Woman walks into propeller

ChrisK said:
http://www.ishn.com/articles/93505-...safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having-

Safety third is about the unintended consequence of compliance based mandatory safety programs fostering complacency.
Click to expand...

Why are safety programs mandatory? Because accidents were happening at an unacceptable rate causing insurance companies to lose too much money, so the insurance lobby writes new bills that they give to the politicians they bought to enact into law. Even that aspect of the problem is rooted in money, as is its counterpoint, 'forget safety, it costs more money in the long run than the accidents do' culture of industry leadership. We value money above all else, as long as that is true of human culture, there will be no solution to this issue.

You can't grow a strong tree with rotten roots.
 
Captain said:
One thing we can do is insist NOBODY runs on the ramps. [...] I know that not the issue here but it's one way to help cut down on these prop incidents.
Click to expand...

Does it really help do that? Has there ever been a documented instance of a person who was running colliding with a spinning propeller? If not, the ban on running sounds a bit like the ban on nail clippers--a gesture that imposes a restriction that has only a symbolic relation to the actual goal.

If anything, I'd expect someone who's running to maintain a slightly greater distance from all parts of an aircraft than someone who's walking, and thus to be at slightly less risk for prop encounters.
 
acrophile said:
Does it really help do that? Has there ever been a documented instance of a person who was running colliding with a spinning propeller? If not, the ban on running sounds a bit like the ban on nail clippers--a gesture that imposes a restriction that has only a symbolic relation to the actual goal.

If anything, I'd expect someone who's running to maintain a slightly greater distance from all parts of an aircraft than someone who's walking, and thus to be at slightly less risk for prop encounters.
Click to expand...

Chinese kid about a year ago in Lantana ran straight into a prop. The greater issue with running is the mindset and focus. When you are running, your 'head is not on a swivel' which it should always be when operating in a high energy dynamic environment.
 
acrophile said:
Does it really help do that? Has there ever been a documented instance of a person who was running colliding with a spinning propeller? If not, the ban on running sounds a bit like the ban on nail clippers--a gesture that imposes a restriction that has only a symbolic relation to the actual goal.

If anything, I'd expect someone who's running to maintain a slightly greater distance from all parts of an aircraft than someone who's walking, and thus to be at slightly less risk for prop encounters.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no running on a flight line! Slow down. Think. Be extremely careful. Flight lines are dangerous, noisy, distracting places. Concentrate on getting where you're going with the utmost of diligence and deliberateness.

dtuuri
 
Henning said:
Chinese kid about a year ago in Lantana ran straight into a prop.
Click to expand...

Link, please? I don't see that in the NTSB database.

When you are running, your 'head is not on a swivel' which it should always be when operating in a high energy dynamic environment.
Click to expand...

I run across open areas of the ramp if I'm in a hurry. I always look carefully enough.
 
acrophile said:
Link, please? I don't see that in the NTSB database.



I run across open areas of the ramp if I'm in a hurry. I always look carefully enough.
Click to expand...

Two Chinese student pilots took a solo together, one jumped out on the ramp away from view of the operations and ran straight forward into the prop. I don't collect links, sorry.

Why are you in a hurry?
 
Damn.

We had a flying farmer stop his plane on the ground to let his kid out to open a gate so he could access the grass strip. Ran right through the prop. Please shut the engine off when passengers are departing the plane ... on the ground. Meat bombs are okay. ;)

One of my greatest fears also.
 
Last edited:
dans2992 said:
I used to jump at a dive operation that would hot load (and also hot fuel) Twin Otters.

Is hot fueling common as well?
Click to expand...
Only place I've ever seen hot pumping was in the military with helos. I don't think it is too common in the civilian world, but I haven't spent much time around turbine jump ops.
 
