Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

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

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

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

Old 27th Feb 2010, 00:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
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
777WakeTurbz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 00:49
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,801
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.casa.gov.au/scripts/18-19.pdf
onetrack is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 02:14
  #23 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 3,441
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?
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 03:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
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.
777WakeTurbz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 03:45
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: perth
Age: 39
Posts: 1
It appears that the media, has indicated exactly how the pilot in question told the story, unbelievable and unprofessional as it may be.

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.
bigtedd81 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 04:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,851
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?
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 05:15
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Darwin
Posts: 179
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?
longrass is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 06:34
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
People who live in glass houses..........

Did he F 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.
gettin' there is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 08:45
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: in the heat
Age: 48
Posts: 78
well said

What a bugger, what a ferk up, but shit 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
JMEN is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 09:18
  #30 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now stewing on the fact that due to this Gottverdammt Covid-19 curse I am not returning to Japan this year, or going anywhere for that matter! So just continuing the search for that bad bottle of Red!
Age: 66
Posts: 2,588
gettin' there,JMEN; Well said! 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.
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 14:39
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,801
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.
onetrack is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 15:57
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,817
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.

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

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......
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 20:10
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
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
Socket is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 20:24
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
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
Ultergra is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 20:51
  #35 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,729
Where do these kids get the idea to fool with the prop ?
tinpis is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 21:36
  #36 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 6,597
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??

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??

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?
tail wheel is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2010, 23:53
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
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.
Socket is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2010, 00:04
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,898
Click.........
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2010, 00:06
  #39 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 3,441
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.
Capt Claret is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.