This happened yesterday in Guatemala
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
My apologies to the moderator for rising to the bait..... I agree with the above. Lets start another thread.
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
My apologies to the moderator for rising to the bait..... I agree with the above. Lets start another thread.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:34.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 (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.
Last edited by Flare Dammit!; 13th Sep 2002 at 20:07.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76:
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.
Man FD you really have a hard on for this one.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Bronx; 11th Sep 2002 at 18:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still not "outraged"
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:36.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blender pilot:
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by PedalStop; 11th Sep 2002 at 21:37.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Low Earth Orbit
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back Off
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....!!!!
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....!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?).
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....
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
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?).
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....
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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow,
lots of heat!!
a. I saw personally what can happen if a 15000 hr+ pilot getīs 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", donīt 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 (thatīs 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 thatīs 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 canīt 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 donīt know their own - thatīs 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 letīs keep it civilized (even if heated ).
c. Whatever the pilots reason for giving thrill rides this way, FAA and courts will (hopefully) take care of it, if these pilots donīt learn it (by mistake or whatever...), they will end their career in a mess one way or the other. I canīt 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 wonīt 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 didnīt, 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!
3top
(.....īcause I like to fly there!!)
lots of heat!!
a. I saw personally what can happen if a 15000 hr+ pilot getīs 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", donīt 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 (thatīs 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 thatīs 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 canīt 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 donīt know their own - thatīs 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 letīs keep it civilized (even if heated
).c. Whatever the pilots reason for giving thrill rides this way, FAA and courts will (hopefully) take care of it, if these pilots donīt learn it (by mistake or whatever...), they will end their career in a mess one way or the other. I canīt 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 wonīt 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 didnīt, 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!
3top
(.....īcause I like to fly there!!)
Last edited by 3top; 12th Sep 2002 at 04:11.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 12th Sep 2002 at 13:23.
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.
PS: Labarynth Seal - Fentenol ... Mmmmmmm ... go sleep now .... bye bye....
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.
PS: Labarynth Seal - Fentenol ... Mmmmmmm ... go sleep now .... bye bye....