Henning said:
Why are safety programs mandatory? Because accidents were happening at an unacceptable rate causing insurance companies to lose too much money, so the insurance lobby writes new bills that they give to the politicians they bought to enact into law. Even that aspect of the problem is rooted in money, as is its counterpoint, 'forget safety, it costs more money in the long run than the accidents do' culture of industry leadership. We value money above all else, as long as that is true of human culture, there will be no solution to this issue.
Click to expand...
If we valued safety above all else, we wouldn't do what we do. And if we relied on legislation to back that up (as you seem to suggest it's government's job to protect us from ourselves), what we do would be illegal. :rolleyes:

As to your specific point about insurance, if it wasn't so highly regulated in the first place (do you think that was the insurance companies' idea), the insurance companies would simply raise rates and impose their own compliance programs. Insurance companies are actually very good at determining risk, it is, after all, how they make money.
 
Henning said:
Two Chinese student pilots took a solo together, one jumped out on the ramp away from view of the operations and ran straight forward into the prop. I don't collect links, sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem. I don't think it happened when and where you remember it, though, since the NTSB has no record of that. So I've still encountered no documented cases of running (rather than walking) contributing to a spinning-prop injury.

In any case, I certainly agree that people should never enter or exit a plane while the propeller is spinning, regardless of whether they run or walk.
 
acrophile said:
No problem. I don't think it happened when and where you remember it, though, since the NTSB has no record of that. So I've still encountered no documented cases of running (rather than walking) contributing to a spinning-prop injury.
Click to expand...

Oh sure it happened. Long discussion threads at the time. The other one was a case in Frederick, MD. CFI flies a 'student pilot' on a date to the airport cafe. 'Student' hops out of the plane to run into the cafe and puts her hand through the prop.
 
acrophile said:
In any case, I certainly agree that people should never enter or exit a plane while the propeller is spinning, regardless of whether they run or walk.
Click to expand...
Yep. I left the tail tie down on once and I already stated up the engine. My CFI told me he would get it but he told me to turn the engine off. It takes all but a few seconds to start back up. There is no need to keep it on
 
Lindberg said:
If we valued safety above all else, we wouldn't do what we do. And if we relied on legislation to back that up (as you seem to suggest it's government's job to protect us from ourselves), what we do would be illegal. :rolleyes:

As to your specific point about insurance, if it wasn't so highly regulated in the first place (do you think that was the insurance companies' idea), the insurance companies would simply raise rates and impose their own compliance programs. Insurance companies are actually very good at determining risk, it is, after all, how they make money.
Click to expand...

Regulation does not require insurance, Tort Liability requires insurance. The laws are there to protect the financial industry money from the manufacturing industry greed. Nobody gives a rats ass about the guy on the line, the rig, or in the mines... except juries who award large sums with punitive damages after Gross Negligence is shown, then it costs the insurance companies a large settlement.

Workplace Safety regulations are there to protect the insurance companies from employer greed and employee stupidity; all to the detriment of the evolution of mankind by letting stupid people live long enough to breed. I have no use for workplace safety regulations, I keep myself and my crews safe of my own accord and will tell the company man "No" when I have to. I am anti safety legislation actually, I think it should all go away, because then we could evolve rather than regress as we are.

What I am against is the misappropriation of responsibility for the system and rules we have. If you want the answer to why something happened in America (most of the rest of the world as well, we have exported our system world wide because guess what? The money behind the insurance industry is world wide. Our financial industry is what the radical Islamists are referring to as "The Great Satan"), just follow the money, don't worry about the lives or ecological nightmares.
 
acrophile said:
No problem. I don't think it happened when and where you remember it, though, since the NTSB has no record of that. So I've still encountered no documented cases of running (rather than walking) contributing to a spinning-prop injury.

In any case, I certainly agree that people should never enter or exit a plane while the propeller is spinning, regardless of whether they run or walk.
Click to expand...

Search this forum, there's at least one thread on it.
 
Lawreston said:
Nobody gets out of my plane until the prop is stopped. I don't care if the passenger is just going to a nearby vehicle to get a forgotten purse or article of clothing. The door doesn't open until total shut-down.

HR
Click to expand...

That just doesn't happen with turbine jump planes. They keep em turning and burning while they load and offload. The engines run both on hours AND cycles... and economically they aren't going to incur 10 cycles when 1 can be done.

This is about complacency. And a very harsh lesson at that.
 
