Narrative:

As we took position for takeoff at osu, we observed a flock of seagulls midway down the runway. The gulls began to scatter as we began the takeoff roll and it appeared that we could safely continue. However, somewhere close to V1 it became apparent that a few of the birds would be slow to clear our flight path. The PF 'snatched' the aircraft off the runway (by now vr) to avoid impacting the birds. However, 1 gull struck the right wing leading edge creating a sizeable dent and cracked skin (cracks not visible from cockpit). As per 'cockpit resource management' procedures, we made a quick check to ensure no major damage, then continued to climb out of 'safety window' before discussing the problem and deciding what to do. Since there was no evidence of major damage, and no ctlability problems, we elected to proceed to toledo, only a short flight away, where there is an small transport service center. Post-flight examination confirmed our assessment of the damage. In retrospect, perhaps we should have asked for a vehicle to chase the birds away. The problem with this is that they simply return to the runway after the vehicle is gone. (An small transport had just landed prior to our departure.) as a result of a passing cold front, the air was chilly (50 degrees F), but the runways were warm from thermal heating. I believe this was attracting the birds. I'm also considering an agreed-upon takeoff 'bird decision speed' of, say, 70 KTS (well below V1). This would be discussed on the pre-takeoff briefing. If there is still a question upon reaching this speed, the takeoff would be aborted. By the time the 'will they?'/'won't they?' question became 'one won't,' we were past V1 and neither of us believed aborting was the right thing to do. We are very fortunate that no birds were ingested by the engines. Finally, I'm extremely pleased with the smooth and orderly flow of crew interaction -- a result of recent cockpit resource management training. Our immediate concern was to leave the 'safety window.' following that, I assigned (as senior pilot) individual tasks relevant to the problem. Together, we agreed upon a workable plan (toledo), and briefed the passenger. Properly administered, cockpit resource management is very effective -- proved here. It should be required in every cockpit.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BIRD STRIKE ON TKOF.

Narrative: AS WE TOOK POS FOR TKOF AT OSU, WE OBSERVED A FLOCK OF SEAGULLS MIDWAY DOWN THE RWY. THE GULLS BEGAN TO SCATTER AS WE BEGAN THE TKOF ROLL AND IT APPEARED THAT WE COULD SAFELY CONTINUE. HOWEVER, SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO V1 IT BECAME APPARENT THAT A FEW OF THE BIRDS WOULD BE SLOW TO CLR OUR FLT PATH. THE PF 'SNATCHED' THE ACFT OFF THE RWY (BY NOW VR) TO AVOID IMPACTING THE BIRDS. HOWEVER, 1 GULL STRUCK THE R WING LEADING EDGE CREATING A SIZEABLE DENT AND CRACKED SKIN (CRACKS NOT VISIBLE FROM COCKPIT). AS PER 'COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT' PROCS, WE MADE A QUICK CHK TO ENSURE NO MAJOR DAMAGE, THEN CONTINUED TO CLB OUT OF 'SAFETY WINDOW' BEFORE DISCUSSING THE PROB AND DECIDING WHAT TO DO. SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MAJOR DAMAGE, AND NO CTLABILITY PROBS, WE ELECTED TO PROCEED TO TOLEDO, ONLY A SHORT FLT AWAY, WHERE THERE IS AN SMT SVC CTR. POST-FLT EXAMINATION CONFIRMED OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE DAMAGE. IN RETROSPECT, PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A VEHICLE TO CHASE THE BIRDS AWAY. THE PROB WITH THIS IS THAT THEY SIMPLY RETURN TO THE RWY AFTER THE VEHICLE IS GONE. (AN SMT HAD JUST LANDED PRIOR TO OUR DEP.) AS A RESULT OF A PASSING COLD FRONT, THE AIR WAS CHILLY (50 DEGS F), BUT THE RWYS WERE WARM FROM THERMAL HEATING. I BELIEVE THIS WAS ATTRACTING THE BIRDS. I'M ALSO CONSIDERING AN AGREED-UPON TKOF 'BIRD DECISION SPD' OF, SAY, 70 KTS (WELL BELOW V1). THIS WOULD BE DISCUSSED ON THE PRE-TKOF BRIEFING. IF THERE IS STILL A QUESTION UPON REACHING THIS SPD, THE TKOF WOULD BE ABORTED. BY THE TIME THE 'WILL THEY?'/'WON'T THEY?' QUESTION BECAME 'ONE WON'T,' WE WERE PAST V1 AND NEITHER OF US BELIEVED ABORTING WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT NO BIRDS WERE INGESTED BY THE ENGS. FINALLY, I'M EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE SMOOTH AND ORDERLY FLOW OF CREW INTERACTION -- A RESULT OF RECENT COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT TRAINING. OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERN WAS TO LEAVE THE 'SAFETY WINDOW.' FOLLOWING THAT, I ASSIGNED (AS SENIOR PLT) INDIVIDUAL TASKS RELEVANT TO THE PROB. TOGETHER, WE AGREED UPON A WORKABLE PLAN (TOLEDO), AND BRIEFED THE PAX. PROPERLY ADMINISTERED, COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT IS VERY EFFECTIVE -- PROVED HERE. IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN EVERY COCKPIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.