Treat the Prop as Hot

[Unregistered]

We just had this re-enforced Monday night. The starter wouldn't pull the engine through on compression. The pilot says that he intended to pull the engine through a few times to "limber" it up and then try again. Was not intending to hand prop it to start it so he didn't have it tied down or chocked. Unfortunately, he forgot to turn off the mags. He says that he barely moved the prop and the engine started. He is unhurt. Got as far as the right wing tip before the plane started to move. It crossed the taxiway into an unoccupied shed Tee hangar stall and pretty well destroyed his plane. No one was on board the plane which has us wondering how the FAA force fit this into the "Accident" category under the regulatory definition of "Accident" i.e. occurrence between the time someone boards the aircraft with the intent to fly and the time they disembark.

 

[dmccormack]

Good reminder.

 

[CJones]

Always treat a gun like it's loaded and always treat a prop like it can spin up at any time 'cause either one of them can kill you (or someone else) if you're wrong.

 

[brcase]

I have had both a Champ and a Citabria start on me with the Mags off.

Admittiedly I wasn't hand proping the Citabria, just turning the engine over with the mags off.

Brian

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's the NTSB definition of an "accident":

"Aircraft accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

If everyone had disembarked before the prop was turned, then it might not fall in this definition, and might not have to be reported to the NTSB, but I'm not sure. You might want to have an attorney ask the NTSB field office as a "hypothetical" on Monday just to be sure, but don't delay further, since if it is an "accident," it requires "immediate" notification. The National Transportation Safety Board field offices are listed under U.S. Government in the telephone directories in the following cities: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Ga.; Chicago, Ill.; Denver, Colo.; Fort Worth, Tex.; Kansas City, Mo.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; New York, N.Y.; Seattle, Wash.

As for the FAA, there is no report required regardless -- that's the NTSB's purview. However, if the FSDO gets wind of this by any means, whether it's reported to the NTSB or not, they will be out asking questions.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We just had this re-enforced Monday night. The starter wouldn't pull the engine through on compression. The pilot says that he intended to pull the engine through a few times to "limber" it up and then try again. Was not intending to hand prop it to start it so he didn't have it tied down or chocked. Unfortunately, he forgot to turn off the mags. He says that he barely moved the prop and the engine started. He is unhurt. Got as far as the right wing tip before the plane started to move. It crossed the taxiway into an unoccupied shed Tee hangar stall and pretty well destroyed his plane. No one was on board the plane which has us wondering how the FAA force fit this into the "Accident" category under the regulatory definition of "Accident" i.e. occurrence between the time someone boards the aircraft with the intent to fly and the time they disembark.

Here's the NTSB definition of an "accident":
If everyone had disembarked before the prop was turned, then it might not fall in this definition, and might not have to be reported to the NTSB, but I'm not sure. You might want to have an attorney ask the NTSB field office as a "hypothetical" on Monday just to be sure, but don't delay further, since if it is an "accident," it requires "immediate" notification.

I would say that "pretty well destroyed his plane" probably counts as "substantial damage" and thus it is an accident.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would say that "pretty well destroyed his plane" probably counts as "substantial damage" and thus it is an accident.

There are two issues -- damage/injury, and the presence of persons on board with intent for flight. In this case, the issue in question is not whether it was "substantial damage," but rather whether anyone was aboard with intent for flight. I know of a case where someone taxiied a plane into another plane while going from parking to the fuel pump with no intent to fly. The NTSB said it was not an aircraft accident because there was no intent for flight. In this case, while there may originally have been someone onboard intent for flight, it also sounds like "all such persons ha[d] disembarked."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There are two issues -- damage/injury, and the presence of persons on board with intent for flight. In this case, the issue in question is not whether it was "substantial damage," but rather whether anyone was aboard with intent for flight. I know of a case where someone taxiied a plane into another plane while going from parking to the fuel pump with no intent to fly. The NTSB said it was not an aircraft accident because there was no intent for flight. In this case, while there may originally have been someone onboard intent for flight, it also sounds like "all such persons ha[d] disembarked."

Wow, it is kind of ambiguous as written:

"Aircraft accident" means

an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft

which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked,
and in which any person suffers death or serious injury,

or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Or should it be...

