Customer got hit by a prop today.

hotprops said:
also you never let go of a prop ever, when its got air behind it
Click to expand...
who says, got a reference for that? "Behind it" WTF does that mean? when you know the correct terms and are familiar with the procedure, post again.

When you get it right, the engine will set at TDC until hell freezes over, or you push it off TDC.
Would you try to hold a Wright 1820's Prop when it is a geared engine, or the GO-480, any one that has will never advise you to try.
 
Last edited:
It'd be pretty easy for someone to say you were negligent for not following the manufacturer's procedure.

Not saying I agree..but just saying how these kinda things play out...

Both of them say someone should be holding the prop.

Lycoming:

ItJsoik.jpg


Continental:
Wo2QsCH.jpg


If I were you I'd be talking to an attorney before I'd be posting about it on here or talking to anyone about it.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
It'd be pretty easy for someone to say you were negligent for not following the manufacturer's procedure.
Click to expand...
Which takes president? a service instruction or FAR 43.15(2)-c
 
Tom-D said:
Which takes president? a service instruction or FAR 43.15(2)-c
Click to expand...

In the eyes of an injury attorney? Do we even need to discuss that question?
 
jesse said:
In the eyes of an injury attorney? Do we even need to discuss that question?
Click to expand...
No, simply because there will be no legal action over this.

but a couple questions, is the service instruction required to be followed IOWs does it have administrator approval?

Give me an example of an Administrator approved maintenance instruction.
 
Tom-D said:
No, simply because there will be no legal action over this.

but a couple questions, is the service instruction required to be followed IOWs does it have administrator approval?

Give me an example of an Administrator approved maintenance instruction.
Click to expand...

If there were legal action you'd never make any progress with that argument Tom.

"Tom D****, are you a professional certificated aircraft mechanic?"

"Tom D****, were you hired to perform a inspection on an aircraft by the customer that the customer was not qualified to perform?"

"Tom D****, could you please read out loud this paragraph from the manufacturer's instructions for the procedure you performed."

"Tom D****, is it true, that you didn't secure the prop, per the manufacturer's instructions? Is it also true that the unsecured prop caused injury?"

I don't know, if I were you, I would be operating differently in the future to ensure this absolutely would never happen again. You can say there won't be legal action, and I hope that's true, because IMO if there were you'd have a very difficult time walking away unscathed.
 
jesse said:
If there were legal action you'd never make any progress with that argument Tom.

"Tom D****, are you a professional certificated aircraft mechanic?"

"Tom D****, were you hired to perform a inspection on an aircraft by the customer that the customer was not qualified to perform?"

"Tom D****, could you please read out loud this paragraph from the manufacturer's instructions for the procedure you performed."

"Tom D****, is it true, that you didn't secure the prop, per the manufacturer's instructions? Is it also true that the unsecured prop caused injury?"

I don't know, if I were you, I would be operating differently in the future to ensure this absolutely would never happen again. You can say there won't be legal action, and I hope that's true, because IMO if there were you'd have a very difficult time walking away unscathed.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, IF you saw a prop that was at TDC with pressure applied, would you touch it? specially when you knew the dangers involved?
 
as ted would say dont trust me i am on drugs , you tuned up while you were doing this ? you show me one active ap/ia that will say in writing that your actions ,all this tdc foolishness is something he does on a regular basis . the printed transcript of this thread would cost you 500k or more if mr head cut wanted to. remember he has up to a year to fry your ass. i bet as soon his aircraft is out of your care, custody and control,you will be served papers.and i am betting you dont have liability insurance ,because your clients are all great forgiving people . if you had one half of brain you would ask a mod to make this thread disappear asap .
 
Does OCD apply here? Any FSDO guys around??
 
hotprops said:
as ted would say dont trust me i am on drugs , you tuned up while you were doing this ? you show me one active ap/ia that will say in writing that your actions ,all this tdc foolishness is something he does on a regular basis . the printed transcript of this thread would cost you 500k or more if mr head cut wanted to. remember he has up to a year to fry your ass. i bet as soon his aircraft is out of your care, custody and control,you will be served papers.and i am betting you dont have liability insurance ,because your clients are all great forgiving people . if you had one half of brain you would ask a mod to make this thread disappear asap .
Click to expand...
IOWs you can't read either, I never had custody or care of his aircraft. If I thought I had a customer would sue me, they would not be my customer. You must realize the the owner was neither doing the inspection or included in it. His actions were his and his alone.
I believe any judge would agree that we are all responsible for our own actions.
Just because I show the owners the readings, does not mean they can jump in and do any thing they wish.
 
