Delta B767 in multiple bird strike

[keel beam]

A Delta Airlines B767 had a multiple bird strike on take off from FCO.
(7 July 07)
Both engines were struck by seagulls. Some of the right engine fan blades had large chunks taken out. The left engine had many fan blades damaged at midway along the blade leading edge.

The noise on take off was extremely loud, sounding like a large piston powered aircraft flying low overhead.

The aircraft dumped some fuel before returning to FCO. Bird strike evidence on cockpit window, right engine nose cowl, bird remnants on right outboard leading edge slat and right main undercarriage. The main gear struts were deflated.

I say a very well done to the flight crew for what must have been a nerve wracking flight:D

I certainly had my fingers crossed for a safe outcome.

[MarcJF]

All in a days work for a trained crew, I'd have thought?

[ChristiaanJ]

All in a days work for a trained crew, I'd have thought?Dumb and fatuous remarks we can do without.
Multiple birdstrikes are NOT funny.
Thanks, keel beam. Any more info? Sounds like a double engine change for a start. Hat off to the crew.

[Dysonsphere]

[QUOTE]
All in a days work for a trained crew, I'd have thought?
[/QUOTE

Well hopefully not every day well done to the crew:D:D

[bomarc]

FCO for all of us domestic us pilots is: ROME, Leonardo Da Vinci

I wouldn't want to suck birds into all engines on a good day...birds can bring planes down.

[forget]

Deleted my pointless response to a 767 with both engines damaged on take-off being 'all in a days work'. Quite right Christiaan.

[Piltdown Man]

"FCO for all of us domestic us pilots is: ROME, Leonardo Da Vinci"

But known as Roma Fiumicino to the rest of the World. Bet the flight deck tucked their trousers into their socks when they walked out.

PM

[Slinks]

"All in a days work for a trained crew, I'd have thought?"

Can I ask why there is such a negative response to this comment? Im not a pilot but surely the professional pilots out there train intensively to be able to handle emergency situations? I don't think it is a derogatory remark at all. I think it should be recieved as a compliment that we expect our pilots to be so highly trained and so capable of handling such situations. I certainly do. I pay enough money for my flights to expect this!

Is it too much to expect someone to be able to carry out the job they are being payed for when the going gets tough. Pilots do carry out a very skilled job where there is very little response time to make a decision but don't get above your stations please!

Slinks

[rmac]

Slinks

Let me help you out with a good analogy if you are having difficulty understanding.

Soldiers train hard so they know what to do when they get shot at. It doesn't make the actual experience any less traumatic.

Now to stretch the analogy,

There's a big difference being shot at by a single gunman, and being caught in a long linear ambush on the Fallujah bypass....:uhoh:

[NigelOnDraft]

Varied comments above about whether we "are trained" for such an event, or not :rolleyes: So most posters posing the question are not Professional Pilots I suspect ;)
The article / original post states Some of the right engine fan blades had large chunks taken out. The left engine had many fan blades damaged at midway along the blade leading edgeHowever, we have no indication of the symptons / indications to the Flt Crew.

I can assure the readers, that I as an Airline Capt with an "EU Major", on twin jets, do not train for such a scenario. We train for either a single engine failure (a lot!), or occasionally for an "at altitude" double engine failure. We do not have a scenario where 1 engine is dead, and the other half dead etc.

Maybe other airlines do, but the scenario related to seems "out of the book". I am sure the crew, if presented with multiple engine problems, dealt with it well. However, to say they were "trained for this (specific) situation" seems somewhat unlikely :ooh:

[Sobelena]

Aaah, pilots, don't you just love them. When you take them for granted they bitch. When you compliment them they bitch :}:rolleyes:;) Nevertheless, very well done that Delta crew.

[Slinks]

NigelOnDraft, thankyou... your post makes it clear that this is certainly a situation out of the ordinary and not something that has been trained for. Don't get me wrong I believe there is still a tremendous amount of skill and an amazing ability to make decisions under pressure involved even if a pilot has been trained for this scenario. I do believe that if someone goes into a job with these possible situations then he shouldnt go seeking recognition at every opportunity.

rmac, very good analogy. I have been in a live fire situation from close quarters in a pub alone in northern ireland and know for a fact that you cannot put such a situation down to training alone, the personality of the individual involved is the main factor in any situation. As you can probably tell, i didn't die.

