Martha Lunken, our region's first lady of flying, is grounded. 'It's like being disemboweled

[thinwing]

23 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

IIRC, the first incident did cause reportable damage (it wasn't just minor), and the second incident involved handpropping a plane without another pilot at the controls.  I recall she described just tying it down at the tail, which obviously failed.

Although it sounds like handpropping a non electrical aircraft should only be done with another pilot at the controls....this in the real world of off airport or quiet semi abandoned airport operations just is not possible.Sure in the 50s and 60s you could always ask at busy airports for the line boy to give me a prop...im betting that there are very few folks here on MS who have had to handprop.My limited experience has been in cubs and champs and once on a remote lake...9 times out of ten I was alone...not a big deal ,I was taught at the time to routinely chock and tie down the tail with a slip knot ...I suppose that is considered careless and wreaklesss by todays safety inspectors who have never hand propped either.Im hoping a mooney mite owner will chime in here....

[ZuluZulu]

34 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Although it sounds like handpropping a non electrical aircraft should only be done with another pilot at the controls....this in the real world of off airport or quiet semi abandoned airport operations just is not possible.Sure in the 50s and 60s you could always ask at busy airports for the line boy to give me a prop...im betting that there are very few folks here on MS who have had to handprop.My limited experience has been in cubs and champs and once on a remote lake...9 times out of ten I was alone...not a big deal ,I was taught at the time to routinely chock and tie down the tail with a slip knot ...I suppose that is considered careless and wreaklesss by todays safety inspectors who have never hand propped either.Im hoping a mooney mite owner will chime in here....

It might be careless and reckless if the plane moves after you start it.  Martha got busted because she didn't sufficiently secure the aircraft against unintended movement, not merely because she hand-propped.  Easily could have killed somebody, including herself.

[thinwing]

19 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

It might be careless and reckless if the plane moves after you start it.  Martha got busted because she didn't sufficiently secure the aircraft against unintended movement, not merely because she hand-propped.  Easily could have killed somebody, including herself.

Or simply the result of using a weak weather damaged tiedown rope on the tail of the Cub.....an accident

[jaylw314]

21 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

It might be careless and reckless if the plane moves after you start it.  Martha got busted because she didn't sufficiently secure the aircraft against unintended movement, not merely because she hand-propped.  Easily could have killed somebody, including herself.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2015/march/25/hand-propping

There's no rule against hand propping or how to do it, but the FAA clearly wants it done with certain precautions, and have used that for the "careless and reckless" argument.

Edited May 4, 2021 by jaylw314

[ZuluZulu]

55 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Or simply the result of using a weak weather damaged tiedown rope on the tail of the Cub.....an accident

I would think she's responsible for using a weak weather damaged tiedown rope, and/or failing to adequately inspect the rope before she tries to use it for a task that, if the rope fails, could be fatal to herself and others.

[Bolter]

On 4/26/2021 at 2:05 PM, EricJ said:

Often when a punitive action looks harsher than one would expect it's due to the enforcement agency reaching the end of their patience over previous unactioned behavior.    She may have gotten warnings in the past or been observed doing things in the past that were let slide, and this was a final straw of sorts.

I've no idea whether that's really the case in this instance, but often it winds up being the background for stuff like this.   I suspect it may have been in play in her previous enforcements as well.

 

Reminds me of the California 3-strikes law.  They always talked about a case where he was sentenced to 25-life foe stealing a slice of pizza.  What they left out was that he already had 5 felony convictions, and he stole the pizza from children.  The final reason was just the final mechanism after a pattern of unchanging behavior, and questionable explanations.  

[thinwing]

of course..the pilot in camand is always held responsible

[thinwing]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2015/march/25/hand-propping

There's no rule against hand propping or how to do it, but the FAA clearly wants it done with certain precautions, and have used that for the "careless and reckless" argument.

Exactly..FAA recomends "best practices"for hand propping but didnot make it regulatory...the reason being too many pilots operating in solo situations where another pilot at the controls is not possible...think Alaska if that helps you see the situation...hunter guide flys onto a sandbar (minus electrical system in his cub/aeronca etc due to weight)hes gonna chock wheels best he can and prop away...and of course if there is an incident ...it will be his fault

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Exactly..FAA recomends "best practices"for hand propping but didnot make it regulatory...the reason being too many pilots operating in solo situations where another pilot at the controls is not possible...think Alaska if that helps you see the situation...hunter guide flys onto a sandbar (minus electrical system in his cub/aeronca etc due to weight)hes gonna chock wheels best he can and prop away...and of course if there is an incident ...it will be his fault

That can be handled differently if the FAA had wanted to write a rule structure appropriately.

First, aren't there lots of rules that already have "except in Alaska" exemptions.

Then a scenario where you said, its almost as if they had written more strict hand propping as rules, then the poor isolated bush pilot on a sand par would have to declare an emergency - "I declare an emergency" shouted to the sky - then hand prop.  It would almost work.

[jaylw314]

6 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Exactly..FAA recomends "best practices"for hand propping but didnot make it regulatory...the reason being too many pilots operating in solo situations where another pilot at the controls is not possible...think Alaska if that helps you see the situation...hunter guide flys onto a sandbar (minus electrical system in his cub/aeronca etc due to weight)hes gonna chock wheels best he can and prop away...and of course if there is an incident ...it will be his fault

I'm not sure if there's a situation I need to see--we're in agreement that if something bad happens while hand-propping, the pilot will be held responsible for failing to take appropriate precautions?

