Nose Gear Failure- Nose Gear up Landing
 

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.

You might want to look further at the NTSB definition of an accident. Are the paneling, gear doors or nose cone structural? Nowhere does the NTSB say not being able to fly the aircraft means it's an accident.

Of course if you've filed the report now it's in the system.

It shouldn't hurt you, any reasonable employer should give you the opportunity to explain, either on the application or in person.

I think you could have gotten away with that not being NTSB reportable, but there is some grey area. Sometimes mechanics will file NTSB reports to CYA when they repair an aircraft...

It shouldn't, but it really can, and it often does.

You need to have the opportunity to explain, and often once that box is checked, that opportunity doesn't arise.

True. No report has been filed yet, has been only 3 days since the landing. And it seems that the NTSB is more clear on what substantial damage is not, rather than is. If a report has to be filed, I suppose could appeal that this did not constitute an accident.

Being told by whom? Many times, the NTSB will refrain from making a judgement, whether an event is an accident or an incident, in the initial days of the investigation, before they've gotten to look at pictures of the damage. I would keep inquiring with the NTSB Investigator In Charge as to the disposition of it, whether it's an accident and why. If it was just skidding a nose-cone on the ground, it would be very rare for it to be classified as an accident, and I do this stuff day in and day out. If it hit the nose hard and wrinkled skin that required a major repair, then you might have a good case for an accident. The NTSB investigator can tell you if it's being classified as an accident or incident. If you can't find this from the database (like it's only been a few days or weeks), then call your regional NTSB office to get the information. These people work for you, essentially.

Are you asking whether an accident shows on your FAA PRIA records? There are ways to find that out if you are not sure. It's a good idea to get a copy of your records before making any employment applications.

I also think that it would be very rare for the NTSB to label that as an accident. The investigators understand the ramifications of that for a pilot so I'm betting they called it an incident.

You need to call the FAA or NTSB and find out how it got labeled.

If it did get labeled as an accident, that would be worth getting a lawyer and appealing.

I would refrain from filling out anymore job applications also. You do not want to go through all the headaches of filling one of those things out only to have an automatic filter throw your application in the trash.

Why would they filter him out if he didn't also check the violation box?

Useless info alert:
Without looking at the regs and definitions to me this has all the qualities of an 'incident' and not an 'accident'.

Maybe this helps:

https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/ntsb/