Henning said:
Search this forum, there's at least one thread on it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't find it. Searching for "Lantana" and "LNA" turns up nothing relevant in the past two years. Searching for "prop strike" turns up too many threads to be useful.
 
acrophile said:
Sorry, can't find it. Searching for "Lantana" and "LNA" turns up nothing relevant in the past two years. Searching for "prop strike" turns up too many threads to be useful.
Click to expand...

I kinda remember the deal.. Seems like it was a student solo pilot carrying a passenger and he didn't want to get caught so one of them ran off after they got on the ramp.... He just ran the wrong way...:sad::sad:
 
I think you're correct. Ultimately, they got caught. :redface:

N801BH said:
I kinda remember the deal.. Seems like it was a student solo pilot carrying a passenger and he didn't want to get caught so one of them ran off after they got on the ramp.... He just ran the wrong way...:sad::sad:
Click to expand...
 
N801BH said:
I kinda remember the deal.. Seems like it was a student solo pilot carrying a passenger and he didn't want to get caught so one of them ran off after they got on the ramp.... He just ran the wrong way...:sad::sad:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was two student pilots who took a flight together (personally I think that should be allowed anyway).
 
N801BH said:
I kinda remember the deal[.] Seems like it was a student solo pilot carrying a passenger and he didn't want to get caught so one of them ran off after they got on the ramp[.]
Click to expand...

Ok, found it. It was Castle Airport in California in 2008, not Lantana in Florida in 2013 (unless there were two such propeller fatalities involving Chinese student pilots illegally flying together).

"... the victim got out of the co-pilot seat and came around the front of the plane. Deputies believe that while the student was attempting to get back into the pilot seat he 'misjudged the distance' and was struck in the head by the propeller."

http://2ndcity.wordpress.com/2008/1...lled-in-propeller-accident-at-castle-airport/
 
acrophile said:
No problem. I don't think it happened when and where you remember it, though, since the NTSB has no record of that. So I've still encountered no documented cases of running (rather than walking) contributing to a spinning-prop injury.
Click to expand...

Happened at Castle airport in 2008:

NTSB Identification: WPR09LA040
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, November 15, 2008 in Atwater, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 09/10/2009
Aircraft: CESSNA 152, registration: N45994
Injuries: 1 Fatal,1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.At the completion of the final leg of a cross-country flight, the two student pilots taxied the airplane toward the ramp. Prior to reaching the parking area, the student pilot seated in the right seat, concerned about being seen by flight school personnel, instructed the other student pilot to taxi the airplane to the designated parking area, where he would exit the airplane. The student pilot seated in the left seat reported that after the student pilot seated in the right seat exited the airplane, he ran toward the front of the airplane and was struck by the turning propeller.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The second pilot's failure to see and avoid the rotating propeller after exiting the airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Only place I've ever seen hot pumping was in the military with helos. I don't think it is too common in the civilian world, but I haven't spent much time around turbine jump ops.
Click to expand...
It is pretty common at DZ's with turbines. We hot fuel everytime unless there is a reason to shut down.
 
Does it impart a lot of "wear" on the engine when a turbine starts such that you really want to limit the number of starts?
 
dans2992 said:
Does it impart a lot of "wear" on the engine when a turbine starts such that you really want to limit the number of starts?
Click to expand...

A turbine has several parts with a hard number of cycles before maintenance is required, in addition to the usual hour-based TBO for the engine as a whole.
 
dans2992 said:
Does it impart a lot of "wear" on the engine when a turbine starts such that you really want to limit the number of starts?
Click to expand...

I does impart a lot of wear on the engine just as multiple starts on a recip but probably worse for a turbine. The start cycle on a turbine is operating at a pretty high temp at a relatively low RPM. Low RPM = less cooling air for the blades. Sitting at idle actually produces far less temp than the start sequence. As said above, once you hit so many start cycles, major maintenance is required. A lot of times it's just easier to bolt on a "new" used engine instead of tearing the old one apart and replacing the turbine (N1 / N2) sections.

I'd say most of the operating practices for keeping the engine(s) running deals with saving time (hot loading) and not really engine wear.
 
dans2992 said:
Does it impart a lot of "wear" on the engine when a turbine starts such that you really want to limit the number of starts?
Click to expand...

