This happened yesterday in Guatemala [Archive]

Flare Dammit!

7th Sep 2002, 14:13

TwinHueyMan wrote:

Don't recall where, but a 412 was taking off with a cabinful of Skydivers. Pilot did a pedal turn, and the tail rotor went right into a photographer snapping pictures of god knows what.

It wasn't quite that simple.

It happened on 2Aug2002 in Rantoul, Illinois, USA. Although the American NTSB report says that the photographer was struck by the tail rotor, it is not certain that it happened that way.

Think about the physics of it. How is any blade (tail rotor or otherwise) of a hovering 412 going to hit anyone on the ground?

It is well known and well publicized that the pilot of the 412 gave incomparable "thrill rides" to the skydivers. There were even some websites that had incriminating pictures (since taken down) of the pilot doing some outrageous things. Even the organizers' official website touted the thrill ride.

The pilot knew the photographer was there. He intentionally made his take-off run at him. Somehow, during his turn-about-a-photographer, one of the 412's blades struck and killed him. The pilot was hailed as a hero for getting the aircraft down safely(!) after the "accident." But this was no accident.

As upset as he must have been, the distraught pilot did the right thing...and continued flying skydivers for the rest of the weekend. What a guy.

We've all done "Santa drops." And we've all probably held our breath as Santa exited the ship. But we're not totally without recourse. Personally, I lean the cyclic away from the departing Santa.

SASless

7th Sep 2002, 15:47

Now wait one minute......the pilot in the 412 whacked a photographer with the blades of the aircraft....landed the thing safely.....it wasn't an accident....and he continued to fly jumpers all weekend???????? Let's see how many rules, regs, and other ordinances that defys....much less logic and reason!

You go chopping up people with any helicopter....and at least the health department gets involved for violations of the sausage making act or something....along with the NTSB, FAA, Illinois State Police, the Coroner.....as well as the need for a mechanical inspection of the darned aircraft....which would not be released to the owner until way into the investigation. Throw in the drug and alcohol testing.....written statements....reports to the FAA and owner.....the insurance company.....now lets get real here!

If that pilot actually flew within a week of the incident I would be amazed.....and dismayed simultaneously. You go sticking a tail rotor or main rotor into humanoid objects and officaldom gets most annoyed.

I would like for someone who knows really what happened to enlighten us on this.....for I fear we are a bit away from the real truth of the matter right now.

Flight Safety

8th Sep 2002, 01:03

NTSB Identification: CHI02LA232

Accident occurred Friday, August 02, 2002 at Rantoul, IL
Aircraft:Bell 412, registration: N464AC
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 10 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 2, 2002, at 1952 central daylight time, a Bell 412, N464AC, piloted by an airline transport pilot, was taking off from the Rantoul National Aviation Center-Frank Elliot Field Airport (TIP), Rantoul Illinois, with a load of skydivers, when its tail rotor struck a photographer on the ground. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91 business flight was not operating on a flight plan. The pilot and nine passengers were uninjured. The photographer was fatally injured. The local flight was originating at the time of the accident.

TwinHueyMan

8th Sep 2002, 07:03

It is well known and well publicized that the pilot of the 412 gave incomparable "thrill rides" to the skydivers. There were even some websites that had incriminating pictures (since taken down) of the pilot doing some outrageous things. Even the organizers' official website touted the thrill ride.

My imagination is at a blank here... what exactly did he do? Anyone know of the whereabouts of any of the "incriminating pictures"?

As for the tail rotor hitting the photographer, referring to this picture:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/187217/L/

Makes me think a strike is very possible. Possibly the photographer was behind the ship, which took off initially into a tail wind, pilot over corrected, came back and hit the photographer... or possibly some form of flare and turn manuver... I'm not sure, but it seems possible none the less.

Mike

Flare Dammit!

8th Sep 2002, 16:38

Ahh, ye of little faith.

This event involving the death of the skydiver by the 412 in Rantoul was covered pretty well on the JustHelicopters forum. I know you guys think that board is as worthless as I think *this* board is, but having said that...

Anybody with even the most remote experience with a 412 knows that when it is on the ground a man of average height can walk under the tail rotor without getting hit. In a hover, it is impossible for ANYONE on the ground to get hit by a 412 tail rotor. But the Air Center 412 driven by ****** that August day in Rantoul, Illinois was not on the ground. It was not just lifting to a hover. It was in the air and flying, according to witnesses, "straight and level." We know the basic story - that a man was killed by the rotorblade of a Bell 412. Now here's the *rest* of the story:

The 412 had a load of nine skydivers onboard. ***** took off, knowing that a skydiver was out in a field with a videocamera all by himself. Again, according to witnesses who were there, *** made the beginning of his take-off run directly at the skydiver/cameraman, and did a little pirouette around him. It was during this turn-about-a-person that one of the 412's blades came in contact with him. The reports from the skydivers indicated that the main rotor blades hit the guy. The FAA report says it was the tail rotor blade. Whatever. We shall wait for the NTSB report to clear it up. **** was hailed by the skydivers as a "hero" for getting the ship down safely afterward.

Immediately after the incident, some of the skydiver's own personal websites had reports complete with pictures that were pretty damning. One website had pictures of the 412 - loaded with skydivers - in what appeared to be a sixty degree bank at a VERY low altitude over the cornrows. Another showed the 412 heading directly for a small group of people who were standing on the edge of a cornfield. One of them was very obviously ducking to avoid being hit.

The written descriptions of **** rock'n'roll rides were astounding. One of the skydiver's websites mentioned that after the death of the skydiver, it was only with strong persuasion that *** continued flying for the rest of the weekend. What a trooper! True? I have no reason to doubt it, as it was not a helicopter-related website where I read the post and the owner seemed genuinely complimentary and sympathetic to ***.

Skydivers are a strange bunch. They are bonafide "thrill seekers," quite unlike pilots, who as a rule are pretty conservative (with one very obvious exception).

But up to that point, the skydivers probably did not know that what ***** was doing was very likely highly illegal with regard to U.S. FAR's concerning aerobatic flight [91.303(b) and (f)]and others (91.13). So their pictures and descriptions were vivid, colorful and uninhibited.

Just after the event there were numerous posts on their bulletin boards. Some helicopter pilots even weighed-in with some pretty negative comments. Very quickly, the "incriminating evidence" was taken down from the sites. Posts were deleted, pictures were deleted, and captions on remaining pics were changed. Perhaps the skydivers felt some misplaced loyalty to "their" favorite helicopter pilot and did not want to jeopardize his career any further. Now when I do a google search, I cannot find either one of the two main websites that had the "best" pics.

But fear not! Check these out.

http://www.freefall.com/aircraft.htm

This is the World Freefall Convention's own website and it talks about the various aircraft used at Rantoul. Just read what they have to say about the 412! If a skydiver refers to something as an "E-ticket" ride, you KNOW it's got to be wild!

Evidently, ****** has been "performing" like this for years and his behaviour finally caught up with him. In the year 2000, the WFFC held their convention in Quincy, Illinois. Click on the Cleveland Parachute Center's website and read what they had to say about ***** and his antics:

http://www.jumprun.com/wffc2000review.html

Check out the helicopter pics at the bottom of the page, especially the one that shows a forty-five degree bank with people hanging out the side. Nah, that ain't aerobatic flight...bl**dy hell it ain't!

The skydiver's tragic death in Rantoul was not merely a horrible, unavoidable accident that resulted from someone being inadvertently too close to a helicopter's tail rotor. Rantoul Airport (the former Chanute Air Force Base) has plenty of room, and the helicopter did not need to operate in very close quarters and in fact was not. The pilot deliberately flew close to the videographer. ...Too close, unfortunately.

Perhaps the sun has set on ****** wild rides.

Flare Dammit!

8th Sep 2002, 18:36

Actually, a morning of typing and clicking unearthed some more info on the death in Rantoul. And I finally think I've got a reasonable understanding of how it happened.

****** had taken off with a load of skydivers. Evidently, his "normal" procedure was to fly them out a ways, then do a really sharp, low ninety-degree reversal and come back to buzz the loading zone before climbing to altitude.

On the fatal flight, there was a videographer out by the turn-around point. It is debatable whether the guy was actually a skydiver. Some say yes, some say no. It matters not. It is also debatable (however moot) as to whether ****** knew he was there. ...Although, I fail to see how a man crouching in basically a big grass field would be invisible to a pilot.

During -***** hairy-a** turn, he evidently got his main rotor blades so low to the ground that they struck the man. One witness says it was head-level. Whatever. It means that the main rotor blades were less than six feet from the ground.

For pictures of the helicopter, go here:
http://pics.kaybee.org/skydiving/quincy99/helicopter/

One of the picture captions says: "These guys are in for a great ride!" Just after the incident, it read: "These guys are in for a wild ride!" but it was changed for some reason to the tamer version. Although the pics on this site are from the WFFC event held in Quincy, Illinois, they fairly represent the situation later that year in Rantoul.

For the report of someone who was actually ON the helicopter, go here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=189987;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_vie w=forum_view_collapsed;guest=65222

The skydivers are a fiercely loyal group, and don't want *ANY* bad publicity. The reasons for this should be obvious; they engage in a "sport" that many people would consider unreasonably dangerous. Thus, they need airports like the one in Rantoul to host their conventions. Accidents of this sort make people skittish.

After the event, a group of skydivers made up a hugh sympathy card for the pilot, expressing their support; a nice gesture. View it here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=450;guest=65232

Notice the little illustration of the helicopter. It's upside-down! Gee, I wonder why they represented it that way?

The skydivers also went to great lengths to absolve ***** of any blame in the matter and to castigate the guy who got killed - whom they termed a "whuffer" (whatever that is - a skydiving term). Read some of their initial comments here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=188864;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_vie w=forum_view_collapsed;guest=65232

I don't mean to harp endlessly about this. But the death of this skydiver (who's name was Tim Kalendek, by the way) should not be casually dismissed as "just one of those things." It was a horrible tragedy that could have been averted if the pilot (*****) had not been hot-dogging for the crowd.

sierra-papa

9th Sep 2002, 03:39

I am shocked! How could the pilot get away with all this??? He must have had a firm grip not only on the bunch of skydivers, but also the local FSDO and NTSB officials.

TwinHueyMan

9th Sep 2002, 08:44

I totally agree with you Flare. Couple of things to add.

I've been looking more into this story this evening, and the biggest question that has come up is "Who was at wrong?" On one hand, you can say the photographer was simply standing on the ground taking a picture when a hot shot pilot's show off went too far, or you could say the photographer disobeyed previous denials and entered an area where the helicopter was known to perform close-to-the-ground manuvers that could be dangerous to people and objects on the ground. The few people that I discussed this with have gone with the latter - the pilot was doing somthing risky, but the photographer went into danger and paid the ultimate price. While I lean towards the reckless-pilot side, I can see both sides equally.

Another big question is if ***** was going too far, and if so, in what way. From what I read, he was a 15,000 hour pilot with several helicopter type certifications, an owner (or pilot, not sure) of a multi-aircraft company, and had done hundreds of "E-Ticket" skydiver ride/lifts in similar fasion to the incident in question. The Texas Association of Film and Tape Professionals website quotes him as being a "Helicopter Stuntperson" and with an FAA Cerificate of Aerobatic Competency under his list of many accreditations. The people in back were all individually seatbelted in, and event organizers obviously restricted (verbally) people to loiter in the helicopter's "thrill ride" operating zone. From what I can see, all the manuvers the helicopter did were within the aircraft's performance envelope (turns, flare/pedal reversals [hammerhead I believe is the name], high speed flight). He did this stuff at very low altitude, however, with people "dangling" out the side of his helicopter. Had he lost power or had a serious malfunction during one of his manuvers, it is possible that a proper autorotation would not have been possible, let alone the potential injuries the passengers could have sustained in a hard landing without proper seating and restraint. But it flips back again, as the passengers willingfully got onto the helicopter, knowing what was going to happen... what do you guys think?

I can understand why *** did what he did... Skydivers are witness to possibly the most extreme adrenaline rush possible during their exercise, and only somthing incredible could make them remember ******* and his helicopter jump, making them come back again and again for more, shelling out $39 a head each time (hell for that little money, I would have bought in just to fly in the left seat!). It obviously worked, and ****made a reputation, and a living, for himself. Inevitably, he got cought "with his pants down", but it looks like that is not going to stop him.

