Narrative:

We boarded our passenger; started engines; and called clearance to advise them we were ready to taxi with engines running. At that point we were told our clearance was not available and it had apparently timed out. Clearance said it would be quicker for us to re-file rather than have him put a flightplan in for us. This can be done from our cockpit and takes about 10 minutes. Before we re-filed; the decision was made to reposition the aircraft on the ramp to distance ourselves from other aircraft and personnel since we had our engines running. We were directed by a ramp agent to taxi forward and then to turn right 90 degrees. At the completion of the turn; the agent waved us off; meaning we were on our own. With no aircraft to our right at this point; I made another 90 degree right turn to taxi to the empty area of the ramp. About 70 degrees through this turn; the first officer said emphatically; 'cone' as the right prop struck a plastic traffic safety cone. The cone was out of our sight; hidden by the right wing and engine nacelle as we made the turn. The sound of the prop striking the cone took perhaps a second; maybe less. There was no other unusual noise; vibration; or engine instrument indication. I taxied the airplane 50 to 60 ft to a parking location and shut down both engines to inspect for damage.upon reaching the right prop; I noticed damage to the rubber erosion boots; and the front side of one blade had a small area at the tip where the cone had removed some material by abrasion. I saw no evidence of damage to the leading edge of the prop or other structural damage. I then went to look at the cone and debris that was being picked up by another ramp agent in the area where the strike occurred. Upon returning to the airplane; I performed a visual inspection of the engine inlet area and turbine blades. There was no indication of FOD induction. There was no abnormal noise present when the prop was turned by hand; and there was no indication of FOD damage to any other aircraft components. I went into the airplane to get keys for the nose compartment and shared with our passenger and first officer that I thought we would be able to proceed with the flight shortly. After getting a utility knife from the nose; I trimmed the torn erosion boots of any loose material and made sure the leading edges of the blades were intact. [The first officer] looked at the prop at that time as well. The abraded blade tip was fairly smooth without loose material. The leading edge was intact and there was no evidence of cracking or fracture. The blade tip did not flex when pressure was applied and there was no evidence of structural damage. Based on these actions; I felt the condition of the propeller did not pose a threat to safe operation and that we could complete our flight schedule. However; [the first officer] and I agreed that if there were any abnormal or unusual vibrations; noises; or other indications after start up; that we would return to parking and cancel the flight. We started engines and experienced no unusual indications. While taxiing to the assigned runway and prior to takeoff; I moved the props through their operational range and speeds without any unusual indications. We proceeded with takeoff and completed the trip without further problems. Post flight inspection revealed no change to the condition of the prop. The following morning; based on my verbal description; maintenance agreed with my assessment. Once the airplane was flown to maintenance and a visual assessment was complete; they assured me the propeller had not compromised safety of flight. They also termed the level of damage and repair as minor. In retrospect; though the indications listed above made me confident the aircraft was in a safe condition to continue; I should have conferred with the maintenance facility familiar with our ship and received confirmation my decision was correct prior to flight. I would also recommend any corporation operating aircraft have a rudimentary sms in place or at least a flight operations manual to give guidance in different situations. At least then both the company and flight crews have procedures in writing for most contingencies prior to their being needed.with regard to the cones; I can understand why they are there; but especially for an aircraft that has the cockpit nestled between engines; they can be difficult or impossible to see at times. Why have obstacles that could be struck or blown over by prop or jet blast in the proximity of operating aircraft?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA 42 pilot; released to taxi by a ramp agent; struck the right propeller on a traffic cone while making a right 90-degree turn.

Narrative: We boarded our passenger; started engines; and called clearance to advise them we were ready to taxi with engines running. At that point we were told our clearance was not available and it had apparently timed out. Clearance said it would be quicker for us to re-file rather than have him put a flightplan in for us. This can be done from our cockpit and takes about 10 minutes. Before we re-filed; the decision was made to reposition the aircraft on the ramp to distance ourselves from other aircraft and personnel since we had our engines running. We were directed by a ramp agent to taxi forward and then to turn right 90 degrees. At the completion of the turn; the agent waved us off; meaning we were on our own. With no aircraft to our right at this point; I made another 90 degree right turn to taxi to the empty area of the ramp. About 70 degrees through this turn; the First Officer said emphatically; 'Cone' as the right prop struck a plastic traffic safety cone. The cone was out of our sight; hidden by the right wing and engine nacelle as we made the turn. The sound of the prop striking the cone took perhaps a second; maybe less. There was no other unusual noise; vibration; or engine instrument indication. I taxied the airplane 50 to 60 FT to a parking location and shut down both engines to inspect for damage.Upon reaching the right prop; I noticed damage to the rubber erosion boots; and the front side of one blade had a small area at the tip where the cone had removed some material by abrasion. I saw no evidence of damage to the leading edge of the prop or other structural damage. I then went to look at the cone and debris that was being picked up by another ramp agent in the area where the strike occurred. Upon returning to the airplane; I performed a visual inspection of the engine inlet area and turbine blades. There was no indication of FOD induction. There was no abnormal noise present when the prop was turned by hand; and there was no indication of FOD damage to any other aircraft components. I went into the airplane to get keys for the nose compartment and shared with our passenger and First Officer that I thought we would be able to proceed with the flight shortly. After getting a utility knife from the nose; I trimmed the torn erosion boots of any loose material and made sure the leading edges of the blades were intact. [The First Officer] looked at the prop at that time as well. The abraded blade tip was fairly smooth without loose material. The leading edge was intact and there was no evidence of cracking or fracture. The blade tip did not flex when pressure was applied and there was no evidence of structural damage. Based on these actions; I felt the condition of the propeller did not pose a threat to safe operation and that we could complete our flight schedule. However; [the First Officer] and I agreed that if there were any abnormal or unusual vibrations; noises; or other indications after start up; that we would return to parking and cancel the flight. We started engines and experienced no unusual indications. While taxiing to the assigned runway and prior to takeoff; I moved the props through their operational range and speeds without any unusual indications. We proceeded with takeoff and completed the trip without further problems. Post flight inspection revealed no change to the condition of the prop. The following morning; based on my verbal description; Maintenance agreed with my assessment. Once the airplane was flown to maintenance and a visual assessment was complete; they assured me the propeller had not compromised safety of flight. They also termed the level of damage and repair as minor. In retrospect; though the indications listed above made me confident the aircraft was in a safe condition to continue; I should have conferred with the Maintenance Facility familiar with our ship and received confirmation my decision was correct prior to flight. I would also recommend any corporation operating aircraft have a rudimentary SMS in place or at least a Flight Operations Manual to give guidance in different situations. At least then both the company and flight crews have procedures in writing for most contingencies prior to their being needed.With regard to the cones; I can understand why they are there; but especially for an aircraft that has the cockpit nestled between engines; they can be difficult or impossible to see at times. Why have obstacles that could be struck or blown over by prop or jet blast in the proximity of operating aircraft?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.