NigelOnDraft gave the perfect answer to the statement "all in a days work" this is the internet, not everyone who reads these forums is a qualfied captain on 747s. Explaining the situation to the reading public does a hell of a lot more for the pilot community than taking a mightier than though position! rmac, Get off your high horse!

[whattimedoweland]

Well done to those of you at the front.:D

[SLFguy]

"All in a days work for a trained crew, I'd have thought?"

Did anyone say.."Another day at the office"?

This is an EXTRA ordinary event..hats off etc but purleeeeeeeze with the 'another normal day' routine.

[Ladusvala]

I agree that this is not a situation that we pilots normally train for, though I did once "land" an MD80 simulator with double engine failure.

However I must say that I expect every flight crew to do just what this crew did, that is to continue flying the aircraft until back on the ground again.

[cwatters]

Some of the right engine fan blades had large chunks taken out. The left engine had many fan blades damaged at midway along the blade leading edge.

Chrismas card for the guys who designed those engines then.

[CAAAD]

Surely we should be asking why so much engine damage was done by an encounter with a flock of birds. Flocks of gulls are not uncommon.

And the more curious of us will ask what the results of the engine bird ingestion certification tests looked like, and whether they match current knowledge of the bird threat.

[ibelieveicanfly]

TO THE CREW: WELL DONE!

I would never like to face a situation like this,but it can happen.
My question is: has ever seen the crew anything upon lineup on the rwy ?

[Albert Driver]

Surely we should be asking why so much engine damage was done by an encounter with a flock of birds. Flocks of gulls are not uncommon.

The diameter of the fan is around 85 inches.

The average wingspan of a gull is 58 inches. They can weigh up to one and a half kilos.

An encounter with a flock of gulls is no trivial matter.

[fast cruiser]

Some of the right engine fan blades had large chunks taken out. The left engine had many fan blades damaged at midway along the blade leading edge.
The aircraft dumped some fuel before returning to FCO
Without wanting to question the flt crew actions, I would be curious to know what the engine indications were in the flt deck, ANY sign of abnormal indications to BOTH eng at the same time and I would'nt be dumping fuel, it would be an immediate overweight re-land!!!


either way well done to the flt crew:D

[brakedwell]

Well done crew, and thank goodness the engine(s) gave out enough thrust to complete a safe landing.

[Wycombe]

Just to add weight to what others have said ....wasn't there a 4-engined a/c (USAF E3) downed by a flock of gulls not so many years ago?

[planeenglish]

The aircraft dumped some fuel before returning to FCO


Anybody heading to Rome's beaches for this summer's holidays...see if you can't change your destination! :ooh:

[Tee Emm]

The diameter of the fan is around 85 inches.

The average wingspan of a gull is 58 inches. They can weigh up to one and a half kilos.

An encounter with a flock of gulls is no trivial matter

All of the above being factual makes you wonder why in Australia anyway, that pilots are perfectly happy to request/accept ATC approval for high speed (320 knots+) below 10,000ft on departure and arrival...when 250 knots is generally considered acceptable risk world wide..

[HowlingWind]

Just to add weight to what others have said ....wasn't there a 4-engined a/c (USAF E3) downed by a flock of gulls not so many years ago?It was a flock of Canada Geese, but yes, a USAF AWACS plane crashed after a massive bird ingestion on takeoff from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, in 1995. All 24 aboard perished.

Pictures of the scene as well as the results of a few other bird strike mishaps can be seen here (http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/tp13549/Plates.htm)

[lomapaseo]

Numerous events of multiple engine damage due to birds similar to the event described in this thread. I don't recall a lot of discussion about these at the time. The design of the engine coupled with the basic training of the pilot to respond to symptoms has made these survivable.

I know that a whole lot of following thead respsonses will now be devoted to what if's.

Typical symptoms involved in similar events as described in subject thread starter , have been an engine surge, vibration heard and felt, slight increase in EGT and thrust loss of up to 10%. In some events one engine was shutdown.

[kingair9]

These are NOT prictures of the 767 concerned but give a very good impression of Bird Strikes on a 67:

http://www.geocities.com/afwjr/767.html

:eek:

[xetroV]

http://www.zero-meridean.nl/images/c_eindh_150796_2.jpg

1 airplane built for the toughest conditions,
4 engines,
1 flock of starlings...

34 dead.
7 severely injured.

Multiple birdhits can kill and such scenarios are definitely not routine.

