This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
While in movement on the ramp, the Cessna 172 was taxiing toward the hangar at the FBO when a Phenom 300 throttled up to begin taxi to taxiway from ramp.
The Phenom 300 was positioned nose facing west, with exhaust pointed toward car parking area and hangars, C172 was positioned facing east behind Phenom 300 oriented tail to tail, moving away from other aircraft.
When the Phenom 300 added power to begin moving, the C172 was struck with jet thrust to aft of airframe and put into a ground spin to the right.
C172 spun approximately 270° and came to rest facing FBO entrance (north).
At no time did the affected aircraft come in to contact with persons or property.
After the incident, the C172 was unable to turn to the right to taxi to the hangar, but was able to turn to the left 270° to continue taxi to hangar area under its own power.
Pilot of C172 was unable to control aircraft in spin phase of incident, but was able to hold brakes until aircraft stopped.
Pilot of C172 did not see any ramp personnel directing the Phenom 300, was not personally under direction of ramp personnel, and had no indication power up was imminent.
No injuries were sustained to pilot or passenger of C172, and no third party persons or property were damaged to pilot’s knowledge.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2033017
Are jet pilots required to radio intentions of beginning to taxi toward a taxiway at an airport without a tower? Secondly, is it not a rule of thumb to give jets with running engines plenty of clearance given the potential for being caught in the jet blast?
I would think that the cessna pilot perhaps should have radioed to the biz jet pilot of his intentions to taxi in close proximity to him (or her). Please tell me what y’all think. It seems to me that the cessna pilot acted in a careless manner given that the anti-collision lights were probably on, and the heat signature was certainly visible.
But, I do feel for the pilot (he probably felt bullied). It couldn’t have felt great limping back to the hangar with a damaged plane. Hope he learned a life-long lesson. Glad he shared this story!
Sadly, often times EGO gives in the way of good judgement and safety. As a retired airtraffic controller and commercial.pilot with over 6000 hours of “stick time” and over 35 years of airtraffic experience, I have found the “jet blast and wake turbulence” are the unseen reasons for disasters.
I have owned my 1960 Cessna 172 since 1974. Have flown it to work for my entire aviation career. Have “very carefully ” mixed it up with the big boys at all the level 5 airports that I have worked.
Found it to be the BEST to fly anywhere.
Still have i,t and still fly it. CAUTION WAKE TURBULENCE!!!
PS. paid $5000 in 1974 and stilll flying!.
Clearly the biz jets mistake. He needs to be cautious about where his exhaust is pointed. If he’s unsure, he needs to have a spotter clear for him. It is no excuse that he doesn’t have a visibility. If the 172 was unmanned and damaged, it is still clearly the bizjets fault. If I was in my military jet and pointed my exhaust at the bizjet, is it the biz jets mistake for being there, or mine for not minding my exhaust and jet blast.
A jet starting up will have the anti-collision light flashing, which should be a warning to anyone near the rear of the jet that the engines will spool up soon.
Also, the jet engines are very loud and are easily heard in a nearby aircraft.
So, yes taxi well clear of a jet and be sure to not be hit by the jet blast as it taxies.
2 of the airports I frequent have a lot of biz-jet traffic, so we stay well clear of them.
And, the passengers usually have 1 or move SUVs on the ramp and passengers walking to the aircraft.
So, I fault the C172 driver.!
Both pilots should have either waited to see what was the other was doing or ask ground control for advice, if no controll tower, use radio to communicate intentions.
Again, it all goes back to being safe! “Assuming”, will likely cause serious issues or death, and ruin your whole day!
I can’t imagine any time an aircraft would be tail to tail with a jet. Especially at a place where a jet would have opportunity to apply full throttle. I guess I don’t understand the story. They were obviously in close proximity. At this point I would take issue with the 172 pilot, having the advantage of better visibility and the more movement capable.
I think that the pilot of the phenom was negligent
should be more considerate as your whereabouts
There would have been a heat signature off the exhaust. Pay attention around jets, especially if you’re traveling in line to it.