A Review of Wildlife Strike Reporting in Aviation: Systems, Uses and Standards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is devoted to a very important problem - Wildlife Strike Reporting in Aviation. However, in my opinion the best section of the manuscript is the Survey of Relevant Literature. This section gives an idea of ​​the current state of this area of research. One comment, authors should  specify year from which analyze was started.  

The remaining sections of the article are written rather vaguely and are either a list of specific cases or a statement of the problem with links to publications by different authors, however without any additional information about their work, which does not allow the reader to understand how justified the conclusion of the authors of this article is. I would advise better structuring and describing the material, possibly using some statistical methods.

 

Minor comments:

The article retains a comment from one of the co-authors to lines 383-384.

L.85  “These 84 patterns are based on relationships between authors, keywords and [15].” Looks like it's unfinished.

1. 101 It would be good to mention what the article is about in this form, it's very difficult to understand.
2. 195-197 It's not clear why only one article was considered, there were no others?
3. 2224-227. It's stated in a literary manner, but it doesn't add any new content.
4. 248-250 It's not clear how it's possible separation of aircraft and wild-life, what did the authors of the cited and this article mean?
5. 251-255. So that the reader could agree with the authors, it would be good to somehow understand why the described system won't work in reality or provide links.
6. 299. If this is the first mention, it's worth indicating the date.
7. 305. It's also necessary to indicate the date of the study.

L.322-323 An unsubstantiated assertion, unfortunately, not supported by anything in the article.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide your feedback. Overall, I found your input insightful and of great value to improving this paper. Please find below detailed responses to your comments and suggestions. I would have like to proved a tracked-changes version of the manuscript but your feedback and the feedback from your fellow reviewers necessitated a major revision to the document, all for the better, I hope.

I noted your comment regarding your preferred section and the problems with some others. As such, I removed these more vague in favour of a more targeted discussion on the state of research in this area. In this more targeted discussion, I took the time to describe the relevant research in more detail. For example, lines 289-303 which was also the target of your points #4 & $5.

I also added detail regarding the earliest and most recent dates of research reviewed (line 109).

Your comment regarding statistical methods did prompt me to investigate the FAA's National Wildlife Strike Database to investigate the number of non-strike-related reports. I found a reasonable sample and noted the proportion of these reports to the total reports in my analysis (lines 203-207).

As for your minor comments:

• Author comment removed
• Incomplete sentence completed (line 96)
• Previous line 101 - confusing sentence construction - this detail added little to the paper's analysis, so I removed it.
• Previous lines 195-197 - missing details - the discussion on the Mendonca paper was poorly introduced. I rewrote this section and moved it earlier in the discussion (lines 164-177)
• Points 4 & 5 discussed above
• The discussion on the first bird strike event (and its associated analysis) was removed as part of the refocusing and restructure of the paper.
• As was the discussion on general wildlife strike statistics.
• Previous lines 322-323 - this section was poorly constructed. It was revised - see lines 257-267

Thank you again for the benefit of your expertise and time.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and under-examined issue in aviation safety: the adequacy of current wildlife strike reporting systems amid changing approaches to wildlife hazard management. The review is comprehensive in scope and includes both academic and industry perspectives. The use of bibliometric analysis to characterize the literature is a strength.

However, several substantive and structural weaknesses impede the manuscript’s clarity, usefulness, and impact. Below I outline the main issues and offer suggestions for improvement.

1）The manuscript mostly catalogs literature and describes developments, but provides limited critique of the evidence base or analysis of conflicting findings. For example, some sections summarize the evolution of reporting standards or definitions but do not fully interrogate their effectiveness or empirical impacts. it will be better to deepen critical analysis, especially regarding the real-world effectiveness of expanded reporting (e.g., near-miss events) and the evidence for or against changes in risk assessment performance under different reporting regimes.

2) The manuscript focuses largely on regulatory, reporting, and procedural aspects, at the expense of the biological or ecological elements of wildlife strike risk and management. More discussion is needed of the ecological drivers of wildlife strikes (e.g., species-specific behavior, habitat variables, migratory patterns) and how deficiencies in reporting systems might obscure these patterns.

