This happened yesterday in Guatemala
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, Tudor, you've sure got a lot of those eye-rolling, winking smilies in your post. Do you EVER say anything seriously? You know, a little sarcasm goes a long way.
Obviously, I was not at the skydiver's convention. Obviously, I cannot say "for certain" what happened or how it happened, only that it did. But when I read an eyewitness account on a skydiver's website that says "...the helicopter flew right at him," I took it at face value. I assume (with all that entails) that the reporter saw both: A) the helicopter; and B) the videographer and gave his report without bias.
We don't know whether the videographer was crouching down in the cornrows, just waiting to jump up and say "BOO!" as the helicopter flew over. LOGIC would tell me that the videographer was set up to videotape the entire take-off run/buzz job because THAT'S WHAT HIS INTENTION WAS ALL ALONG. We know that. His brother was aboard the helicopter on that particular ride. To do this, let us accept that he most likely got himself into a stabilized position for filming and stayed in that position as the aircraft approached and until he got killed. Reasonable, counselor?
As a pilot, I do not find it plausible that the 412 pilot was unaware and did not see that the man was there. I'm sure that *** ****** (name deleted by Moderator - YOU WERE WARNED, FLARE!) was scanning his intended path intently. You simply cannot do that type of flying without a high degree of precision and attention. So my opinion is that *** was aware of the videographer's position, and even if he wasn't, the videographer would probably have been visible to him - the 412 being higher (albeit only slightly) than the man.
It has been said (not by me) that the corn was three feet high. To believe then that the videographer was totally invisible would mean that he was dressed in cornrow camo and lying virtually prone on the ground until he "suddenly" leapt to his feet to videotape a few seconds of the 412 as it passed over him. As much as the ******-defenders would like to think it happened this way, it simply defies logic.
All of the above goes to why I personally believe that *** ****** knew he was there and why it was criminally negligent manslaughter.
But even if he didn't...
To fly in such a reckless manner with paying passengers onboard is simply inexcuseable...indefensible. Because even if it wasn't a wayward "man in a field," there are plenty of other things that can go wrong that could cause that aircraft to crash. This is why the U.S. FAA has all those pesky rules that American pilots have to obey. Rules that prohibit low-level aerobatics. Rules that say if you're going to exceed 60 degrees of bank and 30 degrees of pitch, everybody onboard has to wear a parachute. Rules that say we pilots must NOT endanger anyone *in* our aircraft OR on the ground.
The type of flying that *** ****** was doing arguably endangered the paying passengers onboard that heli, and OBVIOUSLY endangered a person on the ground.
We ask ourselves: Are passengers not endangered if there is no accident? In other words, is the absence of an accident indication that the preceding flight was "safe?" Personally, I don't think so. From the voluminous photographic evidence we've all seen, we pilots can conclude with confidence that what *** ****** was doing was "unsafe." No need to beat around the bush or pretend it wasn't. The end result proves it: A man ON THE GROUND died. Ipso facto!
And yes, I have spoken to the lawyers in my family. All of them say that given the photographic and written evidence (e.g. statement from the passenger on the fatal flight), they would not want to be in that pilot's shoes. They add that once the local police become familiar with the federal regulations that were likely broken, criminal charges could certainly be forthcoming, if they haven't already. Jail time is a (perhaps remote) possibility. Finally, they say that the pilot will undoubtedly suffer some federal sanction, likely permanent (which they believe it should be).
And you know what else? They urged me to contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit against *** ******. I'm debating that.
Hey Steve76! You can split hairs all you want in trying to find *some* way to defend *** ******'s actions. You're really reaching. Me, I'd try to find something honorable to do with my time.
Guys...gals...we have responsibilities as pilots. Some of them are legal, some are moral. Our PRIMARY responsibility is to not kill anyone. It's simply not enough for us to say of the dead guy, "Well, it's HIS fault. He shouldn't have been out in that field when I decided to shave the corn with my main rotor blades."
Consider that, next time you get the itch to do a little hot-dogging. Because that goes for passengers riding IN your ship as well.
There. I've said my piece for today and now I'm going to go take a big poop. Oh wait...I just did!
Obviously, I was not at the skydiver's convention. Obviously, I cannot say "for certain" what happened or how it happened, only that it did. But when I read an eyewitness account on a skydiver's website that says "...the helicopter flew right at him," I took it at face value. I assume (with all that entails) that the reporter saw both: A) the helicopter; and B) the videographer and gave his report without bias.
We don't know whether the videographer was crouching down in the cornrows, just waiting to jump up and say "BOO!" as the helicopter flew over. LOGIC would tell me that the videographer was set up to videotape the entire take-off run/buzz job because THAT'S WHAT HIS INTENTION WAS ALL ALONG. We know that. His brother was aboard the helicopter on that particular ride. To do this, let us accept that he most likely got himself into a stabilized position for filming and stayed in that position as the aircraft approached and until he got killed. Reasonable, counselor?
As a pilot, I do not find it plausible that the 412 pilot was unaware and did not see that the man was there. I'm sure that *** ****** (name deleted by Moderator - YOU WERE WARNED, FLARE!) was scanning his intended path intently. You simply cannot do that type of flying without a high degree of precision and attention. So my opinion is that *** was aware of the videographer's position, and even if he wasn't, the videographer would probably have been visible to him - the 412 being higher (albeit only slightly) than the man.
It has been said (not by me) that the corn was three feet high. To believe then that the videographer was totally invisible would mean that he was dressed in cornrow camo and lying virtually prone on the ground until he "suddenly" leapt to his feet to videotape a few seconds of the 412 as it passed over him. As much as the ******-defenders would like to think it happened this way, it simply defies logic.
All of the above goes to why I personally believe that *** ****** knew he was there and why it was criminally negligent manslaughter.
But even if he didn't...
To fly in such a reckless manner with paying passengers onboard is simply inexcuseable...indefensible. Because even if it wasn't a wayward "man in a field," there are plenty of other things that can go wrong that could cause that aircraft to crash. This is why the U.S. FAA has all those pesky rules that American pilots have to obey. Rules that prohibit low-level aerobatics. Rules that say if you're going to exceed 60 degrees of bank and 30 degrees of pitch, everybody onboard has to wear a parachute. Rules that say we pilots must NOT endanger anyone *in* our aircraft OR on the ground.
