Category Archives: aircraft accident

Question about tail-wheel aircraft with wrinkles!

Posted on by
The question from a reader customer was – “I’m looking at a tail wheel aircraft that has wrinkles or dents around where main landing gear legs go into the fuselage. There is nothing in the logbooks about repairs, has this aircraft been wrecked?”
My thoughts are that wrinkles do not mean wrecked. But they do typically indicate previous damage or stress. I’d guess the aircraft has had a few hard landings or even a few ground loops. Make sure the mechanic looks for a Form 337, Major Alteration and Repair in the aircraft records. You can also order (through the FAA or other search companies) a copy of the FAA 337 Forms for a specific “N” number  aircraft.  This report will show you any Form 337’s that have been filed with the FAA on that particular aircraft.  If that doesn’t show any damage all you have is visual information.
Whatever the result, the mechanic should inspect the gear attach points for un-repaired damage.   Landing gear on any aircraft gets a lot of stress.   Custom built aircraft are notorious for landing gear damage, along with training aircraft.  It doesn’t matter if it is a conventional gear (tail wheel) aircraft or a tri-gear aircraft.  New pilots have a tendency to make hard landings and newly completed custom aircraft take a while to become accustom to.   Don’t be surprised, just make sure the aircraft is inspected carefully.  


Medicals needed?

Posted on by
Most companies require a current medical if you are to be insured.  Does that mean you don’t have insurance if you don’t have a medical?  No!  If you are not using the aircraft in a way that needs a medical, why would you need to have a medical?
If you are unable to maintain a medical, but you still own an aircraft it could still be insured.  If you are not flying the aircraft and you have coverage while “not-in-flight” and the aircraft is damaged by a big storm, you should still be covered.
Many of the aviation insurance companies follow the guidelines of the FAA.  I even tried to find an FAR that said you had to have a medical (or a pilot’s license for that matter) to taxi or own an aircraft.  I was unable to locate anything specific to that.  (Just think, if that was the case, many of the corporate owners or the owners that hire a pilot, would not be able to have any coverage). 
For an example, say you are the aircraft owner and you don’t have a medical and you are taxiing your aircraft around the airport.  A good owner keeps the engine, tires and brakes limbered up.  And let’s assume that you have full coverage for ground and flight.  Now, what if you happen to have a minor mishap during that time, such as you hit a taxi light or drop in a hole and damage the prop, you should have coverage.  Should have coverage and the insurance company not wanting to pay are two different things.  Most aircraft insurance policies have a section that states that the operator of the aircraft has to meet the requirements of the policy.  The requirements usually include a medical.  But a medical is not required to taxi or start the aircraft only to fly the aircraft.  If you were not on the runway, not flying or haven’t been flying, should they pay?  I think so.  And will they pay?  Probably.  If the company has provided the correct coverage for the aircraft and the aircraft is not in a situation requiring a medical, they should be responsible! 
If you were out flying and the aircraft had an accident, you’d void the policy without a medical.  So just because you are on the ground doesn’t mean you don’t have to meet the policy requirements.  The earlier example is a situation, where you were not in flight and not intending to fly. 
Of course, this is a “gray” area.  If the pilot is taxiing to the pumps for fuel to make a flight, he doesn’t have to have a medical, but going down the runway he does…I just thought of something else.  Many people think they can get around this by having a friend in the aircraft that does have a medical.  Problem is if they are not qualified, listed or meeting the open pilot warranty they are not covered in the aircraft.  If the other pilot is not an instructor they can’t be “giving dual”.  Additionally, that “friend” will be the one at risk of being the pilot in command in the event of an accident or claim.  Very few people I know want to have an accident (and possibly a violation) on their pilots record for a friend who just happened not to have a medical!  Usually the friendship ends up being very short.

Compliments of Avweb….

Posted on by

Wing Broke On Crash Skymaster

The outboard six feet of the right wing on a Cessna 337 broke off just before the aircraft crashed and killed five people in New Jersey last week. Just what effect that will have on Cessna’s process to initiate an extensive wing inspection program on the aging aircraft isn’t clear at this point but it’s likely to come up. As AVweb reported in January, Cessna is developing a supplemental inspection document (SID) that focuses on the wing attach points of the Skymaster series. It appears the Feb. 15 failure was outboard of the strut attachment point and involved failure of the “horizontal flange of the forward spar lower cap,” according to the NTSB preliminary report. The report says the failure occurred as the aircraft pitched up after a high-speed, low-altitude flyby at Monmouth County Executive Airport. The aircraft had STC’d tip tanks and had taken on 90 gallons of fuel prior to the flight.

The pilot, a 45-year-old ATP, was in the right seat while his Polish private pilot friend was in the left. Another adult, a 14-year-old boy and a six-year-old boy were on board. The accident happened about four minutes into the flight. Relatives of those on board were on the ground watching. The NTSB says the wing section, which included the aileron, was found on the runway, about 633 feet from the main wreckage, and showed signs of going through the rear propeller.