3) The conclusions correctly highlight the need for standardization and inclusion of non-strike events but fall short of providing concrete, actionable proposals for how these goals can be achieved within the complex international regulatory framework. Please provide more specific recommendations for future harmonization efforts formation of international working groups, adoption of best practices from high-performing regulatory environments).

4) While the manuscript notes that focusing on strikes could have unintended consequences (e.g., underestimating risk or creating tunnel vision), the discussion lacks supporting case studies or modeling to quantify these effects. Integrate examples or hypothetical scenarios demonstrating exactly how risk assessment or mitigation could be distorted by current reporting practice.

5) Much of the review is built from literature and conference summaries. There is little direct engagement with primary data, case studies, or quantitative evidence. If possible, include illustrative examples from recent strike databases, showing patterns of underreporting, the prevalence of near-miss incidents, or cross-jurisdictional discrepancies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time you took reviewing this manuscript and for your insight and feedback. Of course, we appreciated your positive comments on the paper but we also, perhaps even more so, value your constructive feedback. We undertook a major restructure and refinement of the paper and we hope that you find this work in alignment with your feedback and the feedback from your fellow reviewers.

Unfortunately, due to this major change, we have not been able to provide a tracked-changes version of the manuscript. Instead, we would like to describe the changes made and highlight any particular examples in the revision document by line number.

With respect to your first comment regarding the manuscript being a survey/catalogue versus a critique, this concept resonated strongly with me and we shifted the angle of the paper towards a much more direct research question - are our strike reporting requirement no longer suited to our modern wildlife hazard management practices (lines 73-75). We found this change in angle quite powerful when it came to the analysis and discussion portions of the manuscript. We added some analysis of effectiveness through a review of non-strike-related reports in the FAA's National Wildlife Strike Database (lines 203-207) and rewrote the discussion around the impact of reporting regime changes on risk assessments (lines 257-267).

While we note and agree with your comments regarding ecological factors, the focus of my research is on the regulatory & procedural aspects of the wildlife strike reporting system. We sought to clarify this with the small phrase "particularly those defining which events must be reported" added to my research question (line 74).

Thank you for the nudge towards taking a position on future actions. we had refrained from specifically mentioning my ongoing research but that has been rectified with the discussion section on our preferred methodology for gaining a consensus amongst an expert group - the Delphi technique (lines 438-455).

Some of our discussion was a little speculative and detracted from the more foundational aspects of this literature review. As such, some was rewritten (lines 250-267) on risk assessment impacts and others were removed (tunnel vision).

I did take some extra time to review the FAA's NWSD and highlight the (low) level of non-strike-related reporting that exists within it. I think there is additional research opportunities here but they were beyond the scope of this particular paper.

Thank you again for your comments, suggestions and time.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic in aviation safety by evaluating whether existing wildlife strike reporting systems adequately serve the needs of academic and industry stakeholders. The research is relevant and has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature. However, some areas require attention to improve the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and overall impact. The paper would benefit from clearer articulation of its purpose, a well-defined methodology section, and a more structured presentation of results and discussion. In addition, incorporating more recent sources and including a section on practical applications and study limitations would strengthen the review's scholarly rigor and utility.

Specific Comments

1. Statement of Purpose - A clearly articulated purpose statement is missing. While the study’s intent can be inferred, an explicit sentence defining the objectives in the introduction would provide readers with better orientation and context.
2. Methodology Section - The manuscript includes most methodological elements (e.g., description of data sources and analysis) within the narrative, but it lacks a clearly labeled Methodology Adding such a section would improve the manuscript's transparency and ensure alignment with academic standards.
3. Results and Discussion Organization - While the authors have included subheadings to structure the presentation of findings, the manuscript lacks a clearly labeled Results or Results and Discussion section heading. Including such a heading would improve the manuscript’s overall structure and alignment with academic conventions.
4. Practical Applications and Limitations - A dedicated section discussing the practical implications of the findings for aviation stakeholders (e.g., airport operators, wildlife biologists, regulators) would improve the manuscript’s applied relevance. Additionally, a brief discussion of limitations (e.g., scope of literature, regional focus, stakeholder coverage) would strengthen its scholarly contribution.

