TABLE 2. NUMBER OF PROPELLER-TO-PERSON ACCIDENTS (1980-1989) BY CATEGORY
OF VICTIMS AND BY THE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THEY WERE ENGAGED

(NOTE: There were 104 accidents; two involved more than one victim.)

| Minor : i
Injury

Handeranking
Inne Eee

Enplaning \

Serious | Minor
Injury

Spectator

Vendor

1
i

| Other

i TOTALS

‘Table 2 contains categories of persons injured or
killed during the 1980's by contact with propellers or
rotors. Sixty-six percent of the injuries involved passen-
gers and about 16% involved ground crew, followed by
pilots (14%). and a spectator category (4%) that includes
such persons as a sister, a friend, and an “unauthorized
person,” plus a farmer (vendor) selling produce at the
airport (the latter was a taxiing accident).

Table 2 also presents a listing of the activities of the
individuals that were associated with the accidents. One-
third of the accidents occurred during deplaning, an-
other 26% occurred when persons were otherwise trying
to assist the pilot (¢.g.. by helping to dock a seaplane,
removing wheel chocks, etc.), approximately 18% in-

volved handcranking the aircraft, about 14% occ
during enplaning, and the remainder were divided among,
walking visitors, delivery men. and loaders, plus one
fatality each resulting from a vendor hit by a taxiing
aircraft. a hunter (passenger) using dogs around a heli-
copter to capture wild hogs, and a ground crewperson
struck by a maving, unattended aircraft. Fourteen of the
19 handcranking accidents (including all 3 fatals) in-

volved pilots; of the remaining 5. 3 involved passengers
and 2 were ground crew injuries.

Only 5 accidents involved a moving aircraft. One of
these was an aircraft left unattended by the pilot, another
involved rotation of the aircraft caused by high winds.
and three were taxiing aircraft (one for takeoff and two


Deparrm: ansportation, Fedcral Aviation

Administration. U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics. Cal-

endar Year 1991.

National Trans
nual Report to Congress: 1970. Washington. D.C.

ortation Safety Board, 197

National Transportation Safery Board. NEWS.
Washington, D.C. January 1981.

National [ransportation Safery Board. NEWS.
Washingzon. D.C. January 1992.

<<)

National Transportation Safety Board. NEWS.
ington. D.C. January 1992.

Welsh, KW,
1978. Conspicuity ass
ler and tail rotor paint schemes. FAA Office of
Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-78-28.

Vaughan. and P.G. Rasmussen.

ssment of selected propel-

Whiteside, T.C.D. 1973. Markings for propeller
conspicuity. AGRAD Advisory Report No. 36.


‘TABLE 4. THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF INJURIES BY CATEGORIES OF PERSONS
IN PROPELLER-TO-PERSON ACCIDENTS FOR 5-YEAR INTERVALS FROM 1965-1989

7 | 7 7
| [| ~average |
i Ground i H Annual i
Years | Pilots | Passengers | Crew | Spectators | Other | Total !
i =
1965-69 | 3.0 | 11.8 | 40 | 2.4 | 12 | 22.4
i |
| | :
Pie70-74 | 5.8 | 11.6 \ 3.2 \ 2.8 fo22 | 256 |
t — my
1975-79 34 | 8.6 1.0 l 14 } aia ! ise |
i" H i i i
i T i]
| 1980-84 | 16 | 10.0 | | 0.4 | 00 | 14.0
en ' 1 rr rr cas
1985-89 | hay 4.0 0.2 02 | 7.2

TABLE 5. THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF PROPELLER-TO-PERSON ACCIDENTS
BY TYPES OF ACTIVITY FOR 5-YEAR INTERVALS FROM 1965-1989

_ a -—- ——— -; —. ——5

i Hand | Assisting | i i i

| Years | Crank + Pitot : Enplane | Deplaie | Load | Spectator i Other

{ 1963-69 ! 40 | 66 Hl 26 | i 12}
Cyoro-74 | 7.2 [a2 | 66 zo |
i 1975-70 | 38 | 26 1.2 Ta |

