Dariusz, sorry for the delayed reply I have been away working.
Sorry if you feel harshly treated, but your post contained sentences that were prescriptive in their structure and defined "actions" that are not entirely supported by the research, hence my reference to investigating further before posting.
So let's take a look at some of your statements:
Here is what I would provide as comment:
"Airports are responsible for bird control and must provide adequate bird scaring when necessary. This is also called the "Bird Control Program". Therefore, do not take off if birds are fouling the runway. Advise the tower and expect an airport action."
Bird "scaring" is only a limited portion of a wildlife management program and as for responsibility, that is a long and complex discussion that is dependent on where you are. The responsibility also ends at the airport boundary. Additionally the vast majority of airports in the world have limited or no bird control programs. Yes major airports in a number of countries do, but get into many parts of the world and they are non-existent. So expecting action may be a moot point.
Switch on the aircraft lights up to 10000 feet at takeoff, and below 10000 feet at landing. It is assumed that lights provide an additional warning to the birds, and help them to localize the aircraft.
This is good advice and it is more than an assumption.
Flight crews must react immediately when a birdstrike occurs at takeoff, because there is no time left for analysis. Flight crews should be mentally prepared well before takeoff.
A broad statement with no context. Mental preparation for any takeoff is an absolute must. Immediate reaction without analysis is a flawed concept. All of this depends on where an event occurs. At 80 knots, not a big deal, just prior to or after V1 is another story in an airline category aircraft, but the key is good decisions and precision handling.
Using the weather radar to scare the birds has proved to be inefficient.
An even stronger statement is required than "inefficient", completely useless would be better.
On short final, do not go around, if birds are encountered, but fly through the bird flock and land. Try to maintain a low thrust setting.
Again context is the issue here, what did you hit, what altitude are you at and perhaps a go-around to avoid hitting birds may be the correct decision.
The use of reverse thrust on landing after a birdstrike should be avoided. It may increase engine damage, especially when engine vibration or high EGT are indicated.
Again a directive sentence without context. Prescribing a requirement to not use reverse thrust may be placing the aircraft in more danger than using it following a bird strike. I also defy most pilots, myself included, to truly assess damage from a bird strike in this circumstance and make an informed decision on the use of reverse thrust. I would suggest that using idle reverse would be in order, that way the option of using more reverse is available AND there is no residual forward thrust from the engines.
You may not like the criticism of your comments, but this site, and particular page are viewed by many and your suggestions were at times incorrect.