I've looked around for a few hours to see if any of the incriminating pictures are left online, and found plenty, but one sticks out. It is very small as the original host deleted it (no doubt at ***** request), but Google kept a little thumbnail.

http://members.cox.net/rotor/images.jpg

That says everything. The rotor blades of that helicopter are definatley within 6 feet of the ground (the corn is about 3 feet high I believe) and I can definatley see someone getting struck by the rotor blades at that altitude.

I'll upload and post the other pictures tomorrow when I have some more energy :)

I wonder if **** is going to have his license pulled when the NTSB report finishes...

One more thing... Flare, the term they used was (I believe) "Whuffo", definition follows:

Whuffo: n 1. Anyone who cannot comprehend skydiving. Origin unknown, though it's rumored to be derived from the comments made by farmers, who -- upon witnessing the earliest skydivers landing in the farmers' fields -- purportedly exclaimed, "Whuffo y'all jumpin' outta them PAIRchutes fer?" Anyone who feels compelled to ask this question -- or a similar question* -- is known as a "whuffo."

2. A non-skydiver.

Mike

ZAZOO

10th Sep 2002, 13:23

Thank God for our very able Quatermaster's here in Nigeria.

I must say they do a damn good job everyday getting pax clear from the rotor blades and out of harms way, it is not an easy task especialy with the calibre of people we have to ferry and the kind of locations we operate in and out on a daily basis.

Zazoo

Flare Dammit!

10th Sep 2002, 16:46

Thanks for the great reply, TwinHueyMan! And thanks for digging up that pic of *** at work.

I was talking about this very "accident" with a young helicopter pilot CFI yesterday. I lay the blame right at the feet of ******. As I see it, there are two issues:

1) If ***knew the photographer was there and cut his turn-around "just a little bit lower" that time to make for a better video shot, then ** SERIOUSLY f*cked up. Bad enough.

2) But if *** did not know the man was there but routinely made that kind of a turn (i.e. with MR blades within six feet of the ground) with passengers onboard, then that's even worse. I don't care HOW much the death-defying skydivers loved it. It's not up to them. The U.S. FAR's are pretty clear on what aerobatic flight is [FAR 91.303(f)]:

..an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

No question in my mind that what ** was doing was AEROBATIC. No way were the maneuvers he was pulling "required for normal flight."

91.303 also says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight --

(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;

(b) Over an open air assembly of persons..."

I suppose it could be argued that **** wasn't "over" the open-air assembly of persons. But he was definitely AT one. And one of those assembled persons got out into an unsecured area used for take-off and landing and managed to get himself killed by the unquestionably aerobatic display.

Then there's 91.13:

"§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

Pretty simple. You'll notice that 91.13 does not add or include the words "...unless your passengers are thrill-seeking skydivers who are well aware of the risks and encourage the pilot to do so anyway." Nope, no "get out of jail free" card.

There was also likely a violation of 91.119 "Minimum Safe Altitudes."

What *** was doing clearly endangered the lives of his passengers; I don't think *anybody* would argue that. He also clearly endangered the life of somebody on the ground. The fact that that particular somebody is now dead sort of proves that.

All helicopter pilots...nay, all PILOTS should be outraged at **** behavior and conduct. We should be insulted and offended that someone could make us all look so bad. The fact that it took the death of someone on the ground to bring this all to light is simply outrageous.

That ***** continued to fly over the course of the rest of the WFFC weekend just makes me sick. Now there's a man with no conscience. He ought to have his tickets pulled permanently. I hope the family of the dead photographer sue his a** off.

Labarynth Seal

10th Sep 2002, 19:51

You never know, the kid was probably hoping for a career, being an air marshaller, and realised that maybe he was a little too close to the pilot and moved, so the pilot could see him.

The pilot who was probably shouting "put your arms Down" could'nt be heard and decided sign languge was the way forward and lowered the collective (lowering of hands) . I don't think the kid was 10ft tall. Nasty business.

:D

Labarynth Seal

(Some JAR Knowledge is useful) :confused:

BlenderPilot

10th Sep 2002, 20:05

A public crucifixion of a fellow pilot is the last thing I wanted, I feel really bad that it turned out this way, I just hope none of you guys who took the time to chase after this guy, ever make a something stupid, big or small, because you will likely be judged the same way, by people who weren't there and didn't even know the full set of circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, Tom made a big mistake, but "real pilots" shouldn't be the ones to prosecute him, after all if things really happened like some of you said, I'm sure he would now be in jail (or parole) for involuntary manslaughter, and surely he would not have flown the day after.

Criticizing this way anonymously behind a nickname is not something you should do.

Steve76

10th Sep 2002, 20:59

Well "Flare Dammit" you have really gone to town here on ****.

Now that you have lambasted him in a public forum and plastered his name all over the planet, it would probably be suitable for you to announce your real name to us and state your history in helo operations and thus qualify your slander of this pilot. That's a slap in the mush for you with a white glove....

For your information this type of flying occurs on a fairly regular basis. Having your blades 6ft off the ground is normal operations for a lot of the industry.

Here is a hypothetical for you: What if this pilot was in the cornfield performing Ag operations (spraying). Now what if this field was in fact 4ft high pine trees and the spraying is done at 2ft off the pines. The same photographer decides to stand up while the aircraft is running down the line and is struck by the helo. Whose fault is it now? Does the change of work mean that the rules change for the pilot?

That photographer was not allowed into that area and had been told so.

Kyrilian

11th Sep 2002, 03:48

Steve76
Regardless of the specific incident that brought this dicussion to light, it would seem from the "evidence" presented, that this pilot's overall attitude towards flight safety was/is lacking. The question should not be whether the pilot screwed up this one time, or whether the photographer was at fault for his own death, but rather whether the attitudes and flying style of the pilot are acceptable and reasonably safe.

Many flight operations go to the limit, including those done by mil crews, ag pilots, test pilots, etc. But just because these dangerous and necessary flights are done in the most reasonable and safe manner possible does not mean that an overly confident, "macho" pilot has the right to break the rules just because his passengers think they understand the risks. Ultimately the PIC should know better and _is_ responsible. I'm sure you could sell every seat on a 747 to do barrel rolls today, but that doesn't mean it'd be safe or acceptable. However, if such a test was necessary, I imagine a group of cool-headed individuals would design a test that would be flown in an unpopulated area, with only the absolute minimum crew onboard. Can you imagine Boeing advertising $100 a seat for its tests to recoup costs?? Perhaps some of us would even like to ride on board, but would that be responsible of them?

As Flare Dammit! noted, there are many rules that were apparently broken (if the stories are to be believed). While lambasting someone based on sparse evidence may not be proper, it concerns me to see experienced pilots judging this as simply an accident that wouldn't have happened if the 'stupid' photographer didn't break the rules. Heck, even there he'd probably not be at fault as this is was clearly an attractive nuissance! Don't get me started on that!! Too bad common sense can't be found in 14 CFR 61 (and it's non-US counterparts). ;)

TwinHueyMan

11th Sep 2002, 04:04

OK, I've uploaded the pictures. One thing everyone should note is the photographs that show *** flying over other people and very close to objects on the ground, so it's possible that this type of accident was a matter of time. Had it not been the photographer that did get hit, it might have been another photographer, or car, or golf cart, or parachutist, or tree....

(sites deleted by PedalStop, name reference )

It defies the mind as to how ** could have pulled off dangerous antics like those in the above pictures since 1996 (from what I read) without having been reprimanded by aviation officials.

Mike

Flare Dammit!

11th Sep 2002, 04:19

Steve76 writes:
Now that you have lambasted him in a public forum and plastered his name all over the planet, it would probably be suitable for you to announce your real name to us and state your history in helo operations and thus qualify your slander of this pilot.

Screw you. One needn't have ANY qualifications in helo operations to know manslaughter when he sees it. *I'M* not the one who flew the helicopter deliberately in such a manner that that it endangered the paying customers onboard and killed the guy on the ground. It is no secret who the pilot of the 412 was. His name is public record: *****. And it's not slander if it's true.

Any real helicopter pilot who is not outraged by this accident must have some serious screws lose in the old noggin. What if one of **** blades struck the videocamera of the guy on the ground? What if the blade then lost a tip cap or weight and became unbalanced enough to cause the ship to crash and kill the pilot and his nine paying passengers? Would we all still be pointing the finger at the dead videographer as the one who caused the crash? Or would we be asking ourselves (because we surely would not be able to ask the pilot), "WHY was he flying so dangerously?"

For your information this type of flying occurs on a fairly regular basis. Having your blades 6ft off the ground is normal operations for a lot of the industry.

Oh really? Name me ONE other type of civilian operation conducted under FAR part 91 that requires your MAIN ROTOR blades to be less than six feet from the ground while carrying paying passengers. And don't say "ag." Those operations fall under FAR part 137 and are generally exempt from the requirements of part 91.

Go ahead, take your time.

I'll wait.

Steve76, are you even a pilot? Or did you just assume a computer name that IMPLIES you are? Look, you nitwit. What ***** did was indefensible. That a man on the ground was killed during his low-level aerobatic show is inexcuseable. You can make all the excuses you want, and it just tells me that you have as little conscience as he.

And to Blender Pilot, if WE do not police ourselves, the government will surely do it for us. And we won't like that one bit. **** should have been stopped before killing someone. Hopefully the FAA will do it now.

To Labarynth Seal: You can make all the jokes you like about a man's death, but I think it's highly inappropriate and insensitive of you.

Some helicopter pilots have said they'd love to have ridden SIC with ***** as he went about his "work." I think they're nuts. And judging by the pics that TwinHueyMan posted, I'm right!

**** was an accident waiting to happen. It did.

(Now, let's see how long it takes the moderators to close down THIS thread!)

BlenderPilot

11th Sep 2002, 05:13

I still think we shouldn't be chasing after other pilots, ***** had 14,000 hrs. for what I've heard, and no one flies 14,000 hrs. in helicopters and stays alive by being stupid and reckless all the time. Bitching him anonymously is very low from my point of view.

You can do things you wouldn't belive in helicopters if you have the skill and the knowledge. The pictures seem a litte extreme "for myself" but I really don't see anything wrong if somebody else wants to do it, I have about 250 hrs. in the B412 and it is a great helicopter in which to do this if you decide to.

Last year I flew in Africa in US registered helicopters (MD500's), doing part 91 work carrying passengers belonging to the UN, and trust me the flying was more agressive than this, it required doing it lower and faster. The program been going on for 20 years w/only 1 fatality, (lost the rotor head).

76 is right flying 6 feet of the ground is the industry standard in many places, and if done carefully is not a problem.

SASless

11th Sep 2002, 06:41

Let he who be without sin cast the first stone! I think I might want to dig through my box brownie pics and cast a few away....maybe even burn some video stuff. Nope, not me....uh uh....nope never done anything like this.....not once!

Putting all the emotion aside....."just how does one explain to a civil jury in the United States, whacking a pedestrian on the noggin with a rotor blade?" All of the explanations I can come up with make me shudder to think how they would be received....particularly when the plaintiff's counsel starts passing around all the nice pics seen so far on this thread. Combine that with the written testimony and depositions......errr...chaps....I hope Mr. Tinny has a whole lot of liability insurance coverage for I fear he is going to discover what the wages of sin are. He probably could come up with some nice sounding stories for a crash following an engine failure or tail rotor failure but I dare say....this is going to be one very interesting explanation.

You can ignore the rules, regulations, SOP's, OPS Specs.....but you must never forget the liability you will have when it comes to court. Juries just love to give away your hard earned money. Our fellow helicopter pilot probably had the purest of motives here and except for the minor detail of getting a head in the program.....would not suffer too many dire repercussions from the FAA......although that in itself begs more than a few idle questions.

We will surely have to wait for the female rotund mound of sound to bugle before we know just how **** fares in all this. He might want to keep his Resume' up to date I fear.

Red Wine

11th Sep 2002, 08:13

Stick to your guns...........

The silent majority has to be with you.......sorry Blender you may have started something, but that doesn't mean you have to take responsibility for anything that develops...you did'nt fly the aircraft.

Interesting to note that the PIC has, No Helmet, Short Sleeves, and short pants......smart work.
In all the low level stuff mentioned eariler, certainly the crews wear that gear as standard.....never leave home without it...!!!!

Yes I agree that Parachute Folk are different.......and they certainly are...and they will try to cover up the sins of their own ignorance......they actively encouraged this guy, who seems to have accomodatated their wishes......which is now proven to be not smart.

Lets hope that this poor guy did'nt get killed for nothing and something stops this situation from happening again.....[I know one way].......and yes if the entire industry does'nt control itself, some pencil pusher will......and thats bad.

