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

All the old timers that I used to fly with down in San Antonio, where I learned to fly tailwheel seemed to think that all of the stuff included that definition is essentially what happens in a ground loop and that the FAA was aware of how many ground loops generally took place.
 
AV8R_87 said:
[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”

www.aviationpros.com

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 www.aviationpros.com
Click to expand...

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
 
MauleSkinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
“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 said:
Yeah but it’s about whether the NTSB cares, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
AV8R_87 said:
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".
Click to expand...
Did you see the links for two different AOPA panel lawyers saying this isn't reportable?
 
There is structural damage to that aircraft. Those photos are not of the prop.

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

Screenshot 2024-07-02 at 12.34.19 PM.pngScreenshot 2024-07-02 at 12.37.42 PM.png
 
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:
1719938362639.png
 
AV8R_87 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
AV8R_87 said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top