This happened yesterday in Guatemala
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB report
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:32.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/foru...ed;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/foru...50;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/foru...ed;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.
****** 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/foru...ed;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/foru...50;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/foru...ed;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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:29.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:30.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)]:
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:
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:
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.
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..."
(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."
(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."
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:33.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Labarynth Seal
(Some JAR Knowledge is useful)
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.
Labarynth Seal
(Some JAR Knowledge is useful)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not what I intended.
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.
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.
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 11th Sep 2002 at 00:55.
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.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:21.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: WPB, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
(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
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:31.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76 writes:
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?"
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!)
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.
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.
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!)
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flare
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.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:24.
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.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:25.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flare Dammit!
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..!!!!
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..!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
One Blown Labarynth Seal
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!
One Blown Labarynth Seal