Lets never confuse, ag or mustering crews with this type of "Thrill" ride........ag and mustering crews have a special licence for their skills, and DON'T carry fare paying passengers..!!!!

sierra-papa

11th Sep 2002, 11:01

Wow... this thing has really heated up now - all based on RUMOURS of what happened and how. The only FACTS so far on the issue is probably the NTSB report which I include below. The little picture that somebody posted showing the 412 turning low level around a point is definately no evidence of a person getting killed. That little hump on it could be anything but a human being. I am not trying to defend the pilot or the operation as such, but there is a lot of mudslinging going on here, all based on "hear say". If we could stick with the facts would benefit the discussion.
sp

Quote:

NTSB Identification: CHI02LA232

Accident occurred Friday, August 02, 2002 at Rantoul, IL
Aircraft:Bell 412, registration: N464AC
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 10 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 2, 2002, at 1952 central daylight time, a Bell 412, N464AC, piloted by an airline transport pilot, was taking off from the Rantoul National Aviation Center-Frank Elliot Field Airport (TIP), Rantoul Illinois, with a load of skydivers, when its tail rotor struck a photographer on the ground. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91 business flight was not operating on a flight plan. The pilot and nine passengers were uninjured. The photographer was fatally injured. The local flight was originating at the time of the accident.

Labarynth Seal

11th Sep 2002, 11:59

To Flare Dammit : I was following the original thread about the pop star losing his fingers. ( A little light humour never hurt anybody) I was not commenting upon the death of the man by the 412 pilot because that would be insensitive of me.

So maybe since this thread has been skewed somewhat from the popstar incident then perhaps YOU should start a new thread about the 412 incident, Grow up!:confused:

One Blown Labarynth Seal :mad: :eek: :mad:

Check 6

11th Sep 2002, 12:03

I think he hit it on the nail.

:D :D :D

Steve76

11th Sep 2002, 12:07

Flare Dammit, (Whit)

Your obvious ignorance of aviation is testament to your immaturity in this industry and inexperience as a pilot. I now think that you may just be an external observer of the industry masqerading to insight some comment on this incident for your own perverse purpose.

My history on this forum speaks for itself but yours is mystery.
Remember the white glove champ... if you are not a coward.

Your immaturity has caused you not to consider other countries operating systems and you quote to all of us FAR 91, without realising none of us work under FAR91 and couldn't give a ****.

FYI, New Zealand in the 1990's realised the need for an addition the their aviation rules and introduced the Adventure tourism Avaition Reg's. I think it was Part 125??? One of the Kiwi lads could get the numbers for you if you are really keen.

The nuts and bolts of the act; are to legalise the carriage of fare paying pax for the purposes of "non- traditional" aviation tourism. This includes, but is not limited to; aerobatic flight in warbirds, pitts specials, left seat rides in mustering, venison recovery, ag work, bungy jumping out of helo's, parachuting and one really interesting idea called the RACK (which deserves a thread of its own.....)

NOBODY is endorsing the accident as the fault of the photographer and you are a fool for stating we are. Some of us are just looking at this tragedy without judgement and hoping that if we are unfortunate to make such an error that someone like yourself doesn't plaster our name over the planet in an industry that is very very small. You have judged and executed **** in the typical "Guilty until proven innocent" concept that runs prevalent on these forums.

Be assured that I would sue your arse if I was RT.

Steve76
PS: Screw you :cool:

My apologies to the moderator for rising to the bait..... I agree with the above. Lets start another thread.

Flare Dammit!

11th Sep 2002, 15:15

Man, some of you guys are really in denial over this!

Steve76 (and others), the safety policies and attitudes of nations all over the world vary widely, and not all countries are diligent in keeping people safe. "FYI," I couldn't care less how they do it in any other country. In the U.S., which is where we're talking about, the government goes to great lengths to protect its people. It does that by enacting rules, regulations and laws the prescribe the way BUSINESSES do things. But even so, what ****** was doing would be categorized as "unsafe" in any country with even the teeniest regard for public safety.

Again, you are welcome to justify it all you want. Rest assured that if I ever walk up to a helicopter and see the pilot with a "Steve76" nametag, I will turn and run away and try to find a more professional pilot. Or at least one with a conscience.

Although the PPRuNe discussion boards are international in makeup, this particular accident happened in the U.S. So let's not judge it by the rules of ANY other country - let's use the rules that apply there. And the rules in the U.S. are quite clear: you don't subject fare-paying passengers in your aircraft to unreasonable risk (U.S. FAR 91.307 and 91.13), nor do you subject people on the ground to unreasonable risk (91.13). And you DEFINITELY do not kill anyone on the ground with your main rotor blades! I think any lawyer on the planet would call that prima facie evidence of negligence.

If you or **** or anyone else wishes to sue me, I say "bring it on!" Call me a liar...prove in court that what happened did not in fact happen...that a pilot wasn't hot-dogging negligently and repeatedly (in violation of numerous FAR's) and caused the death of a person on the ground. Bring it on!

The pics that TwinHueyMan posted make it appear that ******'s maneuvers required that everyone on board wear a parachute. Ref: U.S. FAR 91.307(c). It is apparent that he and his copilot are parachuteless.

And we condone this? Steve76, YOU condone all this? How much evidence do you guys need? The American FAA ought to be ashamed of itself for letting it go on.

To Labarynth Seal: Your unfortunate post was not referenced to anything else. Taken by itself, and with its placement in the thread, I very logically thought you were referring to the 412 incident. If you were not, then you have my apology.

To Sierra-Papa. You make a really BIG assumption when you say that the FAA/NTSB report is factual. It is not; it is only preliminary. And it is evidently inaccurate, judging by the written "testimony" of the passenger who was onboard the accident aircraft and the pictures of how Rockin' *** conducted his flights. But no matter. What does the "Ru" in PPRuNe stand for? Rumour, baby! Get over it.

The pictures of what ****** was doing are not "hearsay." They are not faked. They are very clear in what they depict. If you saw a picture of a person jumping out of a window, would you suggest we wait until all the facts are in before commenting on the fact that they died from a fall? 2 + 2 = ?.

But regardless of whether what ****** was doing was "legal" in the strictest sense of American law, and/or whether he had insurance to cover this is irrelevant. ****** had a moral obligation that goes higher than that. ALL pilots do. Dear God! We must not unreasonably endanger either the people riding with us or people on the ground. Playing weedeater with your 412 doesn't cut it, pardon the pun. Remember, that field was unsecured. What if there had been other "innocents" or people not directly related to the skydivers out there watching the festivities? If skydivers wanted a thrill-ride, they should've gone to Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

I hate to lecture you guys about how you should feel about this. But we SHOULD be outraged. And if any of you ever see *ME* doing the things of which we have pictorial evidence of ****** doing, I would hope that you'd conk me over the head...especially before I did the same to someone on the ground with my MAIN ROTOR blades. Instead of going out of our way to defend a pilot who did something indefensible, we all ought to be indignant that he "got away" with it for so long.

Steve76

11th Sep 2002, 16:05

Man FD you really have a hard on for this one.

You are also really quick to insinuate unprofessionalism yet you have still yet to show us your credentials. Do you even fly? The white glove challange.... hello?
Rest assured that if you ever end up in my machine you won't feel a thing. You most likely will be chock full of fentenol and intubated. So take a chill pill and relax.

Q: Did you read all the threads on the Skydivers forum?

I did. There are a hell of a lot there and it lends plenty of evidence to the fact that this "photographer" was not supposed to be there. Whether or not this pilot saw the guy will only be known by one person.

This pilot had a hell of a lot of licences which are mentioned in the skydivers forums; including but not limited to certification for aerobatics and jumping.

Perhaps your vendetta should be focused on the FAA for allowing such a massive disregard for the copious regs you claim this guy was busting. OR maybe, did you consider that the FAA knew about this for the last 7yrs and had no problem.

Slagging this guy in public in not on. This is the whole point of my argument. Not that he is or is not guilty; but that he should be allowed a chance of defence. Ya better hope that you never find yourself in such a circumstance.

Flare Dammit!

11th Sep 2002, 16:58

Steve76:
Man FD you really have a hard on for this one.

Steve, you are G*ddam right about that! I'd say I was speechless if the opposite wasn't so obvious. I've got three lawyers in my family. A long time ago, after witnessing the crash of a sightseeing helicopter which happened to be caught on videotape and shown on the telly, one of my lawyer sisters said, quite seriously, "Maybe the government should not allow helicopter sightseeing flights." I was, like, WHAT?! But it gave me some insight as to how non-aviators think. And you know what? You get enough non-aviators who think like my lawyer-sister (who has a pilot in the family, fer Chrissake!) and suddenly we start seeing more and more regulation.

What we need are less pilots like Rockin' ***. Just because he has umpteen thousand hours and a pocket full o'ratings does not automatically make what he does smart or safe. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

Finally, you're darn right that I hope I never find myself in such a circumstance as *****. I work very, very hard to make sure I don't. I only fervently wish he did. I don't know how he's going to live with himself now.

widgeon

11th Sep 2002, 17:08

Finally an explanation for crop circles !.

Bronx

11th Sep 2002, 17:53

Red Wine might be right, but more likely the "silent majority" is disgusted with Flare Dammit's emotional rantings and don't want any part of it whether they agree or disagree with some points he makes. Or they might think he was wrong to name the pilot. Sure a lot of people in the US knew the name of the pilot in the accident , but it wasn't on this forum until FD decided to say it. Or they might just know Flare always loves to go a step too far, provoking and if the thread gets closed and complain about that. We all knew guys like that at high school.
We don't need to know a pilot's name to have a good debate about the rights or wrongs of flying but that wasn't enough for Flare's lynchmob thinking. And remember we don't know if what FD claims is true or one of them stories that gets more colorful each time it's passed on. Bet it gets more colorful everytime FlareDammit tells it. :rolleyes:

BlenderPilot

11th Sep 2002, 19:36

widgeon,

You really made me laugh your "crop circles" remark, I'll be laughing all day thanks!

Flare,

For the last time, he might have done whatever he did, but an anonymous poster as yourself, and the others who have contrubuted posting pictures should not be the ones to prosecute with such anger, RT is a fellow pilot and "real pilots shoud not chase after other pilots" its an unwritten rule.

I am absolutely sure you have done something dumb to endager your passengers at one time or another (If you are really a pilot), what happens if next time you don't get away from your mistake so easy? Doesn't matter if it gets caught on film or not, to me a judgment mistake is a judgment mistake, big or small, people still could die, and it could happen to you next time. How would you like to see your name here and talk about how negligent and dumb you were because you hit a wire, or missed that lose line in your preflight?

TwinHueyMan

11th Sep 2002, 20:31

For the last time, he might have done whatever he did, but an anonymous poster as yourself, and the others who have contrubuted posting pictures should not be the ones to prosecute with such anger, RT is a fellow pilot and "real pilots shoud not chase after other pilots" its an unwritten rule.

No one in this thread has done anything wrong... we displayed facts and opinions in a very proper and appropriate manner, with information galore to back it up.

Real pilots will chase after people that do not act like real pilots. *** lost much of his credibility when it was found that he did this kind of crap over and over again, endangered people without a reasonable cause, and in my opinion, he deserves every bit of wrath that comes his way. He made the decision to do the crap he did, and he's got to pay the price.

I am absolutely sure you have done something dumb to endager your passengers at one time or another

*** didn't just "do somthing dumb at one time or another", he put his passengers and spectators lives at risk for EIGHT YEARS without any justification other than showing off. Somthing finally happened that brought light upon his stuff, so now he is gonna get reamed by people that know what he did was possible, but not somthing you should do just because you can.

What he did was like russian roulette... he could only get away with it for so long until he finally pulled the trigger on the loaded chamber. He pulled the trigger, not anyone else.

Mike

Flare Dammit!

11th Sep 2002, 20:57

Blender pilot:
I am absolutely sure you have done something dumb to endager your passengers at one time or another (If you are really a pilot), what happens if next time you don't get away from your mistake so easy?

Well...that depends. Did I just make an inadvertent one-time "dumb mistake" or was I deliberately and repeatedly doing something very, very stupid that was clearly outside of the regulations that I fly under and that resulted in the death of a relatively innocent bystander? Gee, now you've got me wondering...

I think you "real" pilots are so overwhelmed with misplaced loyalty and sympathy that you're not seeing the big picture here.

"real pilots should not chase after other pilots" its an unwritten rule.

Oh, I forgot. Quite right! Just not cricket, eh? Stiff upper lip and all. Unwritten rule. Jolly good show!

