Yep, Well Said bGatti, funny thing is , news said pilot could not see as windsheild was covered with oil , then how did he find the beach( ok from side window while comeing in from different angle) , and glide in correctly and yet hit a poor guy.
I think the unstated argument of the FAA is that having a pilot makes the skies safer because the pilot is betting his life on the flight-worthiness of the plane, but there is a flip side illustrated here, which is that a human pilot may be willing to crash into a crowdedoccupied beach rather than ditch in the ocean in order to save his own skin. Were this plane unmanned, the ground pilots interests would have better aligned with the IPOD jogger.
yep sgt, I was wondering about that too, all the news i read said plane lost the prop too !!?! ( i guess in the air else why would a prop strike on ground make a remark). I have never heard of that happening in air or did I read it too deep ?
Just kidding Sgt, I know it is not NTSB report, even if the poor guy did not have Ipod , it would have been hard for him to hear a gliding aircraft without the prop coming from behind with noise of sea waves on the beach , wrong place at wrong time.... If at all some one needs to be blamed it is the pilot/builder who built it from it and obviously bad workmanship/quality I guess.It is sad to know a innocent bystander got killed
You do realize this was NOT the NTSB report (wait 12 months or so), just the wiki sites complilation of the facts so far.
But ya, I guess the NTSB could list the IPOD as a contributing factor.
Comments
crowdedoccupied beach rather than ditch in the ocean in order to save his own skin. Were this plane unmanned, the ground pilots interests would have better aligned with the IPOD jogger.Rumour only I guess, but another thing weird is that the pilot originally said the prop was "gone" even before the beach... watz up with that?
But ya, I guess the NTSB could list the IPOD as a contributing factor.
What more is there?