What in the world could have happened to this airplane????

See this picture: wrecked airplane

My sister sent this picture to me as a part of bizzare insurance claims. All the other pictures in her email were strange, but I could see how they happened. But this one.

What in the world could have happened? All I can imagine is that a jealous wife went out to the airport and yelled “You love this plane more than you love me!!!” and fired up the chainsaw. So what do you think? Any pilots out there who might have some ideas?

This picture really freaks me out!

Another plane ran into it, coming from the right rear. The propellor gradually tore up more and more of the plane, as you can see in the picture. The deepest damage is toward the front.

That’s my guess.

The story.

(Interestingly, my first thought when I saw the OP’s photo was that someone had driven by–just a bit too close–with their prop spinning.)

My guess is that this is a deliberate design – some kind of art piece.

A propellor was my thought too.

Slice and dice from another plane’s prop?

I don’t think so, ski. Those slices are far too narrow and clean to have been made by a prop, IMO. My guess is someone literally did take a chainsaw to it, possibly to cut it up for scrap.

ski’s not too far off the mark:
http://anthonyjhicks.com/ajh/weblog.nsf/l/CA5E57CF90DA1D98CA256CB60039D6DF

I stand corrected. I can’t say anything about the veracity of this site, but here is a claim about the plane.

Nevermind, I just read tomndebb’s link. Color me shocked.

A THOUSAND THANKYOUS TO YOU ALL. This picture has been bugging me for weeks. It all makes sense, now.

The story is incorrect that it was a University of Adelaide airplane.

The plane is owned by the University of South Australia, as correctly stated in later links.

WooHoo thats my Uni. UniSA all right. Thats their logo on the Sliced up plane.

I remember when this happened and was on the news. I could not believe those pictures. It looks just like a sliced loaf of bread.

Interestingly enough this happened at Parafield Airport and my campus of the Uni of South Australia is right next door and runs an Aviation degree. It would have made a great story if it was some student who caused it.

It’s pretty typical of prop damage when two planes trade paint on the ground. I used to keep a few pictures of taxi accidents involving prop aircraft, and they always have this kind of damage.

We had a guy here at MBT who let a hand-propped cub get away from him. He grabbed at the tail to try to stop it, but instead deflected it towards his car. :slight_smile:

Ina the interest of completeness, I emailed the webmaster of the OP’s link to find our what happened to the unfortunate pilot, and today, he emailed me back. In part:

In short, he was found not to be held accountable for the accident, which likely caused him to heave a huge sigh of relief. What it boils down to is, he got lucky, because no one could prove he was negligent. There’s more, but that’s the gist of it. If anyone is interested in seeing the email in its entirety, please contact me and I’ll be happy to pass it on to you.

I know this is off the subject, but I find that incredible. Does this mean he’s not responsible at all? Does Australia not hold people accountable for their mistakes? If I drive my car into someone else’s car, I’m responsible, even if it was purely an accident. Does this doctor, or his insurance, have to pay for the damages?

Anyone who hand-props an airplane without A) another person in the cockpit, or B) having the airplane firmly tied to the ground, is guilty of negligence.

The guy got off because the judge didn’t understand aviation.

As I said, he got lucky.

As to the question of insurance, I am not sure. The email says at one point:

But the point isn’t very clear.

Fer darn sure it didn’t happen in America - here everyone would have gotten sued.

And I agree - handpropping without a competant pilot at the controls and proper tie-downs IS negligent

by “not responsible” they mean notnegligent to the point to warrant a suspension of his license. He still is responsible for monetary damages (or his insurance is).