What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) As pilot entered the vicinity of his intended destination airport, a thunderstorm was over the field. He elected to make a precautionary landing on a road. During landing roll, he encountered a gust of wind that caused him to become airborne again which resulted in diverting his course and the gyrocopter impacted some small sapling trees. One of the two main rotor blades and two of the three propeller blades received substantial damage. There was no other damage to the gyrocopter. Note: on July 7, 2004, privacy data omitted NTSB atlanta, initially ruled this accident to be an incident since the gyrocopter was an experimental amateur-built aircraft. privacy data omitted The FAA icc, concurred with the ntsb's ruling based on the definition of "aircraft accident" and "substantial damage" contained in chapter 1 paragraph 5 of FAA order 8020.11B. On July 6, 2004, the FAA iic received a voicemail from privacy data omitted NTSB atlanta, informing him that the incident had been upgraded to an accident and she provided the NTSB accident id number. On July 7, 2004, the FAA iic contacted privacy data omitted the manager of the ntsb's atlanta office to reconcile the disconnect between FAA order 8020.11B and the ntsb's ruling. During the conversation, privacy data omitted informed the FAA iic that the NTSB had revised their definition regarding damage to rotor blades. He said the NTSB now considers damage to rotor blades, substantial damage.
As the FAA filed it
(-23) AS PILOT ENTERED THE VICINITY OF HIS INTENDED DESTINATION AIRPORT, A THUNDERSTORM WAS OVER THE FIELD. HE ELECTED TO MAKE A PRECAUTIONARY LANDING ON A ROAD. DURING LANDING ROLL, HE ENCOUNTERED A GUST OF WIND THAT CAUSED HIM TO BECOME AIRBORNE AGAIN WHICH RESULTED IN DIVERTING HIS COURSE AND THE GYROCOPTER IMPACTED SOME SMALL SAPLING TREES. ONE OF THE TWO MAIN ROTOR BLADES AND TWO OF THE THREE PROPELLER BLADES RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. THERE WAS NO OTHER DAMAGE TO THE GYROCOPTER. NOTE: ON JULY 7, 2004, ^PRIVACY DATA ^ NTSB ATLANTA, INITIALLY RULED THIS ACCIDENT TO BE AN INCIDENT SINCE THE GYROCOPTER WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. ^PRIVACY DAT^ THE FAA ICC, CONCURRED WITH THE NTSB'S RULING BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF "AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT" AND "SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE" CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 1 PARAGRAPH 5 OF FAA ORDER 8020.11B. ON JULY 6, 2004, THE FAA IIC RECEIVED A VOICEMAIL FROM ^PRIVACY DATA^ NTSB ATLANTA, INFORMING HIM THAT THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ACCIDENT AND SHE PROVIDED THE NTSB ACCIDENT ID NUMBER. ON JULY 7, 2004, THE FAA IIC CONTACTED ^PRIVACY DAT^ THE MANAGER OF THE NTSB'S ATLANTA OFFICE TO RECONCILE THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN FAA ORDER 8020.11B AND THE NTSB'S RULING. DURING THE CONVERSATION, ^PRIVACY DA^ INFORMED THE FAA IIC THAT THE NTSB HAD REVISED THEIR DEFINITION REGARDING DAMAGE TO ROTOR BLADES. HE SAID THE NTSB NOW CONSIDERS DAMAGE TO ROTOR BLADES, SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.