DOT/FAA/TC-16/28

Federal Aviation Administration

William J. Hughes Technical Center

Aviation Research Division

Atlantic City International Airport

New Jersey 08405

Wildlife Surveillance Concept—

Avian Radar Knowledge Elicitation 

Activity 1

April 2016

Final Report

This document is available to the U.S. public

through the National Technical Information

Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161.

This document is also available from the

Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes

Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency. This document 

does not constitute FAA policy. Consult the FAA sponsoring organization 

listed on the Technical Documentation page as to its use.

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF).
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/TC-16/28

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

WILDLIFE SURVEILLANCE CONCEPT—AVIAN RADAR KNOWLEDGE 

ELICITATION ACTIVITY 1

5. Report Date

April 2016

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Mark Hale and Anton Koros

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

CSSI, Inc. 

400 Virginia Avenue, SW Suite 210 

Washington, DC 20024

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Airport Technology R&D Branch

William J. Hughes Technical Center

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

ANG-E261

15. Supplementary Notes

The FAA Airport Technology Research and Development Branch COR was Ryan King.

16. Abstract

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Concept Development and Validation Branch held a Knowledge Elicitation Activity 

(KEA) for the Wildlife Surveillance Concept (WiSC) in February 2014. The purpose of this activity, which was funded by the 

FAA Airport Technology Research and Development Branch, was to elicit information from stakeholders. The researchers 

convened a panel of certified professional controllers, front line managers, and commercial airline pilots to learn how they 

currently handle bird threat information and their perspectives on the potential introduction of supplemental bird threat 

information into the air traffic control (ATC) environment via airport avian radar systems.

This KEA served as the first in a series of research activities aimed at maturing the WiSC and gathering information to prepare 

the Concept of Operations document. The purpose of this report is to provide an in-depth summary of the KEA and its findings.

Participants reviewed and validated five common operational situations depicting how bird threat information is managed and 

disseminated today and the changes that might be anticipated with the introduction of more precise and timely bird threat 

information. In addition, participants provided feedback on notional graphical and textual display options for providing this 

supplemental information on ATC displays.

All participants confirmed the value of integrating more timely and precise supplemental bird threat information into the ATC 

environment. In addition, they identified areas requiring further investigation. For example, they suggested research is needed to 

quantify the potential benefit of supplemental bird threat information on aviation safety, to ensure that controller and pilot 

workload levels and performance are not adversely impacted by the new information, and to ensure that the new information is 

optimally integrated into the ATC operational environment. 

17. Key Words

Air Traffic control tower, TRACON, Wildlife hazard, Avian 

radar, Birds, Bird movement, Bird hazards, Wildlife, Wildlife 

surveillance, Wildlife strikes, WiSC ConOps

18. Distribution Statement

This document is available to the U.S. public through the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, 

Virginia 22161. This document is also available from the 

Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical 

Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

 Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 75

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
iii/iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Mr. Ryan King of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Safety 

Research and Development (R&D) Section for providing the vehicle for this research and for his 

guidance throughout the development and execution of this Wildlife Surveillance Concept 

(WiSC) Knowledge Elicitation Activity (KEA). 

The authors extend their appreciation to the FAA Airport Safety R&D Section support 

contractors who spent many hours working collaboratively with the authors, and who, through 

their technical expertise, contributed significantly to the success of this activity. Specifically, the 

authors thank Mr. Mike DiPilato (CSRA, Inc.) for his management as well as his expertise in 

bird radar systems and research methods; Mr. John Pallante (John Pallante and Associates) for 

his hours of expertise not only as a main Air Traffic Control Tower Subject Matter Expert but 

also for his leadership abilities; and Mr. John Kelley (John Pallante and Associates) whose 

subject matter expertise was invaluable throughout the process.

Finally, the authors are grateful to Danielle Pagan (CSSI, Inc.) whose business experience, 

document management skills, and insights made for the best possible product. 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Scope 1

1.2 Background 1

1.3 Purpose 2

2. METHOD 3

2.1 Participants 3

2.1.1 Air Traffic Control Participants 4

2.1.2 Pilot Participants 4

2.2 Research Personnel 5

2.3 Knowledge Elicitation Environment 5

2.3.1 Research Facility 5

2.3.2 Audio Recording System 5

2.4 Materials 6

2.4.1 Informed Consent Statement 6

2.4.2 Biographical Questionnaire 6

2.4.3 Pre-KEA Opinion Survey 6

2.4.4 Post-Scenario Questionnaire 6

2.4.5 Post-Interface Evaluation Questionnaire 6

2.4.6 Exit Questionnaire 6

2.5 Research Methodology 6

2.5.1 Applied Cognitive Task Analysis Tools 7

2.5.2 Cognitive Engineering Research Methods 9

2.5.3 Scenario Walkthrough 10

2.6 Procedure 11

2.6.1 Schedule 11

2.6.2 Introductory Briefing 12

2.6.3 Scenario Walkthrough 12

2.6.4 Notional Interfaces Briefing and Review 12

2.6.5 Research Questions and Final Discussion 12
vi 

3. RESULTS 14

3.1 Pre-KEA Survey 15

3.1.1 Awareness of the Bird Strike Threat and Mitigation Efforts 15

3.1.2 Experience With Bird Strikes 15

3.1.3 Severity of the Bird Strike Issue 16

3.1.4 Value of Supplemental Bird Threat Information 16

3.2 Scenario Walkthroughs 17

3.2.1 Scenario A 20

3.2.2 Scenario B 22

3.2.3 Scenario C 24

3.2.4 Scenario D 26

3.2.5 Scenario E 28

3.3 Notional Interfaces Briefing and Review 31

3.4 Exit Questionnaire 33

4. DISCUSSION 35

4.1 System Accuracy 35

4.2 The ATC System 35

4.3 Graphic Versus Textual Display Options 36

4.4 Information Display and Interface Design 36

4.5 The ATC Procedural and Workload Considerations 37

4.6 Pilots’ Procedural and Workload Considerations 39

5. SUMMARY 39

6. REFERENCES 40

APPENDICES

 A—Informed Consent Statement 

 B—Participant Background Questionnaire 

 C—Pre-KEA Opinion Questionnaire 

 D—Post-Scenario Questionnaire 

 E—Interface Evaluation Questionnaire

 F—Exit Questionnaire
vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Annual Wildlife Strikes (1990-2012) 1

2 Typical Bird Threat Information Flow Diagram 7

3 Typical Task Diagram 8

4 Ten-Point Rating Scales and Anchors Used in KEA Questionnaires 15

5 Alerted Zone With Summary Depiction of Bird Threat Information on STARS 31

6 Textual and Graphical Depiction of Bird Threat Information on IDS-R 32

7 Notional Representation of Alerted Areas on a Primary Radar Display 37
viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Air Traffic Control Particpant Experience 4

2 Pilot Participant Experience 5

3 Daily WiSC KEA Schedule 11

4 Preliminary Research Questions 13

5 Average ATC Ratings for Each Scenario 17

6 Average ATC Ratings of Impact of WiSC Advisories 18

7 Scenario A—Airport Operations Report to ATCT Controller at Night 21

8 Scenario B—PIREP to TRACON Controller 23

9 Scenario C—TRACON Controller Radar Observation 25

10 Scenario D—PIREP to ATCT Controller 27

11 Scenario E—ATCT Controller Visual Observation 29

12 Pre- and Post-KEA Ratings on the Value of Supplemental WiSC Information 34
ix/x

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACTA Applied Cognitive Task Analysis 

AFTIL Airport Facilities and Tower Integration Laboratory 

ASDE Airport Surface Detection Equipment 

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment (Model-X)

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower

ATIS Automatic Terminal Information Service

ConOps Concept of Operations 

CPC Certified professional controller

CTA Cognitive Task Analysis 

ERP Engineering research psychologist 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FLM Front line manager

IDS Integrated Display System

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

KEA Knowledge Elicitation Activity

LLWAS Low Level Windshear Alert System

n=# Number of participants (n=2) 

NAS National Airspace System 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

PIREP Pilot Report 

PSQ Post-Scenario Questionnaire

RDHFL Research Development Human Factors Laboratory

SME Subject matter expert

STARS Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

WiSC Wildlife Surveillance Concept
xi/xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Aviation Administration Concept Development and Validation Branch held a 

Knowledge Elicitation Activity (KEA) for the Wildlife Surveillance Concept (WiSC) on 

February 25-26, 2014. It was a six-member subject matter expert (SME) panel consisting of two 

current certified professional controllers from air traffic control tower (ATCT) facilities, two 

front line managers from ATCT facilities, and two pilots (one current and one retired) that flew 

commercially for major airlines. 

The purpose of this activity was to elicit information from the air traffic stakeholders regarding 

their attitudes and opinions on the introduction and integration of supplemental bird threat 

information into the air traffic control (ATC) environment. One of the key activities was to 

refine and validate five typical operational scenarios depicting how bird threat information is 

managed and disseminated today by tower and Terminal Radar Approach Control ATC

personnel. Following this, the panel identified how radar-based bird threat information could 

best be disseminated, how it would impact ATC operations, and what benefits may be associated 

with its use. Participants also provided their expertise on some notional display options for 

supplemental bird threat information, including graphical and textual depictions on 

representative ATC displays. 

Participants responded favorably to the KEA and to the notion of supplemental bird threat 

information derived from airport avian radar. Throughout, the KEA participants identified 

numerous positive impacts that precise supplemental threat information could provide. While 

ratings and comments were generally skewed towards the positive, participants did identify some 

areas that require further investigation. Research is required to quantify the potential benefit of 

supplemental bird threat information on aviation safety, to ensure that controller and pilot 

workload levels and performance are not adversely impacted, and to ensure the optimal 

integration of this information into the ATC operational environment. Regardless of how 

effectively this type of information is integrated into the air traffic environment, any workload 

increase must be offset by improvements in safety, situation awareness, procedural 

improvements, and other factors. 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION. 

1.1 SCOPE. 

The Wildlife Surveillance Concept (WiSC) will improve aviation safety through the 

dissemination of improved bird threat information to air traffic controllers. Although alternative 

radar systems are currently being researched to track bird targets, this project focuses specifically 

on the application of radars identified in Advisory Circular 150/5220-25 to supplement airport 

wildlife management efforts and to reduce bird threats to aircraft [1]. It is based upon existing 

airport avian radar systems approved for use today by airport operations personnel, wildlife 

management personnel, and biologists at civil airports. The objective of the Knowledge 

Elicitation Activity (KEA) was to identify and begin to investigate the factors that are critical to 

the design and implementation of an effective air traffic control (ATC) avian threat information

display based on this technology. It served to help define a set of functional requirements, 

capabilities, procedures, and practices to best detect, disseminate, and display supplemental bird 

threat information to controllers, supervisors, and pilots in the ATC environment. 

1.2 BACKGROUND. 

Wildlife hazards, including bird strikes, have been recognized as a reason for concern to pilots 

and aviation stakeholders since the earliest days of air travel. Recently, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and researchers have noted that bird strike incidents have shown an 

alarming trend of significant growth [2]. In fact, from 1990 to 2012 there were 131,096 bird 

strikes reported to the FAA [3]. While birds are not the only type of wildlife that can be 

problematic to aircraft, they accounted for 97% of all recorded strikes from 2007 through 2012

[3 and 4] and are the focus of this KEA. Figure 1 illustrates this growing problem.

Figure 1. Annual Wildlife Strikes (1990-2012) 
2 

The increasing trend in incidents is particularly alarming when one considers the losses caused 

by wildlife strikes. Bird strikes have resulted in more than 250 fatalities and the destruction of 

229 aircraft since 1988 [2 and 3]. In the United States, the economic cost associated with 

wildlife strikes to civil aviation is estimated to be more than $625 million per year [5]. Allan [6]

estimated that bird strikes cost commercial air carriers worldwide more than $1.2 billion 

annually. 

Several factors contribute to the substantial increase in bird strike reports. Passenger 

enplanement and subsequent aircraft operations have increased over the years adding more 

aircraft to the National Airspace System (NAS). Coincidentally, as demand has increased, 

aggressive environmental and natural resource protection efforts have indirectly resulted in an 

increase in bird populations that present a high risk to aircraft. These two factors coupled with 

faster aircraft and quieter aircraft engines increase the probability of an aircraft bird strike. 

As bird strike incidents have increased, so has the awareness of the problem. The FAA strongly 

encourages bird strike reporting and maintains a bird strike database. However, perhaps recent 

incident events have done more than anything else to add visibility to the problem. For example, 

in 2009, Captain Chelsey B. Sullenberger lost thrust in both engines of US Airways Flight 1549 

due to bird strikes and was forced to “ditch” the plane in the Hudson River. Remarkably, there 

was no loss of human life in this incident, which has been dubbed as the “Miracle on the 

Hudson.” As awareness of the bird strike problem has increased so has the interest in methods, 

procedures, and systems used to report and mitigate these events.

One potential avenue that shows promise in mitigating bird strike problems is avian radar. In 

2005, the FAA initiated the Bird Radar Performance Assessment Research Program within the 

Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Research Program. Among the key activities within this program is

the collaboration with several organizations to determine the current state of available avian

radar technology [7]. 

While assessments of commercial avian radar are ongoing, there have been significant findings 

from the FAA Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Research Program. First, it has been determined that 

existing commercial avian radars are suitable for detecting and tracking birds on and around the 

airport. Second, avian radars can provide nearly real-time alerts of bird activity in airport 

operational areas where they represent a high collision risk. Third, avian radar has demonstrated 

a utility in the development of a focused wildlife management plan at an airport [7]. The current 

direction in the field of avian radar mitigation includes understanding the impact that improved 

radar technology can have on mitigating this growing problem. 

1.3 PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this KEA is to examine how air traffic controllers, supervisors, and pilots interact 

with wildlife/bird information in the ATC environment. This KEA gathered information on how 

the participants receive wildlife/bird activity information today, what actions they take in 

response to this information, what procedures and processes they follow, and what may be 

changed in the future to improve Air Traffic Management response to bird strike threats. The 

research team also examined how future technologies may be implemented to deal with the 
3 

substantial safety and economic costs that bird threats pose to the flying public, air carriers, and 

the NAS. 

Specifically, the purpose of this activity was to

• elicit information from civil air traffic controllers, supervisors, and pilots regarding how 

wildlife/bird activity information is distributed and managed today and develop and 

validate operational scenarios. 