[Hank]

I know people who stand behind the prop, foot on the tire, left hand on the wing strut and flip the prop with their right hand. Then reach in and idle everything, swung around the strut and climb in. In the Lower 48.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, thinwing said:

Although it sounds like handpropping a non electrical aircraft should only be done with another pilot at the controls....this in the real world of off airport or quiet semi abandoned airport operations just is not possible.Sure in the 50s and 60s you could always ask at busy airports for the line boy to give me a prop...im betting that there are very few folks here on MS who have had to handprop.My limited experience has been in cubs and champs and once on a remote lake...9 times out of ten I was alone...not a big deal ,I was taught at the time to routinely chock and tie down the tail with a slip knot ...I suppose that is considered careless and wreaklesss by todays safety inspectors who have never hand propped either.Im hoping a mooney mite owner will chime in here....

I’ve hand propped a few modern planes but I don’t go out of my way to do it. The most awkward was a twin bonanza with two bladed props. The way the prop was indexed (~7:00 IIRC) to the compression stroke was not comfortable at all. I’d probably pass on it today. I think hand propping a low compression 4 cylinders from behind is pretty easy but I probably have 100lbs on Martha. She looks like a tiny little thing so I imagine it takes about all she’s got. 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I know people who stand behind the prop, foot on the tire, left hand on the wing strut and flip the prop with their right hand. Then reach in and idle everything, swung around the strut and climb in. In the Lower 48.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. 

Some airplanes you can hand prop from behind, most you cannot.  Cub on floats you pretty much have to prop from behind, or I guess have a ladder in the water.

‘My C-140 if you try to prop from behind, with your back against the lift struts, your nose will be close to the prop, not for me.

‘I personally am against hand propping, too much downside to it, and no real upside that I can see.

Neighbor has a Baby Ace, he has a glider tow hook installed after he gets into the airplane he releases the hook, we were at Deland and I asked if he wanted my help, he declined, when it started it looked like it almost got away from him, I’m sure he didn’t mean to have that much throttle, rope and hook held. The tow hook seems to be a good idea for a bad plan.

Another neighbor has or had a Hatz biplane, it got away from her hand propping about a month ago and the ditch took its gear out before it got into her neighbors house, she had a dog twist screw that got pulled up, you know the ones you buy to tie down at Sun-N-fun.

‘No FAA involvement for her, good thing I suppose as she flies for Netjets.

Edited May 4, 2021 by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

Had a long discussion regarding this on another site. In this day, unless it is an antique there is no reason for hand propping. 

One, hand propping is a matter of proficiency and most people are not proficient, not even close

Two, if the battery is dead, bad things can happen from starting a dead battery airplane and then slapping alternator power to it.

Three, if it is a weak battery use of one of those new lithium jump packs to start it is easy enough. No reason not to have one.

Four, if it is a failed starter FedEx can have one there very fast

Five, if you are stuck on a glacier call your buddy to fly out a new starter to you. Don't have your sat phone? Shame on you for flying back country without it.

 

In short, there are few reasons to hand prop an airplane in this day, and few enough for you to not be proficient at doing it. If you are starting a Liberty or a Gnome, fine. If you got a Champ without a electrical system, fine...small, low compression engine. Otherwise, put a starter on it and use it.

Seen human prop strike, don't want to see any more.

[211º]

Now...
In light of the recent concocted story...
Do you really still trust her, when she says she tied it down?
 
Kind of a study on risk taking...
Simple risks can be incredibly costly when everything goes south...
Best regards,
-a-

She did tie it down and had an anchor in the ground for it. But she tied the anchor to a chain on the tail wheel which broke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[thinwing]

9 hours ago, 211º said:

She did tie it down and had an anchor in the ground for it. But she tied the anchor to a chain on the tail wheel which broke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

well that sounds like either a senior moment or she somehow got in the habit of passing the rope thru the tail wheel spring attach point rather than the strut itself...maybe cause it was easier to reach...either way the generic faa careless and reckless charge was applied because she did it wrong.....

[Hank]

"Sometimes you go out knowing that it will be your last flight. Sometimes you don't know." Sad to end this way, though.

[MooneyMitch]

Looks like Martha was able to “bridge” the gap between her non flying days and now!!  
AOPA says she got her certificate back!  Go Martha 

[Greg Ellis]

The latest edition of Flying has an article about her road back. It was written in December.  She speaks about just soloing again in a Cessna 150.  Even has a photo of her getting her shirt tail cut.

[thinwing]

On 2/10/2022 at 4:32 AM, Greg Ellis said:

The latest edition of Flying has an article about her road back. It was written in December.  She speaks about just soloing again in a Cessna 150.  Even has a photo of her getting her shirt tail cut.

Ha Ha...new cfi boss says..."I got a new pvt student for you...but she is almost 80 years old""80 years old ! Jesus what is someone that old want with a pilot license""She says she cant live with out one""Yeah but she could be capeable of anything ,how am I supposed to teach someone that old!""Believe me young CFI,,,I dont think you will have any problem teaching this old lady!"

[Will.iam]

Don’t ag airplanes routinely fly under power lines at end of the fields they spray? Or is that illegal now too?

[carusoam]

3 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Don’t ag airplanes routinely fly under power lines at end of the fields they spray? Or is that illegal now too?

Good question for @A64Pilot… 

I’ve never flown under anything attached to the ground… yet.

Best regards,

-a-

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

51 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Good question for @A64Pilot… 

I’ve never flown under anything attached to the ground… yet.

Best regards,

-a-

I doubt Ag planes do that, but I did fly under power lines in Cobra training.  You go slow, you kick up lots of dust, you risk catching your tail, so most people conclude that it is better to just go over them quickly in forward flight.

[EricJ]

If you watch the YT vids from the AG guys they fly under power lines all the time.

 

[jaylw314]

8 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Don’t ag airplanes routinely fly under power lines at end of the fields they spray? Or is that illegal now too?

IIRC, there are some FAR's specifically related to agricultural operations that give them more leeway, but I can't recall the specifics