Got “thrown out” of an airport today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill said:
All it takes is a curious passenger to grab the throttle and think “I wonder what this does” and you have disaster.
Click to expand...

Don't know how the throttle is set up in this particular aircraft but it could be a total accident where the passenger hits the throttle with a foot or a knee while being loaded and the sudden wind and acceleration from the plane causes the pilot on the wing to lose their balance and the plane depart the area with only the unbuckled passenger in the rear. This could have been very ugly and is why we, as good stewards of the privileges we have as pilots, need to stop these kind of stupid things from happening.

Should Salty have handled this differently? I think getting into that debate sidetracks us from having the conversation over whether or not what was done here was brilliant or boneheaded.
 
Bill said:
All it takes is a curious passenger to grab the throttle and think “I wonder what this does” and you have disaster. Sit down the effin engine and this whole thing is a nothingburger.
Click to expand...

One of the planes I used to rent would slowly pull the throttle handle in to the firewall. Without constant monitoring, the engine would work itself to full throttle. Don't know if that's something it always did or a problem that developed over time. But I can't imagine getting out of the pilot seat with the engine running.
 
Daleandee said:
I think getting into that debate sidetracks us from having the conversation over whether or not what was done here was brilliant or boneheaded.
Click to expand...
If anyone directly involved with the airplane in question came here looking for validation after a stranger approached him while he was loading passengers we would probably be having a very different discussion. They're not, so I'm not wasting my time lecturing someone who's not here to listen. Instead I'm lecturing someone who's here to not listen, apparently. ;)

Nauga,
shouting into the void
 
Bill said:
All it takes is a curious passenger to grab the throttle and think “I wonder what this does” and you have disaster. Shut down the effin engine and this whole thing is a nothingburger.
Click to expand...

I can even understand hot loading if you have someone who knows what they're doing load the pax WHILE THE PILOT REMAINS AT THE CONTROLS. Heck, that's exactly what they do at the young eagles events I've been to.

If I were an ASI I would be very interested in exactly what's going on here.

images (11).jpeg
 
Everyone sees something different. When I watch the video I don't see anyone being forced to be there against their will.

People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level. Without that no one will be allowed to free solo or fly airplanes or drive or eat at McDonalds.
If people choose to stand 10 feet from a spinning propeller they should have that freedom. To say that the government needs to step in here and make everything 'safer' for all the idiots is to oppose basic liberty.
 
E.W. said:
People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level.
Click to expand...

That works well when people are fully aware of the risks involved. The general public, and especially children, may not know all the risks and that's why we, the educated pilots, are supposed to keep safety at the top of our to do lists.
 
It is the responsibility of the parent to see that their children are kept safe from danger. Everyone else in the country should not have to give up their liberty because some parent can't be bothered to look after their kids.
I'm not saying you shouldn't save the child if you get the chance, I'm saying that taking away the liberties of adults to make their own choices is always wrong.

Daleandee said:
The general public, and especially children, may not know all the risks and that's why we, the educated pilots, are supposed to keep safety at the top of our to do lists.
Click to expand...
 
E.W. said:
Everyone sees something different. When I watch the video I don't see anyone being forced to be there against their will.

People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level. Without that no one will be allowed to free solo or fly airplanes or drive or eat at McDonalds.
If people choose to stand 10 feet from a spinning propeller they should have that freedom. To say that the government needs to step in here and make everything 'safer' for all the idiots is to oppose basic liberty.
Click to expand...

People don't know what they don't know. Unless you have been briefed and trained it's very difficult to understand just how dangerous a spinning prop is. Sure, most intelligent people would wonder about it, and have a sense of fear about it. But to truly understand you need to be told. I don't know how many times I've seen little kids hanging on or trying to pull props on small airplanes while the parent is smiling thinking how cute it is. When I tell them the prop could turn at any time with enough force to crush the kids skull they get a look of horror and pull the kid away. They didn't fully appreciate the danger.

No one is saying they want the government to step in and usher people away from props. What is being said here is we want stupid ass pilots, who should absolutely know better, to stop doing such dumb things as shown in this video.
 
Yeah, I don't care about a bunch of pilots on the ramp standing around a running aircraft as they choose. But the general public? No.

The gun analogy is a good one. I've had people accidentally point guns at me quite a few times over the years. The difference is, every time that's happened the encounter goes something like this: "hey, uh, do you mind?" "Oh s&^t, sorry" "No problem". It ends up being nothing. I've never had anyone be defensive about it. Because they all know it's not the thing to do.

So these guys aren't just doing something wrong, they're apparently doing it as a team, and defending it. Climbing out of a running airplane isn't about liberty, it's about stupid.
 
E.W. said:
It is the responsibility of the parent to see that their children are kept safe from danger. Everyone else in the country should not have to give up their liberty because some parent can't be bothered to look after their kids.
Click to expand...

People go many places in life where their safety is the responsibility of someone else. Adults are responsible for their children but the adults themselves may not know what the dangers are when getting on theme park rides, a drag racing event, airplane fly-ins, etc.

Even at work adults do not understand the environmental dangers that they work in and they have to be trained to know what the dangers are. We cannot assume that non-aviation people on an airport are aware of the dangers that may be present.

No one has to give up any liberty to practice safety ...
 
The whole pilot not in the cockpit thing is what really gives me the willies. Parking brake? I can tell you from personal experience what happens when a parking brake fails, as they occasionally do. Got the life long medics issues to remind me never to completely trust them. On any vehicle, anywhere. Ever.
 
Hmmmm. . .sanctimonious busy body looking to exert control over other people, perhaps drawing conclusion absent facts, and becoming part of the "problem" in the process of recording it? "What if"? - yeah something bad happening was probably more likely than a meteor hitting the ramp. And probably less likely than the breathless description of "possible" imminent disaster. . .
 
I'm with @Salty on this one 100%. That was plain stupid and I will absolutely avoid this airport. I cringe when our local skydive business loads up people with the prop running, although the pilot is at the controls the entire time and two people escort the sky divers into the plane hence it's safe. Still gives me the creeps when I see it. Luckily, they're on the other end of the airport and I told my wife (who usually handles the dog while I get the plane ready) to stay FAR away from that side of the airport. If I saw a running plane with no pilot at the controls at an airport I'm at, I would report it to the owner/operators of the field and if unreceptive (as is the case here), report it to authorities especially if it's a public (albeit privately owned) airport accessible to pilots and non-pilots. There are too many people who don't know the dangers of a spinning prop.

E.W. said:
People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, then to hell with seat belts in cars. And that guy who now mowed down that pedestrian crossing the street was "totally fine driving after just a couple of drinks"... At least that was his choice and he decided his own risk level was perfectly fine.

I don't like gov't regulations. But, unfortunately, my fellow humans prove it to me on a daily basis that common sense ain't all that common and I'm glad *most* government regulations (i.e. wear seatbelts, don't drink and drive, don't fly too low over crowds, etc. - you know, all these regulations that should be common sense, but unfortunately aren't for some and therefore f*** it up for everyone) are in place.
 
E.W. said:
Everyone sees something different. When I watch the video I don't see anyone being forced to be there against their will.

People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level. Without that no one will be allowed to free solo or fly airplanes or drive or eat at McDonalds.
If people choose to stand 10 feet from a spinning propeller they should have that freedom. To say that the government needs to step in here and make everything 'safer' for all the idiots is to oppose basic liberty.
Click to expand...

I'm all for personal freedom. If you want to hop into a part 103 UL with no skill, no training and crash yourself into the ground, you go for it. No rules against it. Have a blast. I'll buy a round of shots at the bar to cheers to your freedom. Key is: it just impacts YOU.

But if you're a regular person who sees a coupon online for a warbird tour flight and then you get sliced up by the propeller because the operators are ****tards who can't be bothered to turn their engine off -- that's not embracing "personal risk". That's called "holy shi*, I'm not a ******* aviation professional and I don't know what to look out for" (esp when your bearded Florida Man marshal is more obsessed about kicking a guy out of the airport for complaining at them for safety standards than caring for his customers).

I mean as an analogy -- how about concert fans who die in pyrotechnic/firework accidents because of shoddy work, or bystanders who get killed accidentally by ******** who don't know how to safely operate a gun. Are those people just embracing too much personal risk, or are they individuals who suffer from the ****tards around them who are too busy sucking their libertarian **** to give an ounce of ***** about other people?

And if you want less regulation - you achieve that goal by making smart enough decisions on your own so that additional regulations are not necessary. It's when people like this do clownish **** like this that regulators decide to sit down and draft another rule and make common sense mandatory.
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
All it takes is a curious passenger to grab the throttle and think “I wonder what this does” and you have disaster. Shut down the effin engine and this whole thing is a nothingburger.
Click to expand...
Cycle a lot of kids through the cockpit of my airplane…fully shut down, of course.

Most are nervous and have to talked into taking the stick, etc. A very few just grab any stick or knob in sight and start banging them around.

Originally, the starter handle could spin the prop even with the master off. Fortunately, none of the outlyers realized it could be pulled.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I woke up in the middle of the night with the realization that my verbiage confused many of you, probably all of you.

Whenever I mention “owner” in this thread, I’m referring to the airport owner. I had no interaction with the pilot at any time. He was still flying when I left the airport. I do not know if the pilot was the aircraft owner or not.

This is how I was “thrown out”. The airport owner directed blue shirt to escort me out. Blue shirt obviously thought I was not a pilot as he was surprised when I stepped onto the ramp instead of turning toward the parking lot.

at the time of the event the airport owner was flying in the stearman. He did not witness the event.

the experimental was doing the hot Load in the same location the Stearman used to stage a paying passenger moments prior.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Yak/CJ are slow/low performance for the size/powerplant. Never understood the allure. You can do more with an RV at fraction of the price. Sorry for the non-sequitur, now back to the furball. MAGNUM! :D
Click to expand...

Except in an RV you are not flying a warbird. And warbirds get invited to air shows, get to fly in the show, get free gas, oil, and smoke oil (if pilot Comm and Class II), and get free meals and a free room.
 
Ok, so let’s look at the question Salty was asked in light of the post above, “Are you a pilot?”

Idk about your airport, but my airport has a sign on the fence saying “Authorized Personnel Only Beyond This Point” or something like that. If there is a restaurant at the airport (which I gather from the thread that there is) and you see an unknown individual walking around a running airplane (setting aside ALL the other facets of this discussion) you would want to approach that individual in the interest of safety.

The question “Are you a pilot” clarifies whether or not that person is “authorized personnel” and therefore allowed in the restricted area.

I wasn’t there for the interaction, so I can see it going something like this:

*Salty taking video of unsafe actions*

*airport owner sees unknown individual walking around running aircraft*

Airport Owner (AO): “Blue Shirt Guy (BSG), go get that dude away from the running aircraft.”

BSG: “Unknown individual, come here…are you a pilot” (Translation: I don’t THINK you belong in this area, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and ask)

Salty: “Do you think the actions you just saw are acceptable?”

BSG: “Well, idk who you are and I’m not sure you’re supposed to be here, so no I don’t think it is acceptable for you to be walking around that plane.”

Salty: “No I’m talking about what those people are doing…”

BSG: “Well, I still don’t know if you are a pilot, so I’m going to have to ask you to leave [the restricted area].”

Salty: “I’m never coming back because this is unsafe.”

BSG: “That’s your prerogative, but let’s go.”

Salty: “Im not going that way, my plane is over here.”

BSG: *so he IS a pilot* “Well, I think it’s probably time for you to go.” *escorts Salty to his plane*

Again, I wasn’t there for the interaction, and this argument seems absurd for all of us to say the AO was wrong for his actions when there is a perfectly plausible string of events that could have led to the outcome.

I’m also 100% with Salty that the actions of loading an aircraft under these conditions is not safe. I’m not disagreeing or faulting him for wanting to bring that up at all.

But the thread isn’t “Unsafe conditions of loading pax” it is “Got thrown out of an airport…”

I would hope that the issue of loading gets addressed by someone who can actually make a difference in the situation, but let’s remember that this is the internet and we don’t have all the facts or even all sides of the story.
 
flyingpreacher said:
*Salty taking video of unsafe actions*

*airport owner sees unknown individual walking around running aircraft*

Airport Owner (AO): “Blue Shirt Guy (BSG), go get that dude away from the running aircraft.”
Click to expand...

Have to stop you right there. You started off with incorrect chain of events.

This is the correct beginning of the chain:

*Salty yells warning to blue shirt who he thought was a non-pilot by-stander to get back from the prop*

*Blue shirt yelling back saying he was "protecting" by-standers*

*Salty takes video of unsafe actions*

....


I repeat, at the time of the incident the airport owner was NOT present. He did NOT witness the video. He was in the Stearman flying a tour.
 
BSG: “Well, I still don’t know if you are a pilot, so I’m going to have to ask you to leave [the restricted area].”
Click to expand...

This is also not accurate.

After I went to talk to the airport owner, who was in the hangar at the time, I went back at my table to collect my belongings and pay the bill for my meal, so I could leave, when he and blue shirt came to "escort me off the property".

There were non-pilots all over the stinking ramp the entire time, before, after, and during. That and the fact that I was not on the ramp shows that it had nothing to do with ramp access.
 
It’s the children.

There should be something like a Godwin’s Law pertaining to children. The first person to invoke the safety or wellbeing of children loses.

The situation described in the OP was obviously unsafe. Posting about it for literally the whole world to see was a petty reaction to someone feeling snubbed.

“I’ll never go there again.” Really? Even if gas is super cheap? How about if they include sweet tea with the tenderloin?
 
Salty said:
This is also not accurate.

After I went to talk to the airport owner, who was in the hangar at the time, I went back at my table to collect my belongings and pay the bill for my meal, so I could leave, when he and blue shirt came to "escort me off the property".

There were non-pilots all over the stinking ramp the entire time, before, after, and during. That and the fact that I was not on the ramp shows that it had nothing to do with ramp access.
Click to expand...

So you absolutely proved the point of my post. There are many details that we are not privy to, and many are casting judgment on both sides without knowing the whole story. Thanks for telling me that I’m right!
 
OneCharlieTango said:
It’s the children.

There should be something like a Godwin’s Law pertaining to children. The first person to invoke the safety or wellbeing of children loses.

The situation described in the OP was obviously unsafe. Posting about it for literally the whole world to see was a petty reaction to someone feeling snubbed.

“I’ll never go there again.” Really? Even if gas is super cheap? How about if they include sweet tea with the tenderloin?
Click to expand...
I have been a customer of theirs both renting and especially the restaurant for years. Many, many visits. I will not go back.

Cheap gas, while a plane is pointed at you unsecured, is not worth the price. Even more, I do not want to be present if a completely innocent person is unlucky enough to be harmed, and I believe the actions I witnessed make that very possible.
 
Last edited:
Salty, unrelated, but kinda related question, was this for some kind of fly-in? I don’t understand why non-aviation personnel would be allowed, in your words, “all over the stinking ramp” under normal circumstances. It seems to me THAT would be a liability concern to the AO.
 
flyingpreacher said:
Salty, unrelated, but kinda related question, was this for some kind of fly-in? I don’t understand why non-aviation personnel would be allowed, in your words, “all over the stinking ramp” under normal circumstances. It seems to me THAT would be a liability concern to the AO.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's completely normal at that airport. The restaurant is right on the ramp. Non aviators regularly have their kids walking around and touching the aircraft. I don't park there unless I can see my aircraft at all times, and I have had to ask people to move away from my plane more than once.

Perhaps this is also context that would have helped had I included it in the OP.
 
Salty said:
Nope. It's completely normal at that airport. The restaurant is right on the ramp. Non aviators regularly have their kids walking around and touching the aircraft. I don't park there unless I can see my aircraft at all times, and I have had to ask people to move away from my plane more than once.
Click to expand...

I don’t think I would visit a place more than once where little Johnny could come hang on my elevator!

And people who might not know what “Clear Prop” means, and who I might not see during taxi from the ramp. YIKES! Gives me the willies just thinking about it!
 
flyingpreacher said:
I don’t think I would visit a place more than once where little Johnny could come hang on my elevator!
Click to expand...
Someone above said "Really? Even if gas is super cheap? How about if they include sweet tea with the tenderloin?". Until now, I justified the situation because of the convienience and good food. I can no longer do that.
 
According to my logbook, I've average a stop there once a month for the last 5 years.
 
does the “owner” own the airport and the restaurant?
 
Unless you like prop damage, why would one ever land there.
Surface: asphalt, in poor condition
RWY 14/32 HAS EXCESSIVE LONGL AND TRANSVERSE CRACKING AND IS PRODUCING LOOSE AGGREGATE.
 
Jim K said:
I can even understand hot loading if you have someone who knows what they're doing load the pax WHILE THE PILOT REMAINS AT THE CONTROLS. Heck, that's exactly what they do at the young eagles events I've been to.

If I were an ASI I would be very interested in exactly what's going on here.

View attachment 113148
Click to expand...
if a EAA chapter is hot loading young eagles, national should be notified. hot loading is not allowed.see attachment.

https://www.eaa.org/-/media/files/e.../youngeagles/1602rev-ye-pilot-guidelines.ashx
 
RyanB said:
I’m not knocking it, but if it were me, I probably would’ve discussed my concerns with whoever was in charge and then if they didn’t seem receptive or chose not to determine a safer course of action, then I would’ve recorded the operation (like you did) and turned it over to the FSDO.

Again, I think you did the right thing by calling this stupidity out.
Click to expand...
yes.
Except it might make sense to record it first from a great distance away....but it always bugs me to see recordings of incidents where all the people are standing around recording on their phones and not doing anything to help or stop the incident.
I'm thinking that in that original discussion with the responsible person, that the best tact might have been approaching it form the perspective of an innocent question...what safe guards are you using?...not an accusation, just to "learn" and also inform them of a potential observation. Who knows...MAYBE there was some safeguard in place that I might find satisfactory (I can't imagine it, but just to give teh benefit of the doubt...)
And then from that..... if still deemed not safe + they still blew it off....then I think it was very appropriate to record the event...but from a greater distance staying removed from the area (don't enter the bubble and make it worse)....and call FSDO asap.

EdFred said:
The video doesn't show enough context, and I'm not always on Salty's side of things, but if what went down is how he said it is, I'm with him on this one.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what context is missing...other then details of the parking brake situation. May not show the complete story, but it's pretty clear in the context it shows... running and pilot-less aircraft with lots of nearby people and property in potential peril.

Several decades ago I worked in a large pulp and paper mill. Heavy industry, strict safety rules, and regular training...very active safety program. We were taught to say something in a very neutral way whenever we see something...and to not get into an argument or fight but just call it to the person's attention that you perceive what they are doing as dangerous. The difference there was that we were also taught and constantly reminded that if someone calls us out that we should just step back and try to see the point...it's not 'personal' and just maybe they are right.
 
E.W. said:
Everyone sees something different. When I watch the video I don't see anyone being forced to be there against their will.

People should be allowed to make their own choices and decide on their own risk level. Without that no one will be allowed to free solo or fly airplanes or drive or eat at McDonalds.
If people choose to stand 10 feet from a spinning propeller they should have that freedom. To say that the government needs to step in here and make everything 'safer' for all the idiots is to oppose basic liberty.
Click to expand...

thats great if you know the risks, but when you don't, and even more so when you are paying for the experience, ( and that HAS NOT been determined in this case) then it is a different ball game. example, i was displaying my aircraft at a aviation open house at the local airport. a man and his son approached the aircraft and grabbed my highly polished prop. rather than get ****ed about the fingerprints on the polished surface, i asked him to not touch it, and explained to the gentleman and his son why it is dangerous to touch a prop on an aircraft. as a layman, he of course had no idea that there was a chance that it could fire. we had a very nice conversation about EAB aircraft after that. I felt that I had a duty to educate him and his son for their safety while at the event.
 
Reckless and negligent behavior. Imagine how you will feel if you do not report it and someone gets hurt.
Report it or send the video to the local FSDO(?).

Here is a photo of the same plane at Arlington in 2014.
1209.Nanchang.CJ-6A.Red.Dragon.2048x40.jpg
 
unsafervguy said:
the aircraft is registered as experimental Exhibition, which means that it must have a program letter issued to it for operation. the letter will authorize who, what when and where the aircraft can be flown. if this flight was not covered by the program letter, multiple violations can be issued.
Click to expand...

The EE category hasn't worked this way for years. The warbird community was able to get rid of the limited practice area which means you can basically go wherever you want. Ops limits are similar to EAB category aircraft. The Program Letter process is still in place as a holdover, but it's just a formality these days rather than a limitation. Without a limited practice area, the Program Letter is effectively moot.
 
“No good deed goes unpunished” seems to fit this post. Salty was trying to do the right thing in the best way HE saw fit. There was a dangerous situation brewing and he tried to intervene, though his warnings fell on deaf ears. Could he have approached it a bit differently? Sure, but we don’t always react perfectly to circumstances, especially when trying to protect others of a possible life threatening situation. Many people have walked into props and they would be grateful if someone like Salty was around to offer cautionary warnings to them and the aircraft operator involved.
 
RoscoeT said:
The EE category hasn't worked this way for years. The warbird community was able to get rid of the limited practice area which means you can basically go wherever you want. Ops limits are similar to EAB category aircraft. The Program Letter process is still in place as a holdover, but it's just a formality these days rather than a limitation. Without a limited practice area, the Program Letter is effectively moot.
Click to expand...
Moot or not, all experimental aircraft require a program letter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top