• evaluate options for future Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and/or Terminal Radar 

Approach Control (TRACON) automation prototype displays for subsequent evaluation 

by end users. 

• gather information to help guide more efficient dissemination of actionable avian radar 

information (display and user requirements). 

• explore preliminary interface development requirements for the display of information to 

appropriate ATC personnel (e.g., local position, ground position, clearance delivery, 

supervisor, and traffic flow manager). 

• investigate job/task design considerations for ATC personnel. 

• evaluate training impacts for ATC users of wildlife/bird information. 

• support development of preliminary requirements (hardware and software) for ATCT 

and/or TRACON automation. 

• develop opportunities to leverage Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

capabilities to help mitigate the incidence of aircraft bird strikes (e.g., data 

communications and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast). 

The FAA Concept Development and Validation Branch used this KEA to leverage existing 

literature, identify preliminary ATC information requirements, validate how bird threat 

information flows in operations today, and gain early assessment of some notional ATC bird 

threat information display ideas. As such, it represented a first step in maturing the WiSC for 

inclusion in the preliminary Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. 

2. METHOD. 

2.1 PARTICIPANTS. 

This section is a brief overview of the six research participants (two controllers, two supervisors, 

and two pilots) who attended the 2-day KEA at the Research Development Human Factors 

Laboratory (RDHFL) at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International 

Airport, New Jersey. The participants’ names are withheld in compliance with common research 

confidentiality practices. The participants represented three key air traffic-related stakeholders: 

• Civilian certified professional controllers (CPC), referred to as controllers in this report 
4 

• ATC front line managers (FLM), referred to as supervisors in this report 

• Commercial airline pilots

The participants’ responses were analyzed in terms of two primary categories: ATC participants 

(consisting of controllers and supervisors) and pilot participants. In situations where noting the 

specific stakeholder was considered relevant, the research team differentiated between 

controllers and supervisors. 

2.1.1 Air Traffic Control Participants. 

The average amount of experience for ATC participants (controllers and supervisors) was 22.56 

years. On average, the ATC participants had slightly more experience in the ATCT environment 

(21.33 years) than in the TRACON environment (18.12 years). The average amount of 

experience for the two supervisors was 5.33 years. 

ATC participants reported working at a combined 15 facilities and locations (4 different facilities 

on average) as well as a variety of shifts during their careers. All ATC participants reported they 

had last controlled air traffic in February 2014. The data regarding ATC experience are shown 

in table 1. 

Table 1. Air Traffic Control Participant Experience

Role Facility

Controller 

Experience 

(years)

Supervisor 

Experience 

(years)

ATCT 

Tower 

Experience 

(years)

TRACON 

Experience 

(years)

Controller Denver International Airport 21.25 -- 21.25 18.83

Controller Orlando International Airport 25.58 -- 25.41 22

Supervisor Denver International Airport 21 6 21 15

Supervisor Kansas City International Airport 22.41 4.66 17.66 16.66

Averages 22.56 5.33 21.33 18.12

2.1.2 Pilot Participants. 

The pilot participants had an average of 45 years of flying experience. One pilot, a current 

airline transport pilot, had 40 years of combined commercial (18 years) and military (22 years 

active and reserve) flying experience and recorded over 11,000 flying hours. The other pilot, a 

retired airline transport pilot, had 50 years of flying experience and recorded over 22,000 flying 

hours. Both pilots were certified on and had flown a wide variety of aircraft. In addition, both 

pilots were certified flight instructors, and one was a certified flight engineer. The data 

regarding the pilots’ experience is presented in table 2. 
5 

Table 2. Pilot Participant Experience

Role Flying Type

Flying Experience 

(years)

Total Hours Flying 

Reported

Pilot Commercial (active) 40 11,000

Pilot Commercial (retired) 50 22,000

Averages 45 16,500

2.2 RESEARCH PERSONNEL. 

A human factors specialist supporting the Concept Development and Validation Branch served

as the principal investigator and oversaw the panel activities along with an engineering research 

psychologist (ERP). This included briefing the participants, collecting the data, and leading

group discussions with the panel members. A program analyst supporting the Concept 

Development and Validation Branch assisted the principal investigator in the data collection 

activities. The Airport Safety Technology Section members assisted with development efforts 

and provided valuable oversight. They also attended the KEA to provide their expertise. 

The research team members were: 

• Anton Koros (FAA/Concept Development and Validation Branch) 

- Mark Hale (CSSI, Inc.)

- Danielle Pagan (CSSI, Inc.)

• Ryan King (FAA/Airport Safety Technology Section) 

- Mike DiPilato (CSRA, Inc.)

• John Pallante (John Pallante and Associates) 

• John Kelley (John Pallante and Associates)

2.3 KNOWLEDGE ELICITATION ENVIRONMENT. 

2.3.1 Research Facility. 

All KEA activities, except the Airport Facilities and Tower Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) tour,

were held at the RDHFL at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. 

2.3.2 Audio Recording System. 

The research team, with the participants’ consent, audio recorded their inputs during the various 

activities. These audio recordings served as a record of the activity, and gave the researchers the 

capability to review the activities at a later time if needed. 
6 

2.4 MATERIALS. 

2.4.1 Informed Consent Statement. 

The Informed Consent Statement describes the purpose of the study, outlines the rights and 

responsibilities of the participants, and ensures the participants that their data will be confidential 

and anonymous. Each participant read and signed the Informed Consent Statement before 

beginning the activity (see appendix A). 

2.4.2 Biographical Questionnaire. 

Each participant completed the Biographical Questionnaire before beginning the KEA. The 

purpose of the questionnaire was to collect general descriptive information about the 

participants, including their ATC experience, work environment, and any other factors that may 

influence or affect their responses (see appendix B). 

2.4.3 Pre-KEA Opinion Survey. 

The participants completed a Pre-KEA Opinion Survey that was designed to elicit their opinions 

on the nature of bird threats in the ATC environment today, their experience dealing with bird 

threats, and their opinions on potential mitigation methods (see appendix C).

2.4.4 Post-Scenario Questionnaire. 

The participants completed the Post-Scenario Questionnaire (PSQ) after each scenario. The 

purpose of the PSQ was to collect data regarding the participants’ experience and thoughts about 

the scenario walkthrough that was just completed. The controllers provided ratings about the 

realism of the scenarios and gave feedback on different interface options (see appendix D).

2.4.5 Post-Interface Evaluation Questionnaire. 

The participants completed the Post-Interface Evaluation Questionnaire following the

presentation of notional bird threat interfaces. The research team designed this questionnaire to 

gauge the participants’ opinion on information needs, interfaces, and other interaction-related 

information that was presented during the activity (see appendix E).

2.4.6 Exit Questionnaire. 

The participants completed the Exit Questionnaire after the 2-day KEA. The purpose of the 

questionnaire was to collect data regarding their experience during the KEA. The questionnaire 

included ratings and open-ended questions. The controllers also were able to comment about 

anything they experienced during the entire activity that they considered relevant to the study of 

bird threat information (see appendix F).

2.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. 

The research team applied a wide range of Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) techniques 

(see section 2.5.1) and cognitive engineering research methods (see section 2.5.2) to develop the 
7 

methodology. As a result, the team developed and used several operational scenarios during the 

KEA, which are described in section 2.5.3. 

2.5.1 Applied Cognitive Task Analysis Tools. 

Task analytic techniques play a crucial role in many system design exercises. These activities 

focused on describing and representing the cognitive elements that underlie goal generation, 

decision making, and judgments within existing and proposed systems [8]. Cognitive Task 

Analysis (CTA) can be a laborious endeavor that requires significant effort and substantial cost. 

Therefore, a modified version of the ACTA was used to gather the necessary information within

the time and resource constraints of the KEA. ACTA is a streamlined CTA aimed at reducing 

time and costs while maximizing access for practitioners and engineers. This technique allows 

researchers to elicit and represent cognitive components of skilled task performance and to 

transform the data into meaningful design recommendations and requirements. The research 

team adapted these elements to fit the exercise, time, and domain requirements of the KEA. The 

ACTA consisted of four main components: Task Decomposition, Development of Task 

Diagrams, Knowledge Audit, and Simulation Interview. The Simulation Interview is described

in a standalone section (2.5.3) because of the central role it represented in the current KEA. 

2.5.1.1 Task Decomposition. 

The research team solicited feedback from available subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop 

high-level descriptions of the tasks being examined, specifically, investigating the distribution, 

processing, and dissemination of bird strike threat information. The team generated a graphical 

information flow diagram to represent the process by which tower controllers typically receive 

this information today (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Typical Bird Threat Information Flow Diagram
8 

During this activity, the research team also explored critical physical and mental aspects of the 

users’ task required during each stage of execution. This included the perception of an event; 

cognitive decision-making strategies, including situation assessment strategies; and identification 

and interpretation of critical cues, as well as actions taken based upon the assessment of the 

situation [8]. The research team performed this process with assistance from SMEs via in-depth 

interviews prior to the KEA. 

2.5.1.2 Development of Task Diagrams. 

The purpose of the task diagram was to elicit a broad overview of the task through questions to 

identify difficult cognitive demands placed upon the user. Although this offers only a surfacelevel view, it does provide a basis for deeper exploration. 

The research team asked the SMEs to decompose the task in question into steps and/or subtasks. 

To do this, the research team asked questions such as: “Think about what you need to do when 

you (task of interest).” The SMEs were tasked with breaking down these high-level tasks into 

less than six, but more than three, steps when possible*. The SMEs then walked through the 

tasks in their mind while verbalizing major steps. Researchers then asked the SMEs to identify 

which steps required further analysis due to particular cognitive and/or workload factors. Figure 

3 shows the output of this process. 

Figure 3. Typical Task Diagram

 

* Limiting the number of steps to between three and six provides enough insight into the task without becoming 

overly cluttered with minor details.
9 

2.5.1.3 Knowledge Audit. 

The knowledge audit identifies how the users employ their expertise and helps to elicit examples 

of the subject matter that are based on real-world experience. It also serves to capture the most 

important aspects of the task and required expertise while streamlining the intensive data 

collection typically found in research. Finally, the knowledge audit helps to identify gaps in 

functionality or task resources that may result in poor task performance. 

2.5.1.4 Simulation Interview. 

The main purpose of the simulation interview was to better understand the SMEs’ cognitive 

processes within the context of an incident or scenario. Generally, this procedure requires an upfront analysis with the SMEs, prior to administration, to ensure that the developed scenarios are 

internally and externally valid. Similar to storyboarding, the simulation interviews allowed the

SMEs to walkthrough a realistic event and provide feedback regarding their decision-making 

processes. After exposure to the simulated event or scenario, the SME was asked to identify 

major events, including judgments and decisions. For example, an SME was asked: “If you just 

received a Pilot Report (PIREP) about bird activity on a runway, what tasks do you perform 

cognitively and what action would you take?” Researchers explored each important event for 

situation assessment, actions, critical cues, and potential errors surrounding the event, following 

the established methodology [8]. 

The scenario walkthrough is described in more detail in section 2.5.3. This was the final stage of 

the ACTA process, and it also served a vital role in developing the concept and production of the 

ConOps document. As a result, the scenario walkthrough represented a major portion of the 

KEA.

2.5.2 Cognitive Engineering Research Methods. 

In addition to the ACTA techniques, the research team employed several common usability 

analysis and job design methodologies to develop elicitation materials and methodology for the

KEA. This series of methodologies included interviews and discussions, storyboarding sessions 

and verbal protocol analysis, questionnaires, and interface design and evaluation exercises, as

described in the following sections. 

2.5.2.1 Group Discussions. 

The most efficient method in terms of time is the traditional group discussion. This format

simultaneously captures multiple stakeholder viewpoints and enables discussions in a 

collaborative environment. One key challenge in interactions of this type is that multiple 

stakeholders must be effectively managed so the focus of the discussion is kept on the area of 

interest. While differing points of view can lead to a better understanding of the problem as 

whole, researchers must ensure that the most important aspects of the problems are emphasized. 

Often, discussions of large interdependent systems like the ATC can become overly distracted by

minor details. The research team facilitated both one-on-one discussions and stratified group 

discussions. Stratified group discussions proved to be particularly important because the KEA 

included multiple stakeholders representing different roles. For example, it was beneficial to 
10 

elicit input from representatives from the flight deck perspective on some issues independently 

from those captured from the ATC participants. 

2.5.2.2 Storyboarding Sessions and Verbal Protocol Analysis. 

The research team conducted storyboarding sessions to present mockups of notional system 

interfaces to the ATC participants to capture SMEs judgments on the operational utility of the 

design and likely controller actions. The team’s main goal was to engage the SMEs by providing 

them with visual cues designed to simulate their real-world mental models without enlisting

observational field research. The team also used verbal protocol analysis and storyboarding to 

elicit verbal descriptions from the participants to document any required domain expertise.

2.5.2.3 Questionnaires. 

The research team used questionnaires designed to elicit the SMEs mental processes in managing 

bird activity information as well as determining informational gaps in current bird activity 

information handling. 

2.5.2.4 Interface Design and Evaluation Exercises. 

For the interface design and evaluation exercises, the research team used common office 

software tools to develop static notional ATC displays with integrated bird threat information. 

First, screen captures were taken of the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

(STARS) and the Integrated Display System (IDS). Next, the team imported images into 

Microsoft® PowerPoint® and, based on SME input, developed a range of display options that 

included graphical and textual formats. 

2.5.3 Scenario Walkthrough. 

Scenario walkthroughs, derived from the simulation interviews, were one of the core activities 

conducted at the KEA. The research team used scenarios to capture the cognitive and physical 

demands imposed on controllers to process and disseminate bird threat information. The team 

selected this technique because scenarios are an efficient way to communicate the characteristics 

of a new system to a user and to illustrate its functionality so that users can easily identify 

impacts. Scenarios immerse the user in the context of a common operational environment, with 

or without its current limitations and constraints. By capturing this information, researchers can 

identify changes in system interactions, processes, critical decision points, system requirements, 

and other important elements. Consequently, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1362-1998 [9] requires that scenarios be included as part of a 

ConOps document. 