B*ll*cks. I'm surprised at all of you guys taking up for *** I guess he knows where to go to solicit people to fly the skydivers when he ends up in jail or gets his certs revoked. Probably no shortage of takers from you lot. "Hey, you thought *** gave you guys a thrill ride? You ain't seen NUTHIN' yet...hop in!" Yeah, 'cuz you know, they fly like that all over the world!

Bronx:
Sure a lot of people in the US knew the name of the pilot in the accident , but it wasn't on this forum until FD decided to say it.

LOL, what was that a sin? Is this forum sacrosanct? Ooooh, don't mention any names! How childish...of you. Yeah, we sure wouldn't want to prevent *** from going to some OTHER country to fly dangerously.

Hey Bronx, you're a policeman or something, right? If you saw a 412 with nine people dangling out the side doing low-level acro at some big gathering, wouldn't YOU arrest the bloke? As you yanks say, gimme a break.

You guys get all self-righteous, and it's not even for an honorable reason. Before any of you get up on your high horsey, remember this: a chap DIED for no reason other than a goofball helicopter pilot wanted to give some skydivers a thrill ride. If it was your brother, son or other relative that died, you all wouldn't be so quick to jump to the pilot's defense.

Hoverman

11th Sep 2002, 21:41

No one in this thread has done anything wrong... we displayed facts and opinions in a very proper and appropriate manner, with information galore to back it up.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Blender, Steve and Bronx
Good efforts but it's a waste of time trying to persuade the likes of FlareDammit and TwinHueyMan people should be tried according to due process of law not in this way we condemn the gutter press and Channel 4 for doing.
If I had a choice, I'd genuinely feel much safer flying with the 412 pilot named than someone like Flare who can't keep his emotions under control. God knows what might happen if someone said something he disagreed with. :eek:

PedalStop

11th Sep 2002, 21:43

Moderator Had Enough

Rotorheads:

This site cannot condone personal attacks in this way. Flare Dammit, you are warned that public attacks against named individuals will not be tolerated, as they are simply unacceptable to this community. All the lessons that you imparted (many are essential to thinking aviators everywhere, I admit) are preserved with the named individual now replaced by ***** I will not warn again, as I wasted 30 minutes deleting the name reference from all the posts on this thread. Next time, I will close the thread or block the offending poster.

This forum is for education and amusement, among other things, but it is not a pulpit for attacks and pronouncements of guilt or blame. I suggest that you take out some web space with your ISP and make your points there, where we can visit if we choose.

PedalStop, Rotorheads Moderator

Red Wine

11th Sep 2002, 22:26

Oh Mr Bronx.......maybe I am correct..maybe not.

The only misjudgement so far is the naming of any individual.....even thou he seems to have been known by some of our US members in anycase.....and if not he will be on the news soon.......following the various Public Forums that will follow....Inquest, FAA, Liability Court Cases etc.

The professions will always critisise their own fraternity more critically than the public will ......[unless your in medicine or a lawyer]...so its not unusual for such acts of "Flying Skill" to be jumped on so hard......

Mr Moderator....maybe it would be better to send a nice informative e-mail to someone who wastes your 20 mins....rather than use a shotgun on all of us....!!!!

Labarynth Seal

11th Sep 2002, 23:08

Blimey!! You guys are still at it??

FD - Well apology accepted, since i know you know no better. Did they by chance give you a CT scan at your last medical.....maybe not judging by the way you are crapping on in this thread....(Which thread was that?). :p
Just wondering, There is no way you could have a full time flying job, you spend far too much time and space on pprune annoying the rest of us.

Steve76 - Nice comment on the Fentonol, but maybe, a little too good for FD.... :D

Widgeon - Start a thread on crop circles? I reckon you could get at least 3 pages out of it!! Nice one!!

Moderator - Have you been asleeep for the last 2 pages? I agree that maybe a quiet word in FD's shell like would have been more subtle, but hey, a public anouncement should have done the trick?

Yours lovingly

One Repaired Labarynth Seal

:D :D :D

Red Wine

11th Sep 2002, 23:30

Take the personalities out of this thread.....or the lesson will be lost.

The centre of the thread [as side tracked from the Thumbs thread]...is that a man is dead..........and why did he die should be the question.....

Surely no one can say that it was an unfortuante accident....an act of god....a technical failure....thats the issue.

3top

12th Sep 2002, 02:57

wow,

lots of heat!!

a. I saw personally what can happen if a 15000 hr+ pilot get´s in, one to close (I posted some of it on previous threads - related to instruction). Obviously he must have done something right to get to 15000+. Maybe he got just to confident. Maybe he was in Vietnam and "never came back". I heard stories of vets working on tunaboats, freaking out the guys in the crowsnest by flying straight on the bow of the boat and pull up in the last split sec to avoid heavy damage. Plain stupid. I also like to lighten up now and then and "show off", BUT: first to show off your skills in helicopters you need some professional helipilot, who is familiar with that machine to judge your skills and in most cases, the maneuvers required to prove your "stuff", don´t look like anything (is that a double negative...:) ?) thrilling to a regular nonflying person.
second, if I wanted to "cool off", I would go max speed at about 20 ft (I did some fumigation work and was trainened to fly low - in cropdusting it is about 3 feet above the crops...) above the waves (that´s where everybody could see me - not in front of the boat at 3 feet where only the mast crew saw the idiots...) aiming about 100ft beside the boat, starting an easy pull up about 100ft ahead of the bow, again - BESIDE the boat, and let the heli zoom steep. The "show" was enjoyable by everyone, as everyone saw it and did not get in any (possible) harms way! - you want to be "the one hell of a guy" not the "idiot who scared everybody to death". Maybe that´s just SOME Ex-Vets (by no means all including! There are always the few black sheep that screw up the whole club).

Some older guys (with 15000+ hrs, he can´t be very young anymore...) seem get the need to "proove" just one more, even if they already know the limits of the machine, if they don´t know their own - that´s when the s*** hits the fan.

b. To FD, congratulations that you caught yourself before you started to throw more and worse names at people.
I think this is too important an thread, to be canceled by mods, so, please let´s keep it civilized (even if heated :D ).

c. Whatever the pilots reason for giving thrill rides this way, FAA and courts will (hopefully) take care of it, if these pilots don´t learn it (by mistake or whatever...), they will end their career in a mess one way or the other. I can´t imagine the guy having a calm counscious (it would haunt me forever...)
I observe, that may pilots feel that passengers get a thrill out of getting an aircraft to the ultimate limite - most regular skydivers and regulars won´t notice the difference of scratching the ground before a steep pull up or turn, or flying the whole thing at lets say 25+ feet. As metioned, to judge the skill, one would have to be a pilot oneself - and then I would question good judgement on that particular stunt.

c2. On the other side, it is stupid (in my humble o...) to compare this particular typ of rides to cropdusting or any other fast and low typ of work - there it is necessary to be able to perform the work, to get your pax a thrill you do not have to fly that close to the ground (There it is your own thrill your a seeking. Then you should be by yourself in a remote and safe - for others - place)
It was mentioned, the pilot did circles around the unhappy chap on the ground - so he must have seen him. If you still put your rotor low, you are way to overconfident-even with 15000+.

I and other instructors (airplane) have a similar problem at our training airport - uncontrolled and completely open to the puplic - no fence - hence sometimes people all over the place - soccer, jogging, biking, walking the dog, you name it, it is nuts, however you have to get on with the job somehow. I still have it easier than the fixed wings! - note: A solution - big fence and guards are in the planning stage!

Cropdusters will be able to confirm: If you fly with booms on a heli, you will get into "flying" them instead of the rotor, so if you bank you will do so around the tip a boom and not roll the heli about its logitudinal axis, this way the boom stays of the ground and the rotor never even gets near it. If you adopt this way to fly low [even without the spray boom] you will never get the rotor low.....Did Mr. 15000+ ever do some cropdusting?

d. I believe in showing students (commercial) some extreme maneuvers, as they might be required to do some in their career, and there is nothing better than to have a headstart by being told how NOT to do it (I didn´t, so I had to learn by trial and error, luckily it got never out of hand!) . One thing I preach, is to NEVER bank more than 30 deg close to the ground - slow down to turn faster or pull up. On a small heli you most likely need quite a bit more than 45 deg to level the bladetips with the skids, however on a thumbnail showing the 412 on this thread, it seems to be just at 45 and the tips seem at or below the skids! It seems 412 have the rotor fairly low to the ground compared to their rotor diameter....

e. Personally I think Mr.******* asked for trouble, and he got it!
However he still maybe a very competent (as in able to control and master the machine...) and skilled pilot, I would not judge him without knowing him! FD!!

To get back to the start:

f. Any word of who is the fellow with the chopped fingers?

g. What group was/is he with?

h. Is he already playing the strings again?

i. Is there any significant difference in the sound?

j. How did this happen, any news?

k. Did the pilot get an award or fired?

l. to FD: My name is Thomas Jakits, I make (barely...:) ) a living flying helis, have a family I love (and avoid crazy stuff for their sake if not mine...), still got more than a good share of hairy situations (more than once induced by my own arrogance or negligence) in my short career, was lucky to survive and tell and learned from each and everyone (no more arrogance and negligence while flying...).
Now you are free to criticize!!

Aaaaand your turn to face up and tell your true name,;) !!

Semd me an e-mail to confirm my word, if you need!

:D :D :D

3top
(.....´cause I like to fly there!!)

Flare Dammit!

12th Sep 2002, 04:39

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!

PedalStop

12th Sep 2002, 10:10

FD,

Thanks for observing the request, your contributions are valued.

PedalStop

Flying Lawyer

12th Sep 2002, 11:51

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. :rolleyes:

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. :)

Steve76

12th Sep 2002, 14:43

Hear Hear Tudor.

Additionally:

Just to rebut a statement in FD's last comment.
Ag operations are not only carried out in private property. Pine forests around the world are one example of agricultural flying in public (crown/government) land. Dissication of grasses and dothistroma (spelling...?) in pines is common place on NON private land.

:cool:

PS: Labarynth Seal - Fentenol ... Mmmmmmm ... go sleep now .... bye bye....

Flare Dammit!

12th Sep 2002, 15:23

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!

Bronx

12th Sep 2002, 16:48

So now we've gotten to the bottom of all this hell and damnation. Flare saw "an" eyewitness account on a skydiver's website, took it at face value, assumed it was unbiased, and decided that was good enough reason to name the pilot on an international public forum and heap a whole loada **** on him.
Now how do I do one of them eyerolling things? Even if the guy's unbiased, and we don't know if he is, it still don't mean his account is accurate. Jeez, I know some cops who think like Flare. Better guys look to see if the "unbiased" witness is also an accurate witness. Checking out what other witnesses say is a good place to start.

So Flare's 3 family lawyers said he should "contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit". Bet they did. We got lotsa different names for lawyers like that, 'ambulance chasers' is the polite one. The States is crawling with em.

Steve76

12th Sep 2002, 17:31

FD,

You are a disrespectful idiot. Full stop.
I
f I were you I would respect Tudor for who he is and withdraw your last post. His opinion on this forum is highly respected in direct comparison to yours.

As for getting involved in this... we have a saying downunder.
M.Y.O.B

Still waiting for you to show your name.

CRAN

12th Sep 2002, 18:46

Steve76,

I agree wholeheartedly, if internet forums such as this are to be sucessful and attract the high-achievers in our community then a basic level of manners and respect is required.

This post has become rather a dissappointment. Lets try and keep it together eh chaps, else we'll spoil it for ourselves.

Come on, common sense.

:(
C

Flare Dammit!

12th Sep 2002, 19:44

Hmm. CRAN seems to want to attract the "high-acheivers" in the community. I guess all these Robbie drivers who post here aren't good enough for him? "Hey, where can I find a good R-22 school in NZ?" "I have 160 hours. Where can I get a job?" "How come the tail rotor turns this way?"

Hello, Steve76: Reality calling- are you home yet? Apparently you're not. "Full stop"?? You don't run this forum, Sonny Jim. You want my name? Don't hold your breath. ...Or better yet, DO hold your breath! The longer the better. This is an anonymous forum and there are no minimum requirements for posting one's opinion here. In fact, my credentials do not matter one whit, and your focusing on them is a feeble attempt to sidetrack people or distract attention from the REAL issue which, I repeat, is that a person on the ground is dead because of the actions of a pilot.

Retract my post? Get real. "Disrespectful idiot?" Well, I have no respect for pilots who endanger their pax and kill people on the ground. So yes, I guess I am disrespectful. Idiot? I suppose... Then again, I think YOU are an idiot, so I guess it's a draw, right? Hey, wait a minute! Weren't you the one chastising me for slander earlier? Maybe I should sue *you* for slander, hmm? Ohhh, you probably don't even have slander laws down there in NZ like we do.

