Chaps, this is a serious issue.
First of all, ag operations are conducted over PRIVATE PROPERTY. If a person got into a field and got into harm's way, it means that they were trespassing (i.e. breaking the law) and would share in the negligence.
The videographer at the **** convention in *******, ** was not trespassing; the event was open to the public. The area was not cordoned-off or otherwise secured from access. Whether he personally was told "not to go there," is irrelevant. It could have been *anyone* out in that field.
Therefore, the proximate cause of the man's death was the fact that the PILOT made such a steep, low altitude turn that his main rotor blades came within six feet of the ground. Period, end of conversation. Thus, it can be argued that the pilot was negligent in that his actions caused the death of someone on the ground, whether he was known or unknown to be there.
It does not take a pilot to understand this. It does not take a pilot to figure this out. It does not take a pilot to know the U.S. FAR's and be able to see when someone is apparently violating them. If *** ****** was acting prudently, with all due care, then this particular accident would not have happened.
I mentioned that it was irrelevant whether or not *** ****** knew the videographer was there. Immediately after the accident, there were posts on a skydiver's website indicating that the helicopter "flew right at" him. This would imply that if the witness saw the man in the field, then a pilot might also be able to see him. However, the story sort of gelled as time went on and now nearly everyone says that *** ****** did not know the man was there. Good story; stick to it. I'm sure *** ****** will swear on a stack of Bibles that he did not know the man was there. Wouldn't ya love to see a copy of the videotape! I wonder if it even survived?
What we pilots have to ask ourselves is: Do we condone this type of flying? In my opinion, *** ****** was being careless and reckless and wrongfully caused that man's death due to his intentionally dangerous/hazardous flying. Whether *** ****** was criminally negligent remains for the courts to decide. Personally, I think he is. Maybe not. But even so, as one lawyer put it, "Wow! That guy is in BIG trouble!" (that's legalese for...something...) with the civil courts and of course the American FAA.
Along with that (although this part exists separately), there is, in my not-so-humble opinion ample evidence that *** ****** violated at least three U.S. FAR's and had been doing so for an extended period of time.
Okay...finally, to the Moderator: Oooooh, I've been warned, I'm soooooo scared. I'm sure you've already gotten numerous emails screeching like little grammar school children that you should forever ban me for being so...so...so bl**dy unpleasant! Wouldn't bother me in the slightest, old chap.
Yours truly,
** ********* (with one "n")
Hey! Why'd you delete that? I thought you were letting me post again!