Eclipse Loses Part

NTSB Identification: CHI08IA200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Thursday, July 17, 2008 in Rockford, IL
Aircraft: Eclipse Aviation Corporation EA500, registration: N875NA
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On July 17, 2008, at 1655 central daylight time, an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,
during cruise flight near Rockford, Illinois. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91
flight was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Neither
of the two pilots, the only occupants, were injured. The flight last
departed from Pinedale, Wyoming, and was en route to Chicago Executive
Airport, Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, Illinois, where it landed
without further incident.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,

I was just reviewing part 830 and trying to figure out how this became an
accident report...



--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.

Very Old News..
So what's your point.. a wing to body fairing came off the jet .

BT

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
NTSB Identification: CHI08IA200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Thursday, July 17, 2008 in Rockford, IL
Aircraft: Eclipse Aviation Corporation EA500, registration: N875NA
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On July 17, 2008, at 1655 central daylight time, an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,
during cruise flight near Rockford, Illinois. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91
flight was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Neither
of the two pilots, the only occupants, were injured. The flight last
departed from Pinedale, Wyoming, and was en route to Chicago Executive
Airport, Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, Illinois, where it landed
without further incident.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,

I was just reviewing part 830 and trying to figure out how this became an
accident report...

And on the converse... I'm wondering how some stuff that happens around
doesn't turn up in at the NTSB...

Let's see... Bellanca veers off the runway, collapses nosegear, prop
strike and is totalled (2007).
Piper loses electrical power and lands at Bethlehem, PA, gear collapses
on the runway, scraping a lot of aluminum.
Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and
ditches into a river....

Last two were within the last three months.
And none of them show up in the NTSB reports. What gives? Aren't these
mandatory reporting?
T

"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
And on the converse... I'm wondering how some stuff that happens around
doesn't turn up in at the NTSB...

Let's see... Bellanca veers off the runway, collapses nosegear, prop strike
and is totalled (2007).
Piper loses electrical power and lands at Bethlehem, PA, gear collapses on the
runway, scraping a lot of aluminum.

A close reading of Part 830 will supply your answers to the above. Damage to
damage to props and landing gear is not considered "substantial damage" for
purposes of reporting.

Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and ditches
into a river....

Engine failure on a light plane is not a reportable event.


What gives? Aren't these mandatory reporting?

No.


--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.

Vaughn Simon wrote:

Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and ditches
into a river....

Engine failure on a light plane is not a reportable event.


Eh?? If the engine failure results in "substantial damage" to the aircraft,
it is a reportable event. I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200809/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:8a3d77a58a076@uwe...
I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.

That would depend on the nature of the damage caused by the ditching.
Critically read the definitions of "aircraft accident" and "substantial damage"
in 830.2. There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.

To give an idea how one can get creative; after you recovered a ditched
plane, you could claim that any structural damage was caused by the recovery
effort, not the actual ditching; thus there was no "aircraft accident"since the
aircraft was not being operated for flight when the damage occurred.

Over the years, I have seen some pretty severe aircraft damage that was never
reported to anyone except perhaps the insurance company.


--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.


In real life, if the FAA found out about it, I doubt they would concur with
your interpretation. If the aircraft is a total loss (which is likely
following a ditching), I can't see them agreeing that no "substantial
damage" took place.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200809/1

Is there any incentive to *not* report?
Heck, why get creative -- Well, OK, unless there was something suspect
that I don't want to reveal, like I was flying out of a medical, out of
maint requirements, or one of many other ways to not be 100% legal.

There are clearly a lot of NTSB reports out there where the damage was
far less than the "substantial" line that you're aggressively drawing,
so I guess some would be fine to not split the hair or possibly even
prefer to report it for whatever reason.



T

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:8a3d77a58a076@uwe...
I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.

That would depend on the nature of the damage caused by the ditching.
Critically read the definitions of "aircraft accident" and "substantial damage"
in 830.2. There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.

To give an idea how one can get creative; after you recovered a ditched
plane, you could claim that any structural damage was caused by the recovery
effort, not the actual ditching; thus there was no "aircraft accident"since the
aircraft was not being operated for flight when the damage occurred.

Over the years, I have seen some pretty severe aircraft damage that was never
reported to anyone except perhaps the insurance company.