I totally agree with you Flare. Couple of things to add.
I've been looking more into this story this evening, and the biggest question that has come up is "Who was at wrong?" On one hand, you can say the photographer was simply standing on the ground taking a picture when a hot shot pilot's show off went too far, or you could say the photographer disobeyed previous denials and entered an area where the helicopter was known to perform close-to-the-ground manuvers that could be dangerous to people and objects on the ground. The few people that I discussed this with have gone with the latter - the pilot was doing somthing risky, but the photographer went into danger and paid the ultimate price. While I lean towards the reckless-pilot side, I can see both sides equally.
Another big question is if ***** was going too far, and if so, in what way. From what I read, he was a 15,000 hour pilot with several helicopter type certifications, an owner (or pilot, not sure) of a multi-aircraft company, and had done hundreds of "E-Ticket" skydiver ride/lifts in similar fasion to the incident in question. The Texas Association of Film and Tape Professionals website quotes him as being a "Helicopter Stuntperson" and with an FAA Cerificate of Aerobatic Competency under his list of many accreditations. The people in back were all individually seatbelted in, and event organizers obviously restricted (verbally) people to loiter in the helicopter's "thrill ride" operating zone. From what I can see, all the manuvers the helicopter did were within the aircraft's performance envelope (turns, flare/pedal reversals [hammerhead I believe is the name], high speed flight). He did this stuff at very low altitude, however, with people "dangling" out the side of his helicopter. Had he lost power or had a serious malfunction during one of his manuvers, it is possible that a proper autorotation would not have been possible, let alone the potential injuries the passengers could have sustained in a hard landing without proper seating and restraint. But it flips back again, as the passengers willingfully got onto the helicopter, knowing what was going to happen... what do you guys think?
I can understand why *** did what he did... Skydivers are witness to possibly the most extreme adrenaline rush possible during their exercise, and only somthing incredible could make them remember ******* and his helicopter jump, making them come back again and again for more, shelling out $39 a head each time (hell for that little money, I would have bought in just to fly in the left seat!). It obviously worked, and ****made a reputation, and a living, for himself. Inevitably, he got cought "with his pants down", but it looks like that is not going to stop him.
I've looked around for a few hours to see if any of the incriminating pictures are left online, and found plenty, but one sticks out. It is very small as the original host deleted it (no doubt at ***** request), but Google kept a little thumbnail.
That says everything. The rotor blades of that helicopter are definatley within 6 feet of the ground (the corn is about 3 feet high I believe) and I can definatley see someone getting struck by the rotor blades at that altitude.
I'll upload and post the other pictures tomorrow when I have some more energy
I wonder if **** is going to have his license pulled when the NTSB report finishes...
One more thing... Flare, the term they used was (I believe) "Whuffo", definition follows:
Whuffo: n 1. Anyone who cannot comprehend skydiving. Origin unknown, though it's rumored to be derived from the comments made by farmers, who -- upon witnessing the earliest skydivers landing in the farmers' fields -- purportedly exclaimed, "Whuffo y'all jumpin' outta them PAIRchutes fer?" Anyone who feels compelled to ask this question -- or a similar question* -- is known as a "whuffo."
2. A non-skydiver.
Mike