Fatal: walked into prop

Pinecone said:
My Dad was a Navy pilot, flying piston aircraft. I was taught from the first time I got to go on the ramp, that you treated EVERY prop as if it were turning. And TO STAY AWAY FROM THEM.
Click to expand...

Same here. And in my later life, the scariest thing on an aircraft carrier flight deck was the E-2 at night. Silent and invisible once those sodium lights were dimmed. I would give that thing the widest berth whilst walking to my jet. Once saw a young airman nearly lose his life, were it not for a more experienced sailor who grabbed him by the float coat inches before he entered that arc.
 
In my much younger days I would refuel Bell 47s after flight using Jerry cans. They did not have a Rotor Brake so the Rotor would continue turning in the wind. I did draw a lot of laughs dragging a can with my chin almost hitting my knees. I didn’t think it was funny though.

Also know a guy that got sucked in a jet engine; and lived.
 
Kritchlow said:
Nope. Stand behind the prop and reach around.
Keep arm behind the arc.
Click to expand...
Uh no. That’s not even possible on most, if not all, planes. Generally, the arc is less than an inch from the cowl. It’s certainly far less than a hands width, let alone an arm bent in some masochistic attempt to access the belt from behind the prop. You’d be far more likely to put your head in the arc attempting to do it that way.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
I respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I can provide the analogy to tailwheel training, several instructors I know will say to NEVER use the brakes when landing in a taildragger, but that's really just not feasible when doing back country, working difficult crosswinds or saving student mistakes. They are a tool and should be taught as a tool that has consequences. If you go mashing on the brakes, contrary to popular belief most taildraggers will NOT nose over, but will skid first (depending on plane and speeds). But to not teach a tool and just instill fear in students to get them to not use it, rather than have them understand it is not a good method of teaching.

To bring this back to the prop arc, I think students should understand why and when a prop can be dangerous, and how to mitigate those risks. But to just say "Don't ever go into the prop arc" really does a disservice for when it is necessary, just as not teaching proper braking in taildraggers does the students a disservice.
Kritchlow said:
We even had a rule to put the keys on the dash so you could see them (not in the ignition) when coming close to the arc… which was necessary.
Click to expand...
Now on this, we agree (see risk mitigation).
 
Fearless Tower said:
That raises even more questions.

According to that there was a pilot and ‘co-pilot’. The deceased and his date were strictly passengers, implying they were sitting in the back of the 172. So, one of the ‘pilots’ had to get out with the engine running for them to exit the aircraft.
Click to expand...
You can get out of the back seat in a 172 with the front seat occupied.
 
Cowl plugs. How ya gonna remove cowl plugs without reaching through the arc?

Prop leading edges. How ya gonna check for nicks “deep enough to catch a fingernail” without breaking the arc?

Bugs. How ya gonna wash the nose bowl without reaching through the arc?

Then, of course, there a several maintenance items that require reaching through the prop and sometimes even turning it! Clutch the pearls!

It’s just silly to say you should never, ever breach a prop arc.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Prop leading edges. How ya gonna check for nicks “deep enough to catch a fingernail” without breaking the arc?
Click to expand...
This ^^.

I also don't know how one person pushes a single-engine piston backward using a towbar to steer without pushing on either the prop or structure behind the prop. On my plane, attempting to push solely on the towbar is almost certainly going to result in personal injury.
 
Jim_R said:
I also don't know how one person pushes a single-engine piston backward using a towbar to steer without pushing on either the prop or structure behind the prop.
Click to expand...
Not all single engine airplanes have nosewheels ;)
 
Last edited:
Ryan Klems said:
And if it was a charter flight who lets their passengers out while engine is still running.
Click to expand...

I worked for a company doing island hopping with quick turn-arounds. They routinely exited passengers with the engines running, but had a well trained ramp agent come out first and escort them safely.
 
Unless the airplane is on fire and your being chased by armed terrorsists, there is really no need to let anyone deplane with the engine running. On the other hand, 'never touch a prop' is a bit excessive. Of course one has to be careful near a stationary prop, just like you would with any power tool, but there is no need to be afraid.

This accident should not have happened.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Harder, but not impossible to walk into the prop arc due to the beer holder surfaces. You just automatically steer clear-“ish”. Still doesn’t mean a hand or arm can’t cross the arc.
Click to expand...
Another nice thing about a Velocity. Almost impossible to accidentally get into the prop arc. I dropped off more than one passenger without shutting down. Even then, they were all pilots. Never had a situation where dropping off a non-pilot without shutting down was beneficial.
 
Salty said:
Uh no. That’s not even possible on most, if not all, planes. Generally, the arc is less than an inch from the cowl. It’s certainly far less than a hands width, let alone an arm bent in some masochistic attempt to access the belt from behind the prop. You’d be far more likely to put your head in the arc attempting to do it that way.
Click to expand...
You don't decowl for every preflight?
 
Is it just implied that the engine was running? I didn't read anywhere on the reports about engine running or prop turning.
 
I will say it again. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving the engine running while a passenger exits the airplane. If you are in that big of a hurry you should probably evaluate if you are fit to fly. If you do not know how to start a hot engine, seek training.
 
Grum.Man said:
I will say it again. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving the engine running while a passenger exits the airplane. If you are in that big of a hurry you should probably evaluate if you are fit to fly. If you do not know how to start a hot engine, seek training.
Click to expand...

It seems absurdly obvious to say but people don’t die walking into a prop that isn’t moving. I don’t understand the bad decisions from haste I’ve seen across a lot of aviation. Stop the engine. Deplane passengers. Restart when it’s time to go. Inconvenient? Maybe but less so than someone being dead.
 
