribution of bird strikes at airports, a graduated symbol thematic map was created using the equidistant classification technique in QGIS software (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6
Frequency of bird strike events at airports in the United States between 1990 and 2021 and their spatial model (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
On the thematic map, the bird-strike numbers were divided into four equal classes presented using red symbols which are proportionally scaled to the number of bird strike. The thematic map shows the magnitudes and spatial distribution of bird strike numbers according to the airports (Fig. 6). According to the 2021 global aircraft movements of the Airports Council International, Chicago O'Hare International Airport (684,201), Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (651,895), and Denver International Airport (580,866) were in the top-five list of the world's busiest airports. Memphis International Airport was second on the list of the busiest cargo airports in 2021 according to the Airports Council International. Furthermore, John F. Kennedy International Airport was the thirteenth busiest airport in the United States. Texas (8.5%), California (7.4%), Florida (6.9%), New York (4.8%), and Illinois (4.3%) were the five states with the highest total number of bird strike cases between 1990 and 2021 in the United States (Fig. 7). By contrast, West Virginia, Vermont, Wyoming, Delaware, and Hawaii were the five states with the lowest total number of cases.
Fig. 7
The top 20 states with the most bird strike incidents in the USA between 1990 and 2021 (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
A choropleth map with five classes (0–5,000, 5,000–10,000, 10,000–15,000, 15,000–20,000, and 20,000–25,000) and a red color ramp (light to dark) was produced using an equidistant classification technique in QGIS software to analyze the spatial distribution of bird strikes across states (Fig. 8). On the choropleth map, colors are assigned according to the classes, and states are symbolized by filling them with the color corresponding to these classes.
Fig. 8
A spatial model of bird strike numbers according to the states in the USA (Adapted from Ref. [37]).
The red color code, which symbolizes the spatial pattern of bird strike numbers in the USA by state, varies from light (low values) to dark (high values) (Fig. 8). Texas hosts numerous starlings, blackbirds, and pigeons that rarely migrate [40]. These common bird species are responsible for Texas having the highest number of cases, as generally believed. The Gulf of California and Pacific migration route, which has an extensive coastal wetland system, provides significant resting and feeding areas for millions of birds during migration each year [41]. These migrating birds are believed to cause numerous bird strikes in California. Florida swamps, rivers, lakes, and the oceans attract different wildlife species to this region [34] and contribute to the rise in bird strike numbers in Florida. In the state of New York, almost 200,000 Canadian geese reportedly nest throughout the state [42]. The rich habitat surrounding airports in the New York metropolitan area attract various wildlife species to this region. Officials have stated that large birds appearing near take-off and landing paths pose a clear risk to airports in the New York metropolitan area [43]. The rich grasslands, wetlands, forest resources, and natural habitats of Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines River basin in Illinois provide shelter for many residents and migratory bird species [44]. The high number of bird strikes in Illinois may be associated with this situation.
5. Principal-agent threshold in aviation insurance for bird strikes
In aviation insurance, moral hazards and adverse selection phenomena may also occur. Not knowing (or not paying attention to) the location and statistics, especially in bird strike cases, leads to information-asymmetry-related economic problems.
(1)
In Equation (1), T is the threshold function, B is the insurer's/customer's benefit from withholding/sharing information, C is the insurer's/customer's cost of withholding/sharing knowledge, and K is a constant [45]. In asymmetric information, the more information the insurer withholds, the lower the K is. In other words, in places where few or no bird strikes exist, the lower the K value will be if the insurer hides the truth from the customer. If the K value is low, the function will be positive. A positive function indicates that the insurer's hiding of information benefits him. This situation is called “consequentialism.” However, if the insurer gives complete information to the customer regarding the number of bird strikes, the K value will be extremely high. This situation makes the function negative. Such a situation is called “Absolute deontology.” A similar situation applies to the customer. Here, the “state of having complete information” of the parties is related to their institutionalization level. This is because the party with a high level of institutionalization will be more likely to reach perfect information on time.
