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

"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.