Norman said:
Guilty as charged. That'll be 90 days or $1,000.00.

Then you will have learned you NEVER give a judge a "smart ass answer".
Click to expand...
Smart answer? get real.
 
Norman said:
Guilty as charged. That'll be 90 days or $1,000.00.

Then you will have learned you NEVER give a judge a "smart ass answer".
Click to expand...

Yeah..... I learned that once....well, 48 hours worth to think about what I asked the judge.....:(

And yes, if this ever went to a trial, and looking like it won't, but a prosecutor would tear any excuse apart.

Definition of learning: Measurable and relatively permanent change in behavior through experience, instruction, or study.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
To quote a famous crook....."what difference does it make?":rollercoaster:
Click to expand...
If you were a real IA, you'd know we are not required to have the service letters/instructions or use them.
The only maintenance instructions we are required to comply with are What?
If you are a real IA you'll get that question right.
 
Zeldman said:
And yes, if this ever went to a trial, and looking like it won't, but a prosecutor would tear any excuse apart.
Click to expand...
Then don't make excuses. When a young child comes into your house and gets burned on your wood stove, it's probably your fault for not having the proper safe guards in place. But when the fire inspector sees you light the fire in your stove, then gets burned by it, It's not your fault. he knew better.
 
Tom, wow you just digging yourself deeper with every post. you got that mad cow thing? btw i thought i would never be sued especially by a friend who i built a hangar for cost . he bought a new aircraft and its wingspan would not fit through the door, somehow it became my problem . you forget you live in the USA 2016.Happy 4th
 
Tom-D said:
Which takes president? a service instruction or FAR 43.15(2)-c
Click to expand...


This just further cements the type of individual we are dealing with. I highly suspected it to be the case. Anyways, thanks Tom.

It's gonna be a tough election... Hillary or Trump, I dunno...what's FAR 45.12 (2)-c got to do with which one takes President?:cool:
 
Tom-D said:
Your Honor, IF you saw a prop that was at TDC with pressure applied, would you touch it? specially when you knew the dangers involved?
Click to expand...

I object, your honor. The question is not what a judge would or wouldn't do.

The question is what did a professional mechanic do to prevent someone from injuring himself when allowed by the professional mechanic to observe a dangerous procedure in close proximity to a potentionally deadly propeller. Did he brief where the observer could safely stand? No. Did he brief to stay out of the propeller arc at all times? No. Did he brief the danger of nudging the prop with pressure applied to the cylinder? No. Did he follow the engine manufacturer's recommended procedure for accomplishing compression checks? No.

So let the record show the professional did nothing to mitigate the risk and relied solely on the belief that the injured party was fully aware of the hazards. Let the record further show the professional mechanic disregarded the engine manufacturer's recommended method for accomplishing the procedure. Plaintiff has no further questions.
 
Tom, I am having a hard time finding your FAR reference. The online copy of the FAR that I have found is referenced as follows: 43.15(lower-case letter)(#). I read the whole thing, as it is short, but I'm still not clear on which portion of the FAR you were referring to as 43.15(2)-c.
 
Stevel said:
Tom, I am having a hard time finding your FAR reference. The online copy of the FAR that I have found is referenced as follows: 43.15(lower-case letter)(#). I read the whole thing, as it is short, but I'm still not clear on which portion of the FAR you were referring to as 43.15(2)-c.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in all of Part 43 that absolves someone from taking precautions to prevent injury when conducting an inspection. Tom's reference to 43.15 is a feeble retort to the poster who quoted service bulletins which recommend holding the propeller during compression checks. Part 43.15 allows the inspector to develop and use his own checklist provided it meets the scope and detail of appendix d as a minimum. While Part 43 addresses what has to be inspected it doesn't address how to do so safely which the service bulletin addresses in its notes, warnings and cautions.
 
Tom-D said:
If you were a real IA, you'd know we are not required to have the service letters/instructions or use them.
The only maintenance instructions we are required to comply with are What?
If you are a real IA you'll get that question right.
Click to expand...
Oh.....lol ;-)

§43.13 Performance rules (general).
Click to expand...
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

(b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Oh.....lol ;-)
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

Please explain this , or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator"

There is but two times we must use the exact method prescribed, do you know when that is. ? It certainly isn't the manufactures manuals, or Methods, Techniques, But is acceptable to the Administrator.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top