Narrative:

A social event at 3SZ included giving short airplane rides to friends and their associates. 2 of the aircraft involved were an small aircraft (navy designation--same as air force confign) and an small aircraft Y. The passenger pick up point was on the ramp at the taxi strip/ramp intersection. As I moved the small aircraft from the ramp onto the taxi strip center line and made a clearing right turn, the returning small aircraft Y and small aircraft left wing tips collided. Both aircraft returned to the ramp. Damage to the small aircraft Y was sufficient to require subsequent notification to the FAA. My examination of the small aircraft, based on my 34 yrs of aircraft engineering experience and the confirmation of a very knowledgeable friend, did not show the structure to be unairworthy, although repair to the dented slat and upper surface abrasion would be required. The pitot tube was bent up and over the wing surface, so I returned it to its approximate normal position and examined the attachment fitting. It appeared to be structurally sound although damaged sufficiently to know replacement would be necessary. Knowing that flight west/O an operating airspeed indicator was not allowed, I made a takeoff run to lift off speed and determined that the airspeed indications were as expected. Wanting to return the aircraft to its home base, 1h0, for repair, I returned to the takeoff position and made the 15 mi flight to 1h0. All airspeed indications and handling qualities were normal during the flight and landing. The following day I was informed by the FAA that I should have obtained a ferry permit prior to the flight and subsequent action would be taken by them. The FAA examination of the small aircraft resulted in the statement that, although the required repairs would classify the altercation as an 'incident' rather than an 'accident,' and that a ferry permit could be issued, I was in noncompliance by not obtaining the permit. The far part 91.29 requires the PIC to be responsible to determine that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight, but no further guidance is given as to the amount of deviation from an 'as certified' confign that is allowed for a pilot to consider when he makes the determination. I believe that I was in compliance with the intent of the far's, but not aware that a ferry permit should have been obtained. Action should be taken either through the FAA safety seminars and/or publications to provide more detailed guidance to the pilots in this area of requirements. Supplemental information from acn 90546: I told the pilot of the small aircraft Y that I would not fly the aircraft unless everything was right (meaning: my interpretation of right is, airworthy, inspection, ferry permit, etc). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: investigation of the incident is continuing. FAA examiner is presently in training and will not be available for further discussion for 30 days. Feels very strongly that far 91.29 is not clear that he should have received a ferry permit. Was not aware the person who inspected the aircraft held an a&east license. Counseled that after damage of any kind to the aircraft, he should consult the FAA prior to flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WING TIP STRIKE WHEN ACFT DEPARTED GATE AS ANOTHER SMA WAS ARRIVING.

Narrative: A SOCIAL EVENT AT 3SZ INCLUDED GIVING SHORT AIRPLANE RIDES TO FRIENDS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES. 2 OF THE ACFT INVOLVED WERE AN SMA (NAVY DESIGNATION--SAME AS AIR FORCE CONFIGN) AND AN SMA Y. THE PAX PICK UP POINT WAS ON THE RAMP AT THE TAXI STRIP/RAMP INTXN. AS I MOVED THE SMA FROM THE RAMP ONTO THE TAXI STRIP CENTER LINE AND MADE A CLEARING RIGHT TURN, THE RETURNING SMA Y AND SMA LEFT WING TIPS COLLIDED. BOTH ACFT RETURNED TO THE RAMP. DAMAGE TO THE SMA Y WAS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE FAA. MY EXAMINATION OF THE SMA, BASED ON MY 34 YRS OF ACFT ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE AND THE CONFIRMATION OF A VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE FRIEND, DID NOT SHOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE UNAIRWORTHY, ALTHOUGH REPAIR TO THE DENTED SLAT AND UPPER SURFACE ABRASION WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE PITOT TUBE WAS BENT UP AND OVER THE WING SURFACE, SO I RETURNED IT TO ITS APPROXIMATE NORMAL POS AND EXAMINED THE ATTACHMENT FITTING. IT APPEARED TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND ALTHOUGH DAMAGED SUFFICIENTLY TO KNOW REPLACEMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY. KNOWING THAT FLT W/O AN OPERATING AIRSPD INDICATOR WAS NOT ALLOWED, I MADE A TKOF RUN TO LIFT OFF SPD AND DETERMINED THAT THE AIRSPD INDICATIONS WERE AS EXPECTED. WANTING TO RETURN THE ACFT TO ITS HOME BASE, 1H0, FOR REPAIR, I RETURNED TO THE TKOF POS AND MADE THE 15 MI FLT TO 1H0. ALL AIRSPD INDICATIONS AND HANDLING QUALITIES WERE NORMAL DURING THE FLT AND LNDG. THE FOLLOWING DAY I WAS INFORMED BY THE FAA THAT I SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A FERRY PERMIT PRIOR TO THE FLT AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THEM. THE FAA EXAMINATION OF THE SMA RESULTED IN THE STATEMENT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE REQUIRED REPAIRS WOULD CLASSIFY THE ALTERCATION AS AN 'INCIDENT' RATHER THAN AN 'ACCIDENT,' AND THAT A FERRY PERMIT COULD BE ISSUED, I WAS IN NONCOMPLIANCE BY NOT OBTAINING THE PERMIT. THE FAR PART 91.29 REQUIRES THE PIC TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE ACFT IS IN CONDITION FOR SAFE FLT, BUT NO FURTHER GUIDANCE IS GIVEN AS TO THE AMOUNT OF DEVIATION FROM AN 'AS CERTIFIED' CONFIGN THAT IS ALLOWED FOR A PLT TO CONSIDER WHEN HE MAKES THE DETERMINATION. I BELIEVE THAT I WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE FAR'S, BUT NOT AWARE THAT A FERRY PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN EITHER THROUGH THE FAA SAFETY SEMINARS AND/OR PUBLICATIONS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILED GUIDANCE TO THE PLTS IN THIS AREA OF REQUIREMENTS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 90546: I TOLD THE PLT OF THE SMA Y THAT I WOULD NOT FLY THE ACFT UNLESS EVERYTHING WAS RIGHT (MEANING: MY INTERP OF RIGHT IS, AIRWORTHY, INSPECTION, FERRY PERMIT, ETC). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: INVESTIGATION OF THE INCIDENT IS CONTINUING. FAA EXAMINER IS PRESENTLY IN TRNING AND WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR 30 DAYS. FEELS VERY STRONGLY THAT FAR 91.29 IS NOT CLEAR THAT HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A FERRY PERMIT. WAS NOT AWARE THE PERSON WHO INSPECTED THE ACFT HELD AN A&E LICENSE. COUNSELED THAT AFTER DAMAGE OF ANY KIND TO THE ACFT, HE SHOULD CONSULT THE FAA PRIOR TO FLT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.