Narrative:

My 15 yr old sold (spi, 32 hours dual) and I were on final approach after a personal flight. I was flying. Less than a mi from T/D, my son pointed and said, 'dad, a kite.' I saw the kite in time to do a shallow, nonviolent left bank, evasive dive (in an effort to keep the kite from a propeller/windscreen strike). The kite string (nylon) caught on a right wing leading edge rivet and sliced to the aluminum, jumped to the next rivet and sliced to the aluminum, and then jumped to the crook in the wing, where, dragging the fluttering kite behind, the string cut a v-shaped area of my wing paint, down to the aluminum. I announced to others in the pattern that I just hit a kite string. I called unicom and told them of the strike and asked them to call 911. I exited the plane. At this point the airport manager (who had heard the unicom calls) handed me a xerox of the far's on kite flying near airports. The police arrived about 20 mins later. I told them of the strike. They said there was no law against flying kites. I said that someone, perhaps a child, was seriously injured when the string was yanked from their hands and asked if they would please go check the neighborhood/parkland on final. They said that if someone had been injured, there would have been an emergency call and I shouldn't worry. The next day I called the accident prevention specialist at the baltimore FSDO to report the string strike. We found out who was flying the kites the next day, when as pio of the airpark users' association, I received a call from a reporter from a local paper. It seems that the father of the 8-YEAR old girl flying the kite claims that only 120' of string was let out (I believe I was substantially higher that 120' AGL), that she suffered some deep cuts, but no serious injuries, that there is a md state law about flying kites near airports, that gai's VASI on runway 14 was false perception to pilots of their G/south on final, that the published IFR approach information on runway 14 incorrectly lists the T/D zone as the published airport altitude of 540' MSL when it is actually 493', that unicom was notified 2 hours earlier of kites by an small aircraft that says he had to stay 100' higher than normal on final to stay above the kites, but unicom never answered and never advised subsequent traffic, and that a recently certificated private pilot, who says she had just turned a normal final, and was at 900' MSL, had to do an evasive maneuver to keep a kite from hitting her left, wing strut. I am still in the process of working with the specialist with the bwi FSDO. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states he has received a 10-day letter and cannot believe it. He is being charged with flying low over the houses on approach and running into the kite. FAA doesn't seem concerned with the hazard the kites pose to airplanes. Having researched with the experts re: proper G/south on approach, the minimum altitude for that area would be 88', or 55' above the houses. No pilot flied that close to obstacles on this approach. And he was well above that himself. There is speculation that this may have been a deliberate provocation for media baiting. This suspicion is based on conflicting eyewitness statements about who was flying the kite, a picture of the child which appeared in the paper with no bandages or bruising evident and the fact that the parents called the newspaper, not the airport to complain about the incident. There has been controversy from the housing area re: the airport even though the houses were built long after the airport, against objections of the aviation community. Reporter called and talked to the father, asked about the child and was told there were concerns in the neighborhood about the aircraft flying low on approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ENCOUNTER WITH KITE ON FINAL APCH. EVASIVE MANEUVER TO KEEP FROM HAVING PROPELLER STRIKE. SAFE LNDG.

