[shkkmo]

Thanks for the clarification of terminology. "Crash" is indeed a bit ambiguous as a layman's term (though I would personally argue that incidents that cause minimal damage are generally not considered crashes.) Indeed, I think there are even many accidents that don't rise to the level of what I consider a crash (such as when my dad's friend bent a prop by briefy tipping his plane onto its nose when landing on a gravel bar to pickup a load of the moose they had killed. While they did fly it out by cutting/sanding all the prop blades to match and reducing weight, it would seem to easily match the definition of "significant damage" but I still wouldn't call it a crash.)

I believe the claims made by the GP are still clearly wrong, given that they do use the term "accident" and stipulate criteria for investigation that (commercial or passengers) that have no basis in the definition your provided or the NTSB's mandate.

[sokoloff]

> While they did fly it out by cutting/sanding all the prop blades to match and reducing weight, it would seem to easily match the definition of "significant damage"

Probably not (assuming you're trying to determine reporting requirements and figuring out if it's substantial damage). It's specifically excluded: "ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part." The NTSB doesn't want to be bothered everytime a prop makes ground contact, hits a runway light, a towbar, etc. It happens a lot.