ATC is predominantly a cognitive task; however, it does include physical aspects, such as the 

need to move from one location in the tower to another to view or gain access to a system or to 

coordinate with another individual (e.g., a supervisor). The researchers considered it important 

to capture these aspects of the controller’s task because, in some circumstances, these may 

represent significant workload implications for the controller’s task, and the frequency of these 

events may be very different under a new concept. 
11 

The researchers developed five unique operational scenarios with input from ATC SMEs. The 

researchers designed the scenarios to represent common ATC bird threat situations. These 

dimensions included: 

• Time of day (day/night) 

• Type of operation (arrival/departure) 

• Type of ATC facility (ATCT/TRACON) 

• Controller workload (low/moderate) 

• Mechanism by which controllers learn of bird strike threats today (airport operations 

crew report, pilot report, radar observation, or visual observation out the tower cab). 

2.6 PROCEDURE. 

2.6.1 Schedule. 

Table 3 shows the daily WiSC KEA schedule. The participants arrived at the RDHFL and 

participated in the WiSC KEA for 2 days. 

Table 3. Daily WiSC KEA Schedule 

February 25, 2014 February 26, 2014

8:30-10:00 Introduction Briefing 8:30-10:00 Interface Discussion

10:00-10:15 Break 10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-11:45 Scenario Walkthrough 10:15-11:45 Research Questions

11:45-1:00 Lunch 11:45-l:00 Lunch

1:00-2:30 Scenario Walkthrough, continued 1:00-2:30 Final Discussions

2:30-2:45 Break 2:30-2:45 Break

2:45-3:30 Scenario Walkthrough, continued 2:45-4:00 AFTIL Tour

3:30-4:30 Interface Briefing

Upon arrival, the participants received an introductory briefing on bird strikes, avian radar 

research, and the purpose of the KEA. The next activity was a walkthrough of the operational 

scenarios. The first day was largely dedicated to analyzing scenarios that the research team 

prepared.
12 

On the last day, the research team presented some notional ATC interfaces containing 

supplemental bird threat information, held a discussion on the general research questions, and 

conducted an exit briefing. After the exit briefing, the participants toured the AFTIL.

2.6.2 Introductory Briefing. 

The participants met in the RDHFL briefing room where an ERP and a human factors specialist 

presented an introductory briefing. This briefing included a description of the KEA’s purpose, 

methods used, background research on bird threats, and potential detection and mitigation 

methods, including radar technologies. Following the introductory briefing, the participants 

signed the Informed Consent Form (appendix A) and completed both a Background 

Questionnaire (appendix B) and the Pre-KEA Opinion Survey (appendix C). The research team 

designed these materials to understand and quantify the type and amount of experience that 

participants had and to gauge their opinions and attitudes regarding the threat that birds pose to 

aviation and their work duties in general. 

2.6.3 Scenario Walkthrough. 

The human factors specialist guided the participants through each scenario based on current 

operations. For each step, the research team captured what equipment would be used, cognitive 

elements, workload drivers, and controller actions. The research team integrated all 

recommendations that the participants made to improve the scenario. Upon finalizing the 

scenario, the participants rated the scenario’s realism and representativeness and provided 

additional comments. The research team guided the participants through the scenario’s final 

version one more time and asked the participants to identify any changes or differences that 

might be anticipated if a bird threat advisory system was available.

2.6.4 Notional Interfaces Briefing and Review. 

At the end of the first day, the ERP gave the participants a briefing regarding pertinent aspects of 

avian radar research and examples of displays showing how this information is currently 

displayed to biologists, international ATC, and other users. This activity not only was to inform 

the participants of the current state of technology and its application but also to give them an 

opportunity to process that information before convening to review some notional ATC displays. 

The next day, the research team presented notional displays with examples of textual and 

graphical alternatives for displaying supplemental bird threat information to an ATC user. The 

examples were intended to initiate conversations on useful or detrimental elements and not a

depiction of a potential display. At the conclusion of the presentation, the participants completed 

the Post-Interface Evaluation Questionnaire and then engaged in a group discussion. 

2.6.5 Research Questions and Final Discussion. 

The research team dedicated the last half of the second day to Research Questions and a Final 

Discussion. Both of these activities were a group discussion style format. A human factors 

specialist led the participants through a discussion of research questions related to bird threats. 

Table 4 presents a preliminary list of WiSC-related research questions. The research team 

explicitly addressed many of these questions during KEA discussions. 
13 

Table 4. Preliminary Research Questions 

Topic Research Question

General Bird 

Hazards

What birds represent the most risk?

What phase(s) of flight could benefit most from avian radar?

Current 

Procedures

How do controllers learn of bird activity today?

How often does a controller see a flock of birds and issue an advisory to an 

aircrew?

In what situations does a pilot need/want to know about a bird threat? 

What phase(s) of flight could benefit most from avian radar?

In what situations does a controller need/want to know about a bird threat?

Are there different types/levels of wildlife threat information for different 

users (e.g., tower, TRACON, biologist)?

Information 

Needs

What information does the controller need? 

• A general alert; alert and section of the airport?

• Target with latitude/longitude, altitude, bearing, speed, number of 

targets, species?

• Other?

How long should alerts remain (persistence)?

Does/should the system need to distinguish between species? 

Does species identification impact decision making?

What should the system display (biomass, number of targets, bird size, 

location/proximity to traffic/flight path, likelihood/density of targets)? 

• Is biomass important to display? What biomass/density is important to 

pilots? 

What ATC users, if any, need a capability to access historical data? 

In what situations does a pilot need to know about a bird alert/advisory 

(departure, landing, real time, strategic)?

In what situations does a controller need to know about a bird alert/advisory 

(biomass, number of targets, bird size, location/proximity to traffic/flight 

path, likelihood/density of targets)?

Radar 

Capabilities/ 

Requirements

Is there too much “noise” in radar to be useful?

• How much noise can be tolerated?

What radar sensitivity/accuracy is required (altitude, bearing, speed, 

number of targets, wing-beat frequency (presented as likely species to 

controller))?

If species identification is important, is this technically achievable at 

acceptable identification levels?

Would a TCAS-type alert for birds be desirable or effective?
14 

Table 4. Preliminary Research Questions (Continued) 

Topic Research Question

Display and 

Integration 

What system (if any) should be used to present bird activity to controllers 

(STARS, IDS, ASDE-X, etc.)?

If an alert is required, should it be graphic or text? 

Who in ATC should receive avian alerts (supervisor, ground, local, radar,

etc.)?

Should alert types be dependent on the ATC position (e.g., supervisor, 

ground, local)?

How often should the display update (dependent on display)?

Future 

Recommended 

Procedures/ 

Processes

How should bird activity information be disseminated in the mid-term?

What new procedural changes would be advocated 

What new ATCs responsibilities/procedures/phraseology would be required 

under subsequent revisions of the concept? 

• What advisories are required? What is the phraseology? Is the 

phraseology different for different threat levels? 

Where do bird threat alerts fall in terms of their priority? (Different from 

current practice?)

How might avian radar information be integrated with NextGen 

technologies? 

The Final Discussion section served as a capstone activity. Participants were able to share 

additional comments or experiences that they had not provided previously. This section also 

gave the research team an opportunity to close any open discussion topics. 

3. RESULTS. 

The results are organized by activity: pre-KEA survey, scenario walkthroughs, information 

needs and interface discussion, and exit questionnaire. Where possible, the research team 

categorized responses into common themes to help consolidate and organize the findings. The 

controllers and supervisors are referred to collectively as ATC Participants unless researchers 

noted an important difference in responses or the nature of the task that required a differentiation

between these two user groups. 

All questions used a 10-point rating scale with the lower values representing low/less/disagree 

and the higher values meaning high/more/agree. The anchors and questions provided the context 

for the item. Figure 4 provides examples of the types of scale anchors used in the WiSC KEA 

questionnaires. All questionnaires used in this KEA are contained in the appendices. 
15 

Figure 4. Ten-Point Rating Scales and Anchors Used in KEA Questionnaires 

3.1 PRE-KEA SURVEY. 

The Pre-KEA Opinion Survey’s primary objective was to assess the participants’ experience 

levels with bird threats and gauge their opinions on mitigation efforts. The intent was to gather 

the participants’ opinions prior to exposure to any KEA activities so the researchers could 

identify any resulting changes in their opinions. 

3.1.1 Awareness of the Bird Strike Threat and Mitigation Efforts. 

ATC participants rated their awareness of the bird strike threat issue as high (8.5) and their 

awareness of current mitigation efforts as high also (7.75). The pilots’ ratings were similar, 

rating their awareness of the problem and knowledge of mitigation efforts as high (7.5 and 7.0, 

respectively). Two ATC participants had worked directly with United States Department of 

Agriculture Wildlife Services biologists on bird strikes and potential ways to mitigate them. 

This experience included reading and reviewing current literature and research reports on the 

issue. One pilot also was fairly familiar with the literature on the current state of the problem, 

including mitigation efforts.

3.1.2 Experience With Bird Strikes. 

ATC participants confirmed that bird hazards play a significant role in their daily activities, with 

three of the four participants rating it a 10 on the 10-point scale. These ratings are along the 

levels anticipated because the participants were recruited from among the top ten facilities with 

reported aircraft bird strikes. The two pilots provided disparate ratings; one rated it high (8) and 

the other low (3). 

All participants in the KEA reported firsthand experience dealing with and reporting bird strike 

events. This included receiving bird advisories, reporting information on the Automatic 

Terminal Information Service (ATIS), and completing bird strike reports. In fact, three of the 

four ATC participants had experience managing an aircraft after it encountered a bird strike. 

Each pilot had issued or received countless bird advisories throughout their career and had 

encountered several bird strikes or close calls.
16 

3.1.3 Severity of the Bird Strike Issue. 

The ATC participants indicated that bird activity frequently impacts operations at their facility. 

They reported incidences ranging from multiple times per week to as many as 30 times a day. 

This activity results in 1-10 advisories on a typical day to what was referred to as “non-stop” 

during peak migratory season. As a result, the ATC participants reported that bird hazards 

contributed significantly to their duties/workload (averaging 7.5 on the 10-point scale). There 

was some variability in the response to this question with one controller providing a much lower 

rating of 4. 

According to the ATC participants, one of the most significant workload drivers is the dynamic

nature of bird threat information. Maintaining vigilance of a threat that is somewhat ambiguous 

or ill-defined in terms of location increased their workload. This includes the constant need to 

query pilots for updated information and attempts to track down more information from other 

sources. With respect to workload, one controller commented, “There are numerous primary 

radar targets. We are never sure if they are birds or something else. We are constantly passing 

traffic advisories for these primary targets to pilots not knowing (what the targets are).”

The consequences of bird threats on controller workload are evident even when birds are not 

directly affecting their operations at the time. In fact, ATC participants reported that even when 

birds were present, but not a hazard to their operations, they still required extra effort to remain 

vigilant of their potential impact (8.25). The most frequently occurring operational impacts of 

bird activity were reported to be a pilot request to delay departure and emergency landings. 

The pilots were split on the issue of how much impact bird threats had on their daily activities. 

One pilot rated the impact as high while the other rated the impact as low to moderate. These 

responses are not surprising when one further examines the data. The pilot who rated the impact 

as high estimated having about 250 close calls/bird strikes over a 30-year career. The other pilot 

recalled only three occurrences in 50 years. 

When asked to identify how they currently receive bird threat information, the ATC participants

listed direct observation from the tower cab and verbal communications from a supervisor, 

another controller, pilot, or airport operations personnel. They ranked the sources according to 

frequency. PIREPs were identified as the most common, followed by all other sources. 

3.1.4 Value of Supplemental Bird Threat Information. 

The ATC and pilot participants reported that additional bird threat information would be 

valuable in the ATC environment (8.0) and in the cockpit (8.5). One key reason was that bird 

location and level of activity is constantly changing, which requires controllers to continually 

seek updated information by contacting pilots or by other methods. The controllers indicated 

that if bird threat information could be updated with accurate and reliable information, it would 

be helpful in alleviating some of the interrogation that occurs today. Pilots also reported that 

additional information would aid their scan out the window. One pilot added, “I’m looking 

outside 99% of the time inside 10 miles from the airport. It would be helpful to have more 

(precise position) information from ATC to put my eyes on to avoid the bird threat.” 
17 

Controllers were generally in favor of having supplemental bird information available to them 

(9.5) with three out of four participants providing the highest possible rating (10). According to 

one participant, “The more information that controllers have, the more information they can pass 

to pilots as long as that information is accurate and beneficial.” 

Although the pilots were in favor of having additional bird information available to them, they 

indicated that they did not want this information to be sent directly to the cockpit. They reported 

potential challenges such as additional heads down time, increased workload, and increased 

reaction time. Instead, they considered it preferable to receive the information from the 

controller as they do today. As one pilot stated, “I’m already busy enough. I don’t want eyeballs 

inside during a critical phase of flight.” 

3.2 SCENARIO WALKTHROUGHS. 

The KEA moderator led the participants through each scenario as described in the procedures. 

Researchers updated the scenarios as needed until they were “approved” by the participants. The 

research team captured all comments regarding each step of the procedure. 

At the conclusion of each scenario, the participants rated three key attributes of the scenario: 

realism, representativeness, and frequency of this type of event at their current facility. Table 5

summarizes the four ATC participants’ ratings, sorted by realism. These items were important 

because they are an initial assessment of the frequency of specific types of operational events 

and how common they are within the NAS and across facilities. This information is crucial for 

the shortfall analysis (e.g., to gauge how often a particular shortfall might occur), the ConOps 

document (e.g., selecting a realistic situation to demonstrate benefits), and other follow-on 

documentation. 

Table 5. Average ATC Ratings for Each Scenario (Range in Parentheses)

Scenario Realism Representativeness

Frequency of Event at 

Current Facility

Scenario B:

PIREP to TRACON Controller

9.75 (9-10) 9.25 (8-10) 8.50 (5-10)

Scenario E:

Tower Controller Visual 

Observation

9.00 (9-9) 9.00 (9-9) 6.75 (3-9)

Scenario D:

PIREP to Tower Controller

8.50 (7-9) 9.00 (9-9) 8.75 (7-10)

Scenario A:

Airport Operations Report to 

Tower (night)

7.25 (3-9) 5.75 (2-9) 5.25 (1-9)

Scenario C:

TRACON Controller Radar 

Observation

6.75 (1-10) 5.50 (1-10) 4.75 (1-9)

Scale: 1 = Very low, 10 = Very high 
18 

The ratings suggest that PIREPs and controller visual observation are among the most common 

means by which bird threat information reaches the controller today. PIREPs are applicable and 

important in both the ATCT and TRACON environments. Clearly, visual observation (Scenario 

E) is only an option from the tower cab. 

