Air law question.

[Cenus_]

Hi all,

I've got my air law exam this afternoon and was doing a bit of last minute reading up when I came across the following;

(taken from AFE air law and operational procedures)

The ICAO definition of an accident, and the ANO definition of a reportable accident, are practically identical as one of three possible instances occurring between the time when any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and when all persons have left the aircraft after flight:

1) A person killed or seriously injured while in, on, or in direct contact with, the aircraft. Also included is death or serious injury caused by jet blast or by parts that have become detached from the aircraft. Natural causes, or self inflicted injuries, are excluded.

2) The aircraft incurs damage or structural failure affecting its structural strength, performance or flight charactistics and will require major repair or replacement. Exceptions are engine failures or damage limited to the engine or cowlings; damage limited to propellers, wingtips, antenna, tyres, brakes, fairings; and small holes or dents in the aircraft skin.

3 The aircraft is missing or completely inaccessible.


Then in the revion questions it asks:

Which of the following is NOT a reportable accident:

Someone is seriously injured by an aircrafts jet blast; a propeller bent on landing; an engineer seriously injured whilst an aircraft is manoeuvred by tractor in a maintenance hanger.

I thought the answer should be that both the propeller bent and the engineer injured would both not be reportable. The propeller because it is specifically excluded and the engineer because no one was on board with the intention of flight.

The answer given though is that only the engineer injured is not a reportable accident.

What am I missing?:confused:

[Whopity]

Presumably he was injured by the tractor not the aircraft!

[Cenus_]

Which I understand. But shouldn't the bent propeller also not be a reportable accident?

[Whopity]

The propeller was bent on landing and therefore will have an effect on aircraft performance. It may also have shock loaded the engine and require inspection. Propeller damage that might have occurred on the ground, chips, hangar rash etc, fall into a different category.

[Cenus_]

I passed with 95% :)

There were 2 question on reportable accidents although fortunatly a bit more black and white than the above!

[Pull what]

What am I missing?

You last point of contact that is causing the incident/accident has to be the a/c or its not reportable. If the engineer had been touching any part of the a/c when it happened it would have been reportable.

[foxmoth]

Not if there was no intention of flight

[Cenus_]

Let me clarify.

I understand why the engineer being injured is not reportable.

I understand why the jet blast injury is reportable.

What I dont understand is why the AFE book suggests that the damaged prop is reportable, becaus it appears to be specifically excluded in "Exceptions are engine failures or damage limited to the engine or cowlings; damage limited to propellers, wingtips, antenna, tyres, brakes, fairings; and small holes or dents in the aircraft skin."

Although Whopity's reply does make sense it assumes a hell of a lot of prior knolegde of the typical PPL student sitting their first exam.

I passed the exam so maybe I should just forget it but tbh I want to get to the bottom of this otherwise if it ever happens to me I might do the wrong thing!?

[Heston]

Cenus, I think you are right - the AFE answer assumes you will know that a prop strike on landing will damage the engine - that's the only way to make sense of it.

In the real world there wont be any confusion about whats reportable and whats not. Shrug your shoulders over that one and move on to the next stage in your journey... In other words, don't sweat the small stuff

[custardpsc]

Cenus - I think you are right - maybe look in the book and see if there is a contact email for AFE and ask them ! It might be kind to, if only to avoid someone else the same confusion later.

You could argue that as a landing phase occurence the bent prop might fall into the AAIB definition of a 'serious incident' and is thus reportable but the question asked was about reportable accidents, not incidents, so the only non-reportable accident was the hangar accident as you say.

[turbulentmonkey]

Congrats on the Air law pass Cenus_!

[Dawdler]

Wasn't there a famous case, well documented in these pages of a twin running out of fuel and crashing in the wilds of Canada, which the pilot claimed was not a reportable accident?

[custardpsc]

Dawdler, you speak of he who should not be named !

Yes, a seneca was run out of gas,, greenland not canada, allegedly because the fuel plan was done on ms flight sim.

It was, (correctly) claimed not to be a reportable matter, noone was hurt, damage was just landng gear. In the uk, or if it were a uk g reg, it would be defined as a serious incident by the aaib.

"Any fuel state which would require the declaration of an emergency by the pilot."