[ChristiaanJ]

kingair9,
Re 767 pics, looks like sparrows or starlings or something that size.
As xetroV said .... 1 flock of starlings .... can kill.
I've seen what a single gull can do to a Canberra engine... the first few compressor stages were lying in the bottom of the nacelle in post-it size bits. So an entire flock.....
Do we know where the flock at FCO came from? Gulls rarely go far inland in flocks, unless of course there is a garbage dump nearby.

[southern duel]

xetroV
The C130 crash was not sparrows but starlings . A completely different bird when comparing bird strikes.
Starling flock in great numbers and have a higher body mass weight then starlings which in turn cause more damage.
Sparrows do not flock and are therfore not a high risk bird when talking about how much damage certain species cause.

Now if were talking Geese thats a whole new ball game. Pigeons and Gulls and even kestrels are the more common birds that may cause damage if an aircraft hits more then one.

:rolleyes:

[xetroV]

Oops, you're right! I did mean to say starlings, but my translation was incorrect (English is not my native language). Corrected now. :)

Now, while starlings are still pretty small birds, a flock of these pretty small birds is clearly no laughing matter. Let alone a flock of seagulls.

[Taildragger67]

Birds and their ability to down large aircraft

Yukla 27 (http://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_nov96.pdf): E3 Sentry drought down by a flock of geese ingested into two engines (on the same side) on take-off from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. 24 POB; no survivors.

My point being: yes it (birdstrike) might be trained for, but, like a fire, I'd suggest not something welcomed by any pilot and if it's "all in a day's work", they need to move that particular runway...

In any case, it's not the actual birdstrike, it's the potential double flame-out which might follow. Which might not be such good news on a twin... :eek:

[ChristiaanJ]

In any case, it's not the actual birdstrike, it's the potential double flame-out....Not necessarily. A birdstrike in the cockpit can kill.

I know about a DC-3 that collected a gull through the right-hand windscreen. The only reason the FO survived was that he bent down or leaned over for some unrelated reason, litterally a couple of seconds before the impact. He was showered with glass and remains of the bird that hit the panel just behind him.

The earlier set of photos had a helicopter with a smashed windscreen. There it would seem the pilot survived only because he was wearing a bonedome, with the visor down....

[India Four Two]

Do we know where the flock at FCO came from?

FCO is on the coast


Gulls rarely go far inland in flocks, unless of course there is a garbage dump nearby.


There are large flocks of gulls permanently resident in Calgary, which is about 600 nm as the gull flies from the coast. Of course, it's the garbage dumps which keep them there.

[wasdale]

Slinks
"I pay enough money for my flights to expect this!"
I can't believe you said that :yuk:

[perkin]

Don't forget the KLM737 which was written off at Barcelona following the nose gear damage by a birdstrike (buzzard) on take off from AMS. No serious injuries as I recall, but a dead 737 nonetheless...

[flown-it]

NOD (post#10) states "that I as an Airline Capt with an "EU Major", on twin jets, do not train for such a scenario. We train for either a single engine failure (a lot!), or occasionally for an "at altitude" double engine failure".
Nigel...Thats relatively easy to fix.
My company has a birdstrike on T/O scenario which results in fire/failure in one engine and off the clock vibration in the other. The results range from a request for immediate return :D to a statement that we've lost an engine followed by a leisurely flog around the pattern while countless checklists are painstakingly read :ugh:

[Slinks]

Wasdale....

believe it, I really said it...

"I pay enough for my flights to expect this" - relates to having highly trained pilots capable of handling emergency situations. Are you saying that you dont expect to have a highly trained pilot capable of handling an emergency when you fly as a passenger?

Please keep the comment in context, it was made before NigelOnDraft's post explaining that this situation is indeed not something that is trained for in a simulator. A response to MarcJF's post such as NigelOnDraft gave would have been the ideal response to the post and would have made the situation clear to a mere mortal.

Now I would still say "I pay enough for my flights to expect a highly trained crew who will give me the best possible chance of surviving an abnormal situation". Do you have a problem with that statement?

Slinks

[broadreach]

Brazil's Globo TV Sunday evening (8 July) programme "Fantastico" aired a five-minute clip about a light twin air ambulance pilot hit in the face by a vulture and knocked unconscious last week. He came to and despite losing an eye, managed to land the aircraft. The Portuguese-language clip can be watched at:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL66068-5605,00.html

If you've the patience, at the end of the clip an airforce pilot being interviewed states that around 500 bird strikes a year are reported in Brazil and that the AF estimate another 1,500 go unreported.

