Thanks for the great reply, TwinHueyMan! And thanks for digging up that pic of *** at work.
I was talking about this very "accident" with a young helicopter pilot CFI yesterday. I lay the blame right at the feet of ******. As I see it, there are two issues:
1) If ***knew the photographer was there and cut his turn-around "just a little bit lower" that time to make for a better video shot, then ** SERIOUSLY f*cked up. Bad enough.
2) But if *** did not know the man was there but
routinely made that kind of a turn (i.e. with MR blades within six feet of the ground)
with passengers onboard, then that's even worse. I don't care HOW much the death-defying skydivers loved it. It's not up to them. The U.S. FAR's are pretty clear on what aerobatic flight is [FAR 91.303(f)]:
..an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
No question in my mind that what ** was doing was AEROBATIC. No way were the maneuvers he was pulling "required for normal flight."
91.303 also says:
"No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight --
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons..."
I suppose it could be argued that **** wasn't "over" the open-air assembly of persons. But he was definitely AT one. And one of those assembled persons got out into an unsecured area used for take-off and landing and managed to get himself killed by the unquestionably aerobatic display.
Then there's 91.13:
"§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
Pretty simple. You'll notice that 91.13 does not add or include the words "...unless your passengers are thrill-seeking skydivers who are well aware of the risks and encourage the pilot to do so anyway." Nope, no "get out of jail free" card.
There was also likely a violation of 91.119 "Minimum Safe Altitudes."
What *** was doing clearly endangered the lives of his passengers; I don't think *anybody* would argue that. He also clearly endangered the life of somebody on the ground. The fact that that particular somebody is now dead sort of proves that.
All helicopter pilots...nay, all PILOTS should be outraged at **** behavior and conduct. We should be insulted and offended that someone could make us all look so bad. The fact that it took the death of someone on the ground to bring this all to light is simply outrageous.
That ***** continued to fly over the course of the rest of the WFFC weekend just makes me sick. Now there's a man with no conscience. He ought to have his tickets pulled permanently. I hope the family of the dead photographer sue his a** off.