Salty said:
Uh no. That’s not even possible on most, if not all, planes. Generally, the arc is less than an inch from the cowl. It’s certainly far less than a hands width, let alone an arm bent in some masochistic attempt to access the belt from behind the prop. You’d be far more likely to put your head in the arc attempting to do it that way.
Click to expand...
Well I admit I have not flown every light GA plane type out there, but I have flown a good variety of Cessnas and Pipers. I assure you it is possible, at least on the light airplanes I have flown. I have never done it any other way.
 
Not trying to get too graphic, but how do they know the person was struck exactly twice by the prop? Were there only 2 visible injuries, 2 audible thuds, or are they actually saying the person was hit by the prop once, then was struck again after initial impact (while stumbling forward, etc.)? I guess in the end it doesn't matter how many times, but that just seems like a strange detail to have been reported.
 
Aviator305 said:
Come on.
Click to expand...
Granted, it seems like paranoid overkill, but that technique is not so much about “just in case the engine fires when I’m checking the belt”, but rather in general developing a discipline and respect for the prop.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well I admit I have not flown every light GA plane type out there, but I have flown a good variety of Cessnas and Pipers. I assure you it is possible, at least on the light airplanes I have flown. I have never done it any other way.
Click to expand...
I think your memory is faulty on this one.
 
Last edited:
gearFX said:
Not trying to get too graphic, but how do they know the person was struck exactly twice by the prop? Were there only 2 visible injuries, 2 audible thuds, or are they actually saying the person was hit by the prop once, then was struck again after initial impact (while stumbling forward, etc.)? I guess in the end it doesn't matter how many times, but that just seems like a strange detail to have been reported.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing two visible strike marks before the prop either stopped or pushed the victim out of the way of further contact.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well I admit I have not flown every light GA plane type out there, but I have flown a good variety of Cessnas and Pipers. I assure you it is possible, at least on the light airplanes I have flown. I have never done it any other way.
Click to expand...
I have a PA28-180 and I would feel much more at risk trying to check belt tension from the rear than reaching through the front in the prop arc. I agree with the healthy respect for the prop, but not at the cost of creating more risk of injury. I think there's a gap of about 2" between the cowl and the trailing edge of the prop. I can't imagine being able to get my hand out of there if the prop kicked, particularly compared to reaching straight in.
 
E.W. said:
According to this article :https://www.yabaleftonline.ng/niger...ller-private-plane-rented-dinner-date-america
The man killed was Nigerian.

The local sheriff’s office insisted no one was at fault. I can't really agree with that opinion. Seems clearly Aliyu's fault for walking himself into the propeller.
Click to expand...

I would assign blame to the PIC for not stopping the engine. What still isn’t clear was if that was the victim or if this was a charter. Either way this was preventable with simple adherence to safety protocols.
 
John Spartan said:
I would assign blame to the PIC for not stopping the engine. What still isn’t clear was if that was the victim or if this was a charter. Either way this was preventable with simple adherence to safety protocols.
Click to expand...
How many C172s are used for charter? I don't think that the math works out very well with the expense of Part 135 compliance vs. the mission capability of that model.
 
dbahn said:
How many C172s are used for charter? I don't think that the math works out very well with the expense of Part 135 compliance vs. the mission capability of that model.
Click to expand...
Cannot disagree but the media is notoriously incapable of writing accurately where aviation is concerned. Then again, people do some strange things.
 
John Spartan said:
Cannot disagree but the media is notoriously incapable of writing accurately where aviation is concerned. Then again, people do some strange things.
Click to expand...

The only thing that the media reported was that a C172 was involved. I don't think they said anything about it being a charter flight, did they?
 
dbahn said:
The only thing that the media reported was that a C172 was involved. I don't think they said anything about it being a charter flight, did they?
Click to expand...


The first article said the victim rented the plane to go on a date. Since he wasn’t the pilot, what was the arrangement?
 
Half Fast said:
The first article said the victim rented the plane to go on a date. Since he wasn’t the pilot, what was the arrangement?
Click to expand...

"Pseudo charter", i.e. illegal charter.

At least in my opinion.
 
dbahn said:
"Pseudo charter", i.e. illegal charter.

At least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We have nothing to indicate that’s the case.

Again there were 4 people in the airplane.

Sounds more like a bunch of college students renting a plane for a double date than 134.5

ATL FSDO will figure it out.
 
Fearless Tower said:
We have nothing to indicate that’s the case.

Again there were 4 people in the airplane.

Sounds more like a bunch of college students renting a plane for a double date than 134.5

ATL FSDO will figure it out.
Click to expand...

This is the language I was referencing before.

Aliyu had hired a plane to take him and his date to Savannah for dinner, which is around 55 miles from Statesboro, the main campus of the university, where he was studying.​

Renting a plane and hiring one have different meanings. Like I said. It just may be a journalist issue.
 
On the Archer that I fly regularly, the prop almost always stops vertically, so without physically moving it, it is in the way of the tow bar. I'm genuinely curious, for the people who advocate to never touch or get near the prop, how would you handle the situation I described?
 
John Spartan said:
This is the language I was referencing before.

Aliyu had hired a plane to take him and his date to Savannah for dinner, which is around 55 miles from Statesboro, the main campus of the university, where he was studying.​

Renting a plane and hiring one have different meanings. Like I said. It just may be a journalist issue.
Click to expand...

That’s the problem with journalists.

One article says he hired the plane, another said he rented the plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top