Keeping the flight insurance, the same in place and periods where the density of bird strikes differ causes a principal-agent problem between airlines and insurance companies. For this reason, while insurance companies make insurance higher in states such as Texas, California, and New York, where bird strikes are frequent in the United States, in states such as Hawaii, Delaware, and Wyoming, insurance fees must be lower price through a price arrangement. In this context, starting from the general structure of the threshold functions, three possibilities show up: (i) In states with lower bird strike incidents, insurance companies should sell insurance at a lower price, otherwise, a moral hazard arises. With this eventuality, it is assumed that the insurance company has complete information, but the airline companies do not. In this case, consequentialism emerges; (ii) In states with higher bird strike incidents, airlines pay higher insurance fees, otherwise, there will be adverse selection. Here, it is assumed that while insurance companies have incomplete information, airline companies have complete information. In this case, as well, consequentialism emerges; (iii) When both the principal (airlines) and the agent (insurance companies) have complete information, this means ‘Absolute deontology’. Therefore, there is absolute morality. This situation significantly reduces transaction costs for both the principal and the agent.
However, absolute deontology is against the nature of things. In other words, there is no morality for the parties. Therefore, a threshold value should be set for the number of bird strikes. While determining this threshold value, a number of disadvantages may occur. For example, in the state of Hawaii, where the number of bird strikes is 0 (zero), the insurance company will insure at a low price. However, in the case of a fatal aircraft crash, the insurance company may pay unforeseen indemnity payments. On the other hand, in Illinois, where the number of bird strike cases is 10,574, an airline company paying a high insurance price will perceive the amount as a considerable cost element if it does not experience any bird-strike-related damage during the insured period. For these reasons, a certain threshold value must be determined with a common consensus of the parties. In this context, it is possible to reach moderate deontology by taking the average value of bird strike cases. Undoubtedly, standard deviation is also crucial here.
The arithmetic mean of bird strikes in the United States between 1990 and 2021 is 4,037.27 birdstrikes/period, with a standard deviation of 4,628,450. At the 99.9% confidence interval, the lowest estimate was 1,904.06 birdstrikes/period, and the highest was 6,169.94 birdstrikes/period. In this context, for an insurance company to request an extra premium for bird strikes from an airline operator, the number of bird strike cases must be over 1,904.06 birdstrikes/period at the 99.9% confidence interval.
Insurance companies may charge additional premiums for the following twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia with a high probability of bird strike: Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Indiana; Arizona; California; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maryland; Missouri; New York; North Carolina; Ohio; Colorado; Connecticut; New Jersey; Wisconsin; Illinois; Nebraska; Virginia; the District of Columbia; Florida; Washington; and Georgia.
In this context, insurance companies should not charge additional premiums for the following twenty-one states with low bird strike probability: Iowa; Rhode Island; Arkansas; South Carolina; South Dakota; Alabama; Mississippi; Alaska; Maine; Kansas; North Dakota; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Mexico; West Virginia; Hawaii; Idaho; Wyoming; Montana; Vermont; and Delaware.
In the following Equation (2), W represents the individual's initial welfare, X represents a random variable showing the loss of this individual, I(X) represents the amount of insurance paid when X loss occurs, P represents the premium, and Y(X) represents the individual's welfare after the premium payment [46]. When the ‘individual’ was replaced by the ‘airline company’ in this formula, the following function can be written for an optimal insurance policy:
(2)
Here, the insurance policy must meet condition I(X)>0, if the bird strike event is larger than 1,904.06 birdstrikes/period. In this context, if the number of bird strikes exceeds the threshold (the lowest estimate), the airline will pay a premium of ‘P’. If this premium is unpaid, the value of X will be high, and the function I(X) value will be low. This situation will reduce the welfare of the airline business. However, if P is paid, the X value will be lower, and the value of the I(X) function will be higher. As a result, the welfare function of the airline will be extremely high. Therefore, for a positive welfare function, the threshold value for bird strikes should be 1,904.06 birdstrikes/period. Therefore, it will be possible to achieve moderate deontology.
