According to the news, the pilot "pilot accidentally knocked the propeller"!

[Capt Claret]

Pilot-less plane destroys aircraft in runway crash
By Gina Marich

Updated 27 minutes ago


A pilot-less plane smashed into this aircraft on a remote airstrip in the NT. (ABC TV)

MAP: Gunbalanya 0822
A light aircraft has been destroyed after a pilot-less plane crashed into it on a remote airstrip in the Northern Territory early this morning.

Police say both planes were on the ground at Gunbalanya, about 330 kilometres east of Darwin, when one of the plane's engines started up when the pilot accidentally knocked the propeller.

"It is believed the pilot had been in the process of preparing the aircraft to be taxied to another area when he exited the aircraft, accidentally knocking the propeller, causing the engine to start," police said in a statement.

"The plane has then moved forward about 20 metres before colliding with the rear of another Cessna, causing extensive damage."

Police say the damaged plane is a write-off.

"This was a pretty unusual job for us to attend and the pilot was extremely fortunate he was not injured as a result of the incident," Senior Constable Nathan Conelius said.

The pilot was breath-tested but returned a negative alcohol reading.

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau was notified but the bureau says it is unlikely to investigate the matter further.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201002/r521729_2898441.jpg

Glad he didn't try to hand swing it!

[Tiger35]

Geez, a negative result is good thing in Policeland?

[cosmo21]

Idle C/O Master, mags off....

[Benjamin James]

Mags off is no guarentee, always treat every engine as live.

[The Green Goblin]

I've had to hand start the good old 520 a couple of times.....believe me it takes more than a knock to get it going :}

Perhaps he pulled it through to face the prop?

[Aeroo]

Same story on Ninemsn (give or take 90km):

17:00 AEST Fri Feb 26 2010
2 hours 40 minutes ago

By Jonathan Uptin, Nine News Darwin

http://images.ninemsn.com.au/resizer.aspx?url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/2010/national/2602_plane_lg_sp.jpg&width=310
The damaged plane after the crash. (NT Police)
A plane with no-one at the controls has crashed into another aircraft in a freak accident at a remote airstrip in the Northern Territory.

The Cessna's engine accidentally started when the pilot brushed the propeller as he was preparing to move the plane at Oenpelli, some 250km east of Darwin.
It starting moving and careered into the back of another Cessna about 20m away.

[paulg]

Happy nobody has bumped my propeller.

[ControlLock]

Police attended Oenpelli Airport about 1am this morning relation to an aircraft accident.

It is believed the pilot had been in the process of preparing the aircraft to be taxied to another area.

Where is he/she going at 1AM???

[The Green Goblin]

Police attended Oenpelli Airport about 1am this morning relation to an aircraft accident.

It is believed the pilot had been in the process of preparing the aircraft to be taxied to another area.

Where is he/she going at 1AM???

Especially with the the way it's been pissing down over the last 24 hours!

[ABX]

Police say the damaged plane is a write-off.
So the NT Police are insurance assesors now?:\

[struggler123]

word floating around is the plane was all ready to start (mixture rich, master on, throttle open), tie downs were noticed to be still attached, so pilot jumped out to un-tie the plane without changing the settings (mixture etc) then bumped into the prop when walking to get back to get into the plane, and the plane started.

couple of things that i don't get are surely a 206 couldn't start just by bumping the prop even if the master etc were on? which makes you think was the plane already started when they noticed the tie downs were still attached an they didn't bother to shut down the engine..

and why was the plane being started at that time of night??

[Mr.Buzzy]

Quack quack........

[onetrack]

Hmmmm .. do I hear this particular pilot in his new job? - "Did you want fries with that?? ...... :suspect:

[Graybeard]

Dead battery; hand propping with throttle open too far; not tied down good enough; common scenario. . This is the first time I've heard this excuse, though.

Bumping the prop? The pilot should be fired for clumsiness.