The type of flying that *** ****** was doing arguably endangered the paying passengers onboard that heli, and OBVIOUSLY endangered a person on the ground.
We ask ourselves: Are passengers not endangered if there is no accident? In other words, is the absence of an accident indication that the preceding flight was "safe?" Personally, I don't think so. From the voluminous photographic evidence we've all seen, we pilots can conclude with confidence that what *** ****** was doing was "unsafe." No need to beat around the bush or pretend it wasn't. The end result proves it: A man ON THE GROUND died. Ipso facto!
And yes, I have spoken to the lawyers in my family. All of them say that given the photographic and written evidence (e.g. statement from the passenger on the fatal flight), they would not want to be in that pilot's shoes. They add that once the local police become familiar with the federal regulations that were likely broken, criminal charges could certainly be forthcoming, if they haven't already. Jail time is a (perhaps remote) possibility. Finally, they say that the pilot will undoubtedly suffer some federal sanction, likely permanent (which they believe it should be).
And you know what else? They urged me to contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit against *** ******. I'm debating that.
Hey Steve76! You can split hairs all you want in trying to find *some* way to defend *** ******'s actions. You're really reaching. Me, I'd try to find something honorable to do with my time.
Guys...gals...we have responsibilities as pilots. Some of them are legal, some are moral. Our PRIMARY responsibility is to not kill anyone. It's simply not enough for us to say of the dead guy, "Well, it's HIS fault. He shouldn't have been out in that field when I decided to shave the corn with my main rotor blades."
Consider that, next time you get the itch to do a little hot-dogging. Because that goes for passengers riding IN your ship as well.
There. I've said my piece for today and now I'm going to go take a big poop. Oh wait...I just did!
Last edited by Flare Dammit!; 12th Sep 2002 at 15:37.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now we've gotten to the bottom of all this hell and damnation. Flare saw "an" eyewitness account on a skydiver's website, took it at face value, assumed it was unbiased, and decided that was good enough reason to name the pilot on an international public forum and heap a whole loada **** on him.
Now how do I do one of them eyerolling things? Even if the guy's unbiased, and we don't know if he is, it still don't mean his account is accurate. Jeez, I know some cops who think like Flare. Better guys look to see if the "unbiased" witness is also an accurate witness. Checking out what other witnesses say is a good place to start.
So Flare's 3 family lawyers said he should "contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit". Bet they did. We got lotsa different names for lawyers like that, 'ambulance chasers' is the polite one. The States is crawling with em.
Now how do I do one of them eyerolling things? Even if the guy's unbiased, and we don't know if he is, it still don't mean his account is accurate. Jeez, I know some cops who think like Flare. Better guys look to see if the "unbiased" witness is also an accurate witness. Checking out what other witnesses say is a good place to start.
So Flare's 3 family lawyers said he should "contact the dead videographer's family and suggest that they retain a lawyer and file a HUGE wrongful death suit". Bet they did. We got lotsa different names for lawyers like that, 'ambulance chasers' is the polite one. The States is crawling with em.
Last edited by Bronx; 12th Sep 2002 at 17:59.
FD,
You are a disrespectful idiot. Full stop.
I
f I were you I would respect Tudor for who he is and withdraw your last post. His opinion on this forum is highly respected in direct comparison to yours.
As for getting involved in this... we have a saying downunder.
M.Y.O.B
Still waiting for you to show your name.
You are a disrespectful idiot. Full stop.
I
f I were you I would respect Tudor for who he is and withdraw your last post. His opinion on this forum is highly respected in direct comparison to yours.
As for getting involved in this... we have a saying downunder.
M.Y.O.B
Still waiting for you to show your name.
Steve76,
I agree wholeheartedly, if internet forums such as this are to be sucessful and attract the high-achievers in our community then a basic level of manners and respect is required.
This post has become rather a dissappointment. Lets try and keep it together eh chaps, else we'll spoil it for ourselves.
Come on, common sense.
C
I agree wholeheartedly, if internet forums such as this are to be sucessful and attract the high-achievers in our community then a basic level of manners and respect is required.
This post has become rather a dissappointment. Lets try and keep it together eh chaps, else we'll spoil it for ourselves.
Come on, common sense.
C
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. CRAN seems to want to attract the "high-acheivers" in the community. I guess all these Robbie drivers who post here aren't good enough for him? "Hey, where can I find a good R-22 school in NZ?" "I have 160 hours. Where can I get a job?" "How come the tail rotor turns this way?"
Hello, Steve76: Reality calling- are you home yet? Apparently you're not. "Full stop"?? You don't run this forum, Sonny Jim. You want my name? Don't hold your breath. ...Or better yet, DO hold your breath! The longer the better. This is an anonymous forum and there are no minimum requirements for posting one's opinion here. In fact, my credentials do not matter one whit, and your focusing on them is a feeble attempt to sidetrack people or distract attention from the REAL issue which, I repeat, is that a person on the ground is dead because of the actions of a pilot.
Retract my post? Get real. "Disrespectful idiot?" Well, I have no respect for pilots who endanger their pax and kill people on the ground. So yes, I guess I am disrespectful. Idiot? I suppose... Then again, I think YOU are an idiot, so I guess it's a draw, right? Hey, wait a minute! Weren't you the one chastising me for slander earlier? Maybe I should sue *you* for slander, hmm? Ohhh, you probably don't even have slander laws down there in NZ like we do.
To Bronx. You say:
So...you think I've formed my opinion on this mess on the basis of ONE newsgroup posting by a skydiver who was at the WFFC convention? Are you THAT much of a simpleton? I refuse to believe that...despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I look at the total package: First the FAA report, then what I know about the U.S. FAR's and the U.S. legal system, then the reports on the skydivers' and WFFC websites, then the pictures. Oh boy, the pictures!
[Oh, and Bronx? My lawyer relatives are not "ambulance chasers." They are highly intelligent people - more so than me I might add, whom I often look to for advice and counsel. I could say some disparaging things about YOUR relatives, but common decency prevents me from taking such a cheap potshot.]