Conclusion

Overall, the manuscript presents a timely and relevant review of wildlife strike reporting systems and the broader safety management of wildlife hazards to aviation. The topic is of critical importance to both academic researchers and industry practitioners working to enhance aviation safety. However, minor revisions are needed to improve structural organization, and clearly articulate the study’s purpose and methodology. Addressing the points raised in this review will strengthen the manuscript’s clarity, scientific rigor, and practical relevance, thereby enhancing its contribution to the field.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time, insight and expertise provided in the review comments to our paper. We found your comments very helpful in revising this manuscript as they inspired a significant rewrite and restructure. Unfortunately, this meant that providing a tracked-changes version was not feasible. Instead, we would like to provide descriptive responses to your comments.

Firstly, regarding your overall suggestion of restructuring the documents into the traditional elements of methods, results, discussion, etc. We have done so. This approach, combined with your feedback to provide a clearer statement of purpose (lines 73-75), actually led to a smaller but, in our opinion, tighter and more focused analysis and discussion section.

Creating a specific methods section, also forced us to focus on the interrogation of literature sources, as a process, rather than a narrative, and resulted in a clearer section overall. It also forced us to remove some of the clumsier sections of the paper that muddied the lines between method and results.

Similarly, the flow on effect of the restructuring of the manuscript created greater clarity in purpose through the results, analysis and discussion portions.

Finally, your comments on practical applications inspired us to take a position on what we see as the best way forward to resolving this issues, which is also the focus of our ongoing research project - a Delphi study aimed at building a consensus on event report requirement utilising a panel of experts.

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the benefit of your expertise to make this paper better.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions in the second version demonstrate thoughtful improvement. Below I summarize areas for further improvement, and concrete suggestions, followed by my recommendation.

1）The revised article still relies heavily on conceptual discussion. It could be strengthened by including brief comparative statistics or case examples from specific countries to underscore the variation and real-world impacts. Insert one or two concise case studies (boxes or sidebars) illustrating differences in reporting systems and their practical effects on hazard management.

2）While the authors highlight the importance of near-miss and non-strike events, more details on how these should be collected, quantified, or integrated into existing reporting frameworks would improve the manuscript’s practical value.

3）Perspectives from airport operators, pilots, or wildlife managers are hinted at but not sufficiently represented. Including stakeholder views, possibly via surveys or interviews, would make the article more impactful. If data are available, include perspectives from practitioners involved in wildlife hazard management, or discuss findings from relevant published surveys.

4）The obstacles to achieving international harmonization of reporting systems are mentioned, but more concrete strategies or roadmaps to overcome these barriers (technical, legal, institutional) are not fully described.

Author Response

Thank you for your additional feedback and thoughtful recommendations.

In response to your specific comments:

1. As this paper is a literature review, it is grounded in a conceptual framework rather than empirical results. Your comments, along with those of the other reviewers, have already inspired us to plan a follow-up paper focused specifically on strike data. Additionally, this paper forms part of a larger research project, which includes a forthcoming case study analysis examining relevant strike events in light of the findings from our primary research phase, the Delphi study. Your recommendations have reinforced our sense that we are on the right track. We have made minor revisions to lines 406–410 to better highlight the existing differences in regulatory regimes.
2. The question of "how" reporting should be implemented is indeed central to our broader research agenda. In the next phase of the project, the Delphi study, we will explore what additional event types, if any, should be reportable. That will set the stage for a more detailed examination of implementation challenges.
3. We agree that industry survey data would add considerable value to the field. However, despite an extensive review of academic and industry literature, we were unable to locate any previously published datasets of this nature. Our Delphi study will generate original data in this area, which we plan to publish in a subsequent paper.
4. Finally, we have revised lines 417–418 to more clearly articulate the discussion around obstacles to changing ICAO standards.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback. We sincerely appreciate your contributions to strengthening this paper, and to shaping the direction of our wider research program.