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

AV8R_87

AV8R_87

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 1, 2024
Messages
828
Location
NE USA
Display Name
Display name:
OC
Pilot lost control, departed the runway, and put a nice curl on the prop blades in the process.
Does that make it a reportable accident due to substantial damage, per 830.2? My opinion is yes.
 
Yeah, I know you thought that meant the answer is yes. But wait, there's more...

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.”
Click to expand...
 
That's the part that's making me question it.
Plus, in this case the prop is damaged as well.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Pilot lost control, departed the runway, and put a nice curl on the prop blades in the process.
Does that make it a reportable accident due to substantial damage, per 830.2? My opinion is yes.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

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.
Click to expand...

Interesting. My runway excursion resulted in a dented cowling, bent prop, and a sheared off transponder antenna, and was written up as substantial damage.
 
GeorgeC said:
Interesting.



Interesting. My runway excursion resulted in a dented cowling, bent prop, and a sheared off transponder antenna, and was written up as substantial damage.
Click to expand...
By who?
 
AV8R_87 said:
It says "ground damage". I interpret that as a car driving into the prop, not the engine smashing it into the ground.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say anything about cars though. So on what basis are you adding requirements that aren't in the regulation?
 
AV8R_87 said:
It says "ground damage". I interpret that as a car driving into the prop, not the engine smashing it into the ground.
Click to expand...
i would interpret that as any time it’s not part of a flight…taxiing to the gas pump, or from the hangar to the maintenance facility would qualify as ground damage.
 
Well, "put a nice curl on the prop blades" & the effect that would have on the "flight characteristics of the aircraft" seem to indicate it is. But then again, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is ... ;)
 
What does the insurer want done to cover the incident?
 
Daleandee said:
Well, "put a nice curl on the prop blades" & the effect that would have on the "flight characteristics of the aircraft" seem to indicate it is. But then again, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is ... ;)
Click to expand...
Under that definition it is. So are "damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips," but they are excepted in the regulation along with ground damage to props.

Do you make right turns at a red light after stopping? If yes, how come?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Do you make right turns at a red light after stopping? If yes, how come?
Click to expand...

In Carolina we don't stop for red lights. :)

Seriously, I don't know the answer for the OP. To the point that @Dana made above, I've known of a few planes that were returned to the hangar before the word got out ...
 
Daleandee said:
In Carolina we don't stop for red lights. :)

Seriously, I don't know the answer for the OP. To the point that @Dana made above, I've known of a few planes that were returned to the hangar before the word got out ...
Click to expand...
It's the reason many gear-ups don't get reported unless someone reports it because of the closed runway.
 
MauleSkinner said:
i would interpret that as any time it’s not part of a flight…taxiing to the gas pump, or from the hangar to the maintenance facility would qualify as ground damage.
Click to expand...
You also seem to be adding limitations that don't appear in the regulation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying that angering in from a stall/spin is “ground damage?”
Click to expand...
I get your argument, but you're not going to limit the damage to those items in the exception list if that happens. probably not going to pass the injury or property damage portions either.
 
Personally, if you don't hurt someone else or their property I couldn't care less if you report or not.
 
I interpret ground damage as something that could be fixed by a paving crew.
 
Clip4 said:
Your interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...
[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
 
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...
So are you saying a prop strike with the pavement is not ground damage?
 
midlifeflyer said:
If that’s the only damage. Will it be?
Click to expand...
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.
 
The word "ground damage" is only used in reference to propellers and rotor blades.

Bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not substantial damage.

If the NTSB meant "ground damage" to mean "damage that occurs only during ground repositioning operations" I think the term would have been used in reference to all of those things.

In other words, if they don't care if things like landing gear, flaps, or wingtips get damaged during a takeoff or landing accident why would they care about a propeller strike?
 
Would it not be similar to logging taxiing when it's "for the purpose of flight", e.g. to the runway for takeoff, as opposed taxiing from the hangar to the gas pump or the maintenance shop across the field"?

You can get hull insurance for storage and ground operations, but not including flight. Coverage stops when the aircraft taxis onto the runway for takeoff and restarts when "the aircraft has left the runway under control."
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top