There were a number of pictures that were posted in this thread by TwinHueyMan. In a move that is simply incredible to me, the Moderator deleted them! Unbelieveable!
Anyway, one of the things posted by THM was a little group of four "thumbnails" which had been linked to full-size pics on their original website but had since been deleted for some strange reason (gee, I wonder why?). One of the little thumbs shows the 412 on its take-off run, VERY low and heading right for a group of people and a golfcart parked right next to some corn stalks that appeared to be eight feet high or so. The pic clearly showed one of those people crouching and very obviously running away from the golfcart. In fear? It's hard to tell, but I doubt he suddenly had an urge to visit the loo. Had the Moderator not inexplicably deleted these pics you'd be able to see for yourself. But you can't. You can't make your own minds up on this issue anymore. Thanks, Pedalstop!
You chaps can stick your heads in the sand all you want. I'm not ashamed to say that we pilots need to hold ourselves to a higher standard that that. We need to be intolerant of pilots who do unsafe things. We need to not be afraid of calling a "foul." And we need to do these things BEFORE someone gets killed.
Personally, I am horrified that it got that far. The fact that other pilots turned a blind eye to *** ******'s actions for so long is deplorable and shameful.
Now, to the Moderator(s) I say, perhaps it is time to close this thread. Let the ******-supporters and Flare-slammers have their final say. I think this topic has been thoroughly explored, and further discussion is only going to p*ss me off. To you guys who feel that what *** ****** did was somehow justified or "not that bad," I hope I never, ever, ever meet any of you face to face. With your apparent attitudes toward safety, none of you will EVER share my cockpit.
Then again, maybe this whole thread will mysteriously disappear like the "Where's Lu?" thread... That's my bet.
Hello, Steve76: Reality calling- are you home yet? Apparently you're not. "Full stop"?? You don't run this forum, Sonny Jim. You want my name? Don't hold your breath. ...Or better yet, DO hold your breath! The longer the better. This is an anonymous forum and there are no minimum requirements for posting one's opinion here. In fact, my credentials do not matter one whit, and your focusing on them is a feeble attempt to sidetrack people or distract attention from the REAL issue which, I repeat, is that a person on the ground is dead because of the actions of a pilot.
Retract my post? Get real. "Disrespectful idiot?" Well, I have no respect for pilots who endanger their pax and kill people on the ground. So yes, I guess I am disrespectful. Idiot? I suppose... Then again, I think YOU are an idiot, so I guess it's a draw, right? Hey, wait a minute! Weren't you the one chastising me for slander earlier? Maybe I should sue *you* for slander, hmm? Ohhh, you probably don't even have slander laws down there in NZ like we do.
To Bronx. You say:
Flare saw "an" eyewitness account on a skydiver's website, took it at face value, assumed it was unbiased, and decided that was good enough reason to name the pilot on an international public forum and heap a whole loada **** on him.
I look at the total package: First the FAA report, then what I know about the U.S. FAR's and the U.S. legal system, then the reports on the skydivers' and WFFC websites, then the pictures. Oh boy, the pictures!
[Oh, and Bronx? My lawyer relatives are not "ambulance chasers." They are highly intelligent people - more so than me I might add, whom I often look to for advice and counsel. I could say some disparaging things about YOUR relatives, but common decency prevents me from taking such a cheap potshot.]
There were a number of pictures that were posted in this thread by TwinHueyMan. In a move that is simply incredible to me, the Moderator deleted them! Unbelieveable!
Anyway, one of the things posted by THM was a little group of four "thumbnails" which had been linked to full-size pics on their original website but had since been deleted for some strange reason (gee, I wonder why?). One of the little thumbs shows the 412 on its take-off run, VERY low and heading right for a group of people and a golfcart parked right next to some corn stalks that appeared to be eight feet high or so. The pic clearly showed one of those people crouching and very obviously running away from the golfcart. In fear? It's hard to tell, but I doubt he suddenly had an urge to visit the loo. Had the Moderator not inexplicably deleted these pics you'd be able to see for yourself. But you can't. You can't make your own minds up on this issue anymore. Thanks, Pedalstop!
You chaps can stick your heads in the sand all you want. I'm not ashamed to say that we pilots need to hold ourselves to a higher standard that that. We need to be intolerant of pilots who do unsafe things. We need to not be afraid of calling a "foul." And we need to do these things BEFORE someone gets killed.
Personally, I am horrified that it got that far. The fact that other pilots turned a blind eye to *** ******'s actions for so long is deplorable and shameful.
Now, to the Moderator(s) I say, perhaps it is time to close this thread. Let the ******-supporters and Flare-slammers have their final say. I think this topic has been thoroughly explored, and further discussion is only going to p*ss me off. To you guys who feel that what *** ****** did was somehow justified or "not that bad," I hope I never, ever, ever meet any of you face to face. With your apparent attitudes toward safety, none of you will EVER share my cockpit.
Then again, maybe this whole thread will mysteriously disappear like the "Where's Lu?" thread... That's my bet.
Last edited by Flare Dammit!; 12th Sep 2002 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys,
My pictures were deleted because they were in a folder that bore the last name of the pilot in question. I'm going to rename the folder and re-post them (if the moderator doesn't object).
I think some people are missing the big point here. It doesn't matter whether *** knew the photographer was there or not, flew towards him, wore kakhi shorts... the big point is that he allowed his rotor blades to get within roughly 6 feet of the ground and did illigal aerobatic manuvers on multiple occasions. Period. I would be just as outraged had I heard about this before the fatal accident.
Might I request that this topic isn't locked - can the personal insults and keep the opinion flowing. This thread has opened my eyes to much information that I would want everyone involved in aircraft to know.
Heres an interesting question - what if the pilot in question had done what he did at 100ft AGL? This would have still provided quite a rush, but could it have been considered safer and/or more lawful? What about at 1500ft AGL? Sharp turns and banks with parachuted passengers... would this be OK?
Even further, what if he had just done his fast, low level takeoff run? Would this have been ok? Say for example he pulls up to 25ft AGL, slams the cyclic foreward, races down the runway then pulls up to a stall-turn and on to his climb? What do you guys think?
Mike
My pictures were deleted because they were in a folder that bore the last name of the pilot in question. I'm going to rename the folder and re-post them (if the moderator doesn't object).
I think some people are missing the big point here. It doesn't matter whether *** knew the photographer was there or not, flew towards him, wore kakhi shorts... the big point is that he allowed his rotor blades to get within roughly 6 feet of the ground and did illigal aerobatic manuvers on multiple occasions. Period. I would be just as outraged had I heard about this before the fatal accident.
Might I request that this topic isn't locked - can the personal insults and keep the opinion flowing. This thread has opened my eyes to much information that I would want everyone involved in aircraft to know.
Heres an interesting question - what if the pilot in question had done what he did at 100ft AGL? This would have still provided quite a rush, but could it have been considered safer and/or more lawful? What about at 1500ft AGL? Sharp turns and banks with parachuted passengers... would this be OK?
Even further, what if he had just done his fast, low level takeoff run? Would this have been ok? Say for example he pulls up to 25ft AGL, slams the cyclic foreward, races down the runway then pulls up to a stall-turn and on to his climb? What do you guys think?
Mike
Perhaps Lu has been reincarnated as Flare Dammit.
What you seem oblivious to here FD is that we all respect each others opinions until we run into persons like you.
I am your average professional pilot who really really enjoys listening to Nick, Flying Lawyer, paco, XNR
, and a host of others. I think as a collective we all take their thoughts seriously and spend some time dwelling on them. One of the main reasons is that they have credibility. Their experience and history is well documented and it justifies their comments.
Your history is a mystery. You are obviously inexperienced and a very nasty individual. I think when you look for your first job this will become very apparent to possible employers.
I think you are most wise to hide under your bed on this one as this is a small industry that takes a long time to forget.
MY ONLY BEEF with your comments is that you are obviously slagging someone you do not know with very little information gathered from 3rd hand sources. Get one of your lawyer siblings to explain to you how ridiculous you sound. NO ONE here endorses the actions of that pilot they just demand a fair trial.
Please reread the last paragraph.....
Please reread that paragraph again....
And once more.... read that paragraph.
DO YOU GET IT! I hope so because I have managed to develop fully blown RSI trying to explain it to you....
hugs and kisses
Steve
PS: NOTE all that said without swearing!
What you seem oblivious to here FD is that we all respect each others opinions until we run into persons like you.
I am your average professional pilot who really really enjoys listening to Nick, Flying Lawyer, paco, XNR
, and a host of others. I think as a collective we all take their thoughts seriously and spend some time dwelling on them. One of the main reasons is that they have credibility. Their experience and history is well documented and it justifies their comments.Your history is a mystery. You are obviously inexperienced and a very nasty individual. I think when you look for your first job this will become very apparent to possible employers.
I think you are most wise to hide under your bed on this one as this is a small industry that takes a long time to forget.
MY ONLY BEEF with your comments is that you are obviously slagging someone you do not know with very little information gathered from 3rd hand sources. Get one of your lawyer siblings to explain to you how ridiculous you sound. NO ONE here endorses the actions of that pilot they just demand a fair trial.
Please reread the last paragraph.....
Please reread that paragraph again....
And once more.... read that paragraph.
DO YOU GET IT! I hope so because I have managed to develop fully blown RSI trying to explain it to you....
hugs and kisses
Steve
PS: NOTE all that said without swearing!
Last edited by Steve76; 13th Sep 2002 at 03:08.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76
You've made sensible points. Don't spoil them with one bad one. Flare's attitude to people who don't agree with him is nothing to do with being American, even if he is. All countries have people who can't argue their point without losing their cool and getting all emotional. Pathetic I know, it's but nothing to do with nationality.
You've made sensible points. Don't spoil them with one bad one. Flare's attitude to people who don't agree with him is nothing to do with being American, even if he is. All countries have people who can't argue their point without losing their cool and getting all emotional. Pathetic I know, it's but nothing to do with nationality.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi again,
still hot here!!
FD, wasn´t it you who requested to face up and say the real name? Now you´re hiding behind FD! What´s that?
In case you come up with some name, make sure to add a way to verify it, because I wouldn´t trust anymore, if you just come up withSOME name!
St.76, calm down! FD´s nothing to do with "American", I am sure there a plenty hotheaded OZ´s and NZ´s as well. It is never good to point a finger at someones nationality as means to blame for some grunt.........(I know how that feels, being Austrian living in Latin-America......)
FD, just as Sierra-Papa metioned somewhere on this thread, wait for the facts of the investigation, remember justice works slow!
*** did wrong willingly or not, by stupidity or not, ignorance or not. As a pilot he definitely could have prevented this one, but he choose to ignore common sense. If everything checks out to be as it SEEMS to be at the time, he will lose his ticket and most likely a great if not all his fortune. But give it a rest and wait for the verdict.
If there are more incidents and accidents anyone out there knows about and fit the thread, please bring them and lets discuss them!
REMEMBER THIS PLACE SHOULD HELP TO AVOID ANY MORE OF THIS IF POSSIBLE!!
The skydiver-photo-heli accident is already chewed up! We all agreed that it was unecessary, avoidable and totally unprofessional at the pilots part. Luckily non of us was involved (assuming.......hopefully...), so let go on the chap, he will get what he deserves. You can´t hunt down all the idiots in the world, there are to many and you don´t live long enough to catch them all,
!
I still miss some info on the original finger chop! Seriously!!
How did it happen, so it can be avoided at next chance!!
One for the thread:
My own mom would nearly walk into the T/R of a R-44!!
Coming back from a pleasure flight over and thru some rainforest, still amazed by the incredible view - it is hot and humid and she and dad want to get out quick. I tell them to walk away to the side or the front, make sure they got the message. 4 seconds later, mom walks a foot past the T/R !!! When asked, she said: "Oh I saw it [the T/R], I was not going to walk into it..."!!
Mom is a responsible 30-year vet first grade teacher....
Sometimes, disaster or near -disaster is just not avoidable.People get distracted to a degree, that nothing even enters short term memory, not to talk about retention!!
3top
still hot here!!
