Re: EAA B-17

[Ron Natalie]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> According to NTSB 830.5 (a) the only accidents with "substantial
> damage" are reportable. NTSB 830.2 defines "substantial damage" and
> specifically states "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
> propellor blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, brakes, or
> wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this
> part".

Yep...when I had my engine failure and resultant emergency landing...despite
hosing the engine (total loss) and some minor gear and prop damage, there
was no report. Not only that, when the airport manager called the FAA,
they were so busy dealing with a fatal ultralight crash in the next county over
that when they heard there was no injuries and no "substantial" damage they
said forget it. It never showed up even in the FAA accident reports.

[TaxSrv]

> I doubt that the NTSB's lack of interest in the B-17 gear-up
> landing has anything to do with lack of relevance to other
> operators. They aren't interested because it's just not within the
> scope of what they are responsible for.
>
> Pete

It definitely is what they're responsible for, but NTSB has a very
small staff. A lot of the work, if not all, is delegated to FAA on GA
accident cases. So if you call FAA and ask if NTSB reportable, and
they say sounds like it's not, it's not reported to NTSB. And if you
don't call for advice, it may not be reported. In many
airframe-destroying accidents, where owner has no hull insurance and
there's no serious injury, the guy doesn't call nobody.

There were two recent "accidents" near here where unsafe hand-propping
caused the plane to just...depart. One flew 60 miles before crashing.
The other tore through a chain-link fence and smashed into a bldg.
Neither was investigated, though both posed a clear hazard to persons
on the ground. In one, I know the owner called FAA, and they said not
reportable, since there wasn't a pilot _inside_ the aircraft.

Fred F.

[R. Wubben]

Was it really a gear up landing?
I was under the impression that they had already landed, were taxiing
off the runway when the gear collapsed. I also heard that there was
some sort of jack screw problem that lead to the gear collapsing.

Ryan Wubben
Madison, WI

[Joe Maj]

EAA source told me it was pilot error, the jackscrew positions (which
can't be reversed by an impact) are an infallible marker and were
something like 70% extended.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
>>
> Why not? Are you trying to say that the B-17 is so completely different
> from other aircraft that a gear-up landing in a B-17 has absolutely NO
> parallels with a gear-up landing in any other aircraft, no similarities at
> all?
>
> In that particular case, if I recall, there was a mechanical failure. But
> until someone's actually investigated the cause, there would be no way to
> know that.
>
>
> Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> It definitely is what they're responsible for [...]

Which is, of course, why the regulations specifically exclude such accidents
from being required to be reported to the NTSB?

Yeah, right.

> [...] So if you call FAA and ask if NTSB reportable, and
> they say sounds like it's not, it's not reported to NTSB. And if you
> don't call for advice, it may not be reported. In many
> airframe-destroying accidents, where owner has no hull insurance and
> there's no serious injury, the guy doesn't call nobody.

The regulations that address what is required to be reported and what is not
are very clear. Whether someone abides by those regulations is a different
matter, but what the NTSB "cares about" and what they don't is very clearly
described in the relevant regulations.

> There were two recent "accidents" near here where unsafe hand-propping
> caused the plane to just...depart. One flew 60 miles before crashing.
> The other tore through a chain-link fence and smashed into a bldg.
> Neither was investigated, though both posed a clear hazard to persons
> on the ground. In one, I know the owner called FAA, and they said not
> reportable, since there wasn't a pilot _inside_ the aircraft.

Without knowing the specifics of the accidents, all I can say is that it's
likely the accidents were required to be reported to the NTSB. Whether they
were or not is irrelevant. If the accidents met the standards for
reporting, then they were supposed to be reported.

As far as the FAA's interest goes, I have a hard time believing that the FAA
position is that, as long as the pilot isn't actually in the aircraft when
the accidents happens, they are not at fault. But that has nothing to do
with reporting requirements to the NTSB in any case.

Pete

[Pat]

(R. Wubben) wrote in message >...
> Was it really a gear up landing?
> I was under the impression that they had already landed, were taxiing
> off the runway when the gear collapsed. I also heard that there was
> some sort of jack screw problem that lead to the gear collapsing.
>
> Ryan Wubben
> Madison, WI





Actually, my understanding is that the gear was retracted accidently
when the pilot/co-pilot attempted to retract the flaps after landing.
Pilot error.

