Expired Medical Scenario
- Thread starter BM
- Start date
Houston
Well-Known Member
Thanks, but believe me, I'm well aware of that. Your reference comes from 49 CFR 830.
However, as I wrote earlier, I've seen the same event (gear up landing as an example) be sometimes an accident and sometimes not. It all depends on what parts are damaged as the airplane slides to rest.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
All data gets turned over to the FAA, and NTSB. The strip you get in the mail is cut off the deidentified report. If the NTSB determines that an ASAP or asrs is of an accident, they request a full version. They also include the FAA. They may, or may not look for the correctly filed accident reports.
If you asrs a gear up landing, you damn well better provide notification as required to the NTSB / FAA , or they will come after your ass. The accident may not have been deliberate, but trying to hide an accident/incident is, and the asrs won't cover that.
Beyond that, if you were to gear up a plane, they won't violate you. Likely they will request a competency check ( normally a 709? Ride?) but may not even require that dependent on circumstances. I don't believe accidentally landing gear up violates any FARs anyways.
All data gets turned over to the FAA, and NTSB. The strip you get in the mail is cut off the deidentified report. If the NTSB determines that an ASAP or asrs is of an accident, they request a full version. They also include the FAA. They may, or may not look for the correctly filed accident reports.
If you asrs a gear up landing, you damn well better provide notification as required to the NTSB / FAA , or they will come after your ass. The accident may not have been deliberate, but trying to hide an accident/incident is, and the asrs won't cover that.
Beyond that, if you were to gear up a plane, they won't violate you. Likely they will request a competency check ( normally a 709? Ride?) but may not even require that dependent on circumstances. I don't believe accidentally landing gear up violates any FARs anyways.
Don't be the guy who files the ASRS for a near miss with another plane that he couldn't see because the dope load he was hauling was blocking his ability to see and avoid.
Houston
Well-Known Member
I'm unclear what you mean by "all data", so I cannot comment on that.
That is correct.
The NTSB is not involved in the ASAP program. See Advisory Circular 120-66B for information on that subject.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...61C319D7A04907A886256C7900648358?OpenDocument
Can you provide a reference that indicates a requirement to report a gear up landing that does not meet the definition of an accident?
I think you are misreading what I wrote earlier, so let me attempt to clarify for you. There is a requirement to report accidents (49 CFR 830.5). The issue of something being deliberate or accidental relates to the immunity provided by filing an ASRS report. Deliberate acts are not granted immunity. There is no requirement to report and incident. I used gear up landing as a simplified example, not an all encompassing set. However, just continuing with that as an example, some gear up landings are accidents and some are not. It depends on the damage done during the event.
Don't make that assumption. In fact, here are cases related to three airman who could site from personal experience that you should not make that assumption. The second one is the most interesting in my opinion as it throws in a lot of additional mitigation arguments.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5205.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4309.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5008.PDF
The FAA and NTSB do believe accidentally landing gear up violates 14 CFR 91.13(a).
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
More accurately, they believe that the actions leading up to the gear up landing were careless. Poor checklist usage etc. There are tons of gear up landings that are reported, with no action taken. The 2nd case resulted in a 5 day suspension, and the issues were related to his actions in the cockpit (overruling the pic, telling him to take a higher approach speed etc). They didn't land gear up, and were not violated for landing gear up.
If you operate in a careless and reckless manner, resulting in a gear up landing, then yes they will come after you. This is where an asrs report could help. The majority of gear up landings result in a 609 ride
Houston
Well-Known Member
Let me rephrase what you said to see if I'm reading your statement correctly. You're saying that the NTSB and the FAA don't think that a gear up landing is a violation of 14 CFR 91.13(a), but the events that lead up to the gear up accident are. Is that a correct understanding of your words? If not, what is?
You're correct that in the past SOME gear up landings only resulted in 709 reexaminations (per 49 USC 44709, they haven't been 609's for many years). However, although I don't have any hard data one way or the other, I suspect that a rather substantial percent of the gear up landings did result in an enforcement action.
One minor point. 14 CFR 91.13(a) does not say "careless and reckless", it say "careless or reckless". So, when you write as you did that "If you operate in a careless and reckless manner, resulting in a gear up landing, then yes they will come after you" you are correct. That is the standard in 14 CFR 91.13(a). The logic question following that is other than a mechanical failure, how would someone land gear up without having been either careless or reckless. Assuming you could think of some such scenario, what would you estimate the percentage of non mechanical failure gear up landings are, which are not the result of either a careless or reckless operation?
You're correct that in the second of the three examples I gave, they did not land gear up. They did what might be called a gear up touch and go. That was one of the aspects that made is such an interesting case. Another interesting aspect is that the individual appealing to the NTSB was not the PIC. The other two were more cut and dried. The pilot landed gear up and received an enforcement for operating in a careless or reckless manner. I can provide more examples if you need them, but bear in mind that only a small percentage of enforcements reach the full NTSB as these have. A certificate holder has to have already gone through the ALJ and be appealing the case to the full NTSB. Remember too that NTSB cases set precedents for future NTSB cases. So, enforcements for gear up landings are already established as being careless or reckless operations.