To Bronx. You say:
Flare saw "an" eyewitness account on a skydiver's website, took it at face value, assumed it was unbiased, and decided that was good enough reason to name the pilot on an international public forum and heap a whole loada **** on him.

So...you think I've formed my opinion on this mess on the basis of ONE newsgroup posting by a skydiver who was at the WFFC convention? Are you THAT much of a simpleton? I refuse to believe that...despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I look at the total package: First the FAA report, then what I know about the U.S. FAR's and the U.S. legal system, then the reports on the skydivers' and WFFC websites, then the pictures. Oh boy, the pictures!

[Oh, and Bronx? My lawyer relatives are not "ambulance chasers." They are highly intelligent people - more so than me I might add, whom I often look to for advice and counsel. I could say some disparaging things about YOUR relatives, but common decency prevents me from taking such a cheap potshot.]

There were a number of pictures that were posted in this thread by TwinHueyMan. In a move that is simply incredible to me, the Moderator deleted them! Unbelieveable!

Anyway, one of the things posted by THM was a little group of four "thumbnails" which had been linked to full-size pics on their original website but had since been deleted for some strange reason (gee, I wonder why?). One of the little thumbs shows the 412 on its take-off run, VERY low and heading right for a group of people and a golfcart parked right next to some corn stalks that appeared to be eight feet high or so. The pic clearly showed one of those people crouching and very obviously running away from the golfcart. In fear? It's hard to tell, but I doubt he suddenly had an urge to visit the loo. Had the Moderator not inexplicably deleted these pics you'd be able to see for yourself. But you can't. You can't make your own minds up on this issue anymore. Thanks, Pedalstop!

You chaps can stick your heads in the sand all you want. I'm not ashamed to say that we pilots need to hold ourselves to a higher standard that that. We need to be intolerant of pilots who do unsafe things. We need to not be afraid of calling a "foul." And we need to do these things BEFORE someone gets killed.

Personally, I am horrified that it got that far. The fact that other pilots turned a blind eye to *** ******'s actions for so long is deplorable and shameful.

Now, to the Moderator(s) I say, perhaps it is time to close this thread. Let the ******-supporters and Flare-slammers have their final say. I think this topic has been thoroughly explored, and further discussion is only going to p*ss me off. To you guys who feel that what *** ****** did was somehow justified or "not that bad," I hope I never, ever, ever meet any of you face to face. With your apparent attitudes toward safety, none of you will EVER share my cockpit.

Then again, maybe this whole thread will mysteriously disappear like the "Where's Lu?" thread... That's my bet.

TwinHueyMan

12th Sep 2002, 20:49

Hey guys,

My pictures were deleted because they were in a folder that bore the last name of the pilot in question. I'm going to rename the folder and re-post them (if the moderator doesn't object).

I think some people are missing the big point here. It doesn't matter whether *** knew the photographer was there or not, flew towards him, wore kakhi shorts... the big point is that he allowed his rotor blades to get within roughly 6 feet of the ground and did illigal aerobatic manuvers on multiple occasions. Period. I would be just as outraged had I heard about this before the fatal accident.

Might I request that this topic isn't locked - can the personal insults and keep the opinion flowing. This thread has opened my eyes to much information that I would want everyone involved in aircraft to know.

Heres an interesting question - what if the pilot in question had done what he did at 100ft AGL? This would have still provided quite a rush, but could it have been considered safer and/or more lawful? What about at 1500ft AGL? Sharp turns and banks with parachuted passengers... would this be OK?

Even further, what if he had just done his fast, low level takeoff run? Would this have been ok? Say for example he pulls up to 25ft AGL, slams the cyclic foreward, races down the runway then pulls up to a stall-turn and on to his climb? What do you guys think?

Mike

Steve76

12th Sep 2002, 22:55

Perhaps Lu has been reincarnated as Flare Dammit.

What you seem oblivious to here FD is that we all respect each others opinions until we run into persons like you.

I am your average professional pilot who really really enjoys listening to Nick, Flying Lawyer, paco, XNR :D , and a host of others. I think as a collective we all take their thoughts seriously and spend some time dwelling on them. One of the main reasons is that they have credibility. Their experience and history is well documented and it justifies their comments.

Your history is a mystery. You are obviously inexperienced and a very nasty individual. I think when you look for your first job this will become very apparent to possible employers.
I think you are most wise to hide under your bed on this one as this is a small industry that takes a long time to forget.

MY ONLY BEEF with your comments is that you are obviously slagging someone you do not know with very little information gathered from 3rd hand sources. Get one of your lawyer siblings to explain to you how ridiculous you sound. NO ONE here endorses the actions of that pilot they just demand a fair trial.

Please reread the last paragraph.....

Please reread that paragraph again....

And once more.... read that paragraph.

DO YOU GET IT! I hope so because I have managed to develop fully blown RSI trying to explain it to you....

hugs and kisses

Steve

PS: NOTE all that said without swearing!

Hoverman

12th Sep 2002, 23:22

Steve76
You've made sensible points. Don't spoil them with one bad one. Flare's attitude to people who don't agree with him is nothing to do with being American, even if he is. All countries have people who can't argue their point without losing their cool and getting all emotional. Pathetic I know, it's but nothing to do with nationality.

3top

13th Sep 2002, 00:24

hi again,

still hot here!!

FD, wasn´t it you who requested to face up and say the real name? Now you´re hiding behind FD! What´s that?
In case you come up with some name, make sure to add a way to verify it, because I wouldn´t trust anymore, if you just come up withSOME name!:D

St.76, calm down! FD´s nothing to do with "American", I am sure there a plenty hotheaded OZ´s and NZ´s as well. It is never good to point a finger at someones nationality as means to blame for some grunt.........(I know how that feels, being Austrian living in Latin-America......)

FD, just as Sierra-Papa metioned somewhere on this thread, wait for the facts of the investigation, remember justice works slow!

*** did wrong willingly or not, by stupidity or not, ignorance or not. As a pilot he definitely could have prevented this one, but he choose to ignore common sense. If everything checks out to be as it SEEMS to be at the time, he will lose his ticket and most likely a great if not all his fortune. But give it a rest and wait for the verdict.
If there are more incidents and accidents anyone out there knows about and fit the thread, please bring them and lets discuss them!

REMEMBER THIS PLACE SHOULD HELP TO AVOID ANY MORE OF THIS IF POSSIBLE!!

The skydiver-photo-heli accident is already chewed up! We all agreed that it was unecessary, avoidable and totally unprofessional at the pilots part. Luckily non of us was involved (assuming.......hopefully...), so let go on the chap, he will get what he deserves. You can´t hunt down all the idiots in the world, there are to many and you don´t live long enough to catch them all,:) !

I still miss some info on the original finger chop! Seriously!!

How did it happen, so it can be avoided at next chance!!

One for the thread:

My own mom would nearly walk into the T/R of a R-44!!
Coming back from a pleasure flight over and thru some rainforest, still amazed by the incredible view - it is hot and humid and she and dad want to get out quick. I tell them to walk away to the side or the front, make sure they got the message. 4 seconds later, mom walks a foot past the T/R !!! When asked, she said: "Oh I saw it [the T/R], I was not going to walk into it..."!!
Mom is a responsible 30-year vet first grade teacher....
Sometimes, disaster or near -disaster is just not avoidable.People get distracted to a degree, that nothing even enters short term memory, not to talk about retention!!

;) 3top

Steve76

13th Sep 2002, 03:08

Please excuse me...
Appropriately edited. I just knee jerk reacted to his NZ comments.

3top

13th Sep 2002, 03:35

To FD:

although it is off-thread, but just for curiousity: What is your line of work - if you make a living flying?

3top

Flare Dammit!

13th Sep 2002, 07:05

<sigh> I get tired of you gals. I don't mind being compared to Lu, but calling me a Yank?! I'm glad Steve76 had the decency to retract THAT remark.

I wasn't actually going to post any more on this subject, as it's been beaten to death just as surely as the poor bloke with the videocamera was. But you ladies just bring out the worst in me I guess.

Little Stevie76 and others seem to focus on credibility...as if *my* credibility matters here. Sorry! It does not matter whether I'm a low-time Robbo pilot who hasn't a clue why a tail rotor turns one way or t'other (as Steve76 believes), or whether I have more time in my logbook than a certain unnamed Sikorsky test pilot whose initials are Nick Lappos (can I say *his* name?) which in fact I do. It doesn't matter if I've never even seen a helicopter.

See, I've never commented on Mr. R...(oops! almost said his name) *** *****'s proficiency or skill as a pilot. I've never mentioned his smoothness, checklist use or expertise in passenger briefings or autorotations. Frankly, I don't care about any of that.

WHAT WE KNOW (Our story so far):
In early August, a rotor blade attached to a Bell 412 which was in flight at a skydiver convention in the U.S. and carrying nine fare-paying passengers made contact with a photographer on the ground and killed him.

Eek.

"How can that happen?" you ask incredulously. "Wouldn't that be a de facto violation of U.S. FAR 91.13 that says you cannot endanger persons in the aircraft or on the ground?

Well, searching some skydiver's websites turned up pictures of said pilot doing some wild and crazy things that most certainly look like they qualify under the FAA's definition of aerobatics (FAR 91.303). More pictures from inside the ship appear to show the aircraft in at least a 30 degree nose-down attitude with the PIC and SIC wearing no parachutes (91.307).

Even the skydiver's own official website refers to flights with this pilot as "E-ticket" rides and "thrill rides." N.B., it must take a LOT for a skydiver to consider something a thrill.

Then there's this little tidbit, taken from a skydiver's website and posted by a chap who says he was actually *on* the fatal flight (I'll provide the link on request):

I was in the back right hand side of the helicopter. We took off, went into max acceloration and banked HARD right just before the corner of the corn field. When that helicopter banks hard it is almost inverted. Just the other side of the corn was the individual in the crouching position, he went from the crouching position to the standing with his video camera in hand. I was looking him in the face when I saw the main rotor strike him 2 times. It actually hit him 3 times. There was a very loud and explosion sending dibris into the air. Without getting into detail "please don't ask" This was a terrible accident. My heart goes out to the victum, his new fiance, family, *** and everyone.

After the accident, the skydivers persuaded the pilot to continue flying througout the weekend. Out of sympathy and support, they made up a big card for him, signed by many skydivers, which said "WE'RE BEHIND YA!" Just below that was a picture of a Bell 206...an upside down Bell 206. (Link to the pic on request)

There's even more, but why go through it all again? You lot can wait for the official NTSB report if you like. You can be politically correct and illogically loyal and say, "Well, maybe what he was doing wasn't THAT bad..." Me, I consider this pilot to be a menace to society who, by the nature of his actions caused the death of another person and nearly nine others plus himself. If even half of what the photographic evidence reveals is true, and if ANY of the written posts about him can be believed, he should have been stopped a LONG time ago. It's just too damn bad that it took a death to bring this all to light.

And that's about all I have to say on this subject. If any of you girls want to b*tch about it anymore, go right ahead.

SASless

13th Sep 2002, 09:20

UH OH! Kiwi's can have a knee jerk reaction....thought we mere Yanks had the monopoly on that!!! Now don't be horning in on our turf guys.....we are supposed to be the ones to fly off the handle at every opportunity! Shame on ya....poaching!

Thomas coupling

13th Sep 2002, 12:22

Until I read the whole of the skyjumpers web site, I must admit to feeling a little apprehensive about FD's and TwinHuey's posts.

What did it for me was when the editor of the web site says in one of his descriptions:

We particularly liked it when the bi-plane kept flying just ander the nose of the 412, by about 15 FEET - INVERTED.....and he did this all day long apparently, to keep the thrill factor up.

Please read the web site. Now I know most lay persons tend to get all excited and exaggerate when the adrenaline flows in aviation, but these guys live amongst aviators, they get used to flying 'antics', so there is a reasonable chance that this actually happened.

It seems probable that in the given circumstances this pilot put the aircraft (under his command), outside the safe operating parameters of his remit, based on the evidence of these skydivers who looked to him to provide 'thrills'....it doesn't take that much more of a leap of imagination to understand that "where there is smoke...."

What the hell has 15,000hrs got to do with making someone safe??????

Why is Flying Lawyers post - gospel Steve 76, he isn't perfect, he's just human. [No disrespect Tudor]. get yourself a mind of your own.

Consequently, and especially because this is a democratic forum, one enjoyed because of the vast variety of opinion, I wholeheartedly come down on the side of FD and Twin huey on this one.