6. Conclusion and future remarks
One of the significant incidents that may result in an aircraft accident is a bird strike. Therefore, bird strikes have the potential to cause a catastrophe for an aircraft that is carrying hundreds of people. However, it is unclear how and when a bird strike will occur. The most well-known solution to eliminate this uncertainty is to have insurance. However, insurance can sometimes be a cost element for airline businesses. For instance, in Hawaii, where there are no bird strikes, bird strike insurance means an airline's ineffective resource usage. However, an airline that takes bird strike insurance as a cost element may encounter bird strikes in Texas and face a higher loss than its insurance premium. Under the current conditions, the issue of which cost factors are equivalent to insuring or not should be handled within the principal-agent relationship. An insurance company that knows the lowest estimate for bird strikes can persuade an airline firm that is unconscious of this figure to a bird-strike insurance agreement at a higher cost. In this case, a moral hazard arises from asymmetric information. On the other hand, an airline may know the number of bird strike cases and convince the insurance company to charge a premium less than it should pay. This situation causes adverse selection situations arising from asymmetric information. Both scenarios result in the phenomenon of consequentialism. Here, it is necessary to consider safety and cost-efficiency in bird strikes. For an optimal approach, insurance and airline companies should know the number of bird strike cases. If both parties have perfect information regarding bird strikes, the asymmetric information phenomenon can be eliminated, and it will be possible to approach absolute deontology. The current study discusses the aircraft-bird strike relationship in the U.S. states within the scope of principal-agent problem.
The following is a summary of the main findings of this research:
•
Knowing the threshold value in bird strikes will reduce asymmetric information. Therefore, conducting a spatial and temporal analysis of bird strike cases is essential.
•
A national consensus should be reached on the threshold value in bird strike cases for insurance companies and airlines. In the case of disagreement, laws should compel the parties to a consensus. In the case of a dispute, arbitration should be established by the US government to finalize the disagreement. Appeals to the judiciary should be kept open.
•
Research and analysis departments should be established for bird strike cases in both insurance and airline companies.
•
Annual bird strike data should be analyzed regularly to protect the financial interests of both insurance companies and airlines.
•
Collaboration should be made with foreign airlines and insurance companies in calculating the threshold value for bird strikes. Indeed, such cooperation will bring new approaches to threshold value calculation. Establishing an international consortium will produce the best method from alternatives.
Bird-strike insurance will boost airline costs in twenty-one states that are below the threshold value in the USA. On the other hand, not having bird-strike insurance in airlines in the other twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia that are above the threshold will endanger passenger flight safety. Therefore, considering 2022, not paying an extra premium for bird strikes will create efficiency in twenty-one states that are under the threshold. However, for the other twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia above the threshold, paying insurance premiums will make it efficient.
6.1. Future remarks
Methods for determining the threshold value for bird strike cases are not limited to this study. Alternative methods are:
•
Wildlife Control Services (WCS) at airports reduce the likelihood of bird strikes. In which airports they are used and how the course of bird strike cases changes as a result of their use can be analyzed as the subject of another research.
•
The cost of WCS at airports could also be included in the analysis, so that the reduction in bird strike incidents due to WCS could result in a lower insurance fee.
•
Drawing gradients and forming quarterly groups can help determine the lowest estimate of bird strike cases.
•
Early detection of bird strikes is also vital. In this context, researching methods to predict the occurrence of bird strikes can add a different dimension to the subject.
•
Maximum and minimum insurance premium levels can be determined using abstract mathematical methods.
•
International studies can be carried out by taking the example of the USA, the subject of this research, as a reference. Therefore, the scope of the contract concluded by various airlines with various insurance agents can be detailed.
•
The approach described in the study may also be used for temporal and spatial analysis of other wildlife strikes. An interactive web map page could be designed to provide access to the USA bird-strike data. In this way, crucial information may be accessible for airport operations.