TABLE 6. THE AVERAGE ANNUAL AVIATION ACTIVITY

FOR 5. -YEAR INTERVALS FROM 1965- 1989 (ref. 8

ao ne ee nee nee ey ee

-22)

Active | Hours i Active
Airmen | Flown i: Aircraft’ | Accidents Accidents j
(Thous) | (Million) ' (thous) ‘ (Thou: (ActuaD |
612 21.9 116 ‘ 5.4 i 61 }
eee nd
28.2 147 ' 4. ; 6390

eee wed ne ee eet
' 378 | 188 43 § 709 |
—L.

i 214

236



after landing). Thus, the vast majoricy of che 104 propel-

ler-to-person accidents occurred while the aircraft was

stationary. Helicoprers were involved in 21 (20%) of the

accidents and seaplanes in 2 (2%). Almost three-fourths
of the helicopcer accidents involved the tail rotor (Ns1S)
and almost half of sli rotor accidents were fatal. More-
over. over 40a (N=9} of those helicopter accidents
occurred during deplaning and about 25% during en-
planing (N=5). all but one of these during daylight

hour

OF the 2 accidents involving seaplanes. both

P
sengers were “assisting the pilot” and

occurred while pa

both were in daylight hours.

Several factors that might have contributed ro these
propeller-to-person accidents were examined, No alvo-

was reported: but alcohol involvement

mated since itis relatively unlikely that
sald be subjected co a blood or breath test ifthe

passenger was fata (987 and
Tn the

volved drug use by the accident victim

case. a lineman was killed while performing his

dutigs: a urit

» sample showed 50 ng/ml. of carboxy

f marijuana. and both

ig recent use

THO suggesti

cocaing and marijuana metabolites were found in his

blood. in the 1989 case, a female passenger ascusting the
ated that she had
taken 5 Fiori ribed for tension
headache ind

was present in only G accidents and ground that was wet,

pilot was seriously injured and indi

al tablets ¢

wally pre

.) with codeine. Rain. snow, fog. of high +

y. or snow covered was reported 3 times. Although

weather factors were i

requently involved. they m

well have contributed to the occurrence of those particu-

lar accidents. Approximately 27% of the accidents hap-

pened during the hours of dusk ordarkness, With respect
to the 29 accidents in the dark, more (N=12) occurred
with persons attempting to assist the pilot than for
persons deplaning {(N=10), enplaning (N=2). or for
“other” reasons. Overall, these findings indicate that
about 44% of accidents involving persons assisting the
pilots, 29% of deplaning accidents, and 13° of enplan-
ing ace
conspicuity {even ac 3 well-lighted airport) would be

deats occurred at night when ordinary propeller

considerably reduced.

Comparisons of the frequency and types of propeller-
rE 1980-1989 were made with

arbizrarits

B

were cal

\. categories

for total accidents (Table

of persons ‘Table i), and for the twpes of activities in

which tae vier s engaged when the accidents

occurred (Table hese tables show a peaki

accidents in the 1970-74 period and a subseque

rom 1975

cially marked
ialmost 40% fess than the previous half-decade} and

in from 1984-89 (a 48% drop from the previous 3-

year period).

TABLE 3. THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF PROPELLER-TO-
PERSON ACCIDENTS AND TYPES OF INJURIES

1980-84

FOR 5-YEAR INTERVALS FROM 1965-1989

Average
Annual
Total

- 22.4



conspicuity: and (e) back-lighting (witch-operated by
the pilot) of the propeller spinacr, modified by transly-

patterns. to create 2 conspicuous configuration
particularly in reduced lighting.

SUMMARY
D isk f Her cide
Persons most at risk for a propeller-to-person accident
are deplaning passengers and passengers attempting to
assist the pilot. That finding clearly assigns considerable
zesponsibilicy to pilots ro ensure safery of their passengers

in this regard.
REFERENCES

1. Collins, W.E.. A-R. Mastrulio, WR. Kirkham,
D.K. Tavlor. and P.M. Grape. 1981. An analysis
of civil aviation propeller-ro-person accidents:
1965.1979. EAA Office of Aviation Medicine
Report No. AM-81-15.

te

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
tors Hand-

Administration, 1969. Flight Ins:
book. Advisory Circular No. 61-16A,

dards Service, Washingron, D.C.

3. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. 1975. Hazards of rotating propel-
ters. Advisory Circular No. 91-42. (APS-830).
June {7, 1975. Washington, D.C.

4. Department of Transportation Federal Avi
Administration. 1976. Hazards of rarating propel-
lcr and helicopter rotor blades, Advisory Circular
No. 91-42A (AFS-830), October 19, 1976, Wash-
ington. 1.C.

5. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation
Administration, 1979. Hazards of rotating propel-
ler and helicopter rotar blades, Advisory Circular
No. 91-42B, (AFS-830), April 25, 1979, Wash-
ington, D.C.

6 DOT-FAA 1991 Pilot Proficiency Award Pro-
gram, Advisory Circular No. 61-91 F, (AFS-20),
March 6. 1991, Washington, D.C.

10.

16.

DOT-FAA 1981 the Prapwatcher’s Guide, FAA
publication 8740-3 FO-806), December 1981,

Washington, D.C.

Department of Trans; ortation, Federal Aviation
Administration. $ atistical Handbook of Aviation:

Calendar Year 173. Washington. 1.C.

Department o° Transportation. Federal Aviation
ical Handbook of Aviation:
Washington. D.C.

Administration. Stat

Calendar Year !

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation:
Calendar Year 1979. W

ashington. D.C.

ion

Department of Transportation. Federal Avi
Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation:
Calendar Year 1981. Washington. D.C.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation:
Calendar Year 1989. Washington, D.C.

Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation
Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation:
Calendar Year 1991. Washington, D.C.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation:
1979 Edition, Washingron. D.C.

Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation
Adminisrration. U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics: Cal-
endar Year 1969.

Departmen: of Transportation, Federal Aviaiion
Administration. U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics: Cal-
endar Year 1979.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics: Cal-
endar Year 1981.


DOT/FAA/AM-93/2

of Aviation Medicine
Washington. D.C. 20591

A Review of Civil Aviation
Propeller-to-Person

Accidents: 1980 - 1989

William E. Coilins

Civil Aer
Federal Av
Oklahoma

January 1993

Final Report

‘This document is available ro the public

Administration


Discussion

The data show clearly that passengers who are either
deplaning or attempting to assist the pilot are most at risk
for a propeller-to-person accident. That the accident
frequency is high for these groups is perhaps surprising

since, in some respects at least, pilots would seem co have

reasonable, direct. and timely opportunities to control,
caution, of counsel passengers regarding safe procedures
in deplaning or in providing assistance with the aircraft.
Two features of this finding seem clear: (i) pilots have a
major role in preventing propeller-to-person accidents
to their passengers. and (ii) the means by which passen-
gee accidents could be reduced or virtually eliminated
require no special equipment and are relatively simple
(careful instruction of passengers prior to their deplanin:

cither not using passengers as assistants or instructing

them more carefully regarding hazards: and having en-
gines shut down prior to loading or unloading passen-
gers}.

Major Accident Categories. Perhaps surprisingly,
more accidents occurred during the handcranking of an
aircraft than occurred during passenger enplaning. Pilots
were most often victims of handcranking accidents fol-
towed in frequency by ground crew members. Moreover,
the vast majority of the handcranking accidents occurred
with “pose wheel” (tricycle gear) aircraft as compared
with “tail wheel” (conventional gear) configurations.
And the proportion of handcranking accidents involving
these closer-to-the-ground propellers increased from 68%
(1965-69) to 75% (1970-74) to 94% (1975-79) to
100% (1980-89). These values may reflect, te some

degree, the extra cautions needed while hand propping a

tricycle-gear aircraft, but surely represent the gradual

shift to proportionately more use of tricycle gear aircraft
asthe older. conventional gear planes have been replaced
or sold to other countrics.

Among propeller-to-person accidents involving pi-
the

exception was a co-pilor who was attempting to assist the

lots. all but one occurred during handerankin,

pilot. As noted above, passengers were involved most
often in deplaning accidents, followed by accidents that
occurred while passengers were attempting to assist the
pilot. and while enplaning. Almost all propeller-to-
person accidenss involving ground crew occurred while
they were assisting the pilot or attempting to handcrank
the propeller.

Changes in the *ccident Rate. The tabulations show
a marked drop in the average number of propelier-to-
person accidents during 1975-1979. That drop seems
attributable to several actions taken by the FAA in the
mid-1970s (1). The actions were prinzarily educational
and were largely effected through the FAA Accident
Prevention Program. The methods included safety semi-

nars. handouts, posters, a film depicting an actual acci
dent resulting fom improper handpropping, and the
release of FAA advisory circulars on the hazard of propel-
lers (3.4.5). It seems probable that the combination of
those actions helped to produce the overall decline in
propeller accidents in the 5-year period from 1975
through 1979. A second sharp decline in propelier-to-
person accidents, from 1985-89, reflecis, to some de-
gree. both the steady improvement in general aviation
accident statistics (Table 6) and recessionary economic
conditions that have resulted in reductions both in the
number of active pilots and the number of hours flown.
A reduction in hand propping accidents over the 1975-
89 period seems to have multiple causes. In addition to
the FAA’s educational efforts (including distribution of
the “Propwatcher’s GuideTM (7) and participation in the

Pilot Proficiency Award Program (G6)) and the economic

conditions already noted, there has also been increased
use of twin engine rather than single engine aircraft with
what appears to be concomitantly more dependence on
the ground crew and others for maintenance assistance.

Supplementary mens of further reducing propeller-
to-person accidents have been suggested elsewhere (1).
Those suggestions include additions to the flight
instructor's handbook (2) and the Flight Training Hand-
book. strategically placed warning signs, use of the
rotating beacon whenever the aircraft engine is in opera-
tion, and potential technical developments. Among the
latter are: (i) auditory or visual warning signals to
indicate that aircraft doors are open while engines are
running: (1t) additional lighting of the propeller blades

{e.g., bya wing light aimed at the blades, switch-operated
by the pilot) to increase conspicuity in reduced illumina-
tion: (iii) propeller markings on the side of the blades
facing the pilot with patterns such that the markings
would be visible to the pilot only at low (idling) propeller
speed, but not at taxi, takeoff, or cruising speeds: (iv)
markings on propeller spinners which are forward of the
pilot, similar to those on the propeller blades, to increase


A REVIEW OF CIVIL AVIATION
PROPELLER-TO-PERSON ACCIDENTS:
1980-1989

INTRODUCTION

Although helicopter tail rotorsare required by Federal
Aviation Regulations to be marked so that the perceptual
disks created by their rotation are “conspicuous under
normal daylight ground condition

there are no re-
quirements regarding the conspicuity of aircraft propel-
lezs. Improved conspicuity is generally considered an
essential preventive co the occurrence of civil aviation
accidents which involve injury or death to persons struck
by rotating propellers and rotor blades. V'rtually ali U.S.
aircraft have some propeller markings; most are of
factory design while others represent the choice of the
owner. Although other colors are often used, black and
white markings yield the best conspicuity (23, 24).

While propeller and rotor paint schemes may reduce
the number ef propeller-to-person accidents, there is
little information available regarding the various circum-
stances surrounding the accidents that do occur. A
previous study (1) examined some features of propeller-
to-person accidents from 1965-1979. The present study
extended those findings; the frequency, time of day,
weather conditions, pilot and passenger activities, and
other factors coincident with injuries and fatalities caused
by strikes from propeller or rotor blades were examined
for the 1980 decade and compared with the earlier
accidents of this type.