READ THE WEB SITE -DECIDE FOR YOURSELF:eek:

Steve76

13th Sep 2002, 13:15

Fuel for the fire taken from the Skydivers Forum:
Quote:
#1
"He was just doing what he always did, everybody knew it, including the photographer trying to get "The Shot". As I understand it he requested and was denied permission to take pictures from there.

That being the case, he should not have been there and was in fact needlessly endangering the passengers and crew of the helicopter, to get the photo he wanted."

#2
"I have seen many videos of Rod fly and he is an excellent pilot. As a pilot myself with an airshow waiver and lots of time flying very close to the ground, I found nothing unsafe or dangerous about Rod's decisions. He always had a ton of airspeed, giving him many outs. Yes, he came close to trees and other organic things (not illegal) but he did so on a steady, planing trajectory not flying right up to a tree and pulling at the last minute."

#3
"Rod is an awesome pilot. What has been said about his flying skills has been grossly understated. I have flown with him and would fly with him anyday in any circumstance. The military feels the same way. That's why they use him.

The fact is, Rod'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.

Even if the blades hadn't of hit the guy, he could have gotten hit by the body of the helio or by a skid.

He stepped out in front of a moving vehicle and he got hit. Period.

It was an unfortunate accident and could have been avoided if the guy would have followed the rules laid out before him.

I simply suggest that before you go mouthing off, anonymously I might add, stop and get the facts first. The FAA did. Rod would not have been allowed to fly the next day otherwise."
Unquote.

Flying Lawyer

13th Sep 2002, 14:14

AS TC rightly says, I'm certainly not perfect and my opinions are just opinions not gospel. In fairness to Steve76, he wasn't blindly adopting my views, he'd already made his own views very clear.

I suppose the bottom line is I think 'naming and shaming' a pilot on a wroldwide public forum under the protection of anonymity when he hasn't yet been proved to be at fault in either criminal or civil proceedings is wrong, unfair and cowardly. It's even worse when the person who does it shows clear signs of being vindictive. PedalStop has now removed the name, and I think he was right to do so.

That was the main thrust of my criticism of Flare Dammit. The points I made were intended to illustrate that it's unwise and dangerous to form such rigid views about causation when an incident hasn't been fully and independently investigated.
I naturally have views upon what this pilot apparently did, but I also have a lawyer's instinctive reluctance to condemn someone without knowing all the facts and, in particular, without knowing what the person accused has to say about the allegations against him. Although in theory the pilot could register and give his account here, he can't reasonably be expected to do so when so much is hanging over his head.

For what it's worth, I happen to think "what did it" for TC is a dangerous factor to take into account. Unless I've misunderstood, it's a description of something completely different which the pilot apparently did on a different occasion. Even if that stunt was correctly described, the most it shows is a particular attitude to air safety; it does not mean the pilot was at fault on this occasion.

Based on the very limited "evidence" we've seen, I think he has a few problems - but we only have part of the story.

PedalStop

13th Sep 2002, 16:18

Red Wine,

You are very right, in fact I deleted my post when I reviewed it prior to reading your posting. It was up for a few minutes, enough to spark your appropriate comments. Moderators are human, at least this one is. Thanks for reminding me!

PedalStop

Flare Dammit!

13th Sep 2002, 20:52

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? :mad: 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. :eek:

BlenderPilot

13th Sep 2002, 22:47

Ok Amigo Flare,

Look nobody is saying that what this guy did is right or wrong, the picture here is that what YOU did/are doing is wrong!

You shouldn't had started this witchhunt against a particular pilot in the way that you did, you weren't there, you didn't know him, he's also a pilot. It's not right, its not fare, it's not honorable, and if done anonymously it's somewhat cowardly.

All those rules you have previously mentioned "to keep people safe" are useless if you don't have common sense, and if you have common sense (+knowledge/experience) you can make/bend rules once in a while.

Red Wine

14th Sep 2002, 00:13

Mr Moderator........

Acknowledged, accepted and removed........

Back off Steve76, the only thing FD did outside what I [we] could describe as acceptable is to name that guy [which in itself may have been appropriate, as there is no discussion that he was not the pilot...its the truth]........apart from that one point, I am sure FD has more support than you think......for what its worth I am one of the silent majority....the fullness of time will tell.

The fact that someone has achieved 15000 hrs is by no means any yardstick that can be measured [if in fact there real hours]....that could be 15000 hrs of experience....or 1 hour of experience repeated 15000 times [and perhaps wrongly]....who knows??

It also has a message [I know it was not meant this way]...that these "hours" are a mitigating element.....and therefore somewhat justify the actions of the guy based on his logbook alone.........perhaps the Legal Eagles will look at that differently, in that how could someone with such "experience" fly in such a manner....if he was experienced, he would know the dangers involved....but still did it.
That maybe is worse than not realising the dangers and doing it anyway!!!!
The words...incompetence and/or negligence will be in that court house I'm sure.

BlenderPilot

Sorry Mate.......

Can't disagree with your more........

If Pilots rally behind and support each other when someone does a potentially dumb thing........guess who's credibility takes a tumble........all of us!!!

Remember....when a publishing house in Oz polled its readers for the most respected profession....pilots were number 1 [Airline Pilots actually....but we can have a share of that as well], Lawyers, Politicians and Drug Dealers were in the high forties.......mmmm
The moral of this story is that we are considered trustworthy and above board.............start hiding our bad apples and watch our credibility suffer.

Comradeship can only occur when you share something in common...which is not the case here.

3top

14th Sep 2002, 03:16

Didn´t get to that spot in my career yet, but I am curious:

If you get an airshow/aerobatic waiver, I don´t believe that you are allowed to "perform" with passengers (non-essential personal, - a wingwalker-show will need the walker, but a helo stunt show doesn´t need a bunch of skydivers.....) on board, are you?

Although it may not be fair, I believe in most parts of the world you will be guilty if you run someone over on the street, even if he runs in front of you in the last split sec.
Most traffic codes will tell you, that you have to drive in a manner to be able to stop in any case - like a child running out in front of you.

Even if the photographer was told not to go out in that spot, the pilot should have been flying higher (or better said, should have never started to "stunt" that low with pax on board or over uncontrolled terrain). If he holds a waiver and low extrem maneuvers is the order of the show, then it should be conducted over a surface that is fully visible with no chance for someone crouching and jumping in front of the machine.

On the other hand imagine a Formula 1 car race, and some idiot makes it onto the track gets hit and the car spinns of, maybe hits a track guard and/or the driver gets hurt in the process.
Who is to blame?
No one complains about these guys driving in relative close proximity to people at insane speeds and definitly not able to always stop in sight distance - as required in most traffic codes!

On the other hand again, they race on a mostly sealed off area and most important without passengers! (Imagine a full schoolbus with a souped up engine!!!)
They also hold a waiver (race driver licence...)

No question the ****man can fly and must have some incredible control of the machine - still this was avoidable on the part of the pilot!

Who was looking for the thrill - just the passengers or the driver too!!

3top

Steve76

14th Sep 2002, 05:02

English is becoming a second language around here.

The OPINIONS in my last post are not my own. The post states at the top: "Fuel for the fire taken from the skydivers forum" they are numbered as such. If you take the time to research this thread you will find them all there.

You can all say sorry now....:p

I have attended a couple of train wrecks and there comes a time to turn ones head. My time is now......Salut.

Steve76 :cool:

Heliport

14th Sep 2002, 10:57

When one of our own is in trouble, even if it looks as though he might partly have brought it on himself, there's a lot to be said for being in the silent majority.

SASless

14th Sep 2002, 11:39

I have heard of folks walking into tail rotors, main rotors, of aircraft sitting on moving decks cleaving folks in pieces when the rotors dipped while the SAS was left on, people walking into the upslope rotor from both directions, have even heard of people getting whacked when the aircraft made a sudden turn whilst setting on the deck.....but folks....this is the very first time I have ever heard of chopper living up to its name in forward flight. 35 years in this business and two tours in Vietnam where the rulebook did not exist.....and this is a first to me.

You guys can fight with one another about whether he was a good pilot, bad pilot, whether the guy that got killed should have been there and so forth until the cows come home.

The inescapable fact is a human being got mown down by that Bell 412's main rotor blade while the aircraft was in forward controlled flight.

Speaking for myself....and one who in the past has been guilty of enjoying low flight as much as anyone...for this to have happened...is inexcusable to me.

There is a joke that comes to mind.....What is the most famous last words of a Redneck? "HEY YA'LL ! WATCH THIS !"

This is not a joke....a man died...it was avoidable...there is no excuse...there is only one man responsible....the pilot in command. Whether it is criminal, holds civil liability, or enforcement action is taken by the FAA......the pilot in command will have to live with that for the rest of his life. He killed an innocent person by his style of airmanship.

As I said in my first post to this thread....when all the dust settles...we will see what the courts and the FAA finally decides....and I dare say in this day and time....that nameless pilot will wish he had done anything else but what he did. It is one thing to show your butt....it is another to do it in public.

BlenderPilot

14th Sep 2002, 17:23

About 10 to 15 yrs. ago I remember an incident that was mentioned a lot on TV during which a helicopter decapitaded 2 or 3 people (I think they were kids) during the filming of "the twilight zone" I remember the helicopter was flying down the river and hit the people during a turn as they were standing on the river bank, I don't know much else but I remember it was on TV for a while.

So for me its not the first time I hear of something like this.

Flare Dammit!

14th Sep 2002, 19:06

Blender pilot keeps coming up with these weird accidents!

About 10 to 15 yrs. ago I remember an incident that was mentioned a lot on TV during which a helicopter decapitaded 2 or 3 people (I think they were kids) during the filming of "the twilight zone" I remember the helicopter was flying down the river and hit the people during a turn as they were standing on the river bank, I don't know much else but I remember it was on TV for a while.

...Almost twenty years ago. 1983 to be exact. The infamous case with "Twilight Zone - The Movie." During filming, actor Vic Morrow and two child actors were killed when a UH-1 that was hoving above fell on them in a simulated battle scene. The helicopter was brought down when a special-effects technician set off an explosion which took out the tail rotor.

Read about it at: http://www.safe-skies.com/legal_aspects.htm

The article brings up some very good points about pilots and criminal charges following accidents involving fatalities. Actually, these points are rather relevant to this thread.

Please take notice of the term "reckless, willful or wanton" with respect to misconduct. Proving a pilot's actions are such (and thereore criminal) is difficult, which is why a certain Bell 412 pilot has not yet been charged in connection with the death of a person on the ground. However, that may change next month when the Illinois version of a grand jury convenes and reviews all cases of "unnatural death."

TwinHueyMan

14th Sep 2002, 19:15

On the other hand imagine a Formula 1 car race, and some idiot makes it onto the track gets hit and the car spinns of, maybe hits a track guard and/or the driver gets hurt in the process.
Who is to blame?
No one complains about these guys driving in relative close proximity to people at insane speeds and definitly not able to always stop in sight distance - as required in most traffic codes!

But remember - what they are doing is normal, legal, and well known as an established practice by spectators. The only way I can liken an F1 race to what *** did was if Johnny F1 driver got 9 passengers on his car and went speeding through the race track parking lot during a swap meet. Someone happens to step out, gets hit... sorry, the driver was doing somthing illigal when he had no reason and no right to do so.

I was trying to think up a logical metaphor last night to try and liken what *** did to somthing that everyone can relate to, but guess what... I couldn't think of one! There is not a single other circumstance out there that I know of which entails putting passngers at risk while doing somthing completley illigal and reckless, where a bystander can recieve fatal injuries by trying to take a photograph. I challenge everyone else to try and think of one.

Innocent until proven guilty only stands in my mind until there is a reasonable amount of incriminating evidence to prove otherwise. I don't wait for a judge and jury to make my mind up for me.

On a side note, I saw a movie last night called "Fandango", with Kevin Costner and Judd Nelson (1985), which had a part where the group of guys went skydiving. The pilot (a marajuana smoking "hippie") used his plane (Cessna 182 with an outrageous paint scheme) to ferry Judd to altitude. After he dropped his passenger, the pilot did an emmelman, 90 deg vertical dive, and low (<2 feet clearance) pass during and after Judd's decent. Afterwards, the group tasked the pilot to pick up a girl in the city, which had even more amazing flying - the pilot did rolls and loops, and even flew under overpasses (mere inches in clearance top and bottom), even while being chased by police in a FH1100, culminating with him landing and taxing on a congested freeway, off an offramp, down the street, and finally to the persons house.

When I saw that, I immidiatley thought "*** ******".

Mike

3top

14th Sep 2002, 20:57

SASless sums it up............