Radar observation of bird targets (Scenario C) was reported to be an uncommon occurrence. 

This is not surprising because ATC radar and software is designed to locate relatively large 

targets (aircraft), typically equipped with a transponder, moving at a relatively high rate of speed, 

and at altitude. Birds violate all of these parameters. As a result, birds rarely appear as a target 

on a STARS display, and when they do, their target signature is typically intermittent, sporadic, 

and unreliable. The avian radar systems available at some airports may represent a revolutionary 

change in the ability to provide controllers more precise information on the location of bird 

threats.

The participants also rated three human factors-related aspects of the WiSC system. The results 

are presented in table 6. The ATC participants demonstrated strong agreement that a welldesigned bird advisory would be helpful in all situations described with ratings of helpfulness 

averaging 8.75 across all scenarios. It was recognized that there is a potential risk of unfavorably 

impacting controller workload with the introduction of a bird threat advisory. Therefore, specific 

questions designed to capture how much supplemental bird threat information might impact the 

user, potentially introducing new cognitive or temporal demands, were included. 

Table 6. Average ATC Ratings of Impact of WiSC Advisories (Range in Parentheses) 

Scenario

WiSC Advisory 

Would be 

Helpful1

WiSC Advisory Would 

Improve Situation 

Awareness1

Workload 

Impact of WiSC 

Advisory2

Scenario B:

PIREP to TRACON Controller

10.00 (10) 7.75 (2-10) 8.00 (7-10)

Scenario C:

TRACON Controller Radar 

Observation

9.00 (8-10) 6.75 (5-10) 5.75 (1-9)

Scenario E:

ATCT Controller Visual 

Observation

8.25 (5-10) 7.25 (5-10) 6.75 (5-10)

Scenario D:

PIREP to ATCT Controller

8.25 (6-10) 7.25 (5-10) 7.25 (6-10)

Scenario A:

Airport Operations Report to 

ATCT (night)

8.25 (6-10) 6.25 (1-10) 6.75 (5-8)

1 Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 10 = Strongly agree 2 Scale: 1 = Negative effect, 5 = No effect, 10 = Positive effect

Several recurrent themes were identified during the scenario walkthroughs. The participants 

indicated that an effective WiSC-type bird threat advisory might eliminate steps in several 

scenarios they reviewed. They attributed this to the ability of this type of system to proactively 
19 

provide updated and precise bird threat information rather than requiring controllers to actively 

seek additional information as they often do today. However, there were conflicting opinions 

regarding WiSC’s impact on communications between controllers, supervisors, and pilots. 

During the scenario walkthroughs, participants reported that the number of communications was 

greatly reduced as a result of having accurate bird threat information. However, during the postscenario group discussions, participants noted that this reduction may not completely offset the 

potential need to issue many more bird strike advisories if they are given more current and 

precise bird threat information. Participants considered it important to share updated bird 

activity information, but noted that the information could be very dynamic because of the erratic 

and pervasive nature of this activity. The range in responses most likely resulted from the 

methods used. The scenarios encouraged the participants to focus on specific details and actions 

in a pre-prescribed situation; whereas, the group discussions allowed them to adopt a more 

global view and identify systematic considerations. 

Similar comments were provided regarding workload and supplemental bird threat information. 

During the scenarios, approximately half the participants believed there would be either a 

reduction in workload or a neutral effect. The other half focused on the importance of

procedural issues that must accompany WiSC. Another common theme was related to the ATIS

and its update procedures. In many scenarios, communication and coordination was necessary to 

update the ATIS information. This process adds to the workload and can be cumbersome when 

bird threats are persistent. The controllers and supervisors reported that ATIS currently includes

general bird threat information 24 hours a day at their facility. These ATIS messages may 

simply be general year-round messages advising of bird activity. While this advisory may help 

offset some of the controller’s burden to report the information, it does not support the broadcast 

of current and precise information that may be very valuable for pilots. WiSC may allow for the 

dissemination of more specific, reliable, accurate, and meaningful information to pilots via 

ATIS. If this information could be inserted in the ATIS in an automated fashion, it may reduce 

the controller and supervisor workload. 

Another common theme centered on procedural requirements. The Air Traffic Control Manual, 

7110.65 [10], requires controllers to provide threat advisory information to pilots for 15 minutes

after a bird threat is reported or observed, unless they can confirm that there is no longer a threat. 

This represents several controller workload implications. First, controllers recognize that they 

must rely on direct observation (which may be compromised by fog, obstructions, night, etc.) or 

actively seek pilot reports to confirm the ongoing nature of the hazard. Second, they may issue 

several unnecessary advisories in circumstances when they were not aware or are not notified

that the birds have left the area and no longer represent a threat. In addition, the value of these 

required advisories may be reduced as time passes from the last report. The participants 

suggested that, with timely and accurate information, a WiSC-type system likely would help 

offset these sources of workload. 

The following sections present the results from the walkthrough of the five scenarios (A-E). 

Each section provides background on the objectives of the scenario, participant ratings or realism 

and representativeness, the final approved version of the scenario, scenario assumptions, 

information captured by the team during the walkthrough, and general comments provided by the 

participants. Scenario realism is indicative of how closely the scenario reflects actual ATC 

operations, procedures, and outcomes. Representativeness, in contrast, is an indication of how 
20 

common this specific situation is at a given facility. Both are valuable when selecting conditions 

for the shortfall analysis and consideration for inclusion in the ConOps document. Participants 

also identified common themes in their responses during the discussions and in the questionnaire

data. 

3.2.1 Scenario A. 

In this scenario, an airport operations crew observes and reports bird activity to the ATCT 

controller. This scenario represented the only night condition scenario in the KEA and was 

developed for a variety of reasons. Although there is some discrepancy in the reported level of 

bird activity at night, with estimates varying widely from low to relatively high levels, the 

incidence is certainly site and species dependent. Also, the actual number of aircraft bird strikes 

is lower during night conditions; however, the strike incidence rate at night may be 

underestimated. The night strike incidence deserves attention because raw counts do not take 

into consideration the number of active flights (flight density) and night strikes may be less 

likely to be observed. Another important aspect of night operations is that introducing new 

information into the tower to supplement what is currently a situation without visible bird threat 

information could potentially result in a fundamental change in ATC practices with associated 

costs and benefits. 

Table 7 summarizes controller (number of participants (n=2)) and supervisor (n=2) ratings of 

realism and representativeness for Scenario A. The ratings confirm that ATC participants found

this scenario to be very realistic but not all that common (i.e., 5 out of 10 for representativeness). 

This scenario was rated as more indicative of operations at some facilities and not at others. 

However, the current sample size does not offer sufficient weight to confirm this interpretation. 

The participants emphasized that, even with the very specific and accurate bird threat

information provided by WiSC, the responsibility for a go/no go departure decision should 

remain with the pilot, as is the case today. Controllers would issue a departure clearance with 

the improved advisory information, but it would still be at the pilot’s discretion on whether or 

not to request a delay. The participants indicated that, today, when pilots are advised of a bird 

threat prior to departure, they rarely request a delay and that strikes, even during these 

circumstances, remain extremely infrequent. The pilots commented that if they were made 

aware of a bird threat in the immediate departure path at the end of the runway and they had 

confidence in the accuracy of the information, they would be more likely to request a delay. 
21 

Table 7. Scenario A—Airport Operations Report to ATCT Controller at Night

Realism: 7.25 out of 10 (Range: 3-8) Representativeness: 5.75 out of 10 (Range: 2-9)

Scenario A

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Departure, Ops Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Night Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

1 Airport 

Ops Crew

An airport Ops crew 

working near 27L hears a 

large flock of Canada Geese 

passing north to south at 

low altitude.

Local controller receives WiSC alert 

that birds are crossing midfield runway 

27L at 200 ft. If WiSC incorporated a 

camera system (potentially with night 

vision) it may automatically slew to an 

identified target.

2 Airport 

Ops Crew

Crew member picks up 

radio and contacts ATCT 

and notifies them of bird 

activity crossing midfield 

runway 27L at about 100-

300 ft.

Ops crew uses radio to 

call tower on local 

frequency or phone to call 

tower supervisor/ 

controller. If no 

supervisor on the shift, 

answering an outside call 

is a relatively low-priority 

task for controllers.

This communication is unnecessary; 

however, it may corroborate the WiSC 

alert.

3 Pilot AWE253, having just 

departed, stabilizes on climb

out.

4 Local 

Controller

The local controller contacts 

AWE253 and asks if they 

observed bird activity on 

departure.

This request may have 

been included in the 

departure clearance if the 

local controller was aware 

of bird activity in the area.

This communication is unnecessary. 

The local controller has more precise 

information from the WiSC alert.

5 Pilot AWE253 reports that they 

did not.

This communication is unnecessary. 

Local controllers have more precise 

information from the WiSC alert.

6 Local 

Controller

The local controller clears 

the next departure 

(DAL456) and notifies them 

bird activity was reported 

midfield on 27L at 100-300

ft. 

Local controller clears DAL456 for 

departure and provides updated and 

accurate WiSC bird advisory 

information. Pilot can more 

effectively determine if birds are a 

threat when making the go/no go 

decision.

7 Pilot DAL456 pilot advises that 

they would like to delay 

departure for activity to 

clear.

Pilot has the option to 

request a delay (it is very 

rare that pilots see the 

need to request a delay for 

bird activity).

This step may be unnecessary. With 

more timely and accurate information, 

the pilot can make a more informed 

decision on whether a delay in 

departure is advisable. May elect to 

depart, which would eliminate this and 

steps 8-9.

8 Local 

Controller

Approves DAL456’s 

request.

The local controller may 

approve the delay request 

or re-sequence that 

aircraft, depending on 

departure demand and 

current workload.

Potentially unnecessary—dependent 

on pilot’s decision in step 7. 
22 

Table 7. Scenario A—Airport Operations Report to ATCT Controller at Night (Continued) 

Realism: 7.25 out of 10 (Range: 3-8) Representativeness: 5.75 out of 10 (Range: 2-9)

Scenario A

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Departure, Ops Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Night Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

9 Pilot (After some time) DAL456 

requests departure 

clearance.

Potentially unnecessary—dependent 

on pilot’s decision in step 7. WiSC 

also could provide updated 

information that would cut this delay

short.

10 Local 

Controller

The local controller clears 

DAL456 for departure and 

asks DAL456 to advise if 

they observe bird activity.

Reduced Workload. The request to 

report bird activity may be 

unnecessary.

11 Pilot DAL456 departs.

12 Birds Birds depart vicinity of 

runway.

Per 7110.65 [10], tower 

controller continues to 

issue last reported bird 

activity to aircraft for the 

next 15 minutes.

Reduced workload. Termination of 

the WiSC alert indicates the birds are 

no longer a threat. This information 

would not otherwise be available at 

night. The controllers do not need to 

issue advisories for the next 15 

minutes.

13 Local 

Controller

Local controller clears the 

next departure (GJS102) 

and notifies them bird 

activity was reported midfield on 27L at 100-300 ft. 

Reduced workload. Local controller 

issues the departure clearance without 

bird threat advisory.

Note: The shaded boxes indicate that this step is no longer necessary with WiSC. 

3.2.2 Scenario B. 

Scenario B represents a PIREP, which participants indicated is the most common source of bird 

information today (see table 8). In this scenario, a pilot issues a PIREP to a TRACON controller 

shortly after departure when they observe a large flock of birds. The second departure in this 

scenario was included to investigate how WiSC information might affect the controller and a 

pilot’s decision on whether or not to request a delay. 

The scenario emphasizes the importance of visual search in corroborating a pilot report. In this 

scenario, the location information provided by WiSC could aid the controller’s visual scan by 

reducing the area of interest and it may also help overcome the potential issue of parallax (e.g., 

the inability to identify the birds’ location in relation to a crossing). The participants suggested 

that communication and coordination may also be reduced with WiSC. This was attributed to a 

potential reduction in the need for controller-supervisor coordination and controller-pilot 

communications. 
23 

Table 8. Scenario B—PIREP to TRACON Controller 

Realism: 9.75 out of 10 (Range: 9-10) Representativeness: 9.25 out of 10 (Range: 8-10)

Scenario B

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: TRACON, Departure, Pilot Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

1 UAL246 UAL246 is at 3000 ft and 

climbing off runway 9L. 

WiSC alert may have identified 

threat earlier and the local 

controller could have issued an 

advisory to UAL246.

2 Pilot Observes flock of Canada 

Geese at 3000 ft moving left 

to right and contacts 

TRACON departure 

controller to report 

information.

Pilots often have only one

piece of data to report (e.g., 

altitude, miles out). Pilot 

may delay the report due to 

higher priority tasks.

This communication is 

unnecessary. The departure 

controller receives more complete 

and precise information from the 

WiSC alert.

3 TRACON 

Departure 

Controller

Uses radar to observe 

UAL246’s location and

correlates this with the bird 

report.

Birds are occasionally 

displayed on Airport 

Surveillance Radar as 

primary targets. These 

instances are infrequent and 

intermittent.

This step may be unnecessary. If 

WiSC alert includes position 

information on the radar display, 

the departure controller can easily 

correlate the aircraft and bird 

targets.

4 TRACON 

Departure 

Controller

Acknowledges the call. Departure controllers

typically capture just what 

was provided and do not 

follow up with the pilot for 

more information.

This communication is 

unnecessary. Controllers and 

supervisors at both facilities have 

the same information from the 

WiSC alert.

5 TRACON 

Departure 

Controller

Contacts local controller 

(tower) and reports flock of 

geese 2 miles east of the 

airfield at 3000 ft

southbound.

Supervisor monitoring the 

area will often hear the call 

and be aware of the bird 

PIREP.

This communication is 

unnecessary. Controllers and 

supervisors at both facilities have 

the same information from the 

WiSC alert.

6 Local 

Controller 

Looks out the tower cab with 

binoculars attempting to 

locate the geese—does not 

see them.

The local controller looks in the 

area identified by WiSC (more 

efficient visual search due to 

more precise location 

information). If WiSC 

incorporated a camera system 

(potentially with night vision), it 

may automatically slew to an 

identified target.