Those of you who fly down here regularly will be aware of the vultures (urubú is the Brazilian term) on approach to GIG (rwy 10) and some other airports. There must be a Sod-related law determining that municipal rubbish dumps be positioned within 3km and in line with the most-used runways, preferably downwind.

Another, earlier, comment in the clip by a pilot flying the same type of light twin is that the immediate reaction on seeing birds ahead should be to pull up, as the birds will usually dive rather than climb away from a threat. Ok in a light plane with good visibility ahead, perhaps not so easy in a heavier aircraft's approach attitude.

As for "all in a day's work", I should hope not. I remember starlings and an Electra.

[nike]

slinks....I do.

How have you rationalised what price is or is not ENOUGH?

[Panman]

Surely we should be asking why so much engine damage was done by an encounter with a flock of birds. Flocks of gulls are not uncommon.

And the more curious of us will ask what the results of the engine bird ingestion certification tests looked like, and whether they match current knowledge of the bird threat.

If I remember correctly...

And please feel free to correct me if I am wrong - not the first time, won't be the last....

The test is not for whether the engine will survive an encounter with a bird and keep on ticking in one piece, but whether, upon encountering said bird, there is an uncontained blade failure or not.

The last thing you want is ruptured fuel tanks with bits of (hot) engine sticking out of them or ruptured SLF with bits of (hot) engine sticking out of them.

PanmaN

[lomapaseo]

The test requirements for flocking bird encounters is performance based and requires that the engine be able to provide enough power to safely land the aircraft.

You can pretty much make a shambles of the fan (scrap every blade) and still make enough power to safely land.

the key is the fan blade tip clearance and what happens to that

The certification requirements have increased since the engines powering the B767 were designed.

Still there has to be a degree of avoidance coupled with even today's stronger engines else you can break anything that man makes, including the aircraft. With the latest generation engines the aircraft is the weakest link in a large bird encounter once in the air.

[Ignition Override]

XetroV:
Where was that disaster with the C-130?

In the 1970s a Lockheed Electra with passengers crashed into Boston Harbor after hitting a flock of starlings. Nobody survived.

A Republic Airlines (or North Central) Convair 580 many years ago in the upper midwest hit a duck or a goose. The Captain was hurt, lost the vision in one eye but was able to demonstrate some sort of depth perception in the simulator etc and went back to flying.

We have never trained for bird strikes.
For years, the experts believed that using radar would induce birds to avoid airplanes, but they found out after better research that there were no noticeable benefits.
But maybe a slow-flying Mig 25 Foxbat's radar might give birds some incentive to steer away.

[old,not bold]

From an airport point of view, the problem in this case is that the gulls were there, or, if that was unavoidable, that the crew was not warned.

It is NOT impossible to have a system of alerting crews, via ATC, of flocks that might affect a departing aircraft. It IS expensive because it requires people on the ground, in all operating hours in daylight. One day, radar may be good enough, but even that will not spot a flock on the ground which can fly up into the climb-out path after an aircraft is committed to take off.

As some posters have pointed out, loss of take-off power on both sides, or full loss on one side and partial on the other, is not regularly practised in the normal training cycle.

Unfortunately it is a matter of sheer luck, assisted perhaps by avoiding action if that is possible (unlikely), for a multiple bird strike to be on one side only. The probability, it seems to me, is that it will be on both sides if and when it happens.

At airports where there is a significant risk of multiple bird strikes in spite of all the active and passive control measures that are taken, which probably includes most within 10 miles of an estuary, large body of water, rubbish dump or coastline, there can and should be much, much better systems in place to monitor the presence of flocks, airborne or on the ground, within 500m (say) of the departure runway c/l from the start of roll for, say, 4,000m. (That's my very rough guess at the distance needed to gain enough height to (a) take proper recovery action) and (b) be above the usual maximum height at which birds are found.)

Crews can be warned via ATC of the presence of a flock, with the take-off clearance if necessary, and take the decision to delay rolling or go. (ATC sholuld apply no pressure at this point apart, maybe, from withholding the clearance in the first place.)

Rather than bewailing the fact that engines are vulnerable to multiple bird strikes, we should accept that they are (is a frozen chicken still the only test? Didn't a swarm of bees recently do some damage to an ancient B737-200?) and work on preventing multiple strikes. It is perfectly possible to do that, as long as airports have the will and the money to do so.

