Was it a "private flight" if a member of the crew is being paid?
Was it a "private flight" if the pilot is part of the (presumably) paid management team benefiting from the footage?
No mention if video cables or pilots monitor were excluded as being the cause of fouling the door or pilots hand. Would be good to know one way or the other...
No mention if they were wearing life vests.
They were shooting 3d, where in general the best 3d effect occurs the closer the subject is to camera. Flying with a hand held camera, open door, over water without floats.. they had a few more slices of swiss cheese to avoid that day.
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative
Here here.
The opinion that nomex flight suites would probably have been of no benefit does nothing to encourage their use! but does mitigate CASA of any blame for not mandating or pushing of Robinson's advice that nomex should be worn.
From the perspective of the man in the street.., a commercial flight, put together at the last minute, experienced aerial camera specialist apparently refused to fly, less than best camera equipment, no floats, with less than best PPE, restricted to clockwise orbits, over water, piloted by the owner-operator who is part of the management team.
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
The crews' willingness and keenness to get the job done to the best of their ability, under adverse conditions, although expected was admirable, yet tragically lethal.
From a film industry H&S perspective, the coroner will hopefully address the management of this flight.
Mickjoebill