7 Local 

Controller

Local controller issues 

departure clearance to 

DAL165 and provides bird 

activity advisory to 

subsequent aircraft on the 

affected departure route. 

Local controller includes updated 

WiSC location information if 

available. With more precise 

information, the pilot can more 

effectively determine if birds are 

a threat when making the go/no 

go decision.
24 

Table 8. Scenario B—PIREP to TRACON Controller (Continued) 

Realism: 9.75 out of 10 (Range: 9-10) Representativeness: 9.25 out of 10 (Range: 8-10)

Scenario B

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: TRACON, Departure, Pilot Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

8 Pilot DAL165 pilot accepts the 

clearance and departs.

Pilot is aware of ongoing threat. 

Pilot can focus attention on active 

area.

9 Local 

Controller

Local controller issues “last 

reported” bird advisories to 

relevant traffic for the next 

15 minutes.

Advisories are issued for 15 

minutes unless the local 

controller can confirm birds 

are no longer a threat. 

Value of advisory is reduced 

as time passes from last 

report. If a controller 

actively tries to determine if 

the threat persists, either by 

PIREP or visual 

observation, there is some 

workload associated with 

that activity.

WiSC supports improved 

advisories. Advisories are timely 

and provide more accurate 

location information. Advisories 

are only issued during threat 

periods.

Note: The shaded boxes indicate that this step is no longer necessary with WiSC. 

Table 8 presents average controller (n=2) and supervisor (n=2) ratings of realism and 

representativeness for Scenario B. The ratings indicate that ATC participants found this scenario 

to be both very realistic and representative of typical situations at their facility. Given the 

consistency of responses, it was concluded that this scenario is indicative of common operations 

at ATC facilities. 

The participants noted that having a bird target presented on a display along with aircraft might 

aid them in quickly discerning proximity/relationships between the birds and aircraft. This 

scenario was also unanimously rated the situation that WiSC would be the most helpful to them, 

with all participants rating helpfulness at 10. However, this was a preliminary observation 

provided within the operational context of the scenario and requires validation and research 

before it can be considered a viable option. 

3.2.3 Scenario C. 

In this scenario, bird targets are presented on the radar at a TRACON controller’s display. The 

participants indicated that this is very uncommon and among the least frequent methods to learn 

of bird activity. The objective was to examine the situations when the current primary radar 

systems occasionally depict unknown targets that “pop up” and “disappear” in a very 

inconsistent fashion. Because the terminal radar system is not designed or configured to detect 

bird targets, they are filtered out. Controllers are still required to report these targets for 15 

minutes or until they are determined to no longer be a factor despite their unreliable and 

unpredictable nature. During scenario development meetings, anecdotal situations demonstrated

that at least some controllers interacted with an unknown target by “tagging” it with some sort of 

reminder. This was considered an area of interest because these controllers demonstrated that 
25 

labelling this type of activity, though temporary, was important enough to dedicate their time and 

cognitive resources to perform. The research team considered that providing precise and robust 

bird information through WiSC may help alleviate the ambiguity and uncertainty caused by the 

ambiguous, unreliable, and transient nature of these targets.

A number of valuable insights were captured from this scenario. First, not all controllers used 

this method of “tagging” an unknown primary target. In fact, a few participants in the KEA said 

that the likelihood of being able to put a radar tag on a flock of geese is extremely low under 

normal conditions at their facility. Other participants took a more moderate approach to this 

question, stating that the mechanism being used here (tagging) was something they were aware 

of but had used only on occasion. However, all agreed that the unpredictable and unreliable 

nature of bird targets on their primary radar discouraged the use of tagging. As a result, the 

practice of labeling birds is highly site and controller dependent. 

Table 9 averages across controller (n=2) and supervisor (n=2) ratings of realism and 

representativeness for Scenario C. The average ratings indicate that ATC participants found this 

scenario to be both moderately realistic and moderately representative of typical situations at 

their facility. However, given the range of responses (1-10) on both questions and the small 

sample size, it is more accurate to conclude that opinions on representativeness and realism were 

either very high or very low across individual participants. Given the variability of responses, it 

was concluded that this scenario may not be indicative of common operations at all ATC 

facilities. 

Table 9. Scenario C—TRACON Controller Radar Observation 

Realism: 6.75 out of 10 (Range: 1-10) Representativeness: 5.5 out of 10 (Range: 1-10)

Scenario C

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: TRACON, Arrival, CPC radar Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

1 TRACON 

Controller

Observes unidentified 

target on display, 

slews to target, and 

makes a keyboard 

entry “watch.”

Using this labeling is not common 

or required, and so it is highly site 

and controller dependent. If nonaircraft targets are commonly 

captured by radar at a facility and 

the targets remain relatively 

persistent, then it is more likely 

this step will be performed.

This step is unnecessary. WiSC 

identifies bird threats and displays 

them to the controller. There is 

less ambiguity regarding the nature 

of the target. 

2 TRACON 

Controller

Monitors the target 

and issues traffic to 

SWA585, “unknown 

slow moving target, 

12-1 o’clock 3 miles, 

altitude unknown.”

Controller issues bird advisory 

based on WiSC with specific 

location and altitude information. 

Improved confidence in value of 

information being relayed to pilot 

(e.g., looking for birds, not another 

aircraft).

3 Pilot SWA585 answers call 

“looking.”

Pilot can narrow search area to 

specific location. Altitude 

information is very helpful in 

locating target(s).

4 Pilot After 15 seconds, the

pilot responds, “flock 

of birds beneath me.”

This report could verify WiSC

information.
26 

Table 9. Scenario C—TRACON Controller Radar Observation (Continued) 

Realism: 6.75 out of 10 (Range: 1-10) Representativeness: 5.5 out of 10 (Range: 1-10)

Scenario C

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: TRACON, Arrival, CPC radar Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

5 TRACON 

Controller

Asks pilots to estimate 

altitude.

This step may be unnecessary. 

WiSC provides altitude 

information; however, controller 

may ask pilot to confirm this 

information. 

6 Pilot “Birds 200 ft below 

me.”

Controller computes the birds’

altitude using SWA585’s altitude 

from the radar display.

This step is unnecessary. WiSC 

provides more timely and accurate

altitude information. 

7 TRACON 

Controller

Replaces “watch”

radar tag with “birds” 

on STARS.

This step is unnecessary. WiSC 

identifies bird threats and displays 

them to the controller. 

8 TRACON 

Controller

Issues traffic to 

AAL222 (the next 

aircraft on the route) 

“last reported birds at 

1500 ft.”

WiSC enables controller to provide 

advisories that are up to date and 

provide more accurate location 

information. 

9 Pilot Acknowledges call 

and looks for birds.

Pilot can narrow search area to 

specific location. Altitude 

information is very helpful in 

locating target(s).

10 Radar 

display

Two minutes later, the 

target drops from the 

display.

Controller is unsure whether the 

birds have left or if the radar is no 

longer capturing the targets.

WiSC provides accurate location 

information. Controller is aware of 

whether or not the threat persists.

11 TRACON 

Controller

Issues traffic alert to 

subsequent aircraft for 

the next 15 minutes.

Advisories are issued for 15 

minutes unless controller 

confirms birds are no longer a 

threat. Value of advisory 

diminishes as time passes. 

Workload is increased if 

controller actively attempts to 

confirm if the threat persists 

through PIREPs or visual 

observation.

WiSC supports improved 

advisories. Advisories are timely 

and provide more accurate location 

information. Advisories are only 

issued during threat periods.

Note: The shaded boxes indicate that this step is no longer necessary with WiSC. 

3.2.4 Scenario D. 

Scenario D examined a pilot report of bird activity to the tower during final approach. This 

scenario describes a controller using binoculars to observe the bird target, which is very common 

in this and other PIREP situations. The benefit of having WiSC information for these situations 

is that the controller may already be aware of the birds’ location and potentially have other 

information, such as altitude and speed, which could have been provided to the pilot before final 

approach. This would have negated the need for the PIREP and provided valuable information

to the pilot before descent. In addition, the detailed bird threat data enables the controller to 

more efficiently monitor and scan the airport surface. 
27 

The participants indicated that pilots often can only provide a few of the possible information 

elements regarding the bird threat (e.g., altitude, distance from the runway, heading, and speed). 

In addition, pilots may be required to defer communicating the advisory in favor of more 

pressing flight deck responsibilities. As a result, the information provided may be incomplete 

and not timely. WiSC could, potentially, alleviate some of these concerns. 

During this and several other scenarios, the participants indicated that communications could, 

potentially, be decreased with WiSC due to the distributed/shared nature of the information. 

They stated that the shared nature of the information could, potentially, eliminate several

communication steps in this scenario. 

Table 10 shows the averages across controller (n=2) and supervisor (n=2) ratings of realism and 

representativeness. The ratings indicate that ATC participants found this scenario very realistic 

and representative of typical situations at their facility. Given the consistency of responses, it 

was concluded that this scenario is indicative of common operations at ATC facilities.

Table 10. Scenario D—PIREP to ATCT Controller 

Realism: 8.5 out of 10 (Range: 7-9) Representativeness: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9)

Secnario D

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Arrival, Pilot Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

1 AWE607 AWE607 is at 

300ft on 1 mile 

final to runway 

27R. 

WiSC alerts controller to location and 

altitude of birds. 

2 Pilot Observes birds and 

reports to Local 

Controller, “Flock 

of birds under me, 

crossing left to 

right.”

Pilots often have only one

piece of data to report (e.g., 

altitude, miles out). Pilot 

may delay the report due to 

higher-priority tasks.

This communication may be unnecessary. 

Local controller may have already issued an 

advisory to AWE607. Local controller 

would not have to mentally translate 

direction of flight into relevant compass 

position (“left to right” to “northbound”).

3 Local

Controller 

Acknowledges call 

and informs 

supervisor of 

PIREP.

Supervisor monitoring the 

area will often hear the call 

and be aware of the PIREP.

The communication with the pilot may be 

unnecessary if an advisory was issued. 

Local controller may not need to inform 

supervisor, because they have access to the 

WiSC system.

4 Local

Controller 

Looks out the 

tower cab with 

binoculars 

attempting to 

locate the birds—

does not see them.

Local controller looks in the area identified 

by WiSC (more efficient visual search due 

to more precise location information). If 

WiSC incorporated a camera system 

(potentially with night vision), it may 

automatically slew to an identified target.
28 

Table 10. Scenario D—PIREP to ATCT Controller (Continued) 

Realism: 8.5 out of 10 (Range: 7-9) Representativeness: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9)

Secnario D

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Arrival, Pilot Report Sky: Clear Workload: Moderate

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

5 Local

Controller 

Informs supervisor 

so that it can be put 

on ATIS.

Bird activity is most likely 

already noted on ATIS. The 

ATIS at almost every 

facility includes a general 

comment to be alert for 

flocks of birds.

This communication is unnecessary.

Supervisor has access to the WiSC system. 

Quantitative metrics may be used to 

selectively determine when bird activity 

alerts are placed on ATIS (e.g., if bird 

counts or number of events per day exceeds 

an established threshold). WiSC may allow 

bird threat information on ATIS to be more 

specific.

6 Local

Controller 

Issues alert to 

subsequent arrivals 

for the next 15 

minutes.

Advisories are issued for 15 

minutes unless local 

controller can confirm birds 

are no longer a threat. 

Value of advisory is 

reduced as time passes from 

last report. If a local

controller actively tries to 

determine if the threat 

persists, either by PIREP or 

visual observation, there is 

some workload associated 

with that activity.

WiSC supports improved advisories.

Advisories are timely and provide more 

accurate location information. Advisories 

are only issued during threat periods.

Note: The shaded boxes indicate that this step is no longer necessary with WiSC. 

3.2.5 Scenario E. 

The objective of this scenario was to elicit feedback on the effects of persistent low-altitude bird 

threats on the tower controller. Understanding how controllers and supervisors manage

unpredictable and ongoing bird threats is important because it is a relatively common situation at 

several facilities. Depending upon the birds’ location, airport/runway configurations, distance 

from the tower, and other factors, the controller may have difficulty determining the exact 

location of the threat in relation to the runway and taxiways. For example, they may not be able 

to ascertain if the birds are “just this side of 09L or far enough away to not be an issue.” This 

exercise is cognitively demanding and requires both visual and spatial processing to maintain

focused attention that greatly diminishes the ability to multitask. 

Controllers perform frequent, routine visual scans of the airport surface to identify potential 

hazards, such as foreign objects on the runway, occupied runways, airport vehicular traffic, as 

well as wildlife threats and other hazards. The participants indicated that although WiSC would 

not change this procedure, it may provide an efficient means for controllers to remain aware of

bird activity without the need for additional dedicated scans. In addition, the system may 

provide information that is difficult to determine today, such as direction of movement or 

velocity. 
29 

Due to the shared situation display available through a WiSC system, controllers may no longer

need to inform supervisors of bird activity. A well-designed system could simultaneously 

provide all users with user-centric, updated information. Users could include air traffic 

stakeholders, such as controllers and supervisors, as well as airport operations personnel and 

biologists. This would offset the need for communication between these users and support 

collaboration if needed through shared situation awareness. The system could also incorporate 

automated or semi-automated processes to efficiently update the ATIS, perhaps by precomposing detailed messages that can be reviewed and approved by the supervisor for broadcast. 

Table 11 summarizes the controller (n=2) and supervisor (n=2) ratings of realism and 

representativeness for Scenario E. The ATC participants rated this scenario as very realistic and 

representative of typical situations at their facility. It was considered to be indicative of common 

operations across ATC facilities. 

Table 11. Scenario E—ATCT Controller Visual Observation 

Realism: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9) Representativeness: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9)

Scenario E

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Arrival, CPC Visual Sky: Clear Workload: Low

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

1 Local

Controller

Observes persistent bird 

activity near the intersection 

of active runways 27 and 35 

crossing north to south 

during their normal scan. 

Local controller would most 

likely notify supervisor 

when they first observe the 

activity. 

WiSC alerts controllers and 

continuously updates location and 

altitude information.

2 Birds The flock repeatedly circles 

between 100 and 300 ft and 

lands again in the same 

vicinity of the runway. 

Controllers may have 

difficulty determining the 

affected runway or runway 

crossing (e.g., “are the birds 

flying just this side of 27R

or far enough away not to be 

an issue”).