In the case of FCO, it would be interesting to learn whether or not there are good systems in place to prevent and/or warn crews about flocks. If there are, the evidence suggests that they don't work.

PS

BTW, I thought that the last civil aircraft built with no containment ring was the Shorts Skyvan (and possibly its derivatives?), which experienced a number of uncontained turbine disintegrations until the TPE 331 FCU was modified to prevent runaway turbine overspeeds when the gearbox drive failed, as it sometimes did.

In two cases at least in the 1970's, bits penetrated the fuel tank (in the cabin roof), and cabin, narrowly missing the quite startled passengers, who thought that simply being a Skyvan passenger was bad enough already without bombardment by shrapnel and having fuel poured all over them to enhance their customer experience.

[CAAAD]

Turbine engines are not designed to contain a disc burst. Containment is required for blade failures, including fan blades. Not sure about the GE90.

[firstchoice7e7]

here's a clip from the hollywood film 'the edge' , here's what happens when canadian geese hit your engine.......:}

http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/videos/planecrashes.aspx?film=6

[HowlingWind]

Where was that disaster with the C-130?It was at RNLAF Eindhoven, the Netherlands, on 15 July 1996. The C-130 belonged to the Belgian Air Force. Another picture of the crash can be found on the photo page I linked to in my earlier post.

[wasdale]

Slinks.

The point I was making is that you are now paying a LOT less for most flights than a few years ago, while aircrew salaries are driven down partly because of that. :*

[Mohit_C]

Reminds me of the video on flightlevel350.com of a Thomson Airline taking off with right engine failure due to a bird being ingested at the point of rotation. The situation was handled quite well then and this one too.

[CAAAD]

No no no . Not the same thing at all. A single engine failure should be a minor event, even with an increase in crew workload.

A double engine failure on a twin could be catastrophic, hence the interest in this event.

[Chip737]

Well done to the crew, Bravo :D

[ChristiaanJ]

No no no . Not the same thing at all. A single engine failure should be a minor event, even with an increase in crew workload.Where do you come from?
An engine failure is NEVER a "minor event". And yes, until you've established, as well as you can, that there is still an engine on the pylon, that you're not trailing a sheet of flame a hundred feet long, and that there are no dead and injured in the cabin from an uncontained turbine disc failure going walkabout.... yes.... you could say there's an "increase in crew workload".

[DownIn3Green]

Nigel...you are 100% correct...the sim is for realistic scenarios, not the double (or triple in my case) engine failure shortly after TO. However, I have had instructors load me up with so many inprobable failures (multiple engine failures, system A and B inop, loss of pressurization and cabin fire, etc) that the only option is being the first at the scene of the accident...when that happens I welcome it because it's always in the last 30 minutes of the recurrent, and when things go that bad, I know I've all ready requalified for another 6 months....again....

Slinks...thanks for your insight, I agree, a job well done that most of us will never encounter in our careers...It has happened before, however with a tragic outcome...Eastern lost an Electra at Boston due to ingestion of starlings in 3 of the 4 engines...having said that, does anyone ever think you're flying a revenue trip today where any emergency could happen, then tomorrow you go to the sim for your 6 month and they give you a few "practice" trys before the eval?

What if it happened the day before?...

That Delta crew didn't get a "practice" before taking off from Rome, and on July 23rd, I hope they don't need on when they take me from Moscow to Atlanta....

[kennedy]

Had a pleasant introduction into the double engine failure last time round in the sim.

One shut down for a flame out at V1, single eng approach to go round, and on the miss, engine compressor stalling/surging/over temping on the live engine.

Quickest circuit I've seen on the 777, and a quick relight by recall on the original failure giving stable thrust at 300' on approach.

Wouldn't have liked to see it for real, certainly an eye opener in the sim!:\

[innuendo]

If you have a close look at the images of the American 767 that Kingair9 linked to, one of them shows how far into the flight deck there was penetration on the Captain's side. A higher speed and a bigger bird could have possibly restricted the control column. While the controls can be split, with enough interference it might not matter whether you still had power or not.
I am a believer in reducing the odds by doing 250 KIAS or less below 10,000, especialy in active bird areas.

[CAAAD]

Rather closer to the Engineering coalface than you, mon ami.
I repeat - aircraft safety assessments consider a single engine failure resulting in only loss of power as a minor event. Obviously.

