What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The operator's chief pilot informed the poi that one of their aircraft had experienced a possible inflight collision with an unknown object. The aircraft was on a short VFR flight to the operator's home base with only the pilot onboard, when an impact occurred at an estimated altitude of 2000 feet AGL. The pilot did not see the object that was impacted, but reacted by verifying a likely problem with the right engine. The right engine was then successfully shut down and secured. The aircraft then safely completed the short remaining flight to its destination.
A visual inspection on the ground at the operator's home base then revealed what appeared to be impact damage to one propeller blade of the right propeller. There were no indications of organic residue on the propeller, indicating a bird strike.
FSDO contacted airport managers at the aircraft's recent locations to inquire about any damage to airport infrastructure as a possible result of collision by a taxiing aircraft. Managers stated that no such damage had been reported or was apparent at these two airports.
ATC quality control office was unable to locate the incident aircraft's VFR target or other possible incident-related VFR targets on the date and time in question.
The aircraft's manufacturer safety consultant and a propeller manufacturer's engineer was consulted. Both felt that the propeller had "struck an object of definite mass", and was unlikely to have struck a small, light, UAS of plastic construction.
The pilot was the sole person present during the event. No other witnesses were discovered.
There is no evidence to suggest that any regulations were violated or that any unsafe practices occurred.
As the FAA filed it
THE OPERATOR'S CHIEF PILOT INFORMED THE POI THAT ONE OF THEIR AIRCRAFT HAD EXPERIENCED A POSSIBLE INFLIGHT COLLISION WITH AN UNKNOWN OBJECT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS ON A SHORT VFR FLIGHT TO THE OPERATOR'S HOME BASE WITH ONLY THE PILOT ONBOARD, WHEN AN IMPACT OCCURRED AT AN ESTIMATED ALTITUDE OF 2000 FEET AGL. THE PILOT DID NOT SEE THE OBJECT THAT WAS IMPACTED, BUT REACTED BY VERIFYING A LIKELY PROBLEM WITH THE RIGHT ENGINE. THE RIGHT ENGINE WAS THEN SUCCESSFULLY SHUT DOWN AND SECURED. THE AIRCRAFT THEN SAFELY COMPLETED THE SHORT REMAINING FLIGHT TO ITS DESTINATION.
A VISUAL INSPECTION ON THE GROUND AT THE OPERATOR'S HOME BASE THEN REVEALED WHAT APPEARED TO BE IMPACT DAMAGE TO ONE PROPELLER BLADE OF THE RIGHT PROPELLER. THERE WERE NO INDICATIONS OF ORGANIC RESIDUE ON THE PROPELLER, INDICATING A BIRD STRIKE.
FSDO CONTACTED AIRPORT MANAGERS AT THE AIRCRAFT'S RECENT LOCATIONS TO INQUIRE ABOUT ANY DAMAGE TO AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AS A POSSIBLE RESULT OF COLLISION BY A TAXIING AIRCRAFT. MANAGERS STATED THAT NO SUCH DAMAGE HAD BEEN REPORTED OR WAS APPARENT AT THESE TWO AIRPORTS.
ATC QUALITY CONTROL OFFICE WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE THE INCIDENT AIRCRAFT'S VFR TARGET OR OTHER POSSIBLE INCIDENT-RELATED VFR TARGETS ON THE DATE AND TIME IN QUESTION.
THE AIRCRAFT'S MANUFACTURER SAFETY CONSULTANT AND A PROPELLER MANUFACTURER'S ENGINEER WAS CONSULTED. BOTH FELT THAT THE PROPELLER HAD "STRUCK AN OBJECT OF DEFINITE MASS", AND WAS UNLIKELY TO HAVE STRUCK A SMALL, LIGHT, UAS OF PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION.
THE PILOT WAS THE SOLE PERSON PRESENT DURING THE EVENT. NO OTHER WITNESSES WERE DISCOVERED.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ANY REGULATIONS WERE VIOLATED OR THAT ANY UNSAFE PRACTICES OCCURRED.
Other reports on N500CT · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.