WiSC alerts controller and 

continuously updates the birds’ 

location and altitude. Accurate 

position information helps 

controller determine when the 

runways/operations are impacted.

3 Local

Controller

Informs supervisor of the 

bird activity.

This communication may be 

unnecessary. Supervisor has 

access to the WiSC system. 

4 Supervisor Notifies airport operations 

management and puts an 

advisory on the ATIS.

If birds are on the runway

itself, the controller may 

discontinue its use and call 

airport operations to clear 

them.

Notifying airport operations is 

most likely unnecessary since they 

have also received WiSC alerts. If 

they do not respond, then the call 

is still needed. However, this is 

unlikely in this specific scenario 

due to the persistent nature of the 

threat. WiSC may have an option 

to provide predefined alerts based 

on current data for supervisor to 

upload to ATIS.

5 Local

Controller

Advises AWE607 of the bird 

activity and clears it to land. 

Pilot has current information on 

the specific location of the bird 

activity.
30 

Table 11. Scenario E—ATCT Controller Visual Observation (Continued) 

Realism: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9) Representativeness: 9.0 out of 10 (Range: 9-9)

Scenario E

Scenario Assumptions:

Type: Tower, Arrival, CPC Visual Sky: Clear Workload: Low

Time: Day Visibility: >10 miles

Step Actor Event Current Operations WiSC Operations

6 Pilot AWE607 acknowledges bird 

activity and the landing 

clearance.

Pilot has more precise information 

on where the bird activity is in 

relation to their flight path and can 

narrow their focus. 

7 Local

Controller

Waits for AWE607 to exit 

the runway and then asks 

pilot if the birds “were a 

problem for them.”

Workload dependent. 

Controller is unlikely to 

request this information 

unless their workload is 

relatively low or there is a 

significant concern/reason.

This communication may be 

unnecessary. WiSC identifies the 

specific bird location and the 

controller would not need to 

contact pilot if, for instance, 

WiSC indicated the bird activity 

was not in proximity of the 

runway. 

8 Pilot AWE607 responds that the 

birds were not a factor.

This communication may not be 

necessary. WiSC identifies the 

specific threat location. The local 

controller would not need to 

contact the pilot if the bird activity 

was not in proximity of the 

runway. 

9 Local

Controller

Clears ENY3143 for takeoff 

and advises them of the bird 

activity.

WiSC enables local controller to 

provide more precise and up-todate information on current bird 

activity. 

10 Pilot ENY3143 acknowledges 

bird activity and the 

departure clearance and 

departs.

Pilot can more effectively 

determine if birds are a threat 

when making the go/no go 

decision. Pilots are aware of the 

location of the threat, can preplan 

for acceptable adjustments to their 

flight path, and can narrow their 

search scan. 

11 Local

Controller

Issues alert to subsequent 

traffic for the next 15 

minutes.

Advisories are issued for 15 

minutes unless the local 

controller can confirm the 

birds are no longer a threat. 

Value of advisory is reduced 

as time passes from last 

report. If a controller 

actively tries to determine if 

the threat persists, either by 

PIREP or visual 

observation, there is some 

workload associated with 

that activity.

WiSC supports improved 

advisories. Advisories are timely 

and provide more accurate 

location information. Advisories 

are only issued during threat 

periods.

Note: The shaded boxes indicate that this step is no longer necessary with WiSC. 
31 

3.3 NOTIONAL INTERFACES BRIEFING AND REVIEW. 

The scenario walkthroughs resulted in validated descriptions of current operational sequences

and procedures. It also identified potential changes that might occur if a WiSC provided 

enhanced bird advisory information to a controller. The research team presented examples of 

current biologist and airport operations bird advisory displays. Although not ATC-based, the

displays illustrated the types of available information and various methods for presenting it. 

During the next activity, the research team presented several notional ATC displays depicting 

integrated bird advisory information. The team’s intent was to illustrate textual and graphical 

alternatives for presenting this new information on an existing air traffic system. During this 

session, the participants were encouraged to share their insights based on what they learned from 

the briefings and scenario reviews. Figure 5 shows a notional example of the graphical 

representation and summary alert status of bird threat information on the STARS display. 

Figure 5. Alerted Zone With Summary Depiction of Bird Threat Information on STARS 

Figure 6 shows an alternative notional method of displaying bird threat information on a

prototype IDS-R display. The information in the figure represents both graphical and textual 

display methods of bird threat information. 

The participants were asked to identify what information they considered to be most important 

and how to effectively present that information. It was apparent that some participants’ opinions 

and recommendations had evolved as they became more informed about the system and its 

potential implications on the ATC operational environment. When possible, this evolution and 

motive for the shift in participant attitudes is described in the following sections. The 

recommendations below represent preliminary guidance for the WiSC research team to develop 

more mature, alternative interface options. However, additional validation and research must be 

performed before any of the interfaces can be considered viable design alternatives. 
32 

Figure 6. Textual and Graphical Depiction of Bird Threat Information on IDS-R 

In the Pre-KEA Survey, the participants identified the information they considered important for

bird threats. The participants’ most frequent responses were heading, altitude, number of birds 

(flock), and biomass. The participants expressed an interest in having additional information if it 

was available (e.g., species). On the Exit Questionnaire, participants shifted their ratings on the

importance of specific information elements. Participants rated biomass as the most important 

element followed by altitude and location. Some participants indicated that history trails would 

also be valuable. During the Interface Discussion, the participants added that it was essential for 

information to be selectively displayed or filtered, especially when having access to “all 

available information.” The pilots reported being most concerned with the location, heading, and 

altitude of the bird threats. This concern remained consistent throughout the KEA. One pilot

added a note that threat location in terms of “clock position” in relation to their aircraft might be 

useful. 

Another key KEA focus was capturing ATC guidance on where supplemental bird threat 

information should be displayed if it is presented to a controller. Most ATC participants 

suggested existing systems were good options. They identified the most appropriate choices as 

STARS/CARTS, Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE)/ASDE-X, and IDS, respectively. 

Although providing this information on an existing system overrides the challenge of introducing 

yet another display or system into the tower environment, it raises another significant issue—

screen clutter. To address this challenge, one participant suggested activating the information 

with an on/off toggle button on a side bar. Users could either selectively filter predefined levels 

of bird activity or select all activity. Some parameters the participants suggested as filters 

included altitude, biomass, speed, projected headings, history, and number of birds. One 

participant suggested further refining some filters to notify controllers only in situations of a 

significant bird threat, perhaps based on the size of the bird target (e.g., large flock) or if the 
33 

flock is on a conflicting course with an aircraft. Participants offered ASDE as one option for

presenting this information. However, ASDE focuses primarily on ground-based operations and 

would need to be supplemented via another display option to address airborne bird threats. The 

participants recognized several potential WiSC benefits. Also, the participants indicated that if 

not effectively designed, the interface could lead to an increase in their workload. Some ATC 

participants shared experiences of occasionally failing to disseminate Low Level Windshear 

Alert System (LLWAS) alerts due to the LLWAS ribbon alerts’ design. 

The participants offered guidance on effective ways to present bird threat information. All

agreed that it is essential that supplemental bird threat information represent a minimal footprint 

on the display. Participants also were in agreement that the information might best be presented 

graphically and not textually. One participant offered several reasons for not using textual 

advisories. First, due to the dynamic nature of the threat, text advisories might update 

frequently, and changes might be difficult to discern without monitoring and careful examination

(e.g., “Bird activity Runway 28L near TXWY OD” versus “Bird activity Runway 28C near 

TXWY QD”). If the change is not apparent, controllers might issue expired information or 

spend more heads down time and cognitive resources reviewing the advisory and checking for 

updates rather than scanning the airport surface. One ATC participant noted that incorporating 

redundant coding, such as an aural alarm, might be valuable. 

Going back to the previous comments about clutter, the controllers indicated that individual bird 

tracks most likely should not be presented as the system default. They suggested that sitespecific alert zones might be a viable means to identify bird threats and emphasized that it is 

essential that the interface be well-designed and tailored to be meaningful for the ATC user and 

specific operation. One practical recommendation offered was to implement zones of a 

consistent length, perhaps in mile increments off the departure end of a runway. This would 

enable a controller to quickly identify a very precise and operationally relevant threat location 

that could readily be broadcast (i.e., the affected distance in miles off a specific runway).

With respect to whether the bird threat should be disseminated directly to the flight deck, the 

pilot participants’ decisions were split. One pilot, who provided a rating of 8, was in favor of 

receiving this information directly into the cockpit and suggested it might be valuable if the 

threat area could be presented on an airport diagram or approach plate. The other pilot, who 

provided a rating of 2, was not in favor of it because they are “already busy enough and 

shouldn’t be spending heads down time on a display particularly during a critical phase of 

flight.” 

The research team demonstrated the slew-to-target camera functionality to the participants. This 

functionality enables a remote camera to identify and track a target that is selected on the 

display. This capability is useful for some stakeholders, such as biologists. However, this 

functionality was not popular amongst the group (averaging 3.5) because they did not see any 

additional value beyond what is provided by the radar display. 

3.4 EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE. 

This questionnaire was administered to determine if the participant’s knowledge or opinions 

about bird threats changed as a result of participating in the KEA. All reported that their 
34 

knowledge of bird strike threats and/or mitigation efforts had increased. Overall ratings on these 

two items averaged 8 and 8.5, respectively. One individual noted the change was predominantly 

due to learning about mitigation strategies.

ATC and pilot participants remained confident in the value of supplemental WiSC information in 

the ATC environment in general, providing an average rating of 8.25 and 7, respectively. When 

asked about the value in the tower/TRACON specifically, controllers again responded favorably 

with an average rating of 7.75. Pilot ratings regarding the importance of enhanced bird threat 

information in the cockpit were positive and remained unchanged at 7. Average ATC and pilot 

participants ratings indicated that having supplemental bird threat information was considered 

useful (7.75 and 7, respectively). The research team compared these responses to identical items 

included in the Pre-KEA Opinion Survey and the differences between the ratings were calculated

(see table 12). 

Table 12. Pre- and Post-KEA Ratings on the Value of Supplemental WiSC Information

ATC Pilot

Questionnaire Item

PreKEAPostKEA DifferencePreKEAPostKEA Difference

Supplemental bird threat information 

is valuable in my environment (i.e., 

tower, TRACON, flight deck).

8.0 8.25 +0.25 8.5 7.0 -1.5

I am in favor of having supplemental 

bird threat information available to 

me.

9.5 7.75 -1.75 8.5 7.0 -1.5

Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly Agree

As noted above, all ratings were favorable and remained relatively unchanged. There was almost 

no observable change in ATC participant ratings (+0.25) and a moderate decrease in pilot 

participant ratings (-1.5) regarding the value of the supplemental information (item 1, table 12). 

The moderate decrease in the pilots’ responses is likely an artifact of the small sample size (2). 

One pilot’s opinion shifted from a strongly favorable stance to one that was more neutral. 

During the group discussions, it became apparent that one pilot believed that more precise bird 

threat information would be actionable, while the other pilot was not certain. 

Controllers were very much in agreement on the value of supplemental bird threat information at 

their workstations (item 2, table 12). This remained true even with the average decrease in 

ratings of 1.75 points by the conclusion of the KEA. Part of this shift was due to one participant 

reducing his rating of 10 (very favorable) to 5 (neutral) on the Exit Questionnaire. The research 

team gained insights into some potential reasons for the shift during the open group discussions. 

The participants explained that controller displays are already saturated with information, and 

any new data must be well-integrated, have a small footprint, and provide quick access to more 

detailed information when needed. The controllers were aware of the challenge of making an 

alert salient without cluttering their display or requiring increased heads down time. In addition, 

bird activity is pervasive and unpredictable, which leads to the potential for incessant alerting. 

The ATC participants emphasized the need to use advanced filtering techniques and to develop 

procedural guidance prior to full integration into the NAS (i.e., 7110.65) [10]. These solutions 
35 

appeared to help offset some of the challenges because the participants remained in favor of 

having this information at their workstation. The decrease in pilot ratings appeared to be more 

related to the perceived need to keep their eyes focused inside the flight deck and, as noted 

above, one of them was not certain more precise bird threat information would be actionable. 

This questionnaire also asked participants to provide their overall assessment of the KEA. All 

responses were highly favorable. Participants reported having a better understanding of the 

nature of bird threats and how avian radar information might be used in their work environment. 

In addition, participants found the group discussions to be insightful and thought-provoking and 

appreciated the opportunity to help shape the concept. As one participant stated, it is a “good 

first step” in the process of determining how this capability might be integrated into ATC. 

4. DISCUSSION. 

The KEA participants acknowledged the operational value of WiSC in providing supplemental 

bird threat information to controllers. The questionnaires, scenario walkthroughs, and notional 

interface review provided significant insights from an ATC perspective regarding the effective

integration and dissemination of WiSC information within the ATC operational context. The 

group discussions in particular gave the participants and researchers an opportunity to explore 

the concept in detail and gain a deeper understanding of the conceptual space. The KEA 

identified several key factors in the design and dissemination of this information that require 

further research to ensure the development of an effective system. The panel also noted 

important procedural considerations that must also be addressed. Based on feedback from the 

KEA activities, the research team identified six main themes: System Accuracy, ATC System, 

Graphic versus Textual Display Options, Information Display and Interface Design, ATC 

Procedural and Workload Considerations, and Pilots’ Procedural and Workload Considerations.

These themes are discussed in sections 4.1 through 4.6. 

4.1 SYSTEM ACCURACY. 

Regardless of the method for displaying WiSC information, the participants indicated that bird 

threat accuracy and reliability were the most important factors. The participants indicated that if 

accuracy and reliability are not assured, then the information would be of little to no value, and it 

would substantially increase their workload and the complexity of their task. 

ATC participants reported that for information to have any practical value it needs to be accurate 

within approximately ±50 ft or as accurate as their current radar system. Pilot participants 

responded that at least a ±200-ft accuracy is needed to give meaning to the information. ATC 

participants also noted that they would like to have some real-time gauge of how accurate the 

system predictions are at the time of display.

