A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NTSB Accidents & Incidents



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 18th 07, 09:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default 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  
Old August 18th 07, 11:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default 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  
Old August 18th 07, 11:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 03:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Brian[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 03:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 04:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 04:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Isaksen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 05:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 08:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 02:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,232
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:19 PM
Accidents happen... Manuel Piloting 26 November 28th 04 12:32 PM
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 09:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.