"Aircraft accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft

which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked,

and in which

(any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.)

Hmmm. The definition of an Incident doesn't help clear it up any, either:

Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

 

[Graueradler]

Here's the NTSB definition of an "accident":
If everyone had disembarked before the prop was turned, then it might not fall in this definition, and might not have to be reported to the NTSB, but I'm not sure. You might want to have an attorney ask the NTSB field office as a "hypothetical" on Monday just to be sure, but don't delay further, since if it is an "accident," it requires "immediate" notification. The National Transportation Safety Board field offices are listed under U.S. Government in the telephone directories in the following cities: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Ga.; Chicago, Ill.; Denver, Colo.; Fort Worth, Tex.; Kansas City, Mo.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; New York, N.Y.; Seattle, Wash.

As for the FAA, there is no report required regardless -- that's the NTSB's purview. However, if the FSDO gets wind of this by any means, whether it's reported to the NTSB or not, they will be out asking questions.

The owner did report it to the NTSB just to be on the safe side and to avoid the appearance of having something to hide. They told him to call the FSDO. My impression is that the individual at the FSDO decided that it was an accident. Two FAA people met with the owner Thursday at the scene and there is already a report in the system.

My frustration is that two intelligent people (I include myself and the owner in that categfory) reading the reg came to the conclusion, without wishful thinking, that it was not an aircraft accident per the definition in the reg. How can it be when no one was aboard at the time?

 

[Graueradler]

I would say that "pretty well destroyed his plane" probably counts as "substantial damage" and thus it is an accident.

There is a logical "AND" and a logical "OR". It is grammatically ambiguous but if you read such that aircraft damage alone is sufficient (On board with intent to fly AND serious injury or death as one criteria OR aircraft damage as the other criteria) then it wouldn't matter how the plane was damaged, intent to fly would not be required. A lightning strike with no one around, a lineman pulling it in half with a tug would be an aircraft accident. That logic tells me that it means someone is on board with the intent to fly AND EITHERr significant injury or death occurs OR substantial damage to the aircraft.

The owner did have the intent to fly but was not on board the aircraft. The FSDO guy said that he had the intent to fly and the aircraft was damaged. I pointed out that he had the intent to fly when he headed for the airport but the reg required him to be on board the aircraft with the intent to fly.

 

[Graueradler]

The only reason that the original post was anon is that that is the way the screen popped up when I started the thread and I didn't feel like messing with it.

 

[Mason]

There is a logical "AND" and a logical "OR". It is grammatically ambiguous but if you read such that aircraft damage alone is sufficient (On board with intent to fly AND serious injury or death as one criteria OR aircraft damage as the other criteria) then it wouldn't matter how the plane was damaged, intent to fly would not be required. A lightning strike with no one around, a lineman pulling it in half with a tug would be an aircraft accident. That logic tells me that it means someone is on board with the intent to fly AND EITHERr significant injury or death occurs OR substantial damage to the aircraft.

The owner did have the intent to fly but was not on board the aircraft. The FSDO guy said that he had the intent to fly and the aircraft was damaged. I pointed out that he had the intent to fly when he headed for the airport but the reg required him to be on board the aircraft with the intent to fly.

THIS happened with no intent to fly. Mechanic saw the tornado coming and decided to put it in a hangar, but the wind grabbed it by the tail while he was taxiing.

 

[AdamZ]

OUCH!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There is a logical "AND" and a logical "OR". It is grammatically ambiguous but if you read such that aircraft damage alone is sufficient (On board with intent to fly AND serious injury or death as one criteria OR aircraft damage as the other criteria) then it wouldn't matter how the plane was damaged, intent to fly would not be required. A lightning strike with no one around, a lineman pulling it in half with a tug would be an aircraft accident. That logic tells me that it means someone is on board with the intent to fly AND EITHERr significant injury or death occurs OR substantial damage to the aircraft.

The owner did have the intent to fly but was not on board the aircraft. The FSDO guy said that he had the intent to fly and the aircraft was damaged. I pointed out that he had the intent to fly when he headed for the airport but the reg required him to be on board the aircraft with the intent to fly.

That makes sense.

It sounds like if the FSDO calls something an accident, the NTSB just kinda goes with it. For example, Tony's nose gear collapse in the 182RG got called an "accident" even though it clearly did not fit the NTSB's definition of "substantial damage."

