On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:47:17 -0400, john smith wrote:

I wouldn't claim any pattern.
The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
power, he pulled back on the stick.

I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

Your original description says only that the landing gear was broken off, and
makes no claim of airframe damage. It may well be that the actual damage went
beyond the landing gear. If so, the pilot, aircraft owner, and manufacturer of
the aircraft are undoubtedly more interested in NOT meeting the criteria for an
accident than anyone else. Why claim that the politics had sometime to do with
this not being reported as an accident?

Ron Wanttaja