FD, wasn´t it you who requested to face up and say the real name? Now you´re hiding behind FD! What´s that?
In case you come up with some name, make sure to add a way to verify it, because I wouldn´t trust anymore, if you just come up withSOME name!
St.76, calm down! FD´s nothing to do with "American", I am sure there a plenty hotheaded OZ´s and NZ´s as well. It is never good to point a finger at someones nationality as means to blame for some grunt.........(I know how that feels, being Austrian living in Latin-America......)
FD, just as Sierra-Papa metioned somewhere on this thread, wait for the facts of the investigation, remember justice works slow!
*** did wrong willingly or not, by stupidity or not, ignorance or not. As a pilot he definitely could have prevented this one, but he choose to ignore common sense. If everything checks out to be as it SEEMS to be at the time, he will lose his ticket and most likely a great if not all his fortune. But give it a rest and wait for the verdict.
If there are more incidents and accidents anyone out there knows about and fit the thread, please bring them and lets discuss them!
REMEMBER THIS PLACE SHOULD HELP TO AVOID ANY MORE OF THIS IF POSSIBLE!!
The skydiver-photo-heli accident is already chewed up! We all agreed that it was unecessary, avoidable and totally unprofessional at the pilots part. Luckily non of us was involved (assuming.......hopefully...), so let go on the chap, he will get what he deserves. You can´t hunt down all the idiots in the world, there are to many and you don´t live long enough to catch them all,
!I still miss some info on the original finger chop! Seriously!!
How did it happen, so it can be avoided at next chance!!
One for the thread:
My own mom would nearly walk into the T/R of a R-44!!
Coming back from a pleasure flight over and thru some rainforest, still amazed by the incredible view - it is hot and humid and she and dad want to get out quick. I tell them to walk away to the side or the front, make sure they got the message. 4 seconds later, mom walks a foot past the T/R !!! When asked, she said: "Oh I saw it [the T/R], I was not going to walk into it..."!!
Mom is a responsible 30-year vet first grade teacher....
Sometimes, disaster or near -disaster is just not avoidable.People get distracted to a degree, that nothing even enters short term memory, not to talk about retention!!
3top
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ghost of Zuckerman past
<sigh> I get tired of you gals. I don't mind being compared to Lu, but calling me a Yank?! I'm glad Steve76 had the decency to retract THAT remark.
I wasn't actually going to post any more on this subject, as it's been beaten to death just as surely as the poor bloke with the videocamera was. But you ladies just bring out the worst in me I guess.
Little Stevie76 and others seem to focus on credibility...as if *my* credibility matters here. Sorry! It does not matter whether I'm a low-time Robbo pilot who hasn't a clue why a tail rotor turns one way or t'other (as Steve76 believes), or whether I have more time in my logbook than a certain unnamed Sikorsky test pilot whose initials are Nick Lappos (can I say *his* name?) which in fact I do. It doesn't matter if I've never even seen a helicopter.
See, I've never commented on Mr. R...(oops! almost said his name) *** *****'s proficiency or skill as a pilot. I've never mentioned his smoothness, checklist use or expertise in passenger briefings or autorotations. Frankly, I don't care about any of that.
WHAT WE KNOW (Our story so far):
In early August, a rotor blade attached to a Bell 412 which was in flight at a skydiver convention in the U.S. and carrying nine fare-paying passengers made contact with a photographer on the ground and killed him.
Eek.
"How can that happen?" you ask incredulously. "Wouldn't that be a de facto violation of U.S. FAR 91.13 that says you cannot endanger persons in the aircraft or on the ground?
Well, searching some skydiver's websites turned up pictures of said pilot doing some wild and crazy things that most certainly look like they qualify under the FAA's definition of aerobatics (FAR 91.303). More pictures from inside the ship appear to show the aircraft in at least a 30 degree nose-down attitude with the PIC and SIC wearing no parachutes (91.307).
Even the skydiver's own official website refers to flights with this pilot as "E-ticket" rides and "thrill rides." N.B., it must take a LOT for a skydiver to consider something a thrill.
Then there's this little tidbit, taken from a skydiver's website and posted by a chap who says he was actually *on* the fatal flight (I'll provide the link on request):
After the accident, the skydivers persuaded the pilot to continue flying througout the weekend. Out of sympathy and support, they made up a big card for him, signed by many skydivers, which said "WE'RE BEHIND YA!" Just below that was a picture of a Bell 206...an upside down Bell 206. (Link to the pic on request)
There's even more, but why go through it all again? You lot can wait for the official NTSB report if you like. You can be politically correct and illogically loyal and say, "Well, maybe what he was doing wasn't THAT bad..." Me, I consider this pilot to be a menace to society who, by the nature of his actions caused the death of another person and nearly nine others plus himself. If even half of what the photographic evidence reveals is true, and if ANY of the written posts about him can be believed, he should have been stopped a LONG time ago. It's just too damn bad that it took a death to bring this all to light.
And that's about all I have to say on this subject. If any of you girls want to b*tch about it anymore, go right ahead.
I wasn't actually going to post any more on this subject, as it's been beaten to death just as surely as the poor bloke with the videocamera was. But you ladies just bring out the worst in me I guess.
Little Stevie76 and others seem to focus on credibility...as if *my* credibility matters here. Sorry! It does not matter whether I'm a low-time Robbo pilot who hasn't a clue why a tail rotor turns one way or t'other (as Steve76 believes), or whether I have more time in my logbook than a certain unnamed Sikorsky test pilot whose initials are Nick Lappos (can I say *his* name?) which in fact I do. It doesn't matter if I've never even seen a helicopter.
See, I've never commented on Mr. R...(oops! almost said his name) *** *****'s proficiency or skill as a pilot. I've never mentioned his smoothness, checklist use or expertise in passenger briefings or autorotations. Frankly, I don't care about any of that.
WHAT WE KNOW (Our story so far):
In early August, a rotor blade attached to a Bell 412 which was in flight at a skydiver convention in the U.S. and carrying nine fare-paying passengers made contact with a photographer on the ground and killed him.
Eek.
"How can that happen?" you ask incredulously. "Wouldn't that be a de facto violation of U.S. FAR 91.13 that says you cannot endanger persons in the aircraft or on the ground?
