• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

How is this not a accident?

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
At the airport today a fabric covered/wood/metal tubing a/c geared up. It scraped the fabric wood, metal area good on the fuselauge but not the wings or anything, and obviously the gear doors and prop engine etc. How is this not a accident? I know that normally gear ups are incidents but how is this not a accident? The way I see it if you need a 337 to make a "major repair" per part 43 then that makes it a major repair there for it is "substanial damage"
which fits the definition of a "aircraft accident". Any takers???

b) Major repairs—
(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.

(i) Box beams.

(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.

(iii) Wing stringers or chord members.

(iv) Spars.

(v) Spar flanges.

(vi) Members of truss-type beams.

(vii) Thin sheet webs of beams.

(viii) Keel and chine members of boat hulls or floats.

(ix) Corrugated sheet compression members which act as flange material of wings or tail surfaces.

(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.

(xi) Wing or tail surface brace struts.

(xii) Engine mounts.

(xiii) Fuselage longerons.

(xiv) Members of the side truss, horizontal truss, or bulkheads.

(xv) Main seat support braces and brackets.

(xvi) Landing gear brace struts.

(xvii) Axles.

(xviii) Wheels.

(xix) Skis, and ski pedestals.

(xx) Parts of the control system such as control columns, pedals, shafts, brackets, or horns.

(xxi) Repairs involving the substitution of material.

(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.

(xxiii) The repair of portions of skin sheets by making additional seams.

(xxiv) The splicing of skin sheets.

(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.

(xxvi) Repair of fabric covering involving an area greater than that required to repair two adjacent ribs.

(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings, fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.

(xxviii) Repairing, including rebottoming, of removable or integral fuel tanks and oil tanks


 

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
Everyone including me until after I looked at the regs. A few retired airline pilots at a , mechanics, etc claimed it was a incident and we did'nt need the FAA's permission to move the aircraft, but the cops would'nt let us. So they cussed out the cops calling them stupid etc. ( turns out they are right) One person was trying to move the plane without the FAA's permission and we had'nt taken as per the regs "pictures, sketches, drawings etc of the accident scene" which would have been illegal. Turns out the cops took photos then got the FAA's permission to move the aircraft. LOL
 
Last edited:

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
All it has to do is fit the definition of accident per Pt 830.2 to be called an accident. Your use of the Major Repair as a criterion, while a good one IMO, is really not part of the definition (unless there has been a clarifying AC or other document that I am not aware of).

"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."
 

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
Wow, how did it "turn(s) out they were right"?
Gear ups happen all the time and are never reported. Who called the damned cops??
 

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
Look up the definition for substantial damage:

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.

A major repair is defined in FAR 43 and it is required to be accomplished by a IA and the appropriate 337's done.
 
Last edited:

olypilot

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Posts
20
Total Time
1200
Also, incidents are pretty well defined in NTSB 830, and I don't think it would meet any of those criteria either.
 

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
There was a fire for a short period of time that was'nt in control, we got it out before the firefighters showed up though after about 10 bottles.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
hotwings402 said:
Everyone including me until after I looked at the regs. A few retired airline pilots at a , mechanics, etc claimed it was a incident and we did'nt need the FAA's permission to move the aircraft, but the cops would'nt let us. So they cussed out the cops calling them stupid etc. ( turns out they are right) One person was trying to move the plane without the FAA's permission and we had'nt taken as per the regs "pictures, sketches, drawings etc of the accident scene" which would have been illegal. Turns out the cops took photos then got the FAA's permission to move the aircraft. LOL
Don't get confused, but the cops also have the authority to investigate this "accident" and they can cite the pilot under state law as well.
 

erj-145mech

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Posts
1,071
Total Time
1350
hotwings402 said:
A major repair is defined in FAR 43 and it is required to be accomplished by a IA and the appropriate 337's done.
The repair doesn't have to be accomplished by an IA. It doesn't have to be accomplished by an A&P mechanic either. An appropriately rated mechanic or repairman at a repair station may perform the necessary repairs. An IA may release the aircraft for service, or it may be a repair station, manufacturer, etc. See the blocks on a FAA Form 337 for details.
 

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
Sure, just not getting over technical the definition still stands as far as a accident is concerned. If you want to get technical you don't have to be a mechanic to pull a cylinder just be supervised by a AP.
 

erj-145mech

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Posts
1,071
Total Time
1350
You don't have to be supervised to remove anything, but you do to install and return to service. Its all in the regs. I know its nit pickey stuff, but thats what the federalies feast on and bust you on. Ninety per cent of A&P stuff is CYA, the other 10% is doing your job.

I've removed aircraft that were disabled on runways without asking for permission from the FAA, as long as you have the property owners and aircraft owners permission to do so. Thats if there is no bodily injury. Once some one gets hurt, it a whole new ballgame. NTSB 830 has the precedent when it comes to accidents, thats according to my PMI at the FSDO.
 

hotwings402

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
112
Total Time
2100
You cannot remove a "accident" aircraft unless 1) the NTSB has investigated 2) if you have to move it IE runway etc, it has been sketched, photographed measured, distances have been taken etc" Thats all in 830 that you just cited. The point I am making is NORMALLY gearups are incidents but in this case because of the vintage it caused substantial damage.

A mooney gears up just scratches the belly up no spar damage etc

Incident not reportable

A mooney gears up then skids into a vasi bending the spar.

Accident-reportable non movable till the NTSB says so or unless you can't wait has been properly surveyed.

I'm not sure what maintenance regs have to do with this. :)
 
Top