"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 9:48 pm, "BT" wrote:
It may have been an "accident" when the unpiloted aircraft hit the
trees.
But it the airplane did not accidentally start moving.. that would be
negligence on the grandfathers part

Wouldn't that still be an accident? Are you suggesting that if the
plane was not tied down it was a "on purpose"?

In anycase, its not always practical to tie down the tail (especially
in areas without tiedown). I had 3 ways to secure the Aeronca and J-3.
Brakes, chock, tail tiedown. I would always use 2 of those 3. Many,
many times I started the plane when no tie down was available but then
I would use a chock and the aircraft brake (which was marginal). One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar. Once you've started the plane you can walk around,
put it in a low idle, and then unsecure the airplane.

-Robert

Back in the mid 70's I witnessed brake failure on a Luscombe during
rollout of a landing. The airplane ground looped and went into a fence.
The FAA inspector classified it as an incident. He said that incidents
did not result in injuries requiring hospital treatment. Accidents did
require hospital treatment. I don't know if that was his own policy or
the FAA's at the time.

--
Anyolmouse