WhiskeyPapa wrote:
In Venice they also poop on your plane if they like the color!
I would much prefer this than a nasty strike surprise on take off ;)
I’d think it could take out the prop and engine?
It wouldn’t take out the engine (by hitting the prop) and IMHO the chances of engine damage are small because the bird is not a hard object, compared to say a prop strike on tarmac which sends massive stress pulses through the engine moving parts. My recollection of the current advice is that if there is no damage at all on the prop, a shock load inspection is not required.
But if the prop is damaged that’s very different. Has anyone here seen prop damage caused by a bird? Bizzarely, I have read somewhere that most birds which hit the front window have passed through the prop arc in one piece.
So the risk of the engine failing while flying through this flock of birds and hitting one or more on take off is considered low?
Bizzarely, I have read somewhere that most birds which hit the front window have passed through the prop arc in one piece.
That’s reasonable. Assume a 20 cm long bird and a closing speed of 120 kt. Then the bird will pass through the propeller arc in about 3 ms. With a 2-blade propeller rotating at 2400 rpm, one propeller blade will pass through the bird’s path every 12.5 ms, giving a hit probability of about 3/12.5 = 24%. Of course I have disregarded that both the propeller blades and the bird have nonzero width so the chance of hitting a propeller blade will in reality be greater than 24% but not by much.
Indeed, and in any case if only the front half of the bird exits the prop arc, followed 1.5ms later by the back half, I doubt the pilot will notice 
Avert your eyes if squeamish – I have to confess that one unfortunate seagull was harmed in the making of this image.
LFMD, October 2016, landing C340 in a (very) strong gusty crosswind, hands and feet fully occupied. I was fleetingly aware of birds on the grass at the threshold but though no more about it until re-fueling when we saw feathers and blood on the LE of the port wing. And some blood on the prop. A call to the tower resulted in a runway inspection, and a fireman duly returned with a decapitated seagull in a poly bag. As he was French I suggested bearnaise sauce, but I don’t think he was amused. No damage to prop or wing though.
Interesting post-script was that a small feather stayed on the LE during the next sector to Malta, thus proving that there is a stagnation point in the airflow at the leading edge of an airfoil
Interesting.
So in regard to the video, would you stop or go if you suddenly see a flock of birds rising from the runway?
That’s an interesting question. The takeoff brief is generally for engine failure, not for birds, so there is more of a startle factor as you said. When I was flying in Malta we frequently had “bird activity on the airfield” (ATIS unquote) and the brief was to “stop if there is sufficient runway remaining” (which was not usually an issue at LMML’s space shuttle length runway). But often one will see them too late. Ask Sully 
So in regard to the video, would you stop or go if you suddenly see a flock of birds rising from the runway?
Im sure almost everyone’s instinctive action is to throttle back as you did. Then, depending on the situation, continue with full throttle or stop.
That’s an interesting question. The takeoff brief is generally for engine failure, not for birds
Not for me. Regarding the takeoff roll, I “brief” that ANY problem will be an abort (like some unknown rattle, door popping open, etc.), except where the runway is short and accelerate stop distance is greater than TORA available.
Of course, when the is something like a flock of birds, the hazard has been passed and the runway is long enough, one may still amend that on the moment and decide to continue the takeoff.