Well, searching some skydiver's websites turned up pictures of said pilot doing some wild and crazy things that most certainly look like they qualify under the FAA's definition of aerobatics (FAR 91.303). More pictures from inside the ship appear to show the aircraft in at least a 30 degree nose-down attitude with the PIC and SIC wearing no parachutes (91.307).
Even the skydiver's own official website refers to flights with this pilot as "E-ticket" rides and "thrill rides." N.B., it must take a LOT for a skydiver to consider something a thrill.
Then there's this little tidbit, taken from a skydiver's website and posted by a chap who says he was actually *on* the fatal flight (I'll provide the link on request):
I was in the back right hand side of the helicopter. We took off, went into max acceloration and banked HARD right just before the corner of the corn field. When that helicopter banks hard it is almost inverted. Just the other side of the corn was the individual in the crouching position, he went from the crouching position to the standing with his video camera in hand. I was looking him in the face when I saw the main rotor strike him 2 times. It actually hit him 3 times. There was a very loud and explosion sending dibris into the air. Without getting into detail "please don't ask" This was a terrible accident. My heart goes out to the victum, his new fiance, family, *** and everyone.
There's even more, but why go through it all again? You lot can wait for the official NTSB report if you like. You can be politically correct and illogically loyal and say, "Well, maybe what he was doing wasn't THAT bad..." Me, I consider this pilot to be a menace to society who, by the nature of his actions caused the death of another person and nearly nine others plus himself. If even half of what the photographic evidence reveals is true, and if ANY of the written posts about him can be believed, he should have been stopped a LONG time ago. It's just too damn bad that it took a death to bring this all to light.
And that's about all I have to say on this subject. If any of you girls want to b*tch about it anymore, go right ahead.
UH OH! Kiwi's can have a knee jerk reaction....thought we mere Yanks had the monopoly on that!!! Now don't be horning in on our turf guys.....we are supposed to be the ones to fly off the handle at every opportunity! Shame on ya....poaching!
Until I read the whole of the skyjumpers web site, I must admit to feeling a little apprehensive about FD's and TwinHuey's posts.
What did it for me was when the editor of the web site says in one of his descriptions:
We particularly liked it when the bi-plane kept flying just ander the nose of the 412, by about 15 FEET - INVERTED.....and he did this all day long apparently, to keep the thrill factor up.
Please read the web site. Now I know most lay persons tend to get all excited and exaggerate when the adrenaline flows in aviation, but these guys live amongst aviators, they get used to flying 'antics', so there is a reasonable chance that this actually happened.
It seems probable that in the given circumstances this pilot put the aircraft (under his command), outside the safe operating parameters of his remit, based on the evidence of these skydivers who looked to him to provide 'thrills'....it doesn't take that much more of a leap of imagination to understand that "where there is smoke...."
What the hell has 15,000hrs got to do with making someone safe??????
Why is Flying Lawyers post - gospel Steve 76, he isn't perfect, he's just human. [No disrespect Tudor]. get yourself a mind of your own.
Consequently, and especially because this is a democratic forum, one enjoyed because of the vast variety of opinion, I wholeheartedly come down on the side of FD and Twin huey on this one.
READ THE WEB SITE -DECIDE FOR YOURSELF
What did it for me was when the editor of the web site says in one of his descriptions:
We particularly liked it when the bi-plane kept flying just ander the nose of the 412, by about 15 FEET - INVERTED.....and he did this all day long apparently, to keep the thrill factor up.
Please read the web site. Now I know most lay persons tend to get all excited and exaggerate when the adrenaline flows in aviation, but these guys live amongst aviators, they get used to flying 'antics', so there is a reasonable chance that this actually happened.
It seems probable that in the given circumstances this pilot put the aircraft (under his command), outside the safe operating parameters of his remit, based on the evidence of these skydivers who looked to him to provide 'thrills'....it doesn't take that much more of a leap of imagination to understand that "where there is smoke...."
What the hell has 15,000hrs got to do with making someone safe??????
Why is Flying Lawyers post - gospel Steve 76, he isn't perfect, he's just human. [No disrespect Tudor]. get yourself a mind of your own.
Consequently, and especially because this is a democratic forum, one enjoyed because of the vast variety of opinion, I wholeheartedly come down on the side of FD and Twin huey on this one.
READ THE WEB SITE -DECIDE FOR YOURSELF
Fuel for the fire taken from the Skydivers Forum:
Quote:
#1
"He was just doing what he always did, everybody knew it, including the photographer trying to get "The Shot". As I understand it he requested and was denied permission to take pictures from there.
That being the case, he should not have been there and was in fact needlessly endangering the passengers and crew of the helicopter, to get the photo he wanted."
#2
"I have seen many videos of Rod fly and he is an excellent pilot. As a pilot myself with an airshow waiver and lots of time flying very close to the ground, I found nothing unsafe or dangerous about Rod's decisions. He always had a ton of airspeed, giving him many outs. Yes, he came close to trees and other organic things (not illegal) but he did so on a steady, planing trajectory not flying right up to a tree and pulling at the last minute."
#3
"Rod is an awesome pilot. What has been said about his flying skills has been grossly understated. I have flown with him and would fly with him anyday in any circumstance. The military feels the same way. That's why they use him.
The fact is, Rod's type of flying is not the relevent point here. The relevent point is that a spectator, defied the ground crew, took it upon himself to sneak into the corn (for the chance at the picture of a lifetime), and stepped out in front of the helio. There is no difference between that and a pedestrian who has stepped out from between parked vehicles into oncoming traffic and got hit.
Even if the blades hadn't of hit the guy, he could have gotten hit by the body of the helio or by a skid.
He stepped out in front of a moving vehicle and he got hit. Period.
It was an unfortunate accident and could have been avoided if the guy would have followed the rules laid out before him.
I simply suggest that before you go mouthing off, anonymously I might add, stop and get the facts first. The FAA did. Rod would not have been allowed to fly the next day otherwise."
Unquote.
Quote:
#1
"He was just doing what he always did, everybody knew it, including the photographer trying to get "The Shot". As I understand it he requested and was denied permission to take pictures from there.