No matter what courts ,FAA, whatever decide. It was avoidable, the style of flying employed not necessary to give the pax a thrill.
Someone died, the lone responsibility lies with the pilot. Because of his action someone died. I trust he did not intend to kill the guy, it "just" happened. He will have to live the rest of his life with that. Plus lots of professional pilots will have their own mind and opinion about him.........

THman:

I take it you do not frequent Central America a lot.
Take a trip to Panama in your next vacation, you will see plenty metaphors for the accident, though they are still not logical, rather ignorant and stupid to the max.
Actually you will see them to the DOZEN EVERY day!!

Here they call them "Red Devels" - Ex-US-Schoolbuses, painted very colorful, mainly red (see the name?). These are the regular transportation in Panama. Lots of them are just dumb idiots, racing each other on every chance, with a lot of times faulty equipment. I am here now since about 10 years. I saw at least 15 cases of "missing rear axle". The whole thing just brakes loose, if you are lucky the bus stays upright and comes to a rest some 50 yards ahead!
Police knows it, but just ignores it - [Panamanian]police!! something else over what to let of steam - maybe in a different forum....

:) 3top

PS: Of course NOT ALL buses are chunk and drivers are idiots!!
Taxi drivers take another big chunk of the idiot population down here!!

Red Wine

14th Sep 2002, 21:52

Well.......!!

Are those photographs allowed back..????

[Without any names attached]

And if they are de-identified and still not allowed back...why is this so.?

TwinHueyMan

14th Sep 2002, 22:53

Red Wine,

I've been lazy with uploading the pics. Actually, been busy.. I promise to do it tonite.

*Yay, now I've got 90 minutes of forum-code filled replies ahead of me tonite! Better start the coffee pot now!* ;)

Give me time por favor.

Mike

SASless

15th Sep 2002, 02:01

3TOP.....ever get up the courage to ride the legendary "Rabbit" buses in the Philippines? The Kamikaze pilots during WWII would have had heart attacks if they rode the Rabbit! A night trip down the mountains was an experience that provoked me to buy a car there....and to kill off a few million brain cells with some medicinal whiskey.....it terrified me me and I am a hero! Joey Chitwood's Hell Drivers never put on such a show as the Rabbits do. Joey made was famous for driving on just two sets of tires....heck he did it on level ground with a car....the Rabbit drivers do it with a bus in the dark going down the mountain while looking over their shoulder and carrying on a conversation with the passengers....at warp speed nine!

3top

15th Sep 2002, 03:32

SAS:

Thanks, I pass on this one and let someone else be the hero, like all the poor folks that can´t afford a car to leave the rabbits in FRONT (something I learned in Panama, these guys are better to have in front than behind you, considering their driving habits and possible - aah, most like brake conditions...) of them!!
But sometime I will have to roam that corner of the world!
I see, Panama doesn´t hold the monopoly on crazy public transportation providers!!

:D 3top

BlenderPilot

15th Sep 2002, 04:51

I envy you, Panamanian Girls are hot!

Panama is cool, during 1999 I routinely went to Panama and stayed for days at Cesars Park or Intercontinental, I remember going to all those restaurants in the business district and really enjoyed meeting all those "scantly clad" Panamainian Señoritas! The Tocumen Duty Free is also the cheapest place on earth! Have you ever used that heliport on the Intercontinental Pier? Unfortunately at the time I was flying a Beechjet (I also fly "stiff wing") into Tocumen and have only flown once thru Panama in a helicopter, but it would be great to do it again, actually I might get to since my boss just sold a 206 L4 to a company in La Paz, Bolivia and they are trying to decide if they "ship it" or "fly it" I was talking to some FAP pilots that tell me the hard part is going across the Andes, have you ever gone down there? Also La Paz is at 13,120 FT AMSL and I'm not sure how this L4 with standard TR is gonna do over there.

Panama is cool

3top

15th Sep 2002, 17:23

Hi Blender:

Actually Panama is not cool, rather hot - :D !!

You must mean the heliport on the marina-pier of the Miramar-Intercontinental. I operate there a lot. Luckily the owners of the hotel don´t charge landing fees (yet...), so it is the defacto city heliport for everybody! They also own the Holiday Inn which has a heliport, right beside the Panama Hotel, which has one too, but that one is tricky, as it seems there are always turbulence and fast changing ones, so you never get to settle in. Mostly it ends with a less than perfect touch down. The Holiday Inn is a piece of cake compared. The owners of the Miramar maintain their own R-44 in our hangar. The head of the clan is just preparing for his private checkride! So is his daughter, his son is flying the R since about a year and a half!

With a L4 you shouldn´t have any trouble to go over the Andes as long as you are not to heavy. I haven´t been there myself though. All our new ships were flown down from California - around 30-35 hrs to Panama. A light L4 (2 people and full fuel + some jerrycans in case...land on any beach fill up hot and go and don´t tell anyone!!.) should get you easy the distance. If you have any say in that matter, go for the trip it is worth it! Make a stop in Panama overnight and check everything for the trip through Columbia, so you can do that in one daylight move. I guess you would go to Guayaquil Ecuador - Peru - Bolivia.

However I don´t know what they want to do with a L4 down there. As it get´s really at the edge with usefull performance.
TR on any JetRanger or son of JR - sucks!! They should talk toUncle Frank (Mr.Robinson) - he could make them a REAL TR!!! But then, when he gets his hand on a Bell, there will not a whole lot be left untouched!!

If you stay over in Panama, go to the old Albrook-airport ("Marcos A. Gelabert"-airport, today) it is also international and you safe big bucks going into the city!

Give me an e-mail when you are on the trip, I give you a lift to the Miramar!

3top,:D :D :D

Flying Lawyer

16th Sep 2002, 09:33

Flare says Please take notice of the term "reckless, willful or wanton" with respect to misconduct. Proving a pilot's actions are such (and thereore criminal) is difficult

This is not true.

rightpedalRIGHTPEDAL

16th Sep 2002, 17:33

For Flying Lawyer...
If you, as a lawyer with an interest in flying, are a flying lawyer,
what would I be as a pilot, with an interest in the law?
A lying flier????;)

Flying Lawyer

16th Sep 2002, 21:52

Hopefully, a legal pilot? :p

Thomas coupling

18th Sep 2002, 10:33

Calling Huey drivers, out there:

For the MRB to make contact with the victim (assuming the victim was standing bolt upright at the time), would mean that the tip path plane would be at around 6 feet.
With it's teetering head, assuming the body of the helo was fully dragged back when it hit the victim, what height would the skids be off the ground??

What is the height of the tip of a blade on a huey when it is stationary (parked up) and the blades are horizontal?

I reckon we're talking inches, maybe a foot off the deck????

The Nr Fairy

18th Sep 2002, 11:44

TC :

'Twas a 412, piccie URL already posted, but check here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/187217/L/)

The New Flare

19th Sep 2002, 13:35

Thomas Coupling asked:

For the MRB to make contact with the victim (assuming the victim was standing bolt upright at the time), would mean that the tip path plane would be at around 6 feet.
With it's teetering head, assuming the body of the helo was fully dragged back when it hit the victim, what height would the skids be off the ground??

Well, the actual type of ship does not matter. And of course, it depends on the bank angle, no? I mean, you could get the blades down that low with as little as a thirty degree bank, I suppose, and the skids would be very low to the ground. But if you increase the bank angle to, say, 60 degrees or more, then the skids will be that much higher.

In this particular case (Bell 412 at Rantoul, Illinois), the issue is not that the skids were very low to the ground, but that the main rotor obviously was.

Hungry Joe

19th Sep 2002, 15:27

My sympathies to the videographer, his family, and to the pilot.

I took that ride, twice, in Quincy in 1999. Quite a few skydives under my belt, but had never been in a helicopter before. It was a wild ride, but my impression on both trips was that it was flown to a very exact sequence, which was identical on each flight. It was not a case of the aircraft just being thrown abround the sky. The jump afterwards was an anti-climax.

I do remember wondering how the FAA permitted it, but assumed they must have, as they, and the local cops, were a constant presence on the field. They were very obvious in the policing of other “novelty” jumps, which are a key attraction at the World Freefall Convention. There is potential for diasaster on practically every load in Quincy, whether it’s being sucked through the tail exit of a 727, at 230 kts, or a high-altitude jump by relatively low-time jumpers. Normal rules certainly seemed to be relaxed at this event.

It might be difficult for someone who is not involved in skydiving, or has no experience of large boogies, to comprehend the atmosphere and mentality at such a gathering. It is for most, an opportunity to have as much fun as is humanly possible with aircraft and with each other. Preferably without getting killed. It is unfortunate, but there have been fatalities at most World Freefall Conventions. It is somewhere you need to watch your back, both in the air & on the ground.

Without going into detail, there were places on the flight path of that chopper I would not have stood for any money, or photograph. In hindsight, one could say this was an accident waiting to happen. It looks as if at least 2 people were very unwise that day, and have or will have paid the price. I’m not going to judge either of them.

This incident is going to be analysed by those in full possession of the facts, and presumably actions taken that I would hope never to meet in my career. I would also hope, that if I ever screw up, I won’t be tried and convicted by fellow pilots on the basis of hearsay, nor my name published on the internet without any means of redress. I really hope one of those fellow pilots won’t feel it necessary to try to persuade somebody’s family to sue me for all I have because he is angry at my actions.
:o

sierra-papa

19th Sep 2002, 23:55

Hungry Joe,
I have been waiting for somebody with at least some firsthand info to come up on this thread. Thanks! I got tired listening to tons of mud slinging based on nothing but hearsay.

Anybody,
else out there who can contribute to paint a more objective picture of the happenings? I am not interested in judging the pilot or the photographer, but rather have most learning effect out of this accident.
sp

3top

21st Sep 2002, 03:08

Hi S-P & H. Joe:

I am with you there, about judging the pilot on this specific accident without knowing all the facts.
BUT, it is pretty obvious what happend: a load of skydivers - a thrill-ride to altitude - someone in the way - dead.

If that transport operation would have been accomplished in a different manner, the man on the ground NEVER would have come near enough to any rotorblade ever.
No matter what the very details were or are.

Obviously the pilot did his stunts with the blessing of the FAA, or the legalsystem in the states is getting ridiculous.

As stated on this thread, the pilot violated at least 3 FAR´s. You do not do that without a waiver in front of lawenforcement and FAA personal.

I mentioned here and on other threads, that the interest in such cases should be to learn and avoid for all (as you said S-P....).

Well:

a) You shall not do antics close to the ground if you can not see the necessary area 100% (no hiding places for anyone!!!)

b) Do NEVER bank more than 30 degrees close to the ground - it is civil life now, the war is over!!

c) If your pax need a thrill, they DO NOT NEED IT THAT CLOSE TO THE GROUND, period - whatever they say.
You may be the best, do your personal thrillrides with you alone.
If you carry someone along, back off to a regime that gives you a minimum of maneuvering space "in case".

I hope we will find out the hard facts on this case sometime, to see how close we got with assumptions and hearsay.
But for me some of the fotos give already enough credit to the case (very low + 45 degrees or more bank), the photos being specifically from that machine-pilot combo............

I mentioned, I will not judge the pilot on base of this forum, however he will have to live with the fact and he knows best, HE could have avoided it............no matter his experience, precision, etc. On this occasion, common sense was forgotten somewhere else...

3top

PS: Someone told me once (regarding to street traffic...) when I was learning to drive: YOu always have to drive like everyone else is an idiot on the road - speak: be prepared for the most incredible stupidities in traffic - IT WORKED FOR ME!

I APPLY THE SAME TO AIR TRAFFIC - IT STILL WORKS!!

I am not saying, everyone is an i****, MOST are not, but some ARE......!

helmet fire

17th Dec 2004, 11:53

About 18 months or so ago there was a rather heated debate concerning a Bell 412 conducting parachute ops at some kind of show. A photographer had gone into a nearby field where the 412 was conducting low flying prior to climbing up to altitude in order to get a great shot, alledgedly with the knowledge of the pilot. During the next run, the blades of the 412 came into contact with the photographer in a low level turn, whilst the photographer was in the field. The photos were not posted, and needless to say, unfortunatley the photographer did not make it. The 412 guy and his 10 or so pax fortunately did. And went on flying the next day.

Despite all the searches I can think of, I have been unable to find the thread, but I am keen to find out what happened here, and what was the inevitable court outcomes?

Any one know?

