By Marlon Dale Ferreira
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – Questions arise over wildlife management at Bandaranaike International Airport after pilots reportedly warned air traffic control about a pair of white-bellied sea eagles on several occasions.
The recent bird strike involving a SriLankan Airlines aircraft bound for London has raised serious questions about whether the incident could have been prevented, following claims that pilots had repeatedly reported the presence of two white-bellied sea eagles near Bandaranaike International Airport.
Flight UL503, scheduled to depart Katunayake for London Heathrow on October 28, 2026, suffered damage to one of its engines following a bird strike during its take-off run.
The flight crew successfully rejected the take-off, bringing the aircraft to a safe stop before returning it to the parking stand. All passengers and crew disembarked safely, while SriLankan Airlines arranged a replacement aircraft to complete the journey.
However, information received by The Morning Telegraph suggests that the presence of large birds in the vicinity of the airport may have been reported well before the incident.
Pilots Had Reportedly Raised Concerns
A senior SriLankan Airlines pilot, speaking to The Morning Telegraph on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly said “On several occasions, a particular pair of white-bellied sea eagles had been reported to the control tower.”
He explained that established airport procedures generally require such reports to be communicated to the relevant authorities responsible for wildlife hazard management, allowing appropriate preventive measures to be considered.
The pilot noted that airports worldwide employ various methods to discourage birds from entering areas where aircraft operate.
These include bird-scaring devices, controlled noise deterrents, pyrotechnics and, in certain circumstances, specialised laser-based systems.
He cited examples from Indian airports where firecrackers and other deterrents have reportedly been used to disperse birds before aircraft movements.
Such measures, however, must be applied under controlled conditions to avoid creating additional hazards for aircraft, airport personnel or wildlife.
The pilot’s account raises an important question: If repeated warnings were received about the presence of these sea eagles, what action was taken to address the potential danger?
Although subsequent reporting identified the bird involved in the UL503 incident as a white bellied sea eagle, it has not been independently established that it was one of the two birds previously reported by pilots.
Pilots Praised for Handling a Potentially Dangerous Situation
The flight crew’s handling of the incident deserves particular recognition.
A rejected take-off involving a large, long-haul aircraft requires immediate assessment, decisive action and strict adherence to established operating procedures.
The pilots successfully brought the aircraft to a stop without injuries to passengers or crew.
The decision to reject a take-off depends on several factors, including aircraft speed, the nature of the malfunction and the applicable operating procedures.
In this instance, the crew’s actions prevented the aircraft from continuing its journey with a potentially damaged engine.
Had the aircraft become airborne before the engine problem was identified, the pilots might have faced a more complicated situation.
An aircraft departing on a long-haul service to London normally carries a substantial quantity of fuel. An early return following take-off could therefore require consideration of the aircraft’s landing weight.
Depending on the circumstances, pilots may need to burn fuel, jettison fuel where the aircraft and procedures permit, or conduct an overweight landing if an immediate return is necessary.
By rejecting the take-off, the crew avoided the additional complications associated with returning an airborne aircraft following a serious engine malfunction.
The rejected take-off may also have subjected the aircraft’s braking system and tyres to considerable stress, depending on the speed at which the manoeuvre was initiated.
However, the extent of any tyre or brake damage has not been independently confirmed.
Engine Damage and Financial Consequences
The bird strike reportedly damaged several engine blades, requiring the aircraft to be withdrawn from service for inspection and repairs.
Subsequent reporting indicated that the affected engine could potentially be repaired, with an insurance claim covering some of the associated costs.
Whether the damage necessitates an engine replacement or can be addressed through repairs remains a technical matter requiring confirmation.
Beyond the immediate repair costs, such incidents can generate substantial operational expenses, including flight disruptions, replacement aircraft arrangements, maintenance requirements and aircraft downtime.
For a national carrier already operating in a financially challenging environment, avoidable aircraft damage represents an additional burden.
This makes effective wildlife hazard management more than a routine airport maintenance concern. It is a matter of operational safety, financial responsibility and efficient airport management.
Were the Warnings Acted Upon?
Following the UL503 incident, airport authorities and other stakeholders have reportedly intensified measures to address wildlife hazards.
A committee comprising representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority, Airport and Aviation Services, the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the relevant ministry has been tasked with coordinating preventive measures.
While these developments are welcome, they also raise questions about the effectiveness of measures already in place.
The central issue is not simply whether wildlife management procedures exist, but whether reported hazards are properly recorded, assessed and acted upon before an incident occurs.
Several questions now deserve examination:
- Were sightings of the two white-bellied sea eagles formally recorded by air traffic control before October 28?
- Were those reports communicated to airport wildlife management personnel?
- What measures, if any, were taken to discourage the birds from entering aircraft operating areas?
- Was the reported presence of the sea eagles treated as a recurring safety hazard?
- Could additional preventive action reasonably have reduced the likelihood of the October 28 incident?
