I looked this up on the NTSB Incident reporting website, seems like a whole bunch of Know it all's may have had it wrong.

Engine failure or
damage limited to an engine if only
one engine fails or is damaged, bent
fairings or cowling, dented skin, small
punctured holes in the skin or fabric,
ground damage to rotor or propeller
blades, and damage to landing gear,
wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories,
brakes, or wingtips are not considered
‘‘substantial damage’’ for the purpose
of this part.
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60

Hmmm...clever one are we....

What's the part that addresses operations with known damage? Where is "substantial" vs "minor" used? If the part you quoted defines/excludes what is substantial, how does one apply that for the issue at hand?

Here it is

Serious injury means any injury
which: (1) Requires hospitalization for
more than 48 hours, commencing within
7 days from the date of the injury
was received; (2) results in a fracture of
any bone (except simple fractures of
fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe
hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon
damage; (4) involves any internal
organ; or (5) involves second- or thirddegree
burns, or any burns affecting
more than 5 percent of the body surface.
Substantial damage means damage or
failure which adversely affects the
structural strength, performance, or
flight characteristics of the aircraft,
and which would normally require
major repair or replacement of the affected
component. Engine failure or
damage limited to an engine if only
one engine fails or is damaged, bent
fairings or cowling, dented skin, small
punctured holes in the skin or fabric,
ground damage to rotor or propeller
blades, and damage to landing gear,
wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories,
brakes, or wingtips are not considered
‘‘substantial damage’’ for the purpose
of this part.
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60
FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995]

Do you get it yet? Damage to landing gear is not a reportable incident

Oh and the reportable list is short

The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available, notify
the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (Board) field office
1 when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction
or failure;
(2) Inability of any required flight
crewmember to perform normal flight
duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of structural components
of a turbine engine excluding compressor
and turbine blades and vanes;
(4) In-flight fire; or
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
(6) Damage to property, other than
the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000
for repair (including materials and
labor) or fair market value in the event
of total loss, whichever is less.

I must have missed a previous post that this is refereing to...what Scout has posted is in reference to constitutes an accident and must be reported...it is the description of what's not considered "substantial damage" but this is only part of the definition...

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Serious bodily injury also constitutes an accident as well as property damage other than the aircraft itself. I wrote an article concerning this matter last year to try to help clear up why many insurance claims never show up in the accident reports. You can find it here under Accident -vs- Insurance Claim: http://www.aviationinsurance.com/articl ... ring07.pdf

Again...it seems that I missed some previous postings here so I may be speaking out of turn concerning why Scout posted this bit of info. Forgive me if I am out of line with the posting.

***EDIT*** Scout, you beat me to it with your next 2 posts...

mr scout wrote:Do you get it yet? Damage to landing gear is not a reportable incident

I'm not challenging you, I'm asking in earnest.

Lowflybye, this is Mr Scout's a general response to the debate regarding go/no-go on a field repair of a questionably airworthy craft, as brought up by the Aktahoe1 story last month.

Regardless of my views on whether to fly/not fly in that situation, does the issue of "obligation to report" necessarily align with the legality of operating it in its condition?

I was taught by my primary instructor that if the FAR's don't expressly prohibit it, it's probably legal. So, I'm just wondering which addresses aircraft rendered unairworthy in the field? Part 23? Part 43? Part 91?

I missed the Aktahoe1 story as I was away from a computer prior to it's removal...I have pieced togather some of it from other postings.

Key words in the regs stated by Scout refering to damage: for the purpose of this part

Just because an aircraft has damage that does not meet the definition of substantial damage with regard to an accident does not make it airworthy and LEGAL to fly again without LEGAL repair. Does it happen...all the time, but it is not legal.

A propstrike for instance in many cases legally requires a teardown inspection with an A&P signature to return it to service for it to be legally flown. HOWEVER an A&P may "ferry" the aircraft without passengers to a suitable location for repair if he/she deems it safe enough to make the flight. This is known as the ferry permit.

For a non-A&P rated owner to make a field repair and then fly the aircraft is not legal...even if the aircraft damage does not constitute an accident. If the damage would not legally pass an airworthiness inspection (annual) then it is not legal to fly until legal repairs have been made.

For instance, my little 140 flooded and caught fire on a start attempt. On the ground, so I didn't have to report it, but that doesn't mean that I didn't have to inspect and fix it before I flew. (I'm an A&P)
You can have a non-reportable incident that renders the aircraft un-airworthy.
My Oleo strut broke years ago, prop strike, left wing tip and aileron. Towered airport, so FAA was contacted. FAA determined it was not an accident, it was an incident and did not meet reporting criteria, case closed.

I was told at my recent mtn/cnyn flying school in McCall that the Feds now "officially" consider green on your prop as a sign of a prop strike. And that a mechanic walking by could "legally" down the plane and require an engine teardown if the prop had green on it. They said they had not heard of that happening but they recommended cleaning the weed juice off the prop after each flight anyway.

If someone has heard of this but has more precise information, I would like to hear it.