4.2 THE ATC SYSTEM. 

Most ATC participants recommended presenting WiSC supplemental bird threat information on 

an existing display. The most common display identified was the primary radar display 

STARS/CARTS. Several participants also rated an IDS-like display as a good option. The 

ASDE-X display was also suggested as a possible option. 
36 

One participant indicated their preference for the information to be located on a new and separate 

display. This is interesting to note because prior research [10] also found a similar trend with 

some ATC participants. While these opinions generally represent the minority, they require 

consideration and may advocate for alternative solutions that are tailored to accommodate the 

preferences of a wide range of users. Further research is necessary to determine whether a new 

display might be preferred or beneficial at certain facilities and what impacts it might have on the 

layout of the tower cab, controller’s scan patterns, and general job duties. 

Integration of avian information into an existing system or display is desirable because it 

eliminates the need for a new, separate display in an already system-saturated environment. 

However, a key challenge in using an existing display is introducing new information and 

capabilities without resultant clutter or distractions for the end user. Therefore, the decision on 

whether to employ a new or existing display cannot be answered without further research. 

4.3 GRAPHIC VERSUS TEXTUAL DISPLAY OPTIONS. 

The ATC participants expressed a strong preference for a graphical presentation for 

supplemental bird threat information because of the relative ease of representing system/alert 

state/status during their normal visual scan. The ATC participants concluded that a textual 

information presentation could be unwieldy, inefficient, and error prone. For example, a textual 

information presentation can be problematic at times because it may lead to difficulties in 

discerning between characters (e.g., O and Q). In addition, when spatial information (as with 

bird threat information) is represented in textual form, it almost always requires users to perform 

additional cognitive steps to mentally represent and localize the information. The ATC 

participants agreed that they wanted multiple types of information available to them regarding 

the detected birds. The participants all agreed that biomass, altitude, and location were amongst 

the most important elements to know followed by speed, heading, number of birds (flock), and 

histories of individual tracks or groupings of birds. 

4.4 INFORMATION DISPLAY AND INTERFACE DESIGN. 

The ATC participants stressed that the effective integration of WiSC information is critical. The 

interface must be well-designed, represent a minimal footprint on their display, and avoid 

computer-human interface issues. They agreed that one solution might be a zone-based interface 

on their current radar display. If these zones were developed to be meaningful and consistent 

(e.g., with standardized sizes or shapes with associated altitudes and ranges), they could 

minimize clutter and cognitive processing demands. The zones could remain invisible to the 

user until an alert was activated when certain biomass or threat level parameters were exceeded. 

Appropriately selecting and setting these thresholds will be critical to producing an effective 

WiSC avian alert system. If set too low, controllers will not be aware of a threat. If set too high, 

the controller’s workload levels will rise, alerts will compete for operationally significant 

information, and users will lose trust in the system. The participants also acknowledged the 

importance of having the option to gain additional information on the nature of the threat. To 

accomplish this, they suggested having the capability to efficiently retrieve more detailed data 

upon request. This information might include factors such as individual tracks, biomass, 

location, altitude, and heading. As with the zones, this information would have to be designed to 

avoid occluding radar, airspace, and other critical screen elements. Figure 7 shows an example 
37 

of how alerted zones and supplemental information might be presented on a primary radar 

display. 

Figure 7. Notional Representation of Alerted Areas on a Primary Radar Display 

4.5 THE ATC PROCEDURAL AND WORKLOAD CONSIDERATIONS. 

Perhaps the biggest overarching themes were related to controller workload and ATC 

procedures. The group’s consensus was that the introduction of supplemental bird threat 

information will likely increase communications and necessitate a change in the procedures used 

to deal with bird threats. 

The participants noted that more precise bird threat information would require them to issue 

many more advisories. Current practices dictate a standardized, “blanket” transmission 

regarding known or suspected bird activity. However, with frequent bird threat advisory 

updates, controllers would be compelled to disseminate any relevant new information to pilots. 

Besides the increase in radio transmissions, these advisories could impose additional cognitive 

burdens associated with the need to constantly reprioritize this activity with respect to other 

duties. Procedural requirements, formalized in 7110.65 [10], could help limit unnecessary 

transmissions and cognitive demand by providing clear guidance on the advisory priority and the 

operational factors that influence that decision. 
38 

The participants considered it essential that controller-issued bird threat transmissions remain 

advisory in nature. Otherwise, the participants believed, the result would be temporary runway 

closures, missed approaches, and delayed departures. They believed these operational costs were 

not justified, given the low incidence of bird strikes. All participants agreed that, ultimately, the 

decision to land or depart should always be the pilot’s. 

The KEA participants identified another mechanism by which new bird threat information might 

impact controller workload. Today, controllers are essentially unaware of bird activity at night. 

Primarily, pilots acquire bird threats through direct visual observation and observation—both of 

which are severely hampered at night and during reduced visibility conditions. Bird activity 

does not necessarily terminate at night, which was demonstrated by sharing a recording made by 

the DFW airport biologist of bird activity at night. In fact, one participant was surprised at the 

amount of night activity indicated in the video that the research team shared. The participants 

agreed that the potential increase in their workload, which might result from this new 

information, would be more than offset by the increase in safety. 

The participants proposed a zone-based format to address the procedural and workload 

considerations. These zones would only be alerted when a certain threat parameter was 

exceeded (e.g., biomass). This approach was described in detail in section 4.4. 

The participants identified another procedural solution that could, potentially, reduce the 

workload and improve the saliency of bird threat advisories. Currently, ATIS messages do not 

have a lot of meaning at high bird activity airports because they are too general and are almost 

always included in the broadcast. Multiple participants confirmed that, at their facility, the ATIS 

message warns of “bird activity” 24 hours a day. A message or “alert” like this is, although it 

may satisfy a legal requirement, does little to inform pilots of the true nature of the threat and 

may even desensitize them to it. WiSC may help alleviate these concerns through three

mechanisms. (1) More precise information is available that, conceivably, could lead to more 

meaningful ATIS entries. (2) WiSC may offer a means to streamline the inclusion of this more 

tactical information into ATIS by automating the process. The spectrum of automation options 

range from semi-automated, in which a user reviews and approves a predefined message; to fully

automated, in which ATIS may automatically update on a real-time basis as needed without any 

human intervention. (3) Quantitative metrics could be used to selectively determine when bird 

activity alerts are placed on ATIS (e.g., counts, number of events per day, or historical data). 

However, there are research challenges to implementing these ideas. Operational considerations 

impact the optimal or acceptable update rate of ATIS. As a result, although it is possible to make 

ATIS messages more precise than the current standards, they most likely cannot ever be truly 

tactical. A compromise may be possible by applying creative quantitative methods (e.g., 

determination of whether the current level of activity is above a median day for that site). 

Additionally, WiSC could be designed to automatically capture, store, and centrally log 

quantified historical data without requiring controller tasking. This information could be used to 

support wildlife biologists and others in characterizing the level of bird activity at a facility, 

improve seasonal and daily predictions, and assess the performance of mitigation efforts. In 

addition, PIREPs and other observation-based sources may not include all associated 

information, such as specific location, time, or heading. 
39 

4.6 PILOTS’ PROCEDURAL AND WORKLOAD CONSIDERATIONS. 

Although pilots are key stakeholders in WiSC, this activity focused on the ATC perspective. 

Based on this KEA, it is unclear whether supplemental bird threat information would necessitate 

procedural changes from a pilot’s perspective. The pilots in this panel represented two different 

perspectives. One believed that improved bird threat information relayed by a controller would 

have very little impact to their existing task or procedures. However, the other pilot already 

mitigates exposure to known bird threats by performing “avoidance maneuvers” and “little S 

turns” when practical. Real-time information in these circumstances may help supplement these 

types of evasive actions. Although a direct-to-cockpit display is not planned under WiSC, the 

pilots were asked whether this type of information would be useful or change the way they

perform their duties. A direct-to-cockpit display would certainly impact pilot duties, if for no 

other reason than requiring more heads down time. One pilot participant was open to the idea 

and suggested putting a graphical representation of bird threats on an airport diagram or 

approach plate. However, the other pilot indicated that direct information would add too much 

workload when they are already in a critical phase of flight. This underscores the importance of 

carefully investigating how direct-to-cockpit bird threat information might impact the flight 

deck. 

5. SUMMARY. 

The KEA panel of ATC and pilot stakeholders confirmed the operational value of WiSC and 

provided preliminary guidance on how this information might be effectively integrated into the 

ATC environment. This activity also provided an opportunity to conduct a detailed and 

comprehensive investigation of how bird threats are managed and disseminated within the ATC 

tower and TRACON today. The group leveraged their technical knowledge and expertise to 

identify and expound on factors that are critical to the implementation of an effective ATC bird

threat information display based on this technology. 

As bird threat information becomes more precise and dynamic, clear guidance will be necessary 

to determine how to best disseminate the advisory information without negatively impacting

workloads. These procedures require further research and, once refined, must be formalized into 

the Air Traffic Control Manual [10]. The KEA participants believed the best opportunity to 

improve safety, when using this technology, was in the takeoff phase of flight. Overall, the panel 

recommended the WiSC information be presented graphically and integrated into an existing 

ATC system, possibly the primary radar display. To prevent cluttering an already data-saturated 

display, the participants suggested using zones. The zones remain invisible to the user until an 

alert is activated when certain biomass or threat level parameters are exceeded. Controllers 

could access additional detailed information, such as individual tracks, biomass, location, 

altitude, or heading, if needed. 

Future research will focus on refining the functional requirements, capabilities, procedures, and 

practices to best detect, disseminate, and display supplemental bird threat information to 

controllers, supervisors, and pilots in the ATC environment. One key activity will be to conduct 

a part-task, human-in-the-loop simulation using more refined and interactive displays to 

objectively investigate alternative display options. 
40 

6. REFERENCES. 

1. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular, “Airport Avian Radar Systems,” 

AC 150/5220-25, 2010, available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/Advisory_Circular/150_5220_25.pdf, date last visited 4/7/15. 

2. Dolbeer, R. and Wright, S., “Safety Management Systems: How Useful Will the FAA 

National Wildlife Strike Database be?” Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 3(2), 2009, pp. 167-

178. 

3. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Wildlife Strike

Database,” available at http://wildlife.faa.gov/database, date last visited 4/7/15. 

4. Mills, R., Beck, B., Becker, T., Edenhart-Pepe, S., Gabbas, G., and Sciolino, M., “An 

Integrated System to Prevent Wildlife Strikes at Large Airports,” Kent State University, 

2010. 

5. Dolbeer, R. and Wright, S., “Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–

2007,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial 

Report 14, DOT/FAA/AS/00-6, Washington, DC, 2008. 

6. Allan, J.R., “The Costs of Bird Strikes and Bird Strike Prevention, Human Conflicts With 

Wildlife: Economic Considerations,” National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, 2002. 

7. King, R., “Research on Bird-Detecting Radar,” FAA report DOT/FAA/TC-13/3, 

February 2013. 

8. Militello, L.G. and Hutton, J.B., “Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA): A 

Practitioner’s Toolkit for Understanding Cognitive Task Demands,” Ergonomics, Vol. 

41, 1998. 

9. IEEE, “IEEE Guide for Information Technology-System Definition-Concept of 

Operations (ConOps) Document,” IEEE Std. 1362-1998, Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, New York, 1998. 

10. Federal Aviation Administration (2014), “Order JO 7110.5V, Air Traffic Control 

Manual,” available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf, date 

last visited 2/10/16. 
A-1 

APPENDIX A—INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

I, ______________________________, understand that this assessment, entitled “Wildlife 

Surveillance Concept Knowledge Elicitation Activity 1” is sponsored by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA).

Nature and Purpose:

I have been recruited to volunteer as a participant in this evaluation. The purpose of the 

evaluation is to elicit information from current Certified Professional Controllers (CPC), ATC 

supervisors, and pilots regarding their experience related to wildlife threats in the ATC 

environment, as well as determine future direction in mitigation efforts. The results of this 

exercise will contribute to the knowledge base used by the research team to further examine the 

methods and products available to mitigate bird strikes. In addition, the data collected will help 

to identify and shape future concept development and validation activities. 

Experimental Procedures:

Two current CPCs, two current supervisors, and two pilots will spend February 25th 2014 

through February 26th 2014 serving as participants on a panel evaluating wildlife threats in the 

ATC environment and future directions in wildlife mitigation. The demonstration will take place 

at the Research Development Human Factors Laboratory (RDHFL) which is located at the FAA 

William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. 

On the first day, participants will arrive at the demonstration location and be briefed by the 

research team on the nature and purpose of the activities, as well as participant roles, 

responsibilities, and expectations. Following this introduction, participants will be guided 

through several operational scenarios and asked to provide feedback. On the second day, the 

participants will be exposed to several different interface options for bird radar information and a 

panel activity will be held to examine research questions. Following each of these session 

participants will be asked to complete questionnaires and participate in group discussions. 

Audio Recording of Group Discussions: 

I understand that, with my consent, the research team will make audio recordings of group 

discussions for the sole purposes of data analysis. I understand that this data will remain strictly 

confidential and I will not be identified in any way on the recording. In addition, I am assured 

that the recordings will never be used for any other purposes than originally intended and that the 

recordings will be appropriately archived or destroyed following the activity.

Discomfort and Risks:

I understand that I will not be exposed to any foreseeable risks. The work that I will perform in 

the study is safe and consists of listening to presentations, completing questionnaires, and 

providing feedback to the researchers about my experience during the sessions.

Confidentiality:

My participation is strictly confidential, and no individual names or identities will be recorded or 

released in any reports.
A-2 

Benefits:

I understand that the only benefit to me is that I will be able to provide the researchers with 

valuable feedback and insight regarding my experiences during the research activity. My data 

will help the FAA to understand the nature of wildlife threats to ATC operations as well as how 

the aviation community can benefit from avian radar products. 

Participant Responsibilities:

I am aware that to participate in this study I must be identified as a current Certified Professional 

Controller who is qualified at an air traffic control facility, a supervisor who currently works at 

an air traffic control facility, or a pilot. I will answer any questions asked during the assessment 

to the best of my abilities. I will not discuss the content of the experiment with anyone until the 

study is completed.

Participant's Assurances:

I understand that my participation in this study is completely voluntary, and I have the freedom 

to withdraw at any time without penalty. I also understand that the researchers in this study may 

terminate my participation if they feel this to be in my best interest. I have not given up any of 

my legal rights or released any individual or institution from liability for negligence.

The Wildlife Surveillance Concept Knowledge Elicitation Team has adequately answered all the 

questions I have asked about this study. I understand that individuals from the assessment team 

will be available to answer any other questions that I may have as the study proceeds.

