Questions affecting all of us

[avbug]

Avbug, take a rest. I didn't say it was ok to kill someone by accident. But there is a big difference in just flying along minding your business and a skydiver winds up in front of you, to aiming at someone and hitting them.

Drunk drivers sometimes take the stand that they're merely driving along, and a telephone poll or a lady pushing a baby carriage jump out in front of them.

"Just flying along minding your own business and a skydiver winds up in front of you?" This pilot was buzzing a drop zone, making passes through the landing area for skydivers under canopy. It's the same aircraft that dropped the skydivers. The jumper that was killed exited the airplane that killed him. I don't see any way the pilot could possibly argue that he was surprised by the presence of the jumpers, or that he was merely flying along minding his own business. Do you??

If I decide to race my car through a crowded schoolyard full of children, one might guess I'd be charged with a crime...especially if I hit one. Likewise, if one decides to buzz a drop zone filled with jumpers under canopy and strikes one, then one might presume that this isn't a matter of flying along "minding one's own business" and striking a wayward jumper who just happened to be in the sky. Especially if one is the person who dropped that jumper. Go figure.

Careless and reckless operation that endangers persons and property in the air, and on the ground. Proximity to persons or property on the surface. With a NOTAM published for jumpers, having dropped the jumpers, buzzing the landing spot for those under canopy, while they're under canopy.

If you'd read my post, I noted that this same thing happened to me at that drop zone...only I wasn't struck. As you might suppose, mine isn't a passing interest...neither is that of others on the board who knew the pilot and the jumper involved.

Can't you make an intelligent post without belittling the original poster or is that the only way you can make an argument?

The original poster makes some increadibly stupid statements, and then continually defends them. I think the comments are warranted. That's the reason I made them. Perhaps before you respond with the foolish observation you did, you'll learn more about the situation, too.

 

[AngelKing]

I also said I was not familiar with the case. If he was doing what you said then I agree he should be prosecuted. And I wasn't alking about drunk drivers, I also think they should be prosecuted.

You do make some good points in your post. But you negate them with your vile attitude towards anyone who says something you don't agree with.

To put a twist on an old quote:

"I have read all of Duke Elegants post, and you sir, are no Duke Elegant"

AK

 

[avbug]

You think that's vile? Don't get me started. That was kind.

I never tried to be Duke Elegant...don't intend to start.

Grow some thicker skin and read the subject before you post. That wil save from ignorantly posting and then becoming offended at the replies.

 

[Swass]

Assbag strikes again

 

[avbug]

Luckily swass has arrived to elevate the conversation and contribute something to the thread...again .

Your inability to add something meaningful speaks volumes. Thanks for playing.

 

[AngelKing]

Avbug, I have always tried to post as if I was talking to the person face to face even if I didn't agree with them. You should learn to do the same. But then, either you have class, or you don't.

AK

 

[Swass]

Avvy, how come most people feel the same way I do? Just look at how many tiffs you've had lately. You are a very abrasive person, at least online. No wonder you have had a rocky personal past in relationships (according to you). I wonder why.

Must be fun to sit shoulder to shoulder with you for extended periods of time. LOL. Smoochy smooch.

Prick.

 

[AngelKing]

I think you hit it on the head Swass. "at least online"

AK

 

[FN FAL]

And now for something entirely different...

The alleged beach-buzzing pilot who sent scores of Santa Cruz sun bathers scrambling last May is facing misdemeanor charges for the stunt.

Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee announced that Kenneth Walter Yanz has been charged with reckless flying and flying an aircraft at an altitude deemed unsafe by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The decision to prosecute Yanz came after prosecutors review the findings of a lengthy investigation by the FAA, which recently suspended Yanz' third-class pilot's license, the DA's office said.

Beach-goers near the Santa Cruz boardwalk and near Seacliff dived into the sand and otherwise scrambled to safety on the warm afternoon of May 24, when the pilot of a small 1979 Cessna plane swooped down from the sky and, according to witnesses, came within a few feet of hitting people on the crowded beaches.

Yanz is scheduled for arraignment late next month.

No biographical information about Yanz was provided in a news release from the district attorney's office, but according to the FAA's online pilot's directory, the only pilot with that name has an address in Corning, which is in Tehama County.

Yanz could not be reached for comment.

 

[atrdriver]

"Just flying along minding your own business and a skydiver winds up in front of you?" This pilot was buzzing a drop zone, making passes through the landing area for skydivers under canopy. It's the same aircraft that dropped the skydivers. The jumper that was killed exited the airplane that killed him. I don't see any way the pilot could possibly argue that he was surprised by the presence of the jumpers, or that he was merely flying along minding his own business. Do you??

I agree, this pilot did something that he shouldn't have done in making a low pass when he could assume that jumpers were still in the air.

Lets say, though, you are flying along VFR at 4500 feet, in class E airspace, enjoying the day, not talking to anyone when a jumper descends directly in front of you. There is nothing that you can do to avoid hitting him, and you do, killing him. You land ASAP and report what happened. Should you be prosecuted for that? If the jump zone wasn't NOTAM'd? You are not required to be talking to anyone, and seeing a jumper from a moving airplane isn't that easy a thing to do.