Its not the wear... its the thermal expansion/contraction that occurs with going from ambient to up to 800 degrees centigrade. These number of cycles are finite in the life of the applicable engine parts, after which they are replaced. Would be the equivalent of overhauling a 2000 hr TBO engine at 450 hrs or even less. Not economical at all. Check out the cost of the engine and its maintenance program. When my dad was a helicopter pilot in the 80's turbine helo time ran $400-450 hr for a single engine jet ranger. Take the rotor blades out of the equation and most of that cost is the turbine and its fuel. I couldn't even tell you what it costs nowadays.

Jump zones will hot load and hot fuel as long as there are people to haul up top. They will refuel while empty, before loading the next group.
 
They make prop brakes for turboprops that aren't directly geared to the turbine. But Safety Third!
 
weilke said:
Happened at Castle airport in 2008:

NTSB Identification: WPR09LA040
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, November 15, 2008 in Atwater, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 09/10/2009
Aircraft: CESSNA 152, registration: N45994
Injuries: 1 Fatal,1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.At the completion of the final leg of a cross-country flight, the two student pilots taxied the airplane toward the ramp. Prior to reaching the parking area, the student pilot seated in the right seat, concerned about being seen by flight school personnel, instructed the other student pilot to taxi the airplane to the designated parking area, where he would exit the airplane. The student pilot seated in the left seat reported that after the student pilot seated in the right seat exited the airplane, he ran toward the front of the airplane and was struck by the turning propeller.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The second pilot's failure to see and avoid the rotating propeller after exiting the airplane.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, or the pilot let the brakes slip and the plane moved forward, since the wing strut kinda forces you to walk away from the prop, any witnesses?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Doggtyred said:
Its not the wear... its the thermal expansion/contraction that occurs with going from ambient to up to 800 degrees centigrade. These number of cycles are finite in the life of the applicable engine parts, after which they are replaced. Would be the equivalent of overhauling a 2000 hr TBO engine at 450 hrs or even less. Not economical at all. Check out the cost of the engine and its maintenance program. When my dad was a helicopter pilot in the 80's turbine helo time ran $400-450 hr for a single engine jet ranger. Take the rotor blades out of the equation and most of that cost is the turbine and its fuel. I couldn't even tell you what it costs nowadays.

Jump zones will hot load and hot fuel as long as there are people to haul up top. They will refuel while empty, before loading the next group.
Click to expand...

Damn. There goes my plan on getting a TBM for my 50nm hamburger runs.
 
denverpilot said:
They make prop brakes for turboprops that aren't directly geared to the turbine. But Safety Third!
Click to expand...

They do? For use with the burners operating?:confused: That would sound like a sure fire way to destroy a PT disc to me.
 
teejayevans said:
Hmmmm, or the pilot let the brakes slip and the plane moved forward, since the wing strut kinda forces you to walk away from the prop, any witnesses?
Click to expand...

Good point. The student pilot at the controls at the time was the only witness mentioned. If your speculation is correct, the other student might have fared better if he'd been running away faster!
 
He might have ducked a little under the strut. That would also explain why he got hit in the head.
 
acrophile said:
Good point. The student pilot at the controls at the time was the only witness mentioned. If your speculation is correct, the other student might have fared better if he'd been running away faster!
Click to expand...

Sure, if you dont like the facts as presented, you just have to change the facts to fit what you think they should be.
 
weilke said:
Sure, if you dont like the facts as presented, you just have to change the facts to fit what you think they should be.
Click to expand...

No one was "changing the facts". We were discussing various possible scenarios that are consistent with the available evidence.
 
denverpilot said:
They make prop brakes for turboprops that aren't directly geared to the turbine. But Safety Third!
Click to expand...

Uh, what? Do you have a link to that? Never seen such a device for a turboprop.


Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
 
flyingmoose said:
Uh, what? Do you have a link to that? Never seen such a device for a turboprop.


Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

ATRs have it as a factory option to allow one engine to be run as an apu without the prop turning.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
In my day ATR stood for Automatic ****** Remover. If you are a guy stay away from that.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top