Safety Boards Don't Like to Investigate Non-Certified Aircraft Accidents

[pelmet]

I remember a guy I knew who worked at the safety board(who liked to give me inside info) telling me once that when the person deciding which smaller crashes to investigate, would pretty much toss aside all the incidents for non-certified aircraft. It looks like the same happens elsewher....

"C-GBEP, a privately registered Gray-Sherick aircraft Special model, was conducting a flight
between Puerto Plata/Gregorio Luperón Intl (MDPP) Dominican Republic to St-Barthélemy/ Gustaff
III Airport (TFFJ), Guadeloupe. During landing, the aircraft suffered a hard landing on runway 10.
Consequently, left hand gear collapsed, aircraft veered to the left exiting the runway and impacted
the airfield enclosure wall. Aircraft sustained substantial damage and pilot suffered minor injuries.
BEA advised they will not conduct ICAO annex 13 investigation as the aircraft is registered as a
Special Certificate Airworthiness Amateur built Aircraft (CARs standard 549)."

[digits_]

That makes sens though, doesn't it?

Let's say they do investigate, and they can even proof that the builder screwed up and used the wrong materials or something like that. Then what? That only affects the one builder. It's not going to make the other planes of that type any safer.

You can't expect the same protection certified airplanes provide when you decide to build or buy a non-certified airplane

[pelmet]

That makes sens though, doesn't it?

Let's say they do investigate, and they can even proof that the builder screwed up and used the wrong materials or something like that. Then what? That only affects the one builder. It's not going to make the other planes of that type any safer.

You can't expect the same protection certified airplanes provide when you decide to build or buy a non-certified airplane

There is certainly a logic to what you are saying. I suppose one could say that if a builder made a mistake, there is a lesson to be learned for other builders(materials/techniques), even if it is on a different type.

[digits_]

That makes sens though, doesn't it?

Let's say they do investigate, and they can even proof that the builder screwed up and used the wrong materials or something like that. Then what? That only affects the one builder. It's not going to make the other planes of that type any safer.

You can't expect the same protection certified airplanes provide when you decide to build or buy a non-certified airplane

There is certainly a logic to what you are saying. I suppose one could say that if a builder made a mistake, there is a lesson to be learned for other builders(materials/techniques), even if it is on a different type.

Yes, but the lessons aren't being taught by TC. So the government doesn't really care.

If a problem with a certified airplane type is found, or a problem with an AME who screwed up or is using a wrong technique, then ultimately it can be traced back to TC due to bad training -regulated by TC-, bad check rides/tests -regulated by TC- or maybe fraud -partially regulated by TC-.

A hobbyist who trusts the wrong youtube movie, is not regulated by TC.

[Cliff Jumper]

A brief search on the TSB's website shows numerous investigations of amateur built or ultralight aircraft.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... index.html

[pelmet]

A brief search on the TSB's website shows numerous investigations of amateur built or ultralight aircraft.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... index.html

No doubt true. I was never told that they don't do investigations, just that they are much less likely to. Heard it long ago, this particular report reminded me of it.

Thanks for the search.

[porcsord]

I think it's one thing to investigate a gear failure on a hard landing, it's another to investigate wings clapping.

Don't waste resources on things like this. It already took 4 years for that ATR crash report to come out, don't need a y more backlog for what will amount to a one off incident from lack of skill in either building or flying.