MeTHop

Special requests were made io the National Transpor-
tation Safety Board (NTSB) for computer printouts of
report briefs of all prepeller-to-person accidents from
1980 through 1989. Aithough there have been changes
in format and content over time, these briefs each
contain standard information regarding aviation acci-
dents (e.g. , statement of cause. nature of injuries, etc.). In
add’ further review of the compicte accident file for
each propeller or rotor accident was conducted in all but

2 cases (those files were no: available) to confirm back-
ground information. Data were analyzed in terms of
time of day, actions of pilots, action of passengers and
ground crew, phase of flight operation, weather condi-
tions, and others.

RESULTS

Tabulations over the 10-year period (1980-89) yielded
a total of 104 accidents (see Table 1). All of these
accidents involved propeller deaths or injuries to single
persons with 2 exceptions: (i) in 1980 a helicopter
discharging two passengers was turned by a high wind,
fatally struck one of the passengers {tail rotor), and
caused debris to surike the other passenger, resulting in
minor injury, and (ii) iz 1983, a pilot handcranking the
prop sustained a serious injury while his sor, who was
helping him, was bruised by the prop (minor injury).
The 104 accidents thus involved 106 people (78 males,
28 females) and resulted in 29 deaths; 69 persons were
seriously injured and 8 experienced minor injuries. Of
the 78 males, 4 were children; of the 28 females, 1 was a
child, 5 were wives of the pilots, and 1 was che sister of
a pilot. Table 1 also shows a sustained reduction in
accidents following 1983.

TABLE 1. NUMBER AND DEGREE OF
PROPELLER-TO-PERSON INJURIES IN
GENERAL AVIATION, 1980-1989

r :
H | Fatal | Serious | Minor |
| Year injury | injury | Injury ' Total
j wear foley | - _
| 1980 1 2 4 8 5 + 20
7 —
1981 oO i 6 2 8

| TOTALS



Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No TS. Reciprent's Cetalog No. 7

DOT/FAA/AM-93/2

4. Title ond Subtitle 5. Report Date
A REVIEW OF CIVIL AVIATION PROPELLER-TO-PERSON January 1993
ACCIDENTS: 1980-1989 & Performing Organizaren Code
l [8. Performing Organization Report No.
7. Author's t
William E. Collins
9. Performing Orgen:zation Name and Address 19. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P.O. Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

TI. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Repo-t ond Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name ond Address
Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, $.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591

-—-

15. Supplementary Notes.

16. Abstroct Hi

Various types of paint schemes on aircraft propeller and rotor blades are used to improve the
visual conspicuity and attention-getting value of those blades when they are rotating. The
improved conspicuity resulting from the paint schemes has the purpose of reducing the number
of injuries and fatalities that might occur due to accidental contact with a rotating blade by
pilots, passengers, or ground crew. The present study was undertaken to provide information
regarding the circumstances surrounding such accidents in recent years and to compare those
findings with the frequency and circumstances of propeller accidents during the 1965-1979
period. Computer retrievals of brief reports of all propeller accidents during the period from
1980 through 1989 were provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Those reports
were examined and analyzed in terms of type of accident, degree of injury, actions of pilots,
action of passengers and ground crew, night or day, and other conditions. The computer search
yielded a total of 104 reports of “propeller-to-person” accidents involving 106 persons. "Prop-
to-person” accident frequency for the 1980-198° period was notably lower than that previously
reported for the 1960’s and 1970’s. Recent declines appear due to a combination of FAA!
educational efforts, economic conditions, and changes in the types of aircraft used by present
aviation pilots. Irrespective of the decade under study, persons at most risk for a propeller-
to-person accident are deplaning passengers and passengers attempting to assist the pilot prior
to takeoff and after landing.

17. Key Words 78. Drstrrbution Statement

Propeller Accidents !Decument is available to the public

Pilot Training ithrough the National Technical

Safety Information Service, Springfield,
\virginia 22161

19. Secunty Classif. (of this report) ] 20. Secunty Classif. lof this paged 21. No. of Pages | 22. Price
i
Unclassified | Unclassified 9

Form DOT F 1700.7 «8-72; Reproduction of completed page authorized



NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.