That being the case, he should not have been there and was in fact needlessly endangering the passengers and crew of the helicopter, to get the photo he wanted."
#2
"I have seen many videos of Rod fly and he is an excellent pilot. As a pilot myself with an airshow waiver and lots of time flying very close to the ground, I found nothing unsafe or dangerous about Rod's decisions. He always had a ton of airspeed, giving him many outs. Yes, he came close to trees and other organic things (not illegal) but he did so on a steady, planing trajectory not flying right up to a tree and pulling at the last minute."
#3
"Rod is an awesome pilot. What has been said about his flying skills has been grossly understated. I have flown with him and would fly with him anyday in any circumstance. The military feels the same way. That's why they use him.
The fact is, Rod's type of flying is not the relevent point here. The relevent point is that a spectator, defied the ground crew, took it upon himself to sneak into the corn (for the chance at the picture of a lifetime), and stepped out in front of the helio. There is no difference between that and a pedestrian who has stepped out from between parked vehicles into oncoming traffic and got hit.
Even if the blades hadn't of hit the guy, he could have gotten hit by the body of the helio or by a skid.
He stepped out in front of a moving vehicle and he got hit. Period.
It was an unfortunate accident and could have been avoided if the guy would have followed the rules laid out before him.
I simply suggest that before you go mouthing off, anonymously I might add, stop and get the facts first. The FAA did. Rod would not have been allowed to fly the next day otherwise."
Unquote.
Last edited by Steve76; 14th Sep 2002 at 04:57.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS TC rightly says, I'm certainly not perfect and my opinions are just opinions not gospel. In fairness to Steve76, he wasn't blindly adopting my views, he'd already made his own views very clear.
I suppose the bottom line is I think 'naming and shaming' a pilot on a wroldwide public forum under the protection of anonymity when he hasn't yet been proved to be at fault in either criminal or civil proceedings is wrong, unfair and cowardly. It's even worse when the person who does it shows clear signs of being vindictive. PedalStop has now removed the name, and I think he was right to do so.
That was the main thrust of my criticism of Flare Dammit. The points I made were intended to illustrate that it's unwise and dangerous to form such rigid views about causation when an incident hasn't been fully and independently investigated.
I naturally have views upon what this pilot apparently did, but I also have a lawyer's instinctive reluctance to condemn someone without knowing all the facts and, in particular, without knowing what the person accused has to say about the allegations against him. Although in theory the pilot could register and give his account here, he can't reasonably be expected to do so when so much is hanging over his head.
For what it's worth, I happen to think "what did it" for TC is a dangerous factor to take into account. Unless I've misunderstood, it's a description of something completely different which the pilot apparently did on a different occasion. Even if that stunt was correctly described, the most it shows is a particular attitude to air safety; it does not mean the pilot was at fault on this occasion.
Based on the very limited "evidence" we've seen, I think he has a few problems - but we only have part of the story.
I suppose the bottom line is I think 'naming and shaming' a pilot on a wroldwide public forum under the protection of anonymity when he hasn't yet been proved to be at fault in either criminal or civil proceedings is wrong, unfair and cowardly. It's even worse when the person who does it shows clear signs of being vindictive. PedalStop has now removed the name, and I think he was right to do so.
That was the main thrust of my criticism of Flare Dammit. The points I made were intended to illustrate that it's unwise and dangerous to form such rigid views about causation when an incident hasn't been fully and independently investigated.
I naturally have views upon what this pilot apparently did, but I also have a lawyer's instinctive reluctance to condemn someone without knowing all the facts and, in particular, without knowing what the person accused has to say about the allegations against him. Although in theory the pilot could register and give his account here, he can't reasonably be expected to do so when so much is hanging over his head.
For what it's worth, I happen to think "what did it" for TC is a dangerous factor to take into account. Unless I've misunderstood, it's a description of something completely different which the pilot apparently did on a different occasion. Even if that stunt was correctly described, the most it shows is a particular attitude to air safety; it does not mean the pilot was at fault on this occasion.
Based on the very limited "evidence" we've seen, I think he has a few problems - but we only have part of the story.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th Sep 2002 at 10:12.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Low Earth Orbit
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Wine,
You are very right, in fact I deleted my post when I reviewed it prior to reading your posting. It was up for a few minutes, enough to spark your appropriate comments. Moderators are human, at least this one is. Thanks for reminding me!
PedalStop
You are very right, in fact I deleted my post when I reviewed it prior to reading your posting. It was up for a few minutes, enough to spark your appropriate comments. Moderators are human, at least this one is. Thanks for reminding me!
PedalStop
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, this thread is like a train wreck. I just can't look away. Every time I check in I read things that just make me shake my head and wonder about the attitudes of safety that some of you have.
For instance!
Steve76 posted:
Actually, there is. In the U.S., the laws governing motor vehicles are "different." The same rules do not apply. Flying Lawyer can probably provide more insight on this if he practices in the U.S.
But it brings up an interesting point. Perhaps if I'm ever speeding and driving recklessly (i.e. doing something negligent) in my car and someone steps out into the roadway in front of me causing me to strike and kill them, perhaps I'll claim in court that the dead person endangered ME! It would be novel, but it just might work.
I presume that in yet *another* attempt to absolve the pilot of any responsibility for this accident, you are callously referring to the videographer. But one could certainly say the same about the pilot, and even more so. Because who has the FEDERAL duty to not harm the other, hmm?
Gee, it just galls you that this is an anonymous forum, doesn't it? 
Maybe we should ALL have to post our resumes specifically for your approval! That way, Steve76 can be the final arbiter of the validity and relevance of our posts. Maybe you should even be the Moderator!
But seriously... For the U.S. FAA to ground (the pilot), they would have had to get an emergency order of revocation of his certificates. The local FAA on the scene cannot unilaterally "pull his ticket" or anyone else's. In fact, the local FAA guy cannot even retain your certs (and American pilots are advised to not voluntarily surrender them). So the local FAA cannot "ground" a pilot, however temporarily.
