Man, this thread is like a train wreck. I just can't look away. Every time I check in I read things that just make me shake my head and wonder about the attitudes of safety that some of you have.
For instance!
Steve76 posted:
The fact is, ***'s type of flying is not the relevent point here. The relevent point is that a spectator, defied the ground crew, took it upon himself to sneak into the corn (for the chance at the picture of a lifetime), and stepped out in front of the helio. There is no difference between that and a pedestrian who has stepped out from between parked vehicles into oncoming traffic and got hit.
Actually, there is. In the U.S., the laws governing motor vehicles are "different." The same rules do not apply. Flying Lawyer can probably provide more insight on this if he practices in the U.S.
But it brings up an interesting point. Perhaps if I'm ever speeding and driving recklessly (i.e. doing something negligent) in my car and someone steps out into the roadway in front of me causing me to strike and kill them, perhaps I'll claim in court that the dead person endangered ME! It would be novel, but it just might work.
It was an unfortunate accident and could have been avoided if the guy would have followed the rules laid out before him.
I presume that in yet *another* attempt to absolve the pilot of
any responsibility for this accident, you are callously referring to the videographer. But one could certainly say the same about the pilot, and even more so. Because who has the FEDERAL duty to not harm the other, hmm?
I simply suggest that before you go mouthing off, anonymously I might add, stop and get the facts first. The FAA did. *** would not have been allowed to fly the next day otherwise.
Gee, it just galls you that this is an anonymous forum, doesn't it?
Maybe we should ALL have to post our resumes specifically for your approval! That way, Steve76 can be the final arbiter of the validity and relevance of our posts. Maybe you should even be the Moderator!
But seriously... For the U.S. FAA to ground (the pilot), they would have had to get an emergency order of revocation of his certificates. The local FAA on the scene cannot unilaterally "pull his ticket" or anyone else's. In fact, the local FAA guy cannot even retain your certs (and American pilots are advised to not voluntarily surrender them). So the local FAA cannot "ground" a pilot, however temporarily.
Obviously, the FAA and NTSB people who were there on-scene did not feel it necessary to get the emergency order of revocation for whatever reason. Ergo, *** was not prevented from flying throughout the remainder of the convention. Whether or not this was the correct decision remains to be seen. The rotund lady has not yet gotten to the coda.
