Warbird Information Exchange

Links to info

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local ... b92d952da8

https://twitter.com/SDFDChief/status/11 ... b92d952da8

The article says "minor damage". I understand why they might saw that but doesn't the prop stike require an engine teardown?

That's still considered minor.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I guess that depends upon how big your checkbook is

Minor damage can cost big money. The difference is how much it affects critical parts of the airframe and it's airworthiness.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

Then it's not minor damage, in my opinion. Nor, in my opinion, is an engine tear down minor either.

But I get the point - there was no substantial airframe damage.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the term “substantial damage” as defined by the NTSB Reg’s for reporting an accident. There are several exemptions written into the rule. The typical damage, for example, found after landing with the gear up because the pilot forgot to lower the gear is exempt. It may cost $50,000 to fix, but it not reportable to the NTSB. Damage due to groundloops, same thing. This Stearman was involved in a landing accident and the NTSB rule was applied, but the press either wasn’t told or left that out of the story. The FAA still wants to know about it, but the NTSB doesn't unless it was caused by a structural or major system failure or someone was killed for instance. Basically, cost to repair is not the first consideration for reporting purposes to the NTSB.

The FAA may want to know about it, but there is no federal statute or requirement to do so for most situations. Part 91 Standard Category Aircraft accidents or incidents are not required to be reported to the FAA. The only requirement for Federal notification for accidents and certain reportable incidents is governed by the NTSB per 49 CFR 830.5 for Part 91 Standard Category aircraft. If this Stearman is registered in the Standard Category, and it likely is, then this aircraft would not require FAA notification for this incident.

FYI, just to add on to what was mentioned previously, the vast majority of "inadvertent" gear up landings, unless they generate damage that is considered "substantial", are not, in and of themselves, reportable incidents to either the FAA or NTSB. That is the reason why you cannot look up most past warbird inadvertent "gear up" landing incidents on the NTSB website. In most cases these incidents were not required to be reported. This has allowed a great number of warbird pilots to keep their "inadvertent gear up" landings very quiet and under the radar. Yes, there are several well known warbird pilots who have inadvertently landed gear up that the general public does not know about and this is the reason why.

In regards to monetary damages - this has absolutely nothing to do with whether an aircraft accident or incident is reportable to either the NTSB or FAA. Estimated or actual repair cost to the aircraft has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. The only time monetary damage estimates come into play is, as per 49 CFR 830.5:

"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."

So, monetary damages to the aircraft have no bearing on any of this. Physical aircraft structural damage criteria for reportable accidents and incidents to the NTSB are only governed by what is considered "substantial damage", as defined under 49 CFR 830.2.

While it is not required to report an accident to the FAA, if the FAA becomes aware of the accident thru an investigation, it may ask for information. This is what I meant by “the FAA may want to know about it. FAA accident investigators do not normally get involved in enforcement actions. Enforcement is assigned to other Inspectors who do their own investigation and if they determine a violation might be involved, they would be contacting the people involved.

Thanks for the clarification and you are 100% correct. Also, a lot of times the NTSB doesn't have the manning or staff to personally investigate every accident. This is particularly true in accidents where a death or serious injury is not involved. So, a lot of times the FAA does investigate accidents, but they are doing it only because they were asked to by the NTSB.

Just me personally, but I would never report an accident to the FAA under Part 91 for a Standard category aircraft. I would only contact the NTSB and let it proceed from there. If, during the course of that investigation, something came up which the FAA wanted answers on, then that would be the appropriate time to answer them - not by contacting the FAA and putting yourself at risk for a possible enforcement action right off the bat.

It looks like in this case that the pilot wasn't given the option of who or who not to notify. The CBS8 article quotes the Fire Chief's Facebook page as saying the FAA & NTSB were notified. Which I took to mean the FD notified them.

Mac

_________________
WWII Naval Aviation Research - Pacific
https://www.ww2nar-pac.com/

That is usually standard practice at towered airports.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

That may have happened, but that is unconnected to the pilot. Certain Federal and/or State agencies such as the Fire department, Police department, Air Traffic Control, FBI, etc., may have their own reporting requirements. Just because somebody else notified Federal agencies doesn't relieve the pilot of that Federal requirement. Another agency can report things to the FAA or NTSB, but the operator is still responsible for contacting the NTSB, regardless of who else may or may not have already done so. If the pilot/owner of that Stearman did not contact the NTSB because he thought that his notification requirements were fulfilled by the Fire Department, he would be in violation of Federal regulations and subject to enforcement action and/or fines.


From 49 CFR 830.5:

"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 (NTSB) office, when:........."


From 49 CFR 830.2, the definition of "operator":

"The operator means any person who causes or authorizes the operation of an aircraft, such as the owner, lessee, or bailee of an aircraft."


So, the Federal regulations specifically state that somebody other than the owner/operator is not considered official notification to the NTSB.

Yes, I know we're getting into the weeds, but I bring this info up for those on this forum who are not pilots and may not be familiar with the rules.

Actually, this discussion has really gotten quite interesting indeed, and I for one thank all of you for arguing these fine points so succinctly and well in front of us.

PS: Back to the earlier debate over whether minor or major applies, I keep coming back to this, from the link given in the original post: "Fortunately, no injuries in this crash at Brown Field just a short time ago. The pilot and one person were on board and walked away safely." That says minor all over the place in my book. Yes, I know, and that discussion was very elucidating too ... but I just had to say it because I love seeing it so much.

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

Replacing the engine and prop is not really a repair either. It would be an aircraft logbook entry. Engines and props are replaced all the time for various reasons. The actual repairs or inspections would be recorded in the engine and prop logbooks.