If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
AirVenture 2007 is the P-51. So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics. :-)) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith wrote:
I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at AirVenture 2007 is the P-51. So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics. Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria? Ron Wanttaja |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
In article ,
Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith wrote: I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at AirVenture 2007 is the P-51. So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics. Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria? Ron Wanttaja N377CT The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
On Aug 18, 4:36 pm, john smith wrote:
In article , Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith wrote: I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at AirVenture 2007 is the P-51. So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics. Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria? Ron Wanttaja N377CT The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. Damage to the landing gear is not considered an accident. From what you describe it appears to only be an incident. Incidents for Part 91 operations do not normally show up on the NTSB Web site. Brian CFIIG/ASEL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:36:30 -0400, john smith wrote:
In article , Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith wrote: I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at AirVenture 2007 is the P-51. So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics. Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria? N377CT The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. By your own description, it doesn't meet NTSB criteria for classification as an accident, and thus is not reportable. See the last sentence of 830.2. How they're going to *repair* it is immaterial; the reporting criteria is based on the type and severity of damage and injuries. In any case, there are others with probably more at stake than the EAA, if this were to be reported as an accident. If the CT incident were the only other one at Oshkosh this year, I don't know why the EAA would try to hush it up. Ron Wanttaja |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:12:14 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote in : NTSB Part 830 criteria? http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w.../49cfr830.html [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 49, Volume 7] [Revised as of October 1, 2005] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 49CFR830.2] [Page 183-184] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD PART 830_NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS--Table of Contents Subpart A_General Sec. 830.2 Definitions. As used in this part the following words or phrases are defined as follows: Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. Civil aircraft means any aircraft other than a public aircraft. Fatal injury means any injury which results in death within 30 days of the accident. Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. Operator means any person who causes or authorizes the operation of an aircraft, such as the owner, lessee, or bailee of an aircraft. Public aircraft means an aircraft used only for the United States Government, or an aircraft owned and operated (except for commercial purposes) or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by a government other than the United States Government,including a State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of that government. ``Public aircraft'' does not include a government-owned aircraft transporting property for commercial purposes and does not include a government-owned aircraft transporting passengers other than: transporting (for other than commercial purposes) crewmembers or other persons aboard the aircraft whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management; or transporting (for other than commercial purposes) persons aboard the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States. Notwithstanding any limitation relating to use of the aircraft for commercial purposes, an aircraft shall be considered to be a public aircraft without regard to whether it is operated by a unit of government on behalf of another unit of government pursuant to a cost reimbursement agreement, if the unit of government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat. Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface. Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered ``substantial damage'' for the purpose of this part. [53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
N377CT
The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop strike at KHWV. Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
In article v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05,
"Mike Isaksen" wrote: N377CT The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop strike at KHWV. Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not. 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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Accidents & Incidents
john smith wrote:
In article v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05, "Mike Isaksen" wrote: N377CT The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in, breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT. The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of it and reinstall them in new airframe. OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop strike at KHWV. Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not. 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? Disgarded??? Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Physiology and accidents | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 7 | May 30th 07 02:14 PM |
Aviation incidents | [email protected] | Piloting | 2 | June 22nd 06 06:45 AM |
Accidents | Big John | Piloting | 3 | December 14th 05 01:19 PM |
Accidents happen... | Manuel | Piloting | 26 | November 28th 04 11:32 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |