peril of getting off/on aircraft with propeller spinning?

Henning said:
What do you think the jury will decide? Do you think if they found she was a passenger yet still awarded her $2MM, do you think the insurance companies will stick the owner and pilot with $800k?
Click to expand...

If this is a tort case, there would be no right to sue the carrier directly, and the jury will never know what the policy limits are. The judge will exclude any evidence of insurance limits, and would likely grant any motion in limine to prevent anyone from even attempting to make any mention of it in the presence of the jury, subject to major sanctions for ignoring the order.
 
If someone walks into my prop while the plane is on the ramp, its their own fault, so long as the airplane is not moving, and I made sure no one was in immediate danger when I cranked up. A ramp is a place that airplanes are going to have running propellers. The hazard of a moving prop is obvious even to a lay person. Now if children were on the ramp, I would be extra careful. But just for argument's sake, if there is an adult on the ramp I would expect them to take notice of a running aircraft.

We know its a good idea to shut down if passengers are being moved in or out of the airplane. The pilot could be at fault, because though this is not a requirement, it is a considered a reasonable precaution to shut down. But by her own definition, she was not entering or exiting the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
What do you think the jury will decide?
Click to expand...
To quote Col. Nichoson, "I haven't the foggiest."

Do you think if they found she was a passenger yet still awarded her $2MM, do you think the insurance companies will stick the owner and pilot with $800k?
Click to expand...
"Stick" the owner and pilot? That's not the insurer's problem -- collection is the plaintiff's problem. However, one thing of which I'm reasonably sure is that if it is determined that she is a passenger (which may be a question of law for the judge rather than a question of fact for the jury), the insurance company isn't going to pay her one dime over the policy seat limit, and she'll have to collect any damages above that directly from the pilot/owner.
 
dell30rb said:
If someone walks into my prop while the plane is on the ramp, its their own fault, so long as the airplane is not moving, and I made sure no one was in immediate danger when I cranked up. A ramp is a place that airplanes are going to have running propellers. The hazard of a moving prop is obvious even to a lay person. Now if children were on the ramp, I would be extra careful. But just for argument's sake, if there is an adult on the ramp I would expect them to take notice of a running aircraft.

We know its a good idea to shut down if passengers are being moved in or out of the airplane. The pilot could be at fault, because though this is not a requirement, it is a considered a reasonable precaution to shut down. But by her own definition, she was not entering or exiting the airplane.
Click to expand...

Fault and liability are not equal.
 
PPC1052 said:
I said breach of duty. Not duty. The significance being that she came back to the aircraft, unbeknownst to the pilot. Unless there is some reason the pilot to know she was there, what did he do wrong? Again, I ask this in the context that she claims to not be a passenger.
Click to expand...

Apparently she left the plane by walking around the spinning prop.. And then returned to the area of the ramp where the plane was still idling and walked into the spinning prop..... Darwin candidate anyone ? A tv show had a story on her just last week.... Seems she made over a million, per year, for the last few years... One would think she had her own personal health insurance policy to pay for accidents..:dunno::dunno:.. Also most models have additional 'loss of income/ disfigurement/ yada, yada policies to cover stuff they might incur.... In a logical world she would collect from her own ins since it was clearly her fault...Even her family has stated the pilot was not at fault.... If it gets to a pi$$ing match the pilot should sue her for mental anguish as he had to witness her laying there in a pool of blood from her own stupidity. Not to mention he had to have the motor torn down because of a prop strike...:yesnod:

Jus sayin..
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
The lawsuit
Click to expand...

Sued the plane's insurer?

How can that yield anything, other than (hopefully a dismissed case) given that:

  • The insurance company has no contractual obligations to her; just with the insured.
  • The insurance company wasn't flying the airplane and did not own the airplane.
  • The insurance company has the same relationship to the injured as the pilot's electric company has to the injured.
Guess my understanding of the law isn't what it should be. :dunno:
 
No, your instincts are similar to my own. It is possible that she is making a contract claim directly against the carrier, but I don't know. I tend to believe the news article has the details wrong. The media are really bad about reporting on legal matters. I would want to see the complaint myself. I would also want to see the policy to see if she somehow meets the definition of an insured under the policy.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
No, your instincts are similar to my own. It is possible that she is making a contract claim directly against the carrier, but I don't know. I tend to believe the news article has the details wrong. The media are really bad about reporting on legal matters. I would want to see the complaint myself. I would also want to see the policy to see if she somehow meets the definition of an insured under the policy.
Click to expand...

Looks like Reuters has a better description of the lawsuit, though I'm still not clear how, as a third party, she has standing to sue about the interpretation of terms in a contract she is not a party to:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS327246045120120329
 
Jim Logajan said:
Sued the plane's insurer?

How can that yield anything,
Click to expand...
It can yield a declaratory judgement that she was not a passenger, and thus the insurance company's exposure is not limited to the per-seat passenger limit. Since that could be the difference between $200K and $2m in her pocket, it's an important legal issue, and one which I suspect is a matter of law for the court, not a matter of fact for the jury.
 
From the sound of it, her camp's interpretation of "passenger" would be twisting an ankle while getting out of the aircraft. I am sympathetic to her life-altering injuries, but I think it is irrational to deny a settlement when she's the one who walked into the prop. If only is was Mickey-D's hot coffee instead...
 
airbornejohnny said:
From the sound of it, her camp's interpretation of "passenger" would be twisting an ankle while getting out of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Under international aviation law, upon disembarking, she's a passenger until she reaches the terminal. Of course, this isn't international aviation law, but it's one example, and I don't know whether there is any law on point in the state under whose laws this particular insurance contract is writtenm, or the state in which the case is being tried. No doubt both sides are researching this as we speak.
 
Ron Levy said:
Under international aviation law, upon disembarking, she's a passenger until she reaches the terminal. Of course, this isn't international aviation law, but it's one example, and I don't know whether there is any law on point in the state under whose laws this particular insurance contract is writtenm, or the state in which the case is being tried. No doubt both sides are researching this as we speak.
Click to expand...
International law...ya learn something new every day (or at least I did). It still stinks of someone being paid for their own stupidity, err I mean an avoidable accident.
 
airbornejohnny said:
International law...ya learn something new every day (or at least I did). It still stinks of someone being paid for their own stupidity, err I mean an avoidable accident.
Click to expand...
Actually, that international convention strictly limits what one can collect from the carrier.
 
Ron Levy said:
Further, since the attorneys generally do everything they can to exclude from the jury anyone who knows anything about the matter at hand (i.e., no pilots on the jury for this one), it's mostly a matter of which side has the most effective and convincing attorneys and witnesses, not what's really true.
Click to expand...

It's really who has the best acting team.
 
Way old, I know, but I chanced upon an interview where she gave her version of the accident:

On December 3rd, 2011, my mom and I decided to go to our friends house for dinner after church —their house is located on a private airport — and one of the friends was taking people up for plane rides,” Scruggs, 26, recalled. “I’m always up for an adventure so I was the first in line. When the plane landed, it was dark and rainy outside and I was getting out of the plane and when you get out you’re basically at the propeller, so I was sucked into it when I stepped out.
Click to expand...
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...tragic-plane-accident-before-wedding-20142212

Husky A-1C according to the NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employmen...ev_id=20120106X45542&ntsbno=CEN12LA125&akey=1
1.jpg



NOT blaming the victim here--Pilot's fault for not shutting it down...
Her version of the story is just not how I would imagine physics working, is all. Just sucked her right in, huh... I think she probably means that it surprised the hell out of her :yikes:
 
When I was an active CFI, from my initial teaching of the preflight I had my students put the keys on the dashboard so they could be seen while approaching the prop. I also never allowed my students to cross the plane of the prop. Checking for prop nicks was always done by sliding the fuel tester along the prop.
In other words, the prop was ALWAYS live.

I can't stand these pics of students first solos draping their arms over the prop.
This discipline needs to be pounded in from day 1.
 
Ron Levy said:
It is entirely possible, although I haven't researched the matter for case law either way.

That said, it wouldn't be hard to find a lot of expert witnesses to say that based on the history of such accidents, it is unreasonably dangerous to allow an untrained person to exit an aircraft with a whirling propeller out front.
Click to expand...

That sounds too sensible. When I was taught to fly, the instructor had three themes he repeated over and over......weather can easily kill you, do not fast taxi unless it's absolutey necessary, shut the engine down ......always..... before anyone exits the aircraft. The fact that some still hand prop light aircraft has little to do with a non pilot passenger wandering around near a turning prop. Really dumb to let it keep running!
 
Yesterday my kids and I boarded a Beech 1900 with the right engine running. Happens hundreds of times every day with thousands of 'untrained' passengers.
 
weilke said:
Yesterday my kids and I boarded a Beech 1900 with the right engine running. Happens hundreds of times every day with thousands of 'untrained' passengers.
Click to expand...

That's a real stretch! Never on the side of the aircraft where the passengers debark! Plus the passengers route- walk to the terminal is clear unless one is a complete idiot. Totally different from a non pilot getting out of a light aircraft, especially at night. Stupid!
 
ollopa said:
Way old, I know, but I chanced upon an interview where she gave her version of the accident:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...tragic-plane-accident-before-wedding-20142212

Husky A-1C according to the NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employmen...ev_id=20120106X45542&ntsbno=CEN12LA125&akey=1
1.jpg



NOT blaming the victim here--Pilot's fault for not shutting it down...
Her version of the story is just not how I would imagine physics working, is all. Just sucked her right in, huh... I think she probably means that it surprised the hell out of her :yikes:
Click to expand...

Beautiful plane.:):)........ Built about 35 miles from me....

As for the poor gal.. Glad she survived and I "heard" they settled out of court for millions..:(
 
ollopa said:
NOT blaming the victim here--Pilot's fault for not shutting it down...
Click to expand...
Let's not blame natural selection, let's try to defeat it and ensure the survival of the lamest. That's how every species grows stronger, right? </sarcasm>

ollopa said:
Her version of the story is just not how I would imagine physics working, is all. Just sucked her right in, huh... I think she probably means that it surprised the hell out of her :yikes:
Click to expand...
I think you give her too much credit, do not forget that she is a blonde. It sounds a lot like a dumb excuse, not an expression of working knowledge of physics.
 
We used to hot fuel and hot load a 208, it's 100% safe as long as you have someone making sure the dodo birds don't run into the spinning blades of death.

image.jpg
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That sounds too sensible. When I was taught to fly, the instructor had three themes he repeated over and over......weather can easily kill you, do not fast taxi unless it's absolutey necessary, shut the engine down ......always..... before anyone exits the aircraft. The fact that some still hand prop light aircraft has little to do with a non pilot passenger wandering around near a turning prop. Really dumb to let it keep running!
Click to expand...

I have to agree. When something a couple of feet away has the potential to kill or permanently maim people, I think it's prudent to assume that you're surrounded by idiots and act accordingly.

Rich
 
Kritchlow said:
When I was an active CFI, from my initial teaching of the preflight I had my students put the keys on the dashboard so they could be seen while approaching the prop. I also never allowed my students to cross the plane of the prop. Checking for prop nicks was always done by sliding the fuel tester along the prop.
In other words, the prop was ALWAYS live.

I can't stand these pics of students first solos draping their arms over the prop.
This discipline needs to be pounded in from day 1.
Click to expand...
I don't know about using a fuel tester... Not sure I'd have enough tactile feedback. Just be aware and alert. Then again, where I usually end up swinging my prop (it's not exactly ideally indexed, so most of the time I have to swing it to get a towbar under), it'd take some serious movement to get a spark.
 
mkosmo said:
I don't know about using a fuel tester... Not sure I'd have enough tactile feedback. Just be aware and alert. Then again, where I usually end up swinging my prop (it's not exactly ideally indexed, so most of the time I have to swing it to get a towbar under), it'd take some serious movement to get a spark.
Click to expand...
I always had a secondary reason for using the fuel tester.... Metal splinters.

I forgot to mention I had my students check the alternator belt from behind, so they didn't have to cross the arc.

It's these habits in general that develop a respect for the prop, and hopefully raise awareness in all situations, not just the ones I've mentioned.
 
Wingsofglass said:
I was in Boulder a few days ago and as I was preflighting, I saw two guys in a Cessna try and taxi with all three tie downs attached. Just as I was thinking "I wonder when I'm going to do that", the right door pops open and the right-seater gets out and unties all three with the prop spinning. It was frightening. I was too far away to do anything but all I thought was "there's something I'll never do."
Click to expand...

I saw a guy in Las Cruces, NM once pull the front tire chalks out with the engine running. I couldn't believe what I saw. I don't understand. Maybe it is just Darwinism
 
Kritchlow said:
I always had a secondary reason for using the fuel tester.... Metal splinters.

I forgot to mention I had my students check the alternator belt from behind, so they didn't have to cross the arc.

It's these habits in general that develop a respect for the prop, and hopefully raise awareness in all situations, not just the ones I've mentioned.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the alternator belt inspection...
And here I thought I was overly-cautious when it comes to safety. I feel like your heart is in the right place about respecting the prop but your advice sounds impractical. Props don't kill people, people kill people! :D

I did get quietly upset the last time I went flying due to my healthy fear of spinning props. A guy came back in his Cherokee to park next to me while I was doing my preflight. He pushed in the throttle and starting making a turn to get lined up with his space but he just stopped mid-turn with the engine screaming and the plane of the blades going right through me. I moved out of the plane of his prop but he sat there for some time in that state. I didn't like. :(
 
ollopa said:
I was wondering about the alternator belt inspection...
And here I thought I was overly-cautious when it comes to safety. I feel like your heart is in the right place about respecting the prop but your advice sounds impractical. Props don't kill people, people kill people! :D

I did get quietly upset the last time I went flying due to my healthy fear of spinning props. A guy came back in his Cherokee to park next to me while I was doing my preflight. He pushed in the throttle and starting making a turn to get lined up with his space but he just stopped mid-turn with the engine screaming and the plane of the blades going right through me. I moved out of the plane of his prop but he sat there for some time in that state. I didn't like. :(
Click to expand...

Certainly no offense taken about being impractical, but.. I was a successful CFI for a period of time. It worked, so it was practical.
 
In 1990-1994 I flew for the old Precision Airlines. Our sister company, Northeast Express, (we were Northwest Airlink) had a ramp agent in EWR take the shortest path from main chalks to marshal position. Her body was cut in half and thrown over the fence. Passengers witnessed this. It may be available on Google but not sure.
 
Kritchlow said:
In 1990-1994 I flew for the old Precision Airlines. Our sister company, Northeast Express, (we were Northwest Airlink) had a ramp agent in EWR take the shortest path from main chalks to marshal position. Her body was cut in half and thrown over the fence. Passengers witnessed this. It may be available on Google but not sure.
Click to expand...

This looks like it.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001211X13697&ntsbno=BFO94LA002&akey=1

And
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/06/n...g-plane-is-killed-walking-into-propeller.html
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
That's a real stretch! Never on the side of the aircraft where the passengers debark! Plus the passengers route- walk to the terminal is clear unless one is a complete idiot. Totally different from a non pilot getting out of a light aircraft, especially at night. Stupid!
Click to expand...

What that pilot did was stupid. You can't do this with a unbriefed pax or without a handler.

I have boarded caravans, H6 porters and Bell 406 helos with the prop/blades spinning, but there was a briefing and rules beforehand. I have hot-loaded air-tour pax in a 206 with the engine running, again there was a handler and a briefing.

There are few absolutes in aviation.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
I saw a guy in Las Cruces, NM once pull the front tire chalks out with the engine running. I couldn't believe what I saw. I don't understand. Maybe it is just Darwinism
Click to expand...

If it was a taildragger what you saw is done a lot. One should always chock a taildragger ( or any other airplane) they intend to hand prop. To not do so is asking for big trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top