Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

13 Answers

Would you report this to the FAA?

Asked by: 4691 views FAA Regulations

Yesterday a friend of mine was out flying her Cub, She came back to the airport, flew a normal left hand pattern making radio calls. During the landing flair her windshield filled up with a ultra lite landing down wind right in front of her (opposing traffic). She immediately veered to the right of the runway to avoid a collision and in doing so got on the brakes too hard and tipped the Cub up & over.

Ace Any FAA Written Test!
Actual FAA Questions / Free Lifetime Updates
The best explanations in the business
Fast, efficient study.
Pass Your Checkride With Confidence!
FAA Practical Test prep that reflects actual checkrides.
Any checkride: Airplane, Helicopter, Glider, etc.
Written and maintained by actual pilot examiners and master CFIs.
The World's Most Trusted eLogbook
Be Organized, Current, Professional, and Safe.
Highly customizable - for student pilots through pros.
Free Transition Service for users of other eLogs.
Our sincere thanks to pilots such as yourself who support AskACFI while helping themselves by using the awesome PC, Mac, iPhone/iPad, and Android aviation apps of our sponsors.

13 Answers



  1. Kris Kortokrax on Dec 05, 2014

    There is no requirement to report accidents to the FAA.

    There is, however, a requirement to report accidents to the NTSB. Accidents include occurrences in which there is “substantial damage” to the aircraft.

    The NTSB will more than likely inform the FAA of the accident.

    Your statement concerning what you witnessed would be valuable in an investigation. According to Part 103, ultralight vehicles must yield right-of-way to any all aircraft.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  2. DeWitt Barker on Dec 05, 2014

    Kris, you are correct, the FAA doesn’t need to be notified but the NTSB does if there is “substantial damage”. The correct form is 6120.1
    Thanks

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. Mark Kolber on Dec 06, 2014

    The only issue I see with Kris’ right of way analysis is where the aircraft were. Whether or not, for example, an ultralight already in the flare or already on the runway needs to engage in abnormal maneuvering to yield right of way to an aircraft to another aircraft in a position to avoid the accident, there is the Part 91-based requirement for the pilot of the Cub to maintain vigilance. Since this was an non-towered airport, the lack of radio calls and the use of the “opposing” runway might not be relevant (unless, of course accompanied with an improper pattern direction).

    I only mention this because, while the accident likely needs to be reported and the basic right of way rules appear to favor the Cub, if I were the Cub driver I’d at least think about avoiding acting as though I had no fault at all and keep such comments as I chose to make as completely factual and I could. These things are rarely as black & white as we would like them to be.

    I would also be remiss if I did not suggest a consultation with an aviation lawyer. Typically discussions with a disinterested third party professional early on can avoid a lot of problems later in the process.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  4. DeWitt Barker on Dec 06, 2014

    She has already had a consultation with an aviation lawyer, he advised to fill out the NTSB form. All facts are correct in that she was in the flair when the other aircraft turned a very close in final for landing downwind. If I were to guess I’d say he was in violation of 91.113 right of ways.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. DeWitt Barker on Dec 06, 2014

    I failed to mention that the other aircraft was a Challenger II that had been re registered several years ago from a ultralight to a light sport when the regulations changed.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. Kris Kortokrax on Dec 06, 2014

    That changes everything. The Challenger is subject to Part 91 and not to Part 103. The FAA would probably bring a charge for 91.13 as well.

    Next questions would be: “Does the person who flew the Challenger have a pilot certificate?” and “What was the wind speed?”

    While advisory circulars do not have the force of regulation, they can be used in an enforcement action. AC 90-66A states:

    “Landing and takeoff should be accomplished on the operating runway most nearly aligned into the wind. However, if a secondary runway is used, pilots using the secondary runway should avoid the flow of traffic to the runway most nearly aligned into the wind.”

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  7. DeWitt Barker on Dec 06, 2014

    Runway 9 & 27, winds 110@6, cub landed 9, no ideal if he has a pilot license or not.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  8. Jim F. on Dec 06, 2014

    Were there any witnesses? Especially one which doesn’t have a personal relationship with either party? (I see Kris’ first post implies you were one, but I do not read the original post as such…) And I would bet that from the viewpoint of the law, the word of a close friend wouldn’t hold much water…

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  9. Gary S. on Jan 26, 2015

    This is the sort of incident that could be avoided if FAA would finally regulate non-radioed aircraft from flying at public, non-towered airports. Many of these airports are sometimes over-crowded and non-radioed aircraft can be a menace. After all, this is not 1946 anymore. A little nav/com radio is good life insurance!

    -2 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes



  10. Gary S. on Jan 26, 2015

    DeWitt, I’m sure you’ve been pointed to 49 CFR 830.5 by now but just sending this anyway just in case you may need it in the future or maybe it may help someone else in the same unfortunate circumstance.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  11. Mark Kolber on Jan 27, 2015

    Gary,

    To paraphrase,

    This is the sort of incident that could be avoided if so-called modern pilots would finally understand non-radioed aircraft are an important part of aviation history and, instead of engaging in the pastime of regulation other people, look to their own failures engage in proper see-and-avoid procedures when flying at public, non-towered airports. Many of these airports are often empty and when they aren’t, pilots who are relying on radio transmissions can be a menace.

    I know a good number of folks who choose to fly aircraft with no electrical systems and I fully support their choice. Others, I guess, just like to regulate others.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  12. Gary S. on Jan 27, 2015

    Mark, nice political answer but it has nothing to do with safety. I hope neither of us ever has to face one of these folks head on. I used DeWitt’s story as an example to state my case. What case are you stating except a political one?

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  13. Mark Kolber on Jan 27, 2015

    I’m confused. What makes you think reviving an almost 2-month old post just so you can attack a segment of GA is =not= a political statement?

    Having seen one airplane almost land on top of the other while both were reporting their position, one could just as easily make your (USA Today style) “safety” argument that all non-towered fields are unsafe and should finally be shut down (it’s not 1946 after all). Or maybe all of GA should be shut down due to it’s motorcycle-level safety stats? Or 2-pilot crews should always be required? Or…?

    So how many intentionally NORDO aircraft do you think have VFR into IMC fatalities?

    Here’s a political statement for you: GA has enough problems with public perception and attacks by media without one segment of aviation joining them to point a finger at another.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.