A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eclipse Loses Part



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 13th 08, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default Eclipse Loses Part

NTSB Identification: CHI08IA200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Thursday, July 17, 2008 in Rockford, IL
Aircraft: Eclipse Aviation Corporation EA500, registration: N875NA
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On July 17, 2008, at 1655 central daylight time, an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,
during cruise flight near Rockford, Illinois. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91
flight was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Neither
of the two pilots, the only occupants, were injured. The flight last
departed from Pinedale, Wyoming, and was en route to Chicago Executive
Airport, Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, Illinois, where it landed
without further incident.
  #2  
Old September 14th 08, 01:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Eclipse Loses Part


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,


I was just reviewing part 830 and trying to figure out how this became an
accident report...



--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.




  #3  
Old September 14th 08, 03:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
BT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 995
Default Eclipse Loses Part

Very Old News..
So what's your point.. a wing to body fairing came off the jet .

BT

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
NTSB Identification: CHI08IA200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Thursday, July 17, 2008 in Rockford, IL
Aircraft: Eclipse Aviation Corporation EA500, registration: N875NA
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On July 17, 2008, at 1655 central daylight time, an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,
during cruise flight near Rockford, Illinois. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91
flight was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Neither
of the two pilots, the only occupants, were injured. The flight last
departed from Pinedale, Wyoming, and was en route to Chicago Executive
Airport, Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, Illinois, where it landed
without further incident.



  #4  
Old September 14th 08, 04:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Eclipse Loses Part

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
an Eclipse Aviation
Corporation EA500, N875NA, sustained minor damage during an in-flight
separation of the aft, lower, left hand side, wing to body fairing,


I was just reviewing part 830 and trying to figure out how this became an
accident report...


And on the converse... I'm wondering how some stuff that happens around
doesn't turn up in at the NTSB...

Let's see... Bellanca veers off the runway, collapses nosegear, prop
strike and is totalled (2007).
Piper loses electrical power and lands at Bethlehem, PA, gear collapses
on the runway, scraping a lot of aluminum.
Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and
ditches into a river....

Last two were within the last three months.
And none of them show up in the NTSB reports. What gives? Aren't these
mandatory reporting?
T

  #5  
Old September 14th 08, 02:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Eclipse Loses Part


"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
And on the converse... I'm wondering how some stuff that happens around
doesn't turn up in at the NTSB...

Let's see... Bellanca veers off the runway, collapses nosegear, prop strike
and is totalled (2007).
Piper loses electrical power and lands at Bethlehem, PA, gear collapses on the
runway, scraping a lot of aluminum.


A close reading of Part 830 will supply your answers to the above. Damage to
damage to props and landing gear is not considered "substantial damage" for
purposes of reporting.

Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and ditches
into a river....


Engine failure on a light plane is not a reportable event.


What gives? Aren't these mandatory reporting?


No.


--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.




  #6  
Old September 15th 08, 07:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
JGalban via AviationKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Eclipse Loses Part

Vaughn Simon wrote:

Lastly, a pilot on final into Westerly, RI, loses engine power and ditches
into a river....


Engine failure on a light plane is not a reportable event.


Eh?? If the engine failure results in "substantial damage" to the aircraft,
it is a reportable event. I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200809/1

  #7  
Old September 15th 08, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Eclipse Loses Part


"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:8a3d77a58a076@uwe...
I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.


That would depend on the nature of the damage caused by the ditching.
Critically read the definitions of "aircraft accident" and "substantial damage"
in 830.2. There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.

To give an idea how one can get creative; after you recovered a ditched
plane, you could claim that any structural damage was caused by the recovery
effort, not the actual ditching; thus there was no "aircraft accident"since the
aircraft was not being operated for flight when the damage occurred.

Over the years, I have seen some pretty severe aircraft damage that was never
reported to anyone except perhaps the insurance company.


--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.




  #8  
Old September 15th 08, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
flynrider via AviationKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Eclipse Loses Part

Vaughn Simon wrote:
There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.


In real life, if the FAA found out about it, I doubt they would concur with
your interpretation. If the aircraft is a total loss (which is likely
following a ditching), I can't see them agreeing that no "substantial
damage" took place.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200809/1

  #9  
Old September 16th 08, 01:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Eclipse Loses Part

Is there any incentive to *not* report?
Heck, why get creative -- Well, OK, unless there was something suspect
that I don't want to reveal, like I was flying out of a medical, out of
maint requirements, or one of many other ways to not be 100% legal.

There are clearly a lot of NTSB reports out there where the damage was
far less than the "substantial" line that you're aggressively drawing,
so I guess some would be fine to not split the hair or possibly even
prefer to report it for whatever reason.



T

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:8a3d77a58a076@uwe...
I would assume that an aircraft ditching into a
river would result in "substantial damage" as described in Part 830.


That would depend on the nature of the damage caused by the ditching.
Critically read the definitions of "aircraft accident" and "substantial damage"
in 830.2. There is lots of "wiggle room". Since no $ amount is specified in
the definition of "substantial damage", an intact ditched plane could easily be
(at least arguably) non-reportable even though the actual damage may exceed the
value of the aircraft. Remember; engine failure, engine damage, prop damage,
skin damage, fabric damage, fairings & landing gear and much more are
specifically exempted.

To give an idea how one can get creative; after you recovered a ditched
plane, you could claim that any structural damage was caused by the recovery
effort, not the actual ditching; thus there was no "aircraft accident"since the
aircraft was not being operated for flight when the damage occurred.

Over the years, I have seen some pretty severe aircraft damage that was never
reported to anyone except perhaps the insurance company.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saturday 072807 in Oshkosh Pt 4 - the Eclipse Concept Jet [4/5] - "Eclipse Concept Jet 4.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 31st 07 04:02 PM
Saturday 072807 in Oshkosh Pt 4 - the Eclipse Concept Jet [3/5] - "Eclipse Concept Jet 3.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 31st 07 04:02 PM
Saturday 072807 in Oshkosh Pt 4 - the Eclipse Concept Jet [2/5] - "Eclipse Concept Jet 2.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 31st 07 04:02 PM
Saturday 072807 in Oshkosh Pt 4 - the Eclipse Concept Jet [1/5] - "Eclipse Concept Jet 1.jpg" yEnc (0/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 31st 07 04:02 PM
Saturday 072807 in Oshkosh Pt 4 - the Eclipse Concept Jet [1/5] - "Eclipse Concept Jet 1.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 31st 07 04:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.