Flare Dammit!
"Immediately after the accident, there were posts on a skydiver's website indicating that the helicopter "flew right at" him." How can you possibly know whether those contributors were accurate and reliable witnesses? Height, speed and direction of travel are always difficult to estimate/describe, and those problems are exacerbated if an incident occurs quickly.
Witnesses to aviation incidents in particular are notoriously unreliable and inaccurate, even when doing their best to give honest and accurate accounts. Their descriptions are almost without exception melodramatic and, upon closer examination, frequently turn out to be greatly exaggerated.
Posts "indicating" that the helicopter "flew right at" him. Firstly, although their comments obviously 'indicated' that to you, they may not have indicated the same thing to another (calmer, more open-minded?) reader.
Secondly, and much more importantly, you seem to imply that because the helicopter "flew right at" him, the pilot must have seen him. I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood you but, if that is what you meant, your proposition is illogical. It may (repeat, 'may') imply failure to keep a proper look-out but, without further (reliable) evidence, no more than that.
If the pilot had been assured that the area would be kept clear, he is obviously not absolved from his responsibility as commander, but it goes a long way towards explaining that the degree of negligence (if any) was much less serious than you imply.
This would imply that if the witness saw the man in the field, then a pilot might also be able to see him. If you're genuinely restricting your proposition to 'a pilot
might have been able to see him, I agree. But it doesn't follow that this pilot
did, just because somebody else did.
"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. etc It doesn't seem to occur to you that the later accounts may actually be true. People who claim to "know" what happened in casual talk immediately after an incident often retract when the accuracy of their version is challenged by other witnesses.
The clear implication of your various posts is that this pilot did something far more serious than violating Regulations; you imply he deliberately flew very close to the photographer, misjudged, and killed him. You may be right. I don't know. I wasn't there and I've not seen all the evidence. But, nor were you and your "evidence" comes from what total strangers about whose reliability you know nothing have apparently said on websites.
Jumping to conclusions and condemning people obviously appeals to you, but wanting reliable evidence before doing so (especially on a public forum) also has its merits. It doesn't need a lawyer to explain why, but I'm sure one of the the three lawyers in your family will explain if you ask them.
Tudor Owen
PS
I remember you criticising people in a diferent discussion for being too black and white about things. I agree, it can be very frustrating.
On another occasion, you apologised for bringing 'logic' into a discussion. Please accept my apologies on this occasion.
