Dec 6, 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #1 of 161
(5296 views)
Shortcut
Model's Propeller Accident
Can't Post
This isn't a skydiving incident but it has happened on a DZ before. Very sad but it's a good reminder about why we still have to teach this stuff to our students, and remind the experienced guys and gals that it can and does happen.
When walking to the plane allways make sure you and other people don't get to close to that propeller! I make the choice of walking the 'safe route' even if the engine isn't running, just to make it a habit, some people don't do that when it's turned off....
There's enough risks in our sport, lets not make something that's completely avoidable hurt us or anyone around us..
And also a good reminder to a) take care no family members of students (esp. tandem students) walk out of the "fenced" area and b) always have a hand at your tandem students gear (main lift web etc) when approaching the plane...
Before I met my now ex-wife, she had an aunt who walked into one. The husband & both sons were watching.
Back in the '70's Bill Hardman, who was the DZO of Abbotsford, BC, was hand-propping a Cessna when his foot slipped & the prop hit him in the head. Fortunately, his injuries were not fatal.
That pilot will feel bad forever. You can't allow anyone who is not extremely knowledgeable about aircraft to deplane with the engine running. Of course, it is risky in any event.
Another example of something that should be taught in flight school. Taught with a 2 by 4 over the head, too !!! Not kidding.
Er, you suppose the trial lawyers are calling him ?
(This post was edited by dks13827 on Dec 6, 2011, 5:38 PM)
One day at the DZ, a Woofo was lifting his 4 and 5 year old kids up to "hang" on the prop of the Cessna that was sitting in front of the hanger. Seeing this, I walked up to him and explained how dangerous props can be even on planes that are just sitting there.
So, what is this Nimrods response? He turns around and starts yelling at the kids for playing on the prop???? Some people just can NOT be educated.
This might not be a skydiving incident, but it's as good a topic as anything we talk about on these forums. The ones that scare me are big, high-wing planes (e.g. twin otter) where you can walk under the wing while the prop is spinning.
Heck, in my days I never thought it possible to actually loose a student. Until a SE TI introduced us to the idea...and many other TIs soon followed.
These days, I bet that few Tis know about no-go areas depending on aircraft. Am I too harsh in my assessment?
In reply to:
And also a good reminder to a) take care no family members of students (esp. tandem students) walk out of the "fenced" area and b) always have a hand at your tandem students gear (main lift web etc) when approaching the plane...
Reminds me of the summer that I worked at Spadero's Airstrip on Long Island. ONe afternoon, it was too cloudy to jump and I might have been the only employee on the airstrip when a family of four wandered down the row of parked airplanes. Their four-year old son started tugging on a Cessna propeller - with his sister, mother and father all within striking distance. I yelled "STOP" and walked over to talk with the father. I asked him if he had ever seen old film footage of World War I mechanics starting airplanes by pulling on propellers. Then I reminded him that magnetos have not changed much in the interim.
That makes it even more strange, it's hard enough climbing in the back seat of those things with no pilot, why would he stay seated and make her climb out even more difficult?
I don't think so. We always "carry" our students and if one of the TIs has to do a back-on-back we take care of his student until we can "hand them over."
Colleagues told me in one occasion that "this is not 'Con Air'" - i. e. the student is not to be "carried" as if a prisoner (because I held him by the chest strap). But that was that. They just told me to be a little more discreet (e. g. always hold student's main lift web). Well, I usually do that but had forgotten that time, had grabbed him by the chest strap and... just then it was taped (small camera glued to strut) and could be watched on Vimeo two days later
I usually hold onto tandem students by the harness yoke (neck) or shoulder hook. Most of them seem to feel reassured that I am keeping a grip on them while we walk through the prop-wash of a turbine-engined-jump-plane.
That makes it even more strange, it's hard enough climbing in the back seat of those things with no pilot, why would he stay seated and make her climb out even more difficult?
and, why would a pilot need to keep an engine running in a Husky while off-loading a passenger?
That makes it even more strange, it's hard enough climbing in the back seat of those things with no pilot, why would he stay seated and make her climb out even more difficult?
and, why would a pilot need to keep an engine running in a Husky while off-loading a passenger?
The ones that scare me are big, high-wing planes (e.g. twin otter) where you can walk under the wing while the prop is spinning.
I once saw a fuelie walk between the fuselage and the prop of a twin otter... while it was running. fuck. that.
I have hot fueled our otter more times than I can count, and while being "comfortable" doing it, I am highly vigilant and terrified of that prop. From the moment I come around the wheel, my right shoulder is against the fuselage and NEVER leaves.
I have held my arm out though while the engine is off, and as long as my shoulder is on the body, I can't get hit, so there IS plenty of room there. I am not saying that it is a good idea, but you can do it.
If McGyver was so smart why would he lean on a prop of a twin in the opening sequence . The producers were so stupid to let him too. We had a jump airplane land at Detroit City Airport . The girl passenger whose dad owned a plane ran around the strut after taxiing in to tiedown before the prop stopped because she had to pee. Needless to say she soiled herself in blood instead.There is another part of the story never told too.
. in the UK TIs HAVE to hold on to the tandem passenger while boarding the plane
What does one do if walking towards a plane with 3 or 4 static line students?
That's where I found the rules were illogical at a local DZ of mine. With a tandem student you have to hang on to them, but you can wander to the plane with a bunch of FJCs without hanging onto them -- although one has always had to be careful to "herd" them lest they wander.
I feel sorry for the pilot who may need an expensive engine teardown because of the propstrike.
>"I feel sorry for the pilot who may need an expensive engine teardown because of the >propstrike." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really???
How about the idea that this "Pilot" did not succeed in his fundamental task of assuring a safe outcome for his passenger?
As for myself, I feel sorry for this innocent, promising life, that has been forever altered because she misplaced her trust in this "Pilot In Command".
Pilots do have the responsibility for a proper briefing of their passengers on safety, and to be quite clear about where the life threatening hazards are. Beyond that... well, that's where the debate really is.
Over the years one always hears of over-enthusiastic passengers running out of an airplane and into a prop, completely forgetting where they are.
Edited to add:
One news story said that "Lauren's parents Cheryl and Jeff Scruggs said that they believe the 23-year-old walked back toward Richmond's plane at the private airport north of Dallas to say a final thank you, perhaps as he was preparing to take off again."
Still, who knows what the actual situation was, whether Lauren had fully deplaned safely before turning back, and whether the pilot was about to taxi the aircraft elsewhere.
(This post was edited by pchapman on Dec 9, 2011, 9:20 AM)
At what point does one persons responsibility for someone else's stupidity end?
She had left the plane...maybe he had some flying stuff to do.
Maybe he should have held her hand all the way home?
Or, maybe he should have shut down the engine while an unescorted passenger got out at night. It makes absolutely no sense for a pilot to leave the engine running on a Husky (tandem seat taildragger) in this situation.
Assuming it was a Husky as mentioned in this thread: The Husky isn't exactly an easy aircraft for a whuffo to maneuver out of, and if the passenger were in back, as would be more common (for a plain passenger and not say a student under instruction), it would be quite difficult to get them out of the small doorway if the pilot were still strapped in, running the engine. Huskys and the like are a bit like 4-passenger 2-door cars when it comes to getting out of the back seat.
Letting the passenger out with the engine running might indeed be rather odd with that aircraft.
Maybe it is possible that the pilot shut down to deplane the passenger, and then started up again.
I am probably giving the pilot more benefit of the doubt than the passenger, but it is hard to clear things up without more facts & info.
(This post was edited by pchapman on Dec 9, 2011, 9:34 AM)
I work around pilots and spinning propellers all day everyday, and am astounded at the lack of basic safety practices and procedures I see out there. Including, from persons directly responsible for these things.
Accidents like the one involving this model happen so quickly, and are so avoidable, and shine a negative light on aviation as a whole.
I have hot fueled our otter more times than I can count, and while being "comfortable" doing it, I am highly vigilant and terrified of that prop. From the moment I come around the wheel, my right shoulder is against the fuselage and NEVER leaves.
