EAA B-17

"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