What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
privacy data omitted Of the airplane contacted the FSDO to report a possible accident/incident. She has allowed three other people to fly the airplane on and off under a verbal agreement. The damage to the airplane was discovered during annual inspection which began in may 2023. The damage is to the tail tie down ring, and it appears to have been pushed back toward the elevator by making contact with the ground. When the ring was bent back, it bent a metal attachment panel and tore part of the composite material on either side of the panel. The airplane was last flown on 28 February 2023 on two different flights by the same PIC. The privacy data omitted asserts that the PIC is at fault for the damage. During interview, the PIC claimed he did not cause the damage but did agree he failed to see the damage during pre and post flight inspection. He was counseled on the operating a non-airworthy aircraft in the nas. While the damage was most likely from a tail strike, the airplane is parked directly across from a helicopter landing point. There is a possibility if a helicopter departed or landed to the point by directly overflying the airplane, the rotor downwash could have caused the tail to go downward and make contact with the ground. No direct person or activity can be tied to the damage at this time.
As the FAA filed it
^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ OF THE AIRPLANE CONTACTED THE FSDO TO REPORT A POSSIBLE ACCIDENT/INCIDENT. SHE HAS ALLOWED THREE OTHER PEOPLE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE ON AND OFF UNDER A VERBAL AGREEMENT. THE DAMAGE TO THE AIRPLANE WAS DISCOVERED DURING ANNUAL INSPECTION WHICH BEGAN IN MAY 2023. THE DAMAGE IS TO THE TAIL TIE DOWN RING, AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PUSHED BACK TOWARD THE ELEVATOR BY MAKING CONTACT WITH THE GROUND. WHEN THE RING WAS BENT BACK, IT BENT A METAL ATTACHMENT PANEL AND TORE PART OF THE COMPOSITE MATERIAL ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PANEL. THE AIRPLANE WAS LAST FLOWN ON 28 FEBRUARY 2023 ON TWO DIFFERENT FLIGHTS BY THE SAME PIC. THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ ASSERTS THAT THE PIC IS AT FAULT FOR THE DAMAGE. DURING INTERVIEW, THE PIC CLAIMED HE DID NOT CAUSE THE DAMAGE BUT DID AGREE HE FAILED TO SEE THE DAMAGE DURING PRE AND POST FLIGHT INSPECTION. HE WAS COUNSELED ON THE OPERATING A NON-AIRWORTHY AIRCRAFT IN THE NAS. WHILE THE DAMAGE WAS MOST LIKELY FROM A TAIL STRIKE, THE AIRPLANE IS PARKED DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM A HELICOPTER LANDING POINT. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY IF A HELICOPTER DEPARTED OR LANDED TO THE POINT BY DIRECTLY OVERFLYING THE AIRPLANE, THE ROTOR DOWNWASH COULD HAVE CAUSED THE TAIL TO GO DOWNWARD AND MAKE CONTACT WITH THE GROUND. NO DIRECT PERSON OR ACTIVITY CAN BE TIED TO THE DAMAGE AT THIS TIME.