If I have questions about this study or need to report any adverse effects from the research 

procedures, I will contact a member of the team.

Compensation and Injury:

I agree to immediately report any injury or suspected adverse effect to the assessment team 

conducting this research. Local clinics and hospitals will provide any treatment, if necessary. I 

agree to provide, if requested, copies of all insurance and medical records arising from any such 

care for injuries/medical problems.

Signature Lines:

I have read this informed consent statement. I understand its contents, and I freely consent to 

participate in this study under the conditions described. I understand that, if I want to, I may 

have a copy of this statement.

Research Participant:________________________________________ Date:__________ 

Witness:__________________________________________________ Date:__________ 
B-1 

APPENDIX B—PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

Background Information – CPC/Supervisor

Instructions:

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about your background and experience as 

a Certified Professional Controller (CPC) in the civil air traffic control environment. 

Researchers will only use this information to describe the participants in this study as a group. 

Your identity will remain anonymous.

1. How long have you been an Air Traffic Controller? _____ years _____ months

2. How long have you actively controlled traffic in the tower cab 

environment? _____ years _____ months

3. How long have you actively controlled traffic in the terminal 

radar environment? _____ years _____ months

4. How long have you been a Supervisor? _____ years _____ months

_____N/A

5. When did you last control traffic? (mm/yyyy) ____________

6. Please identify the shift(s) that you work a majority of time. ___Day ___ Night ___ Both

7. Please list the facilities that you have controlled traffic at.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

8. Please list any other things that you would like us to know about your background. 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
B-2 

Background Information – Pilot

Instructions:

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about your background and experience as 

a Pilot. Researchers will only use this information to describe the participants in this study as 

a group. Your identity will remain anonymous.

Background Information - Pilot

1. Are you currently active as a pilot? ______Yes _____No

2. How many years of experience do have flying? _____ years 

3. Approximately how many total hours do you have flying? _________ Hours

4. Do you fly commercially or for pleasure? ____ Commercially

____ For Pleasure

5. Please list the aircraft types that you have flown.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Please list your certifications.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Please list any additional things you would like to share with the research team regarding your 

experience as a pilot.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
C-1 

APPENDIX C—PRE-KEA OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

Pre-KEA Opinion Survey – CPC/Supervisor

Instructions: 

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about your opinions regarding bird 

threats in your current operational environment. These are your opinions. Researchers will 

only use this information to describe the participants in this study as a group. Your identity 

will remain anonymous.

1. Please rate your awareness of the extent of bird

strikes in the ATC environment.

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Please rate your awareness of bird mitigation 

efforts in ATC.

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3a. Where do you get information about bird threats from today? 

(check all that apply)

___Observation from the 

tower cab

___ Supervisor 

___ Another controller 

___ Pilot report 

___ Wildlife management

___ Airport Ops 

___ Other: _________ 

3b. Which is the most common source of this information?

______________________ 
C-2 

4. Additional bird threat information would be 

valuable/helpful for a controller in the ATC 

environment.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

5. I am in favor of having additional bird 

information available to me.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Do you have first-hand experience reporting bird strike 

hazards? ______Yes _____No 

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Bird hazards play a significant role in my daily 

activities at my facility.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

8. On average, bird hazards impact my facility ______ times per ______ 

(circle one) Day Week Month Year

9. How often do you issue bird threat advisories? 

Typical Day: ____ times per 

day/week/month 

Peak Season: ____ times per 

day/week/month

10. Reporting bird hazards at my facility 

contributes significantly to my duties/workload.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree
C-3 

Comments: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

11. The inaccurate/imprecise nature of current bird 

information increases my workload.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Comments: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

12. Even when birds are not a hazard to traffic 

they require extra effort to remain vigilant of their 

potential impact.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

13. Do you have first-hand experience managing an aircraft 

that encountered a bird strike? 

_____Yes _____No

If yes, how many? ______

14a. Which of the following operational impacts of bird 

threats have you experienced as a controller (check all that 

apply) 

___ Pilot request to delay 

departure 

___ Aborted landing 

___ Precautionary landing 

___ Emergency landing 

___ Other ________________

14b. Please list the most frequently occurring (in order) from the list above. 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

15. Additional information regarding your opinion of bird hazards in the ATC environment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
C-4 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

16. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations to help mitigate bird strike threats? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Additional Bird Threat Information – CPC/Supervisor

17. What type of information regarding bird activity would 

be useful to you? (check all that apply)

____ Location only

____ Heading 

____ Altitude 

____ Species 

____ Biomass 

____ All available 

____ Other: ____________ 
C-5 

Pre-KEA Opinion Survey - Pilot

Instructions: 

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information about your opinions regarding bird 

threats and the introduction of bird radar to your current operational environment. These are 

your opinions. Researchers will only use this information to describe the participants in this 

study as a group. Your identity will remain anonymous.

1. Please rate your awareness of the extent of 

wildlife strikes in the ATC environment.

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Please rate your awareness of wildlife 

mitigation efforts in aviation (ATC/Airlines).

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Additional bird threat advisory information 

transmitted from ATC would be valuable/helpful 

for pilots.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

4. I am in favor of ATC providing me with 

additional bird threat information.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
C-6 

5. I am in favor of having bird threat information 

provided directly to me in the cockpit.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Bird hazards play a significant role in my daily 

activities.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Please rate your experience level in dealing 

with bird hazards during your pilot duties.

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

8. On average, I experience a close encounter with, or hit a bird ______ times per _______ 

(circle one) Day Week Month Year

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Do you have experience communicating with ATC regarding 

bird strikes and/or bird strike activity? ______Yes _____No 

10a. Have you experienced a bird strike while piloting an aircraft? _____Yes 

_____No

10b. If Yes, 

In what phase of flight (departure, climb, approach etc): 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

10c. Would bird advisory information have been of value to you? _______ Yes _______No 

11a. Which of the following operational impacts of bird 

threats have you experienced as a pilot (check all that 

apply) 

___ Request to delay departure

___ Aborted landing 

___ Precautionary landing 

___ Emergency landing 

___ Other
C-7/C-8 

11b. Please list the most frequently occurring (in order) from the list above. 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

12. Please describe the worst threat or outcome you have experienced as a pilot in a bird strike 

situation. How was it resolved? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

13. Do you have any suggestions/recommendations to help mitigate bird strike threats or any 

comments in general regarding bird threats? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Additional Bird Threat Information – Pilot

14. What type of information regarding bird activity would 

be useful to you? (check all that apply) 

____ Location only

____ Heading 

____ Altitude 

____ Species 

____ Biomass 

____ Other: _________________ 

____ All available
D-1 

APPENDIX D—POST-SCENARIO QUESTIONNAIRE

Post Scenario Questionnaire – CPC/Supervisor

Instructions: 

Please answer the following questions based upon your experience in the scenario just 

completed. Your identity will remain anonymous.

 

Current Procedures and Operations – CPC/Supervisor

1. Please rate the realism of this scenario? Extremely 

Low Extremely High

2. How representative was this scenario of your 

experience with wildlife threats?

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

3. Please list any important elements/considerations missing from this scenario.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

4. How frequently do you experience a situation 

like this at your facility? Never Frequently

WiSC Operations – CPC/Supervisor

6. Precise bird advisory information would be 

helpful in this situation.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

7. Precise bird advisory information would have 

improved my situational awareness of bird 

activity.

Strongly

Disagree Strongly Agree

8a. Please rate your perceived level of impact that 

the addition of bird advisory information would 

have on your workload.

Negative 

Effect



None Positive 

Effect

8b. Please discuss the impact of having bird advisory information on your overall workload? 

Would it increase workload or decrease workload? 

Scenario Letter ____
D-2 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

WiSC Operations - CPC

9. Please describe other beneficial impacts that the addition of supplemental bird threat 

information may have on your performance (e.g. improved safety, response time to an incident, 

increased situational awareness).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

10. Please describe what negative impacts the addition of supplemental bird threat information 

may have on your performance (e.g. increased workload, increased communications). 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
D-3 

 

Post Scenario Questionnaire - Pilot

Instructions: 

Please answer the following questions based upon your experience in the scenario just 

completed. Your identity will remain anonymous.

Current Procedures and Operations - Pilot

1. How realistic was the scenario? Extremely 

Low Extremely High

2. How representative was this scenario of your 

experience with wildlife threats?

Extremely 

Low Extremely High

3. Please list any important elements/considerations missing from this scenario.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

4. How frequently do you experience a situation 

like this? Never Frequently

WiSC Operations - Pilot

6. Precise bird threat information would be helpful 

in this situation.

Strongly 

Disagree Strongly Agree

7. Precise bird threat information would have 

improved my situational awareness of bird 

activity.

Strongly

Disagree Strongly Agree

8a. Please rate your perceived level of impact that 

the addition of bird threat advisories would have 

on your workload.

Negative 

Effect



None Positive 

Effect

8b. Please discuss the impact of having precise bird threat advisories on your overall workload? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Scenario Letter: ____
D-4 

WiSC Operations - Pilot

9. Please describe other beneficial impacts that the addition of supplemental bird threat 

information may have on your performance (e.g. improved safety, response time to an incident, 

increased situational awareness).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

10. Please describe what negative impacts the addition of supplemental bird threat information 

may have on your performance (e.g. increased workload, increased communications). 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
E-1 

APPENDIX E—INTERFACE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

WiSC Interface Evaluation – CPC/Supervisor

Instructions:

Please answer the following questions based upon your opinion on the interface. Your identity 

will remain anonymous.

1. Please describe the system that would be best for displaying supplemental bird threat 

information (current display, new display....etc). 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. What types of information would you like presented on the above system (altitude, heading, 

speed, biomass, other...etc.) 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Please specify the type of data presentation you would prefer (individual tracks, flocks, zones - 

and when you would like to see this information (all info available vs. only alerts). 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ 
E-2 

4. Please describe the minimum accuracy that this supplemental bird threat information needs to 

have to be useful to you. For example, “as accurate as system” or “at altitude and distance 

within feet.” 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Are there any additional comments that you have regarding your ideal interface (what, where, 

and when)? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
E-3 

WiSC Interface Evaluation – Pilot

Instructions:

Please answer the following questions based upon your opinion on the interface. Your identity 

will remain anonymous.

1. Please describe your overall thoughts on the potential capabilities just demonstrated and the 

impact that they might have on your job as a pilot. 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Please convey your opinion on the possibility of having bird threat information direct-to-the 

cockpit. Would this information be useful to you? Would there be any downside to this? 

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
E-4 

3. Are there any additional comments that you have regarding your ideal interface in the cockpit 

(what, where, and when)? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Please describe the minimum accuracy that this supplemental bird threat information needs to 

have to be useful to you. For example, “as accurate as system” or “at altitude and distance 

within feet.”

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
F-1 

APPENDIX F—EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE

Exit Questionnaire – CPC/Supervisor

Instructions: 

Please answer the following questions based upon your experience in the during this activity 

and your opinions on the material covered. Your identity will remain anonymous.

1. My knowledge of avian threats to aviation and 

the current efforts to mitigate those threats has 

increased following this activity.

Strongly

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Additional bird threat information would be 

valuable/helpful for a controller in the ATC 

environment.

Strongly 

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Please explain how your opinion may have changed from before this KEA: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3. I am in favor of having additional bird 

information available to me.

Strongly 

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Please explain how your opinion may have changed from before this KEA: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Additional Bird Threat Information – CPC/Supervisor

4. What type of information regarding bird activity would 

be useful to you? (check all that apply)

____ Location only

____ Heading 

____ Altitude 

____ Species 

____ Biomass 

____ Other: _________________ 

____ All available
F-2 

5. Please indicate how you would like to be notified of a 

bird threat alert (check all that apply)

___ Textual

___ Graphical

___ Aural

___ All of the above

6. What system makes the most sense for bird threat 

alarms/alerts?

___ IDS

___ STARS/CARTS

___ DBRITE

___ Other ___________

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Please indicate the frequency of bird threat information 

that would be useful to you. 

___ All information, all the time

___ Only when alert is needed

___ Other ____________ 

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

8. If this information is on your primary display, which 

would you prefer? 

___ Individual bird tracks

___ Flocks/Groupings 

___ Zones that are affected

___ Other ___________ 

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Having a “slew to target” camera functionality 

would be useful in dealing with bird threats.

Strongly 

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
F-3 

8. Please list the things that we touched on in the KEA that you thought would most improve 

dealing with bird threats (e.g. precise radar, procedures, interfaces, roles and responsibilities... 

etc.).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Please list any of your major concerns with some of the material discussed in this KEA. (e.g. 

workload, responsibilities, radar capabilities) 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
F-4 

10. Are there any concerns/considerations that we missed during this KEA that you would like to 

tell us about? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

11. Please list any additional comments related to bird threats, mitigation efforts, or your overall 

experience in the KEA.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
F-5 

Exit Questionnaire - Pilot

Instructions: 

Please answer the following questions based upon your experience during this activity and 

your opinions on the material covered. Your identity will remain anonymous.

1. My knowledge of avian threats to aviation and 

the current efforts to mitigate those threats has 

increased following this activity.

Strongly

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Additional bird threat information would be 

valuable/helpful for a pilot.

Strongly 

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Please explain how your opinion may have changed from before this KEA: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3. I am in favor of having additional bird 

information available to me.

Strongly 

DisagreeStrongly Agree

Please explain how your opinion may have changed from before this KEA: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Additional Bird Threat Information – Pilot

4. What type of information regarding bird activity would 

be useful to you? (check all that apply)

____ Location only

____ Heading 

____ Altitude 

____ Species 

____ Biomass 

____ Other: _________________ 

____ All available

5. Please indicate how you would like to be notified of a 

bird threat alert (check all that apply)

___ Textual

___ Graphical 

___ Aural 

___ All of the above
F-6 

6. Please list of the things that we touched on in the KEA that you thought would most improve 

dealing with bird threats (e.g. precise radar, procedures, interfaces, roles and responsibilities... 

etc.).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Please list any of your major concerns with some of the material discussed in this KEA. (e.g. 

workload, responsibilities, radar capabilities) 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

8. Are there any concerns/considerations that we missed during this KEA that you would like to 

tell us about? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Please list any additional comments related to bird threats, mitigation efforts, or your overall 

experience in the KEA.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________