I agree with you. I disagree with AOPA's lax approach on this in their "legal" response, which states that a gear-up landing is a "probably not" on the reportable scale. This is as gentle of a gear-up as you can get (with the few exceptions of the planes with wheels sticking out even when retracted, or maybe a smooth grass field) and you still got that kind of damage. A gear-up landing should be on the "most likely" end of the scale.
Which then disqualifies (at least for me) their unsubstantiated opinion on what constitutes ground damage.
There were injuries which makes it reportable.
NTSB report said none for injuries.
There was structural damage, which makes it reportable. That is not just skins and prop damage.
Agree. Someone following AOPA's guidance from the links above might feel like they don't have to report it.
It's clear that you really want some excuse to rat this guy out. So just do it. Why do you need POA's validation?
Careful there, you'll pull a muscle in your back if you keep jumping to conclusions like that.
As I stated in the opening post, the way I read the rule this would be a reportable accident. We're all a bit stuck on the definition of "ground damage", and nobody yet has provided a good reference to how the FAA/NTSB interprets that. Not a lot of "air damage" happens to props and rotors, does it? You'd think there would be a better way to write this if all they meant was "we don't care that you dug your prop in the dirt on landing". I'm interested in how this rule should be applied.
On the topic of the incident pilot, do you think it doesn't matter if he chose to violate a rule? Besides "ratting him out", as you so gallantly put it.
Let's say this is a reportable accident. Now there's a good chance there will be no accident history associated with this airframe. Prop gets replaced under a vague logbook entry stating "replaced propeller P/N A with serviceable propeller P/N B". He might elect to do a crankshaft runout check (or not) before selling the plane with an unreported accident and an engine improperly inspected after a prop strike. Next owner might not have a clue until the engine fails. That could be you. Or someone you know and care about, being put in a dangerous situation because pilot X decided he doesn't have to report a prop strike.
Would you let this guy fly kids at the next Young Eagles event? If he chose to ignore that rule, what other rules will he consider that they don't apply to him? Isn't that one of the five hazardous attitudes?