Jeez, Tudor, you've sure got a lot of those eye-rolling, winking smilies in your post. Do you EVER say anything seriously? You know, a little sarcasm goes a long way.
Obviously, I was not at the skydiver's convention. Obviously, I cannot say "for certain" what happened or how it happened, only that it did. But when I read an eyewitness account on a skydiver's website that says "...the helicopter flew right at him," I took it at face value. I assume (with all that entails) that the reporter saw both: A) the helicopter; and B) the videographer and gave his report without bias.
We don't know whether the videographer was crouching down in the cornrows, just waiting to jump up and say "BOO!" as the helicopter flew over. LOGIC would tell me that the videographer was set up to videotape the entire take-off run/buzz job because THAT'S WHAT HIS INTENTION WAS ALL ALONG. We know that. His brother was aboard the helicopter on that particular ride. To do this, let us accept that he most likely got himself into a stabilized position for filming and stayed in that position as the aircraft approached and until he got killed. Reasonable, counselor?
As a pilot, I do not find it plausible that the 412 pilot was unaware and did not see that the man was there. I'm sure that *** ****** (name deleted by Moderator - YOU WERE WARNED, FLARE!) was scanning his intended path intently. You simply cannot do that type of flying without a high degree of precision and attention. So my opinion is that *** was aware of the videographer's position, and even if he wasn't, the videographer would probably have been visible to him - the 412 being higher (albeit only slightly) than the man.
It has been said (not by me) that the corn was three feet high. To believe then that the videographer was totally invisible would mean that he was dressed in cornrow camo and lying virtually prone on the ground until he "suddenly" leapt to his feet to videotape a few seconds of the 412 as it passed over him. As much as the ******-defenders would like to think it happened this way, it simply defies logic.
All of the above goes to why I personally believe that *** ****** knew he was there and why it was criminally negligent manslaughter.
But even if he didn't...
To fly in such a reckless manner with paying passengers onboard is simply inexcuseable...indefensible. Because even if it wasn't a wayward "man in a field," there are plenty of other things that can go wrong that could cause that aircraft to crash. This is why the U.S. FAA has all those pesky rules that American pilots have to obey. Rules that prohibit low-level aerobatics. Rules that say if you're going to exceed 60 degrees of bank and 30 degrees of pitch, everybody onboard has to wear a parachute. Rules that say we pilots must NOT endanger anyone *in* our aircraft OR on the ground.
The type of flying that *** ****** was doing arguably endangered the paying passengers onboard that heli, and OBVIOUSLY endangered a person on the ground.
We ask ourselves: Are passengers not endangered if there is no accident? In other words, is the absence of an accident indication that the preceding flight was "safe?" Personally, I don't think so. From the voluminous photographic evidence we've all seen, we pilots can conclude with confidence that what *** ****** was doing was "unsafe." No need to beat around the bush or pretend it wasn't. The end result proves it: A man ON THE GROUND died. Ipso facto!
And yes, I have spoken to the lawyers in my family. All of them say that given the photographic and written evidence (e.g. statement from the passenger on the fatal flight), they would not want to be in that pilot's shoes. They add that once the local police become familiar with the federal regulations that were likely broken, criminal charges could certainly be forthcoming, if they haven't already. Jail time is a (perhaps remote) possibility. Finally, they say that the pilot will undoubtedly suffer some federal sanction, likely permanent (which they believe it should be).
And you know what else? They urged me to contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit against *** ******. I'm debating that.
Hey Steve76! You can split hairs all you want in trying to find *some* way to defend *** ******'s actions. You're really reaching. Me, I'd try to find something honorable to do with my time.
Guys...gals...we have responsibilities as pilots. Some of them are legal, some are moral. Our PRIMARY responsibility is to not kill anyone. It's simply not enough for us to say of the dead guy, "Well, it's HIS fault. He shouldn't have been out in that field when I decided to shave the corn with my main rotor blades."
Consider that, next time you get the itch to do a little hot-dogging. Because that goes for passengers riding IN your ship as well.
There. I've said my piece for today and now I'm going to go take a big poop. Oh wait...I just did!
Last edited by Flare Dammit!; 12th Sep 2002 at 15:37.