pilot07

Was recently giving instruction to an MEI applicant in a light twin (BE-76). The nose gear failed to extend. We did everything we could but could not get it down, including manual free fall, G loading, etc. Gear doors wouldn't open. Since I was seated in left seat I flew the landing, shut the engines down at 100ft, feathered the props and used starter to get them horizontal. No prop strike, no sudden engine stoppage- touched down on mains and then eventually the nose came to ground. All in all not much damage to airplane minus nose cone, gear doors and some scraping on some panels near the nose. Was found to be a failure of the nose gear door linkage when the gear retracted, which locked the gear doors shut.

However, under NTSB part 830, it is considered an "accident" since the aircraft received "substantial damage" (NTSB Definition: damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component). Since its requiring new paneling on the underside, new gear doors, new nose cone, Im being told its an accident since the aircraft could not be flown in its current state. The aircraft is being repaired and expected to be flying again in a couple of weeks.

Now to the point of my post - I was just filling out an insurance form for a client for instruction in his PC-12. It asked have you ever had an accident, incident or violation, check yes or no and explain. I felt terrible having to check yes, even though I explained it was a mechanical fault and not pilot error. Do insurance companies, or employers, look down on this now, since i technically have an accident I have to report, even if not pilot error? I guess its just a fear of being immediately discounted as soon as you check yes.