[lomapaseo]

[quote] Rather closer to the Engineering coalface than you, mon ami.
I repeat - aircraft safety assessments consider a single engine failure resulting in only loss of power as a minor event. [quote]

agree

all within the trainedl pilot workload

[DownIn3Green]

And there was the infamous EAL L-1011 triple engine failure due to inporperly assembled "O" rings fitted during a routine maint check...they were preparing to ditch just short of MIA when they got the first one they shut down re-lit to barely make it across the airport boundry...
This was a training flight with the LHS Captain doing OE with the Training Capt in the RHS...(1983 I believe)

[loveGSM]

Justo some rumors I heard from Alitalia maintenance crew, wich had to replace the engines on the affected aircraft.
- As mentioned many blades were damaged on both engine.
- One engine had to be shut down at some point, the other one, was only able to give partial power
- crew started to dump fuel, but with both engines damaged they decided to come back immediately, with a 10 tons overweight landing.
- Due to the excess of braking required due to the higher weight/speeds but also as they were not able to use reverse most of the main landing gear tyres blew up...

hope can help the discussion...

[None]

loveGSM,
Is it possible that the tires did not "blow up?"
The link below is a brief summary of tire fuse plugs, which this 767 has. The design is intended to prevent tires from "blowing up." However, I was not there, and I did not speak with the Alitalia maintenance crew as you did.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4535957.html
A device (10) for venting aircraft tires comprises a fusible plug (42) and a spring-biased piston (30), both plug (42) and piston (30) being positioned within a single bore (B) of the device. The plug (42) is meltable out of the bore when the wheel (12) temperature increases above a specific limit set by the eutectic material which frees the piston (30) to move out of a spring-biased and bore-sealing position within a sealing ring (22) by an overpressure within the tire which overcomes the spring bias. The piston (30) will return to a sealing position when the pressure drops below a value which is insufficient to overcome the spring bias.

[pontifex]

Been away for a while and just come upon this thread. Had a similar problem back in the 70s taking off at dawn in a Mk1 Victor tanker. Bird clearance done 10 mins prior but warm runway surface too attractive and they returned unseen. At about 100kts a large flock of gulls had time to get clear but at rotate a second flock had insufficient time at we went through it. Sounded like machine gun fire. Twas copilot's T/o so I was watching engines - they all became very unsteady! Luckily they were primitive straight through Saffires so they survived although all were rejected as beyond economic repair. I decided not to raise the gear as I considered it could have been damaged and it might not come down again. Immediate ILS and o'weight landing. Breaking action reduced by slippery seagull carcases. It was later said that over 200 birds had bought it. We didn't thanks to engines operating well away from the surge line. The copilot is now a very senior and highly regarded Monarch captain. Hi Dave.

[keel beam]

"Justo some rumors I heard from Alitalia maintenance crew, wich had to replace the engines on the affected aircraft.
- As mentioned many blades were damaged on both engine.
- One engine had to be shut down at some point, the other one, was only able to give partial power
- crew started to dump fuel, but with both engines damaged they decided to come back immediately, with a 10 tons overweight landing.
- Due to the excess of braking required due to the higher weight/speeds but also as they were not able to use reverse most of the main landing gear tyres blew up... "

I am not sure about the "blown" tyres, it was the next day when I saw the aircraft on the ground, so I suppose it is possible all the "blown" tyres were replaced.

Just for info, the aircraft took off on runway 16R. This runway is about 3/4 of a mile from the sea.

I also understand that when the flight crew came off the A/C they were rather pale! ( but apparently the passengers did not seem too worried - I was not there so can not verify, people react to dangerous situations in different ways)

I have noted that some of the comments have been rather flippant!, but thanks to those of you who DO fly for a living have given the incident the perspective that it deserves.

[PPRuNeUser0183]

Quite... Well done to the crew, I think we'd all look pretty pale after that.

It's not really a valuable training senario in the sim, but an interesting one to think about regarding the possibility of loss of power vs further engine damage. I wonder if they suspected damage to both engines while inflight?

[hangar 9]

The aircraft manufacture only guarantees that a frozen chicken won't come through the windscreen the rest of the aircraft including engines have to take take their own chances.

[CAAAD]

The Manufacturer has to show compliance with the Bird Requirements, which are based upon the perceived threat.
As far as the engines are concerned, the perception of threat has increased in severity over the years, and engines under current certification have to handle an encounter with large flocking birds such as Canada Geese.
Unfortunately Grandfather Rights tend to upset things, so current new production engines may assume a lower threat. And the vast majority of aircraft in service most certainly do.