Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside

On Dec 29, 9:48*pm, "BT" wrote:
It may have been an "accident" when the unpiloted aircraft hit the trees.
But it the airplane did not accidentally start moving.. that would be
negligence on the grandfathers part

Wouldn't that still be an accident? Are you suggesting that if the
plane was not tied down it was a "on purpose"?

In anycase, its not always practical to tie down the tail (especially
in areas without tiedown). I had 3 ways to secure the Aeronca and J-3.
Brakes, chock, tail tiedown. I would always use 2 of those 3. Many,
many times I started the plane when no tie down was available but then
I would use a chock and the aircraft brake (which was marginal). One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar. Once you've started the plane you can walk around,
put it in a low idle, and then unsecure the airplane.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar.

I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?

On Dec 31, 1:34*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar.

I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?

In the US you are. That is a Canadian rule. I can't ever remember
having a licensed pilot when I was hand proping. In truth its only
scarry to those that haven't done it. In fact you have to stop
yourself every once-in-a-while because it becomes so common its easy
to let your guard down. If I had to have another pilot around that
would have killed 90% of my flights.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:34 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar.
I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?

In the US you are.

Maybe I'm thinking of an airport rule...

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:34 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar.
I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?

In the US you are.

Maybe I'm thinking of an airport rule...

Yes, you are--and occasionally a municipal rule. I won't even try to hazard
a guess as to whether either of those are enforceable, or under what
circumstances.

Peter

On Dec 31, 3:01*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Am I dreaming?

In the US you are. That is a Canadian rule. I can't ever remember
having a licensed pilot when I was hand proping. In truth its only
scarry to those that haven't done it. In fact you have to stop
yourself every once-in-a-while because it becomes so common its easy
to let your guard down. If I had to have another pilot around that
would have killed 90% of my flights.

Canadian rule does not require a competent person at the controls
if the airplane is prevented from moving. Here's the reg:

Starting and Ground Running of Aircraft Engines

602.10 (1) No person shall start an engine of an aircraft unless

(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control
the aircraft;

(b) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving;
or

(c) in the case of a seaplane, the aircraft is in a location from
which any movement of the aircraft will not endanger persons or
property.


In my case, I have a really strong parking brake. And if I have
to use more than fully-closed throttle, I tie the tail down.

Dan

On Dec 31, 4:34*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?

I know some airports require it. I can't find anything FAR's
regarding it in a quick web search.

The FAA's Airplane Handbook however (which is not a set of rules but
rather a textbook) suggests a person "familiar with the controls" to
be inside the plane.

The few guys I know at the airport who have planes that need to be
hand propped generally just find anyone nearby. Several times I've
seen one guy who owns a pretty nice J-3 let one of the younger
teenagers that hangs around the airport sit inside while he propped
the plane, and as a "present" he let the kid taxi it over to the fuel
pumps.

Of course he's not much for regulations even if that was illegal. I've
seen the same guy take that little plane off from the parking ramp
rather than taxi out to the runway O.O.

Mike Gaskins

B A R R Y wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

One
thing that "electric" pilots do not realize is that its very, very
hard to guess how much power the engine will develop when it first
starts. Sometimes it will just be idling, other times it will start
with a big roar.


I seem to remember a rule about a licensed pilot at the controls when
hand propping.

Am I dreaming?


Except when you fly to an unattended airport, fuel up (U-Fuel Self
Service) with your credit card, find there isn't a soul there except you
and you still have 300 miles to go to your destination.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 9:48 pm, "BT" wrote:
It may have been an "accident" when the unpiloted aircraft hit the trees.
But it the airplane did not accidentally start moving.. that would be
negligence on the grandfathers part

Wouldn't that still be an accident? Are you suggesting that if the
plane was not tied down it was a "on purpose"?

If one does not follow known procedure and safety guidelines and causes
injury.
Is it an accident that you did not do as instructed?
Or is it negligence.

"BT" wrote in message
...
Is it an accident that you did not do as instructed?
Or is it negligence.

The two are not mutually exclusive, so your answer is "both". We are all
capable of doing dumb things. (though some of us may be more capable than
others)

Vaughn