I have held my arm out though while the engine is off, and as long as my shoulder is on the body, I can't get hit, so there IS plenty of room there. I am not saying that it is a good idea, but you can do it.
respect, dude. I suppose like with anything when you do it often enough you can be safe and get the job done. if it were me I'd take the long walk around the wing for the first few thousand times before I changed it up, lol
(This post was edited by 3mpire on Dec 9, 2011, 10:13 AM)
I have hot fueled our otter more times than I can count, and while being "comfortable" doing it, I am highly vigilant and terrified of that prop. From the moment I come around the wheel, my right shoulder is against the fuselage and NEVER leaves.
I have held my arm out though while the engine is off, and as long as my shoulder is on the body, I can't get hit, so there IS plenty of room there. I am not saying that it is a good idea, but you can do it.
respect, dude. I suppose like with anything when you do it often enough you can be safe and get the job done. if it were me I'd take the long walk around the wing for the first few thousand times before I changed it up, lol
It takes some getting used to, that's for sure, and like Normiss said, it is a GREAT thing to be scared of the fucking prop, cause it will turn you into a fine red mist before you even know you are dead. There is a specific procedure for hot fueling the front tank. You must follow it every time. Never deviate, and never get distracted.
I was taught to always have my helmet on and secured before approaching the aircraft, which btw should always be accomplished thru the back of the plane. But you know what, I constantly see experienced skydivers moving about near the plane and not wearing helmets until just about to be airborne.
I mean why does people with more experience are the ones that bend the rules more explicitly? cmon please set the example.
Anyways, for me an airplane (or chopper) propeller equals to a blending kitchen appliance. you just have to fear any abnormal proximity.
(This post was edited by Marksman on Dec 9, 2011, 11:14 AM)
I was taught to always have my helmet on and secured before approaching the aircraft, which btw should always be accomplished thru the back of the plane. But you know what, I constantly see experienced skydivers moving about near the plane and not wearing helmets until just about to be airborne.
Your helmet will likely do nothing against the propeller.
The general (non-flying) public is remarkably clueless. Since they cannot see spinning propellers (helicopter rotors) and do not perceive them as a threat. Every year, some whuffo dies by walking into a propeller at some GA airport. Maybe we should make a New Year's Resolution to prevent that from happening on OUR DZ!
Hi there. Not saying the helmet solves the hazard. What I pointed is a security procedure/practice, that its as important as approaching any aircraft AWAY from the propeller(s). I trutly believe that hitting aviation grade aluminium with thy head really hurts (a helmet solves this issue).
.2cents
(This post was edited by Marksman on Dec 9, 2011, 1:34 PM)
I feel that the most likely event chain went like this:
1. Plane comes to a stop, pilot shuts off engine and gets out. 2. Pilot helps passenger out. 3. Passenger goes over to greet waiting people, hugs, chats, starts to walk away. 4. Meanwhile, pilot gets back in plane, fires up engine, prepares to leave. 5. Passenger hears engine fire up, realizes plane is about to leave, "Oh I forgot to say goodbye!" rushes back over to plane. 6. WHACK.
This jives with the observation that it is difficult to exit with the pilot in his seat, and it would be odd to leave the plane running with the pilot outside the plane, and the reported fact that the pilot was preparing to taxi when the injury occurred.
I feel that the most likely event chain went like this:
1. Plane comes to a stop, pilot shuts off engine and gets out. 2. Pilot helps passenger out. 3. Passenger goes over to greet waiting people, hugs, chats, starts to walk away. 4. Meanwhile, pilot gets back in plane, fires up engine, prepares to leave. 5. Passenger hears engine fire up, realizes plane is about to leave, "Oh I forgot to say goodbye!" rushes back over to plane. 6. WHACK.
This jives with the observation that it is difficult to exit with the pilot in his seat, and it would be odd to leave the plane running with the pilot outside the plane, and the reported fact that the pilot was preparing to taxi when the injury occurred.
I hope for the pilot's sake it happened that way, but if it did happen that way I'm sure it would've been reported as such. So far, the only version seems to be that she got of the plane started to walk away and then turned around to go back and thank the pilot and walked into the prop.
I do think it's interesting that the preliminary accident report lists the pilot as a "wiitness."
ETA: I found this quote from the FAA.
Quote:
The Federal Aviation Administration said they are investigating the incident.
Lynn Lunsford, from the FAA, said: "It appears that the pilot left the engine running at idle while she exited the plane to switch places with another passenger.
"That's one of the aspects of the investigation."
(This post was edited by sacex250 on Dec 9, 2011, 5:21 PM)
As RiggerRob said, the general public is “clueless” as to the dangers involved. Even those that should be aware are often uninformed, lazy, in a hurry, complacent, or simply so caught up in their own ego that they are not “in the moment”. Safety needs to be taught, emphasized and reinforced on a regular basis. And when we see safety violations we need to speak out. Two weeks ago the Director of Maintenance at our facility pulled an airplane up twenty feet behind me, left the engine/prop at a high idle and ran 50 yards away to get a multimeter. When I complained he tried to defend the indefensible.
A former boss tells a story of a line boy that was instructed by the pilot to disconnect the GPU after engine start. Although the kid had (presumably) been trained, he was so eager to do his job he ran directly through the prop arc to reach the plug.
I seem to recall several years back where Skydive Chicago had TWO wuffos walk into the prop in a one month span.?
The list of stories like this goes on and on. Every one of them, preventable. I am sure there is nothing more horrific than seeing a human being cut in half by a propeller.
I dunno...when I was a kid hanging out in the Air Force hangars with my dad...say a set of bomb bay doors close while someone was working in them. Standing in them. His legs dropped to the floor. Not much mess either. Of course he was still alive since the bomb bay doors completely sealed when they closed. He was making a LOT of noise in the bomb bay when dad removed me from the hangar....
What's the danger? It is standard procedure during hot-refueling. As long as you keep one shoulder rubbing against the fuselage, there is zero risk of touching the propeller.
When walking to the plane allways make sure you and other people don't get to close to that propeller! I make the choice of walking the 'safe route' even if the engine isn't running,
It is important to be aware of this if you ever ride the plane down. The aircraft will be in an unfamiliar orientation and you are getting off and walking a route you rarely if ever walk.
The only time I ever rode a plane down the young lady with me walked off straight towards the prop. I grabbed her rig by the shoulder and nudged her in a different direction. I'll never know if she'd have realized before it was too late but I suspect not. The prop was invisible and the noise was pervasive.
Back about 6 years ago we had a 182 and KA at the DZ. We only had a few jumpers so we flew a few 182 HP loads. The 182 had a problem starting from the ship battery (turned out to be some corrosion on the battery connections) so we pulled the DZO's car up to the tail and jump started it. The other three were in the plane already and I was assisting the hookup.
Plane starts up, unhook the cables and walk over to the grass (about 15 feet off the pilot side) where I had put my helmet. Pick up the helmet and start walking back. As I'm walking back I'm looking right to see if the tail has enough room to clear the hood of the car.
Walking forward, looking right, around a hot prop.
Getting the picture?
I don't know if it was luck, spidey-sense, or fate (the protector of fools and small children) that made me freeze in my tracks for a second and look forward.
I kid you not, I was dead on line with the prop less than five feet away. Another step and a half and it would have gutted me from belly to chin like a pig.
We had a head's up pilot back then who already had his hand on the key when I stopped.
I tell you I am not a religious man but something was looking out for me that day.
That evening I jumped on our DZ website forums, confessed my sine, and wrote up a detailed report of the 'near miss.'
Sometimes when this happens it is just what it is- an accident. Preventable? Of course. But had I taken that extra step it would have still been an accident.