 

[Graueradler]

That makes sense.

It sounds like if the FSDO calls something an accident, the NTSB just kinda goes with it. For example, Tony's nose gear collapse in the 182RG got called an "accident" even though it clearly did not fit the NTSB's definition of "substantial damage."

IIRC gear failure is a specific exclusion in the regs.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Hot mags. A good reason to st the throttle at idle just before pulling the mixture and switching both mags off and back on again to see that the engine dies. Don't do it at higher RPM or you'll get an afterfire that can damage exhaust components. Once in a while one of our students will accidentally switch off when checking the mags on the runup and quickly turn it on again instead of letting it die and restarting, like I'm always telling them. BOOM! It comes as a result of holding the key by its edges rather than the flats, and it can flick off under the squeeze of the fingers.

Now, when I was a kid, everything had a carb instead of injection, and you could shut off your car's ignition and coast a bit, keeping the throttle open, and when switching the ignition on again you'd get a big bang. And sometimes some broken bits, like mufflers or pipes or even the exhaust valves being blown open and striking the pistons. $$$. On my VW Bug I had aZoom tube, the four-inch side-facing pipe that replaced the two little stingers on the muffler, and filling that with raw fuel and setting it off would produce a four-foot flame and huge bang, guaranteed to make hitchiking hippies jump back off the road.

Dan

 

[Tom-D]

If every pilot would treat their aircraft as if this AD was due we would have a lot less hot mag horror stories. AD 76-07-12

look it up, and comply you might find out your mag is hot too.

 

[Graueradler]

Another indicator of a hot mag/open P lead is little or no drop on one side when checking mag drops. An open P lead path results in no drop. A loose nut where the P lead is connected to the mag plus vibration can result in an intermittent connection showing some drop but less that normal.

 

[Tom-D]

Another indicator of a hot mag/open P lead is little or no drop on one side when checking mag drops. An open P lead path results in no drop. A loose nut where the P lead is connected to the mag plus vibration can result in an intermittent connection showing some drop but less that normal.

On a slick, but not on a Bendix.

 

[Dan Thomas]

If every pilot would treat their aircraft as if this AD was due we would have a lot less hot mag horror stories. AD 76-07-12

look it up, and comply you might find out your mag is hot too.

I found a couple of those. The switch's internal rotor stop wasn't made right and you could turn it a bit past the "off" position, unshorting both mag contacts. It wouldn't stay there, though; it would snap back to the off position. I imagine a few maybe would stay in the dangerous position.

Dan

 

[flyingcheesehead]

IIRC gear failure is a specific exclusion in the regs.

If you mean gear failure is specifically excluded from being considered substantial damage, you are correct. From 49 CFR 830.1:

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

So, why they would call a nose gear failure "substantial damage" is beyond me...

 

[Ted]

Yeah, Teller, why do you keep on spinning the prop on your Q400? Didn't you know it could be hot?

 

[dmccormack]

Hot mags. A good reason to st the throttle at idle just before pulling the mixture and switching both mags off and back on again to see that the engine dies.

Dan

The Lycoming O-145 engine manual (1940):

Stopping Engine - After landing allow the engine to idle for a short time before turning off the ignition. If the engine should after-fire when the switch is turned off, the switch should be turned on immediately and the engine allowed to idle for another short period again before turning off the ignition.

My SOP is to switch off fuel as I taxi back in and then run up to 1500 for about 30 seconds, then back to 1000 RPM until the engine dies. Then I switch off mags.

If I'll be flying again soon, I'll idle at 1000 and then switch off.

This seems to have reduced lead fouling considerably.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe the information Dan is quoting applies to planes with no mixture control. Ones with mixture controls should not "after-fire" after the mixture is placed in the cut-off position. You can't get "dieseling" when there's no fuel.

 

[dmccormack]

I believe the information Dan is quoting applies to planes with no mixture control. Ones with mixture controls should not "after-fire" after the mixture is placed in the cut-off position. You can't get "dieseling" when there's no fuel.

I wasn't disagreeing -- was confirming DT's info.

Apparently Lycoming was fine with a mag shut down.

(BTW, my Chief has a mixture control -- safety wired to a set position on the firewall :smile