Aircraft propeller injury leads to $360,000 fine

19 April 2026

A South Australian horticulture and agriculture farming business has been fined $360,000 after a worker was struck by a moving propellor as he attempted to board a light aircraft.

Parilla Premium Potatoes Pty Ltd pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the South Australian Employment Court on 14 April 2026 after a SafeWork SA prosecution.

The incident occurred on 11 September 2023 when two workers and Parilla Premium Potatoes’ managing director, who was also piloting the aircraft, prepared to fly to a nearby worksite to check on a new onion processing line.

The pilot and one of the workers were waiting for the second worker who was attending to a work-related phone call.

While they were waiting, they wheeled the single-propellor Cessna aircraft from the hangar to the taxiway and boarded.

The pilot started the aircraft and after a minute or two the second worker exited the main office and walked towards the taxiway intending to board the aircraft.

The worker intended to reach the right-hand side of the aircraft by walking around the front of the aircraft, after allegedly being told to approach the aircraft from the rear right-hand side .

As he approached the front of the aircraft, he was struck by the rotating propeller.

The worker suffered traumatic injuries to his right arm from shoulder to hand with multiple fractures to his right forearm and hand.

He has since undergone multiple surgeries and will need more surgery in the future.

Parilla Premium Potatoes was charged with a category 2 offence under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 of failing to comply with a health and safety duty.

SafeWork SA alleged that:

• The inherent risks of death or serious injury from operating an aircraft at the workplace were obvious and could easily have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
• The company failed to ensure that any areas in which aircraft operated at the workplace were designated aircraft operating areas.
• The company also failed to ensure that there were established and designated passenger boarding zones and that a documented procedure had been implemented that covered aircraft operations, in particular embarking and disembarking aircraft.

The company’s response to the incident has addressed its safety failings regarding aircraft use.

This includes the establishment of a fenced ‘aircraft operating area’, a designated passenger loading zone and the requirement for persons boarding aircraft to be accompanied by a suitably trained pilot.

Flight briefings for passengers prior to boarding have also been introduced and ‘hot-loading’ – when passengers board an aircraft while the propellors are in motion – has been prohibited.

In his sentencing remarks, His Honour Deputy President Judge Lieschke said a single prior verbal instruction to approach the aircraft from the rear right-hand side was “foreseeably wholly inadequate”.

“Parilla had failed to consider its legal obligation to implement hazard controls, to the greatest extent that was reasonably practicable, for use of the aircraft in the workplace,” Deputy President Judge Lieschke said.

“Parilla had a range of safety policies and procedures to control the hazards of other traffic and mobile plant in its large enterprise but had not applied them to use of the aircraft.”

Deputy President Judge Lieschke said Parilla Premium Potatoes had provided a high level of meaningful personal and employment support to the injured worker from the outset and had also promptly implemented hazard controls to eliminate the risk of injury.

A conviction was recorded, and Parilla Premium Potatoes was fined $600,000. This was reduced by 40 per cent to $360,000 for its early guilty plea and contrition.

Parilla Premium Potatoes was also ordered to pay a contribution to SafeWork SA’s legal costs of $1,210, and a Victim of Crime Levy of $451.

Attribute to SafeWork SA Executive Director Glenn Farrell

Aircraft present an extreme hazard in the workplace, and this incident shows the devastating consequences when those risks are not properly managed.

Verbal instructions are not a substitute for clear safety systems, physical controls and well‑planned procedures.

Any plant or equipment being used as part of work, must be thoroughly assessed for all foreseeable risks associated with its use. If risks cannot be eliminated, then they should be reduced by using other high order controls in the first instance.

The controls that have been put in place post incident, were all reasonable and practicable solutions to preventing this significant life-changing injury from occurring in the first place.