Narrative:

On short final at jackson hole airport, encountered small birds hitting window, fuselage and left engine (discovered from postflt walkaround). Advised tower of bird strike. Contacted our cessna field service representative by telephone to see action to be taken. He advised to inspect engine for ingestion of bird matter. He advised if matter is apparent in the core, then a borescope would be required. If matter had gone through bypass, no problem. The local FBO was contacted by my sic to request mechanic to look at engine for bird ingestion. He concurred and found nothing had entered the core and said to watch the itt (temperatures) on the engine for anything suspect. We departed jackson and made flts the following week uneventfully. My sic then advised that he had received a call from the FAA requesting information on this bird strike. We then researched the matter further and found that the incident required a bird strike procedure to be followed. We grounded the aircraft and are presently awaiting inspection by authority/authorized technician to accomplish this procedure. We had taken the mechanic's word at face value that nothing further was required, including any logbook notation to that effect. Generating the bird strike report opened a can of worms for us with the FAA. I would be reluctant ever to make a report of such incident to the FAA with regard to PIREPS, bird strikes or similar. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the secondary reporter noted that maintenance service department initially failed to note a specific procedure for a bird strike and it was only subsequently learned that a borescope check was required. He reemphasized his displeasure at learning his attempt to be cooperative with the FAA, ie, submitting the bird strike report which was not a regulatory requirement, resulted in threatened certificate action due primarily to the bad service provided by maintenance resources. Supplemental information from acn 612895: I should have obtained a sign-off at the time of the inspection. In future I will obtain sign-off for work however small or insignificant. Also I will no longer volunteer bird strike reports, PIREPS or volunteer information. Bird strike report caused this 'investigation.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C500 ENCOUNTERS BIRDS ON FINAL APCH TO JAC. SUBSEQUENT MAINT INSPECTION IMPROPERLY DOCUMENTED.

Narrative: ON SHORT FINAL AT JACKSON HOLE ARPT, ENCOUNTERED SMALL BIRDS HITTING WINDOW, FUSELAGE AND L ENG (DISCOVERED FROM POSTFLT WALKAROUND). ADVISED TWR OF BIRD STRIKE. CONTACTED OUR CESSNA FIELD SVC REPRESENTATIVE BY TELEPHONE TO SEE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. HE ADVISED TO INSPECT ENG FOR INGESTION OF BIRD MATTER. HE ADVISED IF MATTER IS APPARENT IN THE CORE, THEN A BORESCOPE WOULD BE REQUIRED. IF MATTER HAD GONE THROUGH BYPASS, NO PROB. THE LCL FBO WAS CONTACTED BY MY SIC TO REQUEST MECH TO LOOK AT ENG FOR BIRD INGESTION. HE CONCURRED AND FOUND NOTHING HAD ENTERED THE CORE AND SAID TO WATCH THE ITT (TEMPS) ON THE ENG FOR ANYTHING SUSPECT. WE DEPARTED JACKSON AND MADE FLTS THE FOLLOWING WK UNEVENTFULLY. MY SIC THEN ADVISED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE FAA REQUESTING INFO ON THIS BIRD STRIKE. WE THEN RESEARCHED THE MATTER FURTHER AND FOUND THAT THE INCIDENT REQUIRED A BIRD STRIKE PROC TO BE FOLLOWED. WE GNDED THE ACFT AND ARE PRESENTLY AWAITING INSPECTION BY AUTH TECHNICIAN TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PROC. WE HAD TAKEN THE MECH'S WORD AT FACE VALUE THAT NOTHING FURTHER WAS REQUIRED, INCLUDING ANY LOGBOOK NOTATION TO THAT EFFECT. GENERATING THE BIRD STRIKE RPT OPENED A CAN OF WORMS FOR US WITH THE FAA. I WOULD BE RELUCTANT EVER TO MAKE A RPT OF SUCH INCIDENT TO THE FAA WITH REGARD TO PIREPS, BIRD STRIKES OR SIMILAR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE SECONDARY RPTR NOTED THAT MAINT SVC DEPT INITIALLY FAILED TO NOTE A SPECIFIC PROC FOR A BIRD STRIKE AND IT WAS ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT A BORESCOPE CHK WAS REQUIRED. HE REEMPHASIZED HIS DISPLEASURE AT LEARNING HIS ATTEMPT TO BE COOPERATIVE WITH THE FAA, IE, SUBMITTING THE BIRD STRIKE RPT WHICH WAS NOT A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT, RESULTED IN THREATENED CERTIFICATE ACTION DUE PRIMARILY TO THE BAD SVC PROVIDED BY MAINT RESOURCES. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 612895: I SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A SIGN-OFF AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION. IN FUTURE I WILL OBTAIN SIGN-OFF FOR WORK HOWEVER SMALL OR INSIGNIFICANT. ALSO I WILL NO LONGER VOLUNTEER BIRD STRIKE RPTS, PIREPS OR VOLUNTEER INFO. BIRD STRIKE RPT CAUSED THIS 'INVESTIGATION.'

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.