Narrative:

As the aircraft descended for the visual approach to the south, the captain's windshield was struck by a bird. Flying the visual approach backed up by the ILS, I xferred the controls to the first officer on final due to my reduced visibility out the windshield. We landed, taxied and parked as usual and informed the ground crew we struck a bird and we needed to have the windshield washed. The first officer and I completed a thorough postflt inspection with flashlights and we could see no damage to the windshield or any evidence of bird strikes on the rest of the aircraft. After reviewing our company's fom, I could not see any specifics for writing up a bird strike in our aircraft maintenance log. Our company's fom requires the captain to ensure a postflt inspection is accomplished and 'to inspect the aircraft for obvious damage such as loose panels or fittings, evidence of bird strikes, engine inlet blockage (use flashlight if necessary) etc.' but the fom does not state that we need to write up a bird strike in our aml nor to call maintenance. Therefore, seeing no aircraft damage on postflt, I did not make an entry into our aircraft's aml or call maintenance. The next day another crew arrived at the aircraft and noticed the bird strike on the captain's windshield. After contract maintenance was called (this was not our home base), the aircraft was cleared for revenue service 1 hour after its original departure time. I feel our company's fom specifically needs to state a bird strike requires an aml write-up along with a call to maintenance to guard against any confusion as to the airworthiness of the aircraft. Also, this prevents any incorrect interps of the company's fom's postflt inspection procedures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CL65 STRIKES A BIRD DURING A VISUAL APCH TO XNA.

Narrative: AS THE ACFT DSNDED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO THE S, THE CAPT'S WINDSHIELD WAS STRUCK BY A BIRD. FLYING THE VISUAL APCH BACKED UP BY THE ILS, I XFERRED THE CTLS TO THE FO ON FINAL DUE TO MY REDUCED VISIBILITY OUT THE WINDSHIELD. WE LANDED, TAXIED AND PARKED AS USUAL AND INFORMED THE GND CREW WE STRUCK A BIRD AND WE NEEDED TO HAVE THE WINDSHIELD WASHED. THE FO AND I COMPLETED A THOROUGH POSTFLT INSPECTION WITH FLASHLIGHTS AND WE COULD SEE NO DAMAGE TO THE WINDSHIELD OR ANY EVIDENCE OF BIRD STRIKES ON THE REST OF THE ACFT. AFTER REVIEWING OUR COMPANY'S FOM, I COULD NOT SEE ANY SPECIFICS FOR WRITING UP A BIRD STRIKE IN OUR ACFT MAINT LOG. OUR COMPANY'S FOM REQUIRES THE CAPT TO ENSURE A POSTFLT INSPECTION IS ACCOMPLISHED AND 'TO INSPECT THE ACFT FOR OBVIOUS DAMAGE SUCH AS LOOSE PANELS OR FITTINGS, EVIDENCE OF BIRD STRIKES, ENG INLET BLOCKAGE (USE FLASHLIGHT IF NECESSARY) ETC.' BUT THE FOM DOES NOT STATE THAT WE NEED TO WRITE UP A BIRD STRIKE IN OUR AML NOR TO CALL MAINT. THEREFORE, SEEING NO ACFT DAMAGE ON POSTFLT, I DID NOT MAKE AN ENTRY INTO OUR ACFT'S AML OR CALL MAINT. THE NEXT DAY ANOTHER CREW ARRIVED AT THE ACFT AND NOTICED THE BIRD STRIKE ON THE CAPT'S WINDSHIELD. AFTER CONTRACT MAINT WAS CALLED (THIS WAS NOT OUR HOME BASE), THE ACFT WAS CLRED FOR REVENUE SVC 1 HR AFTER ITS ORIGINAL DEP TIME. I FEEL OUR COMPANY'S FOM SPECIFICALLY NEEDS TO STATE A BIRD STRIKE REQUIRES AN AML WRITE-UP ALONG WITH A CALL TO MAINT TO GUARD AGAINST ANY CONFUSION AS TO THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. ALSO, THIS PREVENTS ANY INCORRECT INTERPS OF THE COMPANY'S FOM'S POSTFLT INSPECTION PROCS.

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.