GB

[ABX]

Bumping the prop, couldn't the pilot come up with something better than that? We always treat the prop with caution and make sure not to get too close to it - for this very reason. It is something ingrained into us from day one.
...which makes you think was the plane already started when they noticed the tie downs were still attached an they didn't bother to shut down the engine.
My money is on this one!

[JulieFlyGal]

I really feel for the pilot and hope this incident won't affect his or her career now or in the future. As the saying goes, one can only learn from experience, whether it be good or bad experiences.

[AerocatS2A]

That kind of sympathy is unusual on this board... it was you wasn't it JulieFlyGirl? ;)

Another plausable scenario which fits with the pilot's story is that it had been running but he shut it down when he noticed the tie-downs. Prop stops not far from TDC and he bumps it just enough to push it over the top.

Reason he was taxiing at night in crap weather? Because it was crap weather and he wanted to move it to a safer spot (hangar?)

He's lucky he didn't get chopped up.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I really feel for the pilot and hope this incident won't affect his or her career now or in the future.

You're right there Julie - it can't be nice to have your mistakes aired publicly and have your professional reputation ripped to shreds. In fact I can speak from experience and assure you it can be torture :ouch:

I have a bit of sympathy for the WW pilot for this reason, and his company didn't help by putting him on a pedestal (makes him easier to hit with the rocks we're all throwing). Poor bastard. :(

Onetrack
Hmmmm .. do I hear this particular pilot in his new job? - "Did you want fries with that?? ......

Hope you never make a mistake!

[frigatebird]

and IF you do, hope you learn from it, get back on thee horse, and don't make it a second or third time.. ( as a post script to the above)

[struggler123]

"Another plausable scenario which fits with the pilot's story is that it had been running but he shut it down when he noticed the tie-downs. Prop stops not far from TDC and he bumps it just enough to push it over the top."

I don't think that is plausable aerocat. If they did shut down the engine the the mixture an throttle would be pulled back, an if the prop was knocked passed TDC, the plane wouldn't have started an accelerated up the back of the other one (as it looks like it did from the pics). The throttle must have been open quite a bit, because if I remember correctly oenpelli's apron slopes upwards in the direction those planes are facing.

[777WakeTurbz]

Not saying this actually happened but thought i would throw it out there. Another plausible explanation could be that he/she had the a/c running, noticed the tie downs still tied down and rather than shutdown and have to restart, pulled the handbrake on thinking it would stop the a/c going anywhere while he/she undid the tiedowns... EPIC FAIL :}

Turbz :E

[onetrack]

Horatio - Yes, I've made mistakes - but I'm unforgiving when a person who is supposed to be a thoroughly trained professional, does something, that to my line of thought - not only involves all three of the unprofessional failings of Capt A.G. Lamplughs quote - but which story of the event, also smacks of lying as well.
Despite the media misdescriptions and errors in reporting, I suspect he isn't telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am being hard on him/her for basic unprofessional failings, and possibly basic honesty and integrity failings.
Except for the greatest stroke of luck, we are looking today at a physically destructive event, that is only a whisker away from reporting another aviation serious injury/fatality. One is reminded of the Yak-52 incident at Albury?

Aviation Quotes (http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/resources/quotes.html)

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/18-19.pdf

[Capt Claret]

There's no indication thus far, if what's reported as fact, is fact. We've all read journalistic bloopers on these fora, so it's entirely possible that the pilot didn't say that they knocked the prop but a journo has tried to translate a technical explanation in to layperson's terms.

For this reason alone, the poor pilot should be given the natural justice position of innocent until proven guilty.

When I started the thread, my mindset was the the news article title was incorrectly stated. Perhaps I'm wrong?

[777WakeTurbz]

so it's entirely possible that the pilot didn't say that they knocked the prop but a journo has tried to translate a technical explanation in to layperson's terms.

Would not be surprising, it is much more plausible than anything else in here.

