Steve76
Regardless of the specific incident that brought this dicussion to light, it would seem from the "evidence" presented, that this pilot's overall attitude towards flight safety was/is lacking. The question should not be whether the pilot screwed up this one time, or whether the photographer was at fault for his own death, but rather whether the attitudes and flying style of the pilot are acceptable and reasonably safe.
Many flight operations go to the limit, including those done by mil crews, ag pilots, test pilots, etc. But just because these dangerous and necessary flights are done in the most reasonable and safe manner possible does not mean that an overly confident, "macho" pilot has the right to break the rules just because his passengers think they understand the risks. Ultimately the PIC should know better and _is_ responsible. I'm sure you could sell every seat on a 747 to do barrel rolls today, but that doesn't mean it'd be safe or acceptable. However, if such a test was necessary, I imagine a group of cool-headed individuals would design a test that would be flown in an unpopulated area, with only the absolute minimum crew onboard. Can you imagine Boeing advertising $100 a seat for its tests to recoup costs?? Perhaps some of us would even like to ride on board, but would that be responsible of them?
As Flare Dammit! noted, there are many rules that were apparently broken (if the stories are to be believed). While lambasting someone based on sparse evidence may not be proper, it concerns me to see experienced pilots judging this as simply an accident that wouldn't have happened if the 'stupid' photographer didn't break the rules. Heck, even there he'd probably not be at fault as this is was clearly an attractive nuissance! Don't get me started on that!! Too bad common sense can't be found in 14 CFR 61 (and it's non-US counterparts).
