If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
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... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"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"? 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 Back in the mid 70's I witnessed brake failure on a Luscombe during rollout of a landing. The airplane ground looped and went into a fence. The FAA inspector classified it as an incident. He said that incidents did not result in injuries requiring hospital treatment. Accidents did require hospital treatment. I don't know if that was his own policy or the FAA's at the time. -- Anyolmouse |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"Anyolmouse" wrote in message ... Back in the mid 70's I witnessed brake failure on a Luscombe during rollout of a landing. The airplane ground looped and went into a fence. The FAA inspector classified it as an incident. He said that incidents did not result in injuries requiring hospital treatment. Accidents did require hospital treatment. I don't know if that was his own policy or the FAA's at the time. See FARs Part 830.2 (definitions) Vaughn |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"Anyolmouse" wrote in message ... | | "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"? | | 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 | | Back in the mid 70's I witnessed brake failure on a Luscombe during | rollout of a landing. The airplane ground looped and went into a fence. | The FAA inspector classified it as an incident. He said that incidents | did not result in injuries requiring hospital treatment. Accidents did | require hospital treatment. I don't know if that was his own policy or | the FAA's at the time. | | -- | Anyolmouse | Here is the definition taken from: http://www.nolan-law.com/practice-ar...ghts/#Incident An aviation accident is the most serious and may be defined as such if at least one person is killed or hospitalized for longer than 24 hours and/or the aircraft is destroyed or substantially damaged. Thus, it is possible to have an aviation accident in which no people are seriously injured but the aircraft is lost as was the case early in 2008 with the loss of a British Airways B777 at Heathrow Airport. Also meeting the test of an aviation accident was the 1997 loss of a TWA B747 flying out of New York when a fuel tank exploded and all 230 persons aboard were killed and the aircraft was destroyed. I guess negligence could come into play either for accidents or incidents. -- Anyolmouse |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Plane Accidentally Starts Moving With 6-Year-Old Inside
"vaughn" wrote in message ... | | "Anyolmouse" wrote in message | ... | | Back in the mid 70's I witnessed brake failure on a Luscombe during | rollout of a landing. The airplane ground looped and went into a fence. | The FAA inspector classified it as an incident. He said that incidents | did not result in injuries requiring hospital treatment. Accidents did | require hospital treatment. I don't know if that was his own policy or | the FAA's at the time. | | See FARs Part 830.2 (definitions) | | Vaughn I did so. Thanks- -- Anyolmouse |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two 14 year old boys steal plane and then crash | John Doe | Piloting | 102 | March 11th 06 05:03 AM |
16 year old steals a plane | Jeff | Piloting | 25 | February 8th 06 11:14 PM |
I want to buy a plane by year-end but they're not making it easy. | T.Roger | Owning | 134 | December 15th 04 11:02 PM |
I want to buy a plane by year-end but they're not making it easy. | T.Roger | Piloting | 132 | December 15th 04 10:09 PM |
Looking for helicopter flight training (and advice) - Sacramento now, and moving to Phoenix next year | JonTheRookie | Rotorcraft | 5 | June 7th 04 04:16 AM |