True statement...contact with anything other than air that could potentially cause damage is considered a propstrike...does it really happen? Not unless you piss someone off.

a64pilot wrote:My Oleo strut broke years ago, prop strike, left wing tip and aileron. Towered airport, so FAA was contacted. FAA determined it was not an accident, it was an incident and did not meet reporting criteria, case closed.

I had the same thing happen to me minus the prop strike, wing tip and aileron. I knew the gear was broken so I was able to eased the wing down on the snow covered ski strip at international with no damage to anything but the oleo and a rip in the belly skin. FAA was there to inspect the plane the next day, NTSB called me but didn't want anything to do with it and the FAA called it an incident. Ferried the plane to my home strip 2 days later...new oleo, new belly panel and I was good to go.

lowflybye wrote:True statement...contact with anything other than air that could potentially cause damage is considered a propstrike...does it really happen? Not unless you piss someone off.

What about water? Water has to be harder on a prop than grass.

Don't mean to interupt or piss anyone off but there is a book out there that explains a lot about our flying.....it's called the FAR/AIM.
If you have a little problem with the FAA they will probably quote to you from this book.
Please have a good day!
HC

I had an IA tell me that Lycoming considers water striking the prop blades, as is seen in some extreme tundra tire water skiing footage a prop strike, and grounds for engine tear down and inspection. The blades of a Grumman Widgeon seem to spend as much time in spray as they do in clean air... The Rangers have very long cranks also.

I hit a big grasshopper the other day with my prop. Does anyone have any experience with filing insurance claims after such prop-strikes. I would love to have my Engine zeroed out.

Scolopax:
You can have a prop strike, a tear down with crank inspection as per the manufacturer, the engine put back together with no new parts except for gasgets etc. and it does not affect the TBO. Only certified stations can zero an engine.
HC

1SeventyZ wrote:

mr scout wrote:Do you get it yet? Damage to landing gear is not a reportable incident

I'm not challenging you, I'm asking in earnest.

Lowflybye, this is Mr Scout's a general response to the debate regarding go/no-go on a field repair of a questionably airworthy craft, as brought up by the Aktahoe1 story last month.

Regardless of my views on whether to fly/not fly in that situation, does the issue of "obligation to report" necessarily align with the legality of operating it in its condition?

I was taught by my primary instructor that if the FAR's don't expressly prohibit it, it's probably legal. So, I'm just wondering which addresses aircraft rendered unairworthy in the field? Part 23? Part 43? Part 91?

My post has nothing to do with go, no go or field repairs. I simply am trying to show that you can do a whole bunch of bad things to an airplane without having to run to the phone and call the feds.

lowflybye wrote:True statement...contact with anything other than air that could potentially cause damage is considered a propstrike...does it really happen? Not unless you piss someone off.

I started to jump in to point out something about ferrying aircraft that had a prop strike, but I didn't want to start something, but I guess it started anyway. You see a prop strike has been an AD for a few years now. That is why you HAVE to do a tear down. Previously to the AD , you could just replace the prop. Most checked the crank run out to ensure the crank wasn't bent. That won't check for cracks of course. Any how to ferry an aircraft you have to sign the ferry app saying no AD's are due. Now Some AD's allow for a ferry to a maintenance facility, but I don't think the prop strike AD does. So you can't ferry a prop strike because there is an open AD.
Prop strikes do not require the engine to be running. Bump the hangar door, and there is your prop strike, damage to prop is not required. If the engine is running, contact with anything to cause a decay in RPM, and bang, youv'e had a prop strike, no damage to prop is required here either.

Don't shoot the messenger

And note, you are required to notify the NTSB, not the FAA.

Of course the first call of the NTSB investigator is going to be to the local FSDO, but what are ya gonna do

It is my recollection that no one got on to to AKTAhoe1 about not reporting the quote accident unquote, but rather his judgment on flying what many judged to be an unairworthy aircraft with unapproved field repairs.

Actually there was 10% spent on that, and 90% spent on discussing his judgment on posting the info

But good reminder above. Thanks!

It's been two years ago, but I saw a 172 leaving Sun-N-Fun. His nose wheel dropped into a hole and sand and grass flew everywhere and of course it killed the engine. By anybody's definition a prop strike. I started to walk over to see if I could help, but before I could get there several helpers pushed the airplane out of the hole and the pilot jumped in, cranked it up and flew away.
It's a little like my 140. Never been ground looped, but there is this little log book entry about replacing a wing for no reason.
There is no aircraft in the world that can't be proven to be un-airworthy, you just have to know when to apply a little common sense is all, and sense is becoming less common every day.
We lose sight sometimes on what the INTENT of a regulation is and start trying to read regulations like we were lawyers.
A DER and I were discussing today how the FAA has changed in recent years. He said that the FAA charter used to say "to foster and regulate aviation" and now simply says "to regulate aviation" Is this true?

I talked to a guy that had left his cowl flaps open for the night. When he started the engine a cat ran out of the cowl flap and unfortunatly darted forward instead of aft.

There was a tear down but not the engine.

Tim