-Pat

[John Stevens]

But, this was not a gear up landing. It was a gear collapse while
taxiing. I suppose there might be some crossover to GA if it was pilot
error and B-17's had no "weight-on" interlock.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]It's hardly likely that anyone is going to learn anything from
> > a gear-up on a B-17 that will help prevent another incident.
>
> Why not? Are you trying to say that the B-17 is so completely different
> from other aircraft that a gear-up landing in a B-17 has absolutely NO
> parallels with a gear-up landing in any other aircraft, no similarities at
> all?
>
> In that particular case, if I recall, there was a mechanical failure. But
> until someone's actually investigated the cause, there would be no way to
> know that.
>
> Personally, I think that gear-up landings most often happen for very similar
> reasons, ones that don't have anything to do with the specific aircraft type
> at all. I doubt that the NTSB's lack of interest in the B-17 gear-up
> landing has anything to do with lack of relevance to other operators. They
> aren't interested because it's just not within the scope of what they are
> responsible for.
>
> Pete

[TaxSrv]

"Peter Duniho wrote:
> The regulations that address what is required to be reported and
> what is not are very clear.

"Substantial damage" per NTSB means "damage or failure which adversely
affects the structural strength [or] performance." Are you calling
_that_ clear, or just the exclusion of landing gear and props which
may apply to damage to the B-17?

>>There were two recent "accidents" near here where unsafe
hand-propping
>>caused the plane to just...depart.
>
> Without knowing the specifics of the accidents, all I can say is
that
> it's likely the accidents were required to be reported to the NTSB.

This rule is clear for a change. An "accident means an occurrence
which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with
the intention of flight...." If nobody is in the airplane, nothing
can be an accident.

> As far as the FAA's interest goes, I have a hard time believing that
the
> FAA position is that, as long as the pilot isn't actually in the
aircraft when
> the [hand-propping] accidents happens, they are not at fault.

Talking violations now, the FAA doesn't appear to have a clear
definition of "operate" an aircraft, so as to include hand-propping.
They would still have to prove the pilot's intent was to fly, rather
than diagnose a rough mag from the last flight. I suspect most times
they prove it when the pilot blabs and admits it to them.

FAA picks/chooses violation opportunities. In the incident I cited
where the plane had rough sex with a chain-link fence, the pilot
wasn't violated and today flies freight for FedEx. On the one that
flew 60 miles, it was reported in TV media while still in the air,
only gawd knew where. Wouldn't bet more than $1 the pilot evaded FAA
justice. State law could have nailed him too with a misdemeanor; the
guy had no choice but to immediately call 911, but that involved the
local police and State Troopers.

Fred F.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Pat" > wrote in message
om...
> (R. Wubben) wrote in message
>...
> > Was it really a gear up landing?
> > I was under the impression that they had already landed, were taxiing
> > off the runway when the gear collapsed. I also heard that there was
> > some sort of jack screw problem that lead to the gear collapsing.
> >
> > Ryan Wubben
> > Madison, WI
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, my understanding is that the gear was retracted accidently
> when the pilot/co-pilot attempted to retract the flaps after landing.
> Pilot error.
>
> -Pat

This is the story I heard too. My understanding is that the right seater
got his switchology wrong and retracted the gear instead of the flaps,
despite being told not to touch anything until clear of the runway. Also,
the EAA has a fair amount of pull, and by going to the right people in the
NTSB and/or FAA, they more or less headed off an embarassing situation. If
you go through NTSB reports, there are plenty of incidents/minor accidents
in the files that are far less severe than what happened to the B-17. I
imagine lunching two sets of gear, 4 engines, 4 gearboxes, and 4 prop's
ain't cheap, then you add the sheet metal damage. Bottom line, this was
probably a quarter million dollar accident.

KB

[TaxSrv]

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:
> Also, the EAA has a fair amount of pull, and by going
> to the right people in the NTSB and/or FAA, they more
> or less headed off an embarassing situation.

Where did you hear that? If there's no substantial airframe (other
than gear) damage, it's not an accident. Even so, how would an NTSB
report embarrass EAA? If true, a guy pulled the wrong switch. NTSB
would say he pulled the wrong switch in a short report media wouldn't
care about. And pulling the wrong switch is in no way reckless
operation, due alone to the fact it did not endanger persons/property,
so FAA should not be involved. Nobody has pull with NTSB, not even
FAA; NTSB made even Boeing redesign the B-737 rudder control system
they insisted worked properly.

F--