Narrative: MY 15 YR OLD SOLD (SPI, 32 HRS DUAL) AND I WERE ON FINAL APCH AFTER A PERSONAL FLT. I WAS FLYING. LESS THAN A MI FROM T/D, MY SON POINTED AND SAID, 'DAD, A KITE.' I SAW THE KITE IN TIME TO DO A SHALLOW, NONVIOLENT LEFT BANK, EVASIVE DIVE (IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP THE KITE FROM A PROP/WINDSCREEN STRIKE). THE KITE STRING (NYLON) CAUGHT ON A RIGHT WING LEADING EDGE RIVET AND SLICED TO THE ALUMINUM, JUMPED TO THE NEXT RIVET AND SLICED TO THE ALUMINUM, AND THEN JUMPED TO THE CROOK IN THE WING, WHERE, DRAGGING THE FLUTTERING KITE BEHIND, THE STRING CUT A V-SHAPED AREA OF MY WING PAINT, DOWN TO THE ALUMINUM. I ANNOUNCED TO OTHERS IN THE PATTERN THAT I JUST HIT A KITE STRING. I CALLED UNICOM AND TOLD THEM OF THE STRIKE AND ASKED THEM TO CALL 911. I EXITED THE PLANE. AT THIS POINT THE ARPT MGR (WHO HAD HEARD THE UNICOM CALLS) HANDED ME A XEROX OF THE FAR'S ON KITE FLYING NEAR ARPTS. THE POLICE ARRIVED ABOUT 20 MINS LATER. I TOLD THEM OF THE STRIKE. THEY SAID THERE WAS NO LAW AGAINST FLYING KITES. I SAID THAT SOMEONE, PERHAPS A CHILD, WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED WHEN THE STRING WAS YANKED FROM THEIR HANDS AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD PLEASE GO CHK THE NEIGHBORHOOD/PARKLAND ON FINAL. THEY SAID THAT IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN INJURED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EMER CALL AND I SHOULDN'T WORRY. THE NEXT DAY I CALLED THE ACCIDENT PREVENTION SPECIALIST AT THE BALTIMORE FSDO TO RPT THE STRING STRIKE. WE FOUND OUT WHO WAS FLYING THE KITES THE NEXT DAY, WHEN AS PIO OF THE AIRPARK USERS' ASSOCIATION, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM A RPTR FROM A LCL PAPER. IT SEEMS THAT THE FATHER OF THE 8-YEAR OLD GIRL FLYING THE KITE CLAIMS THAT ONLY 120' OF STRING WAS LET OUT (I BELIEVE I WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAT 120' AGL), THAT SHE SUFFERED SOME DEEP CUTS, BUT NO SERIOUS INJURIES, THAT THERE IS A MD STATE LAW ABOUT FLYING KITES NEAR ARPTS, THAT GAI'S VASI ON RWY 14 WAS FALSE PERCEPTION TO PLTS OF THEIR G/S ON FINAL, THAT THE PUBLISHED IFR APCH INFO ON RWY 14 INCORRECTLY LISTS THE T/D ZONE AS THE PUBLISHED ARPT ALT OF 540' MSL WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY 493', THAT UNICOM WAS NOTIFIED 2 HRS EARLIER OF KITES BY AN SMA THAT SAYS HE HAD TO STAY 100' HIGHER THAN NORMAL ON FINAL TO STAY ABOVE THE KITES, BUT UNICOM NEVER ANSWERED AND NEVER ADVISED SUBSEQUENT TFC, AND THAT A RECENTLY CERTIFICATED PVT PLT, WHO SAYS SHE HAD JUST TURNED A NORMAL FINAL, AND WAS AT 900' MSL, HAD TO DO AN EVASIVE MANEUVER TO KEEP A KITE FROM HITTING HER LEFT, WING STRUT. I AM STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THE SPECIALIST WITH THE BWI FSDO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES HE HAS RECEIVED A 10-DAY LETTER AND CANNOT BELIEVE IT. HE IS BEING CHARGED WITH FLYING LOW OVER THE HOUSES ON APCH AND RUNNING INTO THE KITE. FAA DOESN'T SEEM CONCERNED WITH THE HAZARD THE KITES POSE TO AIRPLANES. HAVING RESEARCHED WITH THE EXPERTS RE: PROPER G/S ON APCH, THE MINIMUM ALT FOR THAT AREA WOULD BE 88', OR 55' ABOVE THE HOUSES. NO PLT FLIED THAT CLOSE TO OBSTACLES ON THIS APCH. AND HE WAS WELL ABOVE THAT HIMSELF. THERE IS SPECULATION THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A DELIBERATE PROVOCATION FOR MEDIA BAITING. THIS SUSPICION IS BASED ON CONFLICTING EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS ABOUT WHO WAS FLYING THE KITE, A PICTURE OF THE CHILD WHICH APPEARED IN THE PAPER WITH NO BANDAGES OR BRUISING EVIDENT AND THE FACT THAT THE PARENTS CALLED THE NEWSPAPER, NOT THE ARPT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE INCIDENT. THERE HAS BEEN CONTROVERSY FROM THE HOUSING AREA RE: THE ARPT EVEN THOUGH THE HOUSES WERE BUILT LONG AFTER THE ARPT, AGAINST OBJECTIONS OF THE AVIATION COMMUNITY. RPTR CALLED AND TALKED TO THE FATHER, ASKED ABOUT THE CHILD AND WAS TOLD THERE WERE CONCERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THE ACFT FLYING LOW ON APCH.

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.