Obviously, the FAA and NTSB people who were there on-scene did not feel it necessary to get the emergency order of revocation for whatever reason. Ergo, *** was not prevented from flying throughout the remainder of the convention. Whether or not this was the correct decision remains to be seen. The rotund lady has not yet gotten to the coda.
For instance!
Steve76 posted:
The fact is, ***'s type of flying is not the relevent point here. The relevent point is that a spectator, defied the ground crew, took it upon himself to sneak into the corn (for the chance at the picture of a lifetime), and stepped out in front of the helio. There is no difference between that and a pedestrian who has stepped out from between parked vehicles into oncoming traffic and got hit.
But it brings up an interesting point. Perhaps if I'm ever speeding and driving recklessly (i.e. doing something negligent) in my car and someone steps out into the roadway in front of me causing me to strike and kill them, perhaps I'll claim in court that the dead person endangered ME! It would be novel, but it just might work.
It was an unfortunate accident and could have been avoided if the guy would have followed the rules laid out before him.
I simply suggest that before you go mouthing off, anonymously I might add, stop and get the facts first. The FAA did. *** would not have been allowed to fly the next day otherwise.
Maybe we should ALL have to post our resumes specifically for your approval! That way, Steve76 can be the final arbiter of the validity and relevance of our posts. Maybe you should even be the Moderator!But seriously... For the U.S. FAA to ground (the pilot), they would have had to get an emergency order of revocation of his certificates. The local FAA on the scene cannot unilaterally "pull his ticket" or anyone else's. In fact, the local FAA guy cannot even retain your certs (and American pilots are advised to not voluntarily surrender them). So the local FAA cannot "ground" a pilot, however temporarily.
Obviously, the FAA and NTSB people who were there on-scene did not feel it necessary to get the emergency order of revocation for whatever reason. Ergo, *** was not prevented from flying throughout the remainder of the convention. Whether or not this was the correct decision remains to be seen. The rotund lady has not yet gotten to the coda.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Estimado Flare (gonna try spanish see if he understands)
Ok Amigo Flare,
Look nobody is saying that what this guy did is right or wrong, the picture here is that what YOU did/are doing is wrong!
You shouldn't had started this witchhunt against a particular pilot in the way that you did, you weren't there, you didn't know him, he's also a pilot. It's not right, its not fare, it's not honorable, and if done anonymously it's somewhat cowardly.
All those rules you have previously mentioned "to keep people safe" are useless if you don't have common sense, and if you have common sense (+knowledge/experience) you can make/bend rules once in a while.
Look nobody is saying that what this guy did is right or wrong, the picture here is that what YOU did/are doing is wrong!
You shouldn't had started this witchhunt against a particular pilot in the way that you did, you weren't there, you didn't know him, he's also a pilot. It's not right, its not fare, it's not honorable, and if done anonymously it's somewhat cowardly.
All those rules you have previously mentioned "to keep people safe" are useless if you don't have common sense, and if you have common sense (+knowledge/experience) you can make/bend rules once in a while.
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 13th Sep 2002 at 23:37.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Moderator........
Acknowledged, accepted and removed........
Back off Steve76, the only thing FD did outside what I [we] could describe as acceptable is to name that guy [which in itself may have been appropriate, as there is no discussion that he was not the pilot...its the truth]........apart from that one point, I am sure FD has more support than you think......for what its worth I am one of the silent majority....the fullness of time will tell.
The fact that someone has achieved 15000 hrs is by no means any yardstick that can be measured [if in fact there real hours]....that could be 15000 hrs of experience....or 1 hour of experience repeated 15000 times [and perhaps wrongly]....who knows??
It also has a message [I know it was not meant this way]...that these "hours" are a mitigating element.....and therefore somewhat justify the actions of the guy based on his logbook alone.........perhaps the Legal Eagles will look at that differently, in that how could someone with such "experience" fly in such a manner....if he was experienced, he would know the dangers involved....but still did it.
That maybe is worse than not realising the dangers and doing it anyway!!!!
The words...incompetence and/or negligence will be in that court house I'm sure.
BlenderPilot
Sorry Mate.......
Can't disagree with your more........
If Pilots rally behind and support each other when someone does a potentially dumb thing........guess who's credibility takes a tumble........all of us!!!
Remember....when a publishing house in Oz polled its readers for the most respected profession....pilots were number 1 [Airline Pilots actually....but we can have a share of that as well], Lawyers, Politicians and Drug Dealers were in the high forties.......mmmm
The moral of this story is that we are considered trustworthy and above board.............start hiding our bad apples and watch our credibility suffer.
Comradeship can only occur when you share something in common...which is not the case here.
Acknowledged, accepted and removed........
Back off Steve76, the only thing FD did outside what I [we] could describe as acceptable is to name that guy [which in itself may have been appropriate, as there is no discussion that he was not the pilot...its the truth]........apart from that one point, I am sure FD has more support than you think......for what its worth I am one of the silent majority....the fullness of time will tell.
The fact that someone has achieved 15000 hrs is by no means any yardstick that can be measured [if in fact there real hours]....that could be 15000 hrs of experience....or 1 hour of experience repeated 15000 times [and perhaps wrongly]....who knows??
It also has a message [I know it was not meant this way]...that these "hours" are a mitigating element.....and therefore somewhat justify the actions of the guy based on his logbook alone.........perhaps the Legal Eagles will look at that differently, in that how could someone with such "experience" fly in such a manner....if he was experienced, he would know the dangers involved....but still did it.
That maybe is worse than not realising the dangers and doing it anyway!!!!
The words...incompetence and/or negligence will be in that court house I'm sure.
BlenderPilot
Sorry Mate.......
Can't disagree with your more........
If Pilots rally behind and support each other when someone does a potentially dumb thing........guess who's credibility takes a tumble........all of us!!!
Remember....when a publishing house in Oz polled its readers for the most respected profession....pilots were number 1 [Airline Pilots actually....but we can have a share of that as well], Lawyers, Politicians and Drug Dealers were in the high forties.......mmmm
The moral of this story is that we are considered trustworthy and above board.............start hiding our bad apples and watch our credibility suffer.
Comradeship can only occur when you share something in common...which is not the case here.
Last edited by Red Wine; 14th Sep 2002 at 00:56.