407 Driver

17th Dec 2004, 14:19

Some info from the NTSB website... www.ntsb.gov (http://www.ntsb.gov)

CHI02LA232
On August 2, 2002, at 1952 central daylight time, a Bell 412, N464AC, operated by Air Center Helicopters, Inc., piloted by an airline transport pilot, was taking off from the Rantoul National Aviation Center-Frank Elliot Field Airport (TIP), Rantoul Illinois, with a load of skydivers, when its main rotor struck a photographer on the ground. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91 business flight was not operating on a flight plan. The pilot and nine passengers were uninjured. The photographer was fatally injured. The local flight was originating at the time of the accident.

The pilot stated in a written statement, "Aircraft was loaded with skydivers by ground crew and area was cleared for takeoff. Ground crew pointed out 4 canopies in vicinity of takeoff area on approach to maintain visual during takeoff. I initiated takeoff while monitoring canopies and began a turn onto taxiway to clear the area when I heard a blade strike. I looked immediately in the direction and saw a person falling down and aborted the takeoff and landed.

A crewmember stated in a written statement, "Earlier today this individual rode with us. After coming back from his skydive he asked me if he could lay on the ground [and] have the helicopter fly by him so he could take a picture. I told him no that was not allowed. He said OK and walked away. This was about one hour before the incident."

A second crewmember stated in a written statement, "At the time of the accident, I had arrived just prior to loading of the last load of skydivers for the day. [Two] crew members were spotting for the takeoff. No obstructions were seen and lift off was given. I was standing in the grass on the runway side of the takeoff. To the runway side of the cornfield. I watched as the 412 did it's takeoff and started its turn inward over the corn field. As the 412 turned a person appeared out of nowhere. I saw the person in a yellow shirt just drop to the knees and fall..."

The TIP automated weather observing system, recorded at 1846, wind from 070 degrees at 9 knots; 10 statue mile surface visibility; broken clouds at 4,300 feet agl, 5,500 feet agl and 6,500 feet agl; temperature of 26 degrees Celsius (C) and dew point of 21 degrees C; altimeter setting of 30.10 inches of mercury. The University of Illinois-Willard Airport, Champaign, Illinois, automated surface observing system located 16 nautical miles north of TIP recorded lightning to the south. The pilot reported that winds were from the north at 15 knots gusting to 20 knots at the time of the accident.

The helicopter was a twin engine, fifteen place helicopter with a single four-bladed main rotor and a tail rotor. The main rotor blades are 46 feet in diameter and 11 feet 5 inches above the helicopter's ground line at design gross weight (dimensions are approximate due to variations in loading and alighting gear deflection).

A witness video recording of the accident and a photo of the photographer's position are included in the docket of this report.

SASless

17th Dec 2004, 14:38

Pilot's first name is Rod....who is the owner....as I hear it.

Heliport

18th Dec 2004, 12:23

What was the inevitable court outcomes?

"A witness video recording of the accident and a photo of the photographer's position are included in the docket of this (NTSB) report."

From what the pilot and two crewmen say, there doesn't seem to be any reason for court proceedings against the pilot, whatever his name is.

The Rotordog

18th Dec 2004, 13:14

Heliport:From what the pilot and two crewmen say, there doesn't seem to be any reason for court proceedings against the pilot, whatever his name is.So a pilot takes a Bell 412 full of skydivers, takes-off and runs with his pitot in the dirt down a quarter of a mile, then does a hairy-ass turn that puts his main rotor blades within five feet of the ground...and people within our industry are cool with that? Never mind that it just so happened that when those MR blades were within five feet of the ground they sliced and diced some poor videographer to death who the pilot "claimed" to not even know was there.

Q: At an altitude of 10 feet, how far do you have to bank a 412 to get the tips of the coned main rotor blades to within five feet of the ground?

Now I'm no lawyer or even an FAA guy, but even I can see a wrongful death lawsuit and at least a couple of FAR violations there.

It is interesting that so many in our industry lay the blame squarely on the decapitated head of the dead videographer while completely absolving the pilot. Of the dead guy it is said, "He got what he deserved"...because he "shouldn't have been there," of course. Yes, it was an airport with all the hazards that entails. But then again, the area was not fenced off or otherwise secured (obviously!), nor was there any signage stating "WARNING! HELICOPTER MAIN ROTOR BLADES COME WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE GROUND IN THIS AREA!!!!"

The unfortunate event gives our industry a serious black eye. It is reprehensible that the FAA who were present condoned this joker's flying, and the fact that it is allowed to continue is inexcusable. Personally, I'm disgusted. If someone on the ground died as a result of my horsing around with a helicopter, I don't know whether I could live with the sorrow and shame.

B Sousa

18th Dec 2004, 13:38

Rotordog sounds pretty critical from someone who does not admit to being there at the time.
Anytime there is an accident the eye gets blacker, but I dont think one should go so far as assessing guilt if they are not the FAA, or the Courts. If they choose not to involve themselves its probably for a reason.

The Rotordog

18th Dec 2004, 14:47

B Sousa:Rotordog sounds pretty critical from someone who does not admit to being there at the time.Wow.

True enough, I was not there. I admit it. But I did see the videotape of the 412's "typical" departure at Rantoul, and I did see all kinds of still photographs posted on various skydivers' websites before all were quickly taken down.

And so yes, I am critical, Mr. Sousa. Can you justify performing a maneuver with a helicopter full of passengers which involves a bank so steep and so low to the ground that your rotor blades come within five feet of it? See, me, maybe I'm wierd but I just think that's unforgiveably irresponsible. I think it's "careless and reckless" flying.

Oh, and let's not forget, the videographer "jumped up" out of a cornfield (or soybeans or whatever, I forget which crop it was). Point being, the stalks of the plants were tall enough to hide his body when crouching down. He stood up and was struck by the 412's main rotor. This tells us that not only were the main rotor blades within five feet of the ground, but less than that to the crop! Probably only a couple of feet.

Frankly, I'm astounded that a "pilot" would fly in such a way - whether a person on the ground got killed or not!

And that pretty much sums up my feelings about this incident: I'm astounded. The FAR's do not get suspended merely because all the passengers agree that they can be ignored. I do not know whether the FAA violated this pilot, nor whether any legal action (either criminal or civil) was taken against him. But I do know, as we all do, pilots who've incurred the FAA's wrath for transgressions that were far less serious.

And I'm astounded that any pilot would condone such hot-dogging (with passengers onboard no less!).

Your mileage may vary (it obviously does). But I'll tell you one thing: If this type of flying is tolerable, I'm turning in my certs. And Mr. Sousa, I hope that's not how you fly down in the U.S.V.I. Maybe you've been away from civilization too long. But wait...Air Center has/had a big presence in the U.S.V.I. You don't perhaps work for them, do ya?

B Sousa

18th Dec 2004, 15:08

Rotordog.
Just to let you know ,Yes I do Work for them and other companies . My name is always on my posts, unlike some others. Also I was not there. Im not here to battle with you as to who is right or wrong, just more curious than anything as to why this particular incident raises your hackles. How about a couple accidents in the Grand Canyon over the last couple years (where I also work) in which six and seven people were killed respectively.. I understand (rumor) that at least one of those may be due to someone wearing a Cowboy Hat..
Or is it that you know the owner/pilot involved in this and have some cross to burn.......
Further I dont think I would be setting the scene for this accident if I were not there. I dont think this is an issue of anyone condoning anyones actions. That statement sounds more of something to justify your agressive attitude in this particular case. Still curious why after a couple years the issue comes up with such fire...your most likely closer to this than you admit..
You have brought up some good points to this particular issue, but again the FAA and the Courts ,so far, choose to stay quiet..
As a member of the USPA (www.uspa.org) for over thirty years I can also invite you to any major skydiving meet and you can watch the Caravans, King Airs, Twotters etc as they attempt to beat the Meat Missles to the ground.. Maybe we should start with the industry as a whole for some sensible action.

The Rotordog

18th Dec 2004, 15:58

B Sousa:Just to let you know ,Yes I do Work for them and other companies .Why am I not surprised.

I have no "cross to burn" with this particular pilot. I am a safety zealot and I have many such incidents that I rail against. What is frustrating is the complacent attitude of so many pilots that "accidents happen" with no remorse or recourse.

It was not I who brought the incident up again this time in this thread. But it did rekindle my disgust at it as well as the cavalier attitude that so many pilots have: "Oh well, photographer died. Too bad, he deserved it." I've been in this business for a long, long time. Such "accidents" sicken me. They have all along, and will likely continue to in the future.

The hot-dogging in the canyon accident is well-rumored, yes. If other pilots had first-hand knowledge of it and did nothing, shame on them. Trouble is, that pilot died with everyone else onboard, so we can't go after him anymore. Not so at Rantoul. The hot-dogging there (and other USPA events by the same pilot) is/was well-documented on video and still pictures.

Personally, I do not defend dead or alive pilots who kill people by their hot-dogging actions. And let's face it, if <pilot's name deleted> had not placed his <aircraft type deleted> in such a precarious, arguably unsafe position of extreme bank at <USPA event deleted>, <photographer's name deleted> would not have died. There, is that politically correct for everyone? I know that life is not always fair. Innocent men go to jail, and sometimes the guilty get away with murder. In the overall grand scheme of things, just because somebody is *not* brought up on charges does not mean they have done no wrong.

Let's look at it this way: If a photographer inadvertently walks into the prop of a running-but-parked airplane, you could hardly hold the pilot(s) deliberately responsible. But if a pilot decides to go out and play weed-whacker around the airport with the rotor blades of his helicopter and kills someone, I think it is a different story regardless of whether that someone "should" have been there or not.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, as you do Mr. Sousa. If you want to defend your friend, that is your right, I suppose. I just see a needless death, and if I were the family of that unfortunate photographer, I know what kind of legal action I'd be pursuing...until I breathed my last breath.

As a member of the USPA (www.uspa.org) for over thirty years I can also invite you to any major skydiving meet and you can watch the Caravans, King Airs, Twotters etc as they attempt to beat the Meat Missles to the ground.. If what went on at Rantoul is typical of what goes on at all USPA events, I can assure you Mr. Sousa that I will *never* attend one voluntarily.

SASless

18th Dec 2004, 17:34

Bert,

I recall this event and the flap it caused. You have to remember...the head lopping occurred while the aircraft was in flight and not setting on the ground, helideck, or on sloping ground. There was no mechanical failure....no gusts of wind...no walking upslope into the rotor....no AFCS runaway or lurching of the ship......a guy standing on the ground got his noggin removed by a main rotor blade.

This is the only incident I can recall in my 37 years of flying helicopters that an aircraft in controlled flight killed someone on the ground by a Main rotor strike. That makes this event all the more controversial in my view.

Your point about the Grand Canyon is well taken....and we could throw in other accidents where the pilot was out showing his butt and someone died but usually if not invariably the people killed were "inside" the aircraft.

Dorcey Wingo was dragged through the courts when the movie scene pyrotechnics shot him out of the sky and Vic Morrow and the two children were killed. To see the difference in the way that was handled and this event was handled does pose some questions.

It is not so much an argument about "intent" but when one sees pilots losing licenses for busting a TFR and no certificate action in this particular case....it does make one wonder why.

Gibbo

18th Dec 2004, 23:10

Nice one Helmet! :ok:

The forum equivalent to farting and then leaving the room. :D

Gibbo

loachboy

19th Dec 2004, 20:31

I have watched a video of the Parachuting event with this 412 flying over grassy fields doing spilt ass turns etc etc to rock music. I've got to say my jaw was on the floor watching such a huge machine being thrown around.
Great to see a machine being put through it's paces, but with punters on board ot the wisest move and the erraticness of the flying, no wonder.

Regards

Loachboy

B Sousa

20th Dec 2004, 14:57

Sorry Rotordog, your not getting defense from me, dont offload your ranting my way. I see your also jumping on me for working for the company. You better get a breath of fresh air, Im sure there are things in your logbook that would make a thread or two on this forum.
So as a "Safety Zealot", Im sure if your name were known, you would no doubt be taking fire from some you work with or used too.

Sasless the two incidents were totaly different. Mr Wingo becamer a passenger in his aircraft after the explosion and really had no say as to where he was going to land (as I see it).
As to not knowing of any accidents, Im sure we could find quite a few rotor involved incidents.
Again not being there, but from all the reports and statements the deceased was warned to stay away from that area due to the busy operation. As you say with the FAA jumping on certain things that seem trivial and no action on this incident leads one to believe that there was NO Violation or they had no evidence of one EVEN with a video. There are more Lawyers than Pilots so I can only guess if a Civil Case were to be made, it would have been done before the deceased was buried.
Bottom line , Rotordog is spotless and has never hotdogged an aircraft.....