(This post was edited by Iago on Dec 16, 2011, 5:05 PM)
Our Caravans and other cessnas have their prop on the nose. So I tend to walk in a straight line to and from the door. Which I did when wanting to film a couple jumpers waving bye-bye in a 2prop Let at another DZ. Luckily for me another heads- up jumper grabbed my shoulder. I really really hadn't seen the prop under the wing I was about to walk under. And the noise of a couple planes running drowns out the very important noise right near you
I was just running on automatic, filming like I always do. It really amazed me how easy it was to miss that big noisy spinning meatgrinder near my head
Our Caravans and other cessnas have their prop on the nose. So I tend to walk in a straight line to and from the door. Which I did when wanting to film a couple jumpers waving bye-bye in a 2prop Let at another DZ. Luckily for me another heads- up jumper grabbed my shoulder. I really really hadn't seen the prop under the wing I was about to walk under. And the noise of a couple planes running drowns out the very important noise right near you
I was just running on automatic, filming like I always do. It really amazed me how easy it was to miss that big noisy spinning meatgrinder near my head
The thing with props is that they are invisible when their radial speed is high. In other words: you will not see a fast-rotating prop. You have to know that it's there. I guess that it's a good idea to walk all the way around the wing of an aircraft, even if it's has a nose-prop. Just for habbits.
I can actually imagine loosing situational awareness when you're bussy filming. There's so much potential danger in this sport, you have to force yourself to be very aware at all times I suppose....
This isn't a skydiving incident but it has happened on a DZ before. Very sad but it's a good reminder about why we still have to teach this stuff to our students, and remind the experienced guys and gals that it can and does happen.
I read tthe attached report and was impressed by the families positive attitude. Then started to read the comments at the end the first few were similar to the commets made here.
Then I started tp read some comments about folks makng sick jokesabout the incident . I stoped reading and closed the link.
I don't mean to be rude....but...Darwin? Paging Darwin? Hi gorgeous that spinning thing in front of the aircraft doesn't care how cute you are....it will kill you if you are lucky! God. See we need to find all the cute girls in the world and hold them tight so they don't kill themsleves!
I don't mean to be rude....but...Darwin? Paging Darwin? Hi gorgeous that spinning thing in front of the aircraft doesn't care how cute you are....
Well, you failed, and that was rude. There's nothing 'natural' about a spinning prop, especially at night. Implying that she was 'selected' to walk into it based on the theory of evolution is just dumb.
When we reference Darwin in explaining jump accidents, most of the time the victim had been warned or had previous knowledge/training with regards to what eventually 'got' them. In those cases, when someone isn't smart enough to heed the advice/warnings/training provided to them, in that case a snarky 'Darwin' remark isn't entirely inapropriate.
In this case, the young lady was inexperienced around aircraft and presumably had no training as to how to approach a running aircraft. You could say it common sense, but these accidents suggest otherwise. Even in bright daylight, a spinning prop is all but invisible, and at night is that much worse. The general public is not accustomed to being around running machinery with exposed moving parts. Most people are used to cars, which make noise but have all the moving parts safely inside of the body structure. You can safely walk all around a running car, and that's the association most people will make.
(This post was edited by davelepka on Dec 28, 2011, 8:22 AM)
I don't mean to be rude....but...Darwin? Paging Darwin? Hi gorgeous that spinning thing in front of the aircraft doesn't care how cute you are....it will kill you if you are lucky! God. See we need to find all the cute girls in the world and hold them tight so they don't kill themsleves!
Yes, she walked into a spinning prop, just like many hundreds of pilots have.
OK but look, it's a loud spinning hunk of metal! Logic dictates one should now walk into LOUD SPINNING HUNKS OF METAL!
Well....I don't know. I do feel bad for her but....I can't help but wonder? Even in the dark you can hear right? So what now? Do DZ's have to install LED lights on the props to keep people from touching them when they are spinning?
I'll be honest with you, when I was doing my AFF jumps the one thing I worried about was sticking my head too far forward on the strut to have it taken off....yeah it's far away (4ft) or so but still...it's still a freaking spinning prop!
Shame too....she was really cute! Very few cute girls in the world! We must protect them at all costs!
OK but look, it's a loud spinning hunk of metal! Logic dictates one should now walk into LOUD SPINNING HUNKS OF METAL!
Well....I don't know. I do feel bad for her but....I can't help but wonder? Even in the dark you can hear right? So what now? Do DZ's have to install LED lights on the props to keep people from touching them when they are spinning?
I'll be honest with you, when I was doing my AFF jumps the one thing I worried about was sticking my head too far forward on the strut to have it taken off....yeah it's far away (4ft) or so but still...it's still a freaking spinning prop!
Shame too....she was really cute! Very few cute girls in the world! We must protect them at all costs!
The sound of the prop isn't typically noticed over the sound of the running engine, but that doesn't really matter. In the case of people not familiar with being around planes, the bigger issue is the invisible nature of a spinning prop combined with a lack of knowledge about safety near aircraft.
In this case - as is often the case - the young woman had cleared the aircraft but turned around to thank the pilot for the ride when she was struck. Additionally the accident occurred at night when a prop can be even more invisible.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 28, 2011, 12:47 PM
Post #58 of 161
(1726 views)
Shortcut
>Logic dictates one should now walk into LOUD SPINNING HUNKS OF METAL!
Invisible loud spinning hunks of metal a few feet away from a deafening engine. They are actually very easy to miss - which is why even pilots walk into them sometimes.
Imagine this test. You are in a dimly lit room. There's an unmuffled F1 engine sitting on the floor, running. You can't even hear yourself think. Someone tells you "there's an invisible blade spinning somewhere in this room - and the room is on fire! You have to get out now!" Would you find such a situation a piece of cake?
Oh ok now i get it... No really never thought of the engine being louder than the prop. Still shame....very cute girl! Now we will all have to install little LED lights on the ends of the props.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 28, 2011, 1:44 PM
Post #60 of 161
(1703 views)
Shortcut
The back of propellers are usually painted black so that they're invisible to the pilot when running (so as to not block their view thru them), just FYI.
Maybe some chemiluminescent paint on the front may make them more visible at night, but IMO that's not as much of a problem as unescorted personnel walking around a flight line... (at night none the less)
I once saw a fuelie walk between the fuselage and the prop of a twin otter... while it was running. fuck. that. I see that all the time at some major California dropzones I will not name. Pilots too, climbing in and out of their cockpit door. Makes me cringe every time because it just has to end badly one of these days. I don't want to be there to see it - or to have to wash the bloodstains off my rig and jumpsuit when it finally does happen.
"Upon noticing that she was exiting in front of the strut, the pilot leaned out of his seat and placed his right hand and arm in front of her to divert her away from the front of the airplane and the propeller," the report states. "He continued to keep his arm extended and told the passenger that she should walk behind the airplane."
When he thought she had walked away behind the plane to safety, the pilot says he "returned to his normal seat position," "looked to the left side of the airplane and opened his window to ask who was next to go for a ride," according to the report.
Edit: The NTSB's language is slightly different:
Quote:
According to the pilot (as he recalls the event), after landing from the planned 20-minute flight, he stopped the airplane on the ramp with the engine running in anticipation of taking another passenger to view the holiday lights. He opened the door on the right side of the airplane expecting a friend to come out and assist his passenger in deplaning. After he opened the door, the passenger started to get out of the airplane. Upon noticing that she was exiting in front of the strut, the pilot leaned out of his seat and placed his right hand and arm in front of her to divert her away from the front of the airplane and the propeller. He continued to keep his arm extended and told the passenger that she should walk behind the airplane. Once he saw that the passenger was at least beyond where the strut was attached to the wing, and walking away, he dropped his right arm and returned to his normal seat position. The pilot then looked to the left side of the airplane and opened his window to ask who was next to go for a ride.
(This post was edited by pchapman on Jan 19, 2012, 9:26 AM)
Given one is from an ABC news reporter and the other is from the NTSB and direct investigation by them, I'd say the language difference is minimal. Same even, considering sources.
wow...that must suck. One day ur a model, next day u have limbs gone.
Props scare me...
Yup. An un-guarded 5 foot diameter blade spinning at 1000 RPM (I'm thinking in terms of a 182). The math has the tips moving around 180 miles per hour.
I've always told the students and observers and anyone not familiar with the plane that "The large spinny thing on the front is not your friend."
Personally, I like to keep everyone out of an arc from wingtip to wingtip, the length of the wing. Think of a circle the size of the wingspan. with the area in front of the wing being the "No Go" area. And it's a No Go area at all times that the airplane is being used, engine running or not.
The model was back on TV this morning. She was on an American news channel, walking out of a rehab facility. A hat and dark glasses made it impossible to see the extent of her head injuries.
Let's endeavor to prevent this sort of accident on a DZ during 2012.
Lauren Scruggs, the model who lost a hand and an eye when she walked into a spinning plane propeller, has reportedly rejected a $200,000 settlement and is suing the plane’s insurance company for an unspecified amount.
The 23-year-old model and fashion blogger from Plano, Texas, has filed court documents in Dallas suing the company insuring the plane owned by defendants Shell Aviation and Michael Shell and piloted by Curt Richmond. On Dec. 3, 2011, Scruggs ended up losing her left eye and had her left hand severed by a spinning propeller when she walked into it after exiting the plane under darkness following a flight to view Christmas lights in the Dallas area.
In her claim, which was first reported by TMZ.com, she states that the insurance company, Aggressive Insurance Services, “verbally offered’’ to pay her $200,000 for the accident. The company claims that it has a maximum limit of $1 million total coverage for each plane, including a $100,000 sublimit for each passenger. Since Richmond was covered by an extra policy extending to other planes he flies, the company offered a $200,000 payout from the combination of the two policies, saying it was the maximum. However, in court documents, Scruggs disputes her status as a “passenger’’ in the eyes of the insurance company. The policies define a “passenger” as “any person, other than the pilot, who is in the aircraft or getting in or out of it," according to her complaint. Scruggs claims she was not a passenger because “she was not in the aircraft or getting in or out of it at the time of the incident.’’
According to her complaint, Scruggs said “she had completed her exit from the aircraft prior to the time of the incident and was physically located on the tarmac when the incident happened. Until struck by the propeller, she was not in physical contact with the aircraft after her exit."
Scruggs is asking for the court to define whether she was a “passenger’’ or not under the insurance company guidelines. If she is not found to have been a passenger, she can presumably reap a higher payout for the accident.
First of all, she's not suing the insurance company, she's suing the pilot/owner of the airplane who is covered by the insurance company. Of course, when the accident first happened she and her family clearly said that they didn't blame the pilot for the accident.
Second, the claim that she wasn't a passenger is also ridiculous. Insurance companies have tried this tactic also, and lost. One insurance company tried to deny a claim to the family of a scuba diver who drowned because he couldn't climb back onto a dive boat saying that since he wasn't a "passenger" on the boat at the time his death wasn't covered. The insurance company lost on that one.
There is nothing natural about a speeding train either,but I still know it would be a bad idea to jump in front of one(unless you want to end it all). And yet people get hit by trains alot,because THEY ARE STUPID! You can call me an asshole if you want,but walking into a spinning prop is pretty stupid. As far as all the pilots who walk into spinning props,well you do not have to be a genius to be a pilot,but a crap load of money definitley helps. Problem is,money can not fix stupid,at least not with present medical technology.
Maybe she should be suing the asphault company who laid the asphault down. She was on the asphault wasn't she ?
Yeah, but it wasn't their phault.
You have been found guilty of a terrible pun. You are hereby sentenced to drinking a beverage of your choice, you hilarious ba
Quote:
stard. It sound like the old I'll sue because I'm blond and not legally responsible for my actions, You have the legal responsiblity to protect my from my self,
You can call me an asshole if you want,but walking into a spinning prop is pretty stupid.
I agree she doesn't have a case to sue, but would you be so damning if she wasn't? Anybody can make a mistake, especially at night, especially in an unfamiliar environment with unfamiliar hazards. Walking into a spinning prop can hardly be compared with stepping in front of a speeding train.
Are you trying to make me believe that it would be absolute pitch black next to a running aircraft sitting on a paved runway,on an airport,just because it is night time. Do aircraft not have alot of lights on them at night? Do airports have complete black outs when aircraft are landing? Maybe I've missed something,but I could have sworn that even the small municipal airports are lit up like small towns. And even if most people were unfamiliar with the situation,I would hope most would have enough common sense to know the prop is spinning on the front of the small proppeller driven airplane, wether you can see it or not. Maybe I am wrong,and most people are without common sense. You are right though about comparing the train to the spinning prop. I think it could be easier to step in front of a train in a big,noisey,busy,bustling city where evryone is running around in a rush to get where they need to be, and letting their gaurd down because they are in a familiar everday environment where complacency is most likely very common. But it is still a pretty stupid thing, stepping in front of speeding train,and so is walking into a spinning prop.
But it is still a pretty stupid thing...walking into a spinning prop.
Maybe so, but a lot of smart people have done it. I say this for the benefit of those that think it could never happen to them. It can. All it takes is a momentary lapse of paying attention to an almost invisible danger; it's happened too many times for me to think it could never happen to me, and is something I really try to never forget. I've also been around helecopters quite a bit, and know the tail prop has eaten a few pretty smart people as well. Yeah, dumb ones too, for sure.
Loveland - Ft Collins Colo, airport about 1990.A An experienced skydiver was walking thru the hangar and (according to him) just "touched" the blade on a Cessna. The magneto fired it, and the blade went around just enough to come down somewhere on his head. Down played it, but the guy with him was thinking he was hospital bound. It may have been more of an incident than he let on.
Good point. It could happen to anyone, and is more likely when complacency becomes a factor. It seems a person would be more cautious when less familiar with a dangerous situation though. The 1st time I flew,it was in a huey when I was a forest fire fighter. Good times!
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 30, 2012, 8:27 PM
Post #84 of 161
(1075 views)
Shortcut
>Are you trying to make me believe that it would be absolute pitch black next to a >running aircraft sitting on a paved runway,on an airport,just because it is night time. >Do aircraft not have alot of lights on them at night?
Not pointing at the prop where people can see it. A Cessna will have a landing/taxi light (if on) beneath the fuselage pointed forward, but the beacon and nav light will be well away from the propeller. This can actually make things MORE dangerous - by lighting up parts of the aircraft, it makes people pay attention to the lit parts even if they can't see the more dimly lit parts - and that gives them the confidence that they can safely get around the aircraft. (Which, of course, is how nav lights work to begin with.)
>And even if most people were unfamiliar with the situation,I would hope most would >have enough common sense to know the prop is spinning on the front of the small >proppeller driven airplane, wether you can see it or not.
Most people do. But since even skydivers and pilots walk into props occasionally, even experience and knowledge are not proof against mistakes.
All valid points.... However, you can't blame everyone else (i.e. lawsuit) for your own acts of stupidity. Yes, shit does happen! But suing someone else for your mistake is just wrong.
If you want to gain (financially) from your own acts of stupidity, purchase a "Stupid" insurance policy. I'm betting some slick agent will sell you some?
Insurance tends not to cover things occurring from criminal acts etc, but if you are stupid and in so doing crash your plane or car, burn down your house, or have a dumb guest slip on ice on porch stairs when not holding the railing ...insurance does generally cover that.
Not that I agree with her suing to be covered under the larger 3rd party liability part of the insurance rather than the smaller passenger insurance. Passenger liability is often lower, presumably because there is some assumption of risk there. (e.g., I don't know the US aviation market specifically, but in Canada one might have a minimum of $100k pax liability, but a minimum of $1M 3rd party liability)
I do not care how you try to make excuses for an adult walking into a spinning prop, unless you are blind or incapacitated in some other fashion, it is pretty stupid.Some people are saying that you can't see a spinning prop and it's true you can't,but I can't see the air I'm breathing either,but I know it's there. If you do something stupid and get messed up or mess up someone else,then it is your fault, and if anyone pays for it,it should be you. Trying to sue for being a dumbass seems to be acceptable nowdays. Paople burning their crotch because the hot coffee was hot,and then blaming someone else for being careless. Walking into spinning props because you are not thinking about what you are doing,walking off the subway platform because you are not paying attention. Why should people be rewarded for acts of stupidity? I mean,if that were the case,I would have been a billionaire by the end of my teenage years.
(This post was edited by toolbox on Mar 31, 2012, 11:13 AM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 1, 2012, 8:12 AM
Post #89 of 161
(938 views)
Shortcut
>I do not care how you try to make excuses for an adult walking into a spinning prop, >unless you are blind or incapacitated in some other fashion, it is pretty stupid.
After every incident there are some people who say "that person was so stupid! What an idiot. Imagine, walking into a prop/not pulling/turning so low. Good thing me and my friends aren't that stupid."
This is often a defensive mechanism, a way of saying "this can't happen to me." That's a dangerous attitude to take - because even smart people walk into props. Thus the attitude of 'stupid people don't walk into props and I'm not stupid' sets people up to walk into props.
Flight instructors, test pilots, aicraft mechanics with 35 years of experience, ultralight pilots and skydivers have all made that mistake. The smart pilots/skydivers/mechanics think "wow, someday I _could_ make a mistake like those people - I better be on my guard against that."
it's a sad accident and i'm glad she's still alive..... but Stupid is an unfair label to use.
anyone who HAS been around airplanes when their engines are running has been indoctrinated since their first skydiving lesson, about the danger. One of the most amazing things that impressed me when i first began this hobby, was Just that... We can stand right next to all sorts of planes.. single engine and multi, while they are running....with all the noise and wind and sometimes heat... that goes along with that...There are not too many other situations where that's possible... and it's a huge responsibility....
But we have been briefed and many know af accidents and near misses...
Do you know IF the subject of the Prop was EVER discussed with this Woman??? .. in a serious and effective way ?? i don't.
Was it common for the woman to ride in a small airplane? Do YOU remember how you may have felt once in a while,, after landing in a that sort of small plane.? while i honestly had over 150 jumps and therefore take-offs before i EVER landed in a plane,, I sometimes felt a bit wobbly, maybe my head or ears still stuffed up. ,maybe stomach queasy... on the few accasions where i "went for an airplane ride"...
Have some sympathy. She may have exited.. looked ahead of the plane, to where she was going..and taken the shortest path....
maybe the pilot should have finished his taxi roll with a bit of a turn to put the door of the plane into a position where IT faced her next direction of travel..without ANY alignment with the Front of the plane...i.e turn the business end of the aircraft OUT of harms way,,, !!!
i I have not read every detail and in fact am uncertain whether this was a low wing plane or a high wing plane.. If the second... then sure. she may have just ducked under the wing...
Insurance is intended for accidents... if you're unhappy then fight for tort reform, don't launch a P A on the injured person by calling her, what you did.
This is often a defensive mechanism,a way of saying "this can't happen to me"
You have me all wrong dude. I am human,and humans do stupid things. I have done some ultra stupid stuff as a teen and I'm sure that if I live long enough,I will do more stupid stuff. This being said,it does not matter how good or smart you are or were. If you walk into a spinning prop,I and many others would call you an idiot,because it is really stupid to walk into a spinning prop. I hope I never walk into one,because I would really look like a dumbass. Wait,hang on,I would be a dumbass for walking into a spinning prop.
>However, you can't blame everyone else (i.e. lawsuit) for your own acts of stupidity.
Agreed there.
Danny Page got hit in the head with the propeller of his own airplane once when he was trying to prop start it. It fucked him up. Should he have sued himself? I'm just asking.
(This post was edited by SkymonkeyONE on Apr 1, 2012, 9:01 PM)
Danny Page got hit in the head with the propeller of his own airplane once when he was trying to prop start it. It fucked him up. Should he have sued himself? I'm just asking.
He could sue the manufacturer of the airplane, the manufacturer of the propeller, the installer of the avionics, the aviation fuel delivery company, and the people who poured the asphault.
You have me all wrong dude. I am human,and humans do stupid things. I have done some ultra stupid stuff as a teen and I'm sure that if I live long enough,I will do more stupid stuff. This being said,it does not matter how good or smart you are or were. If you walk into a spinning prop,I and many others would call you an idiot,because it is really stupid to walk into a spinning prop. I hope I never walk into one,because I would really look like a dumbass. Wait,hang on,I would be a dumbass for walking into a spinning prop.
Its about as dumb as people killing themselves under open canopies, huh!.
Its about as dumb as people killing themselves under open canopies,huh!
In reply to:
Yep,that sure sounds dumb. I have to say though that I have spanked the dirt a few times myself. I was lucky enough to limp away with my ego receiving the brunt of the punishment. I sure felt like a dumbass. I think walking into a spinning prop would take it to the next level of dumbass.
yeah..... maybe for YOU!!!!!! or for others who HAVE some sense of it's danger.. who HAve been warned....for whom being AROUND a running aircraft may be commonplace.. But this lady????? how do YOU know how well briefed about it..... she was????
So you do not believe that the spinning propeller on the airplane would be considered common knowlege in our modern 21st century society here in the USA. I could see an argument for somone from a primitive society without any experience of modern 21st century technology like AIRPLANES. I do feel bad for the girl,but she still did something pretty dumb. All the people who have walked into a spinning prop with the knowlege of said prop(pilots,skydivers,mechanics,adults raised in modern societies,ect....) are guilty of an act of stupity. To expect someone else to pay for your act of stupidity is stupid. But I guess here in the USA this has become the way things are done. You can even sue someone because you eat to much junk and you are obese,because the food taste so good you could'nt muster the self control to stop eating it. The coffee was hot and I burned myself when I dumped it in my crack,it's your fault so I'm going to sue you.
>However, you can't blame everyone else (i.e. lawsuit) for your own acts of stupidity.
Agreed there.
Danny Page got hit in the head with the propeller of his own airplane once when he was trying to prop start it. It fucked him up. Should he have sued himself? I'm just asking.
Hi One
If Danny had the right insurance coverage and his company refused to pay.
Than he would have to sue his insurace company. To collect the coverage he had paid for.
>So you do not believe that the spinning propeller on the airplane would be >considered common knowlege in our modern 21st century society here in >the USA.
Jet engines are common here in the USA. But I still bet most people would be more comfortable in front of one than behind one. Knowing something exists does not equal knowing how to be safe around something.
You've posted how stupid such people are several times, as if intelligence was a defense against making a mistake. It's not. People walk into props for a multitude of reasons, and not all of them were "they were just too stupid to realize the prop was there." That's why working around an aircraft is not the same as working around a car.
If you are around something that can kill you,it would be smart to know where you are in relation to it at all times. As far as being stupid,stupid is as stupid does. I know,I've been guilty of being stupid,usually when booze was involved,but not always. How about you? Remember to check your 6. yawn................................snore................................................. scratching sound...............snore.....................
(This post was edited by toolbox on Apr 3, 2012, 12:32 AM)
>So you do not believe that the spinning propeller on the airplane would be >considered common knowlege in our modern 21st century society here in >the USA.
Jet engines are common here in the USA. But I still bet most people would be more comfortable in front of one than behind one. Knowing something exists does not equal knowing how to be safe around something.
You've posted how stupid such people are several times, as if intelligence was a defense against making a mistake. It's not. People walk into props for a multitude of reasons, and not all of them were "they were just too stupid to realize the prop was there." That's why working around an aircraft is not the same as working around a car.
The biggest problem with the "stupid" theory is it implies that it can never happen to someone as smart as the poster, making it just that little bit more likely that it will.
Strolling into a propeller can happen to you, it's not a function of intelligence. This isn't FAILblog where everyone else is an idiot. If you want to learn to be safer then consider yourself human with human failings who could be next in line for a write-up here in incidents (or safety and training).
(This post was edited by dorbie on Apr 17, 2012, 1:18 PM)
Anytime a person is around machinery of any kind weather it is a car, plane, tractor, combine, forklift, any automated machinery, or manual machinery that person needs to respect it or they could end up hurt. Yes, I would consider a person not smart for running into a running propeller partly because they should know better and because anytime you are around machines you need to be careful period. Yes, skydivers have it drilled into them to stay away from the front of the plane and always approach one from behind but if any of us actually need to hear that to really know that maybe they should pick another sport. Most every guy I know has worked on a car with the motor running at one point or another but none have stuck their hand into the belts or the fan(why) because they are smarter than that kind of action(not stupid).
Stupid is as stupid does Nobody cares how good or smart you were,if you do something stupid they will call you stupid. So stay alert, and pay attention, and try not to do anything stupid. I do not consider myself above average in intelligence by any measure. I have seen people who were considered by many to be very smart and successful,do some really stupid stuff. When a smart person does something stupid are we suppose to say"wow they are so smart for doing that,because they are really a smart person"?
(This post was edited by toolbox on Apr 18, 2012, 12:33 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2012, 9:11 PM
Post #107 of 161
(920 views)
Shortcut
>When a smart person does something stupid are we suppose to say"wow >they are so smart for doing that,because they are really a smart person"?
Nope! Nor should you say "wow, that was really stupid, I'll never do anything that stupid" (which is what a LOT of skydivers say after incidents like this.) The best mindset is "wow, a heads up woman walked into a prop. I'm heads up - that could happen to _me_. I better be more careful."
(And please note that if you want to say "it was a stupid thing to do" that's fine - because it is indeed a stupid thing to do. As long as we recognize that even smart people do stupid things, we can learn from incidents like this one.)
Nope! Nor should you say "wow, that was really stupid, I'll never do anything that stupid" (which is what a LOT of skydivers say after incidents like this.) The best mindset is "wow, a heads up woman walked into a prop. I'm heads up - that could happen to _me_. I better be more careful."
I "heads up" persons would think twice about walking towards the business end of a plane. This was NOT a "heads up" person.
(This post was edited by Squeak on Apr 18, 2012, 9:22 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2012, 9:42 PM
Post #109 of 161
(909 views)
Shortcut
Most people are not. The majority are either average or below average, with only the upper thrid really being 'heads up'.
Knowing that being 'heads up' is not a prerequisite for ridnig in a plane, you can't fault this girl for being who she is and ending up in an unfamiliar environment.
Is it common sense not to walk into a prop? Yes. Is it common sense to an 'average' person where that prop is when it's dark and she hasn't been trained how to conduct yourself on the ramp of an airport? Not so much, as this case indicates.
Let's face it, 99% of the US has been 'sanitized' for our protection. There are signs, and warnings, markings on curbs, stairs and walkways making sure people don't get hurt. The vast majority of machinery people come into contact with has no external moving parts that present a snag or pinch hazzard, all of those are kept under a protective cover.
I work in a machine shop enviroment from time to time, I also work on motorcycles and with power tools almost every day. I understand from these experiences how to conduct myself around machinery with regards to personal safety.
The girl who walked into the prop was a model. When do you suspect was the last time she ran a hydraulic press, or turned some stock down on a lathe? The answer is never, and with no experience around machinery, and no training with regards to aircraft, she made a mistake that others (who were trained as such) have made in the past. They get focused on one thing and walk right through the invisible prop arc. Let's face it, you can stand 6 inches from the prop or 6 feet from the prop, and it all feels and sounds about the same. It's not until you make contact does it become apparent that you're too close. The prop wash doesn't feel all that different between climbing out of the cabin, and walking right up to it.
She may very well have been dumb, but she was absolutely in a new-to-her, very dangerous envorinment with no training or direct supervision. Even a genuis could have made the same mistake.
So it is not stupid if a genius walks into a spinning prop? You can forget to pull while being heads up? So the guy who put honey on his baby so he could film the 500+pound bear licking it off in yellowstone park was not being stupid because he was not used to being around bears? Interesting.
(This post was edited by toolbox on Apr 18, 2012, 11:11 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2012, 11:30 PM
Post #113 of 161
(886 views)
Shortcut
That's the thing. Sometimes even the best skydivers on the planet forget to pull, or pull the wrong handle. That's why they have AAD's - and why sometimes those AAD's save the best of the best.
And that's why even then, some of them die.
If you think that there are people heads up enough to never make a fatal mistake in this sport you may be in for a rude awakening someday.
That's the thing. Sometimes even the best skydivers on the planet forget to pull, or pull the wrong handle. That's why they have AAD's - and why sometimes those AAD's save the best of the best.
And that's why even then, some of them die.
If you think that there are people heads up enough to never make a fatal mistake in this sport you may be in for a rude awakening someday.
dude seriously, name ONE person who will tell you that they FORGOT to pull. get an act that actually pans out will you.
to Dave Lepka, Granted the model may not be mechanically minded, but I doubt that she would intentionally stick her hand in a spinning blender. if she has enough nous to not do that she should also know that the spinning end of a plane is dangerous.
(This post was edited by Squeak on Apr 19, 2012, 1:05 AM)
>dude seriously, name ONE person who will tell you that they FORGOT to pull.
Since many of them are dead it would be hard to get them to say anything.
But of the people who survived -
The two people at Quincy 1994 that were on the first helicopter load after the storm on Wednesday. Both forgot to pull. Cypres saved both of them. Kirlin was there within 30 seconds in a golf cart to kick them both out. I watched it all from 1000 feet away.
The four way team that had all four of their dytters reset by circling at 13000 for 20 minutes. Four cypres saves. All were "waiting for the beep."
Or if you don't believe them go to the CYPRES save website and see for yourself. Here are two:
============================== 20.July 2000 Alabama, USA Expert CYPRES A jumper was working on head down and forgot to pull his main. The CYPRES fired at 750 ft.
16. February 1997 Zwartberg, Belgium Expert CYPRES After a solo jump from 6500 ft. a skydiver couldn't find his ripcord, went unstable and tried to become stable again. Due to these procedures he forgot altitude and time. CYPRES activated his reserve. ====================
(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 19, 2012, 11:10 AM)
If you think that there are people heads up enough to never make a fatal mistake in this sport you may be in for a rude awakening someday. dude seriously, name ONE person who will tell you that they FORGOT to pull. get an act that actually pans out will you.
I have been there when they scraped the remains off of the runway, while another plane is waiting to dump the next load.
FFS when did negligence become a synonym for Forgetting.
Experienced jumpers DO NOT FORGET to pull. It's not like their AAD goes of and they realise, oh Fuck that's right I was supposed to pull something, now what was that.
Back to the other misuse of words in a word based media.
"HEADS UP" people, do not blow past their opening heights either. If you do blow past it, by definition you are NOT "heads up' about it.
People fuck up, people make mistakes people get complacent.
I've seen alot of AAD saves in the last 20 years,and none were because the skydivers were incapacitated. And no matter how you try to rationalize being saved by an AAD because you lost awareness,it still sounds pretty stupid. The most important thing to do on any skydive is to pull,pull on time,pull on time stable if possible.You have to pull to live! The only acceptable reason for not pulling on time is if you are incapacitated in someway. If you have your ass saved by the AAD because you forgot where you were,you are a dumbass. I am not saying it could never happen to me,but it is still very stupid forgetting to pull and I sure would feel like a dumbass if I put myself there. I would have to seriously think about whether I should continue skydiving if I forgot to pull (if I survived). I've felt dumb enough the 8 times I've landed out and 2 of those were emergency exits and 3 were reserve rides. I would have to say forgetting to pull is probably more stupid than walking into a spinning prop. And relying on your audible alone was always considered a bad idea.Has this philosophy changed now?Should we never look at our altimeter or the ground anymore? Just because a 4-way team forgets to pull doesn't make it less stupid. Why are so many people trying to defend stupid acts?
(This post was edited by toolbox on Apr 19, 2012, 6:45 PM)
I've seen alot of AAD saves in the last 20 years,and none were because the skydivers were incapacitated. And no matter how you try to rationalize being saved by an AAD because you lost awareness,it still sounds pretty stupid. The most important thing to do on any skydive is to pull,pull on time,pull on time stable if possible.You have to pull to live!
I tend to regard successful AAD fires as a bounce that didn't happen. The events leading up to that point need careful evaluation and EFFECTIVE corrective action should be taken.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 19, 2012, 9:20 PM
Post #123 of 161
(722 views)
Shortcut
They were in freefall. They didn't pull because they were doing something else and pulling apparently slipped their minds. Play all the word games you want; they are alive today because their Cypres, fortunately, DID remember to pull. Many people have not been so lucky.
FFS when did negligence become a synonym for Forgetting.
Experienced jumpers DO NOT FORGET to pull.
I was on a 4-way Freefly load about 6 years ago. At 3000 jumps at the time and 18 years, I was the least experienced of that group.
I broke the sit round at 4500 as usual and tracked away and dumped at 3000 (as usual). The whole time I watched that remaining 3 way remain in a sit.
About the moment I was in the saddle (or so it seemed) - I saw them break, open and land - not a single one had more than a 10 second canopy ride. Two cypres fires (they didn't pull), and one other reserve fire (he remembered to pull silver - so he didn't forget).
But I'd say pretty clearly that two forgot to pull at all at the right time or later, and one forgot to pull at any altitude good enough for a main. And that include all them seeing the 4th person break and track away during the dive.
It's amazing how scary that looks when you're in the saddle and they continue to fall.
However - I don't think they forgot again for the rest of that season afterwards, at least.
They all agreed it was stupid - they didn't differentiate between the semantics of whether to call it 'forgetting' vs 'neglected' to pull, they just decided they should know it can happen and they didn't want it to happen to them again.
(This post was edited by rehmwa on Apr 20, 2012, 8:12 AM)
>And the best way to make sure it happens to you is to tell yourself it can't.
I really doubt that, just because Squeak wants to use another word for the problem, implies that this equates to ignoring the possibility.
The take away is that not pulling (for whatever reason and rare as it is) CAN happen to anyone and acknowledging that helps reduce the possibility for everyone.
(This post was edited by rehmwa on Apr 20, 2012, 8:16 AM)
Why am I being pedantic about this. Here's why. Some may say (like Bill Novak) that's it's just a play one words. It's not. To accept that the forgot to do the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING in sky diving, is to make excuses for being negligent.
No one FORGETS to pull, you don't pull ON TIME because YOU FUCKED UP not because you "forgot".
I have gone low on an early sit jump, I didnt forget to pull I FUCKED UP, by not being aware of my altitude.
Take responsibility for your actions and don't look for lame arsed excuses for why things go bad.
If there is seriously anyone jumping who thinks that they are capable of "FORGETTING " to pull they should never put a rig on their back
In a text based media such as this the selection of appropriate words is very important for proper and correct communication of ideas.
because it's important to you - you infer a certain amount of excuse making in the term 'forget' and won't accept the implication of diverting responsibility to take the right action
- other people might not make that inference like you do and just use the term as a descriptor or even one they find drives acceptance as a root cause needing ownership also
that's why is understandable that it's semantics for people like me but very important to you
actually - I had thought that Billvon was the one that making inferences based on verbage, not you. I got that backwards.
It's funny, some of the biggest arguments I've ever seen is when two people are clearly on the same page (agreeing) for what is happening and they can't recognize that they are agreeing with each other but just refuse to unless they use the same exact verbage. Usually engineers and technical types. I've seen arguments between grown ups over the use of the phrase "cut in" vs "implement" when both were just talking about making the same change in a product.
thanks for caring - your motivation is understandable and caring for all the youngsters out there - I understand what you're trying to say, but trying to force others to use your specific phrasing is only useful when trying to succeed in getting promotions to executive level in engineering companies
(This post was edited by rehmwa on Apr 20, 2012, 8:52 AM)
trying to force others to use your specific phrasing is only useful when trying to succeed in getting promotions to executive level in engineering companies
trying to force others to use your specific phrasing is only useful when trying to succeed in getting promotions to executive level in engineering companies
And that's why we have PowerPoint
Wendy P.
that's hilarious - I've prepared presos to present to "Vice President Bob". At the end, I've had the comment - "that was great, can you change the words on slide 5 to 'blah blah blah' instead of 'original text'?"
It's silly, because he was the final audience, no point in making revisions, especially just for his personal verbage.
Clarity < > verbage. It = delivery and listening/reading/context skills. I find that clarity depends a LOT more on the listener than the deliverer.
Way off topic, but I actually took a class on presenting material once that was really eye-opening. It improved my presentations hugely, and I've used it to help others.
Look up Edward Tufte. Worth it. He's all about "don't lead them to the conclusion, show them the data and let them participate in the conclusion"
I whole heartedly disagree. Language and word use specifically (particularly in a medium which is text based, but also when that media is cross cultural)) should be properly defined and when instruction (like in topic specific forums) or information is to be disseminated.
If you give people a "soft" option for why things went awry it excuses there poor decision making or improper judgment. Call things out for what they are, dont glamourise it, dont gloss over it.
This whole back and forth came about because of the way words were being used to excuse behaviours of people who put themselves in harms way. Initially a model walking into the spinning propeller. It then transgressed to jumpers not being "heads up" and "forgetting" the most fundamental thing in our sport. These are not valid reasons for why bad things happened, they're "cop outs".
IF the "safety and Training" sub forum is to have any real validity then it should at the least be the place where excuses are not tolerated.
RWRATP -- real writers rewrite around the problem.
the solution for going forward is to make sure that in teaching one's students, one gives enough context to the words so that the concepts follow naturally. If there's a disagreement about the connotation and/or denotation of the word "forget" then it's not the best word to use when describing the problem, simply because it is prone to misunderstanding.
It's why technical language is as specific as it is -- simply to avoid misunderstandings such as this one.
You can't use "I fucked up" as a complete explanation for a cypres fire. Here are some sample answers to "why did you have a cypres fire":
John Doe : "I fucked up. I jumped up on exit, hit the tail, and woke up under canopy" Jane Doe : "I fucked up. I stuffed my PC too deep in the pouch, and spent 15 sec trying to dig it out" Jack Doe : "I fucked up. I lost altitude awareness; I forgot to pull."
In general, saying "I forgot..." does not in any way absolve me of responsibility, but it does explain what happened.
Here in the USA anyway, "I forgot" is a common equivalent for "I lost track of time", as in "oh shit, I forgot to pick up my daughter" after losing track of time while watching a football match.
it's such a blatant common sense topic, that this really is silly though
semantics jockeys are likely the reason that we have warning lables on toothpick boxes
"did not pull" is the only accurate statement - everything else is someone's interpretation on the reason why - so I don't much care, the solution is to pull
(This post was edited by rehmwa on Apr 20, 2012, 9:22 AM)
The point is that forgetting to pull because you are buzy having fun is unacceptable behavior. Forgetting to pull is just stupid. I'm glad most people have AAD's these days.. Forgetting to pull is more stupid than walking into a spinning prop.
Yeah it is silly, as we are all basically on the same page.
For some one who is interested in being precise in language, I think you can make a distinction between omitting a step while planning out a process, and losing track of time and not taking an action when you should.
It is not like any jumper mentally planning a dive flow "forgets" the pull step and expects to go directly from breakoff and track to check canopy/collapse slider, but after 60 sec or so from exit their minds don't remind them.
It is a convention to use the phrase "forgetting" for both accidentally omitting a planning step and missing a timing cue, even though cognitively they feel to me quite different.
The point is that forgetting to pull because you are buzy having fun is unacceptable behavior. Forgetting to pull is just stupid. I'm glad most people have AAD's these days.. Forgetting to pull is more stupid than walking into a spinning prop.
my eyes teared up a bit with that post - trying not to laugh too loud
thanks
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 20, 2012, 2:20 PM
Post #140 of 161
(699 views)
Shortcut
Yep! She has shit sandwich on her plate. I also hope she recovers,but without any settlements from lawsuits. She served up her own sandwich and now she has to choke it down on her own. At least she is still alive.
So it is not stupid if a genius walks into a spinning prop?
The gal was not stupid. She was ignorant. Even as a student pilot, the prop stopped before anyone got in or out of the plane. She made an ignorant mistake.
The pilot was in command. He was responsible for her safety. He let her out with the prop spinning. To me that's inexcuseable. She fucked up. He let her. She was not fully aware of a risk about which he was cognizant and he did not manage it.
>I "heads up" persons would think twice about walking towards the business >end of a plane. This was NOT a "heads up" person.
And a heads up person would never forget to pull. And a heads up person would never pull the wrong handle under stress. But still, they sometimes do.
By definition you are not 'heads up' if you do something that stupid. You may be experienced, even someone who is conservative and cautious, but that does not make you heads up.
Complacency kills and ANY skydiver who has died or had a cypress fire while waiting for the beep is not heads up, they are either incompetent or complacent.
As far as the model goes, I wouldn't blame a person unfamiliar with aircraft for a screw up like that. People mentioned earlier in the thread about static line students being different to a tandem student. A tandem student may have been on a small airport or dropzone for 30 minutes before boarding, a SL student should have had considerably more exposure. I think the same is true for passenger joy rides. Most passengers are ignorant thereby placing them into the incompetent bracket. The pilot should take responsibility for their safety.
So it is not stupid if a genius walks into a spinning prop?
The gal was not stupid. She was ignorant. Even as a student pilot, the prop stopped before anyone got in or out of the plane. She made an ignorant mistake.
The pilot was in command. He was responsible for her safety. He let her out with the prop spinning. To me that's inexcuseable. She fucked up. He let her. She was not fully aware of a risk about which he was cognizant and he did not manage it.
I agree with rocket.
What did the pilot have to gain by not shutting down before he let the PAX exit. A little time, less wear and tear on the starter and battery.
What did he have to lose by not shutting down ,a lot of sleepless nights.
IMO The Risk wasn't worth the rewards.
R.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2012, 11:05 PM
Post #148 of 161
(577 views)
Shortcut
>What did the pilot have to gain by not shutting down before he let the PAX >exit. A little time, less wear and tear on the starter and battery. What did >he have to lose by not shutting down ,a lot of sleepless nights.
Agreed. But keep in mind that all those things apply to skydivers - and we've had skydivers struck by props - and we still load hot.
It should go without saying that you never approach the aircraft near the prop.
I say it should but it doesn't because it isn't drilled into people often enough.
I think from now on I will call people out no matter how much experience they have and of course they can choose to listen to me or be arrogant and say or do whatever they gotta do. Consistency with approaching the aircraft is the only way to go though because short of saving someones life or limb it's just never worth the extra 4 seconds you'd save by shortcutting it. Doing the right thing and setting a good example is the responsibility of everyone on the airfield.
I say it should but it doesn't because it isn't drilled into people often enough.
Its standard at our DZ to tell everyone about the dangers of props....except we don't cal it a prop.
Its called a "mincer".....and people really GET that.
Having been a safety guy at an industrial manufacturing place I take it a step further and warn people about walking behind the blowin' spinner without eye protection.
>What did the pilot have to gain by not shutting down before he let the PAX >exit. A little time, less wear and tear on the starter and battery. What did >he have to lose by not shutting down ,a lot of sleepless nights.
Agreed. But keep in mind that all those things apply to skydivers - and we've had skydivers struck by props - and we still load hot.
I find there to be a difference between skydivers loading behind a spinning prop in the daytime and a single unescorted indiviaul at night around a moving prop. It's a matter of cognizance of risk. Sure, we have ignorant tandems getting on and off - and escorted every step. Skydivers unescorted who are pretty damned knowledgeable about staying the hell clear of that spnning slicer.
I know my thinking is pretty subjective. I simply look at what cognizance people have of the respective risks involved. Tandems spend time beforehand watching Bill Booth tell them about how dangerous it is, then get videoed telling the camera about how they understand they will die doing this, etc.
Someone walking into a prop? Nope. Some pilot looking for a piece of ass from some model ended up with a piece of arm instead.
>I find there to be a difference between skydivers loading behind a >spinning prop in the daytime and a single unescorted indiviaul at night >around a moving prop. It's a matter of cognizance of risk.
I agree. However, because we do not have the access controls that airports do, non-skydivers often end up around the aircraft as well. And of course tandem passengers do not learn much about aircraft safety during their 10 minute ground instruction other than "wait for your instructor." Which is why even skydiving aircraft loading skydivers have had prop vs person accidents.
But we still load hot. Why? For a lot of reasons that have to do with convenience and saving a buck and nothing to do with safety. "It's faster." "It's easier on the engines." We load hot because we want to save a minute or two; hard to condemn someone else for doing the same.
>Some pilot looking for a piece of ass from some model ended up with a >piece of arm instead.
================ Estonian Skydiver Killed by Spinning Aircraft Propeller
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2008 1:50:52 PM by scottdeus12
TALLINN, Estonia — Authorities say a skydiver was killed when she walked into a spinning aircraft propeller at an airfield in Estonia. ================
And some DZO was looking for a piece of ass ended up with a lot of pieces of a skydiver instead. But still we are OK with hot loading.
The pilot in question may not have been use to giving sightseeing rides, IIRC he was a CFI and if so the stay away from the spinner thing would be gone over in great detail with his students.
Could be he was just in the groove of thinking the person getting out had some understanding of the procedure.
Why people do what they do sometimes is baffling, At Oshkosh in the early 80's I saw a woman pilot stick both hands into a spinning Cessna prop that was at idle.
I was ten feet away and couldn't believe my eyes, took both hands off at the wrist.
We load hot because we want to save a minute or two; hard to condemn someone else for doing the same.
I understand totally, Bill. And if there were facts that came out that she was thoroughly briefed and did not follow the procedure then my position will change. Part of me is operating off of the assumption that she wasn't briefed about it.
I know my position draws a line in the sand. I'm not coming to it from a legal standpoint (the risk v. utility discussion that you opened) but from a completely subjective standpoint that is "this is what I think."
Why people do what they do sometimes is baffling, At Oshkosh in the early 80's I saw a woman pilot stick both hands into a spinning Cessna prop that was at idle.
I was ten feet away and couldn't believe my eyes, took both hands off at the wrist.
Hi Mr T
We used to do the engine starts on the C-130's looking headon into the props.
Sometime with the sun behind the props there was some kind of a "strobe effect" strange feeling almost like we were being hypnotized
On the 130's we always tried to load everything thru the rear end, hot or cold and watched the pax like a hawk.
Hot loading thru the front door definately we used our head set cord as a barrier to prevent the pax from turning into the props.
Thanks for the thread. Gotta go eat breakfest
Hopefully the DZ's won't have a prop strike happen for a very long time
About experience and habits - there are two pretty common versions of Russian MIL-8 helicopter: Mi-8MT and Mi-8MTV.
One day I have seen very experienced aircraft engineer (Afghan War veteran) when he was doing his pre-flight check and walking counterclockwise around the bird, which was already powered up and spinning; he was saved by another guy just seconds before he walks into tail rotor.
The thing was that during last few month he flew Mi 8MT which has right-side tail rotor; MTV version has it on a left side...
He surely knows what he was doing and he surely was aware of the danger - but the outcome could be fatal. Habits are hard to beat.
forgot: past participle, past tense of for·get (Verb) (1) Fail to remember. (2) Inadvertently neglect to attend to, do, or mention something: "she forgot to lock her door"; "I'm sorry, I just forgot".
.....
It would seem to me, that there's some overlap between negligence and forgetfulness. When in a court of law, the word "negligence" vs "forgetfulness" can be debated, but the fact that debate happens show what a fine line there is. I think my spouse (training as a paralegal) would be able to answer this better. There's a batch of words (forgetfulness, inconsideration, negligence, etc) that can become quite controversial without clearly defining everything.
Now, we can define the specifics of "forget": Does "forget" refer to the action of moment in time, or does "forget" refer to the training about how to pull? Maybe Squeak is talking about the latter, and billyvon is talking about the former?
Of course, Squeak, I agree with you that you DO NOT "forget" your training of pull. You're absolutely right. But, agreeing with Billyvon and others too, there are people who "forgot" to pull at the RIGHT time, and have been saved by the Cypres. Forgetting to lock a door because you were focussed on recovering from tripping on the stairs. Forgetting to pull a parachute at the correct time because you were focussed on a tumble. Same thing about the momentary forgetfulness.
Then, if this was brought into court, I'm sure a lawyer (lawrocket?) would be happy to chime in. Context is very important in law.
(This post was edited by mdrejhon on Apr 27, 2012, 10:29 AM)
