Bird Strikes and Wildlife Measures at Southern Sudan Associated Advocates (SSAA), Juba International Airport in Juba, South Sudan

Abstract

This study was set to establish the Bird strikes and wildlife measures at southern Sudan associated advocates (SSAA), Juba International Airport in Juba, South Sudan. It was guided by the following specific objectives, that included determining the (i) to identify the arrangements for assessing birds and wildlife hazards; (ii) To establish the arrangements for implementing birds and wildlife control programmes. (iii) Establish whether there is a relationship between bird strikes and wildlife measures at southern Sudan associated advocates (SSAA), Juba International Airport In Juba, South Sudan . The study adopted a descriptive survey design .it used questionnaires, face to face interviews. The target population was 220 from which a sample size of 145 was derived. Findings revealed that respondents between 25-35 year were 32.1%, female respondents dominated the study (64.3%); married were (53.6%) other marital status category; masters certificate holders dominated the study 50% and on occupation others dominated the entire sample size with 54.2%. The findings on Inspection operations revealed that eight items were measured and rated as follows; Maintenance requirements (Average mean=2.43, std .99116) Maintenance of pavements (Average mean=2.50, std 1.02221), Inspection security dilemma (Average mean=2.64, std. 1.08997) Friction Testing (Average mean=2.41 std. .99248), Pavement markings (Average mean=2.18 std. 1.03375) Electrical Systems (Average mean= 2.25 std.  .85146) and AG L Maintenance (Average mean=2.49 std .63617) with an overall mean of 2.41).

The findings on Inspection revealed that seven items were measured and rated as follows; Public participation and Democracy (Average mean=3.06, std .74603) Non-paved areas in the strip(Average mean=2.83, std .59523), Executive and rule of Law (Average mean=2.92 std. .70057) Traditional & customary arrangement (Average mean=2.78 std. .68791), Transparency and accountability (Average mean=2.80 std. .72664)  Road maintenance (Average mean= 2.81 std.  .59522) with an overall mean of 2.87). Regarding  Inspection operations, it was recommended that; Equitable sharing of resources, Strengthening local administration, Empowerment of traditional leadership, Government to treat all communities equally,  Minister visit all communities regularly, Provision of judges and public prosecutors; construction of courts in the counties,  Upgrading of unqualified employees through capacity-building,  compensation of salaries to employees. While issues of inclusive Inspection and equity are important drivers of operations, these statements highlight complex and in some cases long-standing Inspection-related issues which largely went beyond the mandate of the peace conference.  Political accommodation approach tackles Inspection issues directly.

Regarding Inspection it was recommended that; even passengers who normally receive expedited screening passengers, may at times receive a pat-down. A pat-down may include inspection of the head, neck, arms, torso, legs, and feet. This includes head coverings and sensitive areas such as breasts, groin, and the buttocks.

It is a requirement that the Runway and Taxiways are inspected at regular intervals to ensure that the surface complies with the criteria for use by aircraft. The Runway pavement is required to be in an acceptable state of repair, with access and egress unimpaired and to be free from FOD and wildlife.

TSA incorporates unpredictable security measures, both seen and unseen, to accomplish our transportation security mission.

Security measures begin long before you arrive at the airport. TSA works closely with the intelligence and law enforcement communities to share information. Additional security measures are in place from the time you get to the airport until you get to your destination.

TSA adjusts processes and procedures to meet the evolving threat and to achieve the highest levels of transportation security. Because of this, you may notice changes in our procedures from time to time.

TSA counts on the traveling public to report unattended bags or packages; individuals in possession of a threatening item; and persons trying to enter a restricted area or similar suspicious activities at airports, train stations, bus stops and ports. If You See Something, Say Something™. Report suspicious activity to local law enforcement.

Passenger screening at the airport is part of TSA’s layered approach to security to get you safely to your destination. TSA’s screening procedures are intended to prevent prohibited items and other threats to transportation security from entering the sterile area of the airport and are developed in response to information on threats to transportation security.

Country : Uganda/United Kingdom

1 Joseph Gibril Isaac Lomeri2 Musoke Matthew3 Hassan Abdulle Hassan

  1. College of Higher Degrees and Research (CHDR), Kampala International University, P.O. Box 20000 Kampala, Uganda
  2. School of Graduate Studies and Research (SGSR), Team University, P.O. Box 8128 Mengo, Kabaka A’njagala Road, Kampala, Uganda
  3. University of Liverpool, P.O. Box L 693 BX, United Kingdom

IRJIET, Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2024 pp. 90-98

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2024.803012

References

  1. Cook, A., S. Rushton, J. Allen, and A. Baxter. (2008). An evaluation of techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites. Environmental Management 41: 834–843.
  2. DeVault T. L., B. F. Blackwell, and J. L. Belant, editors. (2013). Wildlife in airport environments: preventing animal–aircraft collisions through science-based management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  3. Dolbeer, R. A., R. B. Chipman, A. L. Gosser, and S. C. Barras. (2003). Does shooting alter flight patterns of gulls: a case study at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Proceedings of the International Bird Strike Committee 26:49–67.
  4. Dolbeer, R. A.; Belant, J. L.; Sillings, J. (1993). "Shooting gulls reduces strikes with aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21: 442–450.
  5. Federal Aviation Administration. 2013. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States: 1990–2012. National Wildlife Strike Database Serial Report Number 19. Washington D.C., USA.
  6. Gray, Darren (2010). "Flying pests: locust threat to aircraft". The Land. Archived from the original on 6 April 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2012.
  7. Manville A.M., II. (2005). "Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication lowers, and wind turbines: state of the art and slate of the science next steps toward mitigation.
  8. Seamans, T. W., (2001). A review of deer control devices intended for use on airports. Proceedings of the 3rd joint annual meeting. Bird Strike Committee-USA/Canada, 27–30 August 2001, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  9. Seamans, T. W., C. R. Hicks, and J. P. Kenneth. (2007). Dead bird effigies: a nightmare for gulls? Proceedings of the 9th joint annual meeting. Bird Strike Committee-USA/Canada, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.