I agree, Lrjtcptn. Airspeed apparently didn't read the part where I noted I was at DeLand, on a skydive, on the birthday of the DZO, on his birthday end of the day load, when the jump airplane did a low pass directly beneath me as I was landing my parachute canopy, at that drop zone, in the same place that Wing was killed. I thought it was a stupid thing to do then, I think it was a stupid thing now. I had some very sober thoughts of kicking the pilots butt.
Having hit and killed someone, the pilot deserves more than a butt kicking. Much more.
Administrative penalties do not equal careless and reckless operation that leads to a death. Certainly the FAA will have their pound of flesh, and certainly certificate suspension or revocation is in order. I can't imagine anything less than certificate revocation, but it's not my call. It's also very much dependent upon the pilots attitude and the results of whatever investigative work takes place. That much is obvious.
However, the FAA does not speak for any other branch of the government. The FAA is not pursuing criminal charges, in this case. The FAA is acting within the agencies discretion to act administratively. Other charges are being brought for other laws violated by an entirely different legal system.
Fn fal thinks it's okay that the pilot receives civil penalties in a law suit with the estate of the dead jumper, and it's okay that the FAA acts...but not okay if criminal law has effect. I don't understand that mentality...three different, separate, areas of law, each with their own effect. Yet a pilot who violates law and results in the death of another person through an intentional reckless act of neglect, should go scott free under the criminal justice system. How utterly ridiculous.
Perhaps if I shoot into a crowded schoolyard from an airplane, I'm doing the right thing, because my wheels aren't touching the ground. In that case, the FAA should go after me for 91.13, careless and reckless operation, posing a hazard to persons or property on the surface...after all, I wasn't paying as much attention to flying the airplane as I should. And the families of the deceased children should sue me for all I'm worth...that's okay. It's their right. But the people, who have criminal laws regarding homicide and manslaughter, have no redress, because after all, the air is the FAA's jurisdiction, and there is no "FAR" regarding murdering people with an airplane...in no wise should I ever be prosecuted criminally, right?
Now airspeed thinks jumpes are risking their lives...we all stand a high probability of dying when we go out the door on a skydive. The statistics say he's not telling the truth, but what do statistics know? What do experienced jumpes know? What on earth has that to do with a jumper who is killed by a reckless pilot who is operating unsafely? Never the less, let's go with it. Jumpers are going to die anyway, so it's okay to kill them by hitting them with airplanes. That's Airspeed's premise, so we'll just fiat that in...for airspeed who likes to talk in childish terms such as "doh" we'll note that fiat means we just accept his premise.
So here we are, accepting the fact that skydivers know they'll likely die when they jump, and accepting the fact that skydivers will probably die when we jump. This being the case, then nobody should have any problem with shooting them in freefall. No problem. Perhaps poisoning the sandwiches at the local Drop Zone cafe. Swapping parachutes for laundry. After all, it's free entertainment. Those jumpers are engaging in an activity that will probably kill them...why not help them along. We're not hurting anything? So they get killed...it's not like they were doing something SAFE after all, is it? Kill them all, let whatever god they believe in, choose among them. Right, airspeed?
It's okay. It's okay for us to shoot them, poison them, sabotage a jump (right?)...danger is danger, and what could possibly be more dangerous than jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, right? Except. No. We can't go there. It wouldn't be right. Except....no, we've established that it's perfectly okay to kill skydivers. Except, well, except possibly hitting them with an airplane in freefall or under canopy. There, we said it. We addressed reality again. Hitting the skydiver while he prepares to land the airplane, under a good, functioning, proven, professionally designed and built, TSO'd (by the FAA, incidentally) ram air parachute canopy. Hmmm.
Skydiving is dangerous? No, not really. Unprotected sex, now that's dangerous. Mexican bullfighting, that's dangerous (not the pansy spanish kind). Taunting your mother in law. That's dangerous. Parking at the local walmart after sunset. That's dangerous. Driving to work on any given day. That's dangerous. Eating uncooked sea food. That's dangerous. But skydiving? Using one's body as a flying surface against adequate relative wind, while monitoring one or two calibrated altimeters, backed up by a computerized altitude monitoring device that will mechanically and explosively deploy a second, emergency, certificated, recently inspected and professionally packed reserve parachute (cypress), to descend to a preselected altitude which is announed by an electronic monitor alarm behind one ear, where one deploys a scientifically designed and very tested and very proven parachute assembly, and then flies and descends under a large airfoil to a touchdown that's often light as a feather, softer than any airplane lands....that's dangerous? How about let's hear from a real skydiver...one of many of us here who do have a leg to stand on...who can answer from experience? It's not dangerous.
Even if skydiving were dangerous, does that in any way, shape or form justify homicide of any kind? If it does, then logic must prevail. Logic dictates that if it's okay to kill a skydiver because he engages in a dangerous act, then it's okay to kill others who engage in dangerous acts. Four boxers have died in the ring in Las Vegas this year. That's dangerous. It's probably perfectly acceptable to swing from the ceiling on a long rope and strike one in the head with one's feet...it's fun, it's wholesome, and the boxer is probably going to get killed anyway. Just like the skydiver. Or that pesky NASCAR driver. Hard to argue that their life isn't dangerous. If it's not the inevitable spin-outs and crashes that happen at every race, they risk beign mobbed to death by fans. Why not just ram into one, push him into the wall, kill the driver? He knew it was a dangerous thing when he entered the track...he took the risk knowingly. Killing him is okay, therefore. Best of all, NASCAR has rules abut that. The driver that does the killing will get a sanction. After suffering a setback like that, the driver that does the killing does NOT deserve to be prosecuted criminally, right? After all, NASCAR had their pound of flesh.
With logic like this, next time the chicken coop burns down, we'll dehorn all the cows. It makes as much sense.
.