Earlier you wrote:
I asked you if you could provide a reference that indicates a requirement to report a gear up landing that does not meet the definition of an accident. You responded with:
The answer to your question of "why would you" is to validate your statement. If you are intending the words "as required" to mean in those cases where the gear up landing could be classified as an accident, then that is correct. If you intended "as required" to mean all gear up landings had to be reported, then I would ask what the reference is for that statement.
I believe this is what you're intending when you wrote about dents and small holes versus replacing any metal. It comes from 49 CFR 830.2:
z987k
Well-Known Member
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
as required, as in reporting it " as required". If you have substantial damage, then you are required to report it.
I've landed gear up 100's of times. Nobody has come after me yet.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. The stories I've heard when that's happened, the medical was required to instruction.
Y'know, primary students, new HP/Complex/Tailwheel students; instrument students when under the hood. Plenty of situations in which a CFI must have a medical.
Houston
Well-Known Member
I don't believe I every wrote that if an accident, as defined in 49 CFR 830, occurred, that it was not required to report it. So, when you wrote what you did, it read as if you were trying to correct something instead of agreeing with me. As I wrote before, accidents are a reportable event, but gear up landings do not always fall within the legal definition of an accident.
That may be a subject for another thread, but it is not an answer to the other questions I asked.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
The NTSB and FAA don't consider a "gear up landing as a violation" it's not the actual landing that they care about. The certificate action they take is based upon the actions that caused, or nearly caused a gear up landing. It's important to differentiate, because an asrs or ASAP doesn't cover willful acts of disregard. If you gear it up because you intentionally operate above published speeds, elect not to perform a checklist to save time etc, the ASAP will not cover you. The suspension is for the careless operation. If they watch you go missed at 15 feet, with the gear up, and ask you what happened, you have to watch what you say. If you tell them you were fast, and didn't run your before landing checklist, they likely will open an investigation, even though nothing actually happened.
There are times and places where landing gear up is "normal". I've done it a bunch. Lots of pilots have.
Anyways, original topic,
The ASAP /ASRS must be filed in a timely manner, 10 days from the made aware of date for asrs, 24 hours for most carrier ASAP programs.
The asrs would cover flying without a medical, as long as you did not continue to fly after the aware of date. The FAA could still open an investigation, but they can't use the asrs data as part of the investigation, and generally the asrs shows good intentions to comply, so they often go no further.
Asrs/ASAP the event, and put it behind you. Then don't do it again!
BajtheJino
I'm looking at you.
If an honest mistake it only proves that the world overfloweth with DB's.
To the OP, what kind of operation was the person involved in? 121/135? 91? It makes all the difference.
Ultimately, though, if its been this long forget about it.
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
as others pointed out if instructing a student that requires you to be pic for example a primary student you must have a valid medical
Houston
Well-Known Member
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
You may think so. I don't. I've been through an accident investigation. Personal experience says: When you notam cloased a runway to remove your airplane from it, the FAA "finds" out. The FAA is pretty damn good at turning whatever they want into an accident. If you don't report it, and they "find out" they seem to think you are trying to cover something up... Even if the only dammage is to the landing gear, prop tips, and a couple of runway lights, they will open an investigation. In my case the NTSB didn't care. The FAA on the other hand, did. The FAA didn't look at what "caused" the event. They interviewed at great length. took stories and witness accounts. They didn't give a hoot about the engine failling or not. They didn't even look at it. While they may have had a MX inspector deal with that side, I never saw them. They took every word from the statement, and did the best they could to turn it against us. They don't violate for whatever happens, they go after what you were doing that led up to the event.
I know somebody who landed belly first in his 172rg. In his statement, he said that he put the gear down, ran his checklist. He told them he saw light, that he now believes have been the setting sun reflecting in the lamp, not the actual light. The breaker for the gear had popped, so it never went down. He got a letter and nothing else. I know another guy who gear it up in his arrow. He told the FAA that he normally relied upon the piper back up etension system (not deactivated) to automatically extend the gear for him, and never bothered to do it for himself. He did asrs it, and he did get violated. As i said, the FAA doesn't consider the gear up landing a violation. It is the action the leads up to it that they violate for. Not understanding that, and not being carefull with what you say to the FAA is more likely to result in the violation. I understand that the FAA has a "chart" outlining the licence suspension periods for a gear up landing. That applies when they find that you were acting in violation of 14 cfr 91.13.
I was lucky. I managed to get a guy at the fsdo invoved who was familiar with Aztecs. He understood that flaps 35? ( i forget what the full flaps is now) , gear down, left engine inop at low altitude, you will be hitting the ground. In the aztec, you only have the option to manually pump up the flaps and gear (not exactly fast, practical or easy) if the engine with the hyd pump fails. I don't feel like reposting the entire accident, but, I was lucky to get completely cleared, with nothing other than a scarry story to show. Initially it wasn't going that way ( at the time i was a student pilot in the plane, with a total of 2.5 hours ME time. The FAA still wanted me)
The NTSB can and regularly does hand off minor incidents/accidents to the FAA for investigation. They don't necessarily investigate all of them.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
As far as I know, they never investigated anything more than the pilots involved.
It didn't help that we were only an hr. drive from the local fsdo office.
There were a bunch of planes waiting to depart IFR, when they had to cancel their void times due to a mishap, so it wasn't like we had much of a choice.