Narrative:

We were departing green bay, wi, with 4 passenger for a non-stop flight to santa monica, ca. We were assigned runway 18 for departure. I believe we were the first aircraft assigned this runway, as prior to this, I had noticed aircraft departing runway 24. With full fuel and 4 passenger, our calculated takeoff weight was 22800 pounds, which is close to maximum gross takeoff weight of 23500 pounds. Our calculated balanced field length, factoring in the wet runway, was 6000 ft. Runway available was 8200 ft. Takeoff was initiated and everything proceeded normally until the first officer called 'V1,' at which time I spotted a large flock (50-100) of seagulls immediately ahead on the runway and in the air above the runway. Realizing that a takeoff would have put me in the 'thick' of the birds, I decided to stay on the ground and attempt to go under them. Unfortunately, this did not work and we took a direct hit to the right windshield. We also had a thump from the rear of the aircraft. At this point, seeing that we still had plenty of runway left, I elected to abort, as I felt a takeoff would have caused further strikes. We initiated the abort which was successful, although we used all the available runway. After returning to the FBO, we assessed that 1 bird had hit our windshield and the remainder of the carcass had hit the tail. The aircraft suffered no damage apart from the need to replace the right brake due to overheating. And there were no injuries. In the future, I would recommend all pilots to be very aggressive in an abort. If I had done so initially, it would not have resulted in using up so much runway. Also, airport management should make it a policy of having a patrol car inspect runways before assigning them for use by aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A WW24 CREW, DEPARTING GRB, ENCOUNTERED A FLOCK OF SEAGULLS ON TKOF ROLL, SPAWNING A REJECTED TKOF.

Narrative: WE WERE DEPARTING GREEN BAY, WI, WITH 4 PAX FOR A NON-STOP FLT TO SANTA MONICA, CA. WE WERE ASSIGNED RWY 18 FOR DEP. I BELIEVE WE WERE THE FIRST ACFT ASSIGNED THIS RWY, AS PRIOR TO THIS, I HAD NOTICED ACFT DEPARTING RWY 24. WITH FULL FUEL AND 4 PAX, OUR CALCULATED TKOF WT WAS 22800 LBS, WHICH IS CLOSE TO MAX GROSS TKOF WT OF 23500 LBS. OUR CALCULATED BALANCED FIELD LENGTH, FACTORING IN THE WET RWY, WAS 6000 FT. RWY AVAILABLE WAS 8200 FT. TKOF WAS INITIATED AND EVERYTHING PROCEEDED NORMALLY UNTIL THE FO CALLED 'V1,' AT WHICH TIME I SPOTTED A LARGE FLOCK (50-100) OF SEAGULLS IMMEDIATELY AHEAD ON THE RWY AND IN THE AIR ABOVE THE RWY. REALIZING THAT A TKOF WOULD HAVE PUT ME IN THE 'THICK' OF THE BIRDS, I DECIDED TO STAY ON THE GND AND ATTEMPT TO GO UNDER THEM. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT WORK AND WE TOOK A DIRECT HIT TO THE R WINDSHIELD. WE ALSO HAD A THUMP FROM THE REAR OF THE ACFT. AT THIS POINT, SEEING THAT WE STILL HAD PLENTY OF RWY LEFT, I ELECTED TO ABORT, AS I FELT A TKOF WOULD HAVE CAUSED FURTHER STRIKES. WE INITIATED THE ABORT WHICH WAS SUCCESSFUL, ALTHOUGH WE USED ALL THE AVAILABLE RWY. AFTER RETURNING TO THE FBO, WE ASSESSED THAT 1 BIRD HAD HIT OUR WINDSHIELD AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CARCASS HAD HIT THE TAIL. THE ACFT SUFFERED NO DAMAGE APART FROM THE NEED TO REPLACE THE R BRAKE DUE TO OVERHEATING. AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES. IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD RECOMMEND ALL PLTS TO BE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN AN ABORT. IF I HAD DONE SO INITIALLY, IT WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN USING UP SO MUCH RWY. ALSO, ARPT MGMNT SHOULD MAKE IT A POLICY OF HAVING A PATROL CAR INSPECT RWYS BEFORE ASSIGNING THEM FOR USE BY ACFT.

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.