Author contribution statement
Filiz Ekici: Conceived and designed the analysis; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Öner Gümüş: Conceived and designed the analysis; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Ahmet Uslu: Conceived and designed the analysis; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Utku Kale: Conceived and designed the analysis; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Data availability statement
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1. Brunnermeier M.K. Oxford University Press; Oxford, England, New York: 2000. Asset Pricing under Asymmetric Information: Bubbles, Crashes, Technical Analysis, and Herding/Markus K. Brunnermeier. [Google Scholar]
2. Bailey S.J. Palgrave Macmillan; Basingstoke: 2003. Strategic Public Finance. [Google Scholar]
3. Simon H.A. Rationality in psychology and economics. J. Bus. 1986;59(4):209–224. [Google Scholar]
4. Conlisk J. Why bounded rationality? J. Econ. Lit. 1996;34(2):669–700. [Google Scholar]
5. Hubbard R.G., O'Brien A.P. Pearson Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, N.J.: 2006. Economics. [Google Scholar]
6. Rosen H.S., Gayer T. McGraw-Hill Education; New York, NY: 2014. Public Finance. [Google Scholar]
7. Bag S. Palgrave Macmillan; Basingstoke, Hampshire: 2018. Economic Analysis of Contract Law: İncomplete Contracts and Asymmetric Information/Sugata Bag. [Google Scholar]
8. Mankiw N.G. Cengage Learning; Stamford CT: 2015. Principles of Economics. [Google Scholar]
9. Parkin M. ninth ed. Pearson; Boston, Mass., London: 2010. Economics. [Google Scholar]
10. Rothschild M., Stiglitz J. Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: an essay on the economics of imperfect information. Q. J. Econ. 1976;90(4):629. doi:10.2307/1885326. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Paraschi E.P., Poulaki I. In: Yu D.H., editor. vol. 7. Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International); 2021. An overview on environmental management in aviation; pp. 31–43. (Challenging Issues on Environment and Earth Science). [Google Scholar]
12. Birtchnell T., Caletrío J. Routledge; London: 2014. Elite Mobilities. [Google Scholar]
13. Dimitrios D.J., John M.C., Maria S.F. Quantification of the air transport industry socio-economic impact on regions heavily depended on tourism. Transport. Res. Procedia. 2017;25:5242–5254. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2018.02.051. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Freitas P.J. Passenger aviation security, risk management, and simple physics. J. Trans. Secur. 2012;5(2):107–122. doi:10.1007/s12198-011-0085-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Efimov V.V., Chernigin K.O. Vortex ring state as a cause of a single-rotor helicopter unanticipated yaw. AS. 2022. [CrossRef]
16. Hallock J.N., Holzäpfel F. A review of recent wake vortex research for increasing airport capacity. Prog. Aero. Sci. 2018;98:27–36. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.03.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Federal Aviation Administration Pilot's handbook of aeronautical knowledge: chapter 2, aeronautical decision-making. Human behavior. 2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20170430154609/https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf Available from: [Google Scholar]
18. Chan P.W. An event of tail strike of an aircraft due to terrain-induced wind shear at the Hong Kong International Airport. Met. App. 2012;19(3):325–333. doi:10.1002/met.264. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Metz I.C., Ellerbroek J., Mühlhausen T., Kügler D., Hoekstra J.M. The bird strike challenge. Aerospace. 2020;7(3):26. doi:10.3390/aerospace7030026. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Flouris T., Hayes P., Pukthuanthong-Le K., Thiengtham D., Walker T. Recent developments in the aviation insurance industry. Risk Manag. Insur. Rev. 2009;12(2):227–249. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6296.2009.01165.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Bosch J.-C., Eckard E.W., Singal V. The competitive impact of air crashes: stock market evidence. J. Law Econ. 1998;41(2):503–519. doi:10.1086/467399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Malhotra A., Tyagi P. Reinsurance practices in aviation. VIDHIGYA: J. Leg. Awar. 2020;15(1and2):25–29. doi:10.5958/0974-4533.2020.00004.4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Aviation Administration Federal. Bird migration and areas with sensitive Fauna: migratory bird activity. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aip_html/part2_enr_section_5.6.html [August 15, 2022]; Available from:
24. Aviation Administration Federal. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990–2021: national wildlife strike database serial report number 28. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2021.pdf [August 15, 2022]; Available from:
25. Wade A., Nicholson R. IEEE Information Visualization 2010 Conference Compendium. 2010. Improving airplane safety: tableau and bird strikes; pp. 24–29. [Google Scholar]
26. Smojver I., Ivančević D. Bird strike damage analysis in aircraft structures using Abaqus/Explicit and coupled Eulerian Lagrangian approach. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2011;71(4):489–498. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.12.024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Dukiya J.J., Gahlot V. An evaluation of the effect of bird strikes on flight safety operations at International Airport. IJTTE. 2013;3(1):16–33. doi:10.7708/ijtte.2013.3(1).02. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Washburn B.E., Cisar P.J., Devault T.L. Wildlife strikes with military rotary-wing aircraft during flight operations within the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2014;38(2):311–320. doi:10.1002/wsb.409. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Lopez-Lago M., Casado R., Bermudez A., Serna J. A predictive model for risk assessment on imminent bird strikes on airport areas. Aero. Sci. Technol. 2017;62:19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2016.11.020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Liu J., Li Y., Yu X., Gao X., Liu Z. Design of aircraft structures against threat of bird strikes. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2018;31(7):1535–1558. doi:10.1016/j.cja.2018.05.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Australian Aviation Wildlife Strike Statistics 2008 to 2017. 2019. Australia. [Google Scholar]
32. Roca-González J.-L., Vera-Lopez J.-A., Rodriguez-Bermudez G. Organisational and costing aspects to prevent wildlife strikes on airports: a case study of Spanish airport security managers. Saf. Sci. 2020;122 doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104520. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Puneeth M.L., JayaPrakash D. Influence of bird mass and impact height on the fan-blade of an aero-engine. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021;44:1028–1038. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.175. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Ferra G., Alghamdi H., Wheeler B.E., Li T. 2021. Comparing The Frequency Of Reported Wildlife Strikes By Region In The United States; pp. 37–45. 14(1) [Google Scholar]
35. Guida M., Marulo F., Belkhelfa F.Z., Russo P. A review of the bird impact process and validation of the SPH impact model for aircraft structures. Prog. Aero. Sci. 2022;129 doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100787. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. GADM. GADM. 2022. https://gadm.org/data.html Available from. [Google Scholar]
37. Aviation Administration Federal. 2022. Federal Aviation Administration National Wild Animal Impact Database.https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2021.pdf Available from. [Google Scholar]
38. Dolbeer RA. Impact of COVID-19 on Passenger Air Travel, Aircraft Movements, and Reported Wildlife Strikes for Civil Aircraft at 520 U.S. Airports. [February 6, 2023].
39. Dolbeer RA, Wright SE, Weller J.R., Anderson AL, Begier MJ. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2014. [February 6, 2023].
40. Hayes D., Bodenchuk M. 2008. Environmental Assessment: Bird Strike Risk Reduction at Laughlin Air Force Base. Texas. [Google Scholar]
41. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird Checklist for San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuges: RF-11640-3. U.S. Gwernment Printing Office, Region No. 8.2%. [February 6, 2023].
42. Department of Environmental Conservation . 2022. Canada Goose.https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/34434.html Available from: [Google Scholar]
43. Uhlfelder E. Bloody Skies: the Fight to Reduce Deadly Bird-Plane Collisions. [February 6, 2023].
44. Karr J.R. Structure of avian communities in selected Panama and Illinois habitats. Ecol. Monogr. 1971;41(3):207–233. doi:10.2307/1942366. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Zamir E., Medina B. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2010. Law, Economics, and Morality. [Google Scholar]
46. Arrow K.J. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am. Econ. Rev. 1963;53(5):941–973. [Google Scholar]
Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier
