Prop strike after going off runway on landing - does it count as "substantial damage"?

[Lindberg]

[citation needed]

“Ground damage, as the term is used today, may not include damage caused by normal forces applied to the aircraft either during flight or while under its own power during taxi. Flat tires, tire damage occurring during taxi, damage caused by inclement weather, or damage caused by wildlife, whether during flight or stationary”

The Costs of Ground Damage

Ground damage is far too common and repairing damaged aircraft is costly, but with the right training and tools, damage can be avoided altogether.

www.aviationpros.com

Accident or incident? Don't be too quick to call the FAA

Many pilots are surprised to learn that there is no requirement to call the FAA following an accident or incident. The relevant reporting rules are contained in 49 CFR Part 830 and they specify what needs to be reported to the NTSB, not the FAA. And certainly, not every mishap qualifies for a...

www.aopa.org

Distinguish Between an Aviation Accident and Incident

Did your aircraft’s wingtip hit the fence while you were parking? Did you have a gear-up landing or prop strike? Did you knock over a taxiway light while taxiing, or brush your aircraft against another on the ground? Did a passenger fall and break an arm while exiting the airplane? Find out...

pilot-protection-services.aopa.org

 

[midlifeflyer]

Personally, if you don't hurt someone else or their property I couldn't care less if you report or not.

We care whether you care because…?

 

[Salty]

We care whether you care because…?

…It demonstrates another way of looking at the question the OP asked.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would say no, it would be considered “flight damage,” but NTSB 830 doesn’t use that term.

Maybe “ground damage” is improper use of an angle grinder when filing nicks from the prop.

“Doesn’t use the term” to differentiate flight from ground operations says volumes. So far, anyway, I have come across nothing in any case or guidance document modifying the phrase “ground damage” so that it only applies the way a number of people are suggesting limiting it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

…It provides another way of looking at the question the OP asked.

Yeah but it’s about whether the NTSB cares, isn’t it?

 

[Salty]

Yeah but it’s about whether the NTSB cares, isn’t it?

depends how you look at it. I don’t enforce for the ntsb nor do I have any stake in the aircraft in question. It doesn’t affect me one bit whether they report it or not.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into the way the OP asked the question, but it seems to me like he is not happy with the incident not being reported as an accident.

 

[AV8R_87]

Perhaps I’m reading too much into the way the OP asked the question, but it seems to me like he is not happy with the incident not being reported as an accident.

Not "not happy", but curious about the interpretation of the rule.
While I can see how a bent cowling or landing gear damage wouldn't be reportable, a prop strike during landing (which in my book is still part of the flight) would require a prop replacement and engine teardown, thus meeting the requirements of this paragraph: "which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component".

 

[Lindberg]

Not "not happy", but curious about the interpretation of the rule.
While I can see how a bent cowling or landing gear damage wouldn't be reportable, a prop strike during landing (which in my book is still part of the flight) would require a prop replacement and engine teardown, thus meeting the requirements of this paragraph: "which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component".

Did you see the links for two different AOPA panel lawyers saying this isn't reportable?

 

[AV8R_87]

I did. The gear-up landing linked below seems to contradict their opinion that landing with the gear up and bending the prop and some skin is not reportable. NTSB classified this as substantial.

Report: https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/93419/pdf

Docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=93419

 

[Salty]

There is structural damage to that aircraft. Those photos are not of the prop.

If the aircraft looks like this, then ya, report it.

 

[AV8R_87]

But the AOPA opinion is that such an accident is not reportable.

From the first linked article: "Let’s say you inadvertently land gear-up at an airport without an operating control tower and the damage is limited to a prop strike and skin damage. What’s next? Do you need to call the FAA or the NTSB? The answers are "no" and "probably not.""

Prop is also a bit artistic:

 

[Salty]

But the AOPA opinion is that such an accident is not reportable.

From the first linked article: "Let’s say you inadvertently land gear-up at an airport without an operating control tower and the damage is limited to a prop strike and skin damage. What’s next? Do you need to call the FAA or the NTSB? The answers are "no" and "probably not.""

Prop is also a bit artistic:
View attachment 130881

I disagree. There were injuries which makes it reportable. There was structural damage, which makes it reportable. That is not just skins and prop damage.

 

[Tools]

Figures lie, and liars figure…

Is there something useful (genuinely useful) to be learned? I kinda use that as a tie breaker.

The regs make it pretty clear we really have learned all we’re gonna about gear up landings.

While it can be argued there is ALWAYS something to be learned, in the real world that just ain’t so.

 

[Lindberg]

But the AOPA opinion is that such an accident is not reportable.

From the first linked article: "Let’s say you inadvertently land gear-up at an airport without an operating control tower and the damage is limited to a prop strike and skin damage. What’s next? Do you need to call the FAA or the NTSB? The answers are "no" and "probably not.""

Prop is also a bit artistic:
View attachment 130881

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?

 

[AV8R_87]

I disagree

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?

 

[MackMooney]

Totally agree, just go rat the guy out already. AOPA, FAA and most mechanics will tell you absent some other factor gear ups / prop strikes while expensive are NOT truly major events

 

[Lindberg]

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.

NTSB report said none for injuries.

Agree. Someone following AOPA's guidance from the links above might feel like they don't have to report it.


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?

That's a lot of words to admit that you want to just rat him out and came here for validation.

"Unsubstantiated opinions."

The fact that the guy ran off the runway isn't enough information for me to conclude whether he's a good or a bad pilot. And whether he reports the incident or not is irrelevant to my analysis of his piloting abilities.

Just report him already. Call the fsdo, and drop a dime. I don't know why you're waiting. Lives could be on the line!

 

[AV8R_87]

That's a lot of words to admit that you want to just rat him out and came here for validation.

You definitely sound like you're taking this a bit too personal. Someone ratted you out for breaking rules?

You might not think that rule following is one of the things that makes a good pilot. Other people will disagree.

"Unsubstantiated opinions."

Show me the substantiating evidence, then. Quote something that can be traced back to the regulatory body. Not an article that begins with an erroneous statement.

 

[Salty]

The link you posted from the ntsb said there were injuries.

You don’t seem to understand what structural damage is. A scraped up skin is not structural damage. A bent prop is not structural damage. The pictures in that report were far more than scraped skins.

The aopa guidance is not saying it’s ok to not report structural damage. It’s saying that a bent prop and scraped skins and dinged wingtips is not reportable. They are not structural. If part of the structure is damaged that would not fall in aopa guidance.

IMO it’s none of your business. I doubt you know more about the actual damage than the owner / pilot, which means you should mind your own business, but that’s just my opinion. Do what you want. Just don’t complain if it’s done back to you some day.

 

[TCABM]

…As I stated in the opening post, the way I read the rule this would be a reportable accident….

It depends. But I’m going to pull this string from the other end. Unless you were operating this particular flight, you’re interpetation - like anyone else’s here - is irrelevant.

Having said that, how would you remedy the operator’s action or lack thereof?

 

[skyking3286]

At any rate, it’s an engine tear down and inspection.

 

[Lindberg]

You definitely sound like you're taking this a bit too personal. Someone ratted you out for breaking rules?

I hope if anyone ever rats me out, they do it because they're sure it's the right think to do and they won't have to come to the Internet for validation.

You read the rule to make this a reportable accident. You've ignored persuasive arguments that it's not. Nothing's going to convince you, so make the call. Report the unsafe pilot to the NTSB. Let us know what they say.

 

[AV8R_87]

The link you posted from the ntsb said there were injuries.

The PDF I linked says none.

You've ignored persuasive arguments that it's not

We'll agree to disagree on how "persuasive" those arguments were. Strong opinions, maybe.

Report the unsafe pilot to the NTSB.

You are really fixated on this "report" thing. Fixation is also not a good pilot quality.
Sometimes it's purely about understanding a rule. If I am wrong in my interpretation, you're not going to convince me if your argument is "because I say so".
Write to your FSDO and ask for a clarification. Then use it to prove me wrong.

 

[Salty]

View attachment 131023
The PDF I linked says none.


We'll agree to disagree on how "persuasive" those arguments were. Strong opinions, maybe.

You are really fixated on this "report" thing. Fixation is also not a good pilot quality.
Sometimes it's purely about understanding a rule. If I am wrong in my interpretation, you're not going to convince me if your argument is "because I say so".
Write to your FSDO and ask for a clarification. Then use it to prove me wrong.

Do you know what structural means?

 

[Lindberg]

You are really fixated on this "report" thing. Fixation is also not a good pilot quality.
Sometimes it's purely about understanding a rule. If I am wrong in my interpretation, you're not going to convince me if your argument is "because I say so".
Write to your FSDO and ask for a clarification. Then use it to prove me wrong.

It couldn't be any more clear that you didn't come here for understanding or to learn. No one has argued, "Because I said so."

 

[AV8R_87]

Do you know what structural means?

Yes. I also know what a semi-monococque is, and how skins play an integral role in the strength and rigidity of the airframe.

It couldn't be any more clear that you didn't come here for understanding or to learn. No one has argued, "Because I said so."

What was your argument, then? You provided an article that starts with a false statement, and then regurgitates the rule without any additional information, and then resorted to borderline personal attacks (accusing me of intending on reporting someone, and so on)? But you then draw the "clear" conclusion that I don't want to understand or learn. As "clear" as my intention to rat out the guy.

This rule definitely has some room for interpretation. Let's have a civilized discussion. If your definition of "ground damage" is correct, give me an example of "not ground damage" to a propeller.
Do you think they wrote the rule like that to exclude bird strikes while in-flight? What if someone hits a deer? If the wheels are on the runway it is ground damage, but if they are a foot above the runway it isn't ground damage?
What if the accident pilot became briefly airborne after his runway excursion and the prop was the first thing to hit the dirt? Not ground damage anymore?
Or is it more likely that by ground they meant "ground operations", which excludes the take-off and landing phases?

 

[TCABM]

… give me an example of "not ground damage" to a propeller….

Throwing a blade comes to mind. So long as throwing that blade was not due to ground contact.

See 49 CFR 830.5(a)(8)

 

[AV8R_87]

Throwing a blade comes to mind. So long as throwing that blade was not due to ground contact.

See 49 CFR 830.5(a)(8)

Is that damage or propeller failure, though?

 

[TCABM]

Is that damage or propeller failure, though?

It’s one of the 13 things 49 CFR 830 says requires immediate reporting; it’s also neither of the two things Part 830 says must be reported within seven or ten days of occurrence.

If an event doesn’t fall into either of those lists of things, no NTSB report is required.

 

[BoButt]

The insurance company does not tell the FAA. However, it should get logbook entry's for prop strike inspection and a new or repaired prop. This ought to be a (dont ask, dont tell) damage per the reg. The FAA does not care, they have too much else to do.