I don’t quite agree in the above decision to continue. In 2013 we had a bird strike on one of our F-16’s in Estonia while on a Baltic Air Policing mission 40 nautical miles south of Tallinn. One of the birds struck went into the engine. The pilot noticed a “thud” and had a minor grinding noise and minor vibrations for 30 seconds. After that the noise and vibrations disappeared. The engine instruments and the engine response were normal during the entire event. Pilot decided to land at nearest suitable airfield which in this case was Tallinn. Landing was performed a short while after and was uneventful.
Technicians and engine specialists that where sent to check the plane before it was returned home discovered massive structural damage to the intake and engine. Engine specialist estimated the engine would have continued to run for a maximum of 15 minutes more before tearing itself apart.
From the cockpit it can be very difficult to assess the damage a large bird can do to an engine or airframe. Obviously if the engine stops instantly, shows abnormal indications or there is a breach in the pressure hull, it will be obvious that that the crew needs to land. But even events that do not seem to have done any damage might develop into an engine failure. Therefore, I would elect to land at the nearest suitable field if I have a reasonable suspicion that the engine was hit by a bird. But then again, my company does not have to make money for the stake holders, and the aircraft we operate are only single engine.