Pilot - Innocent until provent guilty.
Journos - Ignorant until proven slightly less ignorant. :E

[bigtedd81]

It appears that the media, has indicated exactly how the pilot in question told the story, unbelievable and unprofessional as it may be. :eek:

I also got told on the grape vine, as a previous post stated the mixture and throttle were pushed in with the mag's left on, not sure if its true or not, seems rather hard to believe that kind of complacency, but the general story doesn't add up which ever way you look at it. I recall a few years back watching someone try and hand start a 206 and it took a long time with a huge amount of effort, not brushing/knocking the prop!

I feel sorry for the pilot, this could be a career ender, but for their sake I hope not.

[AerocatS2A]

Claret, I hope you are right.

To the person who picked holes in my "plausible" explanation, fair points.

I wonder how many people there are between the media and the pilot? If he talked directly to the media, that's bad form and unlikely. So how many times has the story been told before it got to the media and how much did it change due to the Chinese whispers effect?

[longrass]

What I want to know is, why did the ASIC card not stop this?

The ASIC scheme aims to reduce the risk of unlawful interference with aviation, not just terrorism. So why was this horrific accident not prevented by the little red card?

[gettin' there]

People who live in glass houses..........

Did he F:mad: up? Yes
Is he the 1st person to ever screw up? No
Will he be the last one? Sure as hell no

People do gear up landings, have prop strikes, leave nose or wing lockers open, leave fuel caps off etc. (even the ones who say "id never do anything that stupid") despite the thousands of times we have been told since day one "check this, always do that, these checks, those checks." It only takes you to miss something one time and the other holes in the cheese to line up and something like this can happen, no matter how thorough and professional you are.

He was doing the right thing by his company by being there at 1:30 am (dark - no apron lights) in the pissing down rain moving the aircraft becuase some of the "locals" were causing trouble at the airport.

If you can honestly say that you have NEVER, once in you flying career done something stupid not realising, then thought afterwards "oops that could have ended badly" then you are either lying or too stupid to realise. It just so happens that this one did end badly. Aircraft are insured and no one was hurt. Cut the guy some slack.

Im sure he feels bad enough and is having a hard enough time dealing with it as it is. Surely he doesn't need to be slandered and second guessed in an annoymous forum by people who don't know the circumstances and should be able to if at least not understand then sympathise rather than bag the sh%t out of him. Its easy to bag somone from the saftey of anonimity but be careful, it could be you next.
:hmm:

[JMEN]

What a bugger, what a ferk up, but **** does happen and at that hour of the night!

Certainly would not be the first time the locals damaged some aircraft if it was not moved. Hang on someone mentioned the ASIC thats right they could not possibly damage aircraft now as they could not get airside without the red card!

That is quiet a few pilotless aircraft seeking freedom over the years.

Finding 2 replacement aircraft in a hurry sheesh :\

[Pinky the pilot]

gettin' there,JMEN; Well said!:ok::ok: The most intelligent posts I've read on this (and other) threads where the subject has been along the lines of
There but for the grace of God go I.

All prospective stone throwers and 'I'd never be so silly as to do that' types please take a deep breath and think for a moment.:=

From someone for whom the holes in the cheese a long time ago once lined up.:{

[onetrack]

The problem is, now - for the owner, he's going to be looking at a massive increase in insurance premiums, when he's up for insurance renewal - because the insurance company will be closely scrutinising whether the owner has a less-than-satisfactory level of attention to safety procedures. Insurance companies are proper b*&%$#ds, they make bank look generous. My broker assured me after a major claim, caused by a careless employee, that the starting point for renewal of premiums, by insurance companies - after a major event - is the cost of the last event, added to your current premium. Brokers work hard to negotiate premiums down from that start point.
For a bloke running a business on high turnover and slim margins - a major increase in insurance premiums, is the last thing he'd want. An employee who does that level of damage, due to what even a generous soul would describe as a "moment of carelessness", would more than likely be on the road, looking for a new position, under most circumstances - after the employer has decided he's too expensive to keep on the payroll.
After all, there are plenty of others likely to be eager to take his position, and to be more caring of the boss's high-value equipment. The second headache for the employer is the cost of rounding up replacement planes, and the lost income while the replacements are being sourced, organised, and set up to earn money for him/her again. Just as taxi-owners get furious at their taxis being pranged - it's not the actual cost of the accident, it's lost time and income, while the replacement is being sorted. Yes, they're only machines - and yes, no-one got hurt, fortunately - but the owner is going to suffer a major financial penalty due to the actions of one careless employee.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

On The Other Hand.............

From an old source -
A 'KODAK' employee once cost the company over $2M for a 'stuff-up' which could and should have been avoided by him.:=

The employee was acutely aware of this. :eek:

He was otherwise a 'good employee' and an asset to the company.:cool:

The Managing Director of KODAK, when faced with the dilemma, chose to make his decision thus,
"Why fire the bastard when we have just spent over $2M educating him"....:}:}

and so the man kept his job, lesson learned, and NEVER to be repeated....:=

(And they all lived happily everafter....)

A 'Win - Win' situation , I would think......:ok:

[Socket]

Career ending - should hope not.
Job ending - i hope so.
Accident - no.
Totally avoidable unprofessional conduct - yes.
Is "knocked the prop" an unlikely cause - yes.

Aircraft will NOT taxi by themselves unless, no chocks and brakes are off (or not working), mixture open, throttle open. Mags can be live but in combination with the other three the chances are quite slim . Logical conclusion, dopey tried to either move the aircraft by pulling on the prop or swing start it with throttle and mixture open probably with mags left on and stuffed it up.

Very easy for an engineer to confirm live mags so pilot better hope he isn't trying to pass on blame

[Ultergra]

As they always say, you've got to do a wheel's up landing to get into Qantas... This incident is just as good a story as any.

Maybe it's a sign QF is about to start recruiting again :}

[tinpis]

Where do these kids get the idea to fool with the prop ?

[tail wheel]

I suspect he isn't telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

How do you draw that conclusion? I can't see where the pilot involved made any statement, either in the ludicrous media report or in this thread?? :confused:

Career ending - should hope not.
Job ending - i hope so.
Accident - no.
Totally avoidable unprofessional conduct - yes.
Is "knocked the prop" an unlikely cause - yes.

Is that judgement based upon full, accurate knowledge of the incident or the inaccurate media report and incorrect assumptions posted in this thread?? :confused:

I believe the pilot has provided an accurate report to the authorities which is substantially different to the conjecture in the media and in this thread.

Talk about a hanging jury! Give the guy a break, eh? :=

[Socket]

Is that judgement based upon full, accurate knowledge of the incident or the inaccurate media report and incorrect assumptions posted in this thread??


Talk about assumptions, how do you know what is correct and incorrect Tailwheel. I guess you must have been there. Perhaps you will tell us the correct report the media should have given.

I believe the pilot has provided an accurate report to the authorities which is substantially different to the conjecture in the media and in this thread.

You believe. How the hell can you make that statement after your last. Pot to Kettle. Being Moderator doesnt make you all seeing, correct or our moral crusader Tailwheel,

I have been an engineer for over 30 years so I reckon I know a bit about what will and will not cause an aircraft to taxi by itself. In every case you will find a two legged idiot involved.

Talk about a hanging jury! Give the guy a break, eh?
If it was my aircraft I would give him a long break, I would sack him on the spot. So I repeat:

Career ending - should hope not.
Job ending - i hope so.
Accident - no.
Totally avoidable unprofessional conduct - yes.
Is "knocked the prop" an unlikely cause - yes.

[The Green Goblin]

Click......... :}

[Capt Claret]

Maybe some nefarious sod, slipped out of the bush when they saw the pilot exit the aeroplane and hit the starter before buggering off back to the bush.

Unlikely - yes
Impossible - no
Hang the pilot before determining result - it would appear so. :{