Incident vs Accident

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,477
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Had an interesting delay coming back from our family vacation in Hot Springs, VA on Saturday. We arrived at HSP to find that an older 182 (N7506S) had lost power on takeoff and ended up 75 feet off the end of the runway. If you have ever been to HSP, it is a lot like Catalina Island - a runway on top of a mountain.....the last place you would want to run off the runway 'cuz it's all downhill. Minor injuries, but I would be surprised if the airplane isn't totaled. I honestly don't think they can remove it without destroying the aircraft. Airport was closed and my departure was delayed while the airport folks questioned me and sampled my fuel (pilot blamed the fuel for his power loss - we had been refueled by the same truck). FSDO eventually re-opened the airport and we departed.

So, I looked it up in the FAA prelim reports and it is listed as an incident not accident. Having talked to the airport folks and seen the airplane off the runway, it sure seems like an accident to me.:dunno:

I'm just curious where the cutoff is?
 
Is that not clearly defined in NTSB Part 830?

There may be some subjective wiggle room, but as I recall the definitions are pretty clear.

15 second Google search:

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. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

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.
 
Last edited:
Depends on who accesses the damage. Too bad you didn't get a picture.
 
FastEddieB said:
Is that not clearly defined in NTSB Part 830?

There may be some subjective wiggle room, but as I recall the definitions are pretty clear.

15 second Google search:

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. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

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...
That is the NTSB's definition. And the one I am familiar with. As I said, it sure seems like an accident to me. Assuming saving the airplane was worth the money, I can't imagine that it could be returned to service without 'major' repairs.

This was the FAA prelim. I am curious if they use a different criteria or if they just enter it as an incident and then possibly upgrade it when more detail is obtained?

Now, what I don't know is if the FAA inspector had personally examined the airplane when entering the initial report. As of Saturday afternoon, the FAA was not present but getting info via phone (FSDO is in Richmond, probably 3 hours away).
 
I agree with Ron, it depends on who looks at it. I actually had an FAA investigator almost declare my accident as an incident. He was saying the gear being destroyed didn't mean anything, but then he decided the spar was bent, so it had to be declared an accident. How could you even look at this plane for a second and think incident???
7770260354_e730eee89a_b.jpg


7770255794_a52fcfdf42_b.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
Aircraft accident means an occurrence ... in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
Click to expand...

This.

Yes, I agree, the term "substantial damage" is the key element here but they try to define it further to ensure minimal misunderstandings.

The photos sure look like an accident, that damage is beyond any argument for "substantial".
Glad they walked away. (although it was NOT easy with all the cacti in the way)
 
Nope, but every plane I have going forward will! Broken ribs and smashed face. If it didn't have a padded panel added by the previous owner, it probably would have been much worse!

Mike5250 said:
Good job walking away from that one! Did you have should harnesses?
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Had an interesting delay coming back from our family vacation in Hot Springs, VA on Saturday. We arrived at HSP to find that an older 182 (N7506S) had lost power on takeoff and ended up 75 feet off the end of the runway. If you have ever been to HSP, it is a lot like Catalina Island - a runway on top of a mountain.....the last place you would want to run off the runway 'cuz it's all downhill. Minor injuries, but I would be surprised if the airplane isn't totaled. I honestly don't think they can remove it without destroying the aircraft. Airport was closed and my departure was delayed while the airport folks questioned me and sampled my fuel (pilot blamed the fuel for his power loss - we had been refueled by the same truck). FSDO eventually re-opened the airport and we departed.

So, I looked it up in the FAA prelim reports and it is listed as an incident not accident. Having talked to the airport folks and seen the airplane off the runway, it sure seems like an accident to me.:dunno:

I'm just curious where the cutoff is?
Click to expand...

They ruled my gear up as an incident because no structural components were affected.
 
Aviation Safety magazine has a good write-up on this in the most recent issue.
 
Henning said:
They ruled my gear up as an incident because no structural components were affected.
Click to expand...
For a basic gear up, I can believe that. I was just surprised based on what I saw (I can't imagine that no structural damage was done).
 
Lowflynjack said:
Nope, but every plane I have going forward will! Broken ribs and smashed face. If it didn't have a padded panel added by the previous owner, it probably would have been much worse!
Click to expand...

Glad you're okay! My brain is wired incorrectly - I saw those pics and thought, "Damn, that's the cleanest looking panel I've seen in a long time!" :)
 
An accident is what happens to other people, an incident is what happens to me....:lol::lol::lol:
 
Zeldman said:
An accident is what happens to other people, an incident is what happens to me....:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this:

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

Mel Brooks, The 2,000 Year Old Man (1961)

I could have sworn it was a Woody Allen quote!
 
It wasn't a traditional Luscombe panel, but I liked it. It had everything I needed and more! Engine failure on takeoff and nowhere to go and my first real plane was gone... Avemco bought me a new one though!

SkyDog58 said:
Ha! The panel caught my eye as well.
Click to expand...
 
Lowflynjack said:
It wasn't a traditional Luscombe panel, but I liked it. It had everything I needed and more! Engine failure on takeoff and nowhere to go and my first real plane was gone... Avemco bought me a new one though!
Click to expand...

That is the second most important thing. The first is that you are still here to share the story. :yes:
 
I was amazed at how the plane crumpled, absorbing the majority of the impact. I guess they knew what they were doing back in 1946!

SkyDog58